Lords Sitting of 2 May 1985

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Southwark): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

European Airlines: Navigation Charges
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will give additional support to the 20 members of the Association of European Airlines in their demand for greater participation in the establishment of user charges for en route navigation within Europe.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, en route navigation charges for participating countries are set by the Permanent Commission of Eurocontrol. The airlines are regularly consulted and their views fully taken into account.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House whether the airlines are correct in stating that they never have been given a complete breakdown of these en route charges, how they are constructed and whether they are relevant? Secondly, does the Minister not agree that the level of air fares in Europe is now being tackled with some success, and that the Government have helped in this? Would it not be useful to look at the actual airline costs and see how the fares charged compare with them?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am not sure that it is correct to say that the airlines do not have all the information that they want in these matters. For example, the list of organisations which Eurocontrol consult on a formal basis includes the International Air Transport Association, the International Air Carriers Association, the Association of European Community Air Carriers and a number of others. In fact, the organisation to which the noble Baroness refers in her Question has not, I understand, made a formal request for recognition in this way.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, I do not think the Minister has exactly answered my question. Is he aware that the Eurocontrol charges have doubled between 1980 and 1983? Does he feel that the Government, as they have helped on competition policy and as the machinery is there, could now give some impetus to the efficiency of charging?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the noble Baroness will be aware, I think, that the function of Eurocontrol has changed in recent years and that it is now collecting the charges on behalf of the participating countries rather than the members, and therefore relies upon the charges raised by those countries. Each of the
340
countries formulates its costs and charges in a separate way, so I am afraid I cannot give a simple answer to the noble Baroness on this matter.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, the noble Lord said that the airlines are given all the information, but can he tell us what the airlines say in return about the level of charges?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I do not suppose there was ever an organisation that relished the idea of charges going up, but I believe that the airlines understand the need for the charges as they are presently applied. However, as I said in my original Answer, their views are very closely attended to.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell the House whether it is within the terms of remit of Eurocontrol to publish the basis upon which air navigation charges are made? If it is within its remit, will he take steps to ensure that these are made public so that we can see exactly what is going on in this regard?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I think the answer to the noble Lord's question is, no. It is a matter for the participating states to reveal in as much or as little detail as they choose the basis for the charges that they make. As far as the United Kingdom is concerned, we go into very considerable detail, and I draw the noble Lord's attention to the annual report of the Civil Aviation Authority, which covers this point.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I am sorry to press the noble Lord further, but is there any real, valid reason why these matters should not be made public? We cannot possibly determine the reasonableness of what is being done unless the various Parliaments are aware of what in fact occurs.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, Eurocontrol is a result of a treaty entered into voluntarily by the nations concerned, and it has to conduct its affairs in accordance with the terms of that treaty. It is not possible for Eurocontrol to impose its views, or the views of one member, on all the other members because, naturally, they would not agree. Different nations approach the issue of revealing details in a different way, and that is inevitable in a grouping of this kind.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, is the Minister aware that 60 per cent. of these costs are entirely beyond the airlines' control? Would it not be sensible to look at the costs to see whether they are justified, compare the fares charged, and hope that a reduction in fares will result?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I certainly agree that the airlines need to be asked to carry only the minimum of charges that they should, but in this case it is not the responsibility of the British Government, for example, to impose upon other Governments the sort of regime that they would prefer. We reveal our own costs in as much detail as we can. We encourage the others to do likewise, but we are not in a position to dictate to them.

Life Sentences: Prisoners' Release
3.7 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how many prisoners, who had been sentenced to life imprisonment, were released during each of the last five years; and what was the average time served in prison by prisoners so released in each of those years.
The Parliamentar), Under-Secretary of Slate, Home Office (Lord Glenarthur): My Lords, the number of life sentence prisoners released on licence in England and Wales in each of the years 1980–1984 inclusive was 48, 79, 104, 96 and 68 respectively—a total of 395. The average time served under life sentence for those released in 1980, 1982, 1983 and 1984 was about 10½ years, and about 10 years for those released in 1981.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that exceedingly interesting information. Does it not amount to saying that a sentence of life imprisonment imposed by a court does not now mean that? Is my noble friend happy about that? Does it not carry a risk that the deterrent effect of a sentence which is only imposed for very serious offences is being undermined?
Lord Glenarthur: Not necessarily, my Lords. The average periods of detention which I have given provide no indication of the time for which any individual life sentence prisoner is likely to be detained because of the wide variations in the periods served in custody from which the averages are calculated. Nor do they reflect the longest periods likely to be served by some of those given life sentences and who have not yet been released. In considering the cases of life sentence prisoners my noble friend will be aware that the very greatest care is taken by all concerned, not just by the Home Office but by the Parole Board and the prisons themselves, and no such decision is taken lightly.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, while the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, and indeed any noble Lord, is absolutely entitled to ask a Question of this kind, cannot the effect of replies to such Questions, and the very raising of them, be both misleading and mischievous? Can it not raise the whole question of the powers and duties of the Parole Board and the way it carries them out, and the conduct of the Home Secretary in agreeing, or otherwise, with the recommendations of the Parole Board? Would it not be wiser to leave matters in the hands of the Parole Board and the Home Secretary, bearing in mind that each case is different and each ought to be judged on its own merits?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Lord that each case should be judged on its merits.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, leaving aside the point that these statistics do not cover the prisoners who were not released during the period in question, is there not a risk of misunderstanding in that many people tend to compare these periods with the sentences passed by courts? Am I not right in thinking that a sentence of, say, 15 years passed by a court could mean as little as five years' detention, and certainly not more than 10 years.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the noble Lord will be well aware of the procedures, which are complex and would take me more than a minute or two to go into now. The point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, that each case should be judged on its merits, and the very greatest care is taken, not only by the prisons concerned but by the Parole Board, and, of course, by my right honourable friend when he considers these cases.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the real danger arises from the message behind the question of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon? Surely we must not give the impression that any board or group is sacrosanct and cannot be commented on by Parliament. That is the very reason for having a Parliament.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, to that extent the last part of my noble friend's comment is right. But it is always a matter of the greatest concern to all when a life licensee commits a grave offence; yet it must be borne in mind that the vast majority settle down in the community successfully.
Lord Hunt: My Lords, is the Minister aware—I am sure that he is—that currently there are approximately 2,000 prisoners in England and Wales serving life sentences (what his noble friend would no doubt wish to call "so-called life sentences") which are mandatory in the case of murder; whereas in Holland, which has approximately a quarter of the population of this country, the number is three; and in Holland a life sentence is a maximum sentence? Is he further aware that the incidence of murder in Holland is proportionately no higher than in this country? In those circumstances does he agree that there would be merit in making a life sentence a maximum sentence to be served for very considerable periods but to be reserved for the most heinous offences rather than being mandatory as at present?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the noble Lord raises some interesting points, but having listened to what he said I think that they go quite wide of the immediate Question on the Order Paper.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, is it not the case that although the original Question is perfectly proper in seeking information, one is almost bound following the supplementaries to get into a short debate on the subject, and this is not a matter for debate at Question Time? If noble Lords wish to debate what is a very important subject, would it not be better if it was set down for debate at the proper time?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, that is not really a matter for me; it is more a matter for the usual channels. But I take the noble Lord's point.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, does my noble friend share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, that these important matters should be withheld from Parliament and from the public?
Lord Glenarthur: Certainly not, my Lords.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, will the noble Lord the Minister and all your Lordships accept a protest from me that after I had made perfectly clear that the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, was entitled to ask the Question, as indeed would be any noble Lord, his remarks do not measure up to his usual fairness and accuracy?

Oxygen Concentrator Service
3.12 p.m.
Baroness Lane-Fox: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government when they plan to publish their new proposals for changing the way oxygen is delivered to people with breathing difficulties.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Baroness Trumpington): My Lords, work is proceeding as fast as possible on the introduction of an oxygen concentrator service. We hope to send out invitations to tender in the next few weeks. We will make a further announcement when arrangements have been completed and the implementation date is known.
Baroness Lane-Fox: My Lords, in thanking my noble friend for that helpful and encouraging reply, I should like to ask whether she is aware that concentrators of American design and manufacture are not suitable to give best results on the British electrical system, while those available from EC countries are. Furthermore, is she aware that there are at least two French firms and one German firm (namely, Drage) which are currently supplying concentrators which provide oxygen at what would be the rate of cycle most beneficial to United Kingdom patients? Therefore, will she ensure that those applications receive at least special consideration?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, in answer to my noble friend's question of many parts, she will understand if I do not comment on particular firms, but she may be interested to know that to date 27 organisations have expressed an interest in tendering and our main consideration will be their ability to provide a complete concentrator service. We should of course be delighted if the firms offering the most cost-effective and efficient service were using United Kingdom manufactured concentrators.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, although I very much welcome the statement made by the Minister, does she agree that there have been remarkable advances in producing oxygen both cheaply and efficiently? Bearing in mind that the British Oxygen Corporation is at this stage making enormous profits at the expense of the National Health Service, will she accept that on this side of the House we would enormously appreciate the early movement forward of the documentation and tendering to which she referred?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for what he said, and of course I agree that we shall do what he suggests.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that 50 cycles AC is standard for electrical equipment in this country and that it is 60 cycles in the United States, and that either system is sub-optimal when worked on the generating system of the other? Therefore under all circumstances British equipment should be preferred.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I noted with interest the noble Earl's remarks and I have already answered the latter part of his question.
Baroness Lane-Fox: My Lords, may I stress to my noble friend that this fact should be taken into consideration? It is understood that BOC intend to provide concentrators via an American-based firm with a design and manufacture which for the reasons I gave previously would not be so beneficial for patients.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, we believe that by selecting suppliers by competitive tender on a regional basis we are introducing the maximum competition to the service at the present time while keeping our options open for the future.

Employment Act 1982: Monitoring
3.16 p.m.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, and if so when, they propose to publish the results of their monitoring of the action reported to have been taken by companies in introducing, maintaining and developing employee involvement in accordance with Section 1 of the Employment Act 1982.
The Minister Without Portfolio (Lord Young of Graffham): My Lords, the Government are presently analysing the first reports to come within the scope of Section 1 from several hundred companies. We hope to make available the results of this analysis within the next few weeks.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that positive response to my Question. Does he recall that some disappointing conclusions have been

345
drawn by organisations concerned with industrial relations about statements on this subject that have already been included in company annual reports? In publishing the results of their monitoring, will the Government accordingly state what further action they propose to take to encourage more involvement of employees in improving the performance of their company?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I have noticed that many of those who make a practice of forecasting disappointing results have their hopes dashed when the full report comes out. I hope very much that when the full report comes out we shall see what steps have been taken and at that time we shall be able to say whether anything else should be done.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister aware that along with other noble Lords I await the report with interest and am pleased to hear that it will be forthcoming shortly? Bearing in mind that the figures just published show a further increase in unemployment by about 5,000, despite the rosy predictions of an economic recovery, would he like to tell this House how he believes those people will view the statement that he has made today?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I think that that is rather far from the point of the Question.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that there is an even greater problem in terms of "us" and "them" in the public sector of industry than in the majority of private companies? If he does, will he say whether the Government propose to take action to deal with the problem?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, the Question before the House refers specifically to the date of reporting on a matter which arose under Section 1 of the Employment Act. I hope in the fullness of time—and it will not be many weeks at that—we shall make a report on that. The conclusions to be drawn from it are another matter.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, since, as the Minister points out, the section is concerned with companies recording information about employee involvement, will the Government consider asking them to state whether they recognise their employees' independent trade unions? If the Government are not considering that, what other steps do they intend to take in regard to companies that refuse to recognise trade unions, in particular if they are in receipt of public contracts?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am trying very hard to confine the answers to the scope of the Question, and I think once again the noble Lord's question has gone right to another matter.

Business
3.19 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that the Committee Stage of the Local Government Bill will be adjourned at approximately 7 p.m. for approximately one hour and that during this adjournment the Report stage of the Representation of the People Bill will be taken.

Nottinghamshire County Council (Superannuation) Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Local Government Bill
3.21 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Elton): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Elton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]
Clause 4 [Development plans]:
[Amendment No. 20 not moved.]
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 3, line 8, leave out ("in any such area").
The noble Baroness said: At the present time we have one national planning system. This Bill will give one system in large cities and another in the rest of the boroughs and the districts. On top of this, the Government can bring in a new system, borough by borough and district by district. Therefore it will be much more complicated. The whole matter will be full of complexities.
The amendment seeks to reduce the Secretary of State's discretion over when and where to bring the new planning system into operation, by forcing him, by statute, to bring it into force within one year of the abolition date and throughout London and the metropolitan counties at the same time. The discretion over where to introduce the system I am afraid is also equally ludicrous because it could lead to different parts of London and different parts of the metropolitan counties operating under different planning systems. Effective co-ordination would therefore be impossible and considerable confusion almost inevitable.
The introduction of the system throughout London and the metropolitan counties at the same time would minimise such occurrences. It would reduce confusion. It would also reduce costs and save a great deal of trouble and concern among many people whose plans are involved in this. The strategic view of land-use planning would be almost impossible to develop or retain if each local council prepared unitary

347
plans at different times. Co-ordination of data collection, analysis and interpretation would be lost. This is very important and would be a very great loss. Policies would be unlikely to add up to a sensible whole when considered across boroughs for the conurbations as a whole.
I must point out that this arrangement would be wholly unnecessary if a strategic planning authority were retained for each county as a whole. However, because at the moment we do not have that in the Bill, we have to try to improve it to the best of all our abilities. It would be intolerable if the already confused system of town planning proposed in the Bill were to be compounded by having different metropolitan areas subject to quite different systems of plan making.
Without the provision contained in the amendment, the Secretary of State could unreasonably delay the start of work on the new unitary plans. The unreasonable delay may not be deliberate but may be due to what goes on, the amount of work in a department and the amount of work which is now being heaped higher and higher on to the plate of the Secretary of State. It would mean that the delays could be even greater than they have been and are in the planning system at the moment, a matter on which many of us have been exercised for some considerable time. Thus there may be a delay to the start of work on the new unitary plans, without which strategic plans in the metropolitan areas would become progressively more out of date.
I do not think these amendments are of such shattering importance that they knock anything or any principle in the Bill. They are a very constructive attempt to get a better and more simple planning system within the context of the Bill as it is. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I understand what the noble Baroness seeks to achieve by these amendments. I am sure she feels that she is making a constructive attempt. The Bill as drafted permits the new system of unitary plans to be introduced in different areas on different days. That is really what worries the noble Baroness—who I see is trying to rally support; perhaps with indifferent success, but that remains to be seen.
Baroness Birk: No. I was just asking my noble friend how she was today.
Lord Elton: I am sorry that it seemed to be such a saddening reply that she received!
If the amendments were accepted, all areas would be treated alike and all boroughs and districts would be obliged to begin the work of preparing a unitary development plan on the same day. Not all areas are the same, nor are all authorities at present at the same stage of the process of structure and local plan preparation. It follows that it would be unreasonable to treat them alike in the manner which the amendment proposes.
If the Committee compare, for example, Greater Manchester with Merseyside, they will see what I mean. Greater Manchester have a structure plan with proposed alterations which are well advanced and will bring their policies forward to 1991, no less. In
348
addition, local authorities in the area have 13 adopted local plans and 33 local plans at different stages of preparation. The Merseyside structure plan, on the other hand, carries forward development proposals only to 1986. There are seven adopted local plans and eight more being proposed. Surely it must be best to take these considerations into account in determining when the authorities need to begin to prepare new unitary development plans.
As the Committee will be aware, the transitional provisions in Part 3 of Schedule 1 of the Bill provide for existing structure plans to continue in force until a commencement order is issued. They also provide for the continued preparation of local plans which will be ultimately incorporated in the new unitary development plans. In some areas, local planning authorities which are presently preparing local plans will wish to complete this work before they begin to address their minds to the new system. To abort that process, as the amendment proposes, would not lead to savings and simplicity but to delay and confusion.
Clearly, the Bill should allow for this and provide for work to continue, particularly where the authorities have local plans on deposit and local plans which have been the subject of a local public inquiry. It would equally clearly be wrong—would it not?—for us to call for new plans, as this amendment would do, where adequate plans already exist. Again, the amendments ask the local planning authorities to undertake additional and unnecessary work and not to make savings or proceed in a simplified manner.
I speak not in any contentious spirit; but I hope that I have explained to the noble Baroness that what she sees as an unequal patchwork of confusion is in fact a very flexible way of enabling us to benefit from those areas of planning which are already well advanced and not precipitately replace them; whereas we can under this system call for additional planning where it is now due. Thus, I hope the noble Baroness will not feel bound to press this amendment.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Surely my noble friend the Minister has made a reasoned case for the retention of the measure of flexibility which is contained in the Bill. On those grounds it would surely be right not to queer that pitch by the amendment.
Baroness Lockwood: I wonder whether the noble Lord the Minister can tell the Committee what is to happen in those metropolitan county areas where the new structure plan has not received the authority of the Minister. For example, the West Yorkshire structure plan which has been with the Minister for some time has not been approved by him. It has been held up. What will happen in such areas? The structure plan has been crucial to the development of housing, industry, the preservation of the green belt and so on. Will there be a hiatus in areas such as those?
Lord Elton: No. The structure plan will remain in force until there is a commencement order.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: This is rather confusing. The metropolitan counties were established because of the difficulties of strategic planning. The idea was for

349
strategic planning to operate through a much wider area, especially in built-up areas. This was most important in order to protect green belt areas. I recall often on the town and country issue that those in the countryside did not want more of the town encroaching upon their areas for housing or other purposes. It concerns me greatly that we are now going back to the circumstances that operated previously.
The Government are saying that what the 1974 reorganisation tried to overcome should now be restored. In other words, we are recreating muddle. We shall have unitary plans from the districts with the Secretary of State trying to perform a strategic function. That seems completely contrary to what is needed. The strategic function will not be carried out by the Secretary of State. He will be much too busy. We know what will happen. The work will be done by the regional offices of the department—in other words, by a group of civil servants who will perhaps not know half as much about strategic planning as the planners already employed in the metropolitan counties.
It seems to me to be crazy that we should be changing over from what is a very good system of planning to a mish-mash, as my noble friend Lady Birk spelt out. The Minister has to recognise that if you are to protect the green belt—I am not opposed to that—it is necessary to make the best possible use of derelict land inside the metropolitan counties and so enable housing and industrial development to take place within those areas. I support what my noble friend has said in that strategic planning is perhaps one of the most important facets of protecting the green belt.
Lord Elton: I would not disagree with the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher of Rednal, about the preference for in-filling over the use of the green belt. I hardly feel, however, that it is germane to this question. The noble Baroness said that we were returning to the conditions that we sought to cure in 1974. On the first half of that proposition, I rely entirely on what was stated by my noble friend Lord Bellwin at the conclusion of the debate on Tuesday on the general principle. On top of what we had in 1974, we have two differences. We have the unitary plan in two parts. There is the part designed to secure the objectives of the old strategic development plan. Above that, which is unitary and in the hands of the local authority, we have the strategic guidance produced by the Secretary of State. We have talked about this a good deal. I have tried to show your Lordships that it will be simple and flexible. It will be founded upon a great deal of advice, much of it generated at local level.
I do not believe that the noble Baroness should altogether denigrate the abilities of the civil servants. In so far as she may feel they are a threat to local interests, the strategic guidance will be exposed to local consideration and advice to the Secretary of State. We are actually further on than we were before the reorganisation. That proved to be a wrong turn. We are now on the right road.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: Are not these conferences purely advisory? There is nothing statutory about the advisory bodies that will advise the
350
Secretary of State. Local authorities are to be asked to join together but there is no compulsion. There is nothing in the Bill so far as I can see to say that it is a statutory requirement.
Lord Elton: If the local authorities do not wish to protect either their interests or those of their electorates, it is open to them to cut off their noses to spite their faces. I hardly think that they will do that.
Baroness Birk: My answer to what the Minister has said is, "Well, he would have to say that, wouldn't he?". He has to defend what is in the Bill even though it makes, I still maintain, for much greater confusion and more complication. My noble friends Lady Lockwood and Lady Fisher of Rednal are absolutely right. They have made out powerful cases that have not been answered by the Minister. The noble Lord said something about criticism of civil servants. That is not the point. The point is that Ministers will be overloaded with what is put on them. I do not imagine that the noble Lord or his right honourable friend are going to be able to spend a great deal of time; and even if they did spend from morning to night and did not sleep at all they would still not be able to deal personally with all the powers given them in the Bill. So of course it comes down to the civil servants—to different layers of different civil servants doing these jobs.
Once again, it is immediately exposed at the beginning of this clause how the new system will work and how unsatisfactory it will prove. I do not, however, propose to press the amendment at this stage. I should like to read carefully what the Minister has said and to find all the many other holes that I have not yet discovered to be exposed in his argument. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 22 and 23 not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 24, 25 and 25A had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Clause 4 agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Development plans]:
[Amendment No. 26 not moved].
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 74, line 8, after ("shall") insert ("jointly with the other local planning authorities in Greater London or as the case may be the metropolitan county").
The noble Baroness said: It may be for the convenience of the Committee to consider also Amendments Nos. 28, 29, 30 and 31.

Amendment No. 28: Page 74, line 9, leave out ("their area") and insert ("Greater London or, as the case may be, the metropolitan county").

Amendment No. 29: Page 74, line 11, leave out ("may, if they think fit,") and insert ("shall jointly consider whether surveys could usefully be carried out in connection with any such matters and, if they decide that any such survey or surveys could usefully be carried out, shall").

Amendment No. 30: Page 74, line 11, leave out ("their area or any, part of their area") and insert ("Greater London or any part thereof or, as the case may be, the metropolitan county or any part thereof").

Amendment No. 31: Page 74, line 17, leave out ("of the authority") and insert ("concerned").

The Bill provides for each borough and district to look at its own area. The Government proposals mean that there will be no single organisation to produce research and information for planning in London and the "mets". There will not be one overall organisation to do this. The only provision consists of the enabling powers under Clause 86 which will enable boroughs and districts jointly to carry out research and collect information. But it would not necessarily be directly related to the needs of planning.
The amendment requires the boroughs and districts to consider what information they need and to carry out any surveys that may be required. That will go some way to maintaining the present services which are vital to the development of effective planning policies. One of the reasons for the GLC being set up was to provide a central London-wide research and information service. This is widely used by central Government, boroughs, developers, commerce and voluntary groups. The amendment would require the continuation of the service to be considered. This precise point is relevant to the metropolitan counties, where, in the different counties, they have built up equivalent services which are exercised county-wide and therefore have the benefit of the expertise of extremely experienced staff.
A strategic plan is only as good as the information upon which it is based, and in particular this should be collected according to uniform standards across the whole conurbation if policies of relevance and fairness to every part of the conurbation are to be achieved. Without the amendment the proposed unitary plans have very little chance of remaining relevant to the problems of the conurbations, and, indeed, the problems themselves will have little chance of being articulated or understood. I believe that this group of amendments really is essential to a Bill of this sort. I beg to move.
Lord Skelmersdale: These amendments propose that local planning authorities in Greater London and the metropolitan counties should act jointly to keep matters affecting the development of London and the metropolitan areas under consideration, and should make joint decisions as to whether to carry out a survey of such matters. The amendments are therefore attempting to carry forward joint working for the whole area of London and the conurbations.
I accept that these amendments fall short of making it a requirement for the local planning authorities to institute a joint survey of their area, but they would nevertheless impose an unnecessary burden on the authorities by making it a matter for a joint decision as to whether a survey should be carried out. We do not expect that, after abolition, all areas in Greater London and the metropolitan counties or the areas as a whole will necessarily require a new survey before the local planning authority can begin to prepare its unitary development plan. Not all the areas in one county will have the same amount of development plan coverage in existence at abolition date. It may be that one area had been surveyed quite recently, while another only had access to fairly limited or out-of-date data. Each borough or district, with its own experience of local issues, will be best placed to keep such matters
352
under review and to make its own decisions on the need for a new survey.
As we have previously explained, there are a few matters that need to be dealt with across borough and district boundaries—the noble Baroness is of course quite right. These will, however, be covered in the strategic guidance, which will be supported, as necessary, by appropriate factual material. The London Planning Commission and planning conferences in the metropolitan areas will be able to identify the major issues which need to be considered across an area as a whole and will provide the most appropriate focal point for collecting information on such issues.
In addition, Clause 86 of the Bill provides for research and collection of information by groups of boroughs or districts. We have also tabled amendments—in particular, Amendment No. 140A—which further strengthen the clause to provide for a lead borough to undertake research and information collection on a London or county-wide basis should the local authorities so wish. Constituent councils in each area will thus be able to make a scheme for such matters with a designated council exercising the research and information powers, subject to a two-thirds majority. The designated council will also be able to require other councils to contribute data to keep the databases up to date. Finally, the clause provides a free-standing research and intelligence power to allow smaller groups of boroughs or districts to make voluntary arrangements to collect information on matters concerning their areas quite separately from any London or countywide scheme. I am sure that the Committee will agree that these arrangements, together with the powers to institute a survey, will be more than adequate to allow councils to work both individually and together to gather information prior to preparing their individual UDPs. Indeed, I would argue that they make any such amendment as the one proposed by the noble Baroness redundant.
We are transferring functions connected with development plans, including powers for surveys, to the boroughs and districts; we are giving them powers for area-wide research and information collection; and I cannot believe that they will thank us for superimposing an additional requirement on them to undertake joint monitoring and to consider preparing joint surveys. They will be best placed to decide what is needed, and, therefore, I would urge the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendments.
3.45 p.m.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: From listening to the noble Lord's reply, I sometimes wonder whether the noble Lord recognises how difficult it is for local authorities to get together on these matters. The boundaries are so close together in the metropolitan areas. If the noble Lord was going to the West Midlands, an area which I know very well indeed, he would not realise that he had left Birmingham and had entered Sandwell, West Bromwich or Walsall, because it is a completely built-up area. If one crosses the road, one can find oneself in another district. Therefore, because of that and the historical background of the people who live in these areas, to expect them to work

353
separately as districts and then to ask them to get together on joint ventures will not work.
The noble Lord said that there will be a lead authority, and again I use the example of the West Midlands, the area which I know best. I suppose that for a lead authority one would look to the largest authority—the authority which has the biggest population, the highest rateable value and perhaps a greater input of specialised staff. As soon as it is decided who the lead authority shall be—and presumably in the West Midlands it would be Birmingham—the other districts would immediately think that they had a big brother to make the decisions and impress the Secretary of State.
Therefore, I believe that it is very difficult to ask districts to get together under a lead authority. Whether or not it will work is open to debate. I would simply say that at present the West Midlands is experiencing great difficulty over a major road, which is quite well known to the transport Minister. The majority of the road is to pass through one district and a smaller section is to pass through a smaller district, and even the transport Minister is having difficulty getting that major road through those two local authorities in the West Midlands. Therefore, when the noble Lord asks that this should take place, is it not really pie in the sky?
Lord Hylton: I should like to support the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, by giving this example from Bristol and Bath, which are an almost continuous conurbation with very short gaps in between on the north bank of the River Avon. I well recall the very serious difficulty that my late father had when he was chairman of the Somerset County Council Planning Committee in getting the various then fragmented authorities ever to work together. It so happens that the new County of Avon is an ordinary county and not a metropolitan county, and therefore the planning situation will continue to be as it was in 1974, but in a rather better state. I hope that on those grounds at least the Government will have second thoughts on this matter.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Very briefly, surely mandatory joint review does not grasp the problem which the noble Baroness seeks to expose. I agree that as regards strategic planning there is the need for a measure of co-ordination. This point was made by my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross the other day, on Second Reading. I wonder whether my noble friend the Minister would agree that this is a matter that should be looked into. True, as my noble friend said, advice is tendered by the planning authorities to the Secretary of State; but that does not quite take the point of the need for the co-ordination of that advice on strategic planning. Or does it? I do not know, but would this not go some way to meet the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, is making? With the utmost respect to her, does this amendment of mandatory joint review really meet the point? I am not trying to take a debating point; I am merely asking.
Lord Shinwell: Without discussing the merits of the issue before the Committee—I confess that I am not
354
competent to undertake that task—I must say that I have listened to much of the debate. What I have failed to listen to I have read, usually through the night. I have read practically every word uttered by Members of your Lordships in Committee and in the other stages, so I have a fair idea of what is happening. My conclusion—I think it is a conclusion—is that no matter what the Opposition may say about various features of this legislation, the Government do not intend to yield a single inch.
We have had an example already this afternoon: an amendment was moved and it had to be withdrawn. The second amendment has been moved and is supported by a noble Baroness on this side of the Committee and a noble Lord on the Cross-Benches—I presume therefore completely independent and not subject to any party discipline, which is very useful on occasion (I mean the absence of it)—and also by one of the most able legal experts in the Chamber on the other side, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway.
Now I am fairly certain—in fact I am prepared to take a chance and put a bet on it, although not too high as I cannot afford it, it might be a loser—that the Government are not going to yield an inch on this issue. They will find some sort of argument. They have probably consulted their advisers and have been told, "Don't give way". At the end of the discussion my noble friend Lady Birk will then, in the usual fashion, somewhat reluctantly rise and say, "I withdraw the amendment". Well, I dislike that intensely.
Lord Elton: Would the noble Lord give way?
Lord Shinwell: Yes, certainly.
Lord Elton: I trespass on the noble Lord's intervention with greater hesitation than I would on almost anybody else. He has been longer in Parliament and in this world than I have been or am ever likely to be. But in this matter and in this Committee I think the noble Lord may have things just a little out of focus.
We are actually out of order because we are not now discussing the amendment but discussing the general proceedings. However, if I may follow the noble Lord for a moment in that direction, there were yesterday 141 amendments which had been put down on the Marshalled List, and there are now additions. I am sure that the noble Lord would not expect us to deal with all those amendments in a spirit of charity and yield them all to the Opposition on a points basis that having been beaten once, they ought to be given some to make them happy or none because they should not be yielded.
We have to discuss the issues on the merits. The issues are complicated, and my noble friend addressed them extremely competently. I ask the Committee to continue to address each amendment on its merits and not to look at a sort of tally board because I cannot tell when the concessions we are able to make might strike. If they were all on the last day the noble Lord would be in apoplexy before we got there.
Lord Shinwell: So far I have endured, or tolerated, a very substantial intervention. In ordinary

355
circumstances, I might regard it as being offensive with regard to the sort of action I might undertake. I cannot agree with what the noble Minister has just said, that we have a great many issues involved and one cannot deal with every aspect of them. This is important legislation. It affects the whole future administration of London and the conurbation associated with London.
Of course it is very important, whatever views may be held—biased views, views based on prejudice, views based on whether one would support the Government on occasion or sometimes offer an opinion rather adverse to the Government's proposals. We have that all to consider.
If we are now going to go through the Committee stage, the Report stage, Third Reading and so on, and we are going to be in a situation that amendments are moved and always withdrawn, then I am going to make a suggestion to my noble friends, if I may. I hope that they do not mind if I make this suggestion: if the Government adopt this attitude—and it looks as though they are going to continue with it—we should divide on every issue involved. That would not mean that I would be involved in every one of the debates because I would not be staying; but at any rate I would be reading—as I have already informed the Committee—the debates and watching who is voting on one side or the other, and come to my conclusions accordingly.
No, this sort of thing will not do. This is very important legislation affecting the whole future of London's administration, and it will probably affect the whole country in due course. Therefore one side or the other has to decide or the Government will not give way on anything. If they obviously are not going to give way on anything then we have to divide against them and make the position clear.
I was waiting for my noble opponent—I was about to say "friend" but I dare not say that—the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, to get up and say something about it. I know where he stands. He stands on the side of the Government no matter what happens. No question of debate about it; no question of argument; no question of discussing the issues step by step and sentence by sentence. He makes up his mind about the issues. He is on the side of the Government, and he knows what he intends to do. I know that he will get up shortly and try to make a mess of what I have been saying. Let me assure him that he cannot make a mess of it because what I have been saying is right.
I am advising the Opposition what to do. Fight the other side occasionally, and more particularly when we have, as we have just had, opposition on one side, and on both sides a certain measure of opposition which is indicative of the kind of general opinion that exists in the Committee. Let us take advantage of that.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: For the sake of the record as my name was mentioned, may I say that the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, misunderstood. I opposed the amendment. The noble Baroness will confirm that I opposed the amendment, but I did go with her in another direction. I did not want to be misunderstood at a later stage. I am grateful to your Lordships for allowing me to say that.
Baroness Lockwood: I hope that the Minister will take note of what his noble friend has said. It is important that there should be as much liaison as possible on this whole question. The noble Lord, Lord Elton, did not really reply to my previous intervention. I was referring to the updating of the West Yorkshire structure plan, which is still with the Minister and which is awaiting ministerial approval. It has been with him since last summer.
That particular structure plan has the wholehearted support of all the districts within the metropolitan county area. Nevertheless, it is quite significant that there have been problems in the past. One of the problems, for instance, on the development of the industrial infrastructure came from the authority which is likely, or would be likely, to be the lead authority in West Yorkshire if his proposals were carried through.
4 p.m.
The point that I would make to him—and I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, is not here to hear me make this point—is that a couple of days ago the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, referred to some of the Labour councillors in districts in West Yorkshire who had indicated to him that the districts wanted to go ahead and they could carry out some of these functions. All I would say in response to that is that the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, obviously lends his ear to Labour councillors with whom I do not come into contact. The fact is that they are all behind West Yorkshire in the development of the structure plans, but we do need a framework in which we can continue with these structure plans if this Bill goes through. If the Minister cannot accept my noble friend's amendment, then I hope that at least he will listen to what his noble friend has said and perhaps come back to it.
Lord Elton: We have strayed so far from Amendment No. 27 that I hope your Lordships will forgive me if I take 30 seconds to reply to an earlier point that the noble Baroness has put to me. Of course, she is aware that the West Yorkshire structure plan is at present under consideration by my right honourable friend for the use of his powers under the paving Act. That is not an unreasonable consideration given that the original structure plans took several years to develop. The Greater London development plan took seven years to develop, being based on earlier work. To come to a conclusion between the putting forward of the proposals there and the abolition date is a fairly tall order. I cannot yet tell her, of course, what my right honourable friend will conclude. I suggest that we now return to Amendment No. 27.
Lord Skelmersdale: If I may be allowed to answer some of the points that have been raised in this short debate, the first thing I should like to say on the amendment as it stands on the Order Paper—this is probably an answer to the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell—is that if it was within the principle of the Bill and made things better we would of course take it away, consider it, and, in other words, accept it in principle; but from my earlier comments the Committee will realise that I do not think this

357
amendment falls into that category. The noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, was worried about the districts, especially in the West Midlands, getting their act together. She did not actually use those words, but that is what she meant. There are two points here.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: The point is that it is got together. The West Midlands county has got the act together. What you are going to do is try to smash it all up. That is the point of it.
Lord Skelmersdale: In that case, if it has got itself together does it really need the metropolitan county of the West Midlands to keep it together? This really should be the argument.
If I may again return to the various points that I had noted, before the 1974 reorganisation local planning authorities were in general very much smaller than those which were created under the 1972 Act. In round terms, some 1,200 authorities were reduced to just over 400. The metropolitan district councils and London borough councils are as large as most of the most powerful pre-1974 authorities, the county boroughs, were; in other words, if we talk about what happened in the pre-1972–74 period in local government in metropolitan areas this is no guide to what may or may not happen post the operation of this Bill.
The other thing which I think has confused the Committee is the exact role of the districts in all this. The Government and the Secretary of State are not imposing the decision on the districts. It is for them with their own local knowledge—which the Government have not got and (let us face it) never would have—to make the decision for their own people.
Baroness Birk: I should first like to thank my noble friend Lord Shinwell for his very encouraging intervention, and also for the way in which he has pinpointed the Government's obduracy about this Bill. I am thinking now of its passage through the Commons. We have not yet got very far with it here. The signs so far are not very bright, but of course the Government could put all that right by showing much more flexibility and give. I hope that the very wise words of my very experienced noble friend Lord Shinwell may encourage the Government to be a little more flexible in their approach, particularly when these are really practical matters. We are not talking about what they may consider to be points of political principle.
The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, drew attention to the Government amendment, Amendment No. 140A. That is no substitute for what I had put down in this amendment. The Government amendment only allows the collection of research and information if two-thirds of the boroughs agree; and again they want a lead council. They are using this quite amazing anachronistic method which runs through the whole Bill of hoping that they would get the boroughs together—which is very unlikely—and then making it contingent on the two-thirds, and then having a lead borough. This is all pie in the sky. No; it is no good the noble Lord shaking his head. He may be a very clever
358
young man, but he had not had the experience of the noble Viscount, Lord Esher, who, on speaking on an amendment—
Lord Skelmersdale: If I may rise to that, I freely accept that particular charge.
Baroness Birk: I said he is a clever young man; I did not say he is not. I said he is a clever young man but not as experienced as the noble Viscount, Lord Esher. I do not want to upset him; and I did not say anything critical.
The noble Viscount, Lord Esher, on an amendment on which he was joined by the noble Baroness. Lady Stedman, and myself, made these points so well from his immense experience—being one of the most distinguished town planners in the country, if not the most distinguished—when he gave examples and spoke, quite frankly far more in sorrow than in anger, about how boroughs do not co-operate together and will not do so. He gave example after example of that. That is what the Government are relying on in their amendment which does not meet the same point at all. The noble Lord said they would take it away and consider it if they thought there was anything in it. I shall return to that in a moment.
They then said to my noble friend Lady Fisher of Rednal, who I felt made an excellent intervention on this particular amendment, that they should get it together. The whole point is that she was absolutely right when she said they had got it together on a county-wide basis. What the Government are doing is reversing that; the Government are undoing it all. She was right when she said it was got together. The noble Lord was quite wrong when he said, "Well, if they've got it together now…"
I now come to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway. I quite took his point. I quite understood that he was not supporting my particular amendment but he thought there was a point there. I am going to put it to the Govenrment that if there is a point which has been defined by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, (who is a noble friend of theirs; so it is not just an opposition view) then I think the least the Government can do is to take the amendment back and look at it again. I can quite understand the point about accepting the amendment as it is, but when somebody—again on their own side—with that experience and knowledge has raised this point, if the Government will not consider that, the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, would certainly win his bet—I wish he had made one—on that. Perhaps the noble Lord the Minister will consider that and let me know.
Lord Skelmersdale: Certainly my noble friend made a valuable contribution to this debate; but he said, as I understood him, that he did not consider this amendment to be the right approach. I am perfectly prepared to speak with him at a later stage, and indeed with the noble Baroness, as to what the right approach should be.
Baroness Birk: I am a little worried about the way the Minister put that. He is saying: "All right; the amendment is not the right amendment, the Government think that, and so does the noble Lord

359
who commented on it". But if the Government want to try to do something with this Bill—a wretched Bill I would call it, a good Bill they would call it, but never mind the adjectives—I should have thought the reaction would have been immediately: "No; as we have explained, we do not accept that amendment, but if there is a point to be raised we will take it and look at it". I should have thought that they could do that rather less grudgingly than they have.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: May I seek to assist? This is not my point, but a point made by my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross. With respect, I think he is right. It is a decision whether something more is needed to provide the requisite measure of co-operation. Perhaps my noble friend the Minister will be prepared to say that he will look at that question (that is all) which is worrying the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, and, without commitment, will take it back. There are other stages in the Bill, and would that not be of assistance to the Committee?
Lord Elton: I think the picture is clearing. My noble friend Lord Colville of Culross drew your Lordships' attention to a point which we discussed at some length rather later on Tuesday on an amendment by my noble friend Lord Sandford which was about how one gets a proper corpus of opinion in an area so that it can be brought to bear upon all the planning decisions within it. I have already undertaken that we will consider that. IfI were to suggest to the noble Baroness that in our consideration we might come up with something like the statutory requirement of rather narrow confines which she put in her amendment, I should be misleading your Lordships and the Committee.
I am content to say that we will consider, and in fact are considering, the basic principle advanced by my noble friend Lord Sandford, as I said two days ago that we would. I hope the noble Baroness finds that helpful. It would not be right for me to try to curry the regard of the Opposition by leading them to expect that the answer would be exactly what they propose, but we are considering the general principle.
Lord Sandford: If, when the noble Baroness replies, she could tell the Committee what progress, if any, she has made since we had that debate in persuading her colleagues in the AMA to come to join us in this discussion, we would be making progress.
Baroness Birk: I will do that as well. We will all get together on the ADC. If I understood from what the Minister was saying that he will take it back and consider it, I am content about that. I accept that he is not accepting the amendment as it is, but if we can achieve some improvement, even if it is on a slightly varied point, that at least is making a little progress. On that basis I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 28 to 31 not moved.]
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk had given notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 32:
Page 74, line 40, at beginning insert—
("( ) The Secretary of State shall produce strategic guidance for the whole of London or the metropolitan counties as the case may be and in so preparing this guidance he shall

(i) consult with London borough councils, metropolitan district councils, the county councils adjoining Greater London or the metropolitan counties as appropriate and their constituent district councils, the local authority associations, the London and South East Regional planning Council, London Regional Transport or passenger transport authorities as appropriate, business and professional associations, local and voluntary organisations and others as he thinks fit; and

(ii) hold an examination in public into that guidance.").

The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 32 is very similar to an amendment that will come before us shortly in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Molson—Amendment No. 34. They both seek to ensure a system of strategic guidance and they both seek to ensure that there will be wide consultation. I think that the amendment to be moved by the noble Lord is possibly more acceptable and is probably less clumsy than Amendment No. 32. Therefore, to save the time of the Committee I shall not say any more on Amendment No. 32 and I shall listen to what the noble Lord, Lord Molson, has to say when we reach his Amendment No. 34.
[Amendment No. 32 not moved.]
4.15 p.m.
Baroness Stedman Baroness Stedman moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 75, line 6, after ("traffic") insert ("and shall be accompanied by an explanatory memorandum summarising the reasons which in the opinion of the local planning authority justify each and every policy and general proposal formulated in the plan, stating the relationship thereof to any strategic guidance given by the Secretary of State, expected development and other use of land in neighbouring areas where relevant and containing such other matters as may be prescribed; and the explanatory memorandum may contain such illustrative material as the local planning authority think appropriate;").
The noble Baroness said: I was wondering whether I could take advantage of the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, to see whether the Government were likely to "give" on this amendment, but I had better not risk my chances on it and deal with it as I had originally intended. It is a probing amendment to try to find out a little more about the Secretary of State's guidance. We believe that this amendment has the advantage of making the guidance that has to be given by the Secretary of State much more open to public scrutiny, because it means that if a local authority includes a policy in its unitary plan directly to meet the wishes of the Secretary of State then the source of that policy ought to be clearly identified in an explanatory memorandum. It means that policies resulting from commitments already made, like planning permissions granted, or policies that are contained within an adjoining authority's unitary plan, would also be explained in some detail. It brings into the open any conflict between the local planning authority and the Secretary of State or a conflict between two local planning authorities. It can also highlight instances where the local planning authority is adopting policies which are in conflict with the proposals which have come forward as a result of the structure plan.
I had assumed that the Government intended that Part I of this new style of unitary development plan would have the same or equivalent status to the structure plans that are currently prepared by the county planning authorities elsewhere in the country. That means that the other 38 county authorities in England and a further eight councils in Wales are all unaffected by this Bill, and they are required by Section 6A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 to prepare such an explanatory memorandum to accompany their structure plans, which inter alia justify each and every policy and general proposal formulated in the plan. Section 6A was not included in the original 1971 Act, but it was added recently in 1980 by an amendment to Schedule 14 to the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980—long remembered for as many long nights as we shall have on this Bill. The Government clearly thought it important, then, that we should have that explanatory memorandum to accompany the structure plans as recently as 1980. So it is difficult to understand why they have made no provision in this current Local Government Bill for a similar provision to apply to the new-style unitary development plans.
In this amendment we are seeking to standardise the position in the metropolitan areas affected by the Bill and the other county authorities elsewhere in the country which are preparing their structure plans. But there is one important addition which we have included in this amendment; that is, in justifying each and every proposal in Part I of the unitary development plan local authorities will need to state, as we say:
"the relationship thereof to any strategic guidance given by the Secretary of State".
The Secretary of State's strategic guidance is going to assume a crucial importance in the planning in the metropolitan areas and the surrounding towns and countryside. It is the strategic framework within which the 33 London boroughs and the 36 metropolitan districts and boroughs will have to prepare their plans.
It is difficult enough to know how all these plans can add up to a metropolitan-wide strategic planning framework, but if the Government intend that these plans should add up eventually to a conurbation-wide framework, then this amendment, if accepted by the Government, would at the very least ensure that local authorities are required to justify each and every proposal in their plans in relation to the wider guidance from the Secretary of State. I beg to move.
Viscount Colville of Culross: I want to say only a word or two on this amendment. I think that it may raise an important issue and certainly one on which I believe the Committee would like to have some information from my noble friends on the Front Bench, not only for the purposes of considering whether this is practicable in the formulation that the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, has put forward but also in preparation for dealing with my noble friend Lord Molson's amendment, so that we may know whether the suggestion that he is making is practicable as an alternative—perhaps.
It really relates to the question of what the strategic guidance is going to be. If one or the other of my noble
362
friends could give an indication of the type of thing that the Government have in mind by way of strategic guidance, then I think that those who are familiar with the way in which structure plans and Part I of the unitary development plan are normally handled under the procedures that have been built up since 1968 will know whether either of these two suggestions is apposite and practical.
I can very well imagine—and I think that my noble friend Lord Elton said something about this the other day—that the strategic guidance may take the form, at least in part, of circulars. If it does, then the circulars, I suppose, could take one of two forms. They could be circulars which are, as it were, nation-wide; they could apply to the whole of England and Wales, as circulars normally do; and the Welsh Office, of course, puts out a similar one for Wales. In that case it is less likely, I should have thought, that within the context of a particular unitary development Part I, one would wish to go into quite the detail that the noble Baroness has indicated and even less likely that one would want to make statutory provision for representations, public inquiries and so on.
If, on the other hand, the strategic guidance is going to be directed more towards the specific areas at the present moment constituted by the seven local authorities, the metropolitan counties, which are going to be abolished by this Bill (and will differ one from the other, for that reason) then it may well be that we ought to adopt a procedure which at the moment does not exist under the Town and Country Planning Acts; and one or other of these suggestions may be a helpful route on the basis of which we can move towards a satisfactory conclusion. I therefore hope that my noble friend will take an early opportunity of telling the Committee as much as he can about the form which the strategic guidance will take and how it will affect the various differing problems, as I apprehend them to be, of the different metropolitan areas.
Lord Elton: I am grateful to my noble friend for that opportunity. I shall leave the conduct of the main argument in my noble friend's capable hands but I think that this information is perhaps proper to introduce at this time so that your Lordships can discuss it properly. Strategic guidance is listed in paragraph 2(4) of Schedule 1 as one of the matters to which a local planning authority must have regard in formulating the general policies in Part I of its unitary development plan. I fear that there may have been some misunderstanding arising from misconceptions about the nature of this guidance.
It is not analogous to the regional plans prepared in the 1960s; it is not analogous to the Greater London development plan and it is not analogous to a structure plan for the area. In particular, I must emphasise that it is not intended to take the place of a structure plan; it is intended to do no more than assist the local planning authorities in preparing the individual, structural part—the Part I, in other words—of their UDPs. If I refer to unitary development plans in future as UDPs, your Lordships will know what I mean.
This means that the guidance will deal particularly with issues that cover more than one borough or one district, how they might be handled and how any conflicting views of neighbouring authorities might be

363
resolved. That is an area of interest to the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher of Rednal. I must emphasise, nonetheless, that it will be couched in general terms. It will not look like the average structure plan or the Greater London development plan which noble Lords may have seen; it will certainly not contain the fine detail of policy which is usually contained in a structure plan. That will be for Part I of the UDP.
As my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross has already said, strategic guidance is not a new phenomenon. In fact, he has chosen exactly the right illustration for what we intend. Recent examples include the Secretary of State's letter on south-east regional guidance, which was issued in August 1980, and the letter of March 1984 on the implications of the M.25 for land use planning. Both these documents, which I can place in the Library if your Lordships wish, are short and general. Although the content will vary, this is very much how we shall expect the guidance for the UDPs to look.
I may say in conclusion that it will relate to each area or part of an area and many will deal with only a limited number of issues. Therefore, we are looking at something a good deal less complex and slender than anything that could be seen as a strategic plan. I hope that your Lordships and the noble Baroness, in considering how to handle them, will make sure that what they propose is not too elaborate; because it seems to me that where you want to be detailed, painstaking and elaborate is when you get to the local level, the top half of the UDP and the local plans, which of course ought to be tested in the local environment.
Baroness Birk: I wonder if I may support the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman. I think that she herself acknowledged that it is not a very weighty amendment, but it is a very useful one, as I see it. I think that really it is on a rather different point from that dealt with in the next amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Molson. It strikes me as having the advantage of making the Secretary of State's guidance more open to public scrutiny but it proposes that local authorities not only have regard to such guidance in the preparation of plans but also have to state in the explanatory memorandum how such guidance has influenced the formulation of policy.
I think that both would be acceptable but I find them really rather different. I do not think that they are on exactly the same point. They are both talking about guidance. I hope that the Minister will accept this minor but useful amendment which paves the way to our discussion on the next amendment.
Lord Sandford: I wonder whether, before the noble Baroness says what she is going to do about her amendment, I may add a word or two to supplement what my noble friend on the Front Bench has said about the state of regional planning at the moment. Any Member of the Committee who took advantage of what I said on Tuesday about papers from SERPLAN being available in the Library will be able to see from RPC 11 that what my noble friend Lord Elton has just said is indeed the case in respect of the kind of guidance which is currently being issued by the
364
Secretary of State and to a large extent prepared for him by the standing conference. That is guidance which, as my noble friend has said, can be, as it were, fairly light, because it has been prepared with the assistance of the Greater London Council, which is the strategic planning authority for Greater London. The judgment to which the Committee has to come is whether it will be possible to continue with guidance of that character only when we are dealing with 32 London boroughs whose separate views of their particular segment of the whole greater London area have to be brought into coherence; and it is quite clear that the guidance is going to be of a different character and will have to be firm. It is the extent to which it is more firm and more specific that brings into question all the issues which are to be raised by the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Moslon. I thought it would be helpful if I added that comment.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Perhaps I may make a very brief intervention which has nothing to do with planning law. Just imagine if the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, or my noble friend Lord Renton were in their places: they would be saying—would they not?—that it is wrong to put into a statute words such as this, words of guidance which have no legal enforceability. I merely draw that, with respect, to your Lordships' attention because as a rule it is generally unacceptable.
Lord Broxbourne: Further to the point made just now by my noble friend, can my noble friend the Minister give some indication in his reply of the provenance and status of the term "strategic guidance"? I do not recall it in planning or local government law and certainly a strategic authority is not a term of art in local government or planning law. If any of your Lordships from the inexhaustible quarry of your collective wisdom can show some precedent or place in which this term has been used in a statute I shall of course unhesitatingly accept it; but it would be interesting to know because it is unusual, to say the least, as my noble friend has just indicated, to incorporate into a statute novel words without any definition of their status or what they are supposed to mean.
Lord Somers: I am grateful to the noble Lord for having raised that question because it is something I have wondered about in relation to every statute that we seem to have passed in this House.
Lord Skelmersdale: I hope I shall be able to respond to that particular point raised by my noble friend Lord Broxbourne in a minute, but for a moment perhaps I may turn to the amendment proper. This amendment concerns the contents of the unitary development plan and seeks to add to the list set out in paragraph 2 of Schedule 1 a requirement for an explanatory memorandum in respect of Part 1 of the plan. There is no doubt that the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, has a point here and I am sure that the intention of her amendment is to ensure that the thinking behind the policies in Part I of the UDP can be understood by all those who might make use, or have cause to comment on, the plan—the general public, local planning

365
officers, developers and the Secretary of State himself. There seems to be a particular concern that it should be made clear how the local planning authority's plan has interpreted the Secretary of State's strategic guidance. This term "strategic guidance" has not been used in statute before but, as my noble friend Lord Elton has said, there are some familiar examples.
I am not a lawyer and whether it needs to be structurally defined, if I may use that expression, I do not know, but I am perfectly willing to take advice on the point. It is desirable that the reasons behind the proposed policies should be understood. We had in mind to propose something further for the regulations; however, although I do not think that this amendment, as tabled, is the best way to achieve these ends, I am very ready to consider whether something should be included in the Bill.
The UDP system follows as closely as possible the model of the existing local plan system, and, where elements of both the structure and local plan system had to be consolidated, it was necessary to choose whichever precedent was the most appropriate. In the case of explanatory material, the choice was between the explanatory memorandum of the structure plan system and the reasoned justification and illustrative material of the local plan system. It did not and does not seem necessary to have both. This would be confusing to all concerned and would, of course, add extra work to the authorities' load. We therefore provided in the Bill that there should be a reasoned justification for both Part I and Part II of the UDP. It may well be that the best way forward is to build on this approach.
As I have said, paragraph 2(2)(b) (iii) requires Part II of a UDP to contain a reasoned justification of the policies in Part I, the intention being that it would perform the same function as an explanatory memorandum. Paragraph 2(2)(b) (iv) already enables the local planning authority to include as much illustrative or descriptive material as it wishes. We will of course be making regulations on the more detailed aspects of the UDP system; and they may well provide an opportunity to expand on the contents of the reasoned justification.
I sometimes think the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, speaks a different kind of English from that which I use, and, if so, the fault will be on my side. I hope, however, that I have made it crystal clear that we shall consider the point, and consider it properly and fully, and that, on that understanding, the noble Baroness Lady Stedman will feel able to withdraw this amendment.
Viscount Colville of Culross: Now that my noble friend has helped us in explaining to us what the strategic guidance is going to be, before the noble Baroness decides what to do with her amendment, I believe she now has a point which requires my noble friends on the Front Bench to give some further consideration to what is going to happen. As I understand it—and let us take an example from outside London for the moment—there will be or is likely to be, a document or letter, probably one which has not yet come into existence, which will relate, for
366
the sake of argument, to the strategic guidance for Merseyside. I see the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Claughton, present and he would be very interested in any such document. Now, the various district councils on Merseyside will in due course set about preparing the Part Is of their unitary development plan and these will come forward, probably not all together but one by one in accordance with the speed at which the local planning authority happens to work. Some of them may have an easier task than others.
In those Part Is of the unitary development plans there will be reflected the strategic guidance given for Merseyside in so far as it relates to the borough in question. It cannot go very much further because the unitary development plan will only relate to that borough; but it will be reflected in the general policies and it will be reflected in the explanatory material that goes with the detailed policies that the Secretary of State will eventually decide whether or not to confirm.
What seems to me to be the problem is that the very first of these UDPs that comes forward, Part I, will incorporate, in a form that is available for the normal statutory processes, so much of the strategic guidance for, to continue with my example, Merseyside as is relevant to the first borough that brings it forward. Therefore, it will be possible for members of the public to object to Part I of that unitary development plan on the grounds that, among other things, they do not like some of the material in the strategic guidance; and it will be the first opportunity for them to do so.
It will of course be for the Secretary of State to decide whether to hold an examination in public, but, if he does, it seems to me that candidates for consideration at such an examination in public on this first occasion would undoubtedly include the issues which relate to parts of the strategic guidance to which objection is made. Now, what happens to all the other boroughs on Merseyside while that is going on, as they try to prepare their unitary development plans?—because, until a decision is taken on the first one, as to whether or not the strategic guidance as therein reflected is going to be upheld by the Secretary of State or whether he is going to modify it as a result of the objections, nobody else will be able to make any further progress at all and the entire operation of preparing the Part Is and unitary development plans for all the other district councils affected will grind to a halt.
I know that examinations in public need not take anything like as long as the old-style inquiries into development plans, which went on for months and months, if not for years and years. Nevertheless, I do think that the Government ought to try to explain to the Committee even if not today, at some later stage—because this is certainly a point which I suggest they ought to take into account—how this is going to work in practice. It must be right, that, in one form or another, this local strategic guidance (for that is what it is now going to be) is susceptible of some form of inquiry, of some form of examination in public, of some form of objection and, as a result, of some form of ratification or modification by the Secretary of State. I rather fear for the delays that will ensue if the scene that I have set is indeed a correct one.
Lord Skelmersdale: It seems that the Committee are at one on this point and I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Colville for, as it were, giving us guidance on the consideration of this matter. Of course we will consider very carefully what he has said in his speech and probably—although I cannot actually promise this—use it as the basis for our consideration of the point raised in the noble Baroness's amendment. I think it would be helpful to the Committee if I were to say that we have powers already to synchronise the preparation of plans, where necessary, by the simultaneous commencement order procedure which is in the Bill and concurrent local plan inquiries. If necessary, the Secretary of State may call in neighbouring Part Is of UDPs and hold an examination in public. I hope that that will also be helpful to the Committee.
Baroness Stedman: I am most grateful to the noble Lord and also to the other speakers who have intervened, and particularly the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross. I am also rather surprised and shaken that the Government Front Bench have said that they will take this back and look at it. They obviously think that we have a point in this amendment, which I thought was quite a modest one. I certainly do not claim to be a parliamentary draftsman, and perhaps strategic plans are not things which are normally included; but I should think the parliamentary draftsmen could probably get round that if it was felt necessary to have it in. In the light of the assurances given and the points which were raised by the noble Viscount, and because this was only intended to be a probing amendment, I would beg leave to withdraw it.
Lord Elton: The noble Baroness is giving us more and more cause for gratitude. If I may just put this on the record, I will read the remarks of my noble friend Lord Colville with very great care. It may be that he said something which made it look as though the strategic guidance did not precede the preparation of the UDP. I did not actually catch that, but it is clear that we are at one in our understanding that this comes first. I beg your Lordships' pardon. I am increasingly grateful—embarrassingly so—to the noble Baroness.
Baroness Stedman: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Molson Lord Molson moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 75, line 46, at end insert—
(" ( ) When preparing any strategic guidance for an area the Secretary of State before finally determining its content shall take such steps as will in his opinion secure—

(a) that adequate publicity is given in the area affected by the guidance to the matters which are proposed to be included within that guidance;

(b) that persons who may be expected to desire an opportunity of making representations to the Secretary of State with respect to those matters are made aware that they are entitled to an opportunity of doing so;

(c) that such persons are given an adequate opportunity of making such representations;

(d) that persons whose representations are so made and are not withdrawn are afforded an opportunity of appearing before, and being heard by, a person appointed by the Secretary of State for the purpose; and

368

(e) that if a local inquiry or other hearing is held, a like opportunity is also afforded to the local planning authority and such other persons as the Secretary of State thinks fit.").

The noble Lord said: We have had a good many rather complicated arguments about the whole of this matter, and I can only hope that in the amendment I am going to move it will be possible to get a somewhat clearer view than we have at the present time as to what is the intention of the Government and how it is going to be worked out. I am, however, greatly encouraged by the obvious sympathy with which Government Ministers are prepared to consider exactly how these matters are going to be evolved. The gist of my amendment is that before they commit themselves to guidance they should take reasonable precautions to enable all those who are going to be affected by the guidance, when it is issued, to express their views.
4.45 p.m.
In Tuesday's debate Ministers made it clear that the Secretary of State is eager to accept responsibility for co-ordinating the 69 unitary development plans which London boroughs and district councils will be obliged by this Bill to prepare. It is an immense task, involving fairly thorough familiarity with the various problems of various areas. This is not easily available to officials in Marsham Street, or even necessarily to officials in regional offices. They will, in accordance with the philosophy of this Bill, have to draft with understanding the guidance which is going to be issued under Schedule 1, paragraph 4. How far this will be general and how far it will be detailed we do not yet know: that was the penetrating point which was put, as I understood it, by my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross. The nature of it will obviously be of the utmost importance in considering how this Bill is going to work.
The strategic advice given will vary very much in various areas. That was made plain by my right honourable friend the Minister, speaking in Committee in the other place on 22nd January at col. 473 of Hansard, when he said:
"I expect the guidance issued for different areas to vary. That for London will be of a different character from that for, say, Tyne and Wear, where the scale and nature of the problems are different. Indeed, the guidance may be minimal or limited to only a few subjects".
I make no complaint about that; it is only sensible. However, it does illustrate the complexity of the task the Secretary of State is undertaking in co-ordinating 69 unitary development plans. It would surely be wise and prudent for him to seek local advice before he publishes his strategic guidance. That will obviously go far to conciliate the public and also the authorities representing them, and will avoid to a large extent the danger of appeals at a later stage. This will be particularly important when the problems relate to several districts, as Ministers have led us to believe they normally will. Here I quote again from the Minister, in the same column, because it slightly puzzles me. He said:
"The guidance will indicate the matters that the Secretary of State advises should be covered by the structural part of each unitary plan and his view, where he has one, of how matters might best be resolved where there are differences of view. It will be of particular relevance where issues affect more than one local authority."
That is the end of the quotation, and I interpose here to say that presumably in almost every case the guidance issued will be of a general nature, covering a considerable area and several districts. Here let me recall the opinion that I quoted on Tuesday of the Association of County Councils, which said:
"As county planning authorities, [we] are deeply concerned at the prospect of fragmentation of responsibility for strategic planning within the metropolitan areas".
Therefore I naturally assume that, before issuing guidance, among those who are consulted will necessarily be the county councils in the adjoining shires.
On Tuesday, a Minister said that the amendment that I moved on behalf of my noble friends was a wrecking amendment. That was an accusation that I did, and do, repudiate. In any case, the Government cannot possibly say that about this amendment. This is accepting the policy that they are putting forward and trying to make sure that it will operate easily and not arouse undue difficulty as between one area and another. If they do not accept it, I imagine that they are likely to resort to an argument that I have very often heard used in both Houses in connection with a great many different subjects. They may well say that any wise Secretary of State would undertake these consultations and give opportunities for interested parties to make known their views in the ways indicated in my amendment.
The Government may then ask: why include it in the Bill? My reply is: why not include it in the Bill? When powers are being given by Parliament, even if, as my noble friend Lord Colville has pointed out, they are not entirely novel, it is surely proper for Parliament to indicate to the executive how it expects those restrictions that it is empowered to impose to be exercised. Therefore this is a friendly amendment. I am much encouraged by what has already dropped from noble friends of mine on the Front Bench. I admit that in these very complex matters I have not wholly taken in all the exact problems that are raised. Even my noble friend Lord Colville, who is such a master of the intricate law of planning, has indicated that he is not clear as to exactly what the Government have in mind. I understood him to say that he thought that there was such a considerable difference between issuing guidance on the broadest lines, and on what may be the more detailed lines which will be required under the provisions of this Bill, that that ought to be given further consideration.
I say that the guidance will have to be more detailed for this reason. If each district is to prepare a unitary development plan in two parts, the first setting out general principles and the second developing them in detail, then quite clearly it will be necessary for the Secretary of State to give far more detailed guidance to those 69 unitary authorities than has been the case in the past when there has been an intervening strategic authority—
Lord Elton: I wish to be helpful, and if my noble friend does not wish me to intervene I shall instantly yield. It is simply on this question of the 69 plans all being required at once. The provisions in the Bill allow for those plans which need to be considered together to
370
be considered together. There are areas where there will be only three or four and there are others where the number will be larger. But I would not expect them to be 69. If my noble friend is thinking that they will all fall to be considered together, I merely wish to relieve his anxiety on that aspect. I shall reply to his other points later.
Lord Molson: I did not really mean that, and I wholly accept it. I know that the Bill provides that they may be dealt with at different times. I also know from discussions with my noble friend Lord Colville that there are some parts of the country where things are sufficiently well arranged and planned at the present time for there to be no urgent need about it. But it remains the fact that the whole structure of this Bill requires that there shall be 69 unitary development plans. Some of them will impinge upon each other and others will not. But to a greater or lesser extent it will be necessary for the Secretary of State to bring into his purview the range and effect of each one of those 69 unitary plans. Frequently he may say, "This does not impinge upon another one and can go ahead". But the fact remains that under the structure of this Bill, where the Secretary of State is taken as the strategic authority, he is ultimately responsible for giving guidance in the drafting of Part I of each one of the unitary plans to each one of the 69 authorities.
I hope that I shall have from the Government both an informative and a sympathetic reply. I am fortified in putting forward this amendment. I do so not simply on my own negligible knowledge of this difficult subject. It is supported by the Confederation of British Industry, the Royal Institute of British Architects, the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors, the Royal Town Planning Institute and the Council for the Protection of Rural England. As such, I think it is undoubtedly deserving of the careful attention, and, I trope, the sympathetic consideration, of Her Majesty's Government. I beg to move.
Lord Somers: I should like to give this amendment my wholehearted support. One of its most important features is the fact that, as the noble Lord has just said, it allows for individual parties to present their own opinion. We work in this country on what is known as the democratic principle, which of course means that the public shall have a chance of expressing their opinion. I must confess that on looking round at the machinations of Parliament I have sometimes been tempted to think that that means precisely nothing at all. But there it is. We have the principle and we must abide by it, and surely this amendment very much reinforces that in that interested parties will be able to object and also to give their advice, which is very valuable. I sincerely hope that the Government will accept it.
Lord Sandford: I wonder whether I may make just a brief comment here. The matter to which my noble friend's amendment is addressed is one to which the Standing Conference for London and South-East Regional Planning has already addressed its mind and on which it wrote back in October to the Minister of State for Local Government. By way of a preliminary, I want to endorse completely what my noble friend Lord Colville said: namely, that the judgment in this

371
matter depends entirely on the kind of guidance which the Secretary of State will be issuing. But the opinion of the standing conference was as follows. Remember, my Lords, that the standing conference consists of the 12 Home Counties, each of which are structure planning authorities, the 32 London boroughs, which are the boroughs which will be charged with producing these unitary development plans, and the 98 districts in the Home Counties, whose job it is to give effect to strategic planning all over the Home Counties and in the London green belt on the basis of the structure plans produced for London and the Home Counties.
5 p.m.
Its opinion, which was endorsed by the members—that is to say, the chairmen of the planning committees concerned—is this:
"It has become clear that the principal effect of the proposals so far as planning is concerned would be to make the Secretary of State the strategic planning authority for Greater London but without the obligation to prepare an overall structure plan and subject it to formal and detailed scrutiny through an examination in public. This would be an outcome which the conference would deplore".
Perhaps I may add a further point by way of comment. If the Secretary of State is to have the powers, the exercise of them should be subject to the same constraints as are imposed on other planning authorities. That is the whole object of my noble friend's amendment.
The final comment I wish to make is that it may well be the view of the Government that the whole process of the examination of structure plans in public has become too time-consuming, imposes too many delays and is altogether too elaborate. This may well be so, but in that case, if it has become so elaborate that the Secretary of State is not going to be bound by these requirements and restrictions, then they have to be lifted and lightened for all structure planning authorities all over the country. I hope that the Committee finds that helpful.
Viscount Colville of Culross: I have looked with very great interest at my noble friend's amendment, and, of course, chronologically speaking, when it comes to the preparation of a unitary development plan the stage about which he is talking precedes the stage that was the subject matter of the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, which we have just been discussing. It seems to me that there are a number of points which ought to be made about the amendment of my noble friend Lord Molson.
First, I would suggest to him and to the Committee that, unless we absolutely have to, we do not want to introduce a different procedure for the purposes of preparing what are structure and local plans but translated into metropolitan terms and thereby produce differences of a major kind between what would happen in the metropolitan areas and what would happen in the rest of the country. It seems unlikely that that is going to be a fruitful method of carrying forward these quasi-judicial and administrative procedures.
What my noble friend has really done is to put forward a proposition which falls into two halves. I am entirely with my noble friend as to paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of his amendment. Of course it would be half-
372
witted for my right honourable friend the Secretary of State or any other Secretary of State, when he is preparing strategic guidance, not to give adequate publicity and take full account of representations made to him—indeed, not to give full opportunity for people to make representations and then take them into account.
So far so good. I should not have thought that there was any necessity to write that into the statute because I believe it would happen in any event and it always has done when strategic guidance has been given in the past. But of course my noble friend has a point when it comes to paragraphs (d) and (e), because if it is really intended that there shall be a procedure whereby a public local inquiry or a local hearing is to be held into aspects of the Secretary of State's strategic guidance, then we shall indeed need statutory provision for it because a whole lot of matters flow from the provisions providing for public inquiries.
I wonder whether my noble friend has in fact taken exactly the right line in relation to suggesting a local inquiry or hearing at this stage. There has been a good deal of dispute in recent years about planning inquiries which take into account very wide considerations of largish national subjects or largish local subjects requiring decisions to be made on them. When one tries to deal, for instance, with the entire energy policy in relation to coal as it affects an individual application for a coalfield development, one is embarking on very large areas which are not in my experience—if I may say so, it is considerable in this respect—easily susceptible of being handled at a local inquiry.
I think that what my noble friend Lord Molson is saying is that there should be, as it were, a preliminary public inquiry or an opportunity for a preliminary public inquiry into something which will be a pretty broad-brush matter of strategic guidance for one of the metropolitan areas. There will not be a great deal of fine detail in it; my noble friend Lord Elton has already made this plain. It will be guidance of a broad nature. I am not sure that material of this kind is readily susceptible of being dealt with at a local inquiry. Of course if there was never going to be any opportunity for it to be dealt with at a local inquiry, then I should probably think that my noble friend was right and we would have to make an exception in the present case where the strategic guidance is going to be of great influence in the preparation of part I. But we have already discussed that and we have established—at least I hope we have established—that the issue of strategic guidance will appear (or, if it does not, woe betide the local planning authority) in part I. It will be reflected in part I of the unitary development plan.
At that stage there is, under the law as it exists, and indeed under the Bill the opportunity for a public local inquiry or an examination in public which would enable people to object to and examine the extent to which the strategic guidance has influenced part I of the unitary development plan. Therefore I believe that it would be possible for these issues to be dealt with in the kind of way that my noble friend has in mind in paragraphs (d) and (e) of his amendment. If so, then one would be back on familiar territory. One would be dealing with the matter in the metropolitan areas in exactly the same way as one does everywhere else in the country, and my primary objection would not

373
arise. I would suggest to him that this would be a preferable way of doing it. I leave this matter with one final thought—
Lord Molson: May I interrupt my noble friend before he reaches his final point? I do not claim that the drafting of my amendment is necessarily perfect. If it does impart too great rigidity to be a practical proposition, then I shall be most happy for the Government in due course at Report stage to produce something which is better drafted. I have no desire for there to be any complicated procedure. All I seek from them is an assurance that before the Secretary of State commits himself to guidance there shall be reasonable opportunity for authorities and persons affected to make representations.
Viscount Colville of Culross: I absolutely agree with my noble friend. What I think he is doing in this amendment is to add a complete extra stage. He is adding a third and preliminary opportunity to go into matters by way of public inquiry prior to the submission to the Secretary of State or consideration by the local planning authority of Part I of the unitary development plan. Therefore, there will be a three-stage planning process in the metropolitan areas as opposed to a two-stage one everywhere else. That is the point of principle which I am trying to point out.
Perhaps I may revert to the one point which I would ask my noble friends on the Front Bench to consider. If we are to make sense of this procedure, then, taking account of the possibility of having a joint presentation or a simultaneous presentation of the unitary development plans, I ask the Committee to look at paragraph 12 of this Schedule. I suggest to my noble friends on the Front Bench that what we probably want is a provision in the Bill—at the present moment I cannot see one—for a joint or simultaneous presentation of all the Part Is of the unitary development plan separate from the detailed material in Part II. If that were done, I can see that the sort of aims that the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, and my noble friend are after could very easily be comprehended within a single exercise for—and I revert to my original example—Merseyside as a whole. But the one thing you do not want to do at that stage is to go into all the details of Part II of the unitary plan.
I do not see at the moment—and I may be wrong—either in the text of the schedule or in the breadth of the regulations that may be made for dividing up the two halves, that one may have, as it were, the strategic exercise first and, depending upon the outcome of that, detailed implementation of it later. If it is there, I apologise, but I believe it is important that this flexibility should be available to those who try to work this Bill.
Baroness White: Before the noble Viscount sits down may I ask just exactly what he means by "all the Part I inquiries"? It is quite possible that one of what are at present the metropolitan districts which will be concerned with these matters could, for one reason or another, be non-co-operative, recalcitrant, have its own interests more closely at heart rather than that of the wider conurbation and not be willing to take part
374
in such an exercise. What happens then? There will not have been the strategic consideration of the total conurbation which is concerning most of us.
Viscount Colville of Culross: What the noble Baroness says could theoretically arise, but if, say, one out of six or seven district councils in one of the metropolitan areas simply refuses to co-operate, there are, of course, default powers. I do not believe it will ever come to that. All I suggest at the moment is that there should be the flexibility built into this legislation to enable there to be a joint consideration of the Part Is. Whether it will happen or not, I do not know, but surely it would be a good idea to make sure that it could happen if, in due course, that seems to be the best way of dealing with it.
Baroness Birk: The noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, has been very explicit and articulate in what he has said about the amendment. I think that by the complexity of his own arguments he has illustrated the complexity of the Bill as well.
The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Molson, is very straightforward and is very similar—though there was no discussion between us about them—to Amendment No. 32, which I did not move because his amendment is so similar. There is one difference. My amendment states:
"hold an examination in public into that guidance"
whereas the noble Lord's amendment asks for a local inquiry and that,
"persons whose representations are so made … are afforded an opportunity of appearing before, and being heard by, a person appointed".
I gather that this was the point to which the noble Viscount took exception.
I go back, very simply, to what we are trying to do and explain in a totally lay, kindergarten manner. First, the term "strategic guidance" is one which we all feel we know, but it has not yet been defined in the Bill. Perhaps one day we shall find a definition among the definitions at the back of the Bill, as we are told that this phrase has not occurred in legislation before. Obviously it is something that is needed because of what is being done in the Bill.
At the moment the metropolitan counties and the GLC do consult a wide range of authorities and bodies and the noble Lord, Lord Molson, cited many of those bodies as being unhappy about the Bill as it stands. They do that before drawing up proposals for their strategic land use plans. Given that the Secretary of State is now substituting himself for the county councils, the metropolitan counties and the GLC for this part of the strategic planning process, what we are trying to ensure is that he acts with the same care and consultation as he requires of the local planning authorities themselves.
5.15 p.m.
The amendment would ensure that the strategic guidance produced by the Secretary of State would reflect adequately the interests and views of all the relevant public and private organisations and bodies. There is nothing wrong with that. I should have thought that that was absolutely agreed, especially in our form of government. It would also increase the

375
prospects of such bodies making a major contribution to implementing the county-wide strategies which, I should have thought, must have resulted in a chance of getting better planning rather than less good planning. It would also ensure that the examinations, either in public, as in the amendment standing in my name, or by means of a local inquiry, as proposed in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Molson, would continue to be a central feature of strategic planning and thereby permit important public debate on the relevant issues.
I shall not go into all the organisations mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Molson, but will briefly quote a few sentences from a letter from the Council for the Preservation of Rural England which was sent to the Secretary of State for the Environment only last week. It expresses very great concern, lists all the other authorities which are very concerned about the Bill and deals specifically with the issue of strategic planning. The letter states that,
"the rôle of strategic guidance issued by the Secretary of State will take on unprecedented importance, such that, advised merely by a non-elected Commission (in London) and informal conferences of borough and district councils (chaired and serviced by Department of the Environment officials), the Secretary of State is himself to become the sole strategic planning authority for each one of our major cities as a whole.
However, under the Bill as drafted, the role the Secretary of State and his officials will be expected to perform in this field will be of exceptional complexity. They will have to provide guidance at an adequate level of both detail and expertise, to secure the strategic supervision and integration of land use planning policies for each one of the new Unitary Development Plans of no fewer than 33 London boroughs and 36 district and borough councils in the other metropolitan areas."
I do not want to re-open the point raised by the Minister with the noble Lord, Lord Molson; I merely quote from the letter.
To say that the Secretary of State is to become the sole strategic planning authority for each one of our major cities and to say that that requires some form of very widespread consultation when he is preparing strategic guidance is not making any criticism of any particular Secretary of State. It is saying that the situation that is being set up is of such overwhelming importance, responsibility and complexity that this type of amendment—and neither the noble Lord's amendment nor mine is of any revolutionary or drastic character—is absolutely necessary to try to make smoother the working of the Bill. It is for that reason that my noble friends and I support the noble Lord. He said that he wanted a positive response to his amendment and, as there is much feeling in the Committee for the amendment, I hope that he will press it.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Before the noble Baroness sits down, may I ask whether she agrees that until we know where we stand—and I think it is right that we do not yet know where we stand—on joint and simultaneous presentations in Part I, it is terribly difficult to deal with the amendment on its merits because it would strike too early? Does the noble Baroness agree with me that what we have to know first is where we stand on the issue of joint and simultaneous presentation?
Lord Elton: Would it help if I told your Lordships where we stand on that?
Baroness Birk: May I first just give a brief answer in principle? It seems to me that this is a circular matter which runs through the Bill. The whole Bill is full of areas where we do not know how things stand. We have to take things as they are. I think that it would be quite wrong not to make some form of improvement while we are waiting for yet another problem area to come up, as we are slipping into these all the time.
Lord Elton: I am most grateful to the noble Baroness. I regard this whole thing as a tutorial exercise, specially arranged for my benefit. I know far more about planning now than I did even two hours ago.
On the specific point on which my noble friend so perceptively put his finger, I would say simply this. If your Lordships look at paragraph 7(1) in the schedule and then at paragraph 9(4) it will be seen that the Secretary of State can call in any particular number of Part Is that he wishes on their own. He can cause an examination in public to be held on those, and thereafter the local plans can be individually or collectively considered as he wishes. It seems to me that that—
Lord Blease: The noble Lord is turning away from us.
Lord Elton: I am sorry. I did not wish to exclude any of your Lordships from my words. I was saying that those two sub-paragraphs have the effect of enabling the Secretary of State to call in individual Part Is, together if necessary, and as many or as few as he wishes; to cause an examination in public to be held upon them; and thereafter, if he wishes, to continue with the proper procedures—in fact he is bound to do so—for the Part IIs. That at least I hope is now clear. I am much obliged to my noble friend Lord Colville for addressing the point and to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway for making jolly certain that I answered it.
Baroness Stedman: It is at times like these that I wish that I was as well versed in planning law and procedure as the noble Lord, Lord Colville. I, too, am enjoying the tutorial exercise, and I hope that I am benefiting from it.
It seems to me that this is a necessary amendment. It requires the Secretary of State to publicise any strategic guidance he wishes and to hear any objections at a local planning inquiry. We do not yet know, though we are beginning to get little pieces of information about it, exactly what is to be the extent and the nature of the strategic guidance which the Secretary of State will issue. It is important that that guidance should be the subject of public consultation, since it may well cover matters that are at present determined through the structure plan process which are subject to public consent.
The unitary plan, as I understand it, is to take account of the strategic guidance that is issued for the area it covers. If that guidance has not been subject to public consultation, the examination in public of the plan will be devalued, as parts of it will be based on what has been a previously determined policy which the public have not had any opportunity to influence.

377
While I accept that the amendment as it stands is no substitute for a properly constituted county-wide planning authority such as we were suggesting in our group of amendments on Tuesday—it will not be an authority which is in touch with local issues and providing its own strategic guidance—it will at least, if the Committee accepts it, preserve the opportunity for members of the public to participate in the formulation of strategic planning policies in their area and to comment on them if they wish to do so.
If the Secretary of State is to take on those new and rather complex responsibilities, he should accept that with them goes some duty, and his behaviour must be regulated in some form. The Secretary of State's guidance will cover such things as housing, green belts, minerals, waste disposal, transport, countryside conservation and all other such topics. There must be clear procedures laid down to ensure that the strategic guidance has taken account of the very wide range of interests involved. As the noble Lord, Lord Molson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, have said, many very worthy professional organisations share our worries on this question of consultation.
I also think that perhaps the procedures of the Bill might put intolerable pressures on the officials at the Department of the Environment. The DoE directorates on regional planning and land use policy, I understand, have been reduced over the past three years from some 200 staff to only 133. I am worried about the operation of this part of the Bill. I can see the proposed arrangements presenting serious problems for forward planning and also problems for the bordering shire counties without a proper base on which to put their own structure and their own local plans.
I think that there may also be a constitutional issue for the Secretary of State when he comes to rule on planning appeals on which it is his strategic guidance that is contested by interests like the housebuilders, the industrialists or the conservationists in the area, and if they were not able to make representations to him before he prepared his strategic guidance.
Will the Minister accept that there is quite universal disquiet about the vague and somewhat imprecise form of the proposed guidance about which we know at present? Will it be regional; and how will the local authorities outside the metropolitan areas—the neighbouring shire counties—be required to have regard to the strategic guidance for the bordering counties? How much detail, and what subjects, will the guidance cover, and how much authority will it carry when it comes to appeals and inquiries?
Examinations in public are allowed for in the Bill at the point that the regional guidance becomes incorporated in Part I of the unitary development plans, but it is no longer possible at that stage to influence the guidance as a whole as it relates to the metropolitan area in its entirety. I believe that that proposed guidance is so important that we have to get it right however long it takes. Therefore, I support the amendment before us this afternoon.
Lord Hunt: I rise briefly from the same set of Benches in support of this amendment just to say that
378
it must be clear from the amount of publicity given to it in the media that this is a very important issue. What has struck me about the publicity given to this amendment in the quality press is the disparate nature of the bodies which are in support of it. I shall not spell them all out. It is clear that what is missing in the Bill at the moment for the Secretary of State is the sources from which he shall draw his advice before issuing strategic guidance.
From the very beginning of the debate in Committee we have heard quite a lot about the importance of taking public opinion fully into account. It has really come across. It has certainly come across to me, and in a minor voice from me, that public opinion is in danger of being inadequately tapped and expressed. This amendment seeks to redress that serious omission from the Bill—the seeking of public opinion at grass roots level. I am talking about local, concerned opinion and also the wider national interest in regard to areas of scenic, scientific and recreational importance, such as the national parks and the AONBs, in which the metropolitan counties have an involvement, and particularly Greater Manchester.
The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Molson, I think uses the word "shall" and goes on to require the Secretary of State to do certain things. The noble Lord, Lord Elton, points out that in the Bill—and in the short time at my disposal I have not been able to look it up—the Secretary of State is enabled to consult appropriately before issuing his strategic planning guidance. There is a vast difference between what he should be required to do to make sure that concerned public opinion is taken fully into account and what he may or may not choose to do.
The title of a very telling article in the Guardian on 30th of April, just the other day was, "The Emperor of Everything". If the Secretary of State wishes to avoid being dubbed with that title, we should take into account what the noble Lord, Lord Molson, has suggested we should do at this stage of the Bill.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Sandford: Perhaps I may just comment. This matter needs to be looked at again. Like my noble friend Lord Colville, I must confess that in studying Schedule 1 I had not seen the possibility of examinations in public of Part I of unitary development plans conducted jointly. If the schedule is intended to work as my noble friend on the Front Bench says, then I would put it to him that paragraphs 3 and 7 need amendment to make it clear that Part I of the unitary development plans can be submitted to the Secretary of State before Part II is completed. That is because if there is going to be examination of Part I jointly in public, that must be conducted and completed before the metropolitan boroughs are asked to go to all the trouble of developing Part II.
Lord Elton: If the Committee find that I am taking a little longer or that I am slightly more confused than usual in my reply to this debate, I am sure they will be patient.
I think the principal issues are fairly simple. The effect of the amendment of my noble friend is to

379
introduce a statutory process of publicity, consultation, objection and public local inquiry for the preparation of the strategic guidance very similar to that which is used at present for local plans and which will be used for the proposed unitary development plans. I think those are the models which my noble friend may have had in mind. I at once recognise the concern which my noble friend has brought to this Chamber as being not only his own but of many public bodies including some that have been mentioned this afternoon. They are authoritative and closely in touch with the system. It is right that the Committee should give due weight to them. I hope that what I say this afternoon will be of interest to them as well as to my noble friend.
I have already explained the nature of strategic guidance. I have offered to put examples in your Lordships' Library. I shall in any case now do that because I think it may still be in the minds of some members of the Committee that I am talking about elaborate, detailed, precise and technical documents. I am not. I think the best way to show what I am talking about is simply to deposit them in the Library so that those of your Lordships who have not seen such examples may do so. However, if the Committee will take that on trust for the moment, I have to say that these documents are not in our view those which ought to be given a statutory status, as would be the result of some of the amendments proposed.
Our purpose is to establish unitary planning authorities and hence the term "unitary development plan". That is what is appropriate to the planning needs of the areas in question. The strategic guidance should not be given a higher status than I have given it with that name. I am sure I can say to my noble friend Lord Broxbourne that the word "guidance" is at any rate familiar in statute. It is guidance. It will be brief. It will be selective. It is for each local authority to consider how far that guidance is relevant to its own situation. It is not intended to be a constraint or a straitjacket. The Secretary of State cannot enforce it directly. This is important: the only power the Secretary of State will have is in relation to the unitary development plans that will be made under it.
If I may now return to my noble friend's theme, his amendment would have a very considerable effect on the proposals for development planning in the Bill. I know he has already told me where the mine lies in the road down which I am travelling and on which I shall now step. I am going to tell him, and I shall tell him again in more detail in a moment, that there will be many opportunities for the public to become involved in the process of developing the strategic guidance and that they will not be statutory. He has said that that is something he has often heard in another place and obviously was increasingly less pleased by the more often he heard it. However, I wonder whether he will bear with me.
The effect of the amendment as proposed would make the Secretary of State for the Environment the structure planning authority for Greater London and the metropolitan counties and, in somebody's terms (I forget whose) would make him the "emperor of everything"—although he would be the emperor of everything with the benefit, I accept, of statutorily acquired public advice.
380
The guidance we propose is to be evolved in consultation with the local authorities and in London with the advice of the London Planning Commission. My noble friend Lord Sandford has said that the Committee's view of this will depend on the nature of the guidance. I have already covered that. Let me repeat that the guidance is not in any way intended to resemble a structure plan. It is therefore not suitable for handling in the way in which an elaborate and carefully built structure plan should be handled. The procedures proposed in the amendment would therefore not be appropriate.
I want to come to the matter in question. I have a fairly large amount of material which I could use but I will spare the Committee because the real need is for some form of public examination or inquiry in the process. I hope that my noble friend has taken it on board that there will be that process under the Bill in the local plan, the Part II stage. Thus at that end the public interest is very clearly implanted in the Bill.
However, many will wish to contribute towards developing the general guidance as my noble friend wishes them to be able to do. At the first stage we come to the officials going out to consider what the guidance should be in its initial form, and informal arrangements will be made for them. Before the London Planning Commission and the meetings and the metropolitan counties advise the Secretary of State on what guidance they consider is appropriate, they will have to gather essential information, consult interested parties, including the boroughs, and take soundings from those likely to have something useful to say. How they do that will be for them. However, it will not be for them alone because, once the Secretary of State has received his advice, that advice will be made public, comments will be invited and he will take into consideration those comments when he prepares the guidance in its final form. So it will come out first in draft, be subject to comment and then it will come out in final form.
It will be published in draft form and the discussions can be held to iron out the specific issues which are a cause of concern before it comes into its final form to local planning authorities. However, its nature will be very different from that of the documents of the kind which are subjected to examinations in public. That process is not appropriate to this stage; it is appropriate to the stage described by my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross.
I believe there may have been some doubts in the Committee's minds as to whether the examination in public could take place without the work on Part II continuing. However, if the Secretary of State calls in Part I,—and I regret that I cannot point my finger to the paragraph in the schedule but I shall write to my noble friend—the effect is that all work on Part II of a called-in Part I must stop. The Secretary of State will then obviously indicate the necessary changes to Part II when he comes to his conclusion. It is intended that the informal consultations should be as flexible as possible and cause as little delay as necessary to the main task of producing the UDPs.
We now come to the question that my noble friend is bound to ask me—and indeed I recall myself asking other Ministers, with great anticipation of effect, the

381
same question. It is this. If you are going to do it anyway, why on earth do you not put it on the face of the Bill? When you render something a statutory duty, you do something much more than say, "This is a very good thing and you must do it". You open it to all sorts of objections. You make it justiciable. The estimate that we have is that it would delay the conclusion of the process by anything from a year to 18 months.
Given that we shall be going through the processes that I have described, given that those involve the public, and given that to incorporate my noble friend's proposals in statute would delay this process without, in my view, giving additional protection to the public, I must ask him whether he really feels that what he proposes doing is absolutely what he intends to achieve. Both of us want to achieve public reassurance. Both of us want to achieve workable plans that will knit together across the country. Both of us wish to assure the CPRE, the NFU and the other bodies referred to.
It seems to me that, with the help of my noble friends behind me, I have explained how reassurance is available. But, of course, I am in a conciliatory mood. If there is any doubt about the phrasing of the two paragraphs—one was paragraph 3 but I shall make sure which they are by reading Hansard—and re-drafting is needed to ensure that what I have said will happen, that I am happy to undertake. I hope that my noble friend will feel that we are engaged in the same work and that we will arrive at our shared ambition a year or 18 months earlier if we follow the path in the Bill.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: Before my noble friend makes up his mind about what he intends to do on this matter, I shall, of course, read carefully what my noble friend on the Front Bench has said about the chance for individuals and organisations to make comments on the strategic plan. However, I have to say to my noble friend that the Government must ensure that at the beginning of the planning process—the strategic plan, I think it is called—there must be consultation not just with individuals but also with organisations, particularly, in my view, needless to say, those responsible for land management. If this is not done, chaos will ensue. Despite what my noble friend and some other Members of the Committee have said about the fact that it will delay the process, I do not think that it will. I believe that it will speed things up. Otherwise, at the end of the day, when you come to the district plans, as I call them, you will get an enormous number of complaints from all over the place, without any logic.
I support, therefore, the amendment of my noble friend Lord Molson. It is supported, as your Lordships probably realise, by the National Farmers Union and, much more important, by the Countryside Commission. I am empowered to say that. I do not know what my noble friend will do about the amendment. I have, however, heard my noble friend on the Front Bench make very much less sympathetic noises at the start, in response to certain amendments that I have moved, only to find, in the end, that he has been very sympathetic. I would ask my noble friend at
382
this stage (I emphasise that I am only saying "at this stage") to give my noble friend Lord Elton a chance to think about it a little longer—just a little longer.
Lord Molson: I find myself in a very great difficulty. There is such a strong feeling in support of the amendment. It has necessarily been somewhat confused by the complications. I should, however, like to put a plain and simple question to my noble friend the Minister. Do I understand him aright in that all he really objects to is the word "shall"—imposing a statutory obligation upon the Minister and making it a justiciable issue? I can understand the difficulty about that, and I sympathise. In return for my realising the difficulty imposed by the word "shall", can I have an assurance from my noble friend that, in a less formal manner, the Secretary of State will at an early stage, before issuing guidance, take all steps necessary—not a formal inquiry—for consulting all those likely to be affected by his guidance?
Lord Elton: My noble friend places me in a slight difficulty. As I understand it—I shall be told in a moment whether I am right or wrong—something is justiciable whether it is referred to under "shall" or under "may" in an Act of Parliament. I shall return to that matter, if I am able to do so, in a moment.
The other question that my noble friend asks is whether all the inquiries that I have described will take place before the guidance is published. Of course, that cannot take place before the draft guidance is published because no one would know what they were going to make representations upon. But when the draft guidance is published, it is the intention that the Secretary of State shall consider all the representations by individuals and recognised bodies—or perhaps I should put that the other way round: by recognised bodies and private individuals—that are brought forward. I have tried to explain that. However, what I cannot yield upon is the principle of making this a statutory process.
Lord Molson: I am much obliged. I accept the point about not making it a statutory process. In view of what I think is the complete assurance that there will be consultation before the guidance is issued as formal guidance, I shall not press the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 34A:
Page 76, line 4, leave out ("in their opinion").
The noble Lord said: With the leave of the Committee, I intend to speak also to Amendments Nos. 34B, 34C, 34D, 34E and 34F.
Amendment No. 34B: Page 76, line 7, after ("to") insert ("or have previously notified the authority that they").
Amendment No. 34C: Page 82, line 4, leave out ("in their opinion").
Amendment No. 34D: Page 82, line 7, after ("to") insert ("or have previously notified the authority that they").
Amendment No. 34E: Page 84, line 2, after ("the") insert ("proposals for or").
Amendment No. 34F: Page 84, line 3, after ("they") insert ("have notified the local planning authority of their desire of an opportunity of making representations on matters proposed to be included in or").
As the Minister will appreciate, these amendments hang together. They are not dissimilar in parts from the amendments that we have just discussed. The alterations that we propose are concerned very much with the extent to which the public will have the opportunity of discussing these matters, not by the leave of the council or the authority but in some other way.
What the Committee is being invited to approve in the Bill, under the heading, "Publicity in connection with preparation of unitary development plan", on page 76, is this. Paragraph 3(1) states:
"When preparing a unitary development plan for their area and before finally determining its contents the local planning authority shall take such steps as will in their opinion secure—".
I am not meaning to be offensive when I say that we question whether it should be left to each council to decide the criteria which help it to form that opinion. According to a range of considerations—political, interest and experience—you will have a different application of the same principle. If the steps to be taken are to depend on the opinion of each local authority, that can be seen, on one hand, as very good local democracy; one is leaving to local people how they wish to treat their electors and interest groups. We are saying, in this series of amendments; that we would prefer to delete the words "in their opinion". The wording would then read:
"the local planning authority shall take such steps as will secure—".
It will be left to each local authority to determine the steps and the manner in which it intends to proceed. We are anxious to make clear that it will not be left to the whim of each local authority as to whether it consults or what weight it attaches to the value of consultation. It should be much heavier than that.
We have tabled related amendments, and we want to ensure that those people who have indicated an interest in a field of activity will be informed of it, even though they may not see an advertisement in the paper or a notice in the local library. I have very much in mind preservation societies, such as the Enfield Preservation Society, the Civic Trust, manufacturers' associations, or federations of ratepayers. These are groups of people who, by some device, have registered with the local planning authority that they are interested in what will happen in this area. In Enfield there is a register of straightforward planning applications, and people are sent that list so that they can decide whether a particular street or the community is affected.
Therefore, in the best sense these amendments are not meant to be malevolent: they are very much benign. I am anxious to strengthen the view that it is the Minister's intention that local people shall not be denied an opportunity to make known their views. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: I hope that I have taken on board the points that the noble Lord has made about these amendments, which I accept are not intended to be malign or benign. I refer to Amendments Nos. 34A, 34B, 34C and 34D which concern the initial steps in the plan-making process, whereby local planning authorities, either individually or jointly if they so wish, put forward for public comment proposals from which they wish to make a unitary development plan.
384
The intention of the amendments would appear to be to remove a local planning authority's discretion as to the appropriate consultation arrangements. Paragraphs 3(1) and 12(2) of the schedule set out respectively the steps which a local planning authority, or two or more authorities jointly, in their opinion are required to take by way of publicising the proposed contents of their unitary development plan, and providing an opportunity for representations to be made by interested parties. These steps take place prior to the deposit of the plan. This will be the first time that the general public and others will see all the options for the plan—that is, at the moment of deposition. This is therefore the stage at which they discover whether or not they have an interest. They will not already have made their interest in the plan known because they will not know to what the plan relates.
However, the real point which I think is worrying the noble Lord is whether the provisions in paragraphs 3(1) and 12(2) are adequate in general. These provisions follow, almost word for word, those in the existing law designed to cover structure and local plans. They will be supplemented, as is the case now with structure and local plans, by regulations which will set out in more detail such matters as the length of the consultative period. We also intend to issue an explanatory memorandum similar to that on structure and local plans which accompanies Department of the Environment Circular 22/84. This will contain a step-by-step guide to the procedures, and will reinforce the message of the legislation that every person likely to be affected or to have an interest in the proposals should be given an opportunity to comment. I think that the noble Lord may well be reassured by what I have said.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I was almost reassured until I heard the Minister's last few words when he said:
"should be given an opportunity".
How do we ensure that the obligation that they should be given an opportunity to consult and to see the documents is carried into practice? I accept all that the Minister has said. However, I seek some assurance, although it need not necessarily be written on the face of the Bill, and I leave the point with the Minister. He began his remarks by saying that until people see the plan, they do not know whether or not they are affected.
Let us suppose that there is general discussion within a local authority that it will produce its structure plan. I imagine that the members of that authority believe that they have an obligation to their constituents and to the community. I have already mentioned preservation societies, civic trusts and many other groups. I should have thought that they would want to know what is going on. It may be that the areas of their town which they want to preserve are secure; they would certainly be secured by other legislation. I seek to ensure that somehow these groups will have access to that knowledge. The Minister may say that if there is a general advertisement telling people that they can see the plan they can do so, and that may be good enough. But what I have in mind may cost a few pounds, even a few hundred pounds, but it would ensure goodwill and better planning. We all know from experience that

385
dates go by and that comments which ought to have been received have not been received; matters which ought to have been discussed are not included on agendas. We are concerned to ensure that the experience of local people is not forgotten by default. As I think the Minister is aware, I shall certainly not press this amendment to a vote; but perhaps he could reassure me that people should be given an opportunity to comment. How do we ensure that a council operates procedures which make it virtually impossible for people not to be advised?
Lord Elton: I think that I can help the noble Lord further. We are looking at paragraph 3 of Schedule 1. Under sub-paragraph (2) the local planning authority, having prepared a unitary development plan, have to send a copy of it to the Secretary of State before it is adopted. Under paragraph (3), with it must go a statement:
"of the steps which the authority have taken to comply with sub-paragraph (1) above",
which contains the requirements about publicity, and so on, to which the noble Lord's amendment is directed. What is more, under paragraph 3(3)(b), it says that it shall be accompained by a statement:
"of the authority's consultations with, and their consideration of the views of, other persons".
So the proposal goes to the Secretary of State and with it goes a statement of how the authority have sought to see that that is acceptable to the public.
Then under paragraph (4), if the Secretary of State is not satisfied that they have discharged this duty properly—in other words, that the purposes of sub-pragraph (1)(a) to (c) have not been adequately achieved by the steps taken, he may:
"within twenty-one days of the receipt of the statement, direct the authority not to take further steps for the adoption of the plan without taking such further action as he may specify in order better to achieve those purposes and satisfying him that they have done so".
In other words, they have to show their work to the form-master, and before it goes in the book it must have a red tick on it!
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I think that I have been ticked off; I shall take it as "red"! If the Minister is satisfied that the steps which have been taken are unnecessary to a reasonable man, I would certainly accept that. I can appreciate that some councils will say that they have put an advertisement in the paper and that the leader of the council has announced at a council meeting that anyone who wishes to see the plan can do so. I wanted a little more meat on that, but I shall read carefully what the noble Lord has said, and, if need be write to him or return to the matter later. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 34B, 34C, 34D, 34E, and 34F not moved.]
6 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 35:
Page 86, line 42, after ("him") insert ("following consultations by the Commission as appropriate with London borough councils, the
386
county councils adjoining Greater London, district councils, the local authority associations, the London and South East Regional Planning Council, Government departments, London Regional Transport, business and professional associations, local and voluntary organisations and any other organisations or indi 'duals which the Secretary of State may think fit").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 35 relates to anxieties that have been expressed all round the Committee by a number of very important bodies about the weight that can be attached to the present consultative procedures. The purpose of this amendment is to highlight and make good the fact that the Bill, as it presently stands, would lead to greater centralisation of strategic planning powers in the hands of the Secretary of State and his appointed London Planning Commission with an inevitable loss of the present democratic input into the strategic planning process.
One of the major provisions of the Bill is the power which it gives to the Secretary of State to issue to the London borough councils strategic guidance which they must use as the basis for the preparation of their unitary development plans, a matter we have been discussing at length. This strategic guidance will be prepared by the Secretary of State following the provision of advice by his appointed London Planning Commission. The power which would be given to the Secretary of State is more specific than any presently available to him under the 1971 Town and Country Planning Act. Up to this point the Government have restricted themselves to national or regional guidance. As such, the strategic guidance and its preparation is a key element in the new planning process.
On the issue of public involvement, there is no provision in the Bill for such involvement in any stage of the preparation of this strategic guidance, as the London and South Eastern Regional Planning Conference noted in a letter to the DoE on 31st October last year. The strategic guidance will not reflect extensive public consultations as is the case with both the GLDP and its proposed alteration, and as will remain the case with shire county structure plans. The Association of London Borough Planning Officers—the professionals who are entitled to be heard and who would be responsible for implementing the new system—are extremely concerned about the procedures and working arrangements for maintaining effective strategic planning in London, and feels bound to draw attention to what it believes are serious deficiencies in the proposals as they currently exist.
It is clear from the statements made by the Minister for Local Government at the Committee stage in another place that the Government are not prepared, in the face of overwhelming independent professional criticism of their planning proposals, for changes to be made in this Bill. We are worried that the Minister seems to feel that in every respect he and his colleagues have got it absolutely right, despite the fact that there are professionals—who of course again one would assume, and say, are as unbiased as the professionals at Marsham Street—who can see great areas of concern. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: This amendment strikes at sub-paragraph 18(1) of the schedule. This sub-paragraph empowers the Secretary of State to set up the London

387
Planning Commission. It refers to two aspects of the commission's work. The first is to assist the Secretary of State in
"preparing guidance for local planning authorities in Greater London".
We have spent some time already discussing that guidance, but it is not to that that the amendment relates. The amendment relates to the second of the activities, which is giving the Secretary of State advice
"on other matters relating to the planning and development of Greater London".
An example of such "other matters" might be a free-standing study of population, which might not immediately affect the Secretary of State's guidance at all. I find it odd that there might be a requirement to consult London Regional Transport, or indeed the National Savings Department, about that. The commission will be an independent advisory body and it will have no executive powers. The commission will be expected to formulate its advice on these matters in the regional context after consulting the borough councils and planning authorities for the areas adjoining London, and other relevant bodies including SERPLAN. Its advice is to be made public and available for discussion before the Secretary of State ever makes up his mind about his strategic guidance.
I have no doubt whatever that full and careful consultation will be vital. That will be very much in my right honourable friend's mind. He will ensure that it is in the mind of the commission. It will need to consult a lot of people and a lot of bodies of one sort or another. No doubt a list of possible consultees will be useful for it to have, but there are lists and lists, or rather there are lists and there are statutory lists. We have dealt with this distinction already this afternoon.
The amendment of the noble Lord seeks to establish a statutory list of people or bodies that the commission must, in respect of any and every matter on which it advises the Secretary of State, consult by law. If it does not consult them, its advice will be invalid in law. It cannot pick and choose, and neither can the Secretary of State. His choice will only be whether or not to add to the list by virtue of the last line and a half of the amendment. I again ask the noble Lord whether, under those circumstances, he has the right list.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I listened with care to the Minister. I am really arguing contrary to one of my earlier amendments, where I felt that we ought to delete the words "in their opinion" because I wanted to tighten it up. In this amendment I have said, "as the commission thinks fit". In other words, I have allowed it to determine its importance, but I do not think the Minister would deny that it is important that—
Lord Elton: With respect—and I speak from memory because I have just dropped the Marshalled List—I think that the "as he thinks fit" relates only to "such other bodies". That is the qualifying thing. But he has a list in front of that, and that is a statutory list.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Yes, and I would certainly say that the list, as the Minister calls it, of the bodies we are laying down statutorily shall be consulted before the plan is determined is a list of
388
important bodies. I take what the Minister has said, that a list drawn up by any Minister, or anyone, is capable of either being too short or too long. We simply believe that in a matter of such importance, dealing with the wider strategic future of London and its environs, these are the people who are entitled to be consulted. I hear what the Minister has said. I shall take guidance and read the arguments; and it may be that I shall come back again at Report. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 36:
Page 86, line 44, at end insert—
("(1A) The London Planning Commission in giving its strategic advice to the Secretary of State shall give specific regard to all matters contained in the Greater London Development Plan and in the proposed amendments to the said plan, including the principal physical and economic characteristics of the Greater London area, the size, composition and distribution of population of that area, and the communications, transport system and traffic of the area.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment deals again with the London Planning Commission and the kind of advice that it needs in order to do its job. I quote:
"The London Planning Commission in giving its strategic advice to the Secretary of State shall give specific regard to all matters contained in the Greater London Development Plan and in the proposed amendments to the said plan, including the principal physical and economic characteristics of the Greater London area, the size, composition and distribution of population of that area, and the communications, transport system and traffic of the area".
I should have thought that we would all agree that observations or comments on all those crucial elements in good planning and sound planning would be helpful. I suspect that the Minister will say that there are other ways in which these matters can be taken care of.
We are a bit concerned because we consider that for the big job—the Minister for jobs is in his place, and I am sure he pricked up his ears there—that the London Planning Commission has to take on, as we understand it, it has a woefully inadequate staff to do the kind of things that we believe are essential. If you have a small staff, or the Government keep the staff modest, then that restricts the role that the planning commission can play. If one hobbles or cripples the ability of a devoted staff to do what would be physically possible, then we argue in this amendment that one is weakening the strength, the value, and the merit of that planning body.
I should like to plead in aid the Conservative-controlled Harrow Borough Council. Last year, when it was talking about the London Planning Commission and its staff and resource potential, this is what it said:
"It is difficult to see a useful role for the Commission. Having only a small staff it will not be able to provide the information and depth of understanding of the complex issues involved".
The coverage of matters in the Greater London Development Plan and its alterations are those which are considered essential to the effective and efficient planning of a city as complex and diverse as Greater London. There are many people in this House who, not only from their knowledge of planning in London but also from their universal experience and common sense, appreciate the great tasks that will fall to the London Planning Commission, which are certainly

389
already covered by the GLC—issues not only on the economy, housing, shopping, transport and the environment, but also more innovative matters such as equality for women, people's disabilities, help for the elderly, policies for energy, pollution and ecology. All of these things need to be worried about by somebody for and on behalf of the 8 million people who make up Greater London. Our worry is that if, in fact, one simply rests on the argument that if one of the 33 London boroughs feels moved to find the money and create a small staff, which would be two or three people, they will be doing their job.
One of the worries we have is that this is an opportunity, if in fact the Minister will accept this amendment, or at least say something kind about it, for him come back again to give some hope to people outside who are not politically motivated but genuinely feel that one of the side products of the dissolution of the GLC could very well be that the quality of life in the future, which is guarded to some extent at a planning level, will be much impaired. I beg to move.
Lord Skelmersdale: I think the Committee might agree with me at this point that this is a mixture of a probing amendment asking, "What on earth is the LPC going to do?" and the actual words printed on the Marshalled List which comprise this amendment. To start with the latter, as the noble Lord, Lord Graham, has said, this amendment concerns the functions of the proposed London Planning Commission. It proposes that an entirely new and separate duty should be placed upon the LPC to give specific regard to all the matters contained in the Greater London Development Plan and to the proposed alterations to that plan. It also specifies a number of particular issues concerning the economics, population and transport of the area to which the LPC should have regard.
The trouble here is that, although this may be appropriate in one area, it may not necessarily be appropriate in another. What, for example, have Tower Hamlets and Kingston-upon-Thames in common?
Lord Graham of Edmonton: They are Londoners.
Lord Skelmersdale: They are Londoners indeed, and I accept that, but we were talking in planning terms rather than in "personal feelings" terms, if I may express it in such a way. This duty would be additional to the duty specified in paragraph 18(1) of the schedule, which is to assist the Secretary of State in preparing guidance for local planning authorities in Greater London in relation to their preparation of unitary development plans and to advise him on other matters relating to the planning and development of Greater London.
My noble friend Lord Elton has already explained how he would expect the proposed London Planning Commission to exercise its duties. I should not expect them to ignore the content of the Greater London Development Plan or the proposed alterations. Clearly also the matters to which this amendment specifically refers—economics, population and infrastructure—must be considered carefully among many others relevant to land use and planning in London.
390
It would, however, be inappropriate to introduce a specific requirement of this nature. The task of examining the GLDP will not be and should not be thought of as separate from, or additional to, the principal task of the commission as identified in the Bill. Nor should we attempt to dictate, in the manner suggested by this proposed amendment, the detail of the way in which the LPC should carry out its investigations.
I am sure we are all aware of the fact that the GLDP is out of date. This Bill, however, contains provision to carry forward into the future the preparation of land use and development plans for London in a far more satisfactory and appropriate manner. We are to have a new system firmly based upon local planning by the London boroughs. They are best equipped to produce new UDPs for their areas based upon the close knowledge and understanding they have of the needs of those areas. This knowledge will be up to date and will remain up to date in a way which cannot be said even of the GLC's proposed alterations, let alone the plan. It will also be more closely attuned to local circumstances and conditions. Without doubt it will be useful for them to look at the content of the GLDP.
A great deal of careful survey work has gone into the preparation of the proposed alterations. This should not be wasted but should be used where appropriate, not only by the LPC, who will wish to look at these documents as an integral part of their duty as specified in paragraph 18(1) of Schedule 1 but also by the London boroughs when preparing their own UDPs. I wish to make it quite clear that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will expect the LPC and the authorities to take full account of relevant previous material.
As I said at the beginning, however, not all of the contents of these documents will be relevant in every case and I do not wish the Committee to insert into the Bill an amendment such as this which would dictate in detail the way in which the commission and the borough councils should carry out their work. I believe that the Commitee will agree that it would be preferable to leave such matters to their discretion. This will enable them to identify key features and focus upon these and allow them to progress more expeditiously. I therefore invite the noble Lord to withdraw this amendment.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I do intend to withdraw the amendment, but it is very sad. Apparently Surrey and Suffolk are entitled to a strategic plan and a county-wide view but London is not. What London will have will be 33 authorities with discretion to take full account. The London Planning Commission will have the opportunity, if it wishes and if it has the staff, to make sure that these 33 London boroughs are taking full account of all that they should, but the Minister is not prepared to lay down the important matters that in my view ought to be looked at by somebody.
When I talk about the economy, it is not an idle threat. Every major city, whether it is metropolitan or not, has a department which is concerned with the economic regeneration of that city. We are talking

391
about industry, housing and leisure. When we are talking about traffic and land development, of course there are disparate bits of London and there are Londoners who are quite happy simply to look after and be concerned with their own little bit, but they are all affected by the quality of life in an overall way.
I think that the Minister is storing up trouble, because what we are wanting, quite rightly, is to be specific. We want to say that this London Planning Commission has an obligation not merely to take into account generalities but to lay down certain things. We may have the list wrong, but we think that these are the important things for a strategic planning authority. We accept the London Planning Commission, if that is to be the vehicle, but we are simply trying to beef it up. Having lost the main argument for a strategic authority, we are saying, "If this is what we've got, let's make it work". That is what we are trying to do.
I wonder whether the Minister can tell us—and I will give the Box sufficient time to let us have the precise detail—what size of body we are talking about, what number of staff. If the Minister tells us that those details have not yet been worked out, it will be quite disgraceful. They must have some idea of the Vote—that is, the money. There must be some idea of what is in the minds of the Minister and his colleagues. I should like the Minister to tell us tonight what size of staff is envisaged. I do not want it to be compared with the GLC or with any other authority, because the comparison will then immediately launch into one being too big and this one being just right but, looking at the kind of things that I have said should be in mind, will the Minister tell us the size of staff which he considers is adequate in order to do it? After that, I shall certainly be happy to withdraw.
Lord Skelmersdale: The noble Lord, Lord Graham, referred to the comparison between the 32 London boroughs and Suffolk and Surrey, which were the two shire counties that he mentioned. He suggested that they would be disadvantaged because of size of area. I should tell him that the big stick for which he is looking, whether on this or on other amendments, is there, although I cannot lay to hand the reference in the Bill. The point is that the UDPs have to be compatible with each other, and, if not, the Secretary of State will call them in to make them so.
The noble Lord, Lord Graham, also asked about staff. I cannot say anything about specific numbers, which is what I think the noble Lord was asking me. However, I can say that the LPC will have a small staff, but that we would expect it to work with the boroughs, which will have a duty to obtain and keep under review matters affecting their area, as defined in Schedule 1, paragraph 1(1)(a).
I think that the noble Lord misunderstands the role of the LPC. It is a small body there for a particular reason; that is, to advise the Secretary of State how best he can carry out those matters in relation to planning that he seeks to do. It can do this in two ways: first, by being asked by the Secretary of State to advise him on a specific problem; and, secondly, by self-generation of its own volition. I hope that additional information will help the noble Lord.
Lord Sandford: Before the noble Lord decides what to do with his amendment, I should like to ask my noble friend on the Front Bench whether I am drawing the right inference from the fact that he has not answered the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Graham. That was: how many people are there on the London Planning Commission? It is perfectly respectable not to know the answer or not to have decided yet, because I hope that he and his collegues will take that decision when they have established the way in which the London boroughs will combine, cohere and collaborate, see how much they can do for themselves and, in the light of that, decide what needs to be done by the London Planning Commission. That will keep the London Planning Commission to the absolute minumum. Are those the correct inferences?
Lord Skelmersdale: Yes, absolutely; and the sooner the boroughs start to talk, not only to each other but to us, the sooner we shall be able to make definitive statements on these and on many other matters.
Baroness Seear: May I ask the Minister whether the items mentioned in the amendment are the subjects which the London Planning Commission will be dealing with? If they are, considering the range and the scope that is indicated here, how can a small staff possibly include the expertise necessary to give intelligent and useful advice to the Secretary of State, who will surely stand greatly in need of such advice?
Lord Skelmersdale: Again, as I was saying to my noble friend Lord Sandford just now, I am not in the position to say at this moment, nor is the Secretary of State himself, for what kind of advice they will be asked. I can add to the information I have given to the Committee that at the moment we expect the membership to be between 12 and 15 with a small staff which will be non-executive. Nor will it be a planning authority; it will be there purely to give advice.
Lord Plummer of St. Marylebone: The answers given by my noble friend the Minister indicate once again how little thought has gone into how this whole thing will work. At this stage they are unable to give an answer, and we are less than a year from the enactment of the Bill. I should also like to know from where and what sort of people in London the members of this London Planning Commission will be drawn. Will they go round London holding public meetings to find out what the people of London feel about these strategic plans which they intend to impose upon the boroughs? Will they consult the boroughs? The Minister chose a particularly bad example when he asked what Tower Hamlets and Kingston have in common. I think he will find that London's biggest route runs through both of them—the Thames.
Lord Skelmersdale: That occurred to me when I said it, but I wondered whether it was appropriate to make the comment then.
I do not think that my noble friend Lord Plummer is being quite fair, because the whole objective of the LPC is that it shall be set up in such a way and be so representative that it can provide answers. It is not for the LPC to consult the population in London, but for

393
the London boroughs themselves to make their plans and to do their consultations and surveys so that when they reach the Secretary of State (should he decide that he wants an objective view on this; for example, whether a particular highway is proposed correctly) it will be the duty of the LPC to give him that advice.
Lord Plummer of St. Marylebone: This is exactly what we shall not get. The London boroughs will give a view about their own cabbage patches. They will not have regard for the rest of London; or if they do, they will only have regard for the immediately adjoining borough. What we want is a plan that considers London as a whole.
Lord Skelmersdale: I do not know whether my noble friend was in the Committee when I said that UDPs have to be compatible, and if they are not my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will call them in to ensure that they are.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: To ensure that the Minister seriously consults with somebody to see whether they are compatible, one needs to consult the kind of body that the Government have in mind in the London Planning Commission. The noble Lord, Lord Sandford, made a reasonable suggestion, if the premise was correct. He said that it was perhaps too early to know the weight of work which the LPC will have to do, and we shall have to wait to see how it develops. The record will show that the Minister has no idea how many staff are involved; he rests on the word "small", and we know it could be 50 or 200. In the context of the role 200 could be too small and 50 could be too big. The Minister has revealed that an idea has been thought of first, the abolition of the metropolitan counties and the GLC, and then a form of words has been used—words which are constantly shied away from when they need defending and firming, up.
The noble Lord, Lord Plummer, and the perceptive words of the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, clearly indicate that the Government may get away with it during the passage of the Bill, but come 1st April 1986, when the reality dawns, I am very much afraid that there will be great gaps. If I had the confidence that some Members opposite have that when the trouble arises the Government will be willing to will the means, provide the staff and accept the role, I should be happy, but at this stage I am far from happy.
I shall read carefully what the Minister has said—I do not think it will make pleasant reading—but I give notice that I intend to come back again at a later stage on this matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 88, line 4, leave out from ("shall") to the end of line 5 and insert ("obtain the agreement of all the local planning authorities in the area to which the structure plan relates.").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 37 is again in line with the first of the amendments I moved. I begin by quoting a friend of the Government—and the list gets shorter as time passes. A friend of the
394
Government called the London Chamber of Commerce and Industry has tried to be helpful. In relation to the GLDP (and this applied to these matters) it said that it was,
"convinced that a single plan is necessary for an area as complex as London with various inter-locking functions … in order to provide for its development over the next decade".
6.30 p.m.
The case has been made out; but it has been resisted by the Government. What we are after is a London-wide co-ordinated and integrated strategic plan. I he Minister rests upon the 33 different parts being compatible with each other. "Compatible" as opposed to being "integrated" into one strategy, leaves an enormous area of conflict and doubt. And there will be horse-trading: "You allow ours to go through with a little bit of difficulty and we will not oppose yours". We believe that there is public and private sector support for a London-wide plan. We believe, in fact, that that is widespread not merely from the point of view of Labour authorities but also so far as Conservative authorities are concerned. In this amendment, we are asking the Government to write into the Bill the words at the end of line five on page 88 so that we have the statutory obligation to consult, to obtain the agreement, of all the local planning authorities in the area to which the structure plan relates.
The Government may very well say that to get the agreement of everybody concerned is not only difficult but may very well be impossible. We know the conflicts; but what we have in planning terms is deplorable not just to the professional but to their committees. There are Members of your Lordships' House with long experience of planning—and not just of London and its precepts—who are appalled at what the Government are going to allow to be produced. I think that they have negated their responsibility in this matter.
The purpose of this amendment, quite frankly, is simply to say that before an order under this paragraph, the Secretary of State shall consult and shall obtain the agreement of all the planning authorities in the area to which the structure plan relates. If the Minister says that that will take time, then I say that I would much rather get things right than get them soon or quickly. We are talking about the mistakes that we are looking at now, that were planned—or not planned—30 years ago and which we have to live with for the rest of our lives. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I wonder whether the noble Lord will accept that the spirit of his idea could be better achieved if the wording was, "shall use best endeavours to obtain". "Shall obtain agreement" is a type of aim which is very difficult to achieve. It would be more usual—and with respect I suggest more civilised—to put it in that form.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: More realistic.
Lord Plummer of St. Marylebone: In order that I may say at least one word on behalf of the Bill before us, I think that I would support my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway in this. Having been involved in

395
the Greater London Development Plan which I think ran inquiries for about three and a half years, I am aware that the difficulty of obtaining everybody's agreement to anything in regard to it was very great. I should have thought that the same trouble would prevail here. Somebody has to decide in the end. Therefore, I support the suggestion made by my noble friend.
Lord Skelmersdale: I am grateful to my noble friends but, in fact, my argument rest on more than that. We are not necessarily talking about revocation of structure plans as a whole. We could in certain circumstances be talking about revocation of parts of structure plans. As part of the transitional arrangements, paragraph 19 of the schedule provides that the Greater London Development Plan and the structure plans in force in the metropolitan counties at abolition shall continue in force in each of the boroughs or districts until a unitary development plan for the area becomes operative. The structure plan, in so far as it relates to the area of the UDP, will then be revoked automatically.
Paragraph 20, however, enables the Secretary of State, when he has called in an approved Part 1 of the UDP, or any part of Part 1 of the UDP, in advance of the remaining provisions of that plan, to make an order revoking all or part of the structure plan in force in the area of that UDP and to make any necessary consequential amendments to the remainder of the structure plan. Paragraph 20 also provides for consultation with the local planning authority for the area of the UDP.
There is nothing new in this approach. It is precedented in the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, as amended. Schedule 7 to that Act provides for the revocation of earlier development plans by order or automatically when a local plan becomes operative. It is clearly necessary to provide for the revocation of the structure plan when Part 1 of a UDP becomes operative. When the Secretary of State calls in Part 1 (or part of Part 1) this may become operative in advance of the remainder of the UDP. Revocation is thus essential to avoid conflict between the outdated policies in the structure plan and the more recently approved general structure policy of the UDP. Clearly, the Secretary of State would only wish to exercise this power of revocation to the extent necessary to avoid confusion. The provisions of consultation will enable the relevant local authority to be involved in the decision.
However, I can see no justification for providing that the Secretary of State should require the agreement of all authorities. Because structure plans cover such a large area, for example London, the interest of some of the other authorities will often be peripheral—and in parenthesis may I say to my noble friend that I shall not make my mistake about the Thames a second time this evening.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: It is water under the bridge.
Lord Skelmersdale: Yes, water under the bridge. Where the Secretary of State uses his similar powers under Schedule 7 of the 1971 Act, there is no such
396
requirement for the consent of all authorities and there is no case for such a constraint here. I have explained that the Bill is very flexible in regard to the revocation of structure plans (or parts of those plans) and I hope that the Committee will agree that in this case at least the Bill has the correct approach.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I have listened carefully to what the Minister had to say and also to the observations of noble Lords opposite. It is quite clear that there may be the possibility of looking at this afresh and coming up with a form of words which at least will satisfy us. But we have improved the Bill as it is at the moment. In those circumstances, I beg to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendment No. 38:
Page 88, line 25, leave out ("prepared") and insert ("adopted").
The noble Lord said: On behalf of my noble friend Lord Elton, I beg to move Amendment No. 38 and to speak also to Amendment No. 39.
Amendment No. 39: Page 88, line 29, leave out ("prepared") and insert ("adopted").
These are both technical and drafting amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendment No. 39:
[Printed above.]
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendment No. 40:
Page 89, line 9, after ("to") insert ("proposals made in respect of")
The noble Lord said: On behalf of my noble friend, I beg to move Amendment No. 40 and to speak to Amendment No. 41.
Amendment No. 41: Page 89, line 12, leave out from ("purposes") to end of line 14 and insert ("in relation to the same or similar proposals made in respect of a local plan.").
These, too, are technical and drafting amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale moved amendment No. 41:
[Printed above.]
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Stedman Baroness Stedman moved Amendment No. 42:
[Printed 30/4/85; col. 175.]
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, I want to explain that the GLC submitted to the Secretary of State in October 1984 the proposed alterations to the Greater London Development Plan which itself had been approved way back in 1976. Those alterations had been in preparation since 1981 with agreement from the then Department of the Environment officials on the need for a review and an assurance that the necessary regulations, which had never been made for Greater London, would be available when necessary. That was in early 1983.
My understanding now is that that assurance was repudiated in the summer after the general election in terms suggesting that the GLC needed to be given further powers before it was entitled to review its plan. This view was rejected by the High Court in December 1983 and the Secretary of State was instructed to make such regulations forthwith. The Secretary of State then took power unto himself, under the paving Act, to exempt himself from the duty to consider the alterations when they were submitted. Paragraph 24(1) of Schedule 1 provides that any proposals for alteration to the Greater London Development Plan or to metropolitan counties' structure plans not approved by the Secretary of State before abolition will lapse on 1st April 1986 and will be treated as having been withdrawn. That means that the submitted alterations would no longer be a material consideration to be taken into account, with the other factors, in taking any planning decisions from borough councils up to the Department of the Environment inspectors or the Secretary of State himself.
Twenty years after being set up, and nine years after the approval of their general development plan, by no means all London boroughs have yet produced local plans covering the whole or most of their area. Under this Bill, burdened now by the Secretary of State's guidance and with the additional encumbrance of an improvised two-part structure for their local plans, there is no reason to suppose they would be any quicker in producing such plans in future. Thus, by the mid-1990s London would still have only a patchwork of half-completed local plans supported by the remains of a Greater London Development Plan which had been approved 20 years earlier. If the Schedule 1 provision is deleted, leaving the boroughs free to adopt, as part of their local plans, at least those parts of the present submitted alterations, passing this amendment would in no way force the Secretary of State to consider these alterations but simply to allow them to survive, as was done in 1965 in a similar situation.
Since I put this amendment down the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, has put down another amendment, half of which covers the one I put down. I have looked at what the noble Baroness has added to hers. I am in sympathy with it, and at the appropriate time I shall withdraw my amendment in favour of Amendment No. 43. I beg to move.
Lord Skelmersdale: Does the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, want to come in on this or to speak to her own amendment on its merits?
Baroness Birk: I shall speak to my amendment.
Lord Skelmersdale: Some alterations to structure plans have already been submitted to the Secretary of State; for example, those concerning the Greater London Development Plan, and, as we heard earlier this afternoon, that of the West Yorkshire County Council. In the case of the GLDP the Secretary of State has already announced that under his powers in Section 6(1) of the Local Government (Interim Provisions) Act 1984 he is deferring his consideration of the proposed alterations; and in the other case he
398
has informed the county council that he is minded to do so—and quite rightly so, since there would not have been time between the dates of their submission and the date of abolition to subject the proposals both to the full process of an examination in public and to the subsequent issuing of modifications. Both the time and the money of my department and of the local planning authority would have been wasted. It seems to me to be a sensible decision not to have started down this particular road.
Let me quickly add, however, that that does not by any means mean that the Secretary of State has made a judgment on the value of the proposed alterations. Neither does the inclusion in the Bill of the provisions in sub-paragraph 24(1). We recognise that all the work done in preparing such proposals should not be consigned to the waste-bin; and it is possibly this aspect that is worrying the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman. There will undoubtedly he valuable up-to-date survey material available in them which could prove helpful to the Secretary of State's strategic guidance and to the boroughs and districts themselves when they come to prepare their unitary development plans.
I can therefore assure the Committee that the London Planning Commission and the metropolitan county planning conferences, and all the local planning authorities, will be expected to take on hoard whatever of the work already done by the abolished counties will be of value in preparing strategic guidance and unitary development plans. The noble Baroness can rest assured that, although I cannot accept her amendment, this work will not be lost. Where appropriate it will make a worthwhile contribution to getting the new system of unitary development plans off the ground. I hope that the noble Baroness is able to accept that statement.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: In view of the assurance given by my noble friend the Minister, and in view of what he has said—that these are not to be consigned to the waste-bin—would he be good enough at some time to have a look at the words "cease to have effect", which in law seem to render the whole thing null and void, contrary to the assurance that he has given to your Lordships' Committee? Would he take that on board and consider the wording?
Lord Skelmersdale: Yes, I most certainly shall, and I shall write to my noble friend.
Lord Plummer of Saint Marylebone: I was going to make the same point, but may I add to it? The noble Lord the Minister says that all this work that has been done is not going to be thrown away, but which staff is going to enable them to take on board all this information? As I understand it, staffs are disappearing and are being dispersed. Where are they going to get at the guts of the thing? Could the noble Lord the Minister give us some information on how the thing is going to work?
Lord Skelmersdale: Some of the guts will of course be provided by the boroughs and districts themselves, which already contribute input into the original, wider area plan; and the rest of the guts, it would seem to me,

399
would be an appropriate role for the London Planning Commission and the regional conferences.
The Earl of Kinnoull: I support the Government on this issue, and I should like to know, following upon what my noble friend has said about staff being dispersed and how we are to get continuity on planning, what the timescale is likely to be before this new development plan is brought forward. I think that from the point of view of the planners who try to advise people, the fact that one already has a structure plan, approved 1976, is good to be getting on with. There is no harm in the fact that the draft structure plan which the GLC brought forward has not been adopted, and I believe that the fact that there was not time for modification is a reason for not adopting it.
I believe there is interest in planning. We are talking about a capital city, and it is vital that we get proper continuity. I hope my noble friend can give us an assurance on the timescale as well as on the most important point made by the noble Lord, Lord Plummer of Saint Marylebone, about staff and continuity.
Baroness Stedman: I accept that what the noble Lord the Minister said he said in good faith, but that does not put it into the Bill. We accept that he is repeating things in good faith, as to how he sees it will work. I would ask leave of the Committee to withdraw my amendment in favour of Amendment No. 43, because I think that that strengthens the position considerably.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 43:
Page 89, line 16, leave out sub-paragraph (1) and insert—
("(1) Where before the abolition date any proposals for the alteration of a structure plan which have been prepared by the Greater London Council or a metropolitan county have not been approved by the Secretary of State, he shall after that date consider the proposals and give his decision thereon as if the proposals had been prepared and submitted as joint proposals by all the local planning authorities in Greater London or the metropolitan county, as the case may be.").
The noble Baroness said: The noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, has very succinctly and cogently described the situation as it is at the moment. It is absolutely true, as she has said, that in 1969 the Greater London Development Plan was submitted. It was approved in 1976. In 1981 the GLC began to update the plans. In 1984 they were submitted to the Secretary of State. From 1969 to 1976 the old plans were being worked on: in 1984 they were stopped entirely. This means that the need for a London-wide strategic plan supported by a majority of the London boroughs, the surrounding shire counties, the London Chamber of Commerce and Industry and virtually all professional and voluntary organisations, was being met. It was being worked on.
We are now going back to 1969; and since this Bill came along these plans have been completely thrown out. The Minister says that they have not been put in the waste-paper basket, but I will read what is in the Bill in Schedule 1, paragraph 24(1):
"Any proposals for the alteration, or for the repeal and replacement, of a structure plan which have been prepared by the Greater London Council or a metropolitan county council before the
400
abolition date but have not been approved by the Secretary of State shall cease to have effect on that date and be treated as having been withdrawn by that council.".
These plans were all ready; they had been worked on, updated and so on, and suddenly there was a refusal by the Secretary of State, presumably when the Local Government (Interim Provisions) Bill went through and when this Bill we are now discussing was on the cards. So apart from discussing the merits of this Bill as compared with the old system, what is happening is that the terrific work that has gone on, which has had the admiration and support of many people in districts and organisations, is now absolutely going to waste.
What the amendment seeks to do is to maintain the existing and what is now, according to the department, the out-of-date plan in the transitionary period until the unitary development plan appears. The difference between my amendment and that of the noble Baroness is that whereas she takes out the subparagraph I go on to say:
"he shall after that date consider the proposals and give his decision thereon as if the proposals had been prepared and submitted as joint proposals by all the local planning authorities in Greater London or the metropolitan county as the case may be".
During the debate on Second Reading, in reference to the committee of inquiry on the question of county and metropolitan authorities, the point was made again and again about the problems there were going to be during the transition period after the Bill had become law but before it was implemented and everything came to a stop.
Here we have these plans which are there and have been worked on, and which would be able to cover the transition period, being simply discarded. As was said during the previous debate on the noble Baroness's amendment, it is all very well for the Minister to say: "You do not need to worry; we are not going to do it in that way". That is not in the Bill. What is in the Bill is what I read out, and the only thing that is in the Bill which does not apply to the development plans is in Schedule 1, paragraph 24(3). That applies to local plans but not to the development plans. I think this is a very important amendment which, on purely practical grounds, should make itself acceptable to Members of the Committee. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I have personally every sympathy with this amendment put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Birk; but of course she would be the first to realise, whereas I have only just come to realise it, that the root problem lies in the words, "cease to have effect". That is the source of the problem; and using those words in the statute, it is reasonable for the noble Baroness to table this amendment in the form in which she has. But my noble friend the Minister has just given a categoric assurance. He has undertaken to your Lordships' Committee, without qualification, to reconsider those words in view of the fact that he has told your Lordships that there is no question of these documents being consigned to the dustbin. In those circumstances, would it not perhaps be somewhat oppressive at this stage not to give my noble friend the Minister an opportunity to consider this position in accordance with his assurance? Let us hear what he says.
Lord Skelmersdale: I am glad to have a second bite at this particular cherry, which I must confess I find extremely complicated. I should make it clear that where possible the Secretary of State will consider and determine before 1st April 1986 all structure plan proposals which have been submitted to him and which can be processed in time. My noble friend Lord Campbell has commented twice on the drafting of this paragraph, and I am advised that the reference to "withdrawal" is a term taken from the 1971 Act in relation to structure plans. The purpose is to free the boroughs and the Secretary of State from an obligation to take those proposals into account as a material consideration when considering planning applications. This is only fair and just, when it is considered that these proposals have not been subjected to public examination. However, nothing in this prevents the boroughs and the LPCs from using these alterations when preparing guidance on the UDPs.
The reason for the approach adopted in paragraph 24 is to avoid the possibility of confusion as to the status of any plans which cannot be processed before 1st April. This amendment would require the Secretary of State to continue to consider these proposals as if they had been prepared and submitted as joint proposals by all the local planning authorities in Greater London or the metropolitan counties. This seems to me to be quite unreasonable, because abolition will already have taken place. Therefore it is surely preferable to spend what time and resources are available on considering new proposals brought forward by the new all-purpose planning authorities in the metropolitan areas themselves, rather than to continue to work on the policies of a defunct authority, which would have no one to defend them.
I have indicated earlier that this need not mean that the effort put into drawing up these proposals will be wasted. They will remain available and I would expect the boroughs and districts to make considerable use of them when preparing the part I policies of the new UDPs. But we must not lose sight of the fact that the successor authorities will be there to implement their own policies. If they then choose to promote policies for their area which were included in proposals submitted to the Secretary of State by the GLC or the metropolitan county they are perfectly free to do so. They may, however, not always entirely accept the structural policies of the earlier authority. Therefore it makes sense to give them the chance to bring forward their own policies under the new system. The provisions of paragraph 24 clear the ground and give them this opportunity.
While I am dealing with the question of how best to handle outstanding proposals at abolition, I should like just to mention the position of local plans, and I would refer in particular to an amendment which we shall be tabling at Report stage. The provisions of paragraph 24 I think make it quite clear that the Government are concerned that the best possible use should be made of existing plans which is exactly what the Committee is asking for. The particular difficulty in relation to some structure plan proposals has already been discussed in the case of local plans. These are to be carried forward directly into unitary development plans.
402
The Committee will have noted that the paragraph provides for outstanding local plan proposals made by the GLC or an MCC to be rescued where the Secretary of State has called them in for his consideration and approval. We have felt that perhaps this provision is not as clear as it might be, particularly in relation to the grounds on which such a proposal might be called in. Therefore we shall be tabling an amendment to clarify this at Report stage. I think this should make quite unequivocal our firm intention to save as much pre-abolition work as possible. However, to return to this amendment, I repeat that I see no case for imposing upon the new authorities further policies of the recently abolished authorities, over and above those in existing plans. Accordingly, I invite the Committee to reject this amendment.
7 p.m.
Baroness Birk: I did not quite hear what the noble Lord said. Did he say he intended to table an amendment that will in fact put this situation right? I may be wrong, but I understood him to say—he was reading from a brief—that it was possible to do this, that and the other. But what we want to see in the Bill, in the schedule, quite frankly is a reversal of what is there at the moment. It reads very clearly; there is nothing obtuse at all about the drafting; and unless this is what the noble Lord is offering, I do not think we can find it acceptable.
In addition, the Minister said that once abolition had taken place we must give a chance for the new plan. That is so. But what we are arguing about is exactly the point that once abolition has taken place the old plans which have been brought almost up to date should not be dispensed with. There will be enough trouble and chaos without doing that. This is so important that, unless the noble Lord can give the commitment that there will be this insertion in the Bill, I must find the position unacceptable.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: By leave, I cannot understand the problem. If the Secretary of State has under the amendment to give a decision on the old plan, it does not say that he has to approve it. He can approve it or reject it. It only says that he has to give a decision. If he gives a decision and rejects it,. fair enough. Then he starts off with a new one. What I cannot see—perhaps because I am rather stupid about it—is what the problem is.
Lord Skelmersdale: In answer to the noble Baroness, no, most certainly the proposed amendment which I have suggested the Government will put down for the Report stage is based on the situation as it is in the Bill, but will just clarify it. It will, in fact, be a technical and drafting amendment, but it will certainly not have the effect that the noble Baroness has requested.
Baroness Birk: In that case, I must test the opinion of the Committee and I hope that noble Lords will take the point that it really is something that should be in the Bill.
7.2 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 43) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 82; Not-Contents, 111.

DIVISION
NO. 1

CONTENTS

Ardwick, L.

Kagan, L.

Aylestone, L.

Kaldor, L.

Banks, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Beswick, L.

Lawrence, L.

Birk, B.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Blease, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Lockwood, B.

Broadbridge, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Brockway, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Buckmaster, V.

McNair, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Melchett, L.

Collison, L.

Meston, L.

David, B.

Mishcon, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Monkswell, L.

Delacourt-Smith of Alteryn, B.

Monson, L.

Mulley, L.

Denington, B.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Diamond, L.

Nicol, B.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Ogmore, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Oram, L.

Ennals, L.

Phillips, B.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Falkender, B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Falkland, V.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Rea, L.

Gallacher, L.

Rochester, L.

Galpern, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Seear, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Serota, B.

Gregson, L.

Stedman, B.

Grey, E.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Hampton, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L. [Teller.]

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Stone, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hunt, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Tordoff, L.

Jacobson, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Jacques, L.

White, B.

Jeger, B.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Winstanley, L.

John-Mackie, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Barber, L.

Croft, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Davidson, V.

Beloff, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Belstead, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Bessborough, E.

Drumalbyn, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Dudley, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Broxbourne, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Caithness, E.

Elles, B.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Elton, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Chelwood, L.

Ferrier, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Coleraine, L.

Gainford, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Colwyn, L.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Glenarthur, L.

Cornwallis, L.

Gowrie, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Cox, B.

Halsbury, E.

Craigavon, V.

Hardinge of Penhurst, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Craigton, L.

Harvington, L.

404

Henley, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Holderness, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Hood, V.

Rankeillour, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Reigate, L.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Renton, L.

Killearn, L.

Rodney, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Romney, E.

Lane-Fox, B.

Sandford, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Savile, L.

Layton, L.

Shannon, E.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Sharples, B.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Sherfield, L.

McAlpine of West Green, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Somers, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Southborough, L.

Marley, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.

Sudeley, L.

Merrivale, L.

Swinfen, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Mottistone, L.

Trumpington, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Tryon, L.

Munster, E.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Vivian, L.

Norfolk, D.

Ward of Witley, V.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Onslow, E.

Young, B.

Orkney, E.

Young of Graffham, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Skelmersdale: In moving that the House do now resume, I think I should say that it has been agreed that we shall not return to this business until ten past eight. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Representation of the People Bill
7.10 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [Extension of parliamentary franchise]
Lord Tordoff Lord Tordoff moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 36, leave out from ("been") to end of line 37 and insert ("resident in a member state of the European Economic Community other than the United Kingdom".).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment bears on matters which we discussed at an earlier stage of the Bill but I am anxious to ask your Lordships to reconsider the position. We have achieved a situation where British citizens who are employed by the European Community full-time in Europe are now entitled to vote in elections in the United Kingdom. It is our view that although that is a step forward it is still restrictive.
As I think I indicated at earlier stages of the Bill, we should like to see British citizens throughout the world allowed to vote because it is on the basis of citizenship and not necessarily residence that the vote should be

405
granted. There are already as we know parts in the Bill which allow people to do this only if they give an undertaking that they will return to this country at some later stage. I do not want to rehearse again the arguments about those people who are not, as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon said, tax dodgers but people who are actually doing a good job for this country as salesmen, businessmen or missionaries or in voluntary service overseas, and so on, who still regard the United Kingdom as their home base and who regard United Kingdom politics as being important to them in relation to their pensions, their future and the safety of the world, if you like.
I do not go so far as that in this amendment; but feel that if we believe in the European Community then people of British citizenship who are resident in Europe on a semi-permanent basis—that is to say, people who intend to return eventually but who are for all sorts of reasons resident in Europe for the time being—are entitled to vote and to take part in the political deliberations of this country. It is on that basis that I beg to move this amendment.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, as I think I indicated in Committee, the Government accept that there are powerful arguments for making special arrangements for British citizens in the European Community. The background is—and I think the noble Lord will be aware of this—that the Home Affairs Select Committee of another place recommended an extension of the franchise to all British citizens in the Community who have previously resided in the United Kingdom. The main considerations, for the Select Committee, were that the demand for an extension of the franchise had come mainly from British citizens within the Community, and that common membership of the Community gave British citizens in other member states a closer connection with the United Kingdom than was shared by British citizens elsewhere.
We consulted the political parties on this recommendation in November 1983. The parties varied in their enthusiasm for the principle of extending the franchise, and at that stage it was only the Liberal Party which supported an extension to all 3 million British citizens resident around the world. But not one of the parties, whatever their view on the main issue, thought that if the franchise were to be extended at all British citizens in the Community should have the vote in circumstances where British citizens in other parts of the world should not. It was this factor that lay behind the Government's decision to introduce a Bill giving the vote to British citizens around the world but limited to a period of seven years after departure.
7.15 p.m.
The Government's aim all along has been for the Bill to have the widest possible degree of support by all the parties. We have had to compromise on the extent to which the principle is given effect to make sure the principle itself is established. Although we have some sympathy with the noble Lord's amendment, we are fairly sure it would not command widespread support in another place; and it is surely for another place to
406
have the final say on the way its Members are to be elected. I welcome the spirit in which the noble Lord has moved his amendment, which I know does not go so far as perhaps he and some others of his party would wish it to, but I have to say that I hope he will not press it. If he does, I hope that your Lordships will not support it.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I intended to intervene but I rather assumed that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, would speak and I was giving him the opportunity to speak first.
When we have discussed this matter in the past we have had the prospect held out that if we extended the franchise in the way in which my noble friend has suggested all sorts of tax dodgers and other unsatisfactory people would be enfranchised. Now my noble friend has come forward with a far more limited amendment dealing exclusively with the Community where the same scale of problem clearly does not exist.
With great respect, I find the argument of the noble Lord the Minister singularly unpersuasive. The idea that the other place—I do not want to overstate the argument that he put before the House—is manifestly going to be right on matters of this sort, and that we should adopt an attitude of appropriate humility when discussing these questions, seems to me a rather far fetched proposition.
It could be argued that in the final analysis we are slightly more disinterested than another place. Although I very much welcomed the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, which was carried on the last occasion, it seems to me that the Minister's case today, justifying a position where we would be consciously deciding that people working within the EEC, of which we are a member and which is at the very heart of our foreign and economic policy, should in fact be disfranchised, is one of the least impressive I have heard. That seems highly undesirable and I am bound to say that nothing the Minister has said today has dissuaded me from believing that my noble friend's amendment is entirely right.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, it was extremely courteous of the noble Lord, Lord Hams of Greenwich, to anticipate that I would want to speak before he did. I just wanted to make absolutely sure that the Liberal Party and the SDP were of one mind in this matter, and therefore I waited for his speech. I find that the Alliance is truly an alliance and that they hold the same point of view. I can now reply.
Of course it is for another place rather than this one to have the last word on who should or who should not have the franchise for election to that House. I said "the last word". That does not mean that the opinions of this House are in any way wasted and I am sure that the other place would always respect even on matters of franchise a view expressed in this House. But the whole basis of the way in which we deal hopefully with matters of franchise is one of compromise and discussion between the parties. In another place such discussions did take place. A point of view was put forward on behalf of the official Opposition which was contrary to some of the provisions that now appear in the Bill and that are going through. Both the

407
Government and the official Opposition decided—your Lordships may think very sensibly—to enter upon a compromise arrangement where the best of all worlds was possibly not given the proper emphasis so far as the Government or the official Opposition saw it. But there was a compromise and by that compromise I regard myself as being in honour bound.
Having said that, let me say also why I believe that this amendment is not a good amendment. I said on Second Reading on behalf of my noble friends, and at Committee stage, that it was not right to include under one umbrella people who were not working for the EC—and I especially spoke in favour of that and voted in favour of that in Committee—but who have gone abroad whether to countries of the EC or elsewhere.
I dealt with the various categories that, in frankness, all of us know reside abroad. There are some who do it for very good reason, for medical reasons, and one respects and sympathises with those British citizens who reside abroad for that reason. There are those who do it for trading and industrial reasons, and I have no doubt that that is for the benefit, in many cases, of this country. One respects that category.
I ask your Lordships to bear in mind, in dealing with the EC, that Spain and Portugal are about to enter into its membership. Obviously we will welcome them with open arms on the basis that, happily, certain matters have been cleared up between ourselves and Spain; that has been a very helpful and successful negotiation, I have no doubt. However, particularly when dealing with Spain do I remember that there are many British subjects—I am not sure that we are proud that they are so—who have gone to that country, in order, it is well known, to escape justice in this country.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. I should point out that it has just been announced that a new extradition treaty is being concluded between Spain and this country. Those people to whom the noble Lord so frequently refers in this House will no longer find themselves on the Costa del Sol, or wherever it is they are.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I welcome that intervention, but all of us know that excepted from all extradition treaties are offences which relate to fiscal matters. There are, therefore, many offences which will not come within the purview of an extradition treaty, glad though I am to know that that treaty is going to be signed.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, who is always courteous, for allowing me to intervene. Is the noble Lord seriously suggesting to the House that our decision on this question as to whether to enfranchise many tens of thousands of British citizens living in the EC should be dependent upon what happens to five, six or seven people who may have gone to Spain having committed some fiscal offence, as I think he described it? Is he seriously suggesting that on that argument, and that argument alone we should disfranchise a substantial number of our fellow citizens?
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, one of the mistakes of an intervention—although the noble Lord well knows that I am more than happy always to give way to him, or any other noble Lord—is that sometimes the intervention takes place before the original speaker has a chance of completing the point he was trying to make. I was certainly not limiting what I had to say to seven or eight people. I notice that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, presumably knows these people so well that he was even able to give the number. I was not able myself to say how many such people there were in Spain or elsewhere. I was obviously adding that up in regard to all the EC countries and mentioning Spain as an example only because of the media emphasis on Spain having been used in the past as a retreat for some of the people to whom I referred.
It is not only those people to whom I refer. It is not only those people about whom I would want to use any sort of offensive language. I am resting upon the principle, not only of the agreement which was reached, which in my view binds me, but also on the principle which does not apply, in my view, to those people employed in the EC. It is those people who are resident as a principle in this country, who pay taxes in this country, who are influenced by what happens socially and otherwise in this country by virtue of their residence, who really should, as a matter of principle, be given the vote. There should be an exception to that principle and rule only when people are engaged in the diplomatic service and, therefore, in the service of the United Kingdom and those people we dealt with in Committee, if I remember correctly, on the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Elles.
On the basis, therefore, first, that an agreement, and a sensible one, has been reached between the main parties in another place; secondly, that I believe that the last word ought to be with them and we are dealing with a Bill which has come from the other place; and, thirdly, because of the reasons which I believe actuated the other place, I say that this amendment should not be agreed to.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, that is a most extraordinary argument. I have always understood that in this country all citizens are entitled to vote unless they have the misfortune to be either Peers, lunatics or criminals. Under which category are the people we are now going to exclude to be ranked?
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I am most grateful for the support I have received from these Benches. There are two reasons why I reject the suggestions made by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. First, he does not take into account Clause 2(3)(e), under which people have to make a declaration that they do not intend to reside permanently outside the United Kingdom. I should have thought that the people to whom he refers as evading criminal laws or taxation laws were not likely to sign a declaration saying that they did not intend to reside permanently outside the United Kingdom. I should have thought that that was the reason they had gone there in the first place.
More specifically, from these Benches we must reject what I believe to be the rather sordid compromise that was reached between the Government and what the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon,

409
is pleased to call the official Opposition, by which I presume he means the Labour Party in all its forms in another place. Frankly, if this House has a role it is to question cosy agreements that are reached by political parties that do not necessarily represent the whole of opinion within the country. It is on that basis as much as any—although I know our chances of carrying this amendment are, in the circumstances, very small—that we have a duty on these Benches to say that we are not prepared to deny the rights of British citizens who are doing a job for Britain abroad as well as for themselves. We are not a party to that shabby compromise and, therefore, I feel that we need to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, does he not agree that the old adage of half a loaf being better than no bread is very real in these circumstances? I believe that we won a good battle when we obtained permission for the officials of the Community to have their vote. One recognises the reaction in another place which at the end of the day will and should have the last word. If this amendment has the effect of removing the half loaf that we have, I cannot think that it is a wise way of wanting to use the powers of this House. Even at this late minute, rather than put that at risk by having a vote on the record, it would perhaps be better not to proceed to lose the half loaf that we already have.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his intervention. I understand what he is saying and the dangers to which he refers. But if the status quo ante the amendment is now acceptable to the Government and they are prepared to allow that position to go through to another place, and indeed to support it—because that is the only way that it will get through—and they do not like the position as it would be amended by my amendment, they can revert to the previous position. It would surely be cynical for the Government at this stage to accept the situation as amended by the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, but say that they are not prepared to revert to it if things go further than that. That would be an extremely cynical attitude to take. While I understand the logic of the position of the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, I feel that in the circumstances the danger is considerably less than he fears, and on that basis I propose to take the amendment to a Division.
7.31 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 20; Not-Contents, 99.

DIVISION NO.2

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Hampton, L.

Banks, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L. [Teller.]

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Diamond, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Falkland, V.

Lawrence, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Grey, E.

McNair, L.

410

Ogmore, L.

Tordoff, L. [Teller.]

Rochester, L.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Seear, B.

Winstanley, L.

Stedman, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Hood, V.

Barber, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Beloff, L.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Belstead, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Birk, B.

Lane-Fox, B.

Blease, L.

Layton, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Brockway, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Broxbourne, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Caithness, E.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Merrivale, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Mishcon, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Molson, L.

Chelwood, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Coleraine, L.

Munster, E.

Colville of Culross, V.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Colwyn, L.

Nicol, B.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Cornwallis, L.

Onslow, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Orkney, E.

Cox, B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Craigavon, V.

Rankeillour, L.

Craigton, L.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Croft, L.

Rea, L.

Davidson, V.

Reigate, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Renton, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Renwick, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Romney, E,

Ellenborough, L.

Sandford, L.

Elton, L.

Sharples, B.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Ennals, L.

Southborough, L.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Ferrier, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Galpern, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Swinfen, L.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Gowrie, E.

Trumpington, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Vickers, B.

Greenway, L.

Vivian, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

White, B.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Windlesham, L.

Henley, L.

Young, B.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Young of Graffham, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
7.39 p.m.
Baroness Elles Baroness Elles moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 37, at end insert —
("(e) the person is the wife or husband of a person referred to in paragraph (d) above, is a British citizen, is resident outside the United Kingdom and satisfies the conditions set out in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) above.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this modest little amendment is really an addendum to the amendment which was adopted in Committee giving the right to British officials in Community institutions to vote. Referring back to the previous amendment, I would point out to your Lordships that these votes are not only for another place; they are also for the European Parliament. This House has just as much right as the other place to decide who votes for the European Parliament or indeed for another place. It so

411
happens that there are three Members of the European Parliament from this House and only one from another place. Thus, if it was a question of numbers, one could say that this House has more right than another place to decide who should vote in European parliamentary elections. To say that it is unconstitutional that this House should have anything to say on the representation of the people is an extraordinary attitude to take. It is one that I have never heard before, and hope never to hear again.
To come back to my modest little amendment, this refers to the amendment giving the right to British officials to vote in both European and national elections regardless of whether or not they had been away from this country for five years. As I indicated before that amendment was adopted by your Lordships, it did not include the right of spouses of such officials to vote; so this amendment merely enables the British spouses of British officials in the Community institutions to have that right.
I accept that the amendment may be badly drafted. If that is the case, of course I shall be prepared to withdraw it on the understanding that the Government will be prepared to redraft it in the same spirit and within the same parameters, to be adopted on Third Reading.
I press the Government very seriously to consider urging their colleagues in another place that this amendment should be adopted, coming from your Lordships' House. It is frankly nonsense to say that this House has no right to give any guidance to another place on who should vote, particularly in relation to the European parliamentary election. I should point out that it will be only British officials in the Community insititutions who will not have the right to vote in European parliamentary elections, subject to the five-year limit, if this amendment is not adopted in another place. Thus, I urge the Minister to use all his energy and powers of advocacy to persuade the Secretary of State in another place, and the Government, to adopt it.
I should also ask the noble Lord opposite whether his party in another place will accept this amendment, or whether they will vote against it. I hope that noble Lords in this House who are Members of the Opposition will make sure that their votes in this House will be reflected in another place. I beg to move.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I hope that the strictures, always mildy given by the noble Baroness, about those who said that it was completely unconstitutional for matters of franchise to be dealt with in this House, were not applied to me. I made it absolutely clear that, whereas I thought that it was constitutionally possible and perfectly proper, my only comment was that in my view the last word in regard to elections to that body should remain with that body, and I used the words deliberately.
I have only this comment to make on the amendment. It seems to me to be perfectly logical and proper, in view of the amendment that was passed at the Committee stage in regard to officials of the EC, that their husbands or wives (as the case may be) should be included in the franchise. At Committee
412
stage I expressed a view on a matter which, as I understood it, had not been considered in the other place. I took a view on behalf of my noble friends, or of such of those who wanted to support me, and I said at that time that I did not think that that view was contrary, so far as I knew, to any policy that had been expressed by my party. In the light of the noble Baroness's question to me, I repeat those words.
However, as I said, the matter has not been tested. I cannot speak for the Opposition—the official Opposition, I repeat—in another place, and I merely record that I myself see this as a logical and proper amendment following upon what was passed at the Committee stage.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I hasten to say that this amendment has our full support. Nothing that I said on the last amendment detracts from our support for the original amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, at the Committee stage, or for this amendment which goes with it. We certainly wish it well. We very much hope that the Government will give the noble Baroness the assurances for which she is asking. Like her, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, will use his good offices with what I should prefer to call the "paid" Opposition in another place.
Lord Home of the Hirsel: My Lords, I regret that I had to be absent at the previous stages of this Bill. Therefore, I am obviously more ignorant than I should be. For the record, I wonder whether my noble friend Lady Elles, or the Minister, can help me. Representa-tions have been made to me that if my noble friend's amendment is carried NATO employees would find themselves at a disadvantage. Am I right in thinking that because NATO officials are employed directly by Her Majesty's Government their position will not be at all adversely affected by this amendment? If my noble friend or the Minister can help me on that matter, I shall be grateful.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, when the House is as empty as it is at the moment I should never think it appropriate to raise the temperature on such a Bill as this, which, apart from our differences on the last amendment, is not appropriate for normal party strife. In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, who asked about the position of the Opposition in relation to her amendment, I should like to say that it has our warm and enthusiastic support. I am glad to be able to reassure her that the Social Democratic and Liberal Parties will vote for it enthusiastically in the House of Commons.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I do not think I shall accept my noble friend's invitation to discuss again some parts of the first amendment except to say that when she reads the record she will note that my words were that another place should have a final say. However, relating to this particular amendment, I must say that the Government fully accept that if it is decided to give the vote to Community officials then their spouses should also have the vote. All I have to say now to my noble friend is this. As she is aware, the amendment now before your Lordships does not have quite the effect that I believe she wants it to have.

413
Therefore, perhaps I may suggest that she withdraws the amendment on the understanding that we put the matter right at Third Reading.
It may be convenient if I add that, although the amendments carried at the Committee stage were not defective, on reflection we believe that there is probably a better way of giving effect to the principle that lies behind them, and we shall also be preparing Third Reading amendments which, if your Lordships agree, will replace those which were moved by my noble friend at the Committee stage. I hope that that will be acceptable to her.
My noble friend Lord Home asked about NATO. So far as officials of NATO are concerned, my noble friend's amendment would not cover them. As far as I know, it has not been suggested elsewhere or in your Lordships' House that NATO officials should have the vote in the same way as officials will have it now as a result of my noble friend's amendment. We do not think that it would be possible to go further. It introduces many difficulties about where one actually draws the line. One can think of the British Council, and others. I hope that that answer to my noble friend Lord Home at least sets the scene for the record in the way that he asked.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, with regard to NATO officials, I had always understood that they were either officials employed by the United Kingdom Government, where they were British citizens, or indeed they were members of the armed forces. However, in view of what my noble friend the Minister has said, which I do not find very reassuring, I should like to make further inquiries, and, if necessary, look at this particular aspect again on Third Reading. I do not think my noble friend Lord Home is entirely satisfied. However, perhaps before I say anything further my noble friend may like to say a further word.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I think that I said that it had not cropped up before. I shall have to seek advice on this and I am subject to correction, but, as I understand it, as it has not been raised before, it is probably better if I take it away and consider it. I shall, of course, write to my noble friend and to my noble friend Lady Elles and put a copy of the letter in the Library.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Home, has raised this issue, and given the fact that Third Reading is the final stage of the Bill so far as this House is concerned and we shall not then be able to return to the issue, would it be possible for the noble Lord to let us know—those of us who have participated in the debate, including, I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Home—what is the Government's view of this matter certainly a few days before we come to the Third Reading of the Bill?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall certainly copy correspondence to all those who have taken part.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, in view of the undertaking of my noble friend the Minister that there will be a redrafting of my amendment in the same spirit as the draft and similarly that the amendment that was adopted at Committee stage will be redrafted but that it will still include everyone now in the Bill—that is, that all those now employed by the European Community institutions will still be included in a redraft—I am willing to withdraw the amendment.
I would press my noble friend to do all that he can to make sure that the Government support the amendment, particularly in view of the many letters and representations that I had from officials on returning to the European Parliament last week following the adoption of the previous amendment. Regardless of party, the amendment was received with great jubilation and a feeling of great gratitude towards your Lordships' House as the House that had considered their position. Otherwise, they would have been the only officials in the institutions without the right to vote in either national or European Parliament elections. With those words, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Tordoff Lord Tordoff moved Amendment No. 3:
Before Clause 20, insert the following new clause:
("Reduction of minimum age requirement for parliamentary candidates.
. In section 7 of the Parliamentary Elections Act 1695 (no person aged under twenty-one years to be capable of being elected a Member of Parliament) for the words "one and twenty" there shall be substituted the word "eighteen".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we discussed at Committee stage an amendment similar to the next amendment to this. It would therefore be helpful to the House, I believe, if we discussed Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 together.
Amendment No. 4: Before Clause 20, insert the following new clause:
("Reduction of minimum age requirement for local authority candidates.
.In section 79(1) of the Local Government Act 1972, for the words "twenty-one years" there shall be substituted the words "eighteen years".").
The amendments touch on the same principle although one relates to parliamentary elections and the other to local government elections. The objection of the Minister, as I understood it, was that there was very little evidence of pressure for reduction in the age of candidature from 21 to 18. I find that difficult to believe. From a speech already quoted, I believe, I have culled some additional words. I quote:
"I have been made aware of the long-standing Young Conservative interest in having the qualifying age for election to public office reduced to 18".
Those are the words of the right honourable gentleman the Home Secretary in a speech to the Young Conservative conference in Scarborough in February 1980. The final paragraph of the speech reads:
"In my view the case for changing the law is a strong one. I find it difficult to see why young people who are entitled to vote and are regarded as full citizens should not be allowed to present themselves to their fellow citizens for election to office".
I do not think I could have put the statement more clearly myself. It is illogical to have a situation where the decision-making process is given to people at 18 but that the people over whom the decision is made are not allowed to present themselves to the electorate until they are 21. This is a simple straightforward amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, in all deference, it is one of the privileges of those who do not have responsibility either for the Government or for the Opposition to bring forward adventurous and sometimes extremely worthy resolutions and amendments. If one has responsibility either in Government or in an Opposition that hopes to be the Government, then one obviously has to say that despite the many worthy arguments to support the proposition that those who have the vote should have the right to sit—a proposition for which, speaking personally, I have the greatest sympathy—responsibility points to the matter not being incorpo-rated in this Bill in this House in this way.
Responsibility dictates that there should be proper discussions upon matters of this kind between the Government and all other parties democratically represented in the other place and that those discussions should take place, one hopes, in an atmosphere of common sense with all the arguments being advanced and possibly a proper arrangement then being reached so that one can deal with such an important constitutional matter upon an agreed party basis.
No such discussions have so far as I know been set up by the Alliance in another place. There have been no arrangements made for meetings to be held to discuss these matters. It is therefore quite wrong, in my respectful submission, for an amendment sensibly to be brought before the House at this stage. However, I do hope—I say this with every sense of responsibility—that the points that have been raised perfectly properly by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, will indeed form the subject matter of consultations that may well take place in the future. After those consultations, decisions can be taken—but not in this House this evening.
Lord Sudeley: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 were put down separately. However, the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, said that he would like them to be taken together. I shall speak to both, although I shall put my remarks in two different pockets, the first pocket being the first amendment relating to candidates between the ages of 18 and 21 being able to stand at parliamentary elections. When I raised the question of local authority elections at the Committee stage, the Minister said that there was not much support for anything of this kind in another place. Given that local authority and parliamentary elections come under the same umbrella, I should like to call attention to an Early Day Motion in another place signed by a number of honourable Members which calls for:
"The age at which a person may stand for public office to be brought into line with that at which Parliament has deemed them fit to vote and further recognises that the real power in any election will still be the ability to choose and not the possibility of being chosen".
416
It is worth remarking that one of the signatories of the Early Day Motion is a member of the Home Affairs Select Committee.
In addition to support in another place, young members' groups of all the major parties are looking to us to put through this amendment. I have received a document from the national Young Conservatives which says:
"If necessary we are prepared to lobby on behalf of participation of Young Conservatives in council affairs".
They go on to say:
"It is in the best interests that Conservative candidates are representative of the electorate".
Although the arguments refer here to council candidates, they are sound.
With other countries of the Commonwealth, we owe a common allegiance. If, as a development from Empire, the Commonwealth is not the fiction that it is sometimes held to be, it is worth bearing in mind that in two countries of the Commonwealth, Australia and Canada, candidates are eligible to stand for election at 18.
I should like to deal with the arguments put forward by the Minister at Committee stage in regard to local authority elections. They seem rather curious and unsatisfactory. As the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, has said, the Home Secretary agreed in 1980 that people should be able to stand for parliamentary election or public office between the ages of 18 and 21. The Minister said that he would look into the matter, and write to me. I now see the possible error of my ways in not pressing the matter to a Division then because when the Minister wrote he did not change his position.
The first argument that the Minister produced in Committee on 16th April was that those people between the ages of 18 and 21 need to gain more experience before standing as candidates. This argument is surely self-defeating. Those between the ages of 18 and 21 are already adjudged experienced enough to vote, and there should be no distinction between their capacity to judge a candidate by voting and their capacity to be judged as candidates.
8 p.m.
The second argument adduced by the Minister at the Committee stage on my amendment on local authority elections was that those between the ages of 18 and 21 have more pressing demands on their time than to be able to stand for election. This surely is a curious argument. If all over the age of 21 are able to stand, only a tiny minority—it must be less than 1 per cent.—do stand, and the logic of the Minister's argument surely is that there is no need for anyone over the age of 21 to stand for election as 99 per cent. of the electorate seem to have more pressing claims on their time.
The third argument that the Minister used was that he has only received occasional letters on the matter of local authority elections. How many letters are usually received on matters to do with amendments raised in this House and how does that figure compare with the

417
very few letters which the Minister said had been received on this particular issue?
The fourth argument of the Minister was that there had been no demand for a change in the law on this matter. However, I do not think that the Minister clarified the distinction between apparent and real demand. There was no apparent demand for votes for those between the ages of 18 and 21 when such voting was accorded in 1969; yet during the debate which preceded the Representation of the People Act 1969, providing for the vote for those between the ages of 18 and 21, a Member of another place said:
"There has not been much pressure for votes at 18. Indeed, there is no sign of the Strangers' Gallery bursting at the seams to hear what we are discussing".
Yet, my Lords, what happened at the last election?—hundreds and thousands between the ages of 18 and 21 voted; and I understand that the majority voted Conservative. So much for the arguments of the Minister in Committee which were against my amendment.
I thought that I would go a stage further and show that the Minister had produced an argument for my amendment. The Minister said:
"I accept the noble Lord's point that it is for the electorate to decide … whether or not they wish to vote for a person of any age. Of course I accept that argument".—[official Report, 16/4/85; col. 683.]
To conclude, bearing in mind first the words of the Home Secretary in 1980 to which the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, referred, and secondly the Minister's statement at the Committee stage that it is for the electorate to decide whether or not they wish to vote for a person of any age, I hope that the Minister will reconsider this amendment.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: My Lords, I should like to say a few words on this matter. I know that the House wants to get on with the Bill which we have been discussing this afternoon, but I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, that this is not a matter for this House. As the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, said, it may be illogical that if one has the right at the age of 18 to vote for candidates for Parliament, one should not also have the right to stand as a candidate for Parliament. However, I do not agree. It may be illogical from the point of view of a computer but we are human beings. When I was 18 I was still at school and would have been absolutely appalled if I had found myself in Parliament. I would have been completely ignorant and completely at a loss. I do not think that it is practicable.
As we all know, the younger Pitt was Prime Minister at the age of 23, but in those days universal suffrage did not exist. The only matters with which governments were concerned were foreign affairs and defence; they were hardly concerned with anything else. We cannot compare William Pitt being Prime Minister at the age of 23 with a man or woman being Prime Minister at the age of 23 now. It would be quite absurd.
As we all know, government is now extremely complex. To a certain extent the same is true of local government. A councillor, particularly in a large
418
metropolitan council, has to deal with millions and millions of pounds. How can a young man of 18, 19, 20 or even 25—I would go as high as that—understand that? I am all for young people—I have been treasurer of boys' clubs and have been a member of the executive of boys' clubs for many years. However, I could not support this amendment; I should like to support it, but to be practical I cannot.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I too cannot support this amendment. Although a young person at the age of 18 probably has the experience to judge whether another is suitable to represent him in Parliament, I doubt whether anyone at the age of 18 actually has the experience to serve in Parliament. It must be borne in nind that when the voting age was dropped from 21 to 18 Peers who had reached the age of 18 but who had not yet reached the age of 21 were still, and still are, excluded from serving in Parliament.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, when the matter of the amendment of my noble friend Lord Sudeley—the second amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, suggested that we could take with his amendment—was raised at the Committee stage, I undertook to write to my noble friend Lord Sudeley when I had had a chance to look into the points that he raised. My noble friend quoted a speech—indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, mentioned it again tonight—given by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary when he was Minister of State with responsiblility for electoral matters in 1980. It is no secret that the Government have in the past given careful and indeed sympathetic consideration to this issue, on which a recommendation was made by the Speaker's Conference of 1973–74. It is equally no secret that, in all the circumstances, it was decided not to proceed with a reduction in the minimum age, and the Government gave an answer to this effect in another place on 16th February 1984. The Government detect absolutely no enthusiasm among the general public or from young people themselves for a reduction in the minimum age either for parliamentary or for local government candidates.
I was asked about the question of numbers. I can say that we have received fewer than half-a-dozen letters on this subject. I can also say that we have received far fewer letters than we have received on other electoral issues, such as the extension of the franchise, the deposit, absent voting, and so on. I hope that that puts other people's general views into context.
The consequence of reducing the minimum age would be to give the electorate a message that we wished to encourage young people of 18, 19 and 20 to stand for public office. I fully accept the intention on their part to stand, but I also entirely agree with my noble friends Lord Massereene and Ferrard and Lord Swinfen. I believe that membership of Parliament or of a local authority surely calls for more maturity than young people of that age group are likely to have. My noble friend Lord Sudeley repeated an argument which was advocated by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, in Committee, suggesting that the voter should choose. That is all very well, but one can take that to a logical

419
conclusion, which is that it is an argument for no restrictions at all on the right to stand.
I am sorry, but this is an issue which we have considered carefully. It is a change which, to my mind, would be undesirable. Having said that, I do not think that I can repeat the arguments that I put forward in Committee, and I hope that both the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, and my noble friend Lord Sudeley will not press their amendments.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I am grateful to those noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. It is strange, is it not, that we reduce the age of majority to 18 and allow people to do all sorts of things save only to stand for public office. To hear some of the arguments one would think that Parliament and the local councils are going to be flooded with 18-year-olds. The noble Lord the Minister in his wisdom and knowledge says that these people are not mature enough to stand. My belief is that that is something which should be tested by the electorate—the electorate now entitled to vote at 18 years of age.
In International Youth Year, if we are serious about the principles which relate to that great event, particu-larly those relating to participation, it seems to me that this is an important gesture that the Government ought to be willing to make. I feel strongly on this subject and so do my noble friends, and we shall seek to test the feeling of the House.
8.11 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 3) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 22; Not-Contents, 78.

DIVISION NO. 3

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Banks, L.

McNair, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Mayhew, L.

Diamond, L.

Monkswell, L.

Falkland, V.

Ogmore, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Rochester, L.

Grey, E.

Seear, B.

Hampton, L.

Stedman, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Sudeley, L. [Teller.]

Kilmarnock, L.

Tordoff, L. [Teller.]

Lawrence, L.

Wilson of Langside, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Barber, L.

Colwyn, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Cornwallis, L.

Beloff, L.

Cox, B.

Belstead, L.

Craigavon, V.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Craigton, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Croft, L.

Broxbourne, L.

Davidson, V.

Caithness, E.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Elles, B.

Chelwood, L.

Elton, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Faithfull, B.

Coleraine, L.

Ferrier, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

420

Gibson-Watt, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Onslow, E.

Gowrie, E.

Orkney, E.

Gray of Contin, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Greenway, L.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Henley, L.

Reigate, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Renton, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Renwick, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Romney, E.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Sandford, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Southborough, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Layton, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Swinfen, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Trefgarne, L.

Merrivale, L.

Trumpington, B.

Mersey, V.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Molson, L.

Vivian, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

White, B.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Windlesham, L.

Munster, E.

Young, B.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Young of Graffham, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
[Amendment No. 4 not moved.]
8.19 p.m.
Schedule 4 [Miscellaneous amendments of the principal Act]:
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 37, line 34, after ("(5)") insert ("for").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 5, 6, 7 and 8 are all technical amendments making minor changes in the provisions of The Representation of the People Act 1983. I beg to move Amendment No. 5.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 37, line 34, leave out from ("onwards") to end of line 35 and insert ("there shall be substituted the words "and a district council or London borough council may assign officers to assist in carrying out all or any of those duties."").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 38, line 11, leave out from beginning to ("Subsection") in line 12 and insert—
("(d) for subsections (4) and (5) there shall be substituted—
"(4) It shall be the duty

(a) in England and Wales, of a district council or London borough council, and

(b) in Scotland, of the council of a region or islands area,

to assign such officers to assist the registration officer as may be required for carrying out his functions under this Act.
(5) ").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 5 [Repeals]:
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 53, leave out lines 25 and 26.
On Question, amendment agreed to.

Local Government Bill
8.20 p.m.
House again in Committee.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 43ZA:
Before Clause 5, insert the following new clause:
("Action Areasa.
From the abolition date, applications for planning permission for the development of land within any Greater London Council Action Area shall be determined by each local planning authority in the Area in consultation with any other authority in the Area and with local associations and community groups, and where it is considered by any such authority to conflict with or prejudice the implementation of the Action Area Plan the authority dealing with the application shall hold a local public inquiry, and all local planning authorities concerned shall have regard to the outcome of the local planning inquiry.").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move the amendment standing in the name of my noble friend Lady Birk as it appears on the Marshalled List. I would draw the attention of the Committee to the rubric "Action Areas". This in my view merits the serious attention of the Committee, and it would be helpful if I read the amendment in full.
(" . From the abolition date, applications for planning permission for the development of land within any Greater London Council Action Area shall be determined by each local planning authority in the Area in consultation with any other authority in the Area and with local associations and community groups, and where it is considered by any such authority to conflict with or prejudice the implementation of the Action Area Plan the authority dealing with the application shall hold a local public inquiry, and all local planning authorities concerned shall have regard to the outcome of the local planning inquiry.").
The Covent Garden area I think, with no modesty whatsoever, could be looked upon as one of the world's greatest success stories of urban renewal. There is not a harsh word said about the manner in which certainly the authorities concerned, with the assistance of the GLC, have wrought a wonderful change, whereas in many other parts of the country, where in actual fact there have been major changes and the removal of a once busy part of a city to somewhere else, it is left in somewhat of a sad state. I do not think in actual fact that that can be said about Covent Garden.
The purpose of this amendment is to highlight the Bill's lack of provision for unified planning and development of this key part of central London, which will be vulnerable to disagreements between Camden and Westminster, and to install a machinery that will ensure the implementation of the action area plan.
Following the adoption of the Covent Garden action area plan in 1978, the Greater London Council has been the local planning authority for this area. The GLC has been concerned with ensuring a balanced mix of public and private housing, commercial and light industrial, and social and leisure projects. It has
422
also managed the central market complex and acquired a major property portfolio.
Covent Garden as a large scale urban renewal project has been accepted as a major success for London in both social and financial terms. This far, 500 dwellings have been completed or arc under construction; 4,000 extra jobs have been created; the central market building has been acclaimed as both an economic and a design success; the GLC property holdings in Covent Garden have substantially increased in value, and the council have adopted socially based rent policies towards certain categories of shops in order to promote retail diversification in the area.
There now exists considerable speculative private redevelopment pressure to take advantage of the GLC's commercial successes and consequential increases in land and rental values in this area. This requires a consistent approach in making decisions on planning proposals to ensure the area's continued development.
Contrary to Sir George Young's assertion in the Commons Committee stage that the role of the GLC in Covent Garden was coming to a close and That the development was largely completed, the 10-year action area plan continues. The central market building and part of the piazza have been built, but the planned resident population target of around 1,200 people is still unachieved, mainly because of Government cutbacks on resources for public sector housing. A highly developed consultative machinery exists in Covent Garden involving the GLC, the Covent Garden Forum and the Covent Garden Community Association, tenants' groups and employers' organisations.
In the Commons Committee stage Sir George Young claimed that no representations had been received from groups in the area. However, both the Covent Garden Forum and Covent Garden Community Association have written to the Department of the Environment expressing their concern at the Government's proposals to transfer responsibilities for implementation of action area proposals and the planning of Covent Garden to the boroughs of Westminster and Camden.
The boroughs of Westminster and Camden are known to disagree on major policy issues, such as the provision of public housing, studio and office uses, car parking and public ownership of commercial assets. It is feared that the real policy decisions by either authority would damage existing achievements at Covent Garden and upset the balance of social and commercial objectives currently pursued. It would certainly be inappropriate for these two dissimilar boroughs to deal with planning matters in this area without adequate consultation both with each other and with local community groups.
This amendment proposes a consultation procedure between the boroughs and the local associations and community groups for development, and where the proposals are deemed as conflicting with or prejudicing the action area plan, the holding of a local public inquiry. It is only through such a mechanism

423
that the substantial achievements which the GLC has produced in the area can be maintained and built upon.
That is how we see it from this side of the Committee. We may have it wrong. We are certainly anxious to be assured by the Minister that the procedures and provisions of the Bill will obviate these kind of worries which I do not raise in an alarmist way but which the Minister may be able to tell us are needless and unfounded. I beg to move.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I wish to oppose this amendment. As the noble Lord, Lord Graham, has said, there is already a very adequate consultative machinery there. Any suggestion of having public inquiries at the drop of a hat, which this amendment would do, would do nothing but place a dead hand on the progress that I believe is going on and will continue to go on in the Covent Garden area. I do not think this is a positive amendment, and I ask the Committee to reject it.
Lord Skelmersdale: I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Graham, and my noble friend Lady Gardner that I, too, am a fan of Covent Garden. My only regret is that the price of tickets at the Opera House is often higher than my pocket can stand.
Turning to this amendment, Covent Garden is the only GLC action area plan actually in operation, and although there are others in process, as the noble Lord, Lord Graham, has explained, they will not be complete by the abolition date. More generally, on this amendment, there are already under the planning system and as amended by this Bill adequate provisions; for example, in Article 15 of the general development order which I mentioned in Committee the other day. Anyone, whether an individual member of the public or a community group or any other body, has access to the planning register which every London borough and district council must keep. Of course, they are perfectly at liberty to inspect and comment on the applications listed there.
Secondly, a local authority has to advertise any applications which constitute departures from the development plan unless they propose to refuse them, and they must consider any objections which they receive as a result, whoever the objections may come from. Thirdly, many sorts of developments must be publicly advertised by the applicant before the local planning authority will determine the application, and again the authority must consider any representations they receive in consequence.
Going back to action areas generally, or rather the specific action area in Covent Garden, the noble Lord may not know that in 1982 the GLC agreed with the London Boroughs Association that when the London planning regulations were revised—a revision obviously no longer appropriate in view of this Bill—they should cease to be the local authority for the area. Moreover, they agreed at that time that responsibility for development control should revert to Camden and Westminster, and this is the current proposal. This is what I expect to happen.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I am grateful to the Minister for the care that he has obviously taken with that reply. The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, rests the case for no change in the future, despite the change in status in the plan, on the fact that things have been managed well so far. The Minister tells us that, although there is a radical change—we were seeking to perpetuate the good manner in which it has been managed up to now by the GLC as the local planning authority—he wanted to ensure that there was some mechanism in case there was a breakdown in interpretation and so on. I take what the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, says. We do not want local public inquiries at the drop of a hat. I am absolutely certain that Camden would not want it—there is doubt in the face of the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes—and I imagine that Westminster would not want to rush into it. There would be the maximum collaboration possible, because no one wants to waste money, not deliber-ately, on needless public inquiries.
I did not appreciate that the GLC had, as it were, if not seen into the future, recognised that at some stage it would cease to be the local planning authority for the revision of the plans. In that circumstance the authority for planning would revert to the two former authorities. On the basis that they recognise that that was what they would agree to before, one should be puzzled as to why they are concerned now. There are perhaps some facts that I have to ascertain, revise or rephrase if I need to return at a later stage. I am grateful to the Minister for explaining the matter. I shall read carefully what he has said and, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 [Listed buildings, conservation areas and ancient monuments]:
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran moved Amendment No. 43A:
Page 3, line 25, after ("areas") insert ("including Holland Park,")
The noble Lord said: With the leave of the Committee, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 43B, 53A, 58B 74A:
Amendment No. 43B: Page 3, line 26, after ("subjects") insert ("including Holland Park")
Amendment No. 53A: Clause 6, page 3, line 36, after ("Council") insert ("save that functions relating to Holland Park shall be transferred to the Department of the Environment")
Amendment No. 58B: Schedule 3, page 98, line 27, at end insert ("or in the case of Holland Park the Department of the Environment." ")
Amendment No. 74A: Clause 13, page 9, line 41, at end insert ("or, in the case of Holland Park, the Department of the Environment".")
I have spoken to the Minister about these and I have also spoken before about the subject matter of these amendments. Before the Minister for the Arts leaves the Committee, the subject is Holland Park, an historic park. I am grateful to the Minister for retracing his steps. I am asking that Holland Park

425
should have the special consideration of the Government in view of its historic position.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Arts (The Earl of Gowrie): I am not responsible for historic parks: they are the responsibility of my noble friend Lord Elton.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: I am sorry, I misunderstood that.
Lord Elton: I am going to stay!
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: Thank you very much indeed for that very helpful interruption. The other night I spoke at some length and told the Committee about the history of Holland Park—I shall not repeat that—and how it is a beautiful park, full of horticul-tural subjects of great interest, including 3,000 different shrubs and trees. It is a tourist attraction and therefore the public at large come to it. It is not merely a park associated with Kensington. It is not a municipal park.
The other night I was specifically concerned about what should be the position of the planning authority. My last amendment then was concerned to try to persuade the Government that the planning authority should be the Department of the Environment because that department looks after Royal Parks. I read a letter from a Member of this House, Lord Hurcomb, saying that Holland Park was run more or less as a Royal Park. Obviously it is not a Royal Park but it has been looked after by the GLC as carefully and helpfully as if it were a Royal Park. It is a greatly attractive area and requires special consideration.
These amendments are probing amendments, but the Committee will note that Clause 5 refers to listed buildings, conservation areas and ancient monuments. If Holland Park were a conservation area then its functions and care would be transferred as a result of Clause 5(a) to the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England. If a national park were accepted as being a conservation area under Clause 5 that Commission would be empowered to look after it. I cannot say whether it is a conservation area: no doubt the Minister will tell me. I am delighted that the chairman of the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission has been good enough to attend the debate this evening.
This clause governs "certain related subjects": what does that mean as regards Holland Park? Related to what? Is it related in any way to listed buildings? Obviously there may be listed buildings in Holland Park. Is it related to conservation areas? I have dealt with that. Is it related to ancient monuments? There are some very old houses there, but I do not know whether they would be called ancient monuments. In dealing with ancient monuments, as we shall later in the Bill, I shall be reminding the Committee, if it is necessary to do so, of the debates we had about ancient monuments some time ago when the noble Earl, Lord Avon, was dealing with them and giving grants to
426
ancient monuments. I pointed out at that time that ancient monuments should include field monuments which are still underground and have been discovered as a result of aerial photography. The results of aerial photography have transformed the history of European archeology as well as that of Britain. I am assuming therefore that there may be field monuments. I do hope that the noble Earl, Lord Avon, is progressing favourably because we miss him so much in this House.
If Holland Park is a conservation area or is related to any of the subjects, I should be happy, because the Kensington Society, for which I am speaking—I have no other interest in Holland Park except as a member of the public—has for many years been looking after the area and is keen that Holland Park should be treated differently and not go back to a borough council for its care and protection.
So much for the amendments dealing with Clause 5. If I fail with my submissions on Clause 5 at this stage (and I presume I will), I shall come to Clause 6 and ask myself, does Schedule 3 cover the position of Holland Park? Schedule 3 is supposed to have effect for transferring functions relating to the national parks and the countryside. Is Holland Park a national park? Should it be a national park? Should it be considered as part of the countryside? Perhaps the argument that it is part of the countryside is a little far-fetched in relation to Holland Park but the word "countryside" has a wide implication. Therefore if Holland Park falls into the phrase "national park and the countryside" then under Clause 6 it would be bound to fall to the borough council of Kensington to look after it. If Holland House falls within the phrase, "national parks and the countryside", then my amendments say that the transfer, on the abolition of the GLC, to the London borough councils and the Common Council of the City of London should not deal with Holland Park and therefore it should not be transferred to the boroughs or to the Common Council.
In passing, I would say that I should be happy for Holland Park to be transferred to the Common Council, which runs the City of London and a number of large countryside areas in and on the fringe of London; but I have not had the opportunity of consulting with the Common Council to know whether they would take it on. Of course, as a Freeman of the City of London, having some knowledge of how the Common Council works, it may be that the Minister will be able to tell us that they would not take it on.
It is part of my submission that Holland Park requires special consideration and should not go hack to the borough council for its care and attention. In my submission, it should go either to the Department of the Environment and be dealt with as the Royal parks are dealt with (but not necessarily be called a Royal park), or else be dealt with by the historic commission or by some other special means. I have heard rumours that the position relating to Hampstead Heath in some respects is similar to that of Holland Park. Hampstead Heath, I understand, without any further amendment of the Bill, will be dealt with by three borough councils. That will cause difficulties and there is a great deal of anxiety about it. In my view, therefore, the

427
sympathy of the Government should lie in doing something about Holland Park other than giving it back to the borough councils.
When last I spoke on this matter, the noble Lord the Minister was kind enough to say that he shared with me my admiration for Holland Park. I am asking him whether he can this evening go that little bit further and help me. Can he say that it is a conservation area? Can he say that it is one of the related subjects? Can he say anything else that would help the Kensington Society and the public to safeguard one of the great heritages of the United Kingdom? I beg to move.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I make just a brief intervention. I have listened very carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, has said. If ever there was a case of special pleading, we have heard it moved most eloquently. He is entitled—
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: With respect, as a lawyer, the words "special pleading" have a significance which I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, does not want to convey. He can use any other adjective, but "special pleading" has a different connotation.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I can assure the noble Lord that the sense of what I wanted to convey was that it was an exceptional circumstance or a case that, if not pleading, he was arguing; in other words, that exceptions should be made to the Bill to take account of specific circumstances. I listened very carefully to what the Minister had to say. I am bound to say that I am not at all moved to have a Bill riddled with taking care of lots of individual illustrations, powerful as they might be. What I believe the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, wants—and I listened to him with care—is an assurance from the Minister that there is no need to be concerned that there will be any change under the new management from the care and concern which now exists. I understand that there are related parts and tracts of London which may be similar and which may have other solutions. I am looking forward to the Minister being able to satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, that there is no need for the Bill to be altered in that way.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Elton: The noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, was kind enough to remind your Lordships of some of the things that I said at the earlier stage, as well as those that he said; so I shall not repeat my admiration for Holland Park. I understand that what he is trying to establish is that it is unlike anywhere else. In a sense it is; it is a most remarkable and enjoyable place for people living in that part of London. It is in a conservation area and it contains an ancient listed building—although the only ancient monument there was myself when I used to perambulate! But it is not a conservation area; it is a public park in the ownership of a local authority. It is not a subject related to any of those listed in the paragraph to which the noble Lord's amendment refers; it is a public park
428
in the ownership of a local authority. It is not an ancient monument; it is a public park in the ownership of a local authority. It is not a national park nor is it a part of the countryside; it is a public park in the ownership of a local authority.
As that, it falls into a very large category and it is proposed to deal with it as it is proposed to deal with the whole of this category. I hope that that has disposed of the aspirations of the noble Lord as to the legal interpretation of the Bill and the actual meaning of the category. The noble Lord no doubt will have read again what I said on Tuesday on this very subject and he will see that I have gone as far as I can to guarantee anything that a Government can guarantee about the future care of this public park in the ownership of a local authority when it is transferred to the surviving local authority in the area in which it is located. I have done everything except to say that I shall appoint the park keeper and tell him how to run the place. One must leave something to the people who own it, who will be the local authority. I have a high regard for their ability and their intentions in this respect. There is really nothing I can say to reassure the noble Lord that I have not already said.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: I am obliged to the noble Lord. He has made it perfectly clear that this historic area is owned by the local council, the Kensington Council. May I assume that?
Lord Elton: It is part of the GLC; but, at the abolition, the successor body will be the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: The noble Lord is dealing with the matter as at present. I was not concerned with that. I thought that he was saying that now it is owned by the borough council. What he is saying is that if this Bill goes through, as it is now owned by the GLC it will go to the borough council. I take that position. The GLC has looked after this area very well: it has the resources to do so; it has the expertise to run it. It has available to it resources and expertise which are not at present available to the borough council.
The noble Lord the Minister was good enough on the last occasion that I raised this in Committee (and he has raised it now) to indicate that certain resources will be made available to the borough council in relation to Holland Park. We know nothing about the amount of that resource. We do not know whether it is enough to keep this historic area in the fine condition that it is in now. We do not know. I am not trying to inquire about rate capping or anything like that. The noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, raised this question with the noble Lord; and quite rightly. I am assured by the noble Lord that there will be resources available—we do not know what they are—by way of finance. I do not know, nobody knows, what resources will be available in the way of expertise for these valuable horticultural specimens—over 3,000 of them still in existence. We have no information as to whether that resource will be available.

429
The noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, reminded the Committee at the last stage of some unfortunate things that had happened with regard to listed buildings at the hands of this very council. I do not want to discuss it in any detail.
We are worried, therefore, about the continuity of this historic matter. I will read what the noble Lord the Minister has said in regard to the position of Holland Park. I was very worried as a result of what the noble Lord said at Column 202 on 30th April towards the end of our discussion. Perhaps the noble Lord had been harassed by me a bit too much; certainly, I was pressing him rather hard, and therefore I quite realise that a slip of the tongue can take place. The noble Lord, said to me that night:
"The noble Lord"—
that is me—
"may have some great scheme to entrust every piece of greenery in the whole of the metropolis to the Department of the Environment; I know not. But he put a scheme in his amendments"—
I then went on a little later, as the Committee was getting a bit bored with the discussion—
Lord Elton: Will the noble Lord give way?
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: Yes, most certainly.
Lord Elton: Just in case it should happen again, may I just say that if I were able to substitute—though I cannot of course alter what is already in print—I should substitute for "every piece of greenery", "every public park in the ownership of a local authority", which was a phrase which did not spring in sufficient time to my lips at that moment. That would carry the meaning I intended to give.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: The noble Lord the Minister goes from "every piece of greenery" to a public park but this is 54 acres of historic buildings. We have a little saying in Wales that "a little chink lets in much light" and I rather felt that we ought to get more sympathy than that from the Minister. Before I ask leave to withdraw these amendments, as Holland Park is such an historic area—it is unique in London—I am asking on various grounds that it should be dealt with separately from some municipal park or, to use the words of the noble Lord the Minister, "a piece of greenery". I am asking whether perhaps the noble Lord the Minister would be good enough to receive a deputation from the Kensington Society to discuss this matter a little further.
I have been brought into this, to make these submissions, only recently. I have not been to Holland Park recently to see what the place is like. Therefore, in those circumstances I wonder whether the Government in dealing with a part of the heritage of the United Kingdom in this way would be able, without the noble Lord the Minister committing himself tonight, to consider whether a meeting of that kind would not help the Government. It would certainly help the safeguarding of Holland park and
430
would satisfy a great number of the public that great care will be taken of this unique area.
I do not want to commit the noble Lord to anything tonight. I see that he is getting advice from the noble Viscount the Leader of the House in this matter, quite properly, and who am I to complain if the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, is listening to what I am saying? I hope that I shall get even from the Leader of the House, who comes from the North, an area where a great part of the heritage of this country is to be found, some consideration of a further examination of the position of Holland Park.
Lord Elton: The noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, can scarcely have been brought later into the proceedings than me. I have that in common with him. I am always delighted to see him and I am sure we can discuss the matter at a very early moment.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: I thank the noble Lord the Minister for that, and on that basis I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 43B not moved.]
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 44:
Page 3, line 32, at end insert—
("and
( ) to ensure that adequate funds are made available for archaeological investigations in Greater London after the abolition date.")
The noble Baroness said: This amendment is concerned with the problem of archaeology, and it is to ensure that adequate funds are made available for investigations in Greater London after the abolition date. Archaeology has always seemed to me to be the Cinderella of the historic and ancient services and anything to do with ancient buildings and monuments.
In Greater London, the first unified archaeological service was set up in April 1983, through the initiative and funding of the GLC. It is administered through the Museum of London and the Passmore Edwards Museum. During the consultation before the service was created, nearly all the London boroughs supported the proposals, although a majority had reservations about providing funds. This was at a time when only one-third of the London boroughs made any contribution at all to archaeology; and that figure has probably dropped back considerably.
The London Boroughs Association recognised the inherent difficulties of the alternative scheme, which envisaged a regular contribution from individual boroughs, which of course was not forthcoming. The GLC saw that the rapidly dwindling and irreplaceable archaeological resources for London required an effective integrated service if the archaeological treasures in London were to be found and also preserved. Central resources of administration have already increased the capacity of archaeologists to meet the demands of rescue excavation, and the establishment of the service has now ensured that adequate provision is made to meet an unprecedented

431
number of major developments on key sites in inner London and on the West London gravel programme for 1982–86. Common computerised recording systems have been developed to link the results of archaeological work across Greater London and the City, and conservation environmental services and post-excavation work are beginning to be efficiently co-ordinated. The accumulated backlog of unpublished sites, the legacy of 20 years of ill-funded rescue excavation, which unfortunately is all part of the history of archaeology all over the country, will be dealt with in a properly organised publication programme over the next five years.
The real problem here is that the Bill gives no specific consideration to the provision of archaeological services in Greater London or the metropolitan counties. Several independent archaeological bodies have written to the Secretary of State for the Environment about this, and have received replies saying:
"It is hoped that the needs of archaeology will be borne in mind by the borough councils in considering how they can best co-operate to provide an effective continuation of existing services";
but since it was due to the inability, or in some cases perhaps the unwillingness, of London boroughs to make adequate resources available for archaeology that the GLC initiated the service, it seems highly unlikely that this solution can possibly be a satisfactory one. Indeed, under increasing pressure to curb expenditure it is improbable that those who have been willing to support archaeology in the past will find it possible to justify funding even at pre-1983 levels.
I am bound to say that archaeology will certainly be very low in the financial priorities of most boroughs and districts. Some major sites, particularly those threatened by large-scale gravel extraction, for example, involved the destruction of entire historic landscapes and settlements. On such sites excavation programmes are being planned over periods of three to five years, phased in with development schemes. This of course saves archaeological finds, which otherwise would completely disappear because they would have been built over.
9 p.m.
The GLC's strategic planning role is vital to co-ordinating archaeological work on linear developments such as highways and service routes, and in placing conditions on consents for mineral operations to allow proper advance investigation. The lack of regional perspective in planning and archaeological priorities will be highly damaging and will really mean that we are going to lose irreparably a great deal of our past. In the heavily urbanised areas of inner London it has been estimated that the majority of surviving sites will have been destroyed within the next ten years at present rates of redevelopment. London's archaeological resources are finite and are eroding fast. Most importantly, any irresponsible or negligent attitude taken towards this matter now cannot, as we know, be redressed later. I beg to move.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: May I say very briefly on behalf of my noble friend Lord Evans of Claughton,
432
who unfortunately has not been able to stay tonight, that I strongly support what the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, has said. I should like to mention in passing that, as I said earlier when dealing with another amendment, when we spoke about funding archaeological matters some time ago, when the noble Earl, Lord Avon, was dealing with the matter, archaeological investigations and archaeological funding should be directed to the field monuments, so many of which have been discovered only recently by means of aerial photography, as well as to those monuments which are above ground.
The Earl of Gowrie: The noble Baroness seeks to make it obligatory for my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to provide a particular level of resources to the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission, which may or may not be appropriate. The Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission is committed, I am glad to say—because I share the noble Baroness's interest in and approbation of archaeology in London, and we are joined in that by the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd—to providing financial support for archaeological research and investigation. I am glad, in an ecumenical spirit, to congratulate the GLC for what it has done over the years in this respect.
I do not think that any of us would doubt the importance of that work, which gives a fascinating insight into our past ways of life and the changing patterns of our natural and built environment; and, of course, we want to see it go on. I want to see it go on, confident in the knowledge that this is precisely what the commission intends. I know that the GLC provides considerable financial support for the provision of a permanent staff and organisation for carrying out archaeological work in London, but my noble friend Lord Montagu has agreed that the commission will take on the GLC's responsibilities in this area, both organisational and financial.
The Government have it in mind to introduce proposals to amend the Museum of London Act 1965 in due course, including an extension of the commission's powers to provide funding for this service. The Government have undertaken to reflect this additional responsibility in the annual grant that my noble friend's commission receives. However, I do believe that it would be unjust and inefficient to commit the commission to a given level of expenditure for a given number of years. The GLC is not, after all, constrained in this way: of course it is not. It makes its decisions on how much to contribute not only in competition with all the other demands on its resources—however rather less sensible some of us find some of the other demands to be—but also against an anticipated level of need that is discussed and agreed in detail with the Museum of London. I am sure that the GLC would resent outside interference in this process, and so I think it would be with the commission and my noble friend—and I believe that such resentment would be well founded.
I am glad to say that the Government have given assurances of continuing support from the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for the

433
Greater London archaeology service. I hope that in the light of what I have said, and because I think the noble Baroness will be able to believe that I, like her, am on the side of the angels as well as of the archaeologists, she will not seek to press her amendment.
Baroness Birk: I do not intend to press any of the amendments that I am moving now. I am really concerned about this subject, and I am also trying to get information. I have to remember, too, when listening to the Minister's honeyed words, that he is on the side of the Treasury as well as of the angels.
It seems to me that there is a real problem here: that with all its willingness and, hopefully, efficiency, the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission is really not a body that has been responsible in the past for core-funding of archaeology. It seems to me that the commission has always been much more concerned, just as it was the concern of the old Ancient Monuments Board and the Historic Buildings Council, to deal with projects as they come up. I believe the noble Lord, Lord Montagu, wanted to speak before I wound up. Perhaps I should give way to the noble Lord. I did not notice that he was getting up.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: I am grateful to the noble Baroness. Since this is the first time that I have intervened during this Committee stage, perhaps I should warn your Lordships that I shall be speaking several times on amendments moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Birk. Perhaps, as these amendments do concern the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission, I should now declare an interest as its chairman. Perhaps, too, I might remind the Committee that the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission was set up by an Act of Parliament in 1983 with all-party support in both Houses and with support also from the noble Baroness. We were set up as an independent body. We value our independence, and I think that we shall wish to conserve it. However, it may be helpful to the Committee if I were able from time to time to intervene and express certain views, and give certain information which I believe my fellow commissioners would fully support.
We are not, we have not been and we shall not wish to be politically involved with this Bill, but we have given a firm undertaking to the Government that we are prepared to undertake the responsibilities as laid down in this Bill if Parliament so desires, and will do our best to discharge those responsibilities as best we can.
Turning to Amendment No. 44, the commission is as concerned as anybody that archaeology in London receives an adequate level of funding, and we are already discussing with the department how this can best be achieved. I listened with great interest to what my noble friend Lord Gowrie said about the proposed Bill amending the Museum of London Act. This will be a very sensible way forward, and my commission does not think any problems will arise with regard to looking after archaeology in London adequately.
Baroness Birk: It was very helpful to hear the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Montagu, but perhaps I may put one or two points to the Minister. The GLC's expenditure on the archaeological service in 1984–85 was around £450,000. Is the Minister able to give an assurance that that amount will be available for archaeology for the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission? Secondly, it is important to distinguish between the project funding of individual digs and the core funding for continuing professional services to provide an integrated service. This is where a very deep financial and resource problem arises, when you cannot keep a service of trained, skilled and experienced people going and they then have to melt away. What I am asking for is rather more assurance than I feel I have at the moment. I shall not press this to a Division, but, as I said in moving the amendment, this is not mentioned in the Bill, and I am concerned about the future of archaeology, as are the many bodies that have naturally been in touch with me and with other people.
The Earl of Gowrie: If the noble Baroness will do me the kindness of studying in Hansard tomorrow what I said, she will find that I have been pretty reassuring. Obviously, I have not tied myself to a figure, nor has the GLC or anyone else. But what I have said is that the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission is committed to providing financial support in this field, and that the Government have it in mind to introduce proposals to amend the Museum of London Act 1965, including an extension to the commission's powers to provide funding for this service. What I also said is that the Government have undertaken to reflect this additional responsibility in the annual grant that the commission receives. Even for a soul with a foot in the Treasury, that seems to me to be a fairly positive series of assurances.
Baroness Birk: I thank the Minister for those words, and of course we shall have to wait and see. It depends on what the funds turn out to be and whether they are enough for archaeology, so that money does not have to be stretched away from all the other areas with which the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission is concerned. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 45:
Page 3, line 32, at end insert—
("and
( ) to provide for the continued development by the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission of the computerised sites and monuments record for Greater London maintained at the abolition date by the Greater London Council and of the working and financial arrangements existing at the abolition date between the Greater London Council, the Museum of London and the Passmore-Edwards Museum.")
The noble Baroness said: This amendment is concerned with the computerised sites and monuments record for Greater London. For the future fulfilment of the Greater London Council's historic buildings and archaeological functions, the continuing development of its computerised sites and monuments record is absolutely vital. The importance of the

435
record would be difficult to over-state. It is immensely more comprehensive than anything of the kind previously seen, and it will provide services which no other such record has attempted.
The scale of the project is no greater than the problems of this great city demand, for in its 600 square miles Greater London contains one-tenth of all the listed buildings in Britain, as well as an unparalleled density of conservation areas, sensitive archaeological sites and many thousands of other features of historic significance. The form of the record has grown out of the specific needs of London, based on the extensive experience and detailed knowledge of the council's historic buildings devision, which not only has an enormously high reputation all over this country, but has an international reputation as well.
Although the project was first proposed only two years ago, excellent progress has already been made. Data collection has been in progress for six months and a live system will be ready for testing in another three or four months. Next year, if the work is not interrupted, it will begin to provide a service to all the authorities concerned with historic buildings and archaeology.
Three facts made the development of the record an urgent necessity. First, the records of the historic buildings division have grown in volume and complexity as the activities of the council in this field have developed over the years. Secondly, the council is the inheritor of a vast accumulation of working records arising from 80 years of preservation work, historical research and recording in London. Thirdly, and because of the only recently resolved difficulties of co-ordination, Greater London is one of the few areas in England and Wales which has not hitherto been able to develop a county-based record of archaeological sites and finds which might help to determine priorities in allocating resources as well as providing a research tool for planners, academics and teachers.
The record now in process of creation will integrate information on all aspects of the historical environment including buildings, industrial structures, parks, design, landscapes, and archaeological sites and finds. It will also for the first time make effective monitoring possible, especially in relation to the statutory control of historic buildings. It is rather surprising that, while extensive powers can be exercised over listed buildings, there is no machinery for collecting and analysing information on how these powers have been used and how effectively they are dealing with the identifiable pressure in particular areas. A significant feature of the system is the potential for mutual exchange of information between all these organisations and individuals interested or involved in the areas of knowledge comprehended by the record.
9.15 p.m.
Once the operational needs of the council itself are met, it was intended to provide access to the system in London borough offices and in the museums through their own linked terminals. I must emphasise that concern is felt not merely that this vitally important service should continue to be developed but also that it should not be straitjacketed by any inadequacy of
436
the computer facilities available to the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission or to any other body with which they are concerned. This would indeed, as I am sure they would be the first to recognise, be to waste the effort and skill already invested.
Although, in the light of this Bill, to say that the GLC is at present ideally placed and fully equipped to manage and enrich such a system seems rather extraordinary and goes against what is in the Bill, I think that Parliament and also the people must be assured—because archaeology belongs to the nation as do the historic buildings and ancient monuments—that its successor will also be adequately equipped and committed to the project, because once one is using the benefits of modern technology it would be absolutely disastrous and almost criminal if these were lost. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: The noble Baroness has moved an amendment which I think is probably a probing amendment as it affects the "brass plate" in front of the schedule. Clause 5 introduces the schedule and announces who lives within the front door, as it were, and the noble Baroness wishes to add to the functions of the schedule.
I should like to start by assuring the noble Baroness that the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission already have powers to keep records under the National Heritage Act 1985. They are therefore able to take on the GLC's site and monument records. The GLC is, I believe, justly proud of this record which it has been increasingly committing to computer files. It is at the heart of the activities of the historic buildings division and, like that division's other responsibilities, it will be well taken care of.
The computer on which the record is kept at County Hall will pass in the first instance to the London residuary body until suitable long-term arrangements can be made. Of course the commission will want to develop this record. The Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission are alive to the importance of records, as is the GLC. I do not doubt that the commission will treat the GLC's sites and monuments records in just the way that the noble Baroness would wish them to do. But this is their responsibility and they already have the power. It is not therefore necessary to make statutory provision for the sites and monuments record as the noble Baroness suggests.
As for the arrangements between the Museum of London and the Passmore-Edwards Museum, it is the intention, I understand, of the commission to continue to work with the Museum of London on rescue archaeology in London. The GLC does provide considerable financial support for the provision of permanent staff and organisation for carrying out the archaeological work in London, but my noble friend Lord Montagu has agreed that the commission will take on the GLC's responsibilities in this area; and the noble Baroness discussed it with my noble friend Lord Gowrie a moment ago. If therefore what the noble Baroness wants is a reassurance that what she wishes to happen, can happen, she can have it.
Baroness Birk: I am grateful to the Minister. However, I am still a little worried about the actual system that I a m talking about and the technology involved. We have to look at this in an international as well as a national context. It is quite outstanding. What I should like to know is whether all the machinery, the work, the computers, and so on, is going over to the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission because otherwise, with all the good will in the world, it cannot parallel what is being done by the GLC unless it has the necessary equipment to do it. Perhaps the Minister can advise me on that.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: With the leave of the Committee, perhaps I may be permitted to say that the commission has already agreed to take over the equipment and the staff and will certainly continue to develop it. Moreover, the commission itself has its own computers, the GLC were not the only people to put records on computers. The great thing is to get them integrated and I assure the noble Baroness that we are taking this very seriously.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: May I say that having served as a member of the historic buildings committee I should like to put on record the high
438
opinion that I have of it. I have often said rather harsh things about the GLC but this has always been a most exceptional group.
Lord Elton: May I endorse that?
Baroness Birk: The noble Lord will soon be wondering why he is abolishing the GLC.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Montagu. I was not in any way criticising the commission and I am sure it has some beautiful computers. I am not an expert but what concerns me is whether the quantity and quality of computers will be available to the commission. Those set up by the GLC are of a fairly large order, so I gather, but I do not understand the mechanics and can only speak as I am advised.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: I can assure the noble Baroness that compatibility will be given great importance by the commission in deciding how its computers will be ordered and operated.
Baroness Birk: I hope that when everything is transferred they do not forget to take the computers with them. With what I hope were assurances I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 46:
Page 3, line 32, at end insert—
(" ( ) The Secretary of State for the Environment shall make adequate funds available in each financial year from 1st April 1986 to the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England for the purposes of making listed building repair grants in London for properties not affected by the transfer in section 5(a) above, and the total funding shall, in real terms, be not less than that provided by the Greater London Council and the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission (in London) taken together for this purpose in 1984–85".)
The noble Baroness said: This amendment is concerned with the funds for listed building repair grants in London,
"for properties not affected by the transfer in section 5(a) above".
These are properties which are of special architectural or historic interest and which have been particularly cared for, but they are different from the properties which are in use or are functional for everyday activities. The annual provision for capital and revenue grant over the past three years has averaged £602,000. This money has been carefully directed to obtain maximum advantage over a wide range of repair and restoration activity, ranging from grants of a few hundred pounds in order to reinstate one or two sash windows and restoring the pleasing uniformity of a terrace of houses, up to hundreds of thousands of pounds given to fund-raising campaigns for the repair of monuments of national importance.
Unlike the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission, or its predecessor the Historic Buildings Council, it has not limited its grants solely to repair work but has frequently aided work of purely architectural restoration where there appears to be a measurable gain in terms of public amenity. On reflection, I do not think that is true—my brief does not appear to be quite right.
However, it has in recent years taken a positive approach using the offer of grant to bring about improvements which might not otherwise have occurred and sometimes making problem-solving grants to break deadlocks and initiate desirable repair and restoration works which neither the owner nor any other agency would have been able to set in motion with funds normally available. All of us who have had anything to do with any historic buildings at all know that if the owners themselves will not do anything it is very difficult. Unless there is a body that acts as the GLC has done in the past, a great deal of our built-up or urban heritage will disappear and we just cannot replace those buildings.
The council has also identified areas of particular need—for example, churches and, more recently, theatres—and focused grant resources on those particular types of building. In one of SAVE's publications which appeared only a few weeks ago it pointed out that the very survival of some London churches was a direct consequence of generous grants provided over the past 20 years by the GLC.
The planned abolition probably means that such grants will soon cease to be available, and there is concern that the removal of the major single contributor to grant-making in London must be compensated for. The amendment therefore is designed to give Parliament the assurance that an
440
appropriate level of funding in that area will be maintained. I beg to move.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: I am rather worried about this word "adequate", especially when it comes to money and public funds. Where does it stop? Of course the people who spend public funds are not the people who have created the money that they are spending. I am all for financial support for the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission, but I do not think that it is a very good idea to say, as it does in the amendment:
"and the total funding shall, in real terms, be not less than that provided by the Greater London Council and the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission (in London)".
I was under the impression that one of the reasons why we are doing away with the GLC is that it is too extravagant. If it is extravagant, I am all for it being extravagant over repairing listed buildings; but I think that we have to be careful here because "adequate" is a very broad term.
Lord Melchett: Does not that underline the fears that have been expressed not only on this series of amendments but earlier, and does it not contradict everything that the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, had to say when he spoke from the Front Bench about future funding? If the Government are abolishing the GLC because it is giving too much money to repair and maintain the historic buildings and churches of London, should they not say so instead of just sitting on the Front Bench and smiling and nodding enthusiastically when the noble Viscount says that that is the case? If they are going to let historic buildings in London collapse, should they not have the courage to say so?
Lord Elton: The purpose for which we are abolishing the GLC is not that it is giving too much money for repairing ancient churches. I can assure the noble Lord of that. There are other reasons. The noble Lord may not perhaps have noticed them but that may be because our efforts have been in vain.
We are fortunate enough to have my noble friend the chairman of the HBMC here this evening, and I say everything subject to his ear. We all know that London is a city with a great many fine buildings of beauty and historical architectural importance. The buildings are admired not only by many people who visit London but also by those who live or work in them day by day. They are important and their value has long been recognised in legislation. The part of that legislation which relates particularly to this amendment permits public funds to be made available towards their upkeep and restoration.
Over the years the Greater London Council has played a key role in this area, and in no way do we wish to belittle it. Of course the Committee is anxious to see that the value of this work is not lost and will not be snuffed out with the GLC on 1st April next year. The Committee knows that the payment of grant towards the repair of buildings of outstanding historical or architectural value is already an important function of the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission. The Committee will also recognise that the

441
commission will be given the GLC's powers to make grants to any building or place of historical or architectural interest in London.
9.30 p.m.
The noble Baroness's amendment seeks to set total funding of this function by the Secretary of State at a level above a base-year total set in concrete for ever. I appreciate the aims of this amendment, but this is no way to manage finance. In this field, no one year can be taken as typical or representative. Ultimately, the resources which the commission will have made available to it must depend upon its assessment of needs and it will be for it to consider the extent to which it wishes to meet the demand in any one year, having regard to all its other commitments and responsibilities.
The suggestion that this Chamber should commit the Secretary of State to a given level of expenditure, regardless of other pressures, even within the scope of the commission's responsibilities and regardless of any proper assessment of needs, would be financial mismanagement of the worst kind. I have every confidence that the commission will carry out its responsibilities in respect of London in a constructive way. I do not believe it needs to be told how much money to spend on building repair grants in London, any more than it needs to be told how much to spend elsewhere.
The Government consider each year the sum that should be paid to the commission in grant-in-aid according to the resources it has available and according to the expenditure plans of the commission. The Government will of course allow for the commission's new responsibilities when they consider its resource needs for 1986–87 and future years. The commission will then budget according to the resources that are made available to it. That seems to us the sensible way to plan and to spend. The amendment suggests that there is an alternative way, by statutory constraint. That is something I am afraid we cannot accept.
Lord Melchett: Surely the amendment is not trying to tell the commission how to spend its money but telling the Government how much money to give the commission so that this valuable work can continue. Perhaps I may ask the noble Lord a question. He said that the additional work the commission will have to undertake will be taken into account when the Government come to determine the resource needs for 1986–87. As I understand it, that is what concerns my noble friend Lady Birk; and certainly it concerns me that sufficient resources should then be made available to the commission to ensure that it is able to maintain the excellent work that the GLC has done in this field. To know whether or not the Government are likely to do that, surely Parliament needs to know whether or not the Government believe that the level of resources which the GLC has allocated to this work in London in recent years is about right.
In other words, when the commission takes on this work, will the Government say, "You have taken on a
442
level of work which was about right and we will take that into account in determining resources for 1986–87"; or will they say, "You have taken on work which the GLC has been doing. We consider it extravagant and wasteful"—as I understand the noble Viscount on the Benches opposite does—"and we will chop it back"? That is surely the question that the noble Lord needs to answer if he wants to go that way about determining the resources which are spent in future.
Lord Elton: The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has been in government. He knows that no Chancellor will commit himself before a Budget to a level of expenditure. My money and our money comes from the Chancellor; so the noble Lord will not expect me to give a precise figure for the expenditure. However, I can repeat that we will take into consideration, together with the expenditure plans of the commission, the volume of support it has received beforehand from non-government sources.
Lord Melchett: I am sorry to press the noble Lord on this matter. However, the same topic will arise on a range of other amendments to which we shall come later in the Bill and, no doubt, later this evening. I did not ask the noble Lord to commit the Government to a particular level of expenditure under a particular head in 1986–87, and I would not expect him to do so. With respect, I asked the noble Lord a quite different question. I asked him whether the Government believe that the level of expenditure which the GLC has committed to this area of activity in recent years is about right, or whether it is extravagant. That is the question I asked.
Lord Elton: The noble Lord presses me very hard. If one looks at his question the other end on, he is asking a question on the amendment; and the amendment seeks to pin the Government to a particular figure, which is the figure that you arrive at if you add together the two sources of finance from which the HBMC operates. I can certainly say that I believe that the commission has operated an extremely sensible programme of which the Government approve. That is as close as I can go to saying anything that the noble Lord wants to hear.
Baroness Birk: The hour is very late. I am very conscious that if we do not make more progress, my noble friend, who has been extremely helpful on this amendment, will not reach his own amendments tonight.
My noble friend is absolutely right. The problem with these amendments is trying to find a way to get some assurance. The Minister himself said that the GLC was not being abolished because of the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission. I am glad to hear that. The trouble is that there could be a by-product disaster as a result of what is being done. I am not suggesting that the Government are asking themselves how they can kill it. However, because of abolition and inadequate resources, it could suffer which would mean the heritage for all suffering. That

443
is the reason for putting forward the amendment. However, having said that, I beg leave to withdraw—
Lord Elton: Before the noble Baroness does so, I do not wish to give rise to unnecessary anxiety. The noble Baroness will accept, I am sure, that I cannot be pinned down precisely. I am grateful to her for accepting that. The consideration will be first what the GLC has spent. While that is considered, the HBMC will consider what it proposes to do. The commission will then discuss its plans with the Government in the light of that information. We shall then agree an appropriate level of resources. I cannot put it more clearly than that.
Baroness Birk: I am sure that the Minister is doing the best he can. Many of us, however, are worried about the possible outcome. I do not believe that he has any influence over it although he is doing his best. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 47:
Page 3, line 32, at end insert—
("( ) The transfer referred to in section 5(a) above shall not take place before the Secretary of State has laid before Parliament a report on the future arrangements for listed buildings and ancient monuments in London, which shall include details of the following:—

(a) the level of funding which the Exchequer shall make available to the Commission in the five years following the abolition date for the maintenance and restoration of all listed buildings and ancient monuments to be transferred under this Act:

(b) the staffing arrangements proposed for the Commission in the five years following the abolition date;

(c) the arrangements for ensuring adequate liaison to ensure the continued maintenance of listed buildings and ancient monuments in London; and

(d) arrangements for the provision of adequate architectural, scientific and technical expertise to the Commission and to other successor authorities within the meaning of this Act.").

The noble Baroness said: This is aimed at different aspects of the same problem, our concern about funding which will not match that of the GLC in the past in this area of archaeology, historic buildings and ancient monuments. Here again, I am concerned that the future of the 1,400 or so limited buildings in the council's ownership, which are to be transferred to ILEA's successor, to the fire authority, to borough councils or elsewhere, will be extremely uncertain if specific provision is not made for their care. I shall cut my remarks at this point, and beg to move.
Lord Elton: The amendment covers some very important issues. I can assure your Lordships to the extent that it is proper that the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission will be given the financial resources necessary for it to do the job expected of it in London properly. That is a key point to stress. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, will at least note it tomorrow in Hansard, because it is very close to what he was asking.
444
An important feature of the commission's existing activities is the financial support it gives for the preservation and maintenance of historic buildings. This is an important part of its budget. As a result of the transfer of functions from the GLC, the commission will be taking on additional repair grant responsibilities in London. Its grant-in-aid requirement is considered each year on the basis of a corporate plan setting out in detail how much the commission believes it needs to spend and what it wants to spend it on. On the basis of this plan, the Government decide how much grant should be paid to it for the forthcoming financial year. There is nothing new in this process. However, it would be new not to say extraordinary for either the Government or the commission to commit themselves to a given level of funding for a particular activity over a period of years. I am bound to say that the Government have no intention of doing anything of the kind and I would be surprised if the commission did either.
The second point concerns the staffing of the commission. The Government have never doubted or sought to disguise the fact that the commission will need to increase its manpower. It makes sense for the commission to look first to the staff already working in the GLC's historic buildings division and, as your Lordships will probably know, the commission has already announced that it intends to make job offers to these people on the same terms and conditions as are enjoyed by the commission's employees and staff. This was an early and positive step on the part of the commission.
I am in no doubt that there will be discussions between the Government and the commission about this and any related implications of the transfer of functions in the context of the commission's corporate plan for 1986–87. I can see no need, therefore, for any further statement about those arrangements. They will be discussed and agreed along with many other issues as part of an agreed plan and budget for all of the commission's activities and responsibilities in 1986–87.
I now come to what the amendment calls "adequate liaison" over the maintenance of listed buildings. I have to admit to being a little puzzled here because the commission already works closely with local authorities, voluntary organisations and other bodies and individuals involved in work on historic buildings on a day-to-day basis. I do not believe that my right honourable friend needs to lay before Parliament a report on the way in which the commission will conduct its daily business with the London boroughs. The success of any working arrangement depends upon the responsible attitude and reliability of all parties concerned. I am in no doubt that the commission will play its part, and I hope that the boroughs of all political persuasions will do the same.
Finally, I come to the question of professional and technical expertise. I am not quite sure why the amendment refers to the need for this expertise to be made available to the commission. The commission is an acknowledged centre and source of such expertise for the whole of England. However, I can assure noble Lords that the expertise is there, and I do not doubt that the commission will, as now, be prepared to offer whatever help and advice it can. Let us not forget that,

445
so far as expertise specifically relating to London is concerned, which is at present provided from within the Historic Buildings Division, that same expertise will be available from within the commission, probably from precisely the same people. I hope that that explanation helps the noble Baroness.
Baroness Birk: I thank the Minister very much for that explanation. This amendment expresses real concern about the care of these buildings. The reference to "adequate… technical expertise" was not in order to criticise the commission for not having it, but in order to make sure that, with the extra responsibilities, the commission is given the resources to employ the extra expertise and necessary staff. That was the reason. I beg leave—
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: Before the noble Baroness withdraws the amendment, perhaps it would help if I say that when we said we would take on these new responsiblities it was on condition that we had the necessary resources to carry them out, and that includes money for grants hitherto made by the GLC. It does not include the grants already made by the commission which are affected by this Bill. I believe that it is important for the commission, as a responsible body, to keep its freedom and its flexibility to dispose of its own resources as it thinks best.
I confirm that we have agreed in principle to make job offers to the staff of the GLC Historic Buildings Division on the same terms and conditions as are enjoyed by our own staff, although if there are any other inquiries I think that the delays would increase the uncertainty that the staff already feel, because they are not even allowed to speak to us about their future. I should also like to confirm that our ancient archaeological laboratory is used by everybody in the country and is considered to be the finest in the country. Therefore, I think that we shall have all the expertise we need at our disposal.
Baroness Birk: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 48 not moved.]
Schedule 2 [Listed buildings, conservation areas and ancient monuments]:
[Amendments Nos. 49 and 50 not moved.]
9.45 p.m.
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 51:
Page 95, line 34, leave out sub-paragraph (4) and insert—
(" (4) The Commission may cause investigations to be made and information to be published with respect to the history, architecture, archaeology, landscape and development of Greater London and shall continue the preparation and publication of the series of volumes of the Survey of London previously undertaken by the London County Council and the Greater London Council.")
The noble Baroness said: Perhaps I may take Amendments Nos. 51 and 52 together.
Amendment No. 52: Page 95, line 36, at end insert ("and shall continue any such investigations as are being made by the Greater London Council at the abolition date and shall cause information to be published with regard to such investigations.")
Lord Elton: Would the noble Baroness give way? Does she intend also to take 53ZA?
Baroness Birk: Yes, I think they can all be dealt with together.
Amendment No. 53ZA: Page 95, line 46, at end insert—
(" . The Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament on or before the appointed day proposals for continuing the publication of the series of volumes called The Survey of London together with details of its funding and management to enable the continuation of the research hitherto carried out into the history, architecture and archaeology of buildings or districts in Greater London by the London County Council and Greater London Council.")
I shall deal with these amendments as briefly as I can in order to hasten the progress of the Committee. This matter is concerned with The Survey of London, which is very important. This raises several issues such as the continuance of a variety of research, recording, and intelligence work which is at present undertaken by the Council's Historic Buildings Division, and the need to preserve the existing link between the division and The Survey of London.
Because it is well known to noble Lords, I am not going into a description of The Survey of London and the work it does. It was founded in 1894 and has had a distinguished growth and history since then. The point about these amendments is that The Survey of London should remain with the historic buildings commission rather than go to the Royal Commission on Historical Monuments, which I gather is where the Government intend to move it. It fits better with the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission than with the Royal Commission on Historical Monuments because the work is interlocking there whereas with the Royal Commission it is more in the way of being part of its archives.
The importance of the survey cannot be overstressed because of the continuing need for research into London's historic buildings for all sorts of purposes. It has always had great freedom from administrative interference. It has had independent scholarship and it has been able to exercise a great independence. It is the future of the survey which is the point which is causing concern.
The most like-minded organisation in my opinion, and the opinion of many others, with whom it should be linked is the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission. What I hope that the Minister will be able to say—and I need only a quite brief reply at this time of night; I shall not pin him down with lots more questions—is that the matter is still open, and that the place where it will finally rest has not yet been definitely settled, and that it could go to the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission. I beg to move.
Lord Beloff: I am rather surprised, though I am prepared to be convinced, that the noble Baroness should think that the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission, to which we are giving new work at almost every moment this evening, is necessarily a more suitable body to take over this responsibility than the Royal Commission on Historical Monuments. The importance of The Survey of London, which has given it its considerable standing—and there we are all in agreement—is its

447
independence of practical and immediate considerations. It is a scholarly enterprise which does great credit to those who work in it and to those who have supported it.
The most important thing about its future, apart from the fact that it must be given the requisite finance, is that it should retain this independence, and that it should be to some extent at least at arm's length from practical considerations. To be linked with a body which has, among its many responsibilities, the actual repair of buildings, the conservation of buildings, is something not so obvious as would be a connection with another body, a much more ancient body, the Royal Commission, which is again concerned with scholarship in the abstract and the recording of existing phenomena. I, and no doubt others, would be delighted to hear the noble Lord, Lord Montagu, on his views and the Government's view, but I find it difficult and less convincing to follow why the noble Baroness does not like what I agree we had thought to be the Government's intention, that the Royal Commission should take over this responsibility.
Baroness Birk: May I just explain, and it might help the Minister as well in regard to what the noble Lord has just asked about. I think the reason is that for over 30 years now The Survey of London has been researched and written in close collaboration with the Historic Buildings Division of the LCC, as it was originally, and then the GLC. It was during this period that it amassed its current very high international reputation, to which the noble Lord referred, as a tool of architectural and urban history. I mean that it has a practical as well as a scholarly role. Now, the proposal is that the survey should be separated from the Historic Buildings Division. It does not really make much sense, when over all these years it worked with the HBD, for the survey to go to the Royal Commission on Historical Monuments, a body with which it has had practically no former connection, while the Historic Buildings Division, with which it has been closely linked for all this time, is to go to the new Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission. It is for those very practical and historic reasons that I have stressed this point in my amendment.
Lord Elton: There is nothing inherently unreasonable in what the noble Baroness has said; nor is there anything inherently unreasonable in the position which the Government have taken on this and for which my noble friend has adduced some very clever arguments. It was a nicely balanced decision, but it was taken in the sense which the noble Baroness regrets. I think I can reassure her on one aspect—perhaps she is aware of the facts already—that the Royal Commission on Historical Monuments exists in Fortress House, Savile Row, and that is the same address as the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission. The Historic Buildings department of the GLC exists in Chesham House, off Regent Street. That is also where the work of The Survey of London is done, in close association with it; so whether they stay where they are or move to the new address the "arm's length" that the noble Baroness referred to will be very short.
Lady Gardner of Parkes: In regard to Amendment No. 51, I would have to draw attention to the fact that this says
"shall continue the preparation and publication".
I must draw to the attention of the Committee that during the time that I have sat as a member of the Historic Buildings Committee there has been considerable difficulty about whether or not the GLC would continue to publish the survey. I should like to see it continue, but certainly there have been a great many investigations into the most economic and suitable way of publishing it. It might perhaps be necessary eventually to have it published by some other body or authority, and the wording of the amendment would be rather restrictive.
Baroness Birk: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 52 not moved.]
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 53:
Page 95, line 46, at end insert—
(" . From the abolition date the Commission shall not charge any fee for the admission of members of the public to any historic building or any other property owned or administered by the commission which is open to members of the public which has been transferred by or under this Act.").
The noble Baroness said: This is really just a question to ask the Minister briefly whether, when the buildings go over from the GLC to the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission, those for which no charge has been made in the past by the GLC will go over with them, and whether the commission will have the right to place charges on visits to these houses and monuments. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: The noble Baroness has denied me a particular pleasure because her amendment suggested that she intended to say that there should be an absolute rule against charging admission fees ever and I was going to ask her how she would have advanced that theory from the Box where she was standing if the GLC had remained the executive authority, and whether she would have imposed on them a no charge. The charging policy on a matter such as this must be—must it not?—for the responsible body which owns the property concerned, as it now is with the GLC. That will not be disturbed.
Baroness Birk: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 53ZA not moved.]
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Clause 6 [National Parks and countryside functions]:
[Amendment No. 53A not moved.]
Lord Melchett Lord Melchett moved Amendment No. 53B:
Page 3, line 36, after ("Council") insert ("save that functions relating to Camley Street Natural Park, Frays Farm Meadow, Hainault Forest, Denham Wood, Fir and Pond Woods and Oxleas Wood shall be transferred to the Nature Conservancy Council")
The noble Lord said: We now turn to a different area of GLC activity—namely ecology and nature conservation—and there are a number of major amendments on this. The purpose of this amendment is simply to probe the intentions of the Government about what will happen to some sites of very high nature conservation importance which are owned, and in most cases owned and managed, by the Greater London Council.
I do not intend to press the amendment. It might be an attractive option that this Bill should become hybrid and we could take some of it off the Floor of the House, but I do not expect the Government would agree with that and I know that that would be one of the effects of the amendment. The sites that I have listed, with the exception of Camley Street, are examples of areas which are managed by the GLC, which are either Sites of Special Scientific Interest or proposed Sites of Special Scientific Interest.
It seems to me that these give rise to rather different issues, although with some parallels, from those which came up under the discussions of Holland Park which we had extensively earlier today and earlier in the week, and discussions we might have about areas such as Hampstead Heath later in the Bill. These areas all require a high level of expertise in their management. I do not suppose anybody in the Committee would disagree that Sites of Special Scientific Interest, which cover about 4 per cent. of the land area—there are about 3,400 top wildlife sites in the whole country designated by the Nature Conservancy Council—are clearly of national importance. That is accepted by everybody and their management requires great care and attention to detail and can often be extremely expensive, as we have discovered under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, where management agreements have been made with farmers and landowners to encourage them to manage SSSIs in ways which are beneficial to nature conservation and the sums of money involved have often been quite considerable.
I want to say a word about one or two of the areas I have mentioned. I know that your Lordships will not want to go into each of them in great detail. Two of the woodland sites, Hainault Forest and Oxleas Wood, are ancient woodland. They were there before anybody lived in London and before London existed. They predate not only the GLC but all its predecessor authorities, and I dare say that with sensitive management they will outlive all the successors which will undoubtedly arise from the GLC's ashes. These ancient woodlands require great expertise in their management.
The GLC has a woodland management team which manages these woods, among many others. They travel around the GLC area. The equipment they use is shared around a number of woods. They have their own scientific expertise, which is necessary in determining management of woodland such as these. Hainault Forest is a coppiced hornbeam wood, unusual in that it supports hawfinches and it has an area of scrub associated with it where just a week ago nightingales returned to breed. I know that the nightingale is a popular bird and it is because of the
450
excellent management of this woodland conducted by the GLC that it continues successfully to live there. It is a bird that is quite rare in the wider countryside but it is breeding successfully in the GLC area. Oxleas Wood is an oak woodland on clay soil. It supports all three species of British woodpecker. That is unusual even in the wider countryside and certainly unexpected in an urban area like London.
The first question I want to ask the Government about the future of areas such as these nationally important areas is how they see the expertise being provided to ensure that the management continues to be as sensitive and effective as it has been in recent years under the stewardship of the GLC. Having listened to the debate which the noble Lord, Lord Elton, had with the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, about one park, I imagine that these areas will be managed in future by local borough councils. I should be interested to know what advice the Government have had from the scientific staffs of those borough councils about the management inputs and about the expertise that they will bring to bear.
10 p.m.
The second question that I have to ask is about expenditure. Do the Government have any assurances from local councils (who I assume will be responsible for these areas) that the necessary level of expenditure will be maintained to ensure that nightingales can continue to breed in Hainault Forest and that woodpeckers can continue to inhabit Oxleas Wood, and so on? One of the other areas that I have mentioned raises rather different questions but I want to cover it in the same amendment to try to be brief. That is Camley Street Natural Park, an area which has been created as a wildlife habitat in the middle of London just behind King's Cross. It cost the GLC a very large amount of money—over £600,000—to buy and establish this site. It has been extremely successful. It is work that it has done in conjunction with a voluntary organisation for nature conservation in London, the London Wildlife Trust, of which I am patron.
It provided a very good example of co-operation between voluntary and statutory organisations. The London Wildlife Trust manages the site, the GLC provided the location and much of the ecological input from expert staff. This seems to me to be something, first, that is going to be too expensive for a local borough to continue to run; and, secondly, it is clear to me at least that no similar venture could be mounted without some strategic authority covering a large area with the necessary finance and expertise. It is something simply outside the scope of a single London borough. Indeed, Camley Street itself clearly will provide facilities for residents and, in particular, school children from all over London and not just from Camden, whose council has had an important input into the site. I shall not go into details of the other sites but I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say in response to those specific questions. I beg to move.
Baroness Nicol: I am relieved to hear that my noble friend does not intend to press this amendment because, although I have the greatest sympathy with

451
him and the greatest wish to see these sites continuing to be protected, preserved and managed in the way that they have been, I have to say that I consider that there are other sites up and down the country in the areas which are being changed by this Bill which will be equally deserving of expertise and management. I hope that later on, on another day during the progress of this Bill, we shall be able to introduce an amendment which the Government will be able to find acceptable and which will ensure an equal level of management for all these sites whether they be in London or the metropolitan counties.
Lord Skelmersdale: The noble Lord has asked me various questions to which I shall respond, but I should like to make it clear from the outset that the absence of ecology and nature conservation from this Bill does not mean that the Government are overlooking such matters. What I have to say now is general to the various amendments on conservation and conservation-related subjects which we are going to discuss on the next few amendments.
It is a fact that ecology and nature conservation do not, in general, figure among the statutory functions of the GLC and the MCCs for which specific legislative provision needs to be made in this Bill. This Bill is concerned with transferring duties from existing bodies to successor bodies. Such powers as the GLC and the MCCs currently exercise, mainly in their role as planning authorities, are also available to the successor authorities, the borough and district councils. Thus, these councils already have adequate powers to own and manage local nature reserves under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 as amended by the Local Government Act 1972.
The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, asked me in this amendment how I saw the future of such areas. One way I am afraid I do not see as their future is to be owned and operated by the Nature Conservancy Council because this is not appropriate for that body so to do. I see the boroughs getting together on this matter, possibly with a lead borough, which immediately brings up in Lord Melchett's mind, I have no doubt, the matter of finance.
I should like to refute the suggestion that boroughs and districts will not be able to take on tasks in relation to ecology and the countryside because they will not have adequate resources. Their resources will certainly increase in the sense that they will be able to derive income from rates in place of the precept that previously passed to the GLC and the county. The finance system will take account of the authorities' new responsibility in the distribution of the grant-related assessments in the setting of targets, if any, and in the setting of expenditure limits on any that are rate capped.
I do not accept that authorities will be without any resources to devote to these activities although of course at the end of the day it will be for the successor bodies to decide whether they want these functions to continue. I feel that it would not be in their own best interests to discontinue these functions for the simple reason that knowing the interests of Londoners as a whole, who of course are their electors, in such matters, I believe it would be a great mistake for them
452
to take that view; but that, as I have said, is for the successor bodies.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: Do I really understand what the Government are saying on this matter, that it is really a matter of more or less indifference to them whether the care of these very valuable and very important natural sites should be continued; that the functions of looking after them and seeing that they continue to go on would be entirely in the hands of the boroughs. If so, it really is a totally inadequate attitude. I would have thought that even if there were specific duties laid on the boroughs, the idea of a consortium of boroughs with a lead borough, dealing with these scattered sites—and not all of the boroughs in the GLC area have them by any means—and the idea that there should be somehow an ad hoc consortium which gets together with even the implication that if they do not actually want to go on preserving them they need not go on doing so, seems to me a totally inadequate answer; but perhaps I misunderstood what the noble Lord the Minister had to say.
Lord Skelmersdale: No, I do not think the noble Lord has at all misunderstood. What I was saying is that local democracy is local democracy and therefore it is for the boroughs to decide their priorities in their particular area. I went on to say that I have no doubt that they will take the view that has just been expressed in the Committee and which I share; but it is for them.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: Is the Minister saying that there is no natural responsibility whatsoever for the preservation of these extraordinarily important sites?
Lord Melchett: With respect, the Minister is plain wrong. This is not a local responsibility. These are national sites, Sites of Special Scientific Interest. They have been notified by the Nature Conservancy Council as sites of national scientific importance. As the noble Lord will be aware, the Nature Conservancy Council draws up lists of damaging operations which landowners, farmers and occupiers of sites of special interest are not allowed to carry out because of the national importance of these sites. It seems to me that one of the things which should be added to this list of damaging operations is the Local Government Bill, because the noble Lord is in effect saying that this Bill can lead to the destruction of these sites and the Government will not do anything about it. Surely, that is just plain wrong.
Lord Skelmersdale: The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has misunderstood. Of course this Bill does not override any of the provisions of the Wildlife and Countryside Act, which we discussed at great length in 1981. What however it does is give responsibility in this particular instance to the landowner; and as the noble Lord well knows, the landowner has responsibility for all the SSSIs in the country whether they belong to the Nature Conservation Trust, to local authorities, to one of my noble friends or even the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, himself. It is the landowner who has the responsibility, and it is exactly that that is going to happen under this Bill.
Lord Melchett: That is helpful, because it is taking us forward. Can the noble Lord just tell us what consultations have been carried out by the Government with the local authorities who will become the landowners of these sites? He seems now to be slightly going away from what he said earlier about a consortia of local boroughs and leading boroughs, and so on. I think that is a nonsense, as the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, has already said. But if we are talking now about new landowners taking on important national assets, surely what the Committee needs to know is what consultations have been undertaken with these landowners. Have they agreed to take on these important national sites? I assume that the Government have some undertaking about the future management of these sites and that we can be assured they will be protected and that the wildlife there will not be destroyed.
Lord Skelmersdale: It is quite simple. The Bill directs that any property vested in the GLC at the moment will go to the borough in which it stands. That is the first thing. The noble Lord asked whether there have been any consultations. The very shaming truth is, no, because unfortunately you cannot consult with people who refuse to be consulted with. That is the position we are in right across this Bill.
Lord Melchett: Is the noble Lord saying that there is not a single site of special scientific interest owned by the GLC which will be going to a borough which is prepared to talk to the Government? I find that stretching things a little.
Lord Skelmersdale: No; I did not say that at all. What I said was that each of the sites with which the noble Lord is concerned will go to the borough in which it exists geographically. What I also said was that there had been no consultations because unfortunately consultations are not very forthcomng surrounding this Bill. I wish they were.
Baroness Nicol: That really was not an answer. Is the noble Lord saying that the GLC would not consult or that the borough on whose land the SSSI is would not consult? It would be helpful if we could have that cleared up.
Lord Skelmersdale: The GLC will not consult; nor will a fair proportion of the boroughs in London. That is the position.
Lord Melchett: That simply cannot be right, with respect. I am sorry to keep on, because I know everybody wants to get on to the main amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood; but I do not think we should leave it there if the noble Lord is just giving us some information which cannot be correct. One of the sites listed in my amendment, Frays Farm and Denham Wood, straddles the Greater London boundary and a part of it will become the responsibility of Buckinghamshire County Council. Is the noble Lord saying that it is impossible for him to talk to Buckinghamshire County Council?
Lord Skelmersdale: No, I am not. I am just making the point, which has been made several times by my
454
noble friends from this Bench, that where consultations should realistically take place with Labour-controlled boroughs, those consultations are not being entered into, for the reasons I have given.
The Earl of Onslow: Is my noble friend saying that as regards this particular wood, which straddles the border of Buckinghamshire and whatever the successor borough is, its management would be divided in half? If that is the case it is thoroughly unsatisfactory.
Lord Skelmersdale: I wish I knew the answer to that question. I will certainly look into it, because I agree with my noble friend.
Baroness Nicol: May I press this a little more? If the answer to the question is that the whole of this site is in Buckinghamshre, with whom presumably the Government are on reasonable terms, is the noble Lord saying that he has not attempted to discuss it with Buckinghamshire; or has he tried to and something has happened? It really is not a terribly satisfactory answer.
Lord Skelmersdale: I have no doubt that discussions are going on with the Buckinghamshire County Council, but the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, who knows this area very much better than I do, has said that it will fall into dual ownership; and it is that which I promised my noble friend Lord Onslow that I would look into. I can only add that if there are conditions applying to that land, because there are Sites of Special Scientific Interest, exactly the same obligations will apply to the new owner as to the old. But I have a feeling that I said that some minutes ago, and it does not really add to my explanation in this discussion.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick: Will the Minister agree that if some of the boroughs have this responsibility forced upon them when they do not want it, then, as they are the arbiters of the financial priorities in their own area, this type of activity may suffer?
Lord Skelmersdale: The whole local authority setup is all about priorities. What this Bill does is to bring local government closer to the people by involving boroughs and districts very much more in various items, and this subject is one of those items. I do not see the problem.
Lord Dean of Beswick: I am sorry that the Minister does not see a problem. Is it not a fact that, when local authorities are being severely restricted on spending on such vital services as housing, education and so on, they are bound to place the lowest of priorities on this aspect, which they may not have wanted anyway? Has that entered into the consideration?
Lord Skelmersdale: Perhaps the noble Lord can do what I failed to do, which is to ask the local authorities.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: Whatever its faults, the Greater London Council has a splendid record in looking after these sites and in putting together a department to look after them with extraordinarily

455
good and well-respected expertise. In dealing with the main parts of the Bill, the Government have from time to time—the answer is an extremely good example—gone to great lengths to assure us all that they have set up organisations with responsibility for looking after the problems, so that worthwhile things that are being done will not suffer.
Are we to understand that in this case the whole thing is just being devolved to the boroughs as they are, with no particular steps taken? It may be hoped that some of the boroughs will get together and hire some expertise, which could well be scattered to the four winds by the time anyone gets round to doing anything about it. If the Government are saying that, it is not in keeping with the reassurances that they have given on other subjects and it shows that they ought to take the whole of this subject back and have another look at it. Unless the noble Lord can tell us something better than he has been telling us for the last 20 minutes, I think that this is a subject on which your Lordships' House would be absolutely right to press the Government very strongly at a later stage. I hope that the Government will look at it again.
Lord Skelmersdale: I must be very brief, and there are only two things that I want to say. First, I want to repeat that the local authorities will be subject to their overriding responsibilities as landowners under the Wildlife and Countryside Act. Secondly, as I understand it, the GLC is an elected body at the moment, and the successor bodies in this case will also be elected bodies. Therefore, it is a matter for the electorate.
Lord Melchett: We have strayed rather wide from the terms of my amendment, following (I hope the noble Lord will forgive me for saying so) his lead rather than mine, because I restricted my remarks to sites of special scientific interest, and to these ones in particular. We have strayed into a field which I am afraid we shall cover in later and more widely drafted amendments, and I shall not follow the noble Lord into that field. But I still think that there are very real problems here. I do not know what the Government's relationship was like with Buckinghamshire County Council before this evening, but I would guess that it will not improve a great deal when the county council hear that the noble Lord finds it quite impossible to talk to them. Hillingdon District Council is the other council involved in that site. Once again I am not sure what relationships were like previously but I dare say that they have not improved a great deal during the course of this debate.
Surely it must be possible, when dealing with nationally important wildlife sites which have been expertly managed by the GLC with a great deal of scientific care and expense, for the Government to take the trouble to talk to the landowners on whom they are foisting these sites just to check with them that they want to have them, that they are prepared to manage them, and so on, if only, for example, to make sure that the councils are aware of their statutory duties under the Government's Wildlife and Countryside Act. That is the issue which this amendment sought to raise.
I must say to the noble Lord that I do not think he
456
has dealt with it, but we shall be discussing more general issues relating to nature conservation and ecology in later amendments and no doubt these particular points can be returned to then. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Renton): Before I call upon the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, to move Amendment No. 54, I have to point out that in the second line the word "council" should read "councils".
Lord Chelwood Lord Chelwood moved Amendment No. 54:
Page 3, line 38, at end insert—
(" ( ) In discharging functions under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, the London borough councils and Metropolitan district councils shall consult with the nature Conservancy Council, the Countryside Commission and any other interested or relevant statutory body.").
The noble Lord said: I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 54, 55 and 58 together, which I understand is agreeable and will certainly save time.
Amendment No. 55: Page 3, line 38, at end insert—
(" ( ) In discharging functions to which this section applies the London borough council and metropolitan district councils shall have particular regard to the need for protection of areas of ecological significance.").
Amendment No. 58: After Clause 6, insert the following new clause:
Urban nature conservation
(" .—(l) A scheme for the maintenance and development of urban nature conservation shall be made for Greater London or a Metropolitan County by the constituent councils, that is to say—

(a) in relation to Greater London, the London borough councils and the Common Council; and

(b) in relation to the Metropolitan county, the councils of the metropoltian districts comprised in the county.

(2) Any such scheme shall provide—

(a) for ecological advice and services to be made by one of the constituent councils designated for this purpose by the scheme; and

(b) for the other constituent councils to have regard to the ecological advice of the designated council in the preparation of each of their unitary development plans; and

(c) for the other constituent councils to contribute as provided by subsection (3) below to the expenditure incurred by the designated council in providing the ecological advice and services or otherwise in discharging its functions under this scheme.

(3) The constituent councils shall be required to contribute to any expenditure of the designated council which has been incurred with the approval of at least two-thirds of the constituent councils; and the amounts of the contributions shall be determined so that the expenditure in respect of which they are payable is borne by the constituent councils in proportion to the populations of their respective areas.
(4) For the purposes of subsection (3) above the population of any area shall be taken to be the number esitmated by the Registrar General and certified by him to the Secretary of State by reference to such date as the Secretary of State may from time to time determine.
(5) The total expenditure incurred under a scheme by a designated council in Greater London or a metropolitan county in any financial year (including the amounts recoverable under the scheme from other councils) shall not exceed such amount as is for the time being prescribed for that area by an order made by the Secretary of State.
(6) A scheme may, in the absence of agreement between all the constituent councils, be made by a majority of those councils so as to be binding on all of them; but a council shall not be designated by a scheme except with its consent.
(7) A scheme may contain such supplementary provisions as the councils making the scheme think necessary or expedient.
(8) The council designated by a scheme may, by giving not less than twelve months notice to the other constitutent councils, withdraw its consent to act as a designated council with effect from the end of any financial year not earlier than the second financial year after that in which the scheme was made; and in that event the scheme shall terminate when the withdrawal takes effect.
(9) As respects expenditure incurred before the abolition date subsection (3) shall have effect with the substitution for the reference to two-thirds of the constituent councils of a reference to a majority of those councils.")
I apologise in advance to the Committee for having to present a rounded case for these three amendments, in which there is a great deal of nationwide interest, but I shall certainly be as brief as I possibly can.
The purpose of these amendments is to create a mechanism whereby urban nature conservation can be maintained as part of the planning process in Greater London and the metropolitan counties. I shall gladly explain the amendments, particularly the long one, Amendment No. 58, in more detail if asked to do so, but it is strictly comparable in its mechanism with Amendment No. 47, which provided for grants to voluntary organisations and was in fact drafted by the Government. So I think it is pretty straightforward.
As is stands at present, the Bill makes no special provision for the centralised ecological functions to these authorities, which will become the responsibility therefore of the boroughs and districts. In the past few years nature conservation in urban areas has become an accepted part of planning—I think I should call it a material consideration—urged on by the Department of the Environment through the Nature Conservancy Council. But the subject has been spearheaded by planning departments of the metropolitan county councils and the Greater London Council and they have done this as part of their statutory functions as structure plan authorities under Part II of Schedule 4 to the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, strengthened in London by the 1980 Regulations, Statutory Instrument 443. Section 71 of the London Government Act 1963 gives the GLC the power to collect ecological information and to carry out research into the natural environment. Under Section 48 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, we amended the Water Act 1973 and this puts on to the GLC and the metropolitan counties the obligation to further nature conservation in carrying out land drainage duties. In Section 22 of the same Water Act, water authorities are obliged to have regard to the desirability of conserving flora and fauna. Then Section 15(1)(g) of the Town and Country Planning General Development Order 1977 says that planning authorities "shall"—I emphasise that word strongly—consult with the Nature Conservancy Council about the developments on land of special interest, by which they presumably mean nature reserves and SSSIs.
Finally, Clause 6 of the Private Member's Wildlife and Countryside Bill, which we shall be considering on 17th May, requires, using the word "shall", the Forestry Commission to further nature conservation and to conserve flora and fauna and geological or physiological features of special interest. The word "shall" occurs in most of these cases.
In your Lordships' House on 6th June last, the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, then Minister of State at the department, made it absolutely clear, and I quote his words:
"The metropolitan district councils already have the necessary powers to carry out this type of work".—[Official Report, 6/6/84; col. 764.]
That was in reply to a Question from the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, who was asking about ecological work.
These amendments therefore simply make it obligatory, if it is not already, as I think it is, for the authorities to carry out the powers already vested in them. In a word, it is now established and accepted Government policy that environmental implications of land use planning and changes must—I prefer the word "shall"—be taken into account from the very outset. There are "shalls" everywhere! So strongly do the Government feel about this that they have urged our partners in the European Community to adopt the same attitude. The "shalls" in my amendment are, therefore, fully justified.
I have a document dated 1977, issued by the Department of the Environment, from which I shall quote only one sentence, although I could quote dozens, all to the same effect. It states:
"The Secretaries of State"—
referring to our own Secretary of State and the Secretary of State for Wales—
"look to local authorities to take full account of natural conservation factors both in formulating structure and local plans, and in the consideration of individual planning applications".
That is clear enough.
In my view it cannot seriously be argued that these amendments would be creating a new function and that they are, therefore, outside the subject matter of the Bill. That was suggested by the department. I seriously believe that the department is wrong, but if it is right and I am wrong, I owe the Committee an apology. In any case, to leave it to the whim of the boroughs and districts whether to consult the Nature Conservancy Council or, for that matter, the Countryside Commission would surely be thoroughly irresponsible: hence these amendments.
I turn now to the importance of the work that is being done in the ecological field in the GLC and the MCCs. There is no doubt about its importance. The Government fully accept that. All seven authorities have ecological advice to enable them to survey and identify sites of significance in their areas, and to keep records. I believe that the work that they do is thoroughly cost-effective. I think that without doubt—and I have looked into this with great care—it is highly professional. There is close liaison with voluntary bodies that have been generously and sensibly grant-aided.
One example of a voluntary body that has been helped a lot is one of my favourite charities, the British Trust for Conservation Volunteers. It has done most excellent work with its grant-aid. I have no doubt at all that this ecological work has been much valued—and I have checked on this, too—by most boroughs and districts that come within the counties and within the GLC. They know that they have been getting value for money.
Dispersed to the boroughs and districts I do not think that there can be very much doubt that the cost to the ratepayers and to the taxpayers would be multiplied by at least four. That would be very expensive and quite unnecessary. It would also much reduce the range of expertise. The GLC's multidisciplinary ecology unit is only six strong, although it is being increased to eight, and the cost to the GLC last year, I am told on very good authority, of running this unit, grant-aiding voluntary bodies and carrying on related advisory services and advising the boroughs amounted to about £600,000. That was for the last financial year. That is value for money by any standards.
I should like to give three very brief examples which vividly illustrate the need for such work in London and in the metropolitan counties. In London the inspector's decision after a public inquiry into the future of the Gunnersbury Triangle in Chiswick ruled that warehousing should not take place on disused railway land because of its nature conservation value. Without the GLC's advice and help and the grant-aiding of work which followed from that inquiry there would not now be a local nature reserve in the Triangle; and a very good reserve it is.
Secondly, the Crayford Marshes would have been destroyed as a wildlife habitat had the GLC not opposed the Bexley borough's plans to develop the area and build on it. That was an excellent outcome. Thirdly, due to the work done by the GLC and its advice and grant aiding, the Welsh Harp Conservation Group was given, I think, £20,000 as a one-off contribution and it was able to turn an area in Barnet into a nature reserve. It is a very good reserve indeed, which has given people a lot of pleasure.
10.30 p.m.
There is also—and I shall not go on any more about this—the Camley Street Ecology Park, which my noble friend, wearing his ministerial hat and no doubt his ecological hat as well, as he is most interested in these subjects, went to last year and knows all about. I have not been there myself.
The London Wildlife Habitat Survey was completed a month or two ago and was very well and fully reported in three pages of Country Life some three weeks ago. All that work has provided invaluable information to back up future planning applications so as to ensure that nature conservation is as much a part of them as are traffic, roads and buildings, which is the way it should be.
If the work in the metropolitan counties is not on the same scale, which it is not, and is somewhat variable, being very good in some counties and not so good in others, it is still, I suggest, essential and significant work. I give only two examples. The county of West Midlands, with a tiny ecology unit (I think of only two or three people at the most) and employing four graduates provided by the Manpower Services Commission, recently completed a nature conservation strategy for the county. That was warmly welcomed by the Department of the Environment, and it wrote on 9th April 1984 that this strategy should be:
"a material consideration in planning decisions, including those by Inspectors and the Secretary of State".
460
That was very much a feather in that county's cap.
Greater Manchester—and this is my second and last example—with the advice of a small team, again of specialists, now has 120 conservation areas, whereas 10 years ago there were only about 35. Its wildlife survey has identified over 250 sites of importance in the county, 76 of which are of national or regional significance and five of which have been declared SSSIs—and so on, and so on. The story is long. It would fill a book, but we started late and I wish to be as brief as I can. I am turning over two pages at a time most of the time.
We come to the big question. How can we ensure that that work is carried on on a county-wide and GLC-wide basis as it is carried on in the 47 or 48 shires? It is all on a county-wide basis. In my county of East Sussex and in the county of West Sussex the ecological work is excellent and district councils enormously value the work that is done by the counties. It is economically and well done in all the shire counties. Surely it should be carried on on a county-wide basis after this Bill becomes an Act.
If it is not carried on in that way I am quite sure that indifference and financial stringency will combine to make boroughs and districts opt out of the whole operation, because it will have a low priority in their minds. River valleys, coastlines and so on know nothing about boundaries between one district and another and one borough and another. This subject is not incorporated in the NCC's corporate plan and it was never suggested by the department. I think that it should be.
The NCC is already overstretched, although I take this chance to welcome the much more generous grant that it obtained a year ago which means that its resources pretty well match up now with its duties. But nonetheless it is still overstretched, and I do not think that it has the local knowledge or the expertise required to take on that work in the GLC and the metropolitan counties' areas. I speak from some experience here. As some noble Lords will know, I was for six years, until last autumn, a member of the council of the NCC. Its advice of course will always continue to be available in the background, and it has a small urban conservation team which is an efficient little group.
I have considered whether the residuary bodies might take on that work and I dismissed the idea because it would be only a temporary solution. I have considered whether joint boards might be satisfactory. On the whole, joint boards never seem to work very well and do not excite very much interest. Those who attend them are not always those who are most valuable within their councils. We must avoid a hiatus. We have somehow surely to keep the present staffs in being. What is needed here is the Government's view as to how that is to be done. I am suggesting only one way. What I am hoping is that my noble friend will say when he comes to reply that the Government, having listened to the debate, will put forward their own amendment at Report stage. I really do not think that it should fall to Back-Benchers to have to try to find a solution to a problem which the Government have posed. The Government must therefore decide on the structure and on the funding.

461
I want to emphasise this to my noble friend. I seek from him today firm assurances so far as future funding is concerned. Without that, the whole thing will just wither away, and that would be a tragedy.
The proposals in our amendments are supported by almost all the bodies with which I have been in touch. They include the Royal Society for Nature Conservation, which fathers all the county trusts; the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds; the CPRE, and numerous other voluntary and educational bodies; the Ecological Parks Trust, which has been in touch with the Minister; the London Wildlife Trust, and many others. They are only a few examples.
I should be astonished if the NCC itself had not advised the Secretary of State that it would like to see these duties carried on as statutory duties. I do not know what they have said. They are very discreet. I should like to have found out. I know they have written, not once but twice. I hope my noble friend will let us know what advice he has received from the NCC, because I think we are entitled to know this. For that matter, I should also like to know what advice he has received from the Countryside Commission, though their problems are somewhat different, yet overlapping. I spoke to them this morning and they said they were "benevolent" (I think that was the word they used) towards these amendments.
The failure to carry on this work would have very serious social and ecological consequences. These amendments point to one way in which the problem can be solved. If it is not solved, I hope that we shall bear in mind a sentence in the conclusion of the report of the Select Committee on Science and Technology, where they said:
"Centres of excellence are slow to develop and easy to destroy".
I beg to move.
The Earl of Onslow: Not surprisingly, I should like to support this amendment, at the very least, though preferably I would support a Government amendment along the same lines later on, at Report stage. I think that an ecology unit which is costing £600,000, with a staff of eight, dealing with the whole of London, must be infinitely preferable to 16 ecology units. That is on the basis of the belief that only half the boroughs will establish such units. Thus such a system would be much more expensive and would cover only half of London.
Perhaps it is not realised by those of us who live in the countryside, or perhaps by Members of this Committee, that the area of London covered by the Greater London Council has nearly 100 kinds of breeding birds and 2,000 species of plants, and that there are deer, foxes and badgers within 20 miles of St. Paul's. This has come about by the action o f cleaning up London—cleaning up London's river and cleaning up London's air—and because people have taken a strong scientific interest in what has happened. The GLC ecological unit is not there only to look after Mr. Livingstone's newts. It looks after the vast areas of educational interest in the area of the GLC. There is a story about the son of a West Indian immigrant, with a voice which was historically from Bow, digging into a pond and saying, "Cor, there's life in this pond!" This young man from an urban background had
462
learned something of great importance: he was beginning to learn something about nature and the crossing of the countryside with the town. We are getting our ecology and our advice very cheap. As my noble friend Lord Chelwood has said, it is something that can be destroyed only too easily. I am convinced that this Government like excellence on the cheap. If the Government do not pay attention to what my noble friend Lord Chelwood has said and what I suspect the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, might say slightly more harshly—
Lord Melchett: No.
The Earl of Onslow:—they will get something second rate and expensive. That cannot be right. I should like to refer to Circular 108/77 of the Department of the Environment and the sentence mentioned by my noble friend. This states:
"It should, however, be emphasised that nature conservation interest is by no means confined to traditionally beautiful areas and occurs in town as well as in the countryside".
It is late, but I should like to develop briefly the importance of small areas rich in variety for the schoolchildren of deprived inner city areas. The value that those children derive and the education that such areas give them cannot be over-estimated. We are not asking for much. All that we are asking is that the Government should think seriously about what my noble friend Lord Chelwood has said. I suspect that they had not thought anything about it when they drafted the Bill. So there is no question of them going back on a commitment. There is nothing in the manifesto about it. They can listen, and they can be the intelligent Ministers that my noble friend and I know them to be.
Lord Winstanley: Like the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, on the amendment that he has moved, and indeed on the whole group of amendments to which he has spoken. In doing so, I hope that the noble Lord who is to reply will not think that I am being unduly cantankerous if I say that I think, faintly, it is rather a pity that we should now have embarked on what I believe are four pages of amendments on the Marshalled List which collectively deal with a subject of immense importance and one to which the noble Earl has drawn attention—namely, the whole question of countryside in our urban fringes and conservation in the midst of our urban areas.
As the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, has said, we need at some stage to hear loudly and clearly how these matters are to be undertaken under the new arrangements as and when we have those new arrangements. My involvement in the subject is twofold. I had the honour for some years to be chairman of the Countryside Commission. I shall come to my second involvement in a moment. I became chairman of the Countryside Commission at a time when the commission had taken a policy decision—wisely, in my view—that it should focus a little more of its energy and resources not on the very sensitive areas of the national parks, already well provided for with their own administration, and so on, but on countryside in our urban fringes which was being nibbled away in

463
small patches. Agricultural land was being under-farmed because of the pressures of trespass, litter and vandalism. And with the disappearance of productive agriculture so, too, countryside was disappearing at an alarming rate.
We were also conscious of the fact that this is an era in which an increasing number of people choose to spend their leisure time—noble Lords do not need to be reminded that more people, for a whole variety of reasons, nowadays, have more leisure time—in informal countryside recreation. The commission decided rightly that if we could provide opportunities for that kind of recreational activity close to the homes of the millions who now seek those opportunities, that would be for the good of the country as a whole. As a result, we focused an increasing amount of our resources on the urban areas, and that meant on the areas of many of the metropolitan counties.
10.45 p.m.
Our first experiment probably took place in the Manchester area. Greater Manchester has already been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood. It is quite true that there a number of important conservation areas have developed and an important amount of wildlife has been discovered. However, the first experiment undertaken by the Countryside Commission was the Bollin Valley experiment, and it is right that I should underline this. It was a reclamation of an area of the Bollin Valley, which is a tributary of the River Mersey, which passes from Macclesfield and runs round Wythenshawe; it is a huge area of city rehousing, as noble Lords will know, which one would have expected to be exposed to a great deal of trespass, vandalism, and so on.
In that area there were in the region of 40 farmers, most of whom had given up farming under the pressures to which I have already referred. The land was being used for tipping waste, for the occasional parking of caravans, and for this, that and the other, and was not being effectively farmed. As a result, it was becoming more and more degraded and less and less satisfying in every sense to the local population. In view of what has been said in this debate in your Lordships' Committee it is important that I should underline the fact that the remarkable achievement of restoring productive farming to the whole of that area, where now each and every one of the farmers will say that they are farming very profitably indeed, has, in fact, restored countryside to the area.
That was only achieved because at that time the Countryside Commission was able to get 13 or 14 different district local authorities to work together in harmony. That is a very difficult job indeed, but I think it is right that I should underline it and say that I do not believe it is impossible to get district councils to undertake functions of the kind they might have to undertake if and and when this Bill becomes law. It is possible and has been possible.
However, with.the development of the metropolitan county councils one had an overriding, over-looking integrating force that could do a great deal more. From the Bollin Valley experiment we moved into the London area with the Herts-Barnet experiment, the Havering experiment and so on, in which, from my
464
personal experience, the district authorities played a very important role. However, their part was nothing like as important as the immense part played by the GLC. Its officers and members took an immense interest and were able to do things which changed the whole nature of those areas—areas in which, from looking round the Committee, I know some noble Lords now actually live; areas which have changed their character in the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, mentioned, as did the noble Earl. In those areas we now have natural life and wildlife of a kind that, frankly, would not have been seen in any state before, because we have in a sense restored countryside.
That was my first involvement. I believe that if, somehow, that development, which has taken place in other parts of the country, were now allowed to retrogress, it would be a devastating criticism of our present policies. It would be deplorable.
I said earlier that I had two involvements, and I took on another role. I also have the honour to be the chairman of a trust which is known—and some noble Lords may have heard of it—as the Groundwork Trust. It arose from my connection with the Countryside Commission when it was decided that we would apply the kind of techniques which we had developed in areas like the Bollin Valley and in Hertfordshire, Barnet and so on, to the whole of the urban fringe of a free-standing urban area. At that time the Countryside Commission had to select an area in which it would work in partnership with the local authorities.
The area which was finally selected for what was then regarded as an experiment was an area on Merseyside—the boroughs of Knowsley and St. Helens. The whole idea was that this was to be a partnership between the Merseyside Metropolitan County, the St. Helens Borough Council and the Knowsley Borough Council—the three legs of our sponsors. A three-legged structure is extremely stable but, as noble Lords will know, take one leg away and it is apt to become a little less stable. The main partners were the Countryside Commission, the Department of the Environment, the Merseyside County Council, Knowsley and St. Helens. We were the first of the Operation Groundwork movement. This was, as it were, the pilot of the whole scheme. We have been in existence three years, and what we have done in restoring countryside in a devastated area of one of our urban areas really has been remarkable.
It has been so impressive that three successive Secretaries of State for the Environment have been to visit us and have gone away deeply impressed. So impressed have they been that they have extended this groundwork technique to other areas, so that now in the North-West of England there are five other Groundwork Trusts—in Macclesfield, Rossendale, Oldham and Rochdale, Wigan, and so on. It is now thought that the scheme will be extended to four or five other areas, and even to parts of Wales.
The point I want to make applies to all this group of amendments, and it is right that I should say it now rather than wait until Tuesday, or whenever it happens to be. It is that there is no question that the role of the Metropolitan County of Merseyside has been crucial

465
in the work we have done. I am not saying that I would wish in any way to minimise the excellent work done by the permanent officials of Knowsley or St. Helens districts; they have done invaluable work, and no doubt will continue to do so; but we have to have some kind of undertaking that somebody is going to have the direct responsibility of taking over the functions which have hitherto been exercised by the metropolitan county.
I am not saying that nobody will do it: I am sure somebody will, but we need to know before we finish with this Bill precisely how those functions—very important functions which have been discharged for a number of years by the metropolitan counties and the GLC in particular—and that input are to be taken over by other bodies, and how they are to be integrated in such a way as to make the scheme cost effective and make it work. I support this amendment and I shall support some of the others when we come to them, but we shall not come to them tonight. They are important subjects.
Baroness White: As I understand we have to rise by 11 o'clock, I shall not follow the noble Lord in his autobiographical excursion. I shall simply quote one sentence from the notes that some of us have received from the National Farmers' Union concerning the extremely important matter on which the noble Lord touched, agriculture in the urban fringe, which is part of the totality of land care in the metropolitan areas. The note from the National Farmers' Union, having gone into a good deal of detail, says:
"Regrettably we remain unconvinced that the commitment, skills and financial resources currently addressed to critical open land issues will survive the abolition of the strategic authorities."
They have no doubt of the importance of this.
The only other thing I shall quote is from the quite admirable West Midlands county nature conservation strategy, about which I should have liked to say a great deal more because it is an absolutely first-class document, describing such exciting, interesting, innovative—and all the other good adjectives you can think of—work in this direction that it deserves far more reference than one has time to give. I shall give one illustration to indicate that this is not a small problem.
They carried out a thorough and competent wildlife habitat survey. They have a county wildlife record centre. But the most striking fact is that the survey identified in the West Midlands county no less than 83,772 acres of undeveloped land. Not all of this is for nature conservation. Some of it is derelict, some playing fields, much of it is agricultural, but some 26,000 acres provide useful habitats. In other words, about 12 per cent. of the total area of the county is the habitat, or potential habitat, area.
I conclude on that. I have no time to go on. I am not sure what the Government's intention is about this. What I have quoted shows that this is not a small problem. This is not just a peripheral matter. This is a matter of considerable importance not only in Greater London but in the great conurbations. I shall leave it at that. I do not think that the Minister can possibly answer the debate at this stage. I hope that the Government are under no misapprehension at all that
466
this is not just a fringe interest of a few environmentalists. It is a matter of great importance in the great conurbations.
Lord Melchett: May I ask what the Government's intention is on this. As I understand it we are due to rise in five minutes, and I just wonder whether it would not do this series of amendments greater justice if the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, could be persuaded to withdraw Amendment No. 54. We could then resume the debate, when the House is again in Committee on this Bill, on Amendment No. 55 and the subsequent amendments.
I had intended to speak to Amendment No. 58ZA, which covers exactly the same ground as the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, but I would not want to try and make a speech on a major amendment, I think the most important in my name to this Bill, in four minutes and also try and allow time for the noble Lord on the Front Bench to reply to both that and the speeches that have been made—and no doubt there are more that noble Lords intend to make—between now and 11 o'clock. I wonder whether the Chief Whip could give us some guidance.
Lord Denham: Of course, we fix things by arrangment between the usual channels, and we are very much approaching the deadline, I do see. In the circumstances—I wonder whether the noble Lord the Chief Whip opposite would possibly comment on this—I wonder whether the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, that my noble friend should withdraw his amendment at this stage and we should come back to the next one as first business on the next occasion is probably not the best solution.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: It is certainly a way round the particular difficulty which we face now. I think it is most unsatisfactory, in a sense, to break the debate in the middle of an amendment. My information is that it is likely that one or two more noble Lords will wish to speak, which would take us considerably past 11 o'clock, so perhaps the suggestion of my noble friend Lord Melchett might be the answer, without breaking the tradition of not breaking into an amendment.
Lord Chelwood: Do I gather the suggestion is that we should return to this subject on Tuesday, in which case it would fall to me, would it not, to move Amendments Nos. 55 and 58?
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: The position is that the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, has in fact only moved Amendment No. 54 at the present time; that the noble Lord should withdraw Amendment No. 54 now and, when we start again on Tuesday, we should start by the noble Lord moving Amendment No. 55.
Lord Chelwood: In that case, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No.54.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Denham: In moving that the House do resume, which is the general wish of the Committee, I would like to thank noble Lords for their co-operation on this

467
rather difficult occasion. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at one minute before eleven o'clock.