Lords Sitting of 9 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 Norwich): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

Royal Assent
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone): My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

Reserve Forces (Safeguard of Employment) Act,

Betting, Gaming and Lotteries (Amendment) Act,

Town and Country Planning (Compensation) Act,

Gosport Borough Council Act,

National Bank of New Zealand Limited Act,

Lloyds Bank (Merger) Act.

Marine Counter-pollution Exercise
3.2 p.m.
Lord Sandys: My Lords. I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what lessons have been learned from the recent marine counter-pollution exercise in the North Channel between Scotland and Northern Ireland.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, this annual exercise was one of a series to test the response of Government to oil spills at sea. This confirmed the ability to deploy rapidly available dispersant spraying aircraft to a forward operating airfield and validated assumptions on the amount of dispersant which could be applied at sea. It also provided practical experience of operating the recently acquired remote sensing equipment on an aircraft, and it exercised, tested and improved working relationships between the Marine Pollution Control Unit, HM Coastguard and other involved agencies.
Lord Sandys: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that very encouraging Answer. Is my noble friend able to say how many aircraft and what aircraft are available to the Marine Pollution Control Unit, and what other means of pollution dispersal are available to that body?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the Government have seven dedicated aircraft on contract. In addition to that, we also have contracts on 35 tugs which are fitted with spray dispersant equipment.

Gibraltar Airport: Airspace Restrictions
3.4 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 whether all Spanish restrictions on the use of airspace by aircraft proceeding to and from Gibraltar Airport have now been removed.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Young): My Lords, the Spanish Government have introduced welcome adjustments to the prohibited airspace in the Algeciras region which have removed the previous difficulties faced by civil aircraft in using Gibraltar airfield. We have made clear to the Spanish Government our view that it would be right for them to make similar arrangements for military aircraft.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that moderately satisfactory Answer. May I ask her whether the Spanish Government, particularly remembering that it is the Government of a country which is a candidate for the EEC, have given any explanation of their delay in raising these restrictions?
Baroness Young: My Lords, as my noble friend will be aware, discussions are continuing with the Spanish authorities about changes to the prohibited airspace for military aircraft. Under the circumstances, I think that it would be better for me not to go into the details of that matter on this occasion.

Ministerial Statements: Questions Procedure
3.6 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 the Leader of the House whether he agrees that there is a need to clarify the procedure under which Lords ask questions and make comments in response to ministerial Statements.
The Lord President of the Council (Viscount Whitelaw): My Lords, the practice of the House on this matter is set out on page 73 of the Companion to the Standing Orders, which states:
"brief comments and questions for clarification are allowed"
but that Statements:
"should not be made the occasion for an immediate debate".
Lord Rochester: My Lords, will the noble Viscount accept that my Question was prompted by exchanges that took place following a recent ministerial Statement in which I was involved, the outcome of which was that the correct procedure to be followed on such occasions was not recorded in Hansard? I am grateful therefore to the noble Viscount for having put that matter right in his Answer. However, will he agree that in response to ministerial Statements it would be helpful if we all—and I am not particularly proud of my own performance in this respect—sought to exercise the same self-restraint as the House recently accepted should be exercised in asking questions which are supplementary to Starred Questions?
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, and I appreciate what he says. He is probably quite right—but of course it is a matter for the House—that your Lordships would welcome it if noble Lords paid more attention to the guidance of the Companion that, "comments and questions" should be brief. I am the first to recognise that because I probably repeat as many Statements as anybody else in this House and I am about to repeat another one in the not very distant future. I reckon that my strictures apply to myself just as much as they do throughout the House.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, would it not be helpful if Ministers were encouraged to break new ground by actually answering questions?
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, I appreciate that the noble Lord thinks that I am deficient in many ways, and no doubt I am. However, I try to answer questions which are properly put and if sometimes I give the noble Lord a glancing blow, I know that he expects it!
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, I think that there is an element of confusion as to the extent to which questions for clarification may be asked by Back-Bench Peers after the leading speakers of the various parties have spoken. It might be worthwhile if the Procedure Committee looked at this matter when it meets on 11th June.
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, to answer the noble Lord, who has considerable responsibility and experience, I think that it is fair to say that at present the Companion to the Standing Orders makes no distinction between Front-Benchers and Back-Benchers, although I suppose in practice greater latitude, for better of worse, is allowed to the Front Bench speakers. I am not sure that it should go too far, but it apparently does so. However, if the noble Lord thinks that discussion on the matter would be useful, then I am sure that it could be very easily arranged.

The Shire County Councils
3.8 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: 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 have any plans to abolish the shire county councils.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Elton): No, my Lords.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, the need to put down this Question arose from the failure of the noble Viscount the Leader of the House to answer the same question in the Second Reading debate on the Local Government Bill, although I put it to him directly. If it is the Government's case that the upper tier of local government should be removed from the GLC and the metropolitan counties, and power returned to the people at a local level, why does that not apply equally in the shire counties?
Lord Elton: My Lords, the shire counties are responsible for 86 per cent. of expenditure on local matters.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I am quite aware of that; but that has nothing to do with the principle of removing the upper tier of local government. So far as I understand it, the Government are making the case that on principle this upper tier should be removed. Therefore, why not do so in the shire counties? Would it not have saved the Government a good deal of embarrassment last week in the county council elections if the shire counties had been abolished—indeed, as much a saving of embarrassment last Tuesday if this House had been abolished?
Lord Elton: My Lords, if the noble Lord will read the rest of my noble friend's excellent speech in reply to the Second Reading debate, he will see that we had other reasons for abolishing the upper tier authorities than he has adduced.
Lord Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon: My Lords, would it not be more to the point if Her Majesty's Government began to think about restoring the historic shire counties to the state which they were in before local government disorganisation in 1974?
Lord Elton: My Lords, there has been such comment about the relevance of ministerial Answers and the prolonging of debates that your Lordships will forgive me if I do not reply.
Lord Jacques: My Lords, in any consideration of local government in the shire counties will the Government bear in mind that many of the powers which have gone to the shire counties have gone against the will of the people living in the urban areas, and that there are many towns in the shire counties which could make quite as good a job of local government services as the boroughs in the metropolitan areas?
Lord Elton: My Lords, the noble Lord is entitled to his view and I shall look at it with interest.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, did not the Minister have some qualms of conscience last Thursday, bearing in mind the results of the elections which took place, at the fact that the Government Bill disfranchised 11 million people from recording a vote in areas which historically are literally the centres of Labour support? Is it not also a fact that they did so badly in their own traditional areas that there would have been a massacre in the areas where they disfranchised the people from voting? Was not that one of the main reasons for the Bill?
Lord Elton: My Lords, my only qualm of conscience on Thursday was that I did not do a good enough job in persuading your Lordships to the Government's view on one or two matters.

Business
3.12 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon my noble friend the Leader of the House will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement on security which is to be made in another place.

Spring Bank Holiday Recess
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may also be for the convenience of the House if I announce that, subject to the progress of business, the House will rise for the Spring Bank Holiday Recess on Thursday, 23rd May, and return on Monday, 3rd June. The House will sit at 11 a.m. on Thursday, 23rd May.

Immigration (Bail) Bill [H.L.]
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to amend the Immigration Act 1971 to make more effective the provisions for the release on bail of persons detained under the Act. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—( Lord Avebury.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Business of the House
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debates on the Motions in the names of the Lord Rochester and the Lord Kennet set down for 15th May shall each be limited to 2½ hours and that Standing Order 35 and paragraphs 10 to 13 of the Rules for the Conduct of Short Debates set out in Appendix H to the Companion to Standing Orders shall apply to each debate.—(Viscount Whitelaw.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Local Government Bill
3.13 p.m.
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.]
[Amendment No. 72A had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 72B:
Before Clause 8, insert the following new clause:
("Waste regulation and disposal functions.
. The Secretary of State shall by order taking effect on the abolition date make provision for the functions conferred by
740
sections 74 and 76 of the Public Health Act 1936, Part I of the Control of Pollution Act 1974, the Refuse Disposal (Amenity) Act 1978 and sections 5 and 6 of the Litter Act 1983 in Greater London and the metropolitan counties to be functions of the London Residuary Body and each metropolitan county residuary body.").
The noble Baroness said: Waste disposal certainly is not a glamorous subject but it is something which affects the lives of all of us. When it goes well we do not even think about it; we quite naturally take it for granted. But when it goes wrong, reactions are sharp, plentiful, and full of anxiety. I believe that in this increasingly sophisticated society where waste is a growth industry the best structure for its disposal is vital, whatever the party politics of the Government in power.
Of all the clauses in this Bill, those relating to waste regulation and disposal give rise to some of the greatest concerns. In other areas where the Bill goes wrong it can result in delays, administrative chaos, increased costs and a reduction in essential services. But in the case of waste disposal and regulation there is an additional factor: the health and safety of many millions of people could be endangered. In this crucial area we cannot allow the slightest uncertainty to persist. This is why I propose this amendment which will effectively provide for a continuation of a strategic approach to waste regulation and disposal in Greater London and the metropolitan county councils.
Let us for a moment look at the voluntary arrangements proposed by the Government. We do not believe that they will work. They have been tried before and have failed. Voluntary arrangements between boroughs and districts would not enable decisions to be made such as setting the budget, granting site licences, entering into contracts, agreeing a London or county-wide strategy on waste disposal plans; for without the unanimous approval of all the districts and boroughs each decision would have to be ratified by each district or borough council individually. Individual districts or boroughs would be able to contract out simply because they did not like a particular decision.
Voluntary arrangements will lead to endless arguments over the provision of the financial resources required. We have seen this before in other areas. A single strategic authority can spread its costs by raising a precept across the whole area. It seems that to talk of a voluntary co-operation in this context is a retrograde step both in central and in local government. The inclusion in the Bill of absolute powers reserved to the Secretary of State demonstrates that the Government themselves have doubts about the appropriateness and practicality of voluntary arrangements for waste disposal and regulation.
Every significant study has argued the case for a strategic waste disposal authority. Within the last month the Select Committee of this House on Science and Technology, under the chairmanship of the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, has specifically examined the Bill's proposals and their effect on waste disposal. Their findings are unequivocal. The committee concludes:
"We reject the Bill's proposal to transfer waste disposal functions to borough and district councils. These councils are too small to control hazardous waste disposal effectively and voluntary arrangements for co-operation between them have no serious prospect of

741
survival. Single waste disposal authorities for London and each metropolitan county council should be set up before public confidence in waste disposal is undermined".
I do not think there could be a clearer comment than that.
Following the Government's response to the earlier report on hazardous waste disposal by the same Select Committee under the chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Gregson, on 3rd April this year they recorded their deep concern at the fragmentation of waste disposal authorities in Greater London and the metropolitan counties:
"The provisions of the Local Government Bill run counter to the Committee's recommendation in favour of large waste disposal authorities and regional planning".
Those are judgments made by a highly expert Select Committee of your Lordships' House. In addition, the chairman of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, Sir Richard Southwood, wrote to the Secretary of State for the Environment on 14th February 1985, saying:
"We remain concerned that waste disposal should be planned and operated on a sufficiently large scale to ensure that environmental damage is minimised".
This is only the distinguished tip of a large iceberg of grave concern.
It is strange almost to the point of incomprehensibility that the Government do not heed the views of these eminent bodies when they express such deep concern and argue so strongly for the present Greater London and metropolitan county-wide arrangements, and that these should be maintained with the present team of experts and the existing centres of excellence which cover all aspects of waste regulation and disposal. The case for this concentration on the centres of excellence was made strongly in the report of the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook.
The success of the strategic waste disposal authority in Greater London from 1965 was widely recognised, so that when local government was reorganised in 1974 waste disposal responsibilities were transferred to the shire and metropolitan counties in England. These bodies have achieved similar success, and the Government have never challenged this. The by-products of this structure are impressive. For example, both the GLC and the metropolitan county councils have attracted expert teams of specialists which it would be criminal to lose. They have promoted technological advance and recycling initiatives. They are able to take advantage of economies of scale to negotiate favourable long-term contracts with the private sector. There are many more achievements that I could mention, but I will not take up time.
In their consultation paper on waste disposal published in November 1983, the Government stated that the boroughs and districts should seek to ensure, so far as is possible, that the transfer of the service takes place without detriment to existing standards of service. It seems odd that in a Government document they should have to say:
"to seek to ensure so far as possible".
Surely the least that could be expected would be to guarantee existing standards. Why on earth does one change the system unless it is to improve it? One does not just hold on to what exists, but makes it better;
742
otherwise, to go to all this trouble, disruption and expense is quite worthless.
The Government's proposals have also been roundly and universally condemned by all professional, academic and industrial opinion. The private sector, including the CBI and the National Association of Waste Disposal Contractors, has been among the most vigorous opponents of the Government's proposals. This has been a rare case of both the public and the private sectors speaking with one voice. One would have thought that the Government would take that seriously. I believe the Government would be hard put to it to give the Committee the name of a single professional or trade body which supports the Government's proposals.
Apart from what is generally defined as hazardous waste—all waste is hazardous if not disposed of properly—waste has to be dealt with every working day. The availability of disposal outlets can change hour by hour, let alone day by day, and without a single strategic authority with the power to direct collection vehicles to available disposal outlets the service could well grind to a halt. Individual districts and borough councils, because of their inherent geographical limitations, will not have the flexibility to respond to changing circumstances. Common standards for pollution control on public and private sector sites are likewise imperative; if not, the public and industry will have no confidence in the regulating authority. If there is no confidence, this can only be bad both for the service and for the public at large.
Unless an authority understands the nature of waste, the disposal options and the variety of site conditions, risks must increase. Unless an authority can employ specialists in the chemical, biological and other essential scientific fields, abuse and failures will be inevitable. We cannot risk a disaster like Love Canal in Britain today. The community and industry are entitled to competent strategic authorities which are committed to the protection of the environment and which employ high levels of expertise to ensure safety and confidence.
Eighteen months after Streamlining the Cities we are still waiting for detailed solutions to the problems that abolition will bring. Dissension and disagreement in the boroughs and districts, concern over costs and lack of expertise and knowledge have combined to produce stalemate. The latest ministerial deadline for post-abolition arrangements is the beginning of September 1985—a date too close for comfort. The obstinate pursuit of this course in a desperate attempt to achieve the unachievable can only jeopardise the future health and safety of the public. It is clear that Greater London and the metropolitan county councils must have an efficient waste disposal service from Day 1 after abolition. That efficient waste disposal service exists now. All that is needed is to retain it as it is.
The Minister for Local Government, obviously concerned about this reaction, issued a note of guidance proposing various groupings of boroughs and districts. But in that guidance note the Government accepted that there must be some common unit to deal with hazardous waste management. They accept the need to co-ordinate waste planning activities, they accept the need for some consultation and liaison arrangements to ensure a reasonable consistency in

743
site licensing standards, and they accept the need for some joint consultation on research and development. The particular groups of authorities may wish to join together in financing projects of common interest. This is all trying to bring in what is now in operation, but doing it in the most impossible and unrealistic manner. It is not good enough, because the Government's proposals are riddled with common units, joint consultation and liaison arrangements, where once again the real solution is the single strategic authority. The present service will be in danger of disintegration, staff will leave and the service will therefore be unable to be maintained efficiently or at the standards of convenience and health and safety of the Government.
As I have shown, all expert opinion and all available evidence argues that waste disposal must be the responsibility of strategic authorities. It is strange that the Government do not listen even to bodies that they have set up. The inability of Government or the borough and district councils to produce a workable alternative underlines this. In the end I fear that the Government will find that this is the only solution, and if they do not accept this now the uncertainty about this essential service will be disastrous.
Lord Elton: I am not seeking to be difficult, but the noble Baroness did not open her speech with a reference to any other amendment numbers. I believe she intended also to embrace the next amendment in her name on the Marshalled List. If that is so, she should mention it before she sits down.
Baroness Birk: The amendments have been grouped so that most of these major amendments on waste disposal are together. I am sorry.
Noble Lords: Which numbers?
Baroness Birk: I am speaking to the next one on hazardous waste, which is really incorporated in this, and there are other amendments which do not apply to me at all; but I am coming on to that point now.
Lord Elton: The noble Baroness is speaking, with the leave of the Committee, to Amendments Nos. 72B and 72C so far, but I think she will declare an interest (though it is really for my noble friend to do so) in Amendments Nos. 73 and 74.
Baroness Birk: Yes; I am sorry. I thought it was for the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): It is nothing to do with me.
Baroness Birk: I am speaking now to Amendment No. 72B and to Amendments Nos. 72C, 73 and 74.
Amendment No. 72C: Before Clause 8, insert the following new clause:
("Hazardous waste functions.
. The Secretary of State shall by order taking effect on the abolition date make provision for the regulation and control of hazardous waste in Greater London and the metropolitan counties to be functions of the London Residuary Body and each metropolitan county residuary body.").
Amendment No. 73: Clause 9, page 4, line 35, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
("( ) On the appointed day there shall be established in Greater
744
London and each metropolitan county a body corporate to be known by the name of the London Waste Disposal Authority or by the name of the county with the addition of the words "Waste Disposal Authority", as the case may be.
( ) Each authority shall consist of members of the constituent councils appointed by them to be members of the Authority.
( ) The constituent councils in relation to the London Waste Disposal Authority shall be the London borough councils and the Common Council.
( ) The constituent councils in relation to a metropolitan waste disposal authority shall be the councils for the metropolitan districts comprised in the county.
( ) Each authority shall be a joint authority within the meaning of Part IV of this Act and the provisions of that Part shall apply to this section as if this section were included in that Part.
( ) The functions specified in subsection (2) below shall be discharged by the authority in respect of the area for which it is established.").
Amendment No. 74: Page 5, line 13, leave out subsections (3) to (5).
I beg the Committee's pardon if this has caused any trouble, but I think they are all together in the same group.
The case is overwhelming. What we now have to consider—and this is what I was going to say when the Minister intervened—differs from Amendment No. 73 as to what form that strategic authority should take. The amendment I am moving favours the residuary body for three main reasons. First, the Bill already provides for residuary bodies, which have diverse functions incorporated in them. When we come to that part of the Bill, the bodies can be made permanent. Then, the residuary bodies would provide direct linkages with other services.
Lord Elton: We must have this clear. Is the noble Baroness saying that the residuary body will be made permanent. Did I hear that correctly?
3.30 p.m.
Baroness Birk: What I said—and I am sorry that the noble Lord the Minister seems to find me so difficult to understand today—was that the residuary bodies are in the Bill; and I take it that he would agree that that is so. They are in Clause 55. At the moment they are there for five years, but the Secretary of State can prolong their lives. I was saying that they could be made permanent if it is the will of Parliament that they should be. That is what I was saying.
Secondly, the residuary body would provide direct linkages with other services and the essential specialist service could also find its place in these bodies and not be in danger of dissipation. We had on Tuesday the example of transport, which is now being put into the residuary body for London and, so far as the metropolitan counties are concerned, into a joint authority. So already this week we have had a precedent for this.
I do not think that the Minister need be quite so puzzled about this as he appears to look at the moment. The specialist staffs would be preserved and not be in danger of dissipation. The residuary body could then become an elected or an appointed body according to the wishes of Parliament. If we stay with the system as it is in the Bill, the Secretary of State will then be forced to use his reserve powers to bring about a further reorganisation, with all the consequential disruption that that will involve. This subject of waste disposal should not be used as a political football.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Baroness Birk: Noble Lords may laugh; but it is something that affects everybody and it has to be undertaken by whoever may be the Government or the local authority. What I am saying is that if a system is working well, you should change it only if you can improve upon it. All that we have seen so far are the plans in the Bill which would make it a far worse and more ineffective system. I quoted very distinguished expert sources to support the point of view that you should change it only if you can improve it. This is an outstanding example of the importance of this Chamber using its revising powers in the interests of millions of people in this country who will be gravely affected by whatever is decided in this very important area and to whom we owe a deep responsibility. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: As a brief intervention I would remind your Lordships that this is Committee stage and that it is perfectly normal for noble Lords to stand up and sit down as they wish. This is not Second Reading. I want merely to ask the noble Baroness whether she will tell us whether it is her intention that the residuary body shall become permanent; or is this something that she is going to decide later after your Lordships have decided what to put in it?
Baroness Birk: This is the Committee stage, but I have always been taught to believe since I have been in this House that when one is discussing an amendment at Committee stage one should try to restrict oneself to the amendment. I am discussing the amendment which is before us, Amendment No. 72B. The Minister knows perfectly well that as Parliament can do anything, it can certainly make this residuary body permanent. We shall hear the Government's view later, no doubt.
Lord Elton: My noble friends and I, and other noble Lords on the Cross-Benches, will probably take a different view about what the noble Baroness is proposing if it presupposes later action to change the nature of the body to which she is giving these functions. It is a perfectly relevant question to ask.
Baroness Birk: Whatever form the residuary body takes, in order to guarantee continuity and consistency there will have to be a permanent body set up. That makes sense. There are powers in the Bill to have a strategic body. There is no point in having a strategic body for a very short time. We believe in a strategic body and if your Lordships decide that a strategic body is necessary, obviously one would expect an element of permanence to be attached to the strategic bodies.
Lord Elton: I am most grateful to the noble Baroness. It is quite clear that she says that this is a strategic function and that there is no point in giving a strategic function to a temporary body and therefore it is the proposal to change the nature of the residuary body until it becomes a reflection of what has been abolished by this Bill.
Baroness Birk: Not at all. The Minister has no right to draw that conclusion. It will go into a residuary
746
body, but this does not for one moment mean—and I think that this was made clear; I certainly made it clear at Second Reading and on the amendments on which we spoke at the beginning of the Committee stage—that the residuary bodies should be mirror images of the present GLC, on the one hand, or the metropolitan counties, on the other. There is nothing that I have said and nothing in this amendment that can lead the Minister to come to that conclusion, unless he is dreaming it up himself.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: I realise that the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, does not want any assistance from anybody in this Committee, let alone me, to deal with the cross-examination that is now being pursued by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, in this matter. With great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Elton—I have the greatest respect for him—he gives his case away and the Government's case away by the number of questions which he immediately puts to the noble Baroness. Unfortunately, for other reasons I was not here earlier in the proceedings. But I am dealing only with the question forcefully put; I almost said "hectoringly" put, but I will withdraw the word "hectoringly" straight away—I withdraw that. The impression that one has got is that the Government do not know what to do with these matters.
We all agree on this side that the GLC should be abolished; we all agree for the purposes of this context that the metropolitan counties should be abolished. We are not trying to wreck this Bill.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: We are trying to assist. It is very interesting to me to hear those shouts. We are not trying to wreck this Bill. We are trying to be of assistance. Our function here in this House is to assist the Government as to the future policy they are to adopt on such very important matters as waste disposal. I am very sorry indeed to find that noble Lords on the other side of the Committee with whom I have had a lot of discussion on matters relating to defence, science and all that sort of thing should feel that the noble Baroness is trying to wreck this Bill when she is trying to get going a procedure which will assist not only your Lordships but also the community at large which is concerned with waste disposal.
Lord Elton: All that I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, is that I have not yet made my case on these amendments. But I thought that your Lordships should know what it was that the noble Baroness was proposing. She was kind enough to illuminate that, so that we now know.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: I hesitate to intervene, but I understand from the few remarks now made by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, that he is trying to withdraw those questions which he was putting—
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Irrespective of whether the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, is trying to wreck the Bill or not, the plain fact of the matter is that an amendment such as this has that effect. If I may say so, she is always frank; and I think I got down correctly what she said. She said: residuary bodies, temporary,

747
yes, for five years; and that they could be made permanent if the will of Parliament should say that they should be so. But that is precisely what is contrary to what has come from the other place and it is contrary to the principle of the Bill. There is no use beating about the bush for then one merely wastes the time of your Lordships. This is a challenge to the principle of the Bill. It is nothing other than part of the declared strategy to load up the residuary bodies with functions so that it can be said, in relation to, I think, Clause 55, that they should be elected because they have so many functions. This is precisely the principle of the Bill which is under challenge, as I understand it.
Baroness Birk: I really must intervene, otherwise words that I have not spoken will be put into my mouth; and I really cannot allow that. I said that the residuary bodies would then become, as they would have to, permanent bodies, and whether they were appointed or elected would be a matter for your Lordships.
Lord Ezra: If I may, I should like to talk on the subject of waste disposal, and in that connection I should like to support the proposition put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, that the waste disposal services, having been so much of a success since they were last reorganised in 1974, should be kept in that state for the benefit of the people they serve. I believe that since that date subsequent legislation, particularly relating to hazardous waste disposal and monitoring, site licensing, waste disposal strategies and siting, make it imperative that county-wide bodies deal with this subject. If we were to change this system not only would we get back to the unco-ordinated system that was present before 1974 and was then corrected, but it would be worse, because the whole question of waste disposal has now become very big business and requires considerable expertise.
That expertise has been acquired and has been brought together at the GLC and the metropolitan county levels. A number of your Lordships have no doubt seen the evidence of their work. I personally have spent some time at the Edmonton incineration and power generation plant. This is symptomatic of the new, imaginative and highly technological thinking that is going on behind waste disposal. It is inconceivable that a small grouping of local authorities could carry out, plan and operate a project of that kind. Other projects of that kind for the London area, I was reliably informed, were in hand. Would they, and could they, be carried out under the new totally decentralised arrangements?
Your Lordships are no doubt aware—those of you who follow this subject—that Messrs. Coopers and Lybrand brought out a report last year on this whole subject in regard to the proposals contained within the Bill. They said the following:
"Voluntary co-operation is presently the Government's preferred solution. If it is allowed to proceed we can envisage the experiment failing in many cases and the Governmert being compelled to establish joint boards, as indeed provided for in the Bill. Thus, two reorganisations could in practice be the consequence of the Bill as presently drafted, and not one. This cannot be a sensible proposal".
That is the conclusion reached by Coopers and Lybrand. I think it shows that this idea of going back
748
on a sector of very successful operation in regard to waste disposal is one that is inevitably putting the clock back.
It is important, in working our way through this Bill as a revising assembly, that we should pay particular attention to what now works efficiently and successfully, with the highest degree of technological expertise behind it, which is testified to by the many foreign visits that are paid to these establishments. We should not, for the sake of the convenience of fitting everything into what the Bill intends to do, go back on what has been so successful. Therefore I strongly recommend to your Lordships that the present arrangements for waste disposal on a county-wide basis should be maintained and should be incorporated, as these amendments suggest, either in the residuary body or as a separate body on their own. We are taking all those amendments together; these alternative proposals are put forward. But, either way, I would strongly press, on the basis of the clear achievements in this area, that the waste disposal authority should continue on a county-wide basis.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I think the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, takes an unduly pessimistic view of the capacity and efficiency of the boroughs, to which, under the Bill as it stands, these functions would be transferred. This is after all throughout the country essentially a local government function and I see no reason—apparently some noble Lords do not agree; but of course it is a local government function—
Lord Ezra: The noble Lord has kindly allowed me to intervene. In fact the shires handle this and therefore there would be a discrepancy in the way that this is handled, if it were to go through.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: This is, as I said, a local government function—
Noble Lords: No!
3.45 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Noble Lords say no, but it is a function at the moment of the GLC, which is at the moment a local government authority. I do not really see why noble Lords make such heavy weather of that. It seems to me to be the most elementary of propositions. What I was trying to say to the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, was that his speech, no doubt unintentionally, carried a real reflection on the efficiency of the boroughs, to which, under the Bill as it stands, these functions would pass. Experience has shown over the years that authorities of this size—and in London, for example, we are talking of authorities of the size and significance of Westminster, Kensington and Chelsea and Camden—have been perfectly capable in handling these matters. Indeed, with the growth of the policy of putting out waste disposal to private contract they have proved themselves extremely flexible in adapting to that situation. Therefore I start with the proposition that there is no reason whatever to assume that the authorities to which under the Bill these functions would be transferred would be other than capable of administering them. I must say to the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, that I think most of the local authorities concerned would very much resent any imputation to the contrary.
Lord Ezra: As the noble Lord has suggested it, may I say that I was in no way impugning the capability of the local boroughs. I should like to say that was not my intention. I believe that he has in fact made a mistake in talking about these local boroughs putting waste disposal out to contract. What they have done is put waste collection out to contract. The waste disposal function since 1974 has been in the hands of the metropolitan counties and the GLC; and because it has now become so complex and because we have the hazardous waste problem that we have, there is no suggestion that the boroughs are not capable of handling whatever they handle at the moment. However, what we have seen over the last 10 years is the very efficient handling of this very big and hazardous business, and the one thing this country has suffered from is continual chopping and changing. Once we have got something working well, why do we not leave it working well?
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I admire the conservatism of the last part of the noble Lord's speech, particularly as delivered from that Bench. However, I admire rather less his clarity of thinking, because having got very excited about waste disposal, which he argues is not a local government function, he then went on to point out that it was in fact handled by local government authorities, which he named. Therefore we really come back to the question of whether both waste collection and disposal are beyond the capacity of the authorities to which, under the Bill, they would go. Although I am naturally obliged to the noble Lord for indicating that his speech did not convey any reflection on these authorities, it seems to me that for this Committee to take the view that they could not manage this would be a quite serious reflection on large, important, responsible and experienced bodies such as these are.
I am so glad that noble Lords opposite agree with me on that point, because it is a refreshing experience for me on this Bill and I express my gratitude to them. Having dealt with that point, we start on the basis that there is no real reason to believe that the authorities to whom the Bill would transfer these functions would be incapable of discharging them. We then come to the much narrower argument as to whether or not they would be discharged better or worse. That I suppose is the point which noble Lords opposite would seek to argue. There one must look on this amendment, as on all others, not only on its intentions but on its effect. I am not concerned to attribute any motive to the noble Baroness; she was already touchy enough earlier this afternoon and I do not want to touch her off again.
We must look at the effect of her amendment, if it were carried, because after all it is a presumption, is it not, of law that the sane person intends the natural consequences of his act. This is a permanent function; waste collection and disposal will both go on as long as urban life continues. This is a permanent function, and to transfer it to a body which under the Bill is temporary raises two possible questions. Either it means that the noble Baroness is proposing to transfer these functions to the residuary body for five years, and then under further legislation they should be transferred elsewhere—and this goes dead against Lord Ezra's argument against change—or we are
750
assuming that somehow the residuary body will be continued indefinitely.
The noble Baroness wishes to intervene; but if she will permit me to continue, it may be relevant. I do not know how many of your Lordships saw the television broadcast today by Baroness Seear which throws literally a good deal of light on this situation. Perhaps the noble Baroness would like to intervene now?
Baroness Birk: I thank the noble Lord. I am certainly not very touchy; I quite enjoyed the exchange, it livened things up. But I did not think the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, was very courteous. I do not like being told to sit down and wait for a moment, I would not have treated him in that way. I just want to say, before this point gets lost in a rather lengthy debate, that I think the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, is a debater of almost Olympic standards. However, this is not the Oxford Union, it is not a debating society. We are discussing the future of a very important function which affects everybody's lives. If I may say so, it seems to have become confused between the collection responsibilities of the boroughs and districts, and the waste disposal responsibilities which, although in a wide sphere are part of local government, were in fact set up as waste disposal authorities. I do not know if the noble Lord is aware of that.
I should also draw his attention to Clause 65 which allows, without changing the Bill at that point, the residuary bodies to continue if they still have work to do after five years. Perhaps the noble Lord would be a little more temperate.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Let me say at once that I should regret it enormously if the noble Baroness thought I had been discourteous to her. That is the last thing I should wish to be. I think, however, she would agree that the noble Lord in possession of the Committee can at least select the moment at which he gives way and not subject his grammar to undue strain by giving way in the middle of a sentence. I would remind the noble Baroness that if she is seeking to lecture me on courtesy, I very quickly gave way to her, which is very much in contrast with the conduct of her noble Leader on the Second Reading who, declined three times to give way to me when he had mentioned me specifically by name. So I am not really very inclined to take lessons in manners from the Bench opposite.
I am perfectly aware of the distinction between collection and disposal; obviously, everybody is. But I am not sure that it is of very great significance to the point which I was making. That point is that it is proposed to transfer a permanent function—the noble Baroness does not dispute that this is a permanent function—to a body which it is contemplated by the Bill shall be temporary. If that be so, this raises the question whether the purpose of this proposal, or if not the purpose, its effect, will not be both to add weight to the argument for making this body permanent, but loading so many functions upon it that then noble Lords opposite will come forward and say, "Oh well, of course, it must be elected, it must have precepting powers". We would then be back to reversing the

751
decision which the Committee took only a day or two ago against an elective precept-levying body. This is what this amendment, if adopted, is a step towards.
Now I come back to the question of the television broadcast by the noble Baroness who leads the Liberal Party which seemed to indicate a complete appreciation of the consequence of these kinds of amendments. Therefore I ask your Lordships to consider this not only as a question of the ideal method of performing a useful function of local government, and whether we can work out better methods when the GLC withdraws the ban on its officials having conversations about the new setup with the incoming authorities. At the moment the GLC are doing their best to make those difficult by forbidding their officials to talk on these matters. It is as well that that should be stated plainly in this Committee.
However, one comes back to the fact that if you pile additional functions on to this residuary body, it could well be part of a strategy for seeking to reverse, by the back door, a major decision which this Committee took a little time ago. I suggest it would be quite wrong to achieve that by this method.
Lord Parry: I am a naif and an innocent in these matters; I tend to believe that this Committee sets standards that it cannot always keep. I feel at the moment we have fallen below the level of the Committee approach. The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, has led over the past seven or eight years the "Keep Britain Tidy" campaign, which has contributed more to the understanding of the importance of this subject than perhaps any other body. He has been chairman of that campaign which has focused attention on waste disposal matters, and he knows a very great deal about the subject. Surely, the point he was making was not a matter of the technology of this debate but that we here could consolidate the very real progress that has been made among all the bodies concerned with cleaning.
I happen to be the president of the British Institute of Cleaning Science and chairman of the British Cleaning Council. Systematically there has been built up in the country over the past seven or eight years a new approach to cleaning. There has been a new platform which has given the opportunity for those in contract cleaning to talk with those in the public services. We do not even need any longer to fall out publicly over the matter of who cleans what or when and why.
However, the real point being made by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, as I understood it in this debate is that there has been real progress. To set it all back now would spoil the progress that has been made.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: I agree absolutely with nine-tenths of what the noble Baroness said, and I think the Committee on all sides would do so. The importance of looking at the matter of disposal and collection of waste is very important to the nation's health and general wellbeing. The Committee will remember we went through a period when, as a result of the dustmen's strike, we saw rats running all over Leicester Square as a consequence of waste disposal not being carried out.
752
I should like to make it absolutely clear, so far as I can, that there is no difference of view at all on either side of the Committee as to the importance of getting these things right. It is important; and I do not think the impression ought to be given, whether from the Government side or the Opposition side, that there is anything flippant regarding these things being properly dealt with. So I accept the major part of the speech of the noble Baroness, which I know will be acceptable to everybody.
4 P.m.
However, we ought to confine ourselves to what is the issue. The issue on these clauses is clearly this. Certain noble Lords have the view that we can get the efficiency which would bring about the safety of waste disposal only by leaving the present conditions, where the big authority is responsible for it and has to handle it. We on this side believe that the big authority, which encompasses this as part of its functions, is an unnecessary tier of government which is costly and which in the long run is inefficient as regards giving service to the people of this country. That is what the Bill is about. It is to remove an unnecessary tier of government because it is costly and, in many respects has proved to be inefficient. In removing it the Bill suggests alternative authorities to carry out the functions which that big authority now performs—alternatives which will be more efficient and satisfactory.
The noble Baroness and those who support her have virtually said that there are no alternatives and we must carry on as now. The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, produced evidence which was meant to show that we have now reached a state of perfection and that we must never think of altering the present situation. His words could certainly give that impression—
Lord Ezra: May I say that I have no intention at all of suggesting that anything we do now should last forever. All I said was that what we are doing now is totally different from what we were doing before 1974; it is a great improvement on what we were doing before 1974 and what noble Lords opposite are suggesting is that we should go back to that situation.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: The noble Lord was perfectly clear. He said that we must not have all these changes. He said that we had made a lot of advances and that the present position is satisfactory. If that does not mean that he feels we have reached the position where we need not bother and that there are no alternatives, I do not know what it means. I have had experience in local government over very many years and I believe that the alternatives which are envisaged under this Bill, of the local authorities, the boroughs, taking back the powers and being able to take decisions on these matters, are better.
The Select Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, and the noble Baroness have all seemed to say that you cannot rely upon the smaller authorities voluntarily arriving at a position which is as efficient as the present one. Indeed, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool used similar words on another amendment. I am prepared to suggest to my noble friends that this is something which will be better done

753
under a voluntary arrangement, and that, if we give local authorities a chance voluntarily to come to a size which could give proper attention to these important matters, the result will be infinitely better than the position we now have. That is the decision which we have to make on these amendments.
But this Government have brought in extra safeguards, as any sensible Government should do. Just in case the voluntary method which I find so attractive does not work in certain areas, the same Bill gives powers to the Minister to step in and say that they have to do things which will work. That is the whole purpose of leaving the special powers in the hands of the Minister, so that he can fill in the gaps. I do not think that there will be many gaps and—I know that it may annoy some noble Lords opposite when I say this—I believe the only gaps that are likely to occur will be as a result of certain local authorities putting their political ideology above carrying out their functions as proper local authorities with the powers of local authorities. We find that happening now. On the occasions when local authorities are not carrying out the law of the land, the Minister steps in in order to see that there is a continuity of service.
So the only decision that we have to make on these amendments is: are we satisfied with the voluntary arrangement which worked for very many years, and in which many noble Lords sitting in this Chamber have played a part as local councillors, on the joint committees which dealt with health services and on all sorts of matters which need the co-operation of several authorities? The system worked for very many years before 1974 and I have every confidence that given the chance it will work again.
But having said that, I do not think that we ought to run away from the point that my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter made. There is a certain feeling behind these amendments—
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: Will the noble Lord give way? The noble Lord said that the arrangement was working satisfactorily before 1974, but is he taking into consideration the serious problems that arose particularly in the West Midlands, which he knows as well as I do, regarding the dumping of toxic waste, the cyanide scandal and all the other things which went on? Is that the satisfaction that he wants us to have in the future, that we had prior to 1974?
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: The noble Baroness and I come from the same parish. Her experience is almost identical to my own. Any evidence that I could call would be the evidence that she would be in a position to call. My answer very clearly, from my experience in the West Midlands, is that I am satisfied that the joint authorities made up of the smaller local authorities were efficient before 1974 with the knowledge that was then available to all of them, as it is with the present metropolitan boroughs, and there is no reason after all these years to start throwing mud at the excellent service that those local authorities gave before 1974 and would be in a position to give in 1986 and beyond. I believe that of the two alternatives, the local authorities are most likely to produce the best results.
754
But I want to come back to what is behind all of these amendments. There is more to this than the terms of the amendments themselves. This is quite clear from the number on the Marshalled List and reasonably clear from the speeches that have been made. It is all very well for the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, suddenly to get the applause of the Committee, which he did, by saying that he wanted to go back to discussing waste, rather suggesting that all of the other talk was unnecessary and out of order. But only a few hours before the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, said that from the Liberal Bench, his Leader, the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, was saying to the nation on television pretty much what my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter suggested was behind all this.
It has been made crystal clear, and by no one more than the noble Baroness, on television, that part of the strategy behind all these amendments is, first, to get a good answer if they can to the problem of waste; and, secondly, to use these amendments as a vehicle to get through the side door the principle of not ending the county boroughs' extra tier of government, which the Government were given power to do in a mandate, which the other place has agreed to do and which we in our decision on the Second Reading agreed to do. It is no good pretending that there is any other suggestion behind the words used by the noble Baroness in the broadcast and behind the general tenor of the amendments.
This is a matter where the only issue, wherever we sit, on the Cross-Benches, or on either side of the Chamber, is: are we going to adhere to the main principle of removing an unnecessary tier of government, or are we going to leave one little ingredient in the powers of the metropolitan boroughs to damage the whole of that great march forward? It is upon that issue that we ought to make our decision, and in doing that we ought to have confidence that the elected members of the boroughs, and the smaller authorities, are just as capable of coming to the right decisions in the interests of their constituents as are members of county boroughs or even Members of Parliament.
The Countess of Mar: Before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask him why, if the local authorities were working so perfectly prior to 1974, it was necessary for a Conservative Government to bring into being the metropolitan authorities and the new shire counties?
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: If I gave the impression that I thought local authorities were working perfectly before 1974, I should say that I have never found any authority, local or national, which I think works perfectly. All of them leave room for a lot of improvement. That is the whole point of debate in Parliament: to find out where it is not working perfectly and to try to move a step towards improvement. In removing this unnecessary tier, I think we are doing just that. What I am saying is that from my personal experience, which covered 15 to 20 years, where joint authorities made up of nine or ten local authorities got together to make decisions which covered a wide area it worked, and worked well. I defy the suggestion made by the Select Committee, by the noble Baroness and by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra,

755
that the local authorities are not capable of getting together and will not do it as efficiently as this authority—and I say that on the basis of my own experience as one who worked in it, although it never was as perfect as I should have liked it to be.
Lord Gregson: I want to talk about waste disposal and in particular about hazardous waste disposal. Your Lordships' Select Committee on Science and Technology is very considerably concerned regarding those aspects of the Local Government Bill that deal with the arrangements to be made for the disposal of both domestic and industrial waste when seven of the present waste disposal authorities are no longer in existence. The Committee do not believe that the arrangements outlined in Clause 9 and elsewhere in this Bill are desirable or even viable. That is the reason for Amendment No. 73.
In 1981 the Select Committee conducted a long and detailed inquiry into the disposal of hazardous waste. The report of that inquiry is now accepted throughout the world as an authoritative and unbiased report. For the benefit of your Lordships, perhaps I may point out that it is now in its third edition. It is recognised as one of the most important reports on hazardous waste ever produced. At the end of last year the Select Committee commenced an inquiry into local government scientific and technical services which by definition included a review of the handling of all classes of waste. The passage through Parliament of this Bill obliged the committee to produce an interim report and I shall quote to the noble Baroness the recommendations in the committee's report:
"They consider that voluntary arrangements have no serious prospect of survival or even of providing the proper degree of control which hazardous waste disposal requires. They therefore recommend that the Bill be amended to provide that single authorities should be established. Furthermore they consider that establishment of those authorities should not wait on the London boroughs and the metropolitan districts, nor run any risk of reducing public confidence in waste disposal, but should be established before the abolition date. Delay would necessitate two reorganisations of waste disposal rather than one and thus an unjustifiable degree of disruption".
It is important to understand what lies behind the original recommendations in the committee's report on hazardous waste, which was endorsed on review by the present report. Hazardous waste is a very complex, highly technical subject, and with the almost daily introduction of new materials and chemical compounds the complexity is multiplying. The control and monitoring of hazardous waste therefore calls for a highly qualified multi-disciplined staff. This requirement is further compounded in this country because the great bulk of liquid hazardous waste is co-disposed with domestic waste on the principle of dilute and disperse.
4.15 p.m.
The United Kingdom is almost unique in this method of disposal but it is a most cost-effective route. The Select Committee considered that co-disposal could be a satisfactory procedure but (and it is a very big "but") only if control, monitoring and support research is of the very highest standard and is carried out on a continuous basis.
Two of the issues that concerned the committee on hazardous waste, from the very considerable evidence
756
it received, were, first, that many of the existing authorities—that is still post-1974; I am talking of all the county waste disposal authorities—were too small to have an effective expertise and this gave rise to fragmentation and very uneven performance. I believe that the first report of the new inspectorate for hazardous waste is critical of this situation, and I should be interested to learn from the Government spokesman today why that report has not been laid before Parliament in time for the passage of this Bill through your Lordships' House. It is ironic that among the better waste disposal authorities are the London and metropolitan county councils; which is just as well because the great bulk of hazardous waste arising in this country is in the areas covered by them. The other issue which became apparent was that before 1974 many attempts were made to bring about voluntary groups of the smaller authorities in order to form the size of authority that was necessary to gather together the expertise to deal with this very difficult problem. The outcome was a miserable failure.
The Select Committee has received a great deal of evidence and correspondence regarding the subject we are discussing today, and within my knowledge not one comment supports the concept of voluntary organisations for this most vital area of activity, although many of the bodies commenting strongly support the rest of the Government's Bill. To underline this, I shall quote briefly from the comments that I have received.
The first comment comes from the CBI:
"We have considered very carefully the Government's proposals that responsibility for waste regulation and disposal should be transferred to individual district and borough councils. The overwhelming majority of members consulted were of the view that voluntary co-operation is unlikely to work and that statutory joint arrangements should be made from the outset".
The National Farmers' Union, which I do not think supports this side of the Committee, said:
"There is considerable evidence of an inability of districts to co-operate in the allocation and management of waste disposal facilities or to employ sufficiently technically competent staff".
The Institute of Waste Management, the professional body said:
"It is clear to this Institute that the most satisfactory alternative option on the abolition of the Greater London Council and the metropolitan county councils is to transfer their waste regulation and disposal functions to statutory joint boards".
The industrial side in the private sector, the National Association of Waste Disposal Contractors, is already on record as having expressed the opinion that in the event that Parliament passes the Local Government Bill abolishing the GLC and metropolitan authorities:
"the standard of scientific and technical services in Greater London and the metropolitan counties will fall drastically in the waste management industry. It remains our strongly held view that statutory joint boards should replace the GLC and metropolitan authorities".
It goes on:
"'Co-ordination' and 'voluntary joint arrangements' are words regarded by management in both sectors as mere pious hopes. They are rarely effective. As to the guarantee that the Secretary of State has reserve powers where the proposed scheme does not work, one wonders how long a period of chaos will exist before that radical step is taken".
It is very important. The insidious danger arising from the land fill disposal of hazardous waste is the possible contamination of our water supplies. That must never, never, be allowed to happen.

757
Perhaps I may quote from the evidence given by those charged with safeguarding our water supplies—the water authorities:
"The Water Authorities are concerned that abolition of the GLC and the metropolitan county councils could lead to greater pollution by waste disposal sites of underground and, to a lesser extent, river waters. The investigation of proposals for waste disposal, the specification of tipping arrangements and the subsequent monitoring and enforcement require a high level of scientific and technical expertise. Such expertise is generally found in Greater London and the metropolitan counties but it would hardly be practical for it to be provided at a similar level in the London and Metropolitan Boroughs to whom responsibility for waste disposal would pass. Some form of co-ordination or control of waste disposal appears to be essential if the advances made under the Control of Pollution Act are not to be reversed through abolition of the GLC and metropolitan county councils".
Voluntary organisations have been tried before, under much more favourable circumstances. To attempt to create them with the battle lines drawn up between the borough councils, from the extreme Left to the extreme Right, is surely to invite mayhem. Given this emotive subject, with public confidence at stake and with the potential for the most horrendous disasters, I cannot understand why the Government should be so irresponsible as to risk this crucial service descending into a shambles. I say to the Government, "You must not do it". Your Lordships' Select Committee urge the Committee to support this amendment.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Before the noble Lord, Lord Gregson, sits down, may I ask him a question? He was a distinguished member of the Select Committee; did the Select Committee consider the reserve mandatory arrangements in Clause 9 of the Bill? If it did consider them, why did the Select Committee find those provisions inappropriate, if indeed it did?
Lord Gregson: I will first correct the noble Lord. I was not a member of the Select Committee of review. I was chairman of the Select Committee on Hazardous Waste. It was in that capacity that I spoke today. The noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, was the chairman, and no doubt he will be delighted, during his comments on this amendment, to give the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, the answer to his question.
The Earl of Cranbrook: It may be appropriate at this moment if I intervene and draw the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, to the fact that the amendments which are in the name of the Select Committee do precisely that which he has suggested: take note of the reserve powers. I should like formally to bring before your Lordships' consideration the Motion in my name relating to Clause 8 and Amendments Nos. 73 and 74.
As has been said, I was the chairman of the sub-committee of the Select Committee of which the noble Lord, Lord Gregson, is also a member; I was the chairman responsible for the slim blue volume which has been circulating. The noble Lord, Lord Gregson, is a member of the same Select Committee in whose name that report appears; that is to say, of the full Select Committee. I was very grateful to the noble Lord when, with his long experience of dealing with
758
hazardous waste, he agreed to introduce the subject of the amendments of the Select Committee.
I should like once again to draw your Lordships' attention, before I start dealing with the matters in the Bill, to paragraph 4 of the Select Committee's report, in which we made it very clear that in discussing these issues—the issues of science and technology in respect of local government, metropolitan county councils and the GLC—we genuinely abandoned our political stances. As is usual with a Select Committee of your Lordships' House, we were a cross-party Select Committee. There was the appropriate number of Members from all sides of the House. The membership was selected by your Lordships' Committee of Selection. It was very genuinely a cross-party, objective review.
When we discussed this matter, members of the sub-committee said to me, "You must excuse us but we cannot remain neutral when we come to discuss this subject on the Floor of the Chamber". As chairman of that sub-committee, I am very grateful for the restraint that was displayed in our meetings. I do not expect the Lord Chairman to try to exert his influence in a similar fashion here and now because obviously we have reached the moment when people are taking political sides. While thanking the noble Lord, Lord Gregson, for introducing this matter I draw his attention to the fact that he regretted any arrangement that would require two reorganisations. So would I. If the noble Lord chooses to vote for the amendment of his noble friend Lady Birk, it is highly likely that there will be two reorganisations. One reorganisation would put the waste disposal authority with the residuary body, and then the residuary body, in the terms of the Bill, would be wound up.
At all costs the Select Committee—and now I speak as chairman of the Sub-Committee—was concerned to avoid any disruption or hiatus in the arrangements not only for the collection of waste in the urban areas, in the conurbations of England and in London but, more seriously, in its proper treatment and disposal. As the Committee will realise, waste is not nowadays simply dumped into a hole in the ground or put into the sea. We all know that local authorities at whatever level—whether they are shire counties, metropolitan counties or the Greater London Council—have invested in sophisticated equipment in order to dispose of waste in a responsible fashion and thus safeguard, as the noble Lord, Lord Gregson, has said, future generations.
Mention was made by the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution which is currently undertaking a study of the whole process of waste disposal in this nation. I do not believe it is necessary formally to declare this as an interest, but I am a member of that Royal Commission. This has given me a remarkable opportunity, while I was simultaneously chairman of the sub-committee, to travel around the country and see waste disposal facilities and consider the whole matter of waste disposal.
I will now explain the purpose of the amendments that I wish to bring before the Committee. First, the Motion on Clause 8 stand part is not, as some noble Lords may fear, a wrecking Motion or anything of that kind. It is simply that the Select Committee, in order

759
to safegard its amendments to Clause 9, wished to dispose of Clause 8 purely because it introduces terminology which, it might be suggested, could make our amendments to Clause 9 impossible.
The noble Baroness, Lady Birk, was rather more clever in the placing of her amendment; she placed it before Clause 8. We would have done so if we had thought of that artifice; we would have placed our amendment before that of the noble Baroness. Then we would, perhaps, have had an opportunity of voting on ours before voting on the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Birk. That is why my name stands to the Motion that Clause 8 should not stand part of the Bill.
Amendments Nos. 73 and 74 taken together fall back on the reserve powers which are already in the Bill. They do not set up a new authority. The noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, may have misled the Committee in suggesting that these two amendments have the same purpose as previous amendments. They do not. They merely require the Secretary of State to take up the option that is already in the Bill and to exercise it from a stated day; that is to say, to start the process of holding together the present waste disposal functions before abolition day.
At about the time we produced our report we also had the benefit of Department of the Environment guidelines. Mention has already been made of these and of the guideline on hazardous waste which, I would remind your Lordships, reads as follows:
"There is a strong need for close co-ordination of such controls and for maintaining existing centres of specialist staff, facilities and equipment—especially computer-based records. It has accordingly been concluded"—
and the Committee will realise that I am quoting the government guideline—
"that some common unit to provide these services will be essential in each metropolitan area".
The Select Committee heartily supported that approach to hazardous wastes. From experience that I have gained lately, in seeing a great deal of non-hazardous commercial and domestic waste, I am perfectly convinced that one cannot separate the two processes. As the noble Lord, Lord Gregson, said, under our present system it is essential to have a firm deposit of non-hazardous commercial and domestic waste in order safely to co-dispose hazardous waste. That is the system which has evolved in this country. It is a peculiar system and one which may be open to criticism, but it is an essential system for the present functioning for the disposal of hazardous waste. The two go together, and cannot be separated.
4.30 p.m.
There are other reasons why they cannot be separated. The laboratory facilities which support a hazardous waste disposal system are equally essential for commercial and industrial wastes. One cannot have two sets of laboratory facilities for different kinds of waste, or one ends up with an awkward situation.
As long as our present system of co-disposal continues, it is essential we have one common service supporting the waste disposal function. I choose my words rather carefully. I am talking about services that
760
support functions, and this is a distinction which has been made by the Government, and which was made by your Lordships' Select Committee.
I am perfectly aware, as are many of your Lordships, that in Scotland and Wales it is the districts which handle waste disposal. But I have visited Scotland and talked to public analysts in public laboratories there, and I realise the concern which exists over this situation. Quite recently, the Blue Paper, the Stoddart Report, appeared, and the present system which exists in Scotland was supported. It was decided that the district powers to dispose of waste should be maintained in Scotland, but when it comes to analysing the hazardous waste presented to them the districts at present have to refer to the regional councils in order to obtain the laboratory services they require. I have spoken to the Strathclyde regional public analyst. He has outlined to me certain difficulties, which ultimately we shall be dealing with when we have the opportunity to produce our final report. The sort of difficulty which arises is that he receives from districts nasty material—sometimes very nasty material—for analysis. He analyses it; but his authority does not then have the control of the subsequent disposal of those materials, nor is his authority the authority which produces analyses and publishes reports on the disposal of hazardous wastes.
I realise this is not what we are talking about, but I must raise the point that, subject to considerations which will be made clear in the Select Committee's final report, at the minute I have anxieties about the system which exists in Scotland. I am not at all sure that it would be wise to perpetuate that system in the metropolitan areas of England.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: Perhaps I may interrupt the noble Earl on that point. Those who have the authority and the power to dispose always have the benefit of the expertise that the laboratories give to them. If they disregard the expertise and make no note of it, that it questioning their acumen in being able to carry out their disposal powers. I am saying that the fact that they dispose does not mean that they cannot engage the expertise. They therefore have the knowledge which the experts make available to everybody, including the people who dispose of it.
The Earl of Cranbrook: I am not sure of the purport of that intervention. The system I am trying to maintain—if I can make it clear—is that the laboratory facilities which support the waste disposal service in Scotland are under authorities which are not the authorities having the waste disposal function. It is important that the laboratory facilities should be kept together with the waste disposal.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: But their knowledge is made available to those who have the disposal powers. So it comes to the same thing. That is what I am saying.
The Earl of Cranbrook: Indeed; but the capacity to analyse and treat the data is limited.
The existing metropolitan county waste disposal authorities and the Greater London Council waste disposal authority, as has been emphasised by other

761
speakers this afternoon, are genuine centres of expertise to which other countries and other authorities in this nation refer. The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, mentioned the Edmonton site, and I shall not say anything about that. But I would draw your Lordships' attention particularly to the one piece of expertise which has not been mentioned so far, the experiments on derivation of oil from waste by the Greater Manchester Council. This is very important scientific research which is being carried out. It has now reached the stage when it is on the verge of practicability. This is technically referred to as cellulose liquefaction using either refuse or biomass as the cellulose feedstock. It is potentially an important method of recycling energy from waste and is one which the new Minister in another place will doubtless be considering. It has been developed by a metropolitan county and is research fully supported by universities, research institutes and public funding.
The noble Baroness, Lady Fisher of Rednal, just now referred to the West Midlands where there is a plant for the recovery of energy by combustion. Each of these centres has developed the most important research into such subjects and it is extremely important that this expertise should not be lost.
Under Amendments Nos. 73 and 74 I would wish to follow the Government in separating what in the guidelines paper has been called "non-operational functions" and "operational functions". I do not find this terminology particularly clear. But as I understand it the system operates perfectly satisfactorily; that is to say, the function, the power, the duty of collecting and disposing of waste resides with the districts or the boroughs. They jointly combine in a joint authority in order to obtain the services and the facilities in order so to do. The services are the laboratories, the sites, the transfer stations, the chemical treatment plants, the energy recovery plants, the ferrous waste recovery plants—these are in the nature of the facilities.
I would stress that the amendments to which I have put my name go only a very little bit further than the present Bill. In the Bill, the Secretary of State is required to wait until he sees disruption looming before he acts. Quite objectively, quite calmly, and non-politically, without waving any particular banner, I am absolutely convinced that it is essential that the smooth transition should be ensured without argument, without risking what everyone in this Committee has recognised as being an essential function of local government.
If I may speak to my noble friends on the Front Bench, on Tuesday the amendments for which I stood, and for which a modicum perhaps of avuncular approval was indicated, fell because the alternatives were voted on, and the amendments in my name thereby could not be considered. Without seeming unduly arrogant to my noble friends, may I say that if they suggest that the amendments put forward by the Select Committee are broadly acceptable they may carry with them a very large proportion of noble Lords from all sides of the Committee. I believe there are people on all sides of the Committee who have listened to what I have tried to say, and I have tried to say it as briefly and tersely as possible. I do not support the removal of the waste disposal function first to a
762
residuary body, then leaving it in a limbo of total uncertainty until the Bill is passed. That uncertainty will continue until it is known what will be its final destination.
I favour action now. There should be a clear message going from this Committee to the professionals (who, as we have said, are in the forefront of their field), and to the citizens of the conurbations of England that there will be continuity in the collection and disposal of waste, and that a system will be perpetuated which has provided for genuine innovation and which has given a lead forward to a confident future so that the hazards which have been aired, perhaps rather rashly in this Committee, will never arise.
Lord Molson: Before my noble friend Lord Cranbrook sits down, will he answer an important question? I am not happy about the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Birk. It is essential, however, that the disposal of waste should be maintained at a centralised level. Will my noble friend Lord Cranbrook make sure that we have an opportunity of taking the views of the Committee on his Amendment No. 74 if we vote against the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, on this occasion? It really is a matter of great importance. I much prefer his proposal which is, I think, far better and is supported with all the authority of the Select Committee. Will my noble friend give that assurance?
The Earl of Cranbrook: I do not believe that such an assurance is in my hands. I have outlined what I see as being my dilemma. I stand liable to correction by those who know more about the procedures of the Committee.
Lord Elton: I do not know whether I know more than my noble friend. I know, however, that it is open to him, after we have disposed of, as I hope we will, the first set of amendments, to move his own if he so wishes.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Before my noble friend sits down, was he saying that the system for disposal of waste in Scotland—including Strathclyde, which he visited—carried out by the lower-tier district councils is unsatisfactory and dangerous? I have never understood that there was any problem at all. It may be that the analysts whom he mentioned would have liked this to be a regional council function. However, I have never understood that there was any problem.
I was surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, with his great experience of Scotland, did not think that this was a satisfactory way of conducting the operation. I have always understood that it worked perfectly well. I also understood that the Liberal Party was committed to doing away with the regional councils in Scotland and would presumably want to leave the disposal of waste in district hands. The noble Lord said, I think, that the Stodart report has reviewed the whole of local government overlapping functions in Scotland and has confirmed the disposal of waste by district councils as satisfactory. Is my noble friend saying that Scotland's arrangements do not work and that they should be altered?
The Earl of Cranbrook: I believe that it is myself rather than my noble friend Lord Elton who has not sat down. I would say to my noble friend Lady Carnegy that, clearly, I did not say that. If she reads what I said, I hope she will find that I said what I meant to say. The matter is subject to our final report. It will be considered in the final report of the Select Committee on Science and Technology on local government. It is a small issue involving a small area of concern over the analysis of hazardous materials submitted for disposal as hazardous waste that was brought to my attention in Strathclyde. I made nothing like the broad generalisation that my noble friend has put in my mouth.
Lord Gregson: When we carried out the detailed study of hazardous waste disposal, at the time in 1981, some of the more difficult waste to be disposed of was transferred to England for disposal. I do not think that I am giving away any secrets in saying that. I do not think that it has differed since. I would ask your Lordships not to misunderstand this. There are some very good facilities for doing this in England. That is how some of the more difficult material was dealt with.
The Earl of Cranbrook: It was not sent necessarily to England. It was sent south of the border and conventiently forgotten.
Lord Elton: Will my noble friend enlighten us on one matter? Is he saying that in Scotland it is broadly all right for ordinary waste but there are reservations about hazardous waste so that as regards ordinary waste we have an effective model before us? Is that what he was saying?
4.45 p.m.
The Earl of Cranbrook: The Select Committee on Science and Technology report is not dealing in detail with the disposal of domestic and commercial waste. The Select Committee has not looked at the disposal of domestic and commercial waste anywhere. The concern raised with me, as I have stated, was a small point in relation to the disposal of hazardous waste in Scotland. Hazardous waste, as the noble Lord, Lord Gregson, has made clear, has been a major concern of the Select Committee on Science and Technology for a long time. I do not anticipate that the Select Committee will make any firm recommendations on the disposal of household and domestic waste anywhere in this country in its final report.
Lord Elton: My noble friend is therefore accepting the view of my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour on commercial and domestic waste without testing it within the Select Committee, and is not casting aspersions upon it?
Lord Gregson: There is a difficulty here. The system of co-disposal in this country means, in effect, that you cannot deal with household waste as a separate issue. Having put down the household waste on the land fill sites, you then pour in the hazardous waste which the household waste helps to digest and dispose of. You cannot really discuss as separate issues household
764
waste and hazardous waste. As soon as you co-dispose, every single household waste site that is used for co-disposal purposes becomes a hazardous waste site.
Lord Plummer of St. Marylebone: We are urged not to take a pessimistic view of the ability of the London boroughs to come together to deal with bulk waste disposal. For those us who have been in local government for a long time, I can safely say, I believe, that we have seen it all before. It did not work then, and it will not work now. Before the formation of the GLC, waste disposal was the responsibility of the London borough councils. The result was chaotic. A hotch-potch of arrangements deriving from a multiplicity of diverse standard small authorities proved that it was costly, inefficient, haphazard, environmentally unsound and unplanned.
Waste did not go to the most appropriate disposal point. Routes criss-crossed. For instance, waste from Lambeth went north to Buckinghamshire, crossing waste from Hammersmith going south to Surrey. There was a total lack of, and absence of, strategic planning. There was no long-term assessment of future needs and requirements. In an effort to sort these things out, the boroughs in 1947 formed into voluntary groups much along the lines now proposed in the Bill. The groups failed. They collapsed in disarray and disagreement. I believe that the same will happen again if the operation is handed over to these groups of boroughs.
Every significant study of waste disposal in London has argued the case for a strategic waste disposal authority. The success of a strategic waste disposal authority in London was so evident and so widely recognised that when local government was reorganised in 1974 waste disposal responsibility was transferred everywhere to the upper-tier authority. I say "everywhere" but it was not quite so, in fact. In Wales, for instance, the responsibility remained with the district councils. The results in Wales, it can I think be safely said, have been unsatisfactory—so unsatisfactory that in October 1982 this Government issued a consultation paper on a possible reorganisation. What did that consultation paper say? It said:
"The Welsh Office are aware that the small size of waste disposal authorities in Wales is causing problems. The system in Wales tends to mitigate against waste disposal authorities employing specialist staff and causes problems in providing sites".
It goes on:
"There is certainly a lack of waste disposal expertise. The Welsh Office have recognised these problems and have encouraged the district councils to combine into three regional waste disposal study groups".
What happened to these voluntary groups? They failed. So what did the Government propose for Wales? The Secretary of State for Wales, when presenting the results of the consultation in February last year, said:
"There is considerable room for improvement in the way in which the waste disposal function is carried out in Wales and the criticisms which led to the review were in general fully justified. … The transfer of the function to the County Council, which consultation has shown to be the most satisfactory of the alternative options … would require legislation".
But of course the Government have not yet introduced this legislation, because at the very same time as they were highlighting the inadequacies of the Welsh system they were proposing to introduce that

765
same inadequate system in London. At the very same time as they were recognising the need for strategic waste disposal authorities in Wales, they were proposing to dismantle the most successful of all strategic waste disposal authorities in London.
The Government's proposals for waste disposal in London have been roundly and universally condemned. All opinion—professional, academic and private sector—is so concerned at the provisions of the Bill that the national association delivered two letters of objection during the Committee stage of the debate in the other place. All opinion is unequivocally damning of the Government's proposals. In another place the Government were unable to name a single independent organisation that supported their plans.
I shall not weary your Lordships' Committee with the details of the lack of progress since the publication of the White Paper, Streamlining the Cities. All I would say is that the state of affairs really cannot go on. Over a third of the London boroughs have taken no part whatever in the attempt to reach agreement. Here we are, under a year away from the proposed abolition, and we have not even reached the starting tape. New deadlines have been set and passed without significant progress. The latest ministerial deadline is now the beginning of September 1985.
As I say, this state of affairs really just cannot go on as it is putting the health and safety of Londoners at risk in a desperate attempt to achieve the unachievable. London must have an efficient waste disposal service from day one after abolition, and that efficient waste disposal service exists now. It must be retained on a London-wide strategic basis.
Just over a month ago the Minister for Local Government issued a note of guidance in a last ditch attempt to get things moving. He proposed seven voluntary groupings of boroughs in London. The proposed groupings are as unrealistic as anything that has been produced in this area so far. Indeed, I would say that adversity makes strange bedfellows. Apart from the operational, financial and other inadequacies of the proposed groupings, it is, I think, stretching credibility to expect voluntary agreements between Lambeth and Wandsworth and among Barnet, Islington and Hackney.
What was interesting and important about the Government's latest paper was what it did not say about costs and savings and what it did say about non-operational functions. The Government apparently now accept that as a last resort there must be a single strategic body to deal with hazardous waste management. They accept that there must be centralised, co-ordinated action on waste planning. They accept the need for a central organisation to deal with the licensing of waste disposal sites. They accept the need for centralising co-ordination of research and development. En short, they accept the need for a single, strategic waste disposal authority but choose not to satisfy that need; yet the only function the Government seem prepared to trust the voluntary borough groupings with is the operational side of waste disposal.
All expert opinion and all available evidence argue that waste disposal must be the responsibility of a
766
strategic authority for London. The inability of the Government or the borough councils to produce a realistic, workable alternative emphasises the point. I believe that the Government will in the end have to accept that; so why do they not accept it now?
This is not a political matter. I never found politics in waste disposal while I was a councillor. It is lust a good management matter. Control over the management of hazardous waste in particular, as has already been pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Gregson, must continue efficiently and effectively, and the only way that that can be achieved is in the continuation of a strategic authority.
The Minister in another place failed in any way to make any sort of case for altering the present arrangements for the planning, regulation and disposal of waste in London. He was unable to point out any savings in costs from the changes proposed. He was unable to guarantee even the same level of service, the same capital investment or the same innovation. There are no clear plans for the future and, even if there were, there is inadequate time left for a smooth transfer.
As I said, no one in the waste disposal industry has any confidence in the proposals for joint arrangements. I say again that only a single waste disposal authority for Greater London will be capable of safe, effective and efficient control over waste disposal and regulation in the capital.
Lord Ingrow: It may be surprising at this time to find the Committee a very comforting place. One can leave and come back; an amendment is before the Committee, and the same sort of arguments are being advanced. One has to inquire what the particular Motion is, but the arguments are much the same as we go down the list of amendments. But the air of plausible verisimilitude is being dissipated, and we are left with the bald and unconvincing narrative. This is not an individual matter of waste disposal. It is part of a policy, as was said earlier today.
I make no complaint about that. I am full of admiration for those who dream up a way such as this to defeat the intention of another place and the decisions of this House. I am full of admiration for that. I greatly respect the professional attitude, but I am not conned by it and I do not want to see a decision taken in this Committee by those who may be conned into thinking that this is an illustration solely on its own concerning waste disposal.
Lord Gregson: Is the noble Lord also implying that the Select Committee deliberately cooked up some sort of plot?
Lord Ingrow: I shall come to the Select Committee in a minute. The trouble for those who have dreamt this up is that the gaff has been blown rather earlier than they would have wished at this particular stage.
I must confess with the greatest possible respect that my admiration for the deliberations of the Select Committee falls little short of adoration in this respect. I listened with great care to the speech of my noble friend Lord Cranbook on Tuesday. I got an impression—and it may be quite unjust—that here was a body that had decided that this was right and this

767
was what was going to be imposed. I could be wrong. I have not yet had time to read that. But the impression came out, "We have considered this. We are the Select Committee, and we have decided". I did not really think that that was the way modern thinking went. But even then at the end of the day I thought actually that Governments took decisions and not Select Committees.
I do not have to disagree too much with my noble friend Lord Plummer because I am more concerned with the metropolitan boroughs and not the London ones, but he said that there was no politics in waste disposal. With the greatest respect to him, he does not have the qualities that I know he always has had if he believes that and if he looks at how the voting goes tonight. However, it is the kind of remark I might have made had I wished to carry out his kind of argument. It has been said earlier, I think by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, "Why make a change?". I remember that being said about a dozen years ago when it was proposed to give to the borough authorities in the metropolitan districts the power over education. Education in West Yorkshire has been substantially better since it was run by the county boroughs and not a large part of it run by the West Riding County Council. It is possible to change and improve matters. The other method is entire ossification. It is said that there were problems in the past about getting authorities to run together. However, the authorities we are now talking about are much larger than they were before 1974.
5 p.m.
I come back to the point that "democracy" is a word frequently used in this Chamber. The one place it must not apply is where it is nearest to the people, where the people actually elect borough councillors as opposed to county councillors. The borough councillors are the ones who have to levy a rate. They are the ones whom the local representatives know. Nobody knows the county councillors. They know the borough councillors. These are the people who, throughout discussion in this Committee, are being steadily traduced. I think it is wrong.
The CBI were mentioned. Not everybody in industry would agree with all the observations of the CBI, because many of us think they are getting quite a number of them wrong. However, they are among the biggest complainants about the very high rates charged by authorities such as the GLC and others.
Lord Mottistone: Perhaps my noble friend will allow me to come in. I should have come in earlier. I noticed that the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, quoted the CBI as being in support of this amendment. I have been briefed by them. There is no suggestion that they are behind this, and I think that was a misquote.
Lord Gregson: If it is, I will apologise to the Committee at the right time. However, as far as I am concerned, I have it in black and white.
Lord Mottistone: I have been in touch with them constantly throughout this. At an earlier stage they may have made some statement, but in an up-to-date briefing they are not concerned at all about this point.
Lord Gregson: I understand there is considerable support for the rest of the Bill except for one issue, and one issue alone; that is hazardous waste.
Lord Ingrow: Perhaps I may join in the battle again. I am not very bothered whether they are or not. I am not briefed by the CBI, and if I think the CBI are talking nonsense I am quite happy to say so. However, in this case they are very concerned, as they are very concerned about the antics of the GLC in organising transport and roads in London. Thus what we are doing, or trying to do, may be very damaging if some of these amendments are passed. I hope very much that it will be realised that this important amendment, as it is, can perfectly well be carried out by the proposals of the Government. For me, it is not a question of preferring one amendment to the other. I personally shall vote for the one which I think is right and sensible, the one the Government have produced.
Lord Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon: I want very briefly to make only one point. Listening to my noble friend Lord Plummer and to noble Lords on the other side, anyone would think that when local government reorganisation took place the decision to separate collection and disposal of waste was unanimously agreed as being a step in the right direction and making for efficiency. As I am sure my noble friends Lord Boyd-Carpenter and Lord Harmar-Nicholls will remember, it was one of the most bitterly contested and controversial items in the entire legislation. As I recall, it was only by a comparatively narrow margin that the Government came down on the side of splitting these two functions and giving waste disposal to the upper-tier authorities.
The fact of the matter is that the upper-tier authorities then did not particularly want it and the lower-tier authorities were perfectly confident that they would continue to deal adequately with it. It really is nonsense to say that this was some great universally agreed reform at the time. It was not. The local authorities, in concert or by themselves, were getting on reasonably well and were perfectly happy to keep the disposal function. If they could do it then, I, like my noble friends, believe they can do it again.
Lord Beloff: I should like to return for a moment to one of the alternative proposals before us, the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Birk. It seems to me that that incorporates not so much a threat to the pollution of the environment but a pollution of the English language. A residuary body is not a body upon which, in the normal meaning of the word, new functions can be conferred. Indeed, I was so surprised that I thought at first that it was just that the noble Baroness had been brought up in a very polite way and was taught to use the word "residue" rather than the word "waste", so she thought residue could go to a residuary authority. However, I understand that that was not her intention.
A residuary body, in the normal meaning of the English language, and as expounded in relation to this Bill at some length in subsequent clauses, means a body which is constituted in order to take over responsibilities that continue when a particular body has ceased to exist. It might be compared to a receiver in the case of a company which has gone into

769
liquidation. The receiver collects moneys due and does his best to meet the needs of creditors in a way which the law demands. When he has concluded this, his functions naturally come to an end.
Lord Mishcon: Perhaps the noble Lord will kindly forgive me. He is teaching the Committee English and fact. A receiver is not a liquidator of a company. He means the word "liquidator". A receiver is appointed for a secured creditor or debenture holder. I would not have interrupted the noble Lord, but I noted his desire to be so precise.
Lord Beloff: I, too, thought that there was such a distinction, but the affairs of the National Union of Mineworkers have rather confused this distinction in the public mind.
However, perhaps I may return to the Bill. A residuary authority, whether the comparison with a liquidator—as apparently the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, would prefer—is a correct one, would still be with a person who is appointed for a limited term, for a precise set of functions which are then to disappear. If the liquidator of a company manufacturing bicycles were to think it part of his possible duties to see whether the company could not now start up in the manufacture of stockings, I think he would be going beyond the normal use of the word "liquidator". Similarly, a residuary body cannot possibly take on or be asked to take on functions which do not directly arise out of the residuary matters left over in abolition. Whatever the solution to the problem of waste disposal or any other issues that may come before the Chamber, it is impossible that they should be entrusted to a residuary body which, by its nature, is evanescent.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: Because we seem to have gone backwards and forwards so often from Amendment No. 72, the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, to Amendment No. 73, I think a degree of confusion is arising in the Committee. I should like very firmly to oppose Amendment No. 72. I should like also to draw attention to the fact that the movers of Amendment No. 73, or those who have spoken to Amendment No. 73, have made very effective points against Amendment No. 72, in particular their statement that a function requiring a long-term and assured future should not be handed over to a body that has only a life of five years. Therefore I think that anyone who is seriously interested in the long-term future of waste disposal must be very clear on that point: that it is no good handing it over to a body whose life is limited to five years.
The noble Lord, Lord Gregson, quoted a number of different authorities which would support a statutory joint board. However, in no case did he say that they wanted the residuary body to be the authority to take this on. I have been a representative of both a borough council and a regional council. I have noticed that in this Chamber there is always confusion when people refer to a local authority when they mean what we now think of as a regional authority. In fact, it is still a local authority, but it does cause confusion. I noticed the other day that when the Minister was defining parks
770
and open spaces the same confusion arose because he kept defining them as an area owned by a local authority and people were thinking of that authority as a regional authority. Therefore, we do sometimes get ourselves into difficulty as regards terminology.
However, as someone who has been involved at both levels of local and regional government, I take the view that we cannot afford to underestimate the ability of the local boroughs to cope with the problem of waste disposal. They deal with waste collection perfectly effectively; I do not think that it is a very major step forward for them to deal with waste disposal.
The point has been made repeatedly in this Chamber that great expertise has developed in this field over the years since the reorganisation of local government and that that expertise would be equally available to the local boroughs as it is available to the GLC. I believe that the scientific branch at County Hall will remain as a cohesive whole, wherever it goes. Therefore, it will still be in a position to hand out the necessary advice. Stories have been put forward again and again in this Chamber, but strangely enough they have not been put forward with an unnecessary degree of alarm. However, the people who read them may be alarmed that the people of London or of other parts might be poisoned. That was a rather frightening tactic that we could happily disregard.
Expertise and knowledge are growing all the time. As regards savings, examples have been given of boroughs that might not work together. Let us consider some of those boroughs which have made enormous savings and which have still carried out a very cost-effective and satisfactory (from the point of view of the ratepayers) waste collection process. I would very strongly oppose Amendment No. 72.
Baroness White: I do not want to come between the Committee and the Minister for too long, but I am deeply concerned about the confusion into which we have brought ourselves. I am so sorry that the scientific expertise of my colleagues on the Select Committee on Science and Technology has led them into a parliamentary procedure which has put us into great difficulty. I am not quite clear how we shall vote upon Amendment No. 73 and the accompanying Amendment No. 74 if by any chance Clause No. 8 is accepted by the Committee. The two are incompatible, as has been indicated by the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook. I hope that we shall get a little guidance from the Minister as to how we are to deal with the situation. Personally, I hate to disagree with my noble friend on the Front Bench, but I am not entirely happy that her solution is a better one than the one contained in the proposals of the Select Committee.
What worries me so much is that so many Members of the party opposite in particular—although by no means universally, I am happy to think—are living in what one might call the "horse and buggy age", but in what I shall call the "hole in the ground age". As the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, indicated the other day, he thinks that holes in the ground are the beginning and end of waste disposal. With great respect, those who have had an opportunity of discussing these matters on a scientific and technological basis know, on the one hand, of the advances that are being made

771
in the techniques of disposal and in the use of waste for energy and so on and, on the other hand, of the increasing dangers that are arising from our mixed disposal of waste—a matter which the noble Lord, Lord Gregson, made very clear. We cannot really dissociate one from the other, except in a very few instances. The chemical hazards to which we are being exposed and the biotechnological hazards which are increasing year by year really make it essential that we view the matter not just as a question of expert advice but also as a matter of expert operation of plants, equipment installations and techniques for dealing with these matters.
I do not wish to labour the point, but I hope that we may get guidance on how those of us who might wish to support Amendments Nos. 73 and 74 may do so. I also plead with those who, quite frankly, are behind the times. You cannot go back to pre-1974. A great deal has happened since 1974. Everything that has happened since 1974 has been in the direction which was so eloquently described by the noble Lord, Lord Gregson, on one side of the Chamber, and by the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, on the other. They really know what they are talking about and, with great respect, some of the "horse and buggy" or "hole in the ground" brigade do not.
Lord Shinwell: I should—
Lord Elton: Will the noble Lord allow me to intervene? I have been asked a question and I shall be only a moment. The noble Baroness is absolutely right. As regards the Question that Clause 8 stand part, my noble friend has put down that he will resist that because it paves the way for Amendment Nos. 73 and 74. Therefore the discussion will take place on clause stand part. If your Lordships were to decide that Amendments Nos. 73 and 74 were what you wanted in the Bill, you would have to declare that by voting that the Clause do not stand part of the Bill. Therefore, the decision would be taken at that stage.
The noble Baroness also asked how she and her friends could support Amendments Nos. 73 and 74. The other prerequisite, of course, will be to defeat Amendments Nos. 72B and 72C because they are inimical to it. I hope that we shall have the help of the noble Baroness in that regard.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Shinwell: Obviously there is some confusion in the minds of those Members of your Lordships' Committee who are not experts in matters of local government. We have to follow the experts and as there is a variety of them most of them adopt different lines of thought and so it is very difficult to come to any conclusion. My purpose in rising to intervene before the noble Lord the Minister makes some observations is that I feel that the noble Baroness was justified in indulging in what has been a moderate criticism that has developed in the course of this debate. That criticism should not be levelled against Members of your Lordships' Committee. If it has to be directed at all, it should be directed against the Government. I shall give one example. The Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Elton—if I may have his
772
attention for a moment—in the course of a very short speech in reply to my noble friend Lady Birk, said words to the effect, "I am quite unable to come to any decision until I know what decision will be reached about some other amendment". The noble Lord will correct me if I am wrong, but that is what I understood him to say. That, indeed, surprises me. The Government are introducing a measure which calls for the abolition of an organisation. You can regard it as either responsible or irresponsible; it is a matter of judgment or point of view. It matters little because you have to face the fact that the Government want to abolish it. The general feeling of the Committee is that it has to be abolished simply because it is unsatisfactory and inadequate in some respects. I shall leave it at that for the moment.
When the Government decide to embark upon an adventure of this nature, introducing legislation so complicated and so inadequately prepared, and when they have not looked ahead, considered the consequences of every possible amendment and every proposition which they themselves may make in the course of presenting the various aspects of legislation, there is bound to be some confusion. I cannot understand why the Government rushed into this adventure. It is a kind of exploration in uncharted seas, uncharted land, areas which have never before been explored. The result is that the Government find themselves in a measure of confusion. They are not sure where they stand. The very fact that the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Elton, asks my noble friend Lady Birk not to come to a decision about one amendment until we decide what we do about another amendment indicates that there is confusion in his mind also. That ought not to happen.
I make a suggestion. The Government should decide now, or after some consideration which would take a little while, that in the circumstances and because of the confusion and the criticism which have emerged they do not intend to pursue this legislation until there has been more adequate preparation and will leave it over for a month until after the Recess, and come back again before the autumn and reintroduce the legislation when there has been adequate consideration of all the consequences. If they did that, I think the House would accept it and there would be less confusion in our minds.
It may well be that the confusion exists only in my mind. I confess that I know little about local government. My first association with local government took place in the year 1916 when I became a member of the Glasgow Town Council. I was a member for seven years until I managed to get a parliamentary candidature which was successful. That was the end of my knowledge of local government and, quite frankly, I know nothing about it since them. Foreign affairs, I know a little; shipping, a little; defence, a little. I know a little of everything and perhaps not very much of anything consequential, but nevertheless I do my best in the circumstances. But about local government I know very little, and I find myself even more confused than anybody in your Lordships' Committee.
The best way to remove my confusion is not to proceed with this legislation for, say, a month or two. I say to the Government: come back again when you

773
are better prepared and you are refreshed after your summer holiday. After that we shall meet you with no desire to criticise, but a desire to help to make this legislation well worthwhile in the interests of London and the shire counties, and all the rest of those involved. I make that suggestion. I hope that it will be accepted.
Lord Elton: I am deeply touched by the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, for my welfare. If he is offering me a long and paid holiday, I can think of few things that would be more difficult for me to resist at the moment. But if he is doing that because he believes that I am in a state of confusion, all I can say is that I am not aware of it.
We have two simple propositions before us. The first one comes from the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, and her supporters in the form of Amendments Nos. 72B and 72C. That would transfer responsibility for either all waste disposal and regulation functions or just the regulation and control of hazardous waste in London and the metropolitan counties to the residuary body for that area.
Your Lordships have quite properly perceived that it is a totally different suggestion from that of my noble friend Lord Cranbrook, who has advanced another one from behind me, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Gregson, who sits opposite me. There is a degree of ecumenism here which your Lordships will find agreeably unfamiliar. That is a different proposition. I propose to address myself to the first, so that we can dispose of it. It is inimical to the second. Then we can address ourselves to the latter.
As currently drafted, the Bill provides for responsibility for waste disposal and regulation in London to be devolved in the boroughs and in the metropolitan counties to the district councils. Your Lordships will know of course that the boroughs and districts are already waste collection authorities for their areas, and you will probably know that another Select Committee from the other place on trade and industry reported last December.
The report of that Select Committee, which was called The Wealth of Waste, clearly identified as one of the major obstacles to waste recycling in England the separation of the responsibility for collection and disposal. Our proposals to create unitary collection and disposal authorities in London and the metropolitan counties will mean that, for the first time in a long while, those authorities can receive the full benefits from recycling in terms of both reduced disposal costs and income from the sale of recyclable material. This will give greater impetus to recycling initiatives.
The appointment of my honourable friend the Under-Secretary of State for Industry as Minister with special responsibility for co-ordinating Government initiatives on recycling was in direct response to that Select Committee's report. Your Lordships will wish first of all to think carefully before striking out of our hands the first fruits of that committee's work and the benefits which they can offer to all of us. That is the first thing I ask your Lordships to remember.
The creation of unitary collection and disposal authorities will greatly help my honourable friend in
774
his task, and these amendments would separate the functions, contrary to the advice of the Select Committee, and thus forgo those benefits. In London they would do so by transferring them to the London residuary body. That body will be made up of members appointed by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State subject to his direction. The same is true of the metropolitan residuary bodies. In each case their role will essentially be an executive and technical one. It will also be limited by Clause 65 to a life of five years. It is a transitional home, and the permanent transfer of waste disposal and regulation functions would scarcely be suitable to that.
The noble Lord, Lord Shinwell—and I cannot refrain from calling him my noble friend ever since he did me the honour of inspecting me at the parade at Sandhurst in honour of the end of the last World War when I was a cadet and I had something else to celebrate—has said that it was odd that I asked what position the Opposition would take on this question of the final form of the residuary body. But it was a necessary question, and the confusion was not in my mind. The confusion was evidently in the mind of the Opposition because they had given a permanent function to a temporary body, which was an obvious mistake unless they intended it no longer to be temporary, which was an obvious stratagem. It was a stratagem which was endorsed by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, when she spoke on television last night and again earlier today, and I was lucky to see her, when she said, "There would be logic, wouldn't there, in giving an elective nature to that body as well".
Baroness Seear: May I intervene, since I have keen quoted at least three times in connection with my television appearance, which I think nobody can have seen? I had forgotten my exact words, and I am glad to be reminded by the noble Lord the Minister that what I said was a simple statement of fact. The logic of the position would lead in this direction. What I was saying was that experience of what we were proposing would mean that you would find that this was the optimum size for operating these services. If the Minister and his supporters think that what they are doing now is absolutely fixed for all time regardless of the experience of the next four or five years, all I can say is that they have no knowledge of history and no sense of the future.
Lord Elton: I compliment the noble Baroness on the elegance of her reply. But what she said on the air was: if you find that you need to have a larger authority for an accumulation of special services—and if your Lordships look down the Marshalled List, you will find that this is not by any means the only service which is to receive this treatment—if you find yourself in that position, the logic of that is surely that sooner or later you are going to have to have an elected body.
Therefore, the logic of the position of the united Opposition parties is that we transfer enduring functions to a temporary body, in the sure knowledge that the intention stated by the noble Baroness was that she should be able to exploit the possibility of making them permanent, and bearing in mind the probability expressed by the noble Baroness that they would also become elective. I am thus tempted to

775
launch into what I thought was the most telling part of my speech last Tuesday, but I shall refrain from doing so because I am sure that it is etched on your Lordships' memories.
We are not in the business of recreating a lesser form of the authority that we are now abolishing, and your Lordships have decided that. It is to the decision of the Committee in that respect that I principally appeal. Your Lordships will want me to fill out—I knew that the noble Lord would wish to rise.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: One has to rise because the noble Baroness made a perfectly sensible statement. She said "if" we find that a thing does not work we shall have to do something else. That was the essence of it. If the noble Lord does not agree with that he should say so.
Lord Elton: It was not if it does not work. She said that if there was an authority for an accumulation of special services the logic is that it becomes elective. I do not want to make much of this.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Elton: I shall make as much of this as your Lordships wish.
Baroness Seear: I am extremely flattered that my broadcast is becoming a substitute for the subject of the debate. I really believe that we should get back to the subject of the amendment.
Lord Elton: The subject we are debating is the body that is to discharge the various functions that have to be discharged after abolition has taken place. One of these functions is the collection and, more particularly for our purposes, the disposal of waste; both the common domestic and commercial waste, and the hazardous waste to which the Select Committee addressed itself. The question to which I shall revert was the one I outlined: whether it was proper that that body should be both permanent and elective. I do not want to give the noble Baroness any more publicity than she wants for her broadcast, though I hope the ratings go up in future because I thought she was very good! I want to revert to the subject in hand because the Committee will want to know more about what we propose.
Noble Lords have stressed the need to ensure joint working between the boroughs and the districts particularly in relation to hazardous waste. As your Lordships will know, we invited the authorities concerned to submit statements of the arrangements they proposed for carrying out their waste disposal and regulatory functions after abolition. We asked them to include arrangements for co-ordinating action where that was appropriate. So far we have received initial responses from 21 London boroughs embodying an outline plan for the discharge of these functions across the whole of London. Those proposals envisage seven groups of authorities for disposal and other purposes with arrangements for co-ordinating some regulatory and other non-operational functions and the creation of a separate unit to deal with hazardous waste.
776
My right honourable friend the Minister of State for Local Government met the co-operating boroughs in March. He was impressed by the positive and constructive approach they have adopted to planning for the takeover of functions in London. For the metropolitan counties no comprehensive proposals have yet been put forward; but the issues there are generally less complex than in London and the task correspondingly simpler. Some six district authorities have sent statements setting out their own individual proposals. The forward planning which has already taken place and which is continuing is therefore encouraging. Much more must be done of course. In particular, I hope that those authorities which have so far refused to co-operate with us will do so. I must point out to my noble friend Lord Plummer that it is all very well to say that waste disposal is not and never has been political; but in that case it is difficult to understand why the Socialist-controlled proposed waste disposal authorities have refused to talk to us on political grounds about waste disposal. It seems to me that it has become very political, and that is to be regretted.
I hope that those conversations will take place for the sake of the staff as well as for the sake of the service. To assist this further planning, the department in March issued a guidance note to authorities offering advice on the practical arrangements which might be appropriate in each area. Further discussions are already in hand with boroughs and districts on the basis of that guidance.
I should mention in particular two of the criteria that we have made clear by which we shall judge authorities' proposals which I hope will further reassure your Lordships. The first concerns arrangements for hazardous waste on which one of the amendments focuses and which is of great interest to your Lordships, not only to the noble Lord, Lord Gregson, and my noble friend but others. I assure the Committee that the Government fully share those views about the importance of proper and effective arrangements in this area. The Government totally accept the need for effective application and enforcement of standards in this field. Early in June my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will be publishing the first report of the Hazardous Waste Inspectorate. The noble Lord, Lord Gregson, alluded to this. I assure him that there was no intentional delay. The report is being printed now and we hope to have it in print in the first week in June when this Bill will still be in your Lordships' Committee.
Lord Gregson: By rumour and another sort of suggestion, that report has been hanging around for a long time.
Lord Elton: I have not, so I do not know whether it is true. While the Bill will not indicate any evidence of damage to health from the disposal of hazardous waste, it will indicate (I think the noble Lord expects this) that basic site management practices on the part of waste disposal management are in many cases inadequate and that site licensing, inspection and enforcement by waste disposal authorities varies throughout the country. That is not a problem

777
confined to London or to the metropolitan counties. I must allude to it because it touches both. The solution has to be wider It calls in the first instance for action by site operators themselves to apply recognised best practices. We look first to the industry and its representative bodies to put their house in order. Secondly, we look to waste disposal authorities to impose the right licensing requirements and to check on and enforce their application. We also look to authorities to apply full and economical charges for disposal of commercial and industrial waste on their own sites.
But we think it right to legislate when opportunity permits to charge on waste, on disposals, the costs of the central system itself. That is consistent with the polluter pays principle; and, secondly, we have recently published the report of a review of the regulations dealing with control of special wastes. That report discussed various possible measures to secure more effective and consistent applications of control. We are now seeking views on that report and welcome those of noble Lords and of the Select Committee on Science and Technology. But I make this clear: the question is not whether we shall act on this report, as the noble Lord may think it is, it is what action we shall take, because act we shall.
I have much more I could say on hazardous waste, but your Lordships wish to get on. We accept the need for close co-ordination of controls over hazardous waste and for the maintenance of existing centres of specialist staff, facilities and equipment especially computer-based records. The boroughs have already proposed a separate unit to provide these services for London. The guidance note makes clear that we wish to see such units in each metropolitan county. The creation of the separate units will mean that there will he no need for any involvement of the residuary bodies in these arrangements. There is no more case for transferring responsibility for hazardous waste to the residuary bodies than there is for transferring to them responsibility for waste disposal and regulation generally.
I said I would refer to two criteria. The second is the need for consistency in site licensing standards. I have said already what we propose to do in the light of the HWI report. I believe the best way we can do that is by keeping existing expertise together.
In conclusion, your Lordships are anxious on three counts: the first is that the provisions already in the Bill for voluntary co-operation may be inadequate from the start. The second is that they may prove adequate to start with but, following the predictions of my noble friend Lord Plummer prove inadequate subsequently. The third is that in either event there should be satisfactory obligatory arrangements in their place. The Government believe that the voluntary arrangements can and should work from the start and that they can and will continue to operate satisfactorily in the future, and I sought to persuade your Lordships to that view. If I have failed or, if I am wrong, I entirely accept that there is a need for something other than hope deferred. This is why we already have Clause 9 in the Bill.
My next purpose therefore is to put it firmly on the record, as the noble Lord, Lord Gregson, clearly would
778
wish me to do, that my right honourable friend is fully seized of the importance of establishing systems which really work and give real protection to the environment and to health. They must be in position before 1st April next year and my right honourable friend is seized of that as well and he undertakes to use the reserve power under Clause 9 to establish a mandatory system, if that is what the public interest demands. He will not take that decision at the last minute; he will take it in September.
If the effective cover is not then visible, we shall use the reserve power; and I also assure your Lordships that if voluntary arrangements start out in a satisfactory way and then deteriorate, as has been suggested, my right honourable friend will again be prepared to use the Clause 9 powers promptly to protect the public interest. Those of your Lordships who fear that the supply of voids to fill the waste may atrophy under district supervision should realise that the Secretary of State will have this power should circumstances require him to use it.
I have suggested that your Lordships should reject these amendments for a number of reasons; the proper time to introduce compulsory arrangements is after voluntary arrangements have proved unattainable—and they have not so proved yet. Both of these amendments are therefore premature. It is not right to pre-empt the decision on the use of the reserve power. It is not right to use this occasion to water down the devolution to districts, which they fully expect, of the functions of the abolition body. And it is not right to go against the clear recommendation of the Select Committee of another place in order to satisfy those of our own Select Committee when all that they wish to protect can be protected; as I believe I shall be able to demonstrate to my noble friend Lord Cranbrook when we come to his later amendments in the Bill directed specifically at protecting the specialist and technical support services.
I do not wish to broaden this debate now because your Lordships will want to come to a conclusion, but I would say that the central thing that noble Lords on the Select Committee as I understand it, want to preserve is the support and technological service. They have other points, but this is the principal one; and that, I believe, we can take care of. I do not think that it is right to insist on changing the Bill to provide prematurely a compulsion that is already provided for in the Bill as it now stands for use at the right time.
I hope that I have convinced your Lordships that this is not an ad hoc, irresponsible, short-term, pro tern solution. This is a solution which transfers to the lower-tier bodies the functions which they properly expect and have been promised from the upper-tier bodies. It is being done in a framework of co-operative consultation which they are free to use voluntarily, but if they fail to use it voluntarily, they can be given an answer by my right honourable friend under compulsion. My noble friend Lord Cranbrook will ask me what sort of an answer that might be. I can tell your Lordships that in Clause 9 there is provision for the Secretary of State to provide the sort of joint authority which my noble friend has on the Marshalled List. It need not be exactly the same, but it can have all the same elements that he requires, and the difference between my noble friend and me is only a matter of

779
two months; but there is a world of principle because the Bill becomes a statute at the end of this Session and I have undertaken that the compulsory power will be used in September.
My noble friend wishes to pre-empt that through an amendment which says, "Use that power now and produce this body in exactly this form". Between now and September we wish to test the voluntary principle and we expect, at least in part, to have perfectly adequate areas. We do not want to sweep up those good, workable, safe, hygienic voluntary arrangements into a compulsory arrangement with other boroughs and other districts who have refused to co-operate. We wish to leave them. Therefore I ask my noble friend to defer the compulsion that he seeks to put on the Secretary of State so that he can tailor it to the situation which exists in September.
Your Lordships are not a democratic House but you believe in the democratic principle. We propose to transfer to elected authorities important functions—and not on political grounds. I say to your Lordships: just look at the political complexion of the people to whom we are giving these functions before you tell me that this is a Tory bonanza. This is a practical, sensible thing endorsed by your Lordships at Second Reading and endorsed last Tuesday; and I hope that it will be endorsed again in a minute.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Gregson: Before the noble Lord the Minister sits down, may I ask him to clarify something? I would not like it to stand on the record as I heard it. I seem to understand from his words that he gave more priority to the commercial possibilities of waste recycling than to the urgent necessity of a proper control of hazardous waste. That is how it came over to this side of the Committee. I should like the Minister, please, to explain that point.
Lord Elton: It was certainly not intended. My experience of my speeches is that most of them are forgotten but that the beginning is forgotten quickest and therefore I put in the least important bit then. I started by saying that the first thing that I would like your Lordships to remember was that this was in accordance with the other Select Committee, that of another place, and that if this amendment went through, that fruit would be struck from our hands. That would be a pity. It is not a trivial matter. Waste recycling affects closely the way people look at the environment. It has a great deal to do with the way we live. It is important commercially. The questions noble Lords have been addressing are wider than that; and I concluded on those.
Baroness Birk: I listened very carefully to what the Minister said in reply to this quite lengthy and interesting debate. I must confess that I did not find his arguments convincing to any degree at all. He said that he was looking forward to receiving views on paper which will be put out by the Government. It is hard to understand why the Government need any more views on any more papers when they have had the report of the Select Committee chaired by the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook. They have also had the report of my noble friend Lord Gregson's Select Committee on hazardous
780
waste. Those noble Lords have spoken in the debate this afternoon from a tremendous depth of experience and knowledge; and the Minister is saying, in return, that what we should do is to go ahead with the proposals in the Government Bill and then, if they do not work, try something else. If one ran a business on that basis, it would go bankrupt, and one would then have to decide what should have been done before, and then start all over again.
Apart from the political points that have been made, quite fairly, on all sides, I think that the basis of the informed opinion has been expressed in this Committee from the administration side of it in London, from the noble Lord, Lord Plummer, and from the scientific people, from the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, my noble friend Lord Gregson and the noble Lord, Lord Ezra. I feel very strongly that the wish of the Committee would be to support the amendment in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook.
Therefore, I intend to withdraw my amendment, No. 72B. I shall not be moving Amendment No. 72C and I ask my noble friends to support the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, and I ask that, too, of other noble Lords in the Committee who obviously are unhappy and uneasy with what is in the Bill and feel that a strategic body is necessary. That is the most important thing today—not the method by which we get it. That is why we shall be supporting the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 72C not moved.]
On Question Whether Clause 8 shall stand part of the Bill?
The Earl of Cranbrook: I have given notice of intention to oppose the Question, Whether Clause 8 shall stand part of the Bill? In my speech I have already made it clear that this is simply paving the way to the two amendments, Nos. 73 and 74, on which I have already spoken and to which my noble friend has referred. My noble friend has stated that the difference between us is a matter of two months. I think that this speaks for itself; that he also lacks confidence in the system and he believes that in two months' time it will be necessary to take the step that I hope your Lordships will take now.
Lord Elton: Before my noble friend sits down, if that was his conclusion—no, the noble Earl has not concluded—I think I ought to disabuse my noble friend—
A noble Lord: He has concluded.
Lord Elton: I think my noble friend should understand that I did not say I expected it to fail. I said I expected it in large part to succeed but that we could not be certain whether it would succeed altogether. I therefore said that we thought the power he proposed should properly be used when we could see whether it had succeeded in part or whether it had wholly succeeded. If it has succeeded in part then that power should be applied only in those parts where it has not succeeded. I hope that my noble friend is aware of

781
that. I had one or two other things to say about the proposed amendment, but I understand that the Committee is anxious to come to a decision, and so I shall only say that I hope your Lordships will stand firm.
5.51 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 8 shall stand part of the Bill?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 166; Not-Contents, 170.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Greenway, L.

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Ampthill, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Annaly, L.

Annan, L.

Halsbury, E.

Arran, E.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Astor, V.

Harvington, L.

Auckland, L.

Hood, V.

Barber, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Howe, E.

Beloff, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Belstead, L.

Ingrow, L.

Bessborough, E.

Ironside, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Kemsley, V.

Brentford, V.

Killearn, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

King of Wartnaby, L.

Broxbourne, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Caithness, E.

Kitchener, E.

Caldecote, V.

Lane-Fox, B.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Layton, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Carver, L.

Liverpool, E.

Cathcart, E.

Lloyd-George of Dwyfor, E.

Cawley, L.

Long, V.

Chelwood, L.

Lothian, M.

Coleraine, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Luke, L.

Colwyn, L.

Lyell, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

McAlpine of Moffat, L.

Cottesloe, L.

McFadzean, L.

Cox, B.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Craigavon, V.

Malmesbury, E.

Crathorne, L.

Margadale, L.

Croft, L.

Marley, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Marsh, L.

Davidson, V.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

De La Warr, E.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.

Digby, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Melville, V.

Drumalbyn, L.

Merrivale, L.

Dundee, E.

Mersey, V.

Ellenborough, L.

Milverton, L.

Elles, B.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Morris, L.

Elton, L.

Mottistone, L.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Ferrers, E.

Moyola, L.

Ferrier, L.

Munster, E.

Fisher, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Fortescue, E.

Newall, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Gainford, L.

Norfolk, D.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Norwich, Bp.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Glanusk, L.

Onslow, E.

Glenarthur, L.

Orkney, E.

Gowrie, E.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Grantchester, L.

Pender, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Penrhyn, L.

782

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Reading, M.

Swinfen, L.

Reigate, L.

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

Renton, L.

Terrington, L.

Renwick, L.

Teynham, L.

Rochdale, V.

Torrington, V.

Rodney, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Romney, E.

Trenchard, V.

Rugby, L.

Trumpington, B.

Runciman of Doxford, V.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Ryder of Warsaw, B.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Vestey, L.

St. Davids, V.

Vivian, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Ward of Witley, V.

Sandford, L.

Weinstock, L.

Shannon, E.

Westbury, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Soames, L.

Windlesham, L.

Somers, L.

Wynford, L.

Southborough, L.

Young, B.

Stockton, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Gallacher, L.

Alport, L.

Galpern, L.

Amherst, E.

Gifford, L.

Ardwick, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Attlee, E.

Glenconner, L.

Avebury, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Aylestone, L.

Gregson, L. [Teller.]

Bancroft, L.

Grey, E.

Banks, L.

Hampden, V.

Barnett, L.

Hampton, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Hankey, L.

Bernstein, L.

Hanworth, V.

Beswick, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Birk, B.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Birkett, L.

Hayter, L.

Blyton, L.

Henniker, L.

Boothby, L.

Hooson, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Bottomley, L.

Hunt, L.

Briginshaw, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Ilchester, E.

Brockway, L.

Ingleby, V.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Buckmaster, V.

Jacobson, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Jacques, L.

Caradon, L.

Jeger, B.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Chitnis, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Kagan, L.

Collison, L.

Kaldor, L.

Cranbrook, E. [Teller.]

Kearton, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Kennet, L.

Darling of Hillsborough, L.

Kilbracken, L.

David, B.

Kilmarnock, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Kissin, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Lawrence, L.

Delacourt-Smith of Alteryn, B.

Leatherland, L.

Listowel, E.

Denington, B.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Diamond, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Lockwood, B.

Edmund-Davies, L.

Longford, E.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Ennals, L.

McCarthy, L.

Esher, V.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Evans of Claughton, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

McNair, L.

Ezra, L.

Mais, L.

Falkender, B.

Mar, C.

Falkland, V.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Mayhew, L.

Fitt, L.

Melchett, L.

Flowers, L.

Milford, L.

Foot, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Mishcon, L.

783

Molloy, L.

Serota, B.

Molson, L.

Shackleton, L.

Monkswell, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Monson, L.

Shepherd, L.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Shinwell, L.

Mountevans, L.

Simon, V.

Mulley, L.

Stallard, L.

Nicol, B.

Stamp, L.

Northfield, L.

Stedman, B.

Ogmore, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Oram, L.

Stone, L.

Paget of Northampton, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Parry, L.

Strauss, L.

Peart, L.

Tanlaw, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Thurlow, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Tordoff, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Walston, L.

Reilly, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Rhodes, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

White, B.

Rochester, L.

Wigoder, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Russell of Liverpool, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Sainsbury, L.

Salmon, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Seear, B.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Seebohm, L.

Resolved in the negative, and clause disagreed to accordingly.
6.1 p.m.
Lord Elton: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Security: The Bettaney Case
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement on security which has been made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall make a Statement on security.
"On 22nd February I received the report of the Security Commission on their inquiry into the case of Michael Bettaney, the former security service officer who was tried for offences under the Official Secrets Acts and was sentenced to 23 years' imprisonment in April last year. The report is being presented to Parliament as a Command Paper this afternoon.
"The Commission have fully examined Bettaney's career in the security service, with the object of identifying any errors on the part of management in relation to Bettaney's employment.
"The Commission find that the process of recruiting Bettaney was carried out consistently with the procedures at the time. There is in fact no reason to doubt his loyalty at that time, or to suppose that he had at that stage ever contemplated the possibility of turning spy.
784
"The Commission make a number of serious criticisms of the errors by the security service in relation to the management of Bettaney's career. In particular, they conclude that there came a point in October 1982 when there should have been, but was not, a very full investigation of Bettaney's lifestyle, which would probably have led to the removal of his positive vetting clearance and the cessation of his employment in the security service.
"It remains the case, however, that Bettaney's attempts to get himself recruited as an agent of the Russian intelligence service were not successful.
"The security service's investigation which led to Bettaney's eventual conviction was effective and conclusive. Although in the course of his attempts to get himself recruited Bettaney did communicate some secret information to the Russians, he was arrested before he was able to pass over the major proportion of the secret information that he had collected and the grave damage that would have ensued by such communication was averted.
"In the light of their investigation, the Commission make a number of recommendations for changes in positive vetting procedures in the Security Service. The most significant of these is that, at quinquennial review, special and separate reports should always be called for from all those who have supervised the subject since clearance was last given. The Commission also recommend that the revised and improved arrangements which apply at present only to the more senior grades should now be extended to all staff. These recommendations are being put into effect.
"In the course of their investigation, the Commission received evidence of a more general character which was critical of various aspects of the internal organisation and management of the security service. They did not attempt to pass judgment on those criticisms, but have recorded their impression of aspects of organisation and management which seem to them to require examination and reassessment. The last chapter of the report makes some suggestions for changes in management attitudes and arrangements, and indicates a number of matters which in the Commission's view call for particular consideration.
"These criticisms and suggestions are being thoroughly examined and my right honourable and learned friend the Home Secretary and I are determined to see that action is taken to remedy management weaknesses.
"The new director general is giving the utmost care and attention to the Security Commission's criticism of errors in relation to Bettaney's employment, as well as to the general management criticisms to which I have referred. He will make the changes which are judged to be necessary to improve the organisation and management of the service and will report to my right honourable and learned friend and me later this year. I shall arrange for his conclusions and measures to be reported to the Security Commission for any further comment they may wish to make.
"Honourable Members, on both sides of the House, have expressed concern about the handling

785
of members of the service who are troubled over particular matters and activities within the service. The director general has been asked to consider, and to report to my right honourable and learned friend and me, what developments he proposes by way of internal outlets for the expression of grievances or anxieties of individual members of the service.
"Finally, I emphasise that the criticisms of management do not extend to operations or overall efficiency. Indeed the Commission say that:
'nothing in this report is intended in any way to call in question the professional and operational efficiency of the security service, which we believe to be of a high order.'
"Nevertheless the criticisms the Commission make of the handling of Bettaney's case are serious and every possible effort will be made to see that the shortcomings they describe do not occur again."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Viscount for repeating the Statement, which deals with matters of the utmost importance. It is to be noted that several serious criticisms of mistakes by the security services in connection with the Bettaney case have been made by the Commission of Inquiry. We are glad that the report of the commission is being published as a Command Paper today. May we assume that it is being published in full and also that all of its recommendations are to be implemented?
We note that the revised arrangements are now to be extended to all members of the service, but it remains important that senior members of the staff should be most carefully vetted both on recruitment and regularly thereafter, and that they should be drawn from all sections of the community and from all parts of the United Kingdom. We welcome the Prime Minister's assurance that she and the Home Secretary are examining the criticisms and the proposals of the commission with a view to remedying matters. Can the noble Viscount say whether a further Statement will be made about their conclusions in due course, after they have completed their studies? Further, is the noble Viscount able to say whether there is to be any amalgamation of MI5, MI6, and the number of other agencies connected with them, and will the Joint Intelligence Committee in the Cabinet Office continue to filter information to the Prime Minister?
Can he also say a word about the use of polygraphs within the security services? This has been discussed—I have not had time to read the report myself—and is there not a considerable doubt about the value of these? Can he say whether the possibility of a high level committee of, say, Privy Counsellors and including senior judges and former chiefs of staff, has been considered? Otherwise, who is to vet the vetters? Finally, does the noble Viscount have confidence that the new proposals will stabilise the morale of the present serving officers which has, as we know, been shaken in recent years?
Baroness Seear: My Lords, we on these Benches also wish to thank the noble Viscount the Leader of the House for repeating this Statement—this, in many ways, very disquieting Statement. One cannot but be
786
anxious about it. It is by no means the first report of this kind in view of the number of cases of this type which have occurred, and there must be a widespread feeling that all is not well with the security services.
That said, we welcome the appointment of the new director general who, we have reason to suppose, will be able to do a great deal to change matters for the better inside the services. We also note the recommendation that there should be improved provision for members of the service to express their grievances and anxieties about the way in which the service is run, or about matters which come to their attention. It cannot be for the good of the service that there are members within it who have doubts about what is going on and who feel grievances to which they cannot at present give adequate expression.
As things are at present, security matters are, I understand, in the hands exclusively in the last resort of the Prime Minister. In a democratic society such as ours, and having full regard to the obvious importance of high security in these matters, is it not possible that the time is coming when it will be advisable to have a joint committee of both Houses and of all parties to which security matters of this kind and reports of this sort would be referred?
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, for their comments on this Statement. First, I should say to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, that the Government, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister and my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, all fully accept the very serious nature of the criticisms in this report and we are all determined to make sure that everything is done to put this right.
I should make clear for the avoidance of any doubt that some of the appendices—Appendices C, D and E—of the report are not to be published for operational reasons, and as the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, mentioned publication of the report I think it is correct to make that further point. As for the implementation, yes, I think I made clear that that will most certainly happen. We are determined to do so, of course, in the first instance through the new director general of the security service, who will be charged with deciding what further measures should be taken; and indeed what further measures should be taken—in answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Seear—about grievances among the staff. It will depend on his report as to what further action might be taken after that.
The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, asked whether my right honourable friend will make a further Statement. The director general will, of course, make a report direct to my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. Naturally, I could not commit her to that at this stage, but I shall certainly make sure that she appreciates the view that has been expressed in this House, and that I think was expressed in another place, to which she did not wholly commit herself, but she understood the position. I suppose I have to say that that was nearly three hours ago now, but that is what I understand she said at that time.
So far as the question of amalgamating the security services is concerned, I do not know of any proposal to do that. Equally, of course, so far as the Joint

787
Intelligence Unit of the Cabinet Office is concerned, its position will continue, as I understand it, as before. A polygraph was not, of course, in operation at the time when Bettaney was being positively vetted. However, the first phase of the polygraph pilot study is nearing completion. It was expected from the outset that the whole scheme would take at least two years. The earliest date for completion will therefore be some time in 1986.
Both the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, asked about the possibility of a senior committee, and I think that the noble Baroness went somewhat further and asked about a joint committee of both Houses. I think that the first need is for the director general to make his report. He is the new director general and he should be allowed to make his report both on what improvements he sees in the service and, indeed, on how he sees the grievances being dealt with. Until that report is made, I think it would be premature to make any further comments. If I were to venture just one from my own experience of four years as Home Secretary, one has to consider very carefully what value such committees have—and I accept that it has to be considered at a later date—in view of the fact that there is a very limited amount that anybody can be told on some aspects of intelligence work.
Lord Rawlinson of Ewell: My Lords, while it is clear that it is very important that the errors that were made should be very carefully studied, does my noble friend accept that the security service consists of men of great distinction, who have over the years worked with great ability on matters which can rarely be made public, and that there have, of course, been times when there have been errors, and indeed more than errors, in their service? As one who first came into contact with them as a Law Officer as long ago as 1962, may I ask whether it is not right that they work in a field in a fundamentally free society which makes their work intensely difficult and which does not have the resources which are given to the Soviets, their opponent services, for them to do the work that they have to do? Generally therefore, does my noble friend agree that we should have great confidence and great respect for those who presently work in the security service?
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to my noble and learned friend. From my own limited experience—though, I suppose that four years is some time—I strongly confirm what he has said. I think perhaps it would be best for me to quote again to the House what the commission said in their report, because it bears entirely on what my noble and learned friend Lord Rawlinson said:
"Nothing in this report is intended in any way to call in question the professional and operational efficiency of the security service which we believe to be of a high order".
I think that that is something which would be endorsed by many people who have had experience of our security service in this country, and it is a very important statement.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, while all of us in this House—and that was made very clear by my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition—take a very
788
serious and responsible attitude towards the security services, which are so vital to the safety of the nation, does the noble Viscount agree that there is very considerable disquiet not only because of the Bettaney case, but also because of the disclosure, if that is the right word, of Cathy Massiter, an employee of MI5 for some 14 years? In the light of our experience over the past months do the Government really think that a quinquennial review of vetting reports is sufficiently frequent?
Lastly, with regard to the report called for by the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary specifically from the director general as to his recommendations for dealing with internal complaints and concerns, will the action taken on those recommendations by the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary be brought to the attention of Parliament?
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, who has certainly on these matters always adopted a most responsible attitude. Indeed, there was disquiet, and the other disclosures, together with this one, naturally have led to anxieties. On the question as to whether the quinquennial review is sufficiently frequent, I must say that it would be a matter in the first instance for the director general to report about that to my right honourable friend the Prime Minister and my right honourable and learned friend the Home Secretary, and then for that particular point, as indeed with the others on which he will report, to be considered most carefully by them.
I have said that naturally my right honourable friend the Prime Minister will consider very carefully the views expressed both in another place and here as to the need for a further report to Parliament. I do not think that I can commit her any further at this stage.

Local Government Bill
6.22 p.m.
House again in Committee.
[Amendment No. 72D not moved.]
Schedule 6 [Waste regulation and disposal]:
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Murton of Lindisfarne): The Question is that this schedule be the sixth schedule to the Bill.
Lord Elton: I am not sure whether the noble Lord the Deputy Chairman should put the Question and we should negative it, or whether he should of his own motion take cognisance of the fact that, having no clause to depend upon, the schedule presumably crashes to the ground.
The Earl of Cranbrook: If the noble Lord the Deputy Chairman is in a dilemma, I so move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: The Question is that this be the sixth schedule to the Bill.
Schedule 6 negatived.
Clause 9 [Joint arrangements for waste disposal functions]:
The Earl of Cranbrook The Earl of Cranbrook moved Amendment No. 73:
[Printed earlier: col. 743.]
The noble Earl said: This amendment has already been debated. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 73A and 73B not moved.]
The Earl of Cranbrook The Earl of Cranbrook moved Amendment No. 74:
[Printed earlier: col. 744.]
The noble Earl said: This amendment also has already been debated. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 74YA, 74YB and 74YC not moved.]
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
[Amendment No. 74ZA not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 74ZB to 74ZN had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Clause 10 agreed to.
Schedule 7 agreed to.
Clauses 11 and 12 agreed to.
Clause 13 [Local valuation panels]:
[Amendment No. 74A not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 74B to 74J had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Clause 13 agreed to.
Clause 14 agreed to.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal Baroness Fisher of Rednal moved Amendment No. 74K:
Before Clause 15, insert the following new clause:
("Trading standards and related functions.
. Schedule (Trading Standards and Related Functions) of this Act shall have effect for transferring functions under the enactments there mentioned from metropolitan county councils to the residuary bodies established under Part VII of this Act.").
The noble Baroness said: With this amendment, I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 75B:
Amendment No. 75B: Before Schedule 8, insert the following new schedule—
("SCHEDULE
TRADING STANDARDS AND RELATED FUNCTIONS
1. In section 201(2)(a) of the Local Government Act 1972 for the words "county and London borough, the council of that county" there shall be substituted the words "metropolitan county, the residuary body for that county, and for each non-metropolitan county and London borough the council of that county".
2. In section 71(a) of the Food Act 1984 for the words "county and London borough, the council of that county" there shall be substituted the words "metropolitan county, the residuary body for that county and for each non-metropolitan county and London borough the council of that county".
3. In section 67(1) of the Agriculture Act 1970 after the words "the council of a county" there shall be inserted the words ", or (in a metropolitan county) the residuary body".").
In doing so, I wish to say that we are speaking about a highly efficient and sophisticated consumer protection service which has developed out of the former weights and measures departments that were there before 1974. This debate is solely about the metropolitan counties. There is nothing like the trading standards officers and the departments anywhere except in the metropolitan counties. These services might have been in London, because there was the opportunity in 1965. The formula was there in the Local Government Bill. The suggestions the
790
Government are now making that the boroughs should take on the powers are well illustrated in the London area.
In 1965 the 32 London boroughs became local authority trading standard function officers. Twenty-three of the authorities formed seven consortia, ranging from three to five authorities. Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord that of these consortia only one remains in the London area. If he suggests later that these services be devolved to the boroughs I feel sure that he will not use London as an example.
If one looks at the trading standards officers, the departments and the work that they undertake, one sees that a real proliferation of consumer law has gone on to the statute book during the past 10 years. For those to be effective, one has to have enforcement. There is no use in Members of this House or of the other House discussing things which ought to be done, making recommendations, putting forward Bills that become Acts of Parliament and then leaving them there. Most of the consumer protection laws have to be enforced and that enforcement comes through these trading standards officers.
It is true to say that much more work has been done by the metropolitan trading standards teams. They have effectively rooted out a very wide range of national consumer scandals. There is no need for me to remind the Committee of some of them. At Christmas time one is always warned not to buy cheap, shoddy electrical goods to hang on one's Christmas tree because of the great danger of fire. Members of the Committee will realise as well the great campaign that had to be undertaken to make sure that children's nightwear was not in a category which burnt very easily. These are the kinds of campaigns in consumer work that the trading standards officers undertake.
One of the most important campaigns at the present time is making quite sure that loan sharks do not tear off the people. Because of unemployment many people are facing serious problems in making two ends meet. They borrow money but they do not have the resources of bank overdrafts or the opportunities that some members of the Committee have, and therefore they have to resort to what are called the lending societies, who tear off people by the very high interest rates they charge. This is one of the areas that is being tackled at the present moment by trading standards departments.
6.30 p.m.
If we have a fragmented service, as suggested in the Bill, we are likely to see a downgrading of the importance of the trading standards function. That means that there will be a downgrading of Government legislation, because if there cannot be enforcement it is no use having legislation on the statute book. In my view, it will also downgrade the importance of the Ministers who answer on consumer affairs for the Department of Trade and Industry. If one considers the re-organisation of local government in 1974—and one must keep returning to that reorganisation—it was the Redcliffe-Maud and Wheatley Reports on local government which influenced the local government Acts of 1974 and 1975. Those reports concluded that any particular unit administering trading standards must be large

791
enough to administer them effectively. We therefore see the splintering of this function as having a detrimental effect on trading standards.
It is easy to lose sight of the fact that an efficient trading standards service is just as important to business as it is to the ordinary consumer. The business community—including the CBI, the Retail Consortium and the National Consumer Council—emphasise clearly the importance of trading laws. They emphasise that the law should be implemented in a consistent way. If the administration of trading standards is broken up and brought down to district level, then this will be bound to increase the problems of uniformity.
I remind the Minister that the Government have published a new booklet entitled Burdens on Business. Chapter 5 draws attention to the complaint which small businesses make about inconsistencies. Managers of small businesses complain about the variations and the different practices policed by local authorities. The Government very wisely say that such complaints are well founded and that there must be more consistency between local authorities. Yet, on the other hand, the Government are being thoroughly inconsistent in getting rid of trading standards departments, which are the very bodies that can ensure consistency.
I turn now to the ways in which trading standards departments help industry. Many noble Lords have a great knowledge of industry, and some of them, perhaps, are actually involved in the areas about which I shall speak. First, in a speech in another place on 19th December 1980 the right honourable Cecil Parkinson stressed the damage which uncontrolled counterfeiting of United Kingdom goods of high international reputation would wreak on the United Kingdom firms concerned and on the job prospects of those employed in such firms.
Counterfeiting is a multi-million pound racket. I will give the Committee one or two examples. As noble Lords will appreciate, I perhaps know the West Midlands better than many other parts of this country. The trading standards office for the West Midlands serves a population of nearly 3 million people. It used to cover—and we wish it covered more now—the heartland of the manufacturing industry. One noble Lord who I do not see in his place has, I know, a great interest in the lock-making trade. The lock manufacturing industry in the Black Country, as we know it, which covers Dudley, Walsall and the surrounding area of the West Midlands, has traditionally produced the highest quality products. In recent years it has almost completely gone out of business because of cheap, inferior imports into this country. That kind of counterfeiting completely destroys British industry.
Exactly the same is true in the case of a large firm manufacturing motor accessories in the West Midlands. Not only were their products counterfeited but also the actual packaging which contained them, so that it appeared almost identical to that used by a brand name known throughout Europe and the rest of the world. That firm, also, is suffering very much from counterfeiting. Counterfeiting is not only bad for business but is bad for employment, too.
Dunlop—another famous firm—is my third example. Everybody knows of Dunlop sports equipment. Again, that company is suffering very badly through counterfeiting of their products. I could give similar examples for South Yorkshire. The Sheffield cutlery industry has been almost completely demolished because of counterfeiting. The same is true in West Yorkshire in the case of textiles. Wool traders are constantly having to battle against counterfeiting. I could go on to give examples for all the other metropolitan counties. If there are no trading standards departments and offices, there will continue to be counterfeiting—and that means tragedy for many businesses and manufacturers who may be well known not only in this country but throughout the world.
I want to stress the point that trading standards departments do not deal only with the lady who discovers a maggot in a loaf of bread. It is important to recognise that businesses are themselves a great beneficiary of the trading standards function. If noble Lords had attended a seminar arranged last week, they would have heard that not only are the local authorities in the London area not doing anything about trading standards but that the same is true elsewhere. A trading standards officer from one of the metropolitan counties stated publicly (and I shall use his words): "I don't know what we shall do if the trading standards authorities are fragmented in the metropolitan counties because the shire counties have not the specialist services and they ride on the backs of the metropolitan counties". So if the metropolitan trading standards departments are abolished, we know very well that the difficulty then will be with individual local authorities.
I can give your Lordships an example of one individual local authority. It is very well known in the West Midlands; it is the authority for a place called Solihull. I suppose that most noble Lords on the Benches opposite have, at some time in their lives, visited Solihull. It does not have a very good polling record in the case of my honourable friends.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: We will change that.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: A leading councillor for Solihull is on record as saying that after 1986 trading standards expenditure will be at a minimum in his local authority, and that this function is regarded as a necessary evil. So anyone who lives in Solihull will have to get onto the backs of other authorities if they want their trading standards protected. I give both of these examples because the shire counties rely very, very much on what the metropolitan councils do. I give one example which is an example of a local authority which said it would not be doing anything.
In my view, the Government must find ways to preserve the scientific role of the metropolitan county services in the trading standards departments and their centres of excellence. If anyone wants to visit a trading standards department, I am giving them an invitation. You can always come to the West Midlands. We are always pleased to meet anyone there. One can see the centres of excellence not only from the scientific side but also from the practical side dealing with people who have been "ripped off" on car servicing and all the

793
kinds of things which are commonplace when people discuss how we operate.
These centres of excellence and the scientific role provided by the metropolitan county services are referred to in the report of your Lordships' Committee on Science and Technology. We have to say again that they are reported as centres of excellence.
It would seem to me that the Government have not so much an open mind on the trading standards department as a blank one. The Government do not have a clue as to what to do with this very important part of local government which serves not only the ordinary consumer and voter but the retail trade and industry. Therefore, I am moving the amendment standing in my name and that of my noble friend to give the Government time in order to make quite sure that they make the right recommendations about trading standards. Of course, I would say the best move would be to accept wholeheartedly the report of the Select Committee on Science and Technology, and to put the scientific part of trading standards into the residuary body.
I conclude by saying that the comprehensive, fair and consistent service provided by the trading standard service within the metropolitan areas is the only proved way of enforcing the law, giving advice and assistance to trade, industry and the consumer. Necessary specialisation, adequate staffing and resources and other important factors come with large authorities, not small ones. To break up these units would be tragic. It would be against the consumer, it would be against business, and it would put us back 30 years. I ask for the support of your Lordships in these amendments, and I beg to move.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Drumalbyn: If it is convenient for the Committee, I should like to speak now to Amendments Nos. 75, 78, 79, 80, 81 and 82.
Amendment No. 75: Clause 15, page 11, line 27, at end insert—
("(2) If it appears to the Secretary of State necessary or expedient, he may, after consulting the constituent authorities, by order dissolve any joint committee established in relation to trading standards by virtue of Schedule 8, paragraph 15(4) and establish a single authority whose duty it shall be to carry out all of the enforcement functions conferred on the constituent authorities by virtue of paragraph 15 of Schedule 8.").
Amendment No. 78: Schedule 8, page 132, line 39, at end insert ("not later than 1st September 1985").
Amendment No. 79: Page 132, line 41, leave out ("to seek") and insert ("from the abolition date").
Amendment No. 80.: Page 132, line 44, leave out (", so far as practicable,").
Amendment No. 81: Page 132, line 45, leave out ("and") and insert ("by").
Amendment No. 82: Page 132, line 47, at end insert—
("(5) The joint committee established by virtue of subparagraph (4) above shall before the abolition date co-ordinate the making of preparations by the constituent district councils for the transfer of functions relating to trading standards to the constituent district councils.").
If we were speaking in the other place, I would now say that the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher of Rednal, made an excellent speech, but unfortunately said all the things that I was about to say. She probably said them better than I can, except that when she came to the end, her solution is not the same as the solution I am going to propose. However, that will come with the
794
next series of amendments. The solution I am going to propose is that the same kind of arrangement that applies in the shire counties, where the trading standards authority works together with the fire authority, would meet the case that arises from the abolition of the metropolitan counties.
This set of amendments in my name is taken first not because it is the one that I prefer—I prefer the one to which I have just referred—but because it is reached first. The amendments I prefer are found in Clauses 25 and 36 and Schedule 11 which, as I have said, would create a joint board shared with the fire services in the metropolitan counties. That is the solution which I say right away (and this was not mentioned by the noble Baroness) is preferred by the CBI, the National Consumer Council, the Retail Consortium and the British Standards Institution.
But I am hoping that my noble friend Lord Elton, who appears to be going to reply to this debate, will be able to convince your Lordships that the joint committees to be set up in each metropolitan area will develop into satisfactory bodies despite their inherent handicaps. But I am bound to say that the noble Lord is going to have a job to convince the Committee of that.
Turning to Amendment No. 75 to Clause 15, may I read it to your Lordships so we know where we are. It says:
"Page 11, line 27, at end insert—
(2) If it appears to the Secretary of State necessary or expedient, he may, after consulting the constituent authorities, by order dissolve any joint committee established in relation to trading standards by virtue of Schedule 8, paragraph 15(4) and establish a single authority whose duty it shall be to carry out all of the enforcement functions conferred on the constituent authorities by virtue of paragraph 15 of Schedule 8."
Clause 15 of the Bill does two things. It transfers functions mentioned in the first three sub-paragraphs of paragraph 15 of Schedule 8 from the Greater London Council to the London borough councils. This need not concern your Lordships at all at present, so that gets rid of paragraph (a) of Clause 15.
What does concern us is paragraph (b) of Clause 15 which transfers the trading standards functions from the six metropolitan county councils to the 36 metropolitan district councils.
Perhaps I may put in a question here which does not arise otherwise. Clause 93 of page 66 requires the councils of the districts in each metropolitan county not later than 1st September 1985 to establish a joint committee to discharge the function specified in that clause, including trading standards functions. The districts vary in population from Birmingham, with over 1 million, Leeds with 700,000 and Liverpool with 500,000 at one end, to Bury with 175,000 and Calderdale with 192,000 at the other end. These last two are in the Manchester metropolitan council area and West Yorkshire.
Plainly the resources of the constituent districts vary very widely. It cannot be easy for districts with majorities of different political hues, different economic interests, different traditions and different geographical characteristics within one county to agree among themselves or with their neighbours on priorities, methods and so forth. It would be a miracle if all these committees were invariably to accept the wishes of the majority on each committee, let alone

795
those of the majority in the neighbouring committees. Yet uniformity of enforcement is a cardinal requirement, if not the cardinal requirement, in trading standards administration.
May I remind your Lordships that a similar system was tried—this was mentioned by the noble Baroness opposite—in London following the 1965 reorganisation of local government. As the noble Baroness said, 23 London boroughs combined to form seven groups, and, as she also said, there is only one left. Why?—because there was, so to speak, no cement in the structure, nothing to bind the members together. Without that the joint committees are unlikely to be either efficient or consistent. Indeed, they are prone to break up entirely, as happened in the London borough groups.
On the other hand, when a number of councils in the same county form a joint committee where, before, there was only one county authority, the great disadvantage to all relevant interests, trade, industry and the general public, lies in the subsequent fragmentation—another word used by the noble Baroness opposite—of the previous comprehensive service. There will be, in each county on average, six times as many authorities loosely combined instead of one authority. One very experienced chief executive of a trading standards and consumer protection authority put it to me this way:
"Different authorities create different structures. Professional and political preferences place different emphasis on different duties. To promote fair trading and free competition becomes difficult if not impossible especially in trading activities geographically related".
I should add that it also becomes more expensive. The cost of the service per 1,000 population in the shire counties in 1983–84 was 99·5 pence, in the metropolitan counties 89·5 pence, but in the London boroughs 169·5 pence. Who is to say that the cost to the metropolitan district councils will not rise to, or at least approach, that in the London boroughs when the metropolitan counties are broken up and their trading standards systems fragmented among the districts?
I turn more directly to Amendment No. 75. A single authority in place of a joint committee would, or at least should, secure continuity and uniformity of enforcement. I suggest that it is necessary to tighten up other proposals in Schedule 8, paragraph 15(4). I hope that your Lordships will not think it sufficient for the councils to have a duty to seek to co-ordinate the exercise by them of their enforcement functions with a view to securing uniformity in the exercise of those functions throughout the county.
Their duty should be, should it not, to achieve uniformity and not merely to seek to do so. That is covered by Amendment No. 79. There should be no nonsense about securing it "so far as practicable". That is Amendment No. 80. It seems to me absurd to lay on a council a duty and to qualify that duty with the words "so far as practicable" when the duty, as I have said, is cardinal and basic. If that cannot be done—here again, the noble Baroness opposite referred to this—would it not be better to have a single authority? As I understand it, this sub-paragraph does not envisage a single authority. It requires district councils to establish a joint committee of each metropolitan county whose duty shall be to co-
796
ordinate or rather, in the terms of the Bill, to seek to co-ordinate the enforcement functions of each district council with a view to securing that those functions are exercised, so far as is practicable, uniformly throughout that county.
It seems to me that the Government have little confidence that this co-ordination arrangement will work any better than the grouping of the London boroughs. The councils' joint committees are given the duty not to co-ordinate but to seek to co-ordinate with a view to securing so far as practicable uniformity throughout the county. The Government do not expect them to secure uniformity. They hope apparently that uniformity will be secured to some extent.
Uniformity in the exercise of trading standards functions is a "must". The Government must therefore adopt that which must secure uniformity. The metropolitan counties have been aiming at uniformity and have already, in 10 years, gone a long way towards achieving it. Moreover, our European commitments, in many cases, require uniformity. In regard to Amendment No. 75, we must plainly continue to aim firmly at uniformity in the exercise of trading functions throughout the county and at co-ordination or at least co-operation between counties. But there may be a failure of co-ordination. In that case co-ordination must still be somehow secured. The obvious way is to dissolve any joint committee that is failing to co-ordinate, and to establish a single authority whose duty it shall be, in the words of the amendment,
"to carry out all of the enforcement functions conferred on the constituent authorities by virtue of paragraph 15 of Schedule 8".
That is the point of Amendment No. 75.
Amendment No. 81, at page 132, line 45, proposes leaving out "and" and inserting "by". This is an interesting point. As drafted, sub-paragraph (4)(a) and (b) seems to have two separate objects; first, to co-ordinate the enforcement functions so as to secure uniformity in the exercise of those functions through-out the county and, secondly, to secure the employment, provision or the use of staff, property and facilities by those councils for the purpose of those functions.
It is not perhaps the most felicitous of drafting. If I am wrong, my noble friend, I am sure, will be glad to put me right. The substitution of "by" for "and" would make a significant change in the sense, since "by" would restrict the method and ways by which councils are to secure uniformity in the exercise of their functions throughout the county. I should like to ask my noble friend whether this is what the Government intended.
As to Amendment No. 82, it is not clear to me what is the relationship between Clause 93 and paragraph 15(4) of Schedule 8. Is the joint committee established in Schedule 8 the same as that established by Clause 93? That, I think, covers the various amendments to which I am speaking. The major issue is to ensure that the Secretary of State will be able to replace any committee that fails in its duty. I hope very much that my noble friend will accept that.
Lord Ingrow: We should, I think, consider this question of uniformity. It is generally held to be—
Lord Sainsbury: This side.
Noble Lords: Lord Sainsbury.
Lord Sainsbury: I should like to speak briefly in support of the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn. The great variety of purposes that the enforcement of trading standards serves has already been shown. The first is to protect the consumer by, for example, ensuring the accuracy of petrol pumps, ensuring—and this is coming near home—that cooked meats and poultry do not contain excessive water, and ensuring that the lead content of products does not exceed the safety limits. The second is to promote fair competition for the retailers and the manufacturer. It is necessary to prevent reputable businesses from being undercut by unscrupulous competitors. The third is to interpret the law. The law is broken more often by failure to understand than by evil intention. Trading standards authorities assist local industry by giving advice on legal matters and in product development, as with, for example, the manufacture of weighing and measuring equipment.
7 p.m.
In my opinion those are very important functions which affect a large section of the population. It is therefore inappropriate to devolve responsibility for the administration of trading standards from the metropolitan counties to the districts. First, as has already been mentioned, the problems of maintaining consistency will be increased. Secondly, there will be a loss of efficiency. County administration benefits from economies of scale. District administration would need much duplication of expertise and initially would break up existing teams. Thirdly, districts will not have the resources large enough to finance special investigation teams to work on particular projects as they exist now in the metropolitan counties. It is by virtue of their size that the metropolitan counties can afford the necessary resources to finance projects such as investigation into product counterfeiting, which has already been mentioned, especially in the clothes and video trades, and investigation into credit abuse which is very important from the consumers' point of view. It is for those reasons that I conclude by expressing hope that the Government will accept this and related amendments.
Lord Ingrow: If one is in business, possibly one may somewhere be involved with trading standards, and so I should declare an interest; but I want to speak on the question of uniformity. I can see a case for uniformity if one wishes to have it over the whole country, but there is no specific merit in having uniformity, say, within the boundaries of the West Yorkshire County Council and a totally different uniformity across the border in North Yorkshire. If it is to be uniformity throughout the country, by all means let us have it. But really one of the most deadening things that people talk about today is uniformity.
The metropolitan districts are not the same. They are composed of different people, with different ideas. They do not necessarily want to be run in entirely the same way, and in fact in practice it is not possible to achieve that. At the end of the day if prosecutions occur, they will be dealt with in a court; in the case of
798
West Yorkshire, say, a dozen or more courts. They will not necessarily get the same sort of decision. Different people take different views as to the importance of particular crimes. If they are serious crimes and they go to the Crown Court, there could be about three different Crown Courts. We shall achieve informity only on the basis that standards are the same in a given area but not in contiguous areas.
My next point is this. I do not know the noble Lord's full experience of local government, but very few people would agree with him that the second tier authorities are more efficient (and take full advantage of economies of scale) than the first tier authorities. Those directly answerable to the public for a rate demand are usually much more careful and precise in what they do. That is one of the reasons why so many people want counties: they are much easier to get money out of because no one takes the responsibility. But that is not a particularly democratic argument to use.
The enforcement policy may—indeed, will—vary from time to time. It seems to me that districts of the size of half a million or more are well and truly capable of dealing with these matters. It may very well be that no one would run a trading standard better than the city of Bradford, for example, looking after its wool problems, but it may have its efforts dissipated by neighbouring authorities which did not attach the same importance to wool and might consider other things more important. I think that we are in danger of going backwards into a craze for making bigger and bigger, and the Government quite rightly have been trying to do exactly the opposite. I would very much hope that the districts, which are large, substantial bodies, run by able people, would be well capable of running such activities, and they should be allowed to do so.
Baroness Lockwood: I come from the same parliamentary constituency as the noble Lord, Lord Ingrow, and I take an entirely different view from him. A lot was said in the earlier debate this afternoon and in previous debates about the efficiency of district councils compared with metropolitan counties. I think that the facts speak for themselves. If we look carefully at the facts, I think it can be seen that a number of services are much more efficiently and effectively carried out at metropolitan county rather than district level. I certainly think that that applies to trading standards.
To take the metropolitan county of West Yorkshire as an example, in 1983–84 the number of staff was 108, compared with 173 when the metropolitan county took over from the then reorganised county boroughs and district councils. So we have a decrease in the number of staff employed by the metropolitan county; yet if we look at the scope of the work over the past 10 years, we find that it has increased enormously. I understand that in the space of 10 years there have been something like 375 Acts of Parliament or regulations passed which have increased the responsibility in the whole area.
I should like the noble Lord, Lord Ingrow, to go with me to visit the centralised department in West Yorkshire which operates throughout the county to see that it can operate at a more economic rate than

799
the individual districts simply because it has teams of specialists. I should like to give an example. Reference has been made to the problems of finance within West Yorkshire. There is one specialist officer who deals with consumer credit. Were there to be a dispersed service there could not be one-fifth of an officer in each of the five districts, so presumably there would have to be five officers dealing with that particular problem. Thus one could replicate the different specialisms that have been developed in this whole area.
Another very important problem is this. Again, in West Yorkshire the metropolitan county has become a leading authority in the effort to reduce the incidence of overloaded heavy goods vehicles. In this connection, the metropolitan county works with the West Yorkshire police and with the regional transport department. One has an economic and neat unit, the three bodies working together on this problem of overloaded vehicles. This is a very serious problem. When one thinks in terms of trading standards, one tends to think of the smaller areas of work. Yet, in many respects it is now a very technical and highly mechanised service. Thus I suggest that in the interests of economy and effectiveness it is important that there should be this centralised service.
I was going to say something about the textile industry and about uniformity. Again I am taking an entirely different view from that of the noble Lord opposite. The textile industry in West Yorkshire works very closely indeed with the trading standards department. When there are problems, as there have been in recent years, with the increasing number of imported commodities which go under the title of "woollen commodities" but are found not to be so, it is very important that there is not only an efficient and effective service in the metropolitan county area but that it is also a uniform service; in other words, that Bradford is applying the same standards as Kirklees and Calderdale. It is important to have this uniformity. I think that is one of the reasons why the textile industry itself is very concerned about the move to fragment this service.
Therefore I support the amendments which have been moved by my noble friend Lady Fisher. I support them in preference to the amendments which have been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn. That is for the simple reason that there would be certainty. If we in this Chamber can establish that we will keep the service together, then there will not be the problem that we could run into if the service is dependent on coming to some agreement between the districts. That is the problem of losing some of the specialist officers, and that is something which we can ill-afford to do.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: Very shortly, I should like to support Amendment No. 75. My mind goes back to the very early start of the Consumers' Association movement. I was chairman of the first committee. One of the first things we had to do was to try to establish standards that were comparable throughout the country. Of course we had the Board of Trade, and so on, to help us. However, we were dealing with people; we were dealing with the different counties and with the different industries producing
800
goods. What the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, said was absolutely true. I agreed with everything he said. We have to have a standard. We have to have standards which cover the whole country. I simply do not know whether it can be done as the Government hope to do it. I feel that it would be much better if there was a standard which covered a wider field, where it was not split up so much. I feel that one should really concentrate on what noble Lords have already mentioned. I shall not repeat it all. I entirely agree also with what the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, said. There has been a tremendous step forward in these matters, and one wants to see that that continues. One does not want undercutting. One does not want under-selling.
Both noble Lords have spoken about the West Riding. I have here a letter from the wool textile and clothing industry saying that all they want is to be quite sure that their standards are kept up and that people do not import cheap woollen goods into this country which are below standard and which we cannot stop. This is vital to the whole aspect of production, selling and so on. I very much hope that the Government will take this very seriously and, if necessary, will say that they will consider this again in order that one can have something. It is not a political subject at all. It is simply a matter of whether or not one can obtain the right methods and the right standards. As the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has said, it is a matter of finding the right way to do it. It is not necessarily a matter of politics. I hope the noble Lord, who is very wise in these matters, will look at this with an unjaundiced eye and see whether something cannot be done which will fulfil what has been spoken about tonight.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Jacques: I submit to the Committee that there is a very strong case for keeping this service on something like a county basis. There are three reasons for that. First of all, in the past decade, there have been enormous changes in testing. Those changes have given rise to the use of a very much greater amount of technique and expertise. Secondly, they have also given rise to the use of improved testing equipment. It has now reached the stage when more or less the only people who can afford to employ the expertise and use the equipment are the metropolitan counties because of their substantial rateable value base. Those changes have taken place since the last change in local government. I believe the Government are losing sight of that. At the present time it is recognised in the whole profession that the metropolitan counties are ahead of everybody else, so much so that the other counties are using the metropolitan counites' service in many of the checks that they are making.
The second reason why I suggest that it should be retained on a county basis is this very important question of consistency. I spent the whole of my working life in retailing. Therefore I have a very great knowledge of the need for consistency. When one is operating in several towns and each of those towns has its own service, one has no consistency at all. There is a different attitude according to the personality of the officer in charge, or the facilities that he has available, or his particular committee.

801
On a county basis one can even move towards the national consistency which was pleaded for. That is because one can give guidelines. If one has to give guidelines to a restricted number of counties rather than to hundreds of district councils and boroughs, then one is likely to have more adhesion to the guidelines. Thus I submit that by keeping it on a county basis and by using national guidelines, there would be a possibility of far greater consistency on a national basis than there is now.
Finally, there is the question of costing. Here I am astonished at the Government. They are either working purely on political dogma or they are unaware of the figures that are available. The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, submitted the authentic figures. In relation to their rateable value, the metropolitan counties have a lower cost than the shire counties. In proportion to their rateable value, they have a substantially lower cost than that in London where it is done by the London boroughs. I cannot understand the Government, purely on dogma grounds, doing away with a service which has proved itself to be economical and to have the lowest costs in the country.
Lord Mottistone: I shall not detain your Lordships for long on Amendment No. 75, to which I have also put my name. I should like to begin by saying that the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, has covered a great deal of the ground that I would have covered and I agreed with a great deal of what she said. However, I do not agree one little bit with her amendment and I hope that your Lordships will not consider it.
It is significant that the earlier amendment—Amendment No. 72B—which referred to the "residuary body", was withdrawn. I hope that the opposition will withdraw this amendment also so that we can concentrate on the amendments of my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn; namely, Amendment No. 75, and Amendments Nos. 78 to 82. My noble friend has explained the effect of those amendments and therefore I shall not repeat it.
However, there are just two points that I should like to make. First, there is the question of uniformity, upon which my noble friend Lord Ingrow commented. From a manufacturer's point of view—and I have been working with manufacturing for a long time—the fewer centres for applying the law relating to trading standards, the better. My noble friend said that if it were national, it would be all right. To have it national would be too difficult. One cannot administer nationally so well. We have certainly found that a county basis in England and Wales and a regional basis in Scotland is the right type of level.
In fact, there is something in between. I cannot remember exactly, but I think that there are about 460 districts throughout the country. If we were to put it at district level throughout, we would find that there would be a whole range of different measurements as regards how the law should be put into effect and a whole range of advice given to courts and so on.
We want to have something in between. About the right level at which to co-ordinate the districts is covered by my noble friend's Amendment No. 75; namely, a single authority. The Government have recognised that, because in Schedule 8, paragraph 15(4) they talk about the establishment of a joint
802
committee which would provide that co-ordination. My noble friend Lord Drumalbyn and I do not think that that goes quite far enough; hence the amendments about which we have been talking. I hope that my noble friend will be able to accept some of those amendments or, if he does not like their wording, will be able to accept them in principle, so that if need be, we can come back at Report with something else. It would seem to me very reasonable to accept these amendments. I hope that no further consideration will be given to Amendment No. 74K.
Finally, I hope that my noble friend will be able to give me some reassurance as to what plans there are for the scientific resources for the metropolitan county trading standards officers and their laboratories. Are they to be handed over to the joint committee? If so, would perhaps a single authority do the job rather better? I hope that we shall be able to get on with this matter nice and quickly because I expect that we are all getting hungry.
Lord Ezra: I should like to ask for clarification. Are we also at the moment discussing Amendments Nos. 110 to 114? They propose another possible solution.
Lord Mottistone: They will be moved later.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: I was very impressed by the theme of the noble Lord, Lord Jacques. He said how important it was to be consistent. "Consistency" was the great word that he used. There is a lot in it, and I was very impressed. This House must be consistent. When we gave a Second Reading to this Bill we said that we wanted to get rid of these intermediate tiers. If we start by dealing with little bits and if we do the opposite to the message that came from the Second Reading debate, we shall not be very consistent. I would beg the Committee to pay attention to what the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, has said and to be consistent with its own decision when the principle was discussed and voted upon on Second Reading.
As regards the noble Baroness and her Amendment No. 74K, as I have said we come from almost the same village and so we ought to have similar outlooks. We have had the same type of evidence to form our views. I should like to ask the noble Baroness about the sudden magic which has started to surround the residuary bodies. Why has this become so wonderful all of a sudden? It is a new word. It has a new attraction. As far as I can see, the attraction of the residuary bodies is that they are a backdoor way in which to do the very thing that on Second Reading we said we would not do. I must say that it seems to me to be in keeping with what I could call "political tactics".
I do not see why the colleagues of the noble Baroness should have withdrawn their two previous amendments in which they wanted to make use of residuary bodies to keep alive something that is not at all in keeping with the principle of the Bill, and why the noble Baroness should think of pursuing this amendment.
Every now and again in the language of party political battle words suddenly have a special meaning. I remember at one stage it was "solidarity". One had never heard of "solidarity" until it suddenly carried with it some type of message. As a trade union

803
leader the noble Lord, Lord Graham, will remember the new word that the trade unions suddenly produced—"parity". They said, "We must have parity with this and that". There is a fascination for new words. The "residuary body" is exactly what it means. It is intended to remain in being for the transitional period during the overlap. Of necessity it should be for only a short period, or a shorter period if possible. There is no question of it being permanent because otherwise, as my noble friend said, we would be misusing the English language.
Therefore, following the theme of consistency of the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, I would suggest that the noble Baroness should be consistent with her colleagues and should say that she will not proceed with her amendment for exactly the same reasons as her colleagues withdrew the previous amendment.
Lord Jacques: Before the noble Lord sits down and since he has mentioned my name, I should like him to reply to this comment. The Government by this Bill are abolishing the GLC and the metropolitan county councils. They are suggesting in the Bill that the functions which they performed should go partly to the boroughs, partly to quangos, partly to joint committees, partly to central Government and so on. The Committee is suggesting improvements and different ways in which that can be done. That is a function of this House.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: Of course it is, and the noble Lord, as I have said, made a most effective speech. However, it was on the wrong basis; that is what I was trying to say. The object of this Committee stage is to share minds. We are sharing minds and the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, has said that we should be consistent. I am saying the same—be consistent, and make the amendments consistent with the message which we gave on Second Reading.
Lord Jacques: We are being consistent in continuing to seek improvement of the Bill.
Lord Avebury: It is a great pity that the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, has seen fit to introduce a party political note into what has been an entirely independent and unbiased debate with from both sides contributions from such distinguished noble Lords and noble Baronesses as the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, and the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot, who has such a distinguished record in consumer protection. I should have thought that the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, would have paid more careful attention to what she said and to what his noble friend Lord Drumalbyn said rather than accuse those who have spoken in the debate of being party politically inspired.
Moreover, the noble Lord would have done well to refresh his memory on the wording of the Long Title of the Bill which provides for functions to be transferred from the Greater London Council and the metropolitan county councils, in some cases to other bodies.
7.30 p.m.
What the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, is arguing is that if we cannot achieve an objective which is shared
804
by everybody except the noble Lord, Lord Ingrow, then he has proposed a workable solution. The noble Lord, Lord Ingrow, is the only one who suggested that we should not aim at any kind of uniformity and that it was a positive merit if, as a result of these functions being devolved on to the districts, we had variations in the enforcement of consumer legislation as we cross from one authority to another even within the space of, say, West Yorkshire where it would be extraordinarily confusing, I believe, for the consumer, the manufacturer, and the retailer if different standards were imposed in an area as small as that.
He could have argued, had he wanted to—but he did not—that these functions should have been taken away from local authorities altogether and that they should be administered by central Government, and I do not think that anybody is advancing that point of view. We all believe that the responsibilities we are talking about in this group of amendments should be administered locally. The question is how best we can secure that uniformity about which everybody else has spoken.
Even in the schedule at paragraph (4) we read that the aim is to secure uniformity in the exercise of these functions throughout the county only "so far as practicable". I think that is the crux of the matter. Are we going to leave the Bill in this unsatisfactory state where we are saying, in effect, that we want to try to achieve uniformity, but if we do not, that is too bad, we can only go part of the way towards it; or are we going to provide in a wise and far-sighted way, as the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, is attempting to do, for the eventuality that what is contained in the Bill will not achieve what Parliament as a whole is trying to do?
Then we should have a fall-back position which is extraordinarily sensible and which ought to commend itself to the Minister. If it does not, I believe that the views of consumers, retailers, and manufacturers which have been outlined in the course of the speeches so far ought to prevail against the stubbornness, if I may say so, of the Government.
Lord Elton: If the debate continues much longer, I shall begin to become confused and so I hope that your Lordships will allow me to reply now. Perhaps I may start by clearing up a small point simply because it is on the top of my pile of papers. My noble friend asked about the difference between what I shall call Schedule 8 committees of my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn and Clause 93 committees. These are not the same creature. Schedule 8 committees are for one purpose only; that is to say, on trading standards, and they are post-abolition bodies. Clause 93 committees can be created for a number of purposes, and the intention is that they shall start work at least pre-abolition, though I believe that they may be continued thereafter.
The amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, and cogently moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, have the intention of transferring responsibility for the enforcement of trading standards and related legislation to the residuary bodies. I pause merely to remind your Lordships of the role of the residuary bodies as it is now planned and as we believe it may be planned for the future, and I say no more on that acrimonious subject; but let us not forget it.

805
The first group of amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn would retain the devolution of these functions to district councils but would strengthen the co-ordinating role of the joint committees proposed in the Bill and introduce a reserve power for my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to establish joint authorities to take over these functions from the districts.
The Government's proposals under the Bill are to devolve trading standards and related functions to the districts, but with the safeguard of joint committees in each metropolitan county, whose role it would be to co-ordinate enforcement work. Noble Lords have mentioned that some people object to this. I ought to mention that others support it. The Association of British Chambers of Commerce, for instance, in a commentary on the Bill circulated during Committee in another place, wrote:
"The main concern of industry and commerce relating to trading standards is the possibility that district councils could operate varying standards of advice and enforcement, and that centralised units such as exist in West Yorkshire might be disbanded when control is passed to districts".
It seemed to the association that what they call the clause, but which is, in fact, paragraph 15(4) of Schedule 8 which,
"establishes a statutory joint committee allays that fear and should be supported".
My right honourable friend drew attention during the debate on these provisions in the other place to the close links between trading standards and environmental health. These, I am sure my noble friend will accept, are of great importance. It is therefore of interest to notice that the Institution of Environmental Health Officers in a policy paper issued on 29th April make clear their belief that food standards, composition, and labelling duties in particular would be performed to a higher standard and with a greater understanding of health implications if, as we propose, the metropolitan districts become responsible for both trading standards and environmental health. The institution goes on:
"There is a determination amongst the environmental health departments in the metropolitan districts to achieve a uniformity of approach by adopting a proven co-ordination scheme".
That should be some reassurance to noble Lords who are anxious about diversity of standards. The Association of British Chambers of Commerce and the Institution of Environmental Health Officers are important and influential bodies. I urge your Lordships not lightly to disregard their views. The noble Baroness would have us transfer trading standards to the residuary bodies. As they are now constituted of course that would not be an approriate role for them.
My noble friend alluded briefly to a subject which I know is of great interest to him, though he did not quote his amendments on the subject of the fire authority. I do not know whether he is going to allude to it again. If not, I shall merely say that I see considerable difficulties in that approach because the affinity between the two services does not seem to be close enough to justify a pursuit of that subject. But he has not spoken to that amendment and so I shall leave it at that. I understand that he will speak to it later.
806
The noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, was concerned about counterfeiting, as are a number of your Lordships. This is a national problem. The metropolitan county councils do not have a monopoly of dealing with it. The joint committees proposed in Schedule 8, paragraph 15, for co-ordinating enforcement of trading standards will be able to mobilise action against counterfeiting just as the MCCs have done, and I hope with more success.
That brings me to what my noble friend proposes in his amendments. He proposes first that paragraph 15(4) should be strengthened in a number of ways. He wants to insert into the first line a date,
"not later than 1st September 1985".
We were intending that the operation should be carried out in a timely way, and I am perfectly happy to accept that amendment and that date.
He also wishes to remove the words "to seek" from line 41, which is a weakening expression and suggests there may be a failure, and I am prepared for him to do that to the Bill. He next wishes to remove another hesitating phrase, "so far as practicable" in Amendment No. 80, and I am content for him to do that. He then wishes—and I think this is only probing—to substitute "by" for "and" between heads (a) and (b). I can tell him that the drafting, as it is, is I believe as we intended it to be and seems to me to read as plain English. I would ask him therefore not to press that amendment because I should like to look at it more closely.
My noble friend then asks us to add a new subsection (5) at the end of line 47. I hesitate about the wording of what he proposes, but if he will allow me to look at it between now and Report, I shall hope to bring back an alternative form of words for a similar purpose.
There remains therefore Amendment No. 75. It may be that the drafting would need further attention but for the greater comfort of my noble friend I am prepared also to accept that amendment provided it is agreed that we may have to revise it at a later stage. It seems to me that we have everything to offer to those on this side of the Committee who wish to improve the situation as they see it in the Bill as drafted and nothing to offer noble Lords opposite who pursue a different aim which is inimical to the Bill. I hope that my noble friends will assist me in persuading them; or, if not, voting that other view out.
Lord Drumalbyn: May I simply say thank you to my noble friend for accepting these amendments and thank Members on both sides who have supported what I have had to say. One or two did not support, but the general feeling of the Committee was in favour of the tenor of the amendments. May I also say thank you very much to the noble Baroness opposite who saved me quite a bit of speaking by covering most of the points that I had in mind.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: As the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has said, the debate has been good. As my noble friend Lady Lockwood and others have said, trading standards is not a party political matter. It is of grave importance not only to consumers but, as has already been said, to traders and manufacturers.

807
The Minister gave information relating to environmental health officers and I should perhaps tell him that there are two arguments to that view. The food responsibilities of the MCC's account for only 15 per cent. of the work of the trading standards department. To use that as a justification for transferring the whole function of the work of standards officers in the districts is to ignore the other 85 per cent. of the work which is not related to the work of the environmental health officers. That is a classic example of the tail wagging the dog: the small amount of work which the MCCs do relating to food opposed to what the environmental and trading standards officers do on the larger scale.
The work of the environmental health officers is at a local level. They were the old sanitary inspectors; therefore their work involves investigating hygiene in shops and seeing whether food is fresh.
Lord Elton: I think the noble Baroness will accept that her argument is susceptible of appreciation in two directions. There is all the work of the environmental health officers to consider as well as the rest of the work of the trading standards officers. With recent events in mind I am sure she will not underestimate the importance of ensuring that food sold to the public is in good condition.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: I am not underestimating. I was explaining the different functions that these officers have. It is true to say that environmental officers were the old sanitary inspectors. Therefore they visit shops. They see whether food is fresh, and if it is mouldy, for example, they take action. The trading standards officers also do that, but they cover the wider field of food composition which the environmental officers do not do. They also deal with labelling. Everyone is concerned with labelling to ensure that what is in the bottle or in the tinned goods is shown; and, for example, if a product contains salt that is shown. Therefore they work closely with the manufacturers. That is the point I was trying to explain and I hope now that the noble Lord sees that there is a distinct difference in the functions. The environmental officers could take over only 15 per cent. of the functions. That would be my reply to the Minister.
I have listened with a great deal of interest to what has been said and I would go so far as to say that there is not much difference between what I have said and Lord Drumalbyn's view. He is trying to achieve exactly the same as those of us on this side of the Committee inasmuch as we want to keep the standards that have already been set up. We wish to improve on already good standards. I go all along the line with the noble Lord on that.
Before I continue, will the Minister explain whether he has now accepted the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, because at a later stage there is a debate on whether the trading standards should go to the fire service as is operated in the counties. Are we accepting now that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, substantially will be the Government's policy?
Lord Elton: I have said that if your Lordships reject, as I hope you will, the amendments proposed by the
808
noble Baroness, we shall accept my noble friend's Amendments Nos. 78, 79 and 80 as they stand, consider Amendment No. 81, assist him in redrafting Amendment No. 82 and accept Amendment No. 75, subject to a possible minor amendment at the next stage. That would then be our policy.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: With all those assurances, I agree with the point of view that has been put forward. I have listened to what the Minister said, I am satisfied and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment No. 74K, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Drumalbyn Lord Drumalbyn moved Amendment No. 75:
[Printed earlier: col. 793.]
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 75A and 75B not moved.]
Lord Denham: In moving that the House do now resume I think that, with the leave of the Committee, I should say that we shall not be returning to this Bill before 8.45. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Hospital Complaints Procedure Bill
7.50 p.m.
Lord Colwyn: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Colwyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD AYLESTONE in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Hospital complaints procedure]:
Lord Colwyn Lord Colwyn moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 6, leave out ("Regional Health Authority") and insert ("health authority in England and Wales and to each Health Board in Scotland").
The noble Lord said: As currently drafted the Bill covers only regional health authorities and, therefore, applies only to England. There are no regional authorities in Wales or in Scotland, and the Bill is intended to apply to both. In addition, regional health authorities in England are not the authorities directly responsible for the management of hospitals. The amendment will ensure that the directions which the Bill requires to be given are addressed to all authorities having hospital management responsibility. Clause 1 lays a duty on the Secretary of State to exercise his existing power to give directions to health authorities so as to require arrangements to be made for establishing and publicising specified procedures for dealing with complaints in all NHS hospitals. The amendment extends the categories of authority to whom such directions will have to be given to district health authorities in England and Wales, health boards in Scotland and special health authorities. I beg to move.
Lord Ennals: I think I can make one of the briefest speeches on record. All the amendments that are to be moved by the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, are ones that we recognize, and that he himself recognised on Second Reading. He promised that he was going to bring them forward, and he has brought them forward entirely satisfactorily. I want to say that as far as these Benches are concerned, we totally support the amendments.
The Earl of Caithness: I do not know whether or not we have the SDP with us at the moment. I stand up briefly to say in respect of all my noble friend's amendments that we give them very warm support and hope that the Committee will accept them as they are. I think that they improve the Bill substantially.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Colwyn Lord Colwyn moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 7, after ("1977") insert ("or section 2(5) of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978").
The noble Lord said: The effect of this amendment—a technical amendment which includes the necessary reference to the relevant legislation governing health boards in Scotland—is to permit equivalent Scottish legislation to be applied in issuing directions to the health boards. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Colwyn Lord Colwyn moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 10, after ("Authority") insert ("or Board").
The noble Lord said: The effect of this amendment is to provide for references to health boards in Scotland to be included. This amendment is consequent upon previous amendments and ensures that Scottish health boards are referred to in the Bill as necessary. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Masham of Ilton Baroness Masham of Ilton moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 1, line 13, at end insert—
("( ) arrangements are made to ensure that complainants do not suffer any disadvantage as a result of making the complaint: and").
The noble Baroness said: As your Lordships know, this Bill came about because of some serious negligence in the treatment of a very ill Member of another place. The amendment which I bring before the Committee now would, I feel, improve this Bill, as I know that some people who may have very genuine complaints will not come forward as they will fear that they may be victimised for so doing. I have asked many people about this, including doctors and nurses working in hospitals. They feel that the message should be clearly made known to patients that they will be at no disadvantage if they have genuine complaints. I believe that this could improve the care, comfort and consideration of patients.
Last night, the wives of two noble Lords who sit on the Government Front Bench told me that they had had babies at a hospital not far from here. After giving birth, both these ladies had been left lying as they were, covered with sweat and feeling exhausted, for a considerable time without being cleaned up and made comfortable. One of them was very angry, the other
810
became very cold and was sick. It may be that if there had been a clear channel of complaint this practice of neglect would have been rectified for other patients.
A member of the staff in your Lordships' House told me that a friend of his was lying very ill in a South London hospital. One of her legs was in plaster and she could hardly move. She felt something crawling up her good leg. It was a cockroach. She was so frightened that she made no official complaint. I think that this amendment would improve the Bill if it were accepted. I beg to move.
Lord Ennals: I very much hope that the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, who has presented the Bill and is piloting it through your Lordships' House, will accept this amendment. I warmly supported the Bill, support it now and will support it at every stage because I think that in our Health Service, while it is on the whole extremely efficient, there are cases where people are not treated as well as they should be. The purpose of Lord Colwyn's Bill is that people should have a way in which they can make their complaints.
It is not that we are wanting more complaints than are necessary. We want there to be a clear, open, understood channel through which people who feel they are not getting the right treatment, or that someone is being rude to them or lacking in consideration, or that the Health Service seems to be impersonal, may make their complaint. That is the purpose of the Bill. There is a danger that that fine purpose can be undermined by the fact that some people, as the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, has said, although they have what would seem to be a legitimate complaint, will say, "I'm not going to bring it forward".
I speak from a different sort of experience. Some years ago I spent nearly three years in hospital. There were times when there were patients who, I thought, were, I will not say "mistreated", but not treated in the way they should have been. I can think of occasion after occasion when I have said to one of my colleagues in the ward, "I think you ought to make a complaint about that". They said, "No, I will not make a complaint. They will take it out on me". That was their fear. The vast majority of people in the Health Service would not conceivably take it out on someone who complained, though there are some who would.
I think this is simply to deal with that situation and, as Lady Masham has said, to strengthen the Bill, so that there are no inhibitions against people who feel that they have a genuine complaint bringing that complaint forward without any fear that as a result of doing so they will suffer a disadvantage. I support the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness and hope that both the Government and the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, will support it, too.
Lord Auckland: I should like to associate myself with the amendment which the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, has moved, and with the comments by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals. There is always the danger of frivolous complaints being made at times. One accepts this; it happens in all walks of life, in the services or in the Health Service or anywhere else. But there should be a definitely laid down procedure here, and, in the Bill as I read it, the procedure is not convincing enough.

811
I think that the amendment is particularly important in relation to the long-stay hospitals, where patients are in hospital, very often unavoidably so, for long periods of time. One accepts the fact that the nurses and all those working in these hospitals have an extremely difficult task to perform. Of course, there are times when harsh treatment of patients takes place and this can seldom be justified. So I would hope that my noble friend will take on board what has been said.
8 p.m.
Another problem also is that since the reorganisation of the Health Service there are no longer house committees and hospital management committees. In the days of the house committee—I myself served, as many of your Lordships will know, for 18 years on the house committee of a mental hospital in Surrey—there were sometimes complaints, although they were mostly small ones. Although the house committee could not deal specifically with the complaints themselves, they were able to move them to the hospital management committee, and very often complaints could be dealt with quickly in that way. However, since the reorganisation I believe it to be true that these complaints cannot be dealt with so quickly. Speed is of the essence, because a small complaint, if not dealt with, can inevitably grow into something larger. Therefore, I believe that the Government should accept this amendment; and even if they cannot accept it as worded I hope they will study it very carefully because the essence of the amendment is all-important.
Lord Prys-Davies: I, too, should like to support this amendment; and I apologise to the noble Baroness for not being here when the Committee began work on these amendments. I would wish very much to support the noble Baroness. I think it is important that there should be a complaints system which allows people to make complaints without fear of victimisation. I recall how, 16 years ago, the Howe Report on the allegations of ill-treatment in certain wards in a hospital for the mentally handicapped in Cardiff found (and here I quote from the report) that:
"an atmosphere had come to exist in those wards where it was useless or positively hazardous for staff to complain of matters which disturbed them on the wards."
Two members of the staff who did so complain had to leave the hospital. The late Richard Crossman found this to be the biggest single deficiency which the report exposed, and in my view it would be optimistic to believe that this mischief has been completely eradicated by 1985.
I therefore consider that the noble Baroness is absolutely right to press for the Bill to include an amendment along these lines. I would not necessarily agree that the wording is perfect—indeed, it may be imperfect—but I hope the Minister will take this on board and, if need be, will introduce it in another form. But the principle I heartily support.
The Earl of Caithness: My noble kinswoman Lady Masham seeks by this amendment to protect a patient pursuing a complaint, or the subject of a complaint by a relative or friend, from any possibility of reprisals by
812
hospital staff. I can understand her intentions in this. In order for patients and others to feel confident about bringing their concerns to light, it should be made clear that patients will not suffer any lessening in the care and attention they receive as a result. As I told your Lordships in our Second Reading debate, on 17th April 1985 at col. 790:
"we must be sure that we give patients and their relatives and friends the opportunity to voice their legitimate concerns freely and without fear or favour".
My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health, Mr. John Patten, speaking on this Bill in another place, referred to a procedure,
"which commands the confidence of patients and staff."
That is what the Government want, and I believe it is what your Lordships and my noble kinswoman want.
The Government recognise that this question of possible victimisation of patients making complaints is an important one, but it is an area for which it is very difficult to legislate. The main element is staff attitudes, and those we cannot change by a stroke of the legislative pen. What we can do is to provide the framework for complaints to be made, heard and evaluated, to be replied to and acted upon.
I submit—and I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, with his very wide experience, would agree—that it would be manifestly impossible to "ensure" (to use the words of the amendment) that patients do not suffer. I am confident that in the great majority of cases no such problems are experienced. There are instances, of course, where patients fear, and very occasionally suffer, some subsequent hostility from hospital staff. Such reactions are regrettable, and they should not occur. Where they do, disciplinary or professional misconduct procedures may be warranted. What we must do is to train staff to adopt a positive, objective attitude towards dealing with patients' complaints, and to reassure patients and to remove any fears they might have about talking over their concerns directly with the hospital staff at the time. The amendment proposed by the noble Baroness would not be, in our view, the right means of tackling this sensitive and difficult issue.
That is the bad news. The good news is that in view of the very great concern expressed in this Committee by your Lordships—and we do appreciate your Lordships' feelings in this matter—we will ensure that suitable provision is included in any new guidance which will be required under the directions following the consultation which we are going to have as a result of this Bill. We believe that is the proper place for it to be dealt with. We feel it can be more flexible and can be adapted to suit the circumstances. Having taken account of all the views of the professional bodies that we are going to consult, we think probably that is the place in which to put it. I hope that my noble kinswoman will feel able, with that assurance—
Lord Ennals: May I intervene to ask one question? I am delighted with what the noble Earl is saying. I do not know, of course, whether the noble Baroness will be equally pleased, but I wonder whether there will be consultation about the guidelines. I think that is important, and I should like to be reassured about the consultation before feeling myself to be fully satisfied.
The Earl of Caithness: I remember dealing with this very fully on Second Reading, and I think I assured your Lordships then that there would be full consultation to get the guidelines right. Therefore, perhaps I may say to my noble kinswoman that I hope I have reassured her. We have taken this amendment well on board in our thinking, and I hope she will agree, and also that the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, will agree, that the place to put it is in the directions.
Lord Colwyn: I do agree with my noble friend the Minister that this amendment has the very best of intentions and is quite rightly aimed at preventing possible victimisation of patients after a complaint has been made. However, I must agree with him in not being able to accept the amendment: first, because I do not think that this wording is suitable for the legislation I am proposing; and, secondly, because I would hope that when the Bill eventually becomes law the inevitable extensive consultations with health authorities and hospital staff will without any doubt come up with a complaints procedure which will prevent the very problem that my noble friend Lady Masham and the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, are rightly concerned about. With this assurance, I hope that my noble friend will withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: I thank all noble Lords who have supported this amendment. I myself am not quite sure. We are a very small and select Committee here tonight, but it must be remembered that this Bill may affect millions of people throughout the country, both patients and staff; and, as the noble Lord said, staff do complain on behalf of patients, and members of staff can victimise other members of staff. This is a serious matter.
I also feel that having something written into the Bill is better sometimes, because Bills get consolidated in time and guidelines get lost. I would be happier if my noble kinsman would take away with him everything that we have said and discuss it with his colleagues, and of course with the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn; because it is a serious matter, and if it is going to be effective one wants to be sure that one is doing the right thing. I think we all want to do the right thing with this Bill. It is only a small Bill, but it could have a very wide and lasting effect on people.
I should like my noble kinsman to say, if he can, that he will take it to his more senior colleagues to discuss it before the next stage. If they felt it was important to write it into the Bill in a different form, perhaps he would do this.
The Earl of Caithness: Alas, it is not up to me to say; it is not my Bill. It has been discussed. All the amendments down this evening have been discussed at a high level in my department, but I am afraid I cannot answer my noble kinswoman directly. It is not up to me. It is up to my noble friend Lord Colwyn to decide.
Lord Colwyn: I feel sure that I can say to my noble friend Lady Masham that the consultations will cover this point very adequately. I can assure her that if at any stage I feel they do not, we shall see what we can do about it. With that assurance, I would ask her to withdraw her amendment at this stage, and we shall watch to see how it goes.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: I thank my noble friend Lord Colwyn and I shall therefore withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Colwyn Lord Colwyn moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 1, line 19, after ("1977") insert ("or Part VI of the said Act of 1978").
The noble Lord said: Clause 1(2) is to ensure that the Health Service commissioners are not precluded from carrying out investigations under Part V of the National Health Service Act 1977 into cases that have been investigated under any procedures laid down in the directions to be made by the Secretary of State. This amendment provides for reference to the equivalent legislation in Scotland.
The directions to be issued by the Secretary of State should not interfere in any way with the work and jurisdiction of the Health Service commissioners. Section 116(1) of the National Health Service Act 1977, which precludes investigation of any action in respect of which a complainant has a right of appeal, reference, or review before a tribunal constituted under any enactment, might bite under the procedures to be laid down by direction if they were not specifically exempted in this way. The amendment ensures that equivalent provision is made for Scotland. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Colwyn Lord Colwyn moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 1, line 21, after ("section") insert ("(a) in its application to England and Wales.").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 7.
Amendment No. 7; Page 1, line 22, at end insert—
"(b) in its application to Scotland, expressions which are also used in the said Act of 1978 have the same meanings as in that Act.").
These are two technical amendments which flow from the extension of the Bill to include Scotland. They ensure that correct reference is made to the interpretation of expressions in the Bill. These ensure that the interpretations applying to Scotland are included. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Colwyn Lord Colwyn moved Amendment No. 7:
[Printed above.]
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
8.15 p.m.
Clause 2 [Short title, commencement and extent]:
Lord Colwyn Lord Colwyn moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 2, line 5, leave out ("Scotland or").
The noble Lord said: This amendment in Clause 2(3) deals with the extent of the Bill. It deletes the reference to excluding Scotland. This is consequent upon extending the scope of the Bill to include Scotland and is a necessary technical amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
In the Title:
Lord Colwyn Lord Colwyn moved Amendment No. 9:
Line 1, leave out ("Regional Health Authorities") and insert ("health authorities in England and Wales and Health Boards in Scotland").
The noble Lord said: As the previous amendments have been carried, the Long Title of the Bill must be amended to reflect the altered coverage of the Bill. It is consequent on those amendments and the wording reflects that used in Clause 1(1), as amended. The Long Title of the Bill refers only to regional health authorities. The amendment provides for the inclusion of a reference to district and special health authorities in England and Wales and health boards in Scotland. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Title, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with the amendments.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do now adjourn during pleasure. I confirm that we will not come back to the Local Government Bill until a quarter to nine.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.17 until 8.45p.m.]

Local Government Bill
House again in Committee.
Schedule 8 [Miscellaneous functions]:
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Glenarthur)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Glenarthur) moved Amendment No. 76:
Page 126, line 17, at end insert ("and in section 22(1) and (2) of that Act for the words "the Council" there shall be substituted the words "a borough council or the Common Council".").
The noble Lord said: This is a technical amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 76A:
Page 127, leave out lines 40 to 48.
The noble Lord said: These amendments are necessary simply to take account of the passage of my noble friend Lord Newall's Betting, Gaming and Lotteries (Amendment) Bill. That Bill, among other things, repeals the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries (Amendment) Act 1971, which is dealt with by paragraph 6(2) of Schedule 8 to the Local Government Bill. Paragraph 6(2) may therefore be omitted and that is the effect of Amendment No. 76A. Amendment No. 76B is consequential.
Amendment No. 76B: Page 128, line 1, leave out ("references to the Greater London Council include references") and insert ("the reference to the Greater London Council includes a reference").
I beg to move.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Did the noble Lord say that these amendments are consequential on the passing of a previous Bill? I am just wondering why they are needed now. Was there an oversight earlier?
816
What has happened to cause them to be brought into the Bill at this moment, rather than originally?
Lord Glenarthur: As I understand it, the Bill has passed. It is my noble friend Lord Newall's Betting, Gaming and Lotteries (Amendment) Bill.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: When did that pass?
Lord Glenarthur: I think that it has just passed. I cannot give the noble Lord an exact date, but it has passed and that is why it is necessary to effect this amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 76B:
[Printed above.]
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Drumalbyn Lord Drumalbyn had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 77:
Page 132, line 26, leave out paragraph 15
The noble Lord said: I beg—
Lord Skelmersdale: Before my noble friend gets too far with this amendment, may I point out that this is an alternative to the amendments which were accepted earlier this afternoon and, therefore, it would not sit happily with them on the subject of trading standards. Therefore, with the greatest respect, I would advise him not to move it.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: May I simply say that we on this side of the Committee saw the position in exactly the same way. If the Minister had been less helpful, and if the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, had not been satisfied with the reply, then, quite clearly, Amendment No. 77 was an alternative way of making progress in the matter. We shall read very carefully what the Minister has said, but there is another stage when we can, if necessary, return to this matter.
Lord Drumalbyn: I thank the noble Lord. In that case, I shall not move the amendment. But I reserve the right to come back at a subsequent stage.
[Amendment No. 77 not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Aylestone): Amendments Nos. 78 to 80 are consequential on the other one.
Lord Drumablyn Lord Drumablyn moved Amendment Nos. 78 to 80:
[Printed earlier: col. 793.]
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Drumalbyn Lord Drumalbyn had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 81:
[Printed earlier: col. 793.]
The noble Lord said: My noble friend has kindly said that he will look at this point. Therefore I shall not move the amendment and will come back to it at a later stage.
[Amendment No. 81 not moved.]
Lord Drumalbyn Lord Drumalbyn moved Amendment No. 82:
[Printed earlier: col. 793.]
The noble Lord said: I beg to move.
Lord Elton: We spoke to this earlier. I said to my noble friend that the drafting was defective but that if he would be kind enough to withdraw it now we would see if we could produce an agreed text for the next stage.
Lord Drumalbyn: I am much obliged to my noble friend, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendment No. 83:
Page 134, line 3, at end insert—
("Weeds
20A. In section 5 of the Weeds Act 1959 after the word "county", in both places where it occurs, there shall be inserted the words "or metropolitan district".").
The noble Lord said: This is a minor and technical amendment to the Weeds Act. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 83A:
Page 134, line 5, leave out paragraph 21 and insert—
(" . The Secretary of State shall by order taking effect on the abolition date make provision for the transfer to the appropriate residuary body of all records and archives held by the Greater London Council and each metropolitan county council before the abolition date.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment in effect deals with the transfer to the appropriate residuary body of all records and archives held by the Greater London Council and by each metropolitan county council before the abolition date. I am aware that in earlier discussions there has been some scepticism about the role of the residuary bodies in the future. Later clauses in the Bill deal very fully with the role of the residuary bodies. It is one of the problems of the order of the Bill that what noble Lords opposite are seeking to do is to ensure a better arrangement for the future of very important services. We on this side of the Committee certainly consider that the archives are very important indeed.
The Greater London Record Office was set up in April 1965, when the long-established record offices of the London County Council and the MCCs were united. At first the two collections had to be maintained separately, but they were eventually brought together at County Hall, until the steady growth in the holding of records made it necessary to find other accommodation. It is of significance that the GLC record office is the largest local record office in England. The holdings are extensive. I have in my notes a statistic that surprised and impressed all noble Lords when it was used by the noble Lord, Lord Plummer, in the debate on an earlier amendment. It is that there are more than 13 miles of shelves, which contain very important records and documents.
The official records, the records of the GLC and its predecessors—for example, of the Justices of the Peace for Middlesex, the Metropolitan Board of Works and the School Board for London—date back not to the last century, or even to the one before that, but to the 16th century. Many of the predecessor authorities
818
were notable pioneers. Such is the reputation of the office that it has attracted more than 5,000 acquisitions by gift or loan from corporate bodies and private individuals, including several Members of the House of Lords who entrust their archives to the GLC so that they can be freely and safely available for study and preserved for future generations.
There are also large holdings of public records from coroners' courts, magistrates' courts, hospitals and regional health authorities, which are administered on behalf of central government under the Public Records Act.
I have said a word or two about the importance of the archives which in this amendment are the subject of discussion as to where their future lies in respect of the GLC. But of course the Committee is aware that the metropolitan counties, certainly separately but in no way in a diminished sense, have their own archives about which they are very concerned. The new metropolitan county councils were established in 1974 and they provided then an opportunity to begin to improve the provision of archive services. Since 1974 some progress has been made in all the metropolitan counties, but development has been very uneven. County archive services have been established and are being developed in five of the metropolitan counties.
A great deal more can be said on this subject but the amendment is moved so that the Minister can at this early stage inform us about the future of the archive services. There are other amendments in the Marshalled List and there will be other opportunities for us to return to the matters later. I beg to move.
Lord Beloff: As the noble Lord, Lord Graham, has said, there are a number of amendments on the subject of archives, including Amendment No. 130 which stands in my name:
Amendment No. 130: After Clause 39, insert the following new clause:
("County archives
. It shall be the function of the county archive service authorities to retain the unity of the county archives and to maintain them in being for the use of public authorities and where appropriate the general public.").
There is also an earlier amendment, Amendment No. 121, relating to the same subject, which was to come after Clause 27:
Amendment No. 121: After Clause 27, insert the following new clause:
("County archive service authorities
.—(1) On the appointed day there shall be established for each metropolitan county a body corporate to be known by the name of that county with the addition of the words "county archive service authority".
(2) Each county archive service authority shall consist of one member of each of the constituent district councils appointed by that council and of one member appointed by the county police, fire and transport authorities.").
I think it will be generally agreed on all sides of the Committee that this is a single problem and that we might as well ventilate it.
Lord Elton: If my noble friend will forgive me, for the clarity of the record, I think he has three amendments down, Amendments Nos. 121, 121ZA and 130, of which the first two are after Clause 27 and the latter after Clause 39. I want to get it clear so that we know when we get to subsequent amendments

819
whether or not they have been spoken to. I take it that the noble Lord will be speaking to all three.
Amendment 121ZA: After Clause 27, insert the following new clause:
("Greater London Record Office and History Library.
. On the appointed day all persons employed within the Greater London Record Office and History Library shall in accordance with an order under section 50(5) of this Act be transferred into the employment of the successor authority.").
Lord Beloff: That is quite correct. This is only trying to follow the Government's precepts about economy; not taking the new Marshalled List as it comes in order to save money and paper. I do apologise. Nevertheless, I was aware of the content, though not of the placing of the other amendment. As I said, I think it is generally agreed that the whole subject of archives ought to be discussed together because different ways of approaching this subject have occurred to different noble Lords. Some of us have been in contact and some of us have acted independently.
I think it is reasonable to begin by saying that I have considerable hopes of the noble Lord the Minister. As he is a historian himself and, if he will forgive my saying so, the son of an even more eminent historian, he must have a natural sympathy with historians. Although it is true, as the noble Lord, Lord Graham, has said, that the archives have current and practical uses, my purpose is to emphasise the natural concerns of the historical profession which have been voiced by the Royal Historical Society, the Historical Association, the Society of Archivists, and I understand also—and I regret this matter is being raised on an evening when my noble friend Lord Blake is not with us—the Royal Commission on Historical Manuscripts.
9 p.m.
I believe that they would all agree with the thrust of the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Graham, that the important part about archives is their continuity; the continuity of the arrangements made for their preservation, for consultation, and—increasingly with the amount of new material that is added every year to archives, as the noble Lord has said—for modern methods of cataloguing and storing, micro-filming, retrieval operations and so on. It is a large and complex subject.
It varies in the nature of the archives we are concerned with tonight—those of the GLC, on the one hand, and of the metropolitan counties, on the other. The records of local government in London for centuries relate to smaller units than the units at present covered by the GLC or previously even covered by the LCC. Most relate to earlier authorities covering in some cases what are now suburbs or parts of the metropolis at some time having an independent existence as manors or boroughs, and so on.
It has been natural and reasonable to concentrate on that arrangement. The question now before us is this: is a particular authority required or—as I understand is the Government's intention—should the oldest of the bodies (namely, the Common Council of the City of London) be the appropriate authority to look after the archives in general, provided that adequate arrangements are made for the financing of the operation? Obviously this responsibility would be far
820
beyond the normal resources of the Common Council. In particular—and I believe this is the purport of one of the amendments to which the noble Lord referred—can one be assured that the highly skilled staff to which reference has already been made are as far as possible employed and continue in their posts? As anyone who has run even the smallest archive or library will be aware, this is a field above all in which any break in continuity can be very damaging.
With regard to the metropolitan counties, there appears to be—and I speak with no expertise on any of them—a considerable difference in the nature of their holdings and consequently, perhaps, in the nature of the arrangements which require to be made. If one takes, for instance, the metropolitan county of Yorkshire, which is the inheritor among other things of the old West Riding, one finds there historical records of great antiquity and importance. It is understandable that among the representations which noble Lords have received from archivists and others, those from West Yorkshire have been in the forefront.
On the other hand, it is of course true that other metropolitan counties—for instance, the West Midlands—have no such central core: this coming together of authorities whose historical existence and historical records are disparate. There is nothing which gives the same unity as the historical West Riding of Yorkshire. Again, I understand that in Tyne and Wear the long and historical importance of its principal city makes a difference compared with some of the others. So there is a wide variety.
The real question is this: are the arrangements which the Government are proposing for the centralisation to be maintained through the co-operative efforts of district councils (as the inheritors of these powers) sufficient; or is some ministerial intervention required to ensure that they do co-operate and, in particular, give the necessary financial support to whichever district is selected as the appropriate holder? Presumably this will normally be the district covering the current county record office. In the case of West Yorkshire, it is Wakefield. It is important that the arrangements for West Yorkshire should make certain that district authorities considerably larger and wealthier than Wakefield contribute.
The purpose of the amendment I put down, which is a probing amendment, was to suggest that one way might be to take the model for some of the other powers which it has been agreed must be run centrally, such as to the police and the fire service, and to which we seem to have added one or two other powers. Clearly I do not believe that a residuary authority, for the reasons I gave in relation to another amendment, would be appropriate. On the other hand, the Government may have their reasons for thinking that the degree of co-operation which is necessary, and which all admit to be necessary, can be assured without the compulsory powers.
There is a particular difficulty in respect of archives, as in respect of one or two other powers of local government which we are discussing in this Bill, in that the governing legislation appears to be permissive rather than compulsory. As I understand it, it is not the duty of a local authority to have and maintain archives but it is a power that they have. Therefore the language that is now introduced into the Bill would

821
obviously have to take some account of this legal position.
On the other hand, the question has a certain advantage; namely, that in some cases we have been talking about vast sums of money so that a great deal of difference is made by how the money is raised and by whom it is spent. Even the best run archives—all of them that I know—are run with considerable efficiency and it is not a very costly operation. Therefore, it should be possible to find a measure of agreement which would reassure—and I think this is what we mainly have in mind—both those who use these archives for the purposes of historical research and those who are concerned that they are kept fully up to date because of their relevance to the far wider range of services which modern local government provides.
I hope that explains both the amendments to which I have put my name, and the general way in which I think members of the historical profession approach this subject.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I want to pay tribute to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, not least because it came from someone who has been a devoted supporter of the Government throughout the passage of this Bill but also because it came from someone with outstanding professional expertise in this area. I believe that it would be wise for the Government to pay due attention to what the noble Lord has said. Certainly I have no capacity or capability to add to the points that he made.
But there is one general point which arises from his speech, which is that it appears as we go through the clauses of this Bill that whenever there is an issue on which Members of your Lordships' Committee have particular expertise, they appear to oppose the Government; they appear to question the arrangements being made for the disposition of the powers of the metropolitan counties and the Greater London Council. It seems to me that the evidence is accumulating that the expertise we have in this Committee should be a measure of warning to the Government that this is not a Bill, like some, where there is a stupid Bill with a sensible Bill inside screaming to get out. This is a Bill where there is no sensible Bill inside.
There is a whole series of stop-gap and hasty (despite the 18 month gestation) measures to defend and to maintain the indefensible. It is on that basis that it seems to me the lengthy Committee stage here shows not that this Committee is disposed to oppose the Government on principle—I myself believe we ought not to oppose an elected House on principle—but that it is our duty, time after time, as we deal with these matters where there is expertise here, to take advantage of it. I believe that the Government should listen and bend as appropriate.
Lord Elton: Perhaps I may rise in support of our acceptance of the technical amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn, which we have just accepted.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I ask the Committee to accept my apology for not being present when the opening speeches were made.
822
I want to make only a very brief intervention. I hope it will not be thought that I am in the habit of opposing the Government; but I must say that Amendment No. 121 really must be more or less right. I note it is supported by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, who has considerable expertise and interest in these matters, and traditionally takes a somewhat objective view, although he speaks from the opposite Benches. I note also that it is supported by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton.
I am no historian, but I have a great personal interest in history, in books and in tradition. The county is the natural area for the keeping of archives. Counties have a pride in their regional traditions and in their history. Similar considerations—not exactly the same, but similar—apply to Amendment No. 121ZA. As I see it, this in no way conflicts with the principle of the Bill. Nobody, surely, could have fought harder to uphold the principles of the Bill than I have sought to do, but I really do not see that this does do that.
With reference to the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, I shall not repeat anything contentious, but I would object to it for the reasons that I gave in discussing Amendments No. 72B and 72C, which were withdrawn. To some degree that objection spills over to the amendment of my noble friend Lord Kaberry. I am worried about the offload of functions on to these residuary bodies. But this is not that. This, in no way, impugns the principle of the Bill. It is a sensible derogation of a cultural nature to preserve our heritage. I hope that the Government will consider this a reasoned and even perhaps reasonable contribution.
9.15 p.m.
Lord McGregor of Durris: I do not wish to take up time by traversing the ground already covered by the noble Lords, Lord Graham and Lord Beloff. I should, however, like to say a few sentences in support of the principle contained in Amendment No. 121ZA. The noble Lord, Lord Beloff, stressed the importance of history. It would be an impertinence to address the noble Lord the Minister on the subject. It is nevertheless worthwhile repeating what Sir Keith Joseph said last year about the importance of an element of national, not nationalistic, history being an inescapable part of any balanced school history course if pupils are to understand how shared values have been developed in their own society.
It is very important, and no doubt the fashionable view, that children should know about distant continents. It is also extremely important that they should make such forays from a basis of sure knowledge about their own society. It is very important indeed that they should be able to start their historical inquiries in their own neighbourhoods and in the cities in which they live. In that sense local archives are an essential foundation for historical study. We disturb them or impoverish them at our peril.
In the case of the record office of the GLC, to which this amendment refers, we are talking about a national record that has an international reputation. This is a record office to which anyone who is concerned with

823
English material is likely to come at some stage of his historical career. We have been told by the noble Lords, Lord Graham and Lord Beloff, of the very large bodies of material that it contains already and that are constantly flowing into it. The utility of the archive is to a very large extent a function of the quality and professional skills of the staff who man it.
The staff of the London record office is small—some 32 people. I have no financial material on which to judge how economical this is, as compared with other collections. But it strikes me—I have used it from time to time—as being very thriftily manned. Certainly, it is manned by people whose command of the sources that they are making available is superb. To pass this archive over to another authority without its staff will be greatly to diminish its usefulness and to impoverish its value for historical study.
I hope very much that the noble Lord the Minister, who I am certain will have great sympathy for this point of view, is willing to consider a procedure under which the archive as a whole may retain its value, and that means retaining its present staff when it is transferred.
Baroness Lockwood: For all the reasons which have been expressed by a number of noble Lords, I should like to underline the importance of keeping the archive services together. Although my name does not appear on the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, he and I were instrumental in bringing together representatives of the archive profession from the metropolitan counties and I want to support the amendment that he has moved. The framework which the noble Lord outlined is largely that which is operating in West Yorkshire at the moment. However, I would point out to your Lordships that it took eight years for the West Yorkshire metropolitan county to bring the districts together in order to establish a joint service between the metropolitan county and the district councils, and then only four of the districts joined in the scheme. It was not until 1983 that they all participated.
One of the problems of the service being dispersed would be finance. It so happens that the whole of the capital budget for the archive service in West Yorkshire is paid by the county council, plus 50 per cent. of the running costs. One of the reasons why the representatives of the archive services in the metropolitan counties were so keen to bring in the archives of the other bodies which the Government are proposing to set up, such as the police and the fire service, was to continue the comprehensive nature of the archive resources within the county areas. A second reason was so that a contribution can be made from those bodies which will enable the shortfall to which previously the metropolitan counties have been contributing to be made up.
I support the amendment for all sorts of reasons, particularly historical reasons and because of the accessibility of the service. Since it became much more comprehensive all kinds of innovations have been introduced in order to bring it closer to individuals who are interested in history and in the archives and to institutions. For all those reasons, as well as for the economy of scale of the operation, I hope that the Minister will respond favourably to the debate.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I know that technically we are dealing with Amendment No. 83A, but we have been discussing many other points at the same time. I think that it is very important that the archives should be kept in a comprehensive whole somewhere, but I do not see any reason why that has to be in the residuary body, and I hope that the Minister can advise us of another solution.
The point about the wholesale transfer of staff sounds attractive and I hope it might work out that way, but I do not think it would be correct to write that into the Bill. Until the detail of where the archives are going is resolved one has no way of knowing what staff already in post would be able to carry out the work. So at this stage I do not think that I would support a wholesale transfer of staff. That staff element must be looked at with all other staff elements.
I have always been fascinated by archives. I should be very interested to know whether the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has had any different experience in his time there; but, as a member of the Greater London Council, I never had any sight or sound of them there. I have never been told how one can see them. The recent library there was closed down a few years ago from the point of view of members. Thus I have always found it a most mysterious place. I have seen more archives and learnt more history in places like Cornwall, where the local archivist took one and showed one the local archives, and cared about it. I have always been very disappointed that the archives in the Greater London Council did not seem to be as accessible as the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, has mentioned.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Will the noble Baroness give way?
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: Yes, I will give way.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am sorry to hear of the difficulties that the noble Baroness has had. Of course, it was an all-party agreement on the Greater London Council which led to the saving of the archives from the threat of flooding, as it was a few years ago, and the establishment of a new record office away from County Hall. This has never been a party political matter. Access to the archives has always been available to members of the council and to the public, as the noble Lord, Lord McGregor, has made clear. The noble Baroness should avail herself of the opportunity while it is still there.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I thank the noble Lord for that point. I certainly am fascinated. For example, when the records office was moved, many of us were never informed why, or where, it was going, though I suppose it is possible that that happened during the brief period while I was not a member. It was really that obscure; it simply vanished. However, I think there is no encouragement to members of the public to go to see the archives. There is encouragement to historians, yes; that point has been made. There is encouragement to serious students if they make an application, but there has never been to my knowledge any encouragement to the general public to go.
However, turning to my original point, I am very interested in archives. I am very interested in the

825
history of the metropolis of London. I think it is most important that these archives should be kept intact somewhere, and I hope that we shall have a satisfactory answer on that point.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: I am passionately addicted to the preservation of archives. Like I think most noble Lords who have spoken, I think it is frightfully important. I shall not develop that point. However, what I am not clear about is this. Let us take the GLC case for a start. One amendment suggests the residuary body. It has been suggested that it should go to the City of London records office, which I understand already has two of its own. Then the third amendment suggests that in relation to the shires—and this could equally be done in relation to London—a special body should be set up to look after it. Whichever of these solutions is chosen, what evidence
826
is there, what satisfaction can we get, that at least to begin with, they will be given as much money as they are receiving now? This is not very expensive but one cannot do it properly without spending a great deal. From my association with the Institute of Recorded Sound I know that if you ever let it go without proper regulation, it takes four of five years and thousands of pounds to put it into order again.
I see nothing in the Bill to suggest that the Government could not pass it to perhaps the City of London, who are not particularly interested in it because they have their own. No adequate arrangements will be made for the staff to be properly paid and properly looked after or for the documents and whatever other items there are to be properly preserved. That is what I want to know about. I do not know whether the noble Lord the Minister can make this clear, but without that we shall be getting nothing.
Lord Elton: I shall take up the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, on one matter. The fact that anybody has archives does not make him not interested in having more; it makes him acutely interested in having more. At least, that is my experience. Looking at my papers before me, the Committee will realise that I would be the world's worst archivist and I am not quite sure where I shall come out of this debate.
We had a rather longer list of amendments to discuss because the noble Lord, Lord Kaberry of Adel, had some amendments down which he is not now proposing to move. Therefore I wonder whether I may first summarise by saying that the first amendment, which is in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Claughton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, and which was ably spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Graham, and which is the amendment to which technically we are all speaking, transfers this function or responsibility to the residuary bodies.
The first amendment of my noble friend Lord Beloff would create a body corporate for that purpose. The second amendment of my noble friend Lord Beloff would accept the agreed transfer of the archives of the GLC, the GLRO, to the City of London, for whom I suggest there is an affinity because they already have an archive. The last amendment of my noble friend Lord Beloff seeks to make it a duty on those who have the care of archives to maintain what I shall call their "coherence".
I must begin my remarks by saying that it is not necessary to bear in upon me the importance of archives. I am a very insignificant historian and an unpublished one, and I do not make any virtue therefore of my historical past although I have been steeped in history at university and subsequently, and have done my own little researches. My father was enough to convince me that archives are of the essence of history and a very necessary part of the heritage of this country, and indeed the heritage of the localities from which they were collected.
If there was any doubt in my mind as to the efficiency of archivists as a profession and their versatility, it has been dispelled by my postbag. The number of letters that I have received not merely from archivists but from people who have been inspired to write to me by archivists, acting on their own initiative without any of the rather expensive lobbying that I suspect has gone on behind other movements to alter the Bill, does them enormous credit; and that credit is due.
9.30 p.m.
There is no difference between anyone who has put down amendments on the Marshalled List and the Government as to the importance of archives or the desirability of keeping them together. There are incidental shortcomings in some of the amendments and I rather think from the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Graham, moved his first amendment that he regards it somewhat as a probing amendment, and I regard this as a probing debate.
If I have it right, the effect of the first amendment is to strike out of the Bill at page 134, paragraph 21 of Schedule 8. That paragraph contains the whole of the
828
archive function. The drawback of his amendment—which I am glad he confirms is a probing amendment—is that it only puts part of it hack. Therefore, there would be a vacuum because it would transfer to the successor body—in this case I think the residuary body—the power to have, hold and maintain the archive. However, it would deprive it—because it has not put it back in again—of the power to service, make use of or indeed add to the archive. I merely mention in passing and in no critical sense that if the noble Lord wishes to proceed on those lines, his amendment would have to be expanded to embrace the functions which it omits.
On the subject of criticisms of amendments, I also welcome the remarks of my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes on staffing as regards Amendment No. 121 ZA, in which my noble friend Lord Beloff asks that the staff of the GLRO should pass in toto, as it were, to the City. My noble friend is right to draw your attention to the fact that, first, we shall be dealing with the transfer of staff as a subject—a whole subject—later in the Bill; and, secondly, that it is not a part of the Government's business to tell a successor body that it must take on staff in exactly the same way as they are now employed. The successor body—the City—must be able to—I do not wish to use the word "recruit" misleadingly—take people on the strength in a way that is in conformity with the people that it already employs. The differences may not be major but I understand that from the employer's point of view it is a reasonable thing to do.
Your Lordships wish that the archives will be transferred intact, that they will be serviced, that scholars will have access to them, and that the collection of archives can continue. The point I want to make is that the powers to do this exist in the Bill, but that I think that your Lordships would wish me to be rather more precise than the lettering of the Bill, as it were, allows one to be if one relies simply upon the text.
The intention now is that if possible there shall be a voluntary scheme. I am sure that that is best. If there is not a voluntary scheme then the intention is that the archives shall be transferred to the residuary body, as indeed the noble Lord, Lord Graham, intended; that the staff shall, for the time being also, be with the residuary body; and that the residuary body shall have a duty to find a permanent home for the archives and the staff before the expiry of five years.
What I want to say that is new is that hitherto we have regarded the residuary body in this capacity as being something of a passive body. But in view of your Lordships' concern, and ours, that this shall come to a successful conclusion, we intend that it shall act as a catalyst and that the residuary body shall actively seek to promote a co-operative scheme in the area within the five years.
That is the basis of what I want to leave in your Lordships' minds. I shall read with care what your Lordships have said on the various amendments, and no doubt your Lordships will wish to read what I have said; and we may return to this at the next stage. If, as I understand, these are probing amendments, that seems the proper way to proceed.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: If I may be so presumptuous as to respond, the noble Lord is quite right. Earlier advice was that the amendment I moved would be taken on the same line, and those noble Lords who have spoken have taken the opportunity of speaking directly to amendments with which they are associated. I liked the spirit of the response of the Minister. Whatever defects and faults there are in the proposals which have been made, there is a common thread that we are not satisfied that the wording and intent of the Bill as they affect archives will meet what everyone, including the Minister, wants, which is the maintenance of the maximum benefit of a service which everyone recognises needs to be kept in as great a unity as possible.
The Minister gave me heart, not least in his intervention to my noble friend Lord McIntosh, where he alluded quite fairly to what one might call the "Drumalbyn solution". The response was, in effect, to agree substantially with the sense of what was being said. But would the Minister be allowed a little time to have a closer look, and in the light of what has been said perhaps come back with a change?
I think that the general sense here is not that boroughs and districts will not be willing to try. There is a doubt, of course, as to whether they will be willing to try, because we have the experience over the last 20 years in Greater London where since 1965 the London boroughs have had the power to create their own archivist services but only 11 have done so. That is not in question in many parts of the metropolitan authorities. The noble Lord, Lord Beloff, from a knowledge far deeper than mine, knows the problem; and he mentioned Tyneside. Tyne and Wear is well known to me, and there the metropolitan authority is the archivist for the five districts within it. Then we have other instances in Greater Manchester and Merseyside, where there are blemishes.
It would be a tragedy if the new home for what we treasure in effect means a break up. The Minister has pointed out what he wanted and what we wanted, which is accessibility, service and continuity. I am certainly impressed by the willingness of the Minister to take on board our unease. Solutions have been put forward. The Minister told us that if all else fails—that is, in the absence of a voluntary agreement—there is always the residuary body. I was heartened by the fact that he saw the residuary body in this context—I make no wider point—as being a catalyst, and that it would have the job of promoting and encouraging. That is something which we thought might be lost in the way in which the Bill would be interpreted. Thus we are heartened there.
The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, and my noble friend Lord McIntosh suggested that the substantial alternative was for it to go to joint bodies and to the City. One cannot say that that would be a disaster, but it would be far short of what we already have. We are trying to hold on in some organisational form to what we already have. I am happy and willing to withdraw the amendment. I know that talks are continuing, as my noble friend Lady Lockwood has said, to try to achieve satisfactory arrangements with the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, and others.
830
I have here a letter written from the county record office in Sheffield from the Society of Archivists. I hope the Minister will allow me to quote from it so as to put into the record the point that,
"professional societies, informed learned societies, historians and other users of archives are seriously concerned by the proposal in the Bill to grant separate archive powers to each metropolitan district council".
I was interested because the letter continued:
"However, as we discussed with you, [the Minister] the Bill contains no provision to require or promote this co-operation".
We could not anticipate, until the Minister said so five minutes ago, that he believes that there is a role for the residuary body to do exactly that. So we are making progress. I am happy to withdraw my amendment. Clearly no one is committed to do other than carefully read what the Minister said, consult those outside the House and perhaps come back to the matter at a latter stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Kaberry of Adel Lord Kaberry of Adel had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 84:
Page 135, line 10, at end insert
("Reserve powers of the Secretary of State as to archives and records in Greater London and metropolitan counties
.—(1) Where the Secretary of State is not satisfied in the case of Greater London or a metropolitan county that all the local authorities in that area have made joint arrangements for the exercise of such of their functions under the provisions referred to in paragraph 21 of this Schedule as are necessary to secure the control, preservation, management, development and public accessibility of any collection of archives or records which relates to that area or other areas he may make an order under this paragraph.
(2) An order under this paragraph may transfer to the appropriate residuary body such functions of the local authorities in question under that paragraph as the Secretary of State considers necessary to enable him to secure the control, preservation, management, development and public accessibility of that collection.
(3) Before exercising any function transferred to him under this paragraph, the Secretary of State shall consult any local authority appearing to him to be likely to be affected.
(4) The Secretary of State shall revoke an order made under this paragraph in relation to a collection or archives or records in Greater London or a metropolitan county if at any time he is satisfied that all the local authorities in that area have made joint arrangements for the exercise of such of their functions under the provisions referred to in paragraph 21 of this Schedule as are necessary to secure the preservation, management, development and public accessibility of the system.
(5) An order under this paragraph may contain such supplementary and transitional provisions as the Secretary of State thinks necessary or expedient, including provisions for the transfer of property, staff, rights and liabilities and provisions amending any enactment or any instrument made under any enactment.")
Baroness Hornsby-Smith: My noble friend Lord Kaberry, who has been called away from the Committee, has authorised me on his behalf to withdraw his amendment.
[Amendment No. 84 not moved.]
Schedule 8, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 16 [Functions under local statutory provisions]:
Viscount Buckmaster Viscount Buckmaster had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 85:
Page 12, line 7, at end insert—
("( ) Prior to the implementation of this section, there shall be laid before Parliament by the Secretary of State a report on the implications for people of ethnic minority origin of the abolition of the Greater London Council and the Metropolitan County Councils with particular reference to—

(a) the implementation of policies to promote equal opportunities for such ethnic minorities as fall within the ambit of the Race Relations Act 1976 and to increase the range and level of opportunities open to such minorities;

(b) the promotion for adoption by London Borough Councils, Metropolitan Districts and other bodies of equal opportunity policies and practices; and

(c) the involvement of such minorities in consultation and participation processes.")

The noble Viscount said: The needs of the ethnic minorities will be pursued in a later amendment which is being tabled to Clause 47, and so I do not wish to move Amendment No. 85.
[Amendment No. 85 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 16 shall stand part of the Bill?
Viscount Buckmaster: I realise that Clause 16 is a substantive clause and an essential part of the Bill. Nevertheless I feel I must express my concern, which I know is shared by many of the voluntary organisations, about the implications of this clause, which deals with the devolution of functions to the London boroughs and the metropolitan district councils.
I shall speak briefly. To take one example, I consider it is totally impractical to transfer to the London boroughs lock, stock and barrel the functions now exercised by the GLC on behalf of the ethnic minorities. My reason for saying this is that of the 32 London boroughs one-third are totally unconcerned about the ethnic minorities and half the London boroughs have made no provisions at all to implement the Race Relations Act 1976. Therefore although this matter will be considered in the context of a new amendment to be tabled under Clause 47, I feel that I must register my reservations, and I may revert to this matter at Report stage.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur: The noble Viscount has raised points particularly concerning the ethnic minorities. If I may, I can respond briefly to what he says by saying rather less than I would have done had he moved his earlier amendment but nevertheless stressing to him that the Government already make a great deal of effort to encourage local authorities to adopt and implement equal opportunities and practices with particular reference to ethnic minorities. Last year, Ministers in the Home Office and at the Department of the Environment jointly chaired a well-attended conference of local authorities precisely for that purpose. In my own department's administration of Section 11 grants, we have required local authorities
832
seeking grant-aid to assist the employment of staff to meet the special needs of minority communities to consult those communities before making application to us.
I am glad to say that many boroughs and districts already do a great deal—and I am sure that the noble Viscount would be aware of that—to help and support ethnic minority communities in their areas. All the boroughs and districts have general powers and these general powers can be applied for the benefit of ethnic minorities. I have to say to him that there is nothing unique about the GLC and the metropolitan county councils in that respect. I could go further and describe in some detail the sort of efforts the Government have been making—financial, under the urban programme, and by other kinds of projects. I hope that, with that, at least the noble Viscount will be aware that not only are we doing quite a lot but also we are prepared to encourage further still the local boroughs and councils to carry out precisely the sort of work which he hopes will be readily adopted by them.
Viscount Buckmaster: I thank the noble Lord the Minister for that reply. As I said earlier, there is an amendment which is being tabled to Clause 47 because it is a complex matter. Nevertheless, I am aware of the Government's concern.
Clause 16 agreed to.
Clause 17 agreed to.
Clause 18 [Elections]:
Lord Chelwood Lord Chelwood moved Amendment No. 86:
Page 13, line 15, leave out from ("into") to ("and") in line 17 and insert ("twelve electoral divisions each returning the number of members specified in Part III of Schedule 9 to this Act").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 86 on the Marshalled List. I understand that it will be convenient (and I hope that I am right in saying so) for us to discuss at the same time Amendments Nos. 87 to 96. Although Amendments Nos. 90 to 96 come within Schedule 9, they are quite clearly explanatory and consequential.
Amendment No. 87: Page 13, line 19, leave out from ("constituted") to (", but") in line 21 and insert ("by the Inner London boroughs except that the City of Westminster, the City of London and the Temples shall together comprise one electoral division").
Amendment No. 88: Page 13, line 24, at end insert—
("(4A) At any election of members for the Inner London Education Authority, the election shall be according to the principles of proportional representation, each elector having one transferable vote as defined in subsection (4B) of this section.
(4B) The expression "transferable vote" means a vote—

(a) capable of being given so as to indicate the voter's preference for the candidates in order: and

(b) capable of being transferred to the next choice—

(i) when the vote is not required to give a prior choice the necessary quota of votes, or

(ii) when owing to the deficiency in the number of votes given for a prior choice, that choice is eliminated from the list of candidates.

(4C) Her Majesty may by Order in Council prescribe the rules in accordance with which elections shall be conducted and the method of voting and transferring and counting votes at those elections.").
Amendment No. 89: Page 13, line 30, at end insert ("; and Part III of that Schedule shall specify the number of members to be elected from each electoral division.").
Amendment No. 90: Schedule 9, page 138, line 15, leave out ("not less than forty-eight or more than").
Amendment No. 91: Page 138, line 18, leave out ("part or).
.4mendment No 92: Page 138, line 21, leave out ("lie wholly within") and insert ("comprise").
Amendment No. 93: Page 138, line 27, leave out from first ("be") to end of subsection (5) and insert ("such as to secure so far as practicable, that the ratio of the electorate of each division to the number of members to be returned for that division is the same in every division.").
Amendment No. 94: Page 138, leave out lines 29 to 37.
Amendment No. 95: Page 138, line 38, leave out paragraph 3.
Amendment No. 96: Page 139, line 8, at end insert—

"Part III Number of Members of Inner London Education Authority

Electoral Division

Number of Members

Cities of London and Westminister and the Temples

5

Camden

5

Greenwich

5

Hackney

5

Hammersmith and Fulham

3

Islington

4

Kensington and Chelsea

3

Lambeth

6

Lewisham

6

Southwark

6

Tower Hamlets

4

Wandsworth

6".

Clause 18 in the Bill provides for a directly elected authority from May 1986 with two members from 29 parliamentary constituencies, giving a total of 58 members of ILEA in place of the present 48. They would be elected, as the Bill stands, under the well-accepted and well-tried system of "winner takes all" which we have had in this country for so long for parliamentary and local government elections. These amendments if accepted (as I hope they will be) will mean that the members of ILEA will be elected in 12 multi-member constituencies by the single transfer- able vote method of proportional representation, usually called STV.
The constituencies will be formed as shown in Amendment No. 96, based on the boroughs. This seems to be logical as ILEA has close relations with the borough councils and since the Government wish to enhance the central role of the boroughs in London's administration. The number of members from each borough will be from three to six, depending upon the electoral register produced in 1984. This would give 30,111 voters per member, a closer correspondence, I may say, than that proposed in the Bill as it stands. There is therefore, of course, no question of hybridity.
The system envisaged in Amendment No. 88 is exactly the same as is used now for local govenment in Northern Ireland. It is also used for the Parliament there as well. It was introduced, as we all know, by a Conservative Government and my noble friend Lord Whitelaw was then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. It would work as follows. Candidates are listed in alphabetical order. Electors can vote for any number of candidates in order of preference. Any candidate who reaches the quota arrived at by a simple and well-tried formula on first preferences is declared
834
elected. Surplus votes are then transferred to other candidates in proportion to all the second preferences for the elected candidate. Any votes still surplus after that are again re-distributed until there are none over the quotas. If enough candidates have still not achieved the quota, the candidate with the fewest votes drops out, and all his or her second preferences are re-distributed, and so on.
I have given a very brief explanation of what is in fact a system which I think is as simple as 1-2-3, and certainly child's play compared with doing the football pools, which I can never comprehend. There is a pamphlet on this subject which I would be happy to let your Lordships see, which explains it in considerable detail; but I think the system is pretty straightforward.
I would suggest that many advantages could and probably would flow from using such a system of proportional representation for ILEA elections First of all, there would be likely to be a higher turnout. The average turnout in May 1981 for the London boroughs was almost exactly 40 per cent.: in other words, three out of five of those entitled to vote did not vote. The average vote obtained by those elected was roughly half of the votes cast; so four out of five of the electorate did not vote for the candidate who was elected. Whether they thought their vote would be wasted or whether they were not interested, no one can be quite sure; but I imagine it would be a combination of both factors. In any case, whatever the reasons, this amounts to apathy writ large.
By contrast, in local government elections run on the STV system in Scandinavian countries, which have had many years of experience of it, on average, three out of four electors vote and between 80 and 90 per cent. of their votes actually count in deciding who should be elected. They influence the outcome in one way or another: that is, between 80 and 90 per cent. of all the votes cast. Incidentally, just on two-thirds of the electorate in Northern Ireland voted in the last local government elections.
Secondly, I suggest that using the STV system for ILEA would result in a much more representative authority. It would be broadly proportional between the parties and would reflect much more accurately than is the case under the present system the views of the electorate. Also, there could well be many more women elected: and do not let us forget that over half the electorate are women. There would be better representation, I suggest, almost certainly of the ethnic minorities, who provide four out of 10 of ILEA's pupils. I was very surprised to find what a high proportion of such pupils is involved, as I do not know a great deal about local government in London. A stronger voice for the Churches would be likely to result as well, and also for parent/teacher bodies, and of course for independents. I suggest all these things are to be welcomed.
Next, I should like to suggest that there would be closer ties with the electorate, between the authority and the voters. This would mean that ILEA would be more accountable to the electorate and more responsive to their wishes. I can see no objection to either of those things; nor do I imagine that any of your Lordships would be likely to do so, either.
Lastly, I suggest that there would be much less risk of violent ideological swings in policies and principles, from which the ILEA has certainly suffered a great deal in the past. Therefore there would be greater continuity of policies and more electoral confidence; and those are good things as well. These are not wild assumptions. I think they are reasonable and I hope that I have not overstated them; I certainly did not wish to do so.
Education is surely the single most important subject in Greater London's local government. I think most noble Lords would agree with that. Therefore, there is obviously a need to get the best possible electoral system and that, I think, is vital. We are talking about more than 300,000 pupils costing about £1,600 a year in more than 1,100 schools and institutions. So we are talking about a lot of people. The present system is manifestly unfair and unrepresentative. In 1982, for example, the Labour Party got four out of 10 of the votes cast and six out of 10 of the seats. All the rest together, all the other parties—the Conservative Party, of course, and the Alliance, Independents and so on—got six out of 10 of the votes cast but only four out of 10 of the seats.
What a dotty system! How unrepresentative can a system be? It could of course have been the other way round, and it has been in the past. Surely it is time to improve the system, and here is our chance. We want a system which is manifestly fair, one that is simple to understand and hopefully one that is popular as well. So far as popularity is concerned, there is absolutely no doubt, judging from all the public opinion polls there have been over many years, that the public at any rate favours proportional representation for this sort of thing and at least has an open mind about it.
The very last question to ask ourselves, I suggest, if we are considering introducing a fairer, more efficient and more representative system is: does it benefit my party? That is not a question that we ought to ask ourselves because it flies in the face of all the three objectives that I have suggested are the correct ones. I have sometimes thought that the first-past-the-post system which we have had for so long leads to the election of those candidates disliked least by the voters. Proportional representation, on the other hand, leads to the election of candidates who are most liked by the electorate. That is a very different thing and I see nothing wrong with it.
Some noble Lords are totally opposed in principle to proportional representation in any form for parliamentary elections. Many other noble Lords—a great many, I think—have open minds about it. I am not myself in favour of STV for elections to the House of Commons, but for ILEA it seems to me to make absolute sense. ILEA is a one-subject authority, and introducing STV, proportional representation, would not be the thin end of the wedge; certainly not so much as it was in introducing it in Northern Ireland, which is after all a parliamentary election.
As for the suggestion that PR would be likely to lead to hung councils, a bogy is made of that. With three major parties now—and there is no denying that there three major parties—we are bound to get hung councils, anyway: witness last week's shire council elections where there are plenty of hung councils.
So the time has come, I suggest, to cast off all old prejudices and think of some new arguments against proportional representation for ILEA, if there are any good ones. For myself, I agree with my noble friend Lord Elton when he said, during the Second Reading of this Bill, at col. 441 of Hansard for 15th April:
"Democracy is strongest where the voter is closest to the seat of power. The elector's … voice will be stronger in 1986 than it has been for many years".
I thought that was unintentionally and very eloquently an excellent argument for proportional representation. I believe in fact that the electors' voice will be stronger in 1986 in ILEA, in the authority, and that will prove to be true, without breaching in any way the principle of this Bill, if your Lordships accept these amendments; voting, I hope, purely on their merits and refusing to be intimidated by the unholy alliance between the two Front Benches. If the Government are not able to accept these amendments, let us call off the Whips. I beg to move.
10 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: I beg to support the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood. I think that he has presented his case concisely and with admirable clarity. I firmly believe that, if we had had proportional representation as the method of election of the metropolitan county councils and the Greater London Council, we should not be discussing this Bill at the present time. I am absolutely certain in my own mind that the political inspiration behind the abolition of these councils is the way in which at least one of them has been behaving, and we should not have heard about this as an urgent political and parliamentary priority had we not had the eccentricities of the leadership of the Greater London Council publicised so widely and for so long.
The noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, mentioned in this connection an important point in relation to this amendment; namely, that we are dealing in this amendment with an authority to be elected under this Bill which is unique throughout our electoral system. There is nothing equivalent to the Inner London Education Authority, and I submit to your Lordships that here is an opportunity to begin an innovation with a method of election different from the one we have practised for so long, believing that an experiment would probably prove a useful guide to its consequences and to its value.
At the present time the only system departing from first-past-the-post in our constitutional arrangements is in Northern Ireland. It is time that we tried it somewhere else, and this is a splendid opportunity to do so. There is no reason at all why the ILEA should be such a stridently noticeable political body. It is educational in its functions. There should be a very large degree of common approach to educational problems, and I should have thought that this authority was eminently suitable on which to try this new system, so far as we are concerned, in our constitutional arrangements. I believe, with the noble Lord who moved the amendment, that we should get a better electoral response and a more representative result.

837
How often have we been hearing in recent times about the unrepresentativeness of some sectors of our institutional life? We have, indeed, required by law the use of ballots in our trade unions in order to overcome what the majority of Parliament believe to be the necessity of ensuring more representative government in our unions. It is a pity, perhaps, that in carrying through that legislation we did not become more precise on the methods to be used and the conditions under which those ballots should be taken; but that is a subject that we might go into a little more closely in a debate next week.
In general, it is not too much to say that, if Parliament in Britain is ever defied to the point of a constitutional crisis, it will be because it has become unrepresentative. The authority of Parliament has been challenged in the last 18 months within our vivid recollection. It has been overcome, but one cannot be sure that it will be overcome every time. I do not think our present system, whether nationally or locally is suitable to the lurch that can take place between one political philosophy and another on a marginal turnover in the voting of the electorate. That is the danger.
A government can be unrepresentative and unpopular almost from the beginning, because the electoral system has put power in the hands of a group of people in Parliament who form a government and who do not have adequate electoral support behind them. That is the danger to our Parliament. It astonishes me that otherwise intelligent and wise people should be so indifferent to this potential danger to our system of representative government.
I believe that in this respect, as in others, Britain has gone about in blinkers for the past 20 years. We have not seen what has been coming and we do not see what is coming now. Why should we be so conceited as to believe that what we have is the best in the world? How many times do we claim that something we have is the best in the world? When we look around we see a greater stability in some areas—certainly a greater economic unity and prosperity—where the system of proportional representation is in operation. Why should we think that we have the magic of an electoral system locked away in our historical experience which has been denied to others and which for some reason that no one can explain they have not been wise enough to adopt?
We are behind in the world of electoral systems, and we are unrepresentative in the world of electoral systems. I know that some of my friends on this side of your Lordships' Committee at one time feared that if we changed the electoral system, minorities might become represented in the House of Commons which it would be undesirable to have there. I believe that any electoral system that brings minorities into Parliament is probably bringing them to the point where an outlet for their energies, their activities and their doctrine will prove to be a safety valve in the body politic.
I beseech your Lordships to take this opportunity to begin an innovation in this unique part of our constitutional arrangements which we can observe over the next few years. There is under the Bill to be a
838
review of this authority later. It is a splendid chance, in my opinion, to see how the system can be made to work and whether a more balanced education authority would come out of it. I deplore the divisions that appear to exist on the Inner London Education Authority on doctrinal matters which have little or nothing to do with education but have a good deal to do with political doctrine and which would be softened and eliminated if we had a more representative authority.
There is one further point. The noble Lord who moved the amendment referred to the "hung Parliament" and the "hung authority". Why in heaven's name an elected authority should be called "hung" when it is more representative, I do not understand. After all, democracy is about representatives and it is about representation. There is nothing in the proportional representation system which denies any single grouping or party an overall majority in the elected body. That happened in Austria after many years of so-called coalition governments. Parties came to terms, as they have in other parts of Europe, I think to the better stability of their systems and to the greater prosperity of their people than in this country.
Our adversarial politics are a positive danger to our stability when there is such a large common denominator throughout the political thinking in Britain, when there are so many problems that are generally recognised as being common to us all, and when there are so many aspects of our affairs which are inseparable from our geography and our economic relationship with the rest of the world. Why should a country be so seriously split politically and be prevented from getting that central unity and common purpose which alone will see this Britain of ours through its difficulties?
I take a very gloomy view of the future of this country and of our institutions if we continue to think that politics is a game. Why in Britain are we so desperately anxious to play the game of winners and losers, when there is a combination in politics and in representation which is so important? I strongly urge this amendment upon your Lordships' Committee. Let us try it. Let us have an innovation for once and become more adventurous in trying something new, and see whether the results are better than we have had up until now. We know what the Inner London Education Authority has been up till now: let us see whether we can make it more satisfactory, so that it can face the future with a better degree of unity than it has had in the past.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I oppose Amendment No. 86 and also Amendments Nos. 87 and 96 to which my noble friend Lord Chelwood spoke. Changing the voting system to a form of proportional representation, the abolition of the Temples (in which I declare a slight interest) as a separate electoral entity, and the advent of the constitutional Armageddon prophesied by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, if one looks at the Short Title of the Bill, has nothing whatever to do with the argument.
These are not matters consequential on or connected with the abolition of the GLC and the MCCs, or with the transfer of functions, in any fair or

839
reasonable construction of the Short Title of this Bill. In any event, it is fair to say where I stand as I am speaking; I am against this on its merits.
I for one am not concerned with opinion polls. One is not concerned with the benefits to any particular party. The special case for proportional representation on ILEA but not for the House of Commons I did not understand; but this is a matter with which my noble friend Lord Beloff will, I am sure, deal. However, all this is beside the mark. It is quite outside the context of the Title of this Bill.
Lord Beloff: My excuse for addressing your Lordships a second time this evening is partly to bring us back to the subject of ILEA. Certainly I would not wish to engage in a general debate about the merits or demerits of proportional representation for political bodies, whether national or local. Some regard PR as the plague; some, like the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, believe on the contrary that it is a cure for almost any plague—perhaps even the cure we are looking for to get rid of AIDS.
I want to talk about ILEA itself, for this reason. Noble Lords will remember that an elected ILEA was not in the original proposals of the Government. Education in London was to be run by a joint board. Many of us in all parties took some part in persuading the Government that such was inappropriate and that the particular problems of education in London ought to be the subject of a directly elected body. I certainly believe that as a member of the Government party I may have had something to do with persuading my noble friends to accept this change to their original plans.
I did so for a very specific reason; one to which other speakers have alluded. It was the conviction that education, unlike waste disposal, is and always will be a political subject—in the sense that people's general philosophy of the purposes of education differ very considerably and often in an irreconcilable fashion.
On the other hand, for the consumers of education—and we may here take the parents rather than the children—the criteria which they apply to a particular educational philosophy and its results are usually of a more practical kind. What seemed to be necessary if we made another experiment with direct election was to try to insulate education so far as possible not from the interplay of different philosophies—which, in the nature of things, would be impossible—but at least from a direct connection with party policy and party philosophies. It seemed to me that if when people voted for their member for ILEA they were not voting, as they might well do, on general grounds for their member of a borough council or county council or national Parliament, then one concern would be whether the person putting himself forward was most likely to handle better the problem of educating their children, and the chances were at least that this would be an improvement.
10.15 p.m.
If one accepts the view that the elected ILEA which the Bill now proposes is to be what used to be called in this country a school board, which is a pattern of organisation still familiar in the United States of
840
America, one has to ask, what kind of electoral system would we best like? Here, I oppose the amendment in favour of STV, for two reasons. First, it necessitates larger constituencies, and, indeed, the consequential amendment shows this to be the case, whereas it seems to me that an individual who wishes to make an impact as someone who has something to say about education itself, not general political issues, is more likely to make an impact in a smaller constituency where he or she is likely personally to be better known.
My second view—and this was borne out in a way by some of the arguments of my noble friend Lord Chelwood—is that whether or not one likes proportional representation, it is a method of securing what some people would call a more fair representation of political parties. It is a method devised to meet a system of more than two parties. It is a system which parties very early and very easily learn to control to their own advantage. My feeling is that if we had a system of proportional representation, we might get what is called a hung council—I do not know why it should be regarded as so derogatory—a proportion of people representing the various parties in London corresponding more closely to the number of votes cast. I think that would be an argument perhaps for proportional representation in a political body, but if one is trying to insulate education from party strife, it seems to me that on both those counts proportional representation is not the right thing for what we are now discussing.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: I rise to support this amendment to which my name is attached, but in doing so I view it with a certain trepidation as it is a very controversial and even emotional subject, as has already been proved by the two noble Lords who have just spoken. However, I do not agree with them that these amendments are irrelevant to this Bill, and I shall come to my arguments in favour of that in a moment.
First of all I should like to stress that, from the way I see them, these amendments do not, or should not, embrace the whole principle of electoral reform. My noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby has put forward arguments for the principle of electoral reform. We are this evening discussing a change in the elctoral system for an education authority. Therefore, the arguments used should not be judged in the context of those arguments used for advocating an electoral system for a level of government because, after all, that is an entirely different question and one which, as I have said before, draws out all sorts of emotions and prejudices.
Today we are really discussing what is the best way of electing an authority which will be most efficient in running London's schools and what is the best way of offering London's children the best opportunities. After all, there are 1,133 schools and other educational institutions under ILEA. It would seem right to introduce a system whereby such a large and very important educational authority is protected from the kind of uncertainty that the present Bill is forcing upon it. For that reason, the amendments are highly relevant.
My first aim is to protect this education authority from having its educational policies interrupted by the upheavals that one has seen result from the rise and

841
fall of different and varied political parties. The argument against continuing with the old system is that one would like a more varied representation on that authority. As my noble friends have already said, this would ensure, in turn, that more candidates representing educational beliefs rather than party political beliefs could be elected. Parents might be better represented on the authority. Who, after all, could show a greater commitment to that authority than the parents of children educated within it? More women might he elected to that authority. Again, I cannot see anything wrong with such a development.
Furthermore, no one can surely deny that London schools cater for a very varied multicultural community. No less than 44 per cent. of children at primary school and 38 per cent. at secondary schools come from different ethnic groups. I am not inferring that there is any discrimination against the ethnic groups. I am a governor of two ILEA schools, one a primary school and one a nursery school, and I know of all the trouble and precautions that are taken to ensure there should never be any kind of discrimination.
However, no one can maintain that these groups are adequately represented on the Inner London Education Authority. The proof that a more democratic representation of voters' choice can be achieved lies in the fact that proportional representation system was introduced for the New York school hoard elections. This was done especially to cater for the very many ethnic groups living in New York city. It was done to involve the black and the Puerto Rican communities in the education of their own children.
This leads me to a situation much nearer home that would be very favourably affected by a change in the electoral system for ILEA. A fellow resident of Kensington and Chelsea has made a strong point for changing the elctoral system. I should like to quote some of the cogent arguments that he has expressed in a letter to me. He writes:
"Kensington and Chelsea is a borough that has among its citizens some of the richest and some of the poorest in the land. It has its own North-South divide with a predominantly rich south whose parents aspire to sending their children to public schools even if their primary education is provided by the local authority. In the north and isolated areas of the south there are large numbers of council tenants of whom something like 75 per cent. receive some form of rent rebates.
"This extreme brings with it great problems for the education service. On the one hand the withdrawal of numbers of secondary-aged pupils into the private school sector means that those electors have very little interest in ensuring that the ILEA schools provide the best education possible.
"On the other hand pressures of their economic circumstances mean that the less well off have little opportunity to participate in the education of their children. For these children the liberating effect of higher education is a distant prospect.
"While any education authority can only scratch at the problems of numbers of their clients I would suggest that the lack of proper representation is one factor that deepens the sense of alienation from the education process. Direct elections are one way in which this can be alleviated, but the current first-past-the-post electoral system will only go to deepen it. For the Borough as a whole the party votes are roughly in a proportion 50 per cent. Conservative, 25 per cent. Labour and 25 per cent. Alliance. Its parliamentary representation is 100 per cent. Conservative. Clearly the proposed system will mean that the views of 50 per cent. of voters will be unrepresented on ILEA until there is a boundary review."
842
He ends by saying:
"For this reason I would urge you to vote for an electoral system for the ILEA elections which would be likely to provide a just and fair system".
I feel very strongly that a change in the electoral system would both produce a wider and fairer representation and at the same time strengthen ILEA. I have every reason to wish to do that. As I say, I am a governor of these two schools, which I think are admirably run, and I have a very great respect for that authority. I shall be speaking about this matter again when we come to Clause 21.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: The difficulty of the argument which the noble Baroness has just addressed to your Lordships, I think, is this. If for ILEA a system of PR is so superior to that operating elsewhere in our electoral system, why stop with ILEA? Is not her argument, if it has validity, one of much wider application than merely to ILEA?
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: I was addressing myself to the Bill that is before us for discussion this evening.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I appreciate that the speech of the noble Baroness is wholly relevant to this Bill, but the issue which she has raised, which does not arise necessarily on this Bill at all, has very much wider implications. If one accepts the argument that for ILEA a system of PR is very advantageous, I think that she will appreciate that it must carry implications into a far wider area. That was the point that I was putting to her. Indeed, I suggest to her, as I suggest to all your Lordships, that if it is proposed—as my noble friend Lord Chelwood has proposed—to apply to ILEA a system of election not applied anywhere else in the British Isles outside Northern Ireland, it at least puts the onus of proof on those who propose such a system to show why in the special circumstances of ILEA (as the noble Baroness says, that is all we are discussing) a system not operating in the rest of the United Kingdom should be applied.
The noble Baroness I hope will agree that I am being fair, and I am not suggesting that that is necessarily an argument against the proposal on its merits, but it is an indication, I suggest to your Lordships, of the much wider implications of this amendment generally. What is there that is so peculiar about ILEA that it should have the benefit—if it be a benefit—of this system which is denied to every other electorate in England, Wales and Scotland?
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: Surely the reply to the noble Lord's point is that this body is distinctive. There is no other electoral body like it under our system. That is why an innovation could be tried in this instance without all the implications that the noble Lord suggests.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: The noble Lord says there is no other body like ILEA. Indeed, if one felt like being frivolous one might perhaps say that there is something in that point. But what is so unusual about it—this is the point to which the noble Lord must address himself—that demands an electoral system which is not in fact provided for any other body in

843
England, Wales or Scotland? What are the peculiarities of ILEA that demand this special, exceptional and unusual treatment?
10.30 p.m.
The Committee know that there are a number of people, of whom my noble friend Lord Chelwood is undoubtedly one, who are great exponents of these various forms of electoral system, and of course I respect their views. Indeed, when some noble Lords on the Liberal Benches make a speech some of us make a book as to whether or not they will advocate PR. I know there are people who very sincerely hold this doctrine and who believe it should be a wider application.
However, the only point that I wish to make on this amendment is that, whether they are right or whether those who, like myself, adhere to the view of first-past-the-post are right, it is very difficult to justify just picking out ILEA and picking it out only for the reason that election to it is being provided under this Bill and giving it unique treatment.
I think that the Committee have to face the point that if this is a good system of election, with all the merits to which the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, has referred, then it surely has a claim for much wider application. Therefore, it would be a mistake, in the specific and special context of ILEA and in the specific and special context of this Bill, to introduce a system unique in this country just because of the accident of the fact that the issue can be raised on this Bill. I hope therefore that my noble friend will say that we will give the ILEA the electoral system which we regard as good enough for every other authority in the United Kingdom.
Lord Diamond: The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, did not explain to us, on the basis that Northern Ireland adopted this system, why he himself was not compelled to take the view that this system should apply to the rest of the United Kingdom. Of course, he regards Northern Ireland as a special case. And those who support this amendment regard ILEA as a special case. The Committee are no more compelled to regard ILEA as part of a system of proportional representation for the country as a whole than the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, was compelled to regard Northern Ireland PR, which I imagine he supported, as PR for the whole of the country, to which he is wholly opposed.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Will the noble Lord give way? I hope he is not suggesting that the unique and unhappy circumstances of Northern Ireland, which I think all the Committee profoundly regret, have any relevance or application to the Inner London Education Authority.
Lord Diamond: Nobody is suggesting that. What I am suggesting is that the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, has no right to say that because one has proportional representation in a very limited and special case, you must have proportional representation for the whole country. Everybody knows where we on these Benches stand. Of course they do. We support proportional representation throughout.
844
All I am saying is that what the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, is saying is irrelevant to the issue we are discussing. We are discussing an issue which is much more closely related to local government. The ILEA is very closely related to local government. I beg the Committee's pardon for this reminder (because I am sure that it is in the memory of every noble Lord sitting here) that this Chamber within very, very recent times has adopted unanimously a Bill which gave the opportunity to local authorities to choose proportional representation for the election of their members. We completely support the views which have been expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood. There is no need for us to detain the Committee any longer.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark: I should like to make a brief statement because I know that time is getting short. I wish to address myself in a slightly different way to the question which the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, raised. The noble Lord asked what was special about this. I listened with particular attention to what the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, was saying because it seemed to me that he was in part supplying the answer. He was pleading for us to recognise the importance of not allowing party politics to dominate the elections to this particular authority which serves only the cause of education. That is something very close to my heart and that is why I have put my name to this amendment.
I recognise that there will be differences of opinion about the merits of this particular form of representation, but it seems to me that it might achieve (a) stability and (b) the representation of certain groups—the ethnic groups and the Churches have been mentioned, and there are others—who otherwise would be less likely to be represented, given the normal party political forces at work.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: May I interrupt the right reverend Prelate? The suggestion which was made by the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, that this system would facilitate the representation of ethnic groups surely ignores the fact that the constitutencies, as proposed in these amendments, would be so much larger, and therfore it is surely much less likely that minority groups would get themselves elected.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark: I thank the noble Lord for making that point and I recognise that it will be a point of difference between us. I just wanted to make that point, which is an important point, in general terms about the principle.
Baroness David: I would agree with the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, in two respects: first, that education is perhaps the most important service that any local authority has to provide; and, secondly, that we want a system of voting which is simple to understand. However, I would suggest that possibly STV is not such a system. I agree with my noble friend Lord Houghton that we want to be quite sure that the system to which we move is better than what we have now. I think that the proposals made in the amendment are very likely not better than what we have now.

845
The amendment raises three very important questions. The first is: should there be a different voting system between one local authority and another? In this respect, very much to my surprise, I find myself in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter—and that does not happen all that often.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I am very lucky.
Baroness David: Secondly, if this is thought desirable, should the STV system be the alternative to adopt? Thirdly, is amending this legislation the way in which to deal with a major constitutional change affecting our electoral law? In my view the answer to all three questions must be, no.
I should like to make the case against. First, I deal with the case so far as an electoral experiment is concerned. Many arguments have been put forward both in favour of PR and against it. Whatever those arguments, it would seem to be most unfair that the ILEA should be used as an electoral experiment. Education is, as we have said, the most important service of all and it should not be used for experiment. If the proponents of PR wish to see the STV system adopted, they should state their case and win the argument for complete electoral reform. There is no justification for holding ILEA elections under a STV system while all other elections—national, district, borough and parish—remain under a first-past-the-post system. No other education authority will have members elected under the STV system and ILEA should not be made the guinea-pig of electoral reform.
When the House of Lords considered the Local Government (Choice of Electoral Systems) Bill, both in February 1983 and again in March 1985, the introduction of STV for district elections was thoroughly debated. Proponents argued that objections to using PR for national elections did not apply to local elections, since the responsibilities of local councillors were not so great. Personally I would query that, but that is what they said.
Such arguments, however, cannot be applied to the administration of the largest education authority in England. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Blake, who moved the Bill in March 1985—and I am very sorry that he is not here tonight—argued against extending PR to county councils on the grounds that:
"it is better, perhaps, to try this experiment with authorities where the size of the newly created districts would not be too large, and also, more importantly, with authorities where there is already a tradition of voting for more than one candidate."—[Official Report, 4/3/85; col. 1163.]
Hence, even the noble Lord, Lord Blake, would presumably be forced to admit that ILEA, a large authority with a tradition of voting for only one candidate, should not be singled out for such an experiment.
There are then the practical difficulties, and I want to say a word on these. The amendment presents practical difficulties since the ILEA elections are to be held on the same day as the London borough elections. This would give rise to the ludicrous situation of electing one authority under PR and another under our existing system, and all on the same day. Such a
846
position is so untenable that it is difficult to believe that it really is being seriously suggested.
It has been argued that in Northern Ireland there is no difficulty in operating the STV and the first-past-the-post system at the same time. However, although these two systems co-exist two elections under different systems have never been held on the same day. Even those who agree the need for electoral reform must ask themselves if it is appropriate for a substantial change in our electoral law, a constitutional change, to be determined by amendment to Government legislation. Clearly, in my view, it is not.
Lord Avebury: Will the noble Baroness give way? Is she suggesting that the people of London are incapable of voting in one election by the first-past-the-post system and in another by the STV, on the same day? Is that what she is saying about the people of London?
Baroness David: It is difficult for the people of London or anywhere else to be presented with two different voting papers in the same polling station and be asked to work those two systems. If one has contested local elections one knows how often people are very confused when they get to the polling stations, anyway; and I think this would really be too difficult.
There are currently within inner London 29 constituencies which under the Government's proposals in the Bill will have 58 representatives to the new ILEA. Although the boundary divisions are yet to be finalised, each constituency is likely to elect two members. The amendment seeks to do away with the constituency boundaries and create 12 electoral districts of varying size based on the London boroughs.
The noble Lord, Lord Beloff, spoke of the disadvantages of larger constituencies. Each of these districts would then elect between three and six representatives depending on its size, and these multi-member constituencies will of course be much larger than existing constituencies. They will have up to 200,000 voters in some districts, compared to an average 6,000 now. Lewisham, for instance, it is suggested would have six members. That is in the amended schedule. There could then be a minimum of 18 names on the ballot paper if just the three main parties all put up candidates, which of course is to be expected; and then there would be many fringe candidates.
Under the STV system voters are requested to list candidates in preference order. A candidate has to reach a certain quota of votes to be elected. Any excess votes that he or she has over the quota are redistributed among the other candidates, according to preference. If there are not surplus votes then the candidate with the least number of votes is removed and his or her votes are transferred. This process continues until the requisite number of candidates reach the quota and are elected, bringing in third, fourth and possibly fifth preferences if necessary.
Our current first-past-the-post system may not be perfect but it is simple, it is familiar, and it is well understood. Personalities play a smaller part than one might wish. The vote is for the party, and under our present system the voter has a clear choice between a

847
set of policies. It is argued that our present system is unfair since it can allow one party huge majorities on less than 50 per cent. of the vote. While this may be the case, the STV system does not guarantee greater fairness. Lord Attlee once said that democracy does not mean rule by the majority; it means rule by the majority with deference to the interests of the minority.
These comments are often quoted as arguments for PR. The STV would not necessarily, however, give minorities a greater say. The ILEA would certainly agree with Lord Attlee's statement; indeed, there are few authorities in England which endeavour to do as much for minority interests as the ILEA already does. Ironically PR does not guarantee proportionality. With all its alleged defects under our present voting system the person or persons elected are those for whom the most electors have voted. That would not be the case with STV. STV could lead, and has led, to a position where the candidate most people want to have as their elected representative is not be elected because of the influence of second, third, fourth or even twelfth preference votes. There is no justification for giving lower preference votes.
Winston Churchill is reported to have aptly commented in 1931 that the decision is determined by the most worthless votes given to the most worthless candidates. STV has been used in only small rural societies. It has never been tried in an urban industrial society, and no sure predictions can therefore be made. To adopt STV would be a risk—a risk to which ILEA, our greatest education authority, our largest, should in no circumstances be subjected.
10.45 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur: I listened with great care to my noble friend in moving his amendments. I, too, share the concern of others who speak so keenly about the importance of education in London. It is a pleasure for me at this stage, on more or less my first appearance at the Dispatch Box this evening, to be able largely to agree with what the noble Baroness opposite has just said. The new ILEA will have many of the same powers—and this was the point that she made—and many of the same duties as local authorities, and it would, therefore, be wholly inappropriate for elections to ILEA to be conducted differently from those for local authorities in Great Britain which are held under the simple majority system.
There are very real objections to the use of proportional representation at local elections. One of its main weaknesses is that it enormously increases the chances of a hung council, though I realise that there are those of your Lordships who do not like that particular term. Under the simple majority system electors have a clear-cut choice between various candidates and parties whose policies they know and have been able to evaluate prior to the elections.
Proportional representation, however, almost invariably leads to some form of coalition government based on a programme which the electorate has not had the opportunity to approve or disapprove. Voters can, therefore, only guess what kind of coalition their party might have to enter into after an election, what new policies it might have to adopt and what
848
compromises it might have to make to keep that coalition in existence. There is also a stronger risk of creating a series of shifting ad hoc coalitions than under the simple majority system and, in such situations, time which should be spent in taking speedy and effective decisions is inevitably frittered away on arguments about which party's policies should prevail and the price to be paid for agreeing to a particular course of action. I do not know what that would do to protect those whom ILEA serves from the upheavals which the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, so keenly wishes to see the back of. The use of proportional representation for local government elections would therefore be more likely to produce a weak and unstable administration where no single party would be answerable for the authority's record.
Lord Diamond: Before the noble Lord—
Lord Glenarthur: Before the noble Lord intervenes I should point out that I am under some constraints regarding time because today is Thursday and the Committee has to be up quite soon.
Lord Diamond: This is a very short intervention. Why does the noble Lord, a Government Minister, keep on referring to what local authorities cannot do when he and his Government in this House have just agreed that they can do it?
Lord Glenarthur: Perhaps if the noble Lord listens to the rest of the arguments which I shall put forward, he will be more convinced.
It has been pointed out by others that proportional representation by a single transferable vote as proposed by the amendments is used at local government elections in Northern Ireland. Of course, there are major differences here. I think the noble Lord who proposed the amendment and others who have referred to it—for example, the noble Lord, Lord Houghton—fully realise that the situation in Northern Ireland is different. It is one upon which the voting is largely controlled locally by set religious and political lines which makes the single majority system unsuitable in that part of the United Kingdom for all but the election of MPs.
One of the points raised by my noble friend Lord Beloff was that another objection to the amendments before us is that they would involve the creation of large, multi-member electoral divisions which would make members of the ILEA more remote from the people they are supposed to represent. We propose that the electorate of the Inner London Education Area should be temporarily split into 29 two-member divisions containing somewhere in the region of from 46,700 to 71,950 electors for the 1986 elections. These divisions will then be replaced by smaller, single-member divisions containing perhaps half that number of electors for the second and subsequent elections to the new authority, leading very much to the sort of figure which my noble friend Lord Chelwood said that he wanted to achieve under his system.
Under these arrangements, however, the Inner London Education Authority would be split into 12 large divisions comprising 11 inner London boroughs

849
and the combined areas of the cities of London and Westminster and the Temples. The current electorate of these divisions which are to be represented by from 3 to 6 members, according to size, range from just over 98,000 to nearly 201,000. It will therefore be quite clearly seen that the close links which already exist between the electors in inner London and individual members of the Inner London Education Authority would be destroyed and not strengthened in the way that my noble friend Lord Chelwood suggested. With an issue such as education, it is specially important that elected representatives should have close local contact with those that they represent.
There are practical objections to these amendments, too. There are risks of confusion which I think have been ably described just now, and of course there is an increase in cost, too. I share, as I said when I started to speak, the concern about the importance of education in London. I also share the views which were expressed about the emotion of the whole subject of PR. I am sure that none of us would wish to see local government at the mercy of weak and unstable administration. We need local authorities which can act expeditiously but can act decisively and have a governing party in policies which are readily identifiable by the electorate. We also need authorities where each member represents a comparatively small area in order to become fully familiar with its problems and become well known to its inhabitants as a person to whom they can turn for help and advice on local matters. That is why we have proposed that elections to the new ILEA should be held on the same basis as those for local and central government. That is why I ask your Lordships not to accept these amendments.
Lord Chelwood: I have listened with great interest to what my noble friend has had to say. I should like to thank all noble Lords who have spoken in favour of these amendments, and also those who have spoken against them. I cannot say that I was very impressed by those who argued that these amendments did not come within the Short Title of the Bill. They are quite clearly I think consistent with the principles of the Bill which are for maximum devolution to the boroughs. The time is very late and there is obviously not a meeting of minds, which I much regret. I think therefore in the circumstances the right thing to do is to divide the Committee.
10.54 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 86) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 49; Not-Contents, 82.

DIVISON NO. 2

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Chandos, V.

Attlee, E.

Chelwood, L. [Teller.]

Avebury, L.

Coleraine, L.

Aylestone, L.

Croft, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Diamond, L.

Buckmaster, V.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Caldecote, V.

Falkland, V.

850

Foot, L.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Ogmore, L.

Grey, E.

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

Hampton, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Hanworth, V.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Rochester, L.

Hooson, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Seear, B.

Kennet, L.

Seebohm, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Simon, V.

Kissin, L.

Southwark, Bp.

Kitchener, E.

Stedman, B. [Teller.]

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Tordoff, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Walston, L.

McNair, L.

Whaddon, L,

Mayhew, L.

Wigoder, L.

Meston, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Kemsley, V.

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Layton, L.

Arran, E.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Beloff, L.

Liverpool, E.

Belstead, L.

Long, V.

Birk, B.

Lothian, M.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Lyell, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

McAlpine of West Green, L.

Caithness, E.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Margadale, L.

Carnock, L.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Colville, of Culross, V.

Monk Bretton, L.

Colwyn, L.

Monkswell, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Morris, L.

Cox, B.

Mountevans, L.

Craigavon, V.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Norrie, L.

David, B.

Onslow, E.

Davidson, V.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Rankeillour, L.

Dormer, L.

Renton, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Renwick, L.

Dundee, E.

Rodney, L.

Elles, B.

Romney, E.

Elton, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Sandford, L.

Glanusk, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Southborough, L.

Gowrie, E.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

Gray of Contin, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Trumpington, B.

Halsbury, E.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Harvington, L.

Vivian, L.

Hayter, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Whitelaw, V.

Howe, E.

Wynford, L.

Ingrow, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
11.3 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 87 to 89 not moved]
Clause 18 agreed to.
Schedule 9 [Inner London Education Authority: elections and electoral arrangements.]:
[Amendments Nos. 90 to 96 not moved.]
Schedule 9 agreed to.
Clause 19 agreed to.
Clause 20 [Consultation with inner London boroughs and the City.]:
[Amendments Nos. 97 to 100 not moved.]
Clause 20 agreed to.
Lord Denham: I beg to move that this House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at four minutes past eleven o'clock.