Lords Sitting of 13 May 1985

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES On the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Hereford.

Gas Industry Privatisation Policy
Lord Bruce-Gardyne: 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 it remains their policy, as stated in the 1983 election manifesto, that legislation to privatise the gas industry should, among other things, provide for increased competition in the industry.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office, (Lord Gray of Contin): My Lords, as was announced in another place on 7th May, the Government intend to introduce legislation at the earliest opportunity to privatise the British Gas Corporation. The opportunities for competition introduced by the Oil and Gas (Enterprise) Act 1982 for supplies to industrial consumers will be continued. It is also the Government's intention that competitors should be able to supply smaller domestic and commercial consumers in areas not already supplied by the British Gas Corporation.
Lord Bruce-Gardyne: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that reply. Does he recall not so long ago, according to Sir Denis Rooke, he was given a public rebuke by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer for calling for a private regulated monopoly company? Why was the public rebuke justified then, but apparently erased today?
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, in any decision of this kind the Government consider a variety of solutions. I remind my noble friend that that was the case in this instance. It would, however, be rather unwise to put at risk a distribution system which has evolved over many years to split up what has proved to be a successful method of distributing gas. Therefore the Government took the view that it was more sensible to privatise the British Gas Corporation in its entirety. I think that my noble friend will agree in due course that this was probably the best solution.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that what he has said makes the case for the continued public ownership of British Gas? Is he not aware that the British Gas Corporation has been the most successful nationalised industry of all time and is making large profits, part of which go to Her Majesty's Government? Is it not a fact that the only reason the Government intend to privatise British Gas is not to introduce competition but simply to get additional money—about £8 billion—to finance their pre-election tax bonanza?
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, I am afraid that the noble Lord has it absolutely wrong. Far from making his case, it makes my case. It removes from the British Gas Corporation the inhibition of Government interference and control. The noble Lord was a member of the party forming the Government between 1974 and 1979 when Chancellor Healey increased the price of gas through his interference by 12·3 per cent. in one year and 9·6 per cent. in another year. That was direct interference by Government. It has happened with a number of different Governments and this will remove this inhibition from the British Gas Corporation. It will give it the incentive that can only be achieved in the private sector, and if the management is as good as everyone maintains it is then those employed in the industry will have a chance to benefit from it.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, the noble Lord will be aware that his Government increased the price of gas by 10 per cent. over three years above the retail price. But is he now saying that the privatisation of gas will result in much cheaper prices for the gas consumer? Is he giving that promise now?
Lord Gray of Contin: I am giving no such promise, my Lords, because it is not in my gift to give a promise. The noble Lord made my point when he suggested that this Government increased gas prices. That is further Government interference which should be removed and will be removed.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, is not this a very complex and extremely expensive way of doing what the Government could do so easily by keeping their mouths shut?
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, on the basis that the noble Lord admits that the interference by his own Government inhibits private enterprise, would not the noble Lord advise his Government to get off the country's back and get out?
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, I feel that that comment is not of the usual sophisticated class that we expect from the noble Lord. I think he could do better if he would like to try again.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I find it difficult not to respond to an invitation of that kind. Is the noble Lord aware that the activities of his own Government are hampering not only British industry but are a gross infliction on the country as a whole? Will they now resign? I hope that puts it more moderately.
Lord Gray of Contin: No, my Lords: I thought that the noble Lord could do better but I see he cannot. The answer obviously is no. The policies of this Government are working and will be seen to work. The noble Lord and some of his friends talk about the next election. His former leader once said that in politics a week was a long time; but two and a half years in politics is an eternity.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, can the noble Lord confirm that the best way of coupling free enterprise to a public monopoly is to require it to raise its capital borrowings on the open market? Is that provided for in future plans?
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, we shall have to wait to see the future legislation. I am sure the noble Earl would not wish me to anticipate it; but it is the intention, as I said when I repeated the Statement the other day, that private capital should be introduced in as large a measure as possible.
Lord Ironside: My Lords, in view of the importance of gas now to domestic consumers as a service, similar to the telephone, water and electricity services, perhaps I may ask this question. Does my noble friend not think that is important to consider, among other things, under the new privatisation arrangements for the gas corporation, a much wider distribution of gas to domestic consumers in the countryside?
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his suggestion. I have no doubt that in due course the new company will look at this. Of course the legislation which we introduced in 1982 enables there to be competition as far as the supply of gas is concerned in areas which do not already possess gas. I have no doubt that the new company will build upon this.
Lord Leatherland: My Lords, when the noble Lord the Minister says that the policies of the Government are working, does he include in that broad statement the fact that unemployment has increased very considerably in the last few months?
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, I really should not be tempted along these lines because this has nothing to do with the Question. But I will say to the noble Lord that the policies in regard to unemployment will be seen to be effective in due course. But nobody can imagine that the problem of unemployment can be solved at a stroke. It will take time.
Lord Leatherland: My Lords, is the noble Lord saying that the increase in unemployment of recent times is to be continued?
Lord Bruce-Gardyne: My Lords, if I may bring my noble friend back to my original Question for a moment, does it not concern him a bit that Sir Denis Rooke should have indicated over the weekend that he has not made up his mind what sort of regulatory agency he will be prepared to have to supervise his activities? And does it not concern him a bit that Sir Denis Rooke should be 'indicating his intention of seizing the earliest possible opportunity to cross-subsidise competition with the private sector out of the proceeds of his monopoly operations?
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, I have no doubt that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Energy is keeping the closest contact with Sir Denis Rooke. I have little doubt that they will reach an amicable decision in due time. But at the end of the day, as my noble friend will appreciate, it is for the
888
Government and not Sir Denis Rooke to make these decisions; and the Government will make them.
Lord Denham: Next Question, my Lords!
Lord Diamond: My Lords, the noble Lord has completely avoided answering my supplementary question. I apologise for upsetting the Chief Whip, but I have to ask it again. Will the noble Lord the Minister say whether or not he considers it a very complex and expensive method of doing what it is within the Government's power to do; namely, simply to stop interfering—if that is what he said was the main argument fror privatising the gas industry?
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, I do not think the noble Lord is being completely fair. What I would suggest is that he has put forward only one of a host of reasons for privatising the gas industry.

M.1: Proposed Lane Closures
2.43 p.m.
Lord Tordoff: 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 consultations they have had with the local authority in St. Albans about the proposed closure of lanes on the M.1 in the St. Albans area between 2nd and 14th July 1985.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the proposals have been drawn up in conjunction with the Hertfordshire County Council, which is responsible for the local road system in the St. Albans area. The city and district council are being kept informed.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer, but I do not think that "being kept informed" really covers the situation. Is it not the case that the first that St. Albans City Council knew of this matter was a letter from the Departments of the Environment and Transport on 1st May, which was the day after the whole subject had been aired in the local press? Does the Minister consider that that is the proper way of keeping local authorities informed of something which is going to have a very serious impact on their city?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, first, as I said in my original Answer, we have been working very closely with the Hertfordshire County Council, which is the traffic authority for the area; and the district of St. Albans has been kept informed. As to the second part of the noble Lord's supplementary question, I hope that this will not have too serious an effect upon St. Albans city itself. We have no plans for diversion through St. Albans city. The lorry ban through St. Albans will not be lifted and we shall do what we can to discourage people from trying to go through St. Albans.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: My Lords, may I ask the Government whether they have now learned the

889
lesson from the building of the M.1 that the cheapest economies, both in widths of lanes and the standards of construction of the road itself, have all proved simply to be false economies?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I think there is a certain amount of truth in what my noble friend says. I think that the original building of the motorway with two lanes has proved to be a very false economy. As regards maintenance, I may tell him that this particular piece of road has not been repaired since it was first built in 1959 and that the time has now come when we can avoid it no longer.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the M.1 was orginally planned with three lanes and that it was only as a result of subsequent decisions that, disastrously, a section of it was reduced to two lanes?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I was not aware of the subject of my noble friend's observation. I take note of what he has said.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that on Saturday of last weekend I went up the M.1, which was cordoned off with cones on one lane, and came down on Sunday, and that there was hardly a hiccup in the traffic flow?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am glad that my noble friend was lucky. I am afraid that if she goes up during the first two weeks of July she may not be so lucky.

Social Security: Green Paper
2.49 p.m.
Lord Ardwick: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether their proposals for the reform of state welfare will be issued as a White Paper or a Green Paper and when they are to be published.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Baroness Trumpington): My Lords, the Government hope to publish their proposals for the future of social security in a Green Paper soon after the Whitsun Recess.
Lord Ardwick: My Lords, I must thank the noble Baroness for that Answer. Does she appreciate that the people will be very much relieved if this means that the internal dispute in the Government on social security is at an end and if, therefore, there are no more of those alarming leaks about the hazardous future of earnings-related pensions? Furthermore, can she assure the House that after the publication of the Green Paper the Government will not rush into legislation but will leave ample time for the essential national debate on the future of the welfare state?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the noble Lord has two parts to his question. On the first part, he asks me to pre-empt the outcome of the review, which has not yet been published, and I am not going to comment on press speculation. In answer to the second part of his question, as my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said in another place, there will of course be an opportunity for consultation about the Government's conclusions and proposals before we take steps to implement them. The detailed arrangements for consultation have not yet been decided. They will be announced when we publish our proposals. Any legislation needed to give effect to proposed changes will of course be subject to parliamentary debate in the usual way.
Lord Bottomley: My Lords, will the noble Baroness give an assurance that the professional and trade union organisations will be fully consulted before the Green Paper is finalised?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I am quite sure that if the trade unions wish to be consulted, they will be. Your Lordships may be interested to know that the review received a great deal of evidence from the public. Over 4,000 pieces of written evidence were received during the course of the review. Ministers held 19 public sessions, at which oral evidence was heard. In addition, informal oral hearings were held with interested organisations by the housing benefit team. The evidence covered a wide range of opinion, all of which has been carefully considered.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, notwithstanding that the noble Baroness says she is not going to reveal what the Green Paper will say and despite what she says about consultation, does she agree that there could not have been consultation about the state earnings-related scheme, because it was made clear by the Prime Minister, during the election, and by her right honourable friend, Mr. Norman Fowler, in announcing the reviews, that the state earnings-related pension scheme would not be part of the study? Does she not accept that if there were now to be changes in a national agreement reached in 1975 with all the parties and all organisations, that would be a gross betrayal not only of trust regarding national agreement but also of the interest of many millions of pensioners?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, must wait for the publication date.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether I am not right in thinking that the whole purpose of publishing a Green Paper is to afford the opportunity for consultation and that to make a prophecy at this stage as to what it contains is probably more idle and more useless than many of the forecasts to which we are accustomed to listening, some of them in this Chamber?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, may I say that I entirely agree with what my noble friend has said. Mr. Meacher published his social security proposals, which would add to public expenditure probably by at least £15 billion. We do not know what the official Opposition thinks of those proposals. They will have to wait until our proposals are published.
Lord Banks: My Lords, can the noble Baroness explain the role of the Social Security Advisory Committee in the consultation? Presumably the Green Paper will be submitted to that committee; but will the final proposals of the Government after consultation be submitted to it? That procedure, regrettably, was not followed in the case of the supplementary benefit regulations dealing with board and lodging.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I feel sure that what the noble Lord suggests will come about.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, will the noble Baroness give an assurance that the expertise of your Lordships' House will be secured by consultation in the form of a debate on the Green Paper after publication?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I have already said so.

Cinema Films: Copyright Infringements
2.54 p.m.
Lord Lloyd of Hampstead: 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 steps they propose to take in the light of the Court of Appeal's decision that removing a feature film from a cinema to enable pirated versions of the film to be made does not amount to "theft" within the Theft Act 1968.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Lucas of Chilworth): My Lords, the events to which this decision relates took place before enactment of the Copyright (Amendment) Act 1983, when penalties for the copyright offences relevant to this case were very low. That Act substantially increased the penalties in relation to the making of pirated copies of films, so that further action in this regard is unnecessary.
Lord Lloyd of Hampstead: My Lords, while thanking the noble Minister for his rather negative reply, may I ask whether he is aware that the Lord Chief Justice, in the course of his judgment in that case, referred to the profits of the film pirates as "enormous", and said that the legitimate trade in feature films was potentially crippled? Is the noble Lord aware that he also stated that the law has not yet entirely caught up with this type of offence? May I therefore ask the noble Lord the Minister whether he would accept that such offences, with the grave threat they pose to the feature film industry, go a great deal further than mere infringements of copyright, even though I accept that the penalties have been increased for those; that they amount to theft of intellectual property and that the law should so treat them?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, had the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Hampstead, been in your Lordships' House on Friday last when we were
892
discussing the Copyright (Computer Software) Amendment Bill, I feel sure he would have enjoyed the dissertation given by my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross concerning the effects of the 1983 Copyright (Amendment) Act on the piracy of videos and films. Of course, we shall take careful account of the Court of Appeal's judgment in this particular case, to which the noble Lord refers. However, I have to say that in the light of the 1983 Act we have no immediate plans for changes in the Theft Act.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, are we to understand from the noble Lord, on the assumption that the Question does correctly paraphrase the decision that was reached in the courts, that the unauthorised removal of a film from a cinema for the purpose of piracy is not an offence of some kind?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, indeed it is an offence. It is of course not for me to give a view on what the Court of Appeal decided. Their decision is fully reported in The Times Law Report of the 29th April. The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, will recall that the events to which Lord Lloyd's Question refers took place before the enactment in July 1983 of the Copyright (Amendment) Act. I am given to understand that had that Act been in force at that time no doubt a prosecution would have been brought under that Act, with its very much heavier penalties. However, it was not; and the courts decided in the manner in which they did, in so far as the particular charge was brought under the Theft Act.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, does not the Minister recognise that the events which are referred to in the Question add greatly to the distress currently being suffered by the film industry? Will the Minister appreciate that the mood within the film industry is one of great anxiety, and it is not helped by the current legislation before Parliament?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, has quite the wrong understanding. My understanding is that the film industry are particularly pleased with the effects that the 1983 legislation has had. I would again refer to Hansard of Friday last, in which the figures were quoted. If my memory serves me right, the number of infringements—that is, of piracy of film—has been reduced by some 60 per cent. as a result of that Act.
Regarding the noble Lord's second point, I am quite sure that the noble Lord will allow your Lordships' House to have the benefit of his thoughts on this matter tonight when we debate the Films Bill.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, will the noble Lord agree that if his answer means that, in his opinion, if this offence were now committed, a conviction would very likely result, then in that respect the film industry will be reassured?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I do not think I can add anything more to that which I have already said in this regard.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, while obviously the learned Lord Chief Justice is all knowing, is it not a fact that the provisions of the Copyright (Amendment) Act 1983 were not referred to him at the trial of this matter?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I cannot answer the noble Lord, but my understanding is that even if they were referred, the events took place before the enactment of the Copyright (Amendment) Act 1983. Therefore the case was heard under the Theft Act 1968.
Lord Mischon: My Lords, perhaps I may be allowed one moment. All I was saying was that when the learned Lord Chief Justice referred to the question of the possible disadvantages of the law at the moment, his attention was not, so far as I understand it, drawn to the fact of a later Act which made the current position rather better. That was my point.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I would not quarrel with the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. If that is his understanding, again, I would not quarrel. I have to say that I do not have an understanding one way or another of what was drawn to the noble and learned Lord's attention.
Lord Lloyd of Hampstead: My Lords, with great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, I would ask the noble Lord the Minister whether he is aware that the report of this case which has, so far as I know, yet appeared only in The Times, makes it quite clear that the noble and learned Lord Chief Justice was aware of the new Act and in fact expressly referred to it in his judgment.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I have the Law Report, as printed in The Times on 29th April, and looking quickly through in these few moments I catch a note of a date which would suggest to me that his attention was drawn to it.

Business
3.2 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon, my noble friend Lord Glenarthur will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on football grounds—fire and disturbances. That will be followed by my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth who, again with the leave of the House, will repeat a Statement on British Aerospace.
It may be for the convenience of the House if I also announce that the Committee stage of the Local Government Bill will be adjourned at approximately 7 p.m. for a short period and that during this adjournment the consideration of the Commons Reason for disagreeing to a Lords amendment to the Films Bill will be taken.

Durham City Council Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
Glensanda Harbour Order Confirmation Bill
Considered on Report.

Local Government Bill
3.5 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Elton): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Elton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]
Clause 21 [Review of administration of education in inner London]:
The Lord Bishop of London The Lord Bishop of London moved Amendment No. 101:
Page 15, line 18, leave out subsections (1) and (2) and insert—
("(1) The Secretary of State may before 31st March 1991 review the exercise by the Authority of its functions relating to education.").
The right reverend Prelate said: I beg to move Amendment No. 101 on the Marshalled List. I hope it will be convenient to the Committee if I also speak to Amendments Nos. 105 and 106, which are consequential to it.
Amendment No. 105: Page 15, line 32, leave out from ("section") to ("and") in line 34.
Amendment No. 106:line 36, leave out subsection (4).
The purpose of this amendment is to provide the Inner London Education Authority as constituted under the Bill with the necessary stability to enable it to discharge its functions and to deal with the additional responsibilities which it will have to undertake following the abolition of the GLC. I must confess that I find it extraordinary that the provisions of Clause 21 should be included in the Bill, as they seem to me to be contrary to the principles of good management and administration.
I speak as one who has had some experience in education and education administration, and who is now chairman of the Church of England Board of Education. As Bishop of London I have the opportunity to see at first hand the educational needs of London. I have a concern for all our schools in London, not just for the 82 primary and secondary schools which are Church schools.
I have spoken in this Chamber in support of the service provided by ILEA in trying to make provision for education often in the most adverse conditions and I shall not take your Lordships' time by repeating what I have said. But I should like to quote from a letter which I have just received from the head teacher of one of our Church primary schools in a particular deprived area. She writes:
"Stress and pressure from poverty and deprivation are very real here. Our multi-ethnic multi-faith Church of England school seeks to alleviate these conditions for all families and to provide a purposeful education in most difficult times for all children. The

895
support, expertise and backup services available from the authority to its schools is superb. Certain areas could be improved of course and some financial savings made, but that might be said of most organisations. I appreciate the help and support I receive from the authority in administering this school. We really need unity today in the diversity London presents".
It was a great relief when the Government modified their original proposals and decided to provide for an elected body to succeed the present authority. When we read the provisions of Clause 21 in the present Bill our feeling of reassurance was undermined, for two reasons: First, because we believe that the provisions for constant review militate against the satisfactory operation of that body; and, secondly, because the provisions of Clause 21(1) and (4) envisage a reopening of the question of a unitary authority for inner London. We had hoped that the question of a unitary authority had been settled by the Ministerial Committee under the noble Baroness, Lady Young, in 1981. Following its work the Minister said,
"The weight of educational opinion including voluntary bodies and the churches is that the problems of inner London call for a single authority of adequate size and of adequate resources to administer its schools as well as further and higher education and the careers services".
That decision was reflected in a statement of the present Secretary of State in 1983 when he announced that it would be a directly elected authority:
"The nature, scale and importance of the education service in inner London taken together justify a directly-elected authority in this special case. MPs and others involved in inner London were overwhelmingly in favour of a directly-elected authority. We have therefore been persuaded by their arguments".
In saying those words the Secretary of State, as I say, reaffirmed the principle of the unitary authority for inner London.
Clause 21 obliges the Secretary of State to review the authority's exercise of its function by March 1991, but leaves entirely unspecified the basis of the review. It empowers him to review the authority again at any time after 1991 and enables him to carry out decisions as a result of such reviews, including the break-up of the authority by laying an order in both Houses of Parliament. In other words, that is without further legislation, serious public debate, or the discerning of public opinion, which I would submit has played a very important part in arriving at the present situation.
It is not as though the authority has not already been looked at. For the last eight years, in the course of three successive Parliaments, the ILEA has been the subject of extensive external reviews. It has also conducted two internal reviews and it is of course always subject to the scrutiny of Her Majesty's inspectors. It might be thought that these provisions do not reflect very creditably upon what Her Majesty's inspectors are expected to do—and, in fact, do. Six months after an elected unitary authority was announced, this Bill was published with proposals for further legislative powers to review the authority. It is not immediately obvious why such explicit powers are sought with respect to one particular education authority. Any body constituted by statute is of course always subject to review in the light of its performance and of changing circumstances, in the sense that Parliament may at any time amend or repeal the legislation creating a body and defining its functions.
Looking ahead at the work of the new authority, what lies in store? First, it has to draw up a scheme for its education committee. Next it must attempt to reassemble the multitude of support services provided for the past 20 years by the GLC, and before that by the LCC; and that is no small task. Full technical services—architectural, engineering and valuation—will have to be established to sustain a stock of more than 3,000 buildings, many far from their prime.
Legal and clerking services will be required, as will scientific and other specialist advice currently available from the GLC. The central purchasing arrangements, through which the ILEA spent £43 million last year, and on which many other local education authorities depend, will have to be replaced. Financial and computing services, including the matter of the pay of 65,000 employees, must continue without interruption. Rate capping will continue to affect the authority as the Government, not content to rely on the provisions of the Rates Act, intend through the Local Government Bill to impose automatic rate capping. The Bill also provides for the Secretary of State to determine staffing levels and to make detailed administrative arrangements.
Meanwhile, the authority will continue to encounter the normal problems that face all LEAs. There is a new examination system to implement; major decisions loom on the future of 16 to 19 education; there are the consequences of the secondary school roll, which will decline by a further 18 per cent. between now and 1991, with all the attendant stress of contraction and redeployment; and London parents also expect to see the implementation of the recommendations for primary and secondary schools put forward in the Hargreaves and Thomas reports which the authority commissioned.
Then in 1990, just as the new ILEA will barely have got itself re-established as a free-standing authority, the Secretary of State will start his review. If the outcome of the review is favourable, then there is the possibility of the review cycle starting all over again. Surely this cannot be regarded as a reasonable and responsible way to treat the biggest and most complex local education authority.
Do your Lordships appreciate the amount of distraction and dislocation that results from such regular scrutiny of a major personal service? Do you understand the effect on the morale of all staff, including those in the classrooms? Would the Secretary of State tolerate a similar attitude by a local authority to one of its own schools, when, having perhaps withdrawn proposals for closure under Section 13, it then suddenly says, "Yes, we will let you go on, but we are immediately going to set up steps for reviewing you not just this year but possibly the year after and the year after that"? Surely the answer to all these questions must be, no.
The Government, in answer to critics of this clause, have relied on precedent and cite the Local Government Act 1963 which provided for a review of the new ILEA. However, 1985 is not a parallel situation to 1963. First, in 1963 a new authority was being set up. In 1985 there is an existing authority, as the Secretary of State has acknowledged in another place. Secondly, the 1963 Act proposed only one review of the authority, not the prospect of endless

897
reviews. It is worth noting that the Minister, when replying to the debate in another place on this clause at Report stage, did not seek to justify the subsequent reviews. He merely argued:
"I reiterate that the power of review to come into force by 1991 is right".
3.15 p.m.
The proposed review in this Bill goes much wider than the review envisaged in the 1963 Act. It enables the Secretary of State to transfer or divide to all or any of the inner London boroughs any education or non-education functions. Incidentally, I find it difficult to think of what are non-educational functions of an education authority, but I shall not dwell on that unduly. The proposals for review in this clause raise afresh the question of the unitary authority which, as I said, we hoped had been accepted; but here it is reopened. That is why the amendment to subsection (1) and also Amendment No. 106, to subsection (4), are so important, because they remove this element in the review; namely, the prospect that the authority will actually be dismembered.
A further argument advanced by the Government on this clause is that a review had been promised, both in the White Paper and when the announcement of direct elections was made. Even given that commitment, there seems no reason why the Government should take the view that the review should be a duty rather than a power and that a series of reviews is called for. Amendment No. 101 does not say that there should be no review; it gives the Secretary of State the power to conduct it, if he deems it right.
The prospect of a series of endless, even continuous, reviews would be demoralising and disruptive. It inevitably involves additional expense and it is difficult to reconcile these provisions with the repeated expressed desire of the Government to control expenditure on education. The Government have decided in favour of a unitary elected authority. In the interests of education in the inner London area, which I would remind your Lordships contains 10 of the 13 most deprived areas listed by the Department of the Environment, I ask your Lordships to give it a proper chance to be able to settle down and to do its work by voting for this amendment and for Amendments Nos. 105 and 106. I beg to move.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): If this amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 102, 103 or 104.
Lord Kilmarnock: When the Secretary of State accepted the principle of an elected body for inner London education, many of us rejoiced that the evident wishes of Londoners had prevailed and that a proper vehicle was on offer for giving them effect. The publication of the Bill, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London has said, dispelled that illusion, for what is proposed here is subject to so many controls and restrictions that the new body will be little more than an agency of central Government disguised under a democratic facade.
One can only conclude that the Secretary of State is taking these draconian powers because he fears that he
898
will be landed with an elected body not to his political taste. This could have been avoided if the Government, aided and abetted by the Labour Party, had not voted on Thursday night against the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, to stipulate proportional representation for elections to the ILEA. I believe that a great opportunity was missed there to get a fair, balanced, representative and responsible authority and to take the politics out of education.
Despite the blindness of the Government and of most if not all of the Labour Party to the obvious virtues of proportional representation, particularly in this instance, I have put my name to this series of amendments because I believe that this is a bad clause. It is bad for parents, it is bad for teachers and it is bad for children. The right reverend Prelate has advanced many of the reasons why this is so, and I agree with all of what he said. The Government will no doubt argue that a five-year review period was built into the 1963 Act but this, as the right reverend Prelate has said, is not a similar situation.
There is now an effective existing authority although it is nominally a sub-committee of the GLC. Its administrative structure already exists and it has a great deal to get on with without constantly looking over its shoulder at Big Brother. It has the Hargreaves Report on secondary education to work on, as the right reverend Prelate said—that was very much welcomed by the Secretary of State—and the Thomas Report on primary education. I believe I am right in saying that Mark Carlisle, when he was Secretary of State for Education, was against statutory reviews for ILEA, also on educational grounds.
There will also be a new national examinations system to take on board and crucial decisions to be taken on provision for 16-to 19-year-olds. A statutory review within five years, followed by an endless series of rolling reviews, can be only a distraction and a hindrance to getting on with the job. It is also bad for teachers' and staff morale, which is already pretty low.
Finally, it is unnecessary. Every body created by statute is subject to the scrutiny of Parliament; and the Government can at any time repeal legislation or introduce amending legislation if they feel that an authority is getting out of hand or going off the rails. The only question that really matters here is: are the interests of the children of inner London and their parents going to be well served or not by this clause? I would say, definitely not. For that reason, I and my noble friends strongly support these amendments.
As a number of amendments have been grouped together I should just like to say a word about Amendment No. 107B, which is designed to clarify the Secretary of State's power under Clause 21. Not only is this a bad clause for the educational reasons already mentioned but it is also bad because—I have taken counsel's advice on this—it is open to differing constructions in a court of law. At Second Reading I asked the noble Viscount the Leader of the House to clarify what would be the position of an elected ILEA shorn of all or virtually all of its powers and functions. Not unsurprisingly—I make no complaint about this—in answering a debate with more than 50 speakers, the noble Viscount was unable to answer my question which I therefore have to ask again. Could

899
the elected body be dissolved and future elections be cancelled merely by order? Is that the intention of the Bill? Nothing is said in Clause 18 about this and I suggest that Clause 21 is ambiguous on the point. That may be bad drafting or it may be deliberate fudging; either way, it is not good enough for important primary legislation.
One could, for example, envisage a case in which parents or governors brought a case against the Secretary of State for the dissolution of the Inner London Education Authority. The judge might rule that the Secretary of State's right to transfer functions also gave him the power under Clause 21(6) to wind up a functionless ILEA entirely, without further ado; or he might rule that having set up an elected body and made no explicit provision for its demise, he did not have the power under the Bill to abolish that body entirely and that he could not therefore after a review take away all of its functions without coming back to Parliament. I do not know, but we have a right to know the Government's interpretation of the Secretary of State's powers. The Government themselves in their own interests have to be clear about their own powers in case they find themselves in the dock. My amendment would clarify this dubious area and would make it quite clear to everyone concerned that, before depriving ILEA of all its functions and abolishing elections, the Secretary of State would have to come back to Parliament with amending legislation, as of course he should do.
It would surely be intolerable to your Lordships' Committee that an elected body should be abolished merely by an affirmative instrument on which your Lordships would by long established convention have no vote. If there is an element of doubt, as I strongly suspect there is, about the construction of the clause the Government should withdraw it both on these grounds and on the educational grounds that have already been argued. I hope that the noble Lord will be able to tell us that the Government will do just that.
Baroness Serota: I should perhaps preface my strong support for these amendments by declaring a personal interest in a secure and stable future for the ILEA in that I have four grandchildren currently being educated at an ILEA primary school and I myself am a product of the London education service. But perhaps more important and relevant to the issues which the Committee currently has under consideration is my direct experience of the nature, scale and complexity of the education service in inner London—ranging as it does from nursery schools and nursery classes through primary and secondary schools to further and higher education—as a result of my membership of the LCC Education Committee continuously over a period of some 13 years, followed by a further period of three years as vice chairman of the Education Committee of the Inner London Education Authority when it was first established in 1963.
Having lived through the upheaval of the reorganisation of London government in 1963—the creation of the GLC and of the ILEA in particular—I am only too well aware (and there are several noble Lords present today who share this experience) of the
900
unsettling and at times traumatic effect of major reorganisations and reviews for everyone involved in providing and using local government services. Those first three years of the ILEA's existence were difficult enough and the prospect of a further review by 1970 which was provided in the 1963 Act, as the right reverend Prelate has just said, hanging over the service made for even greater insecurity and anxiety which was only dispelled when in 1967 the Local Government (Termination of Reviews) Act repealed the review provision.
However, in spite of all that experience the Bill as at present drafted goes even further in that, as at present drafted, the statute will provide for ongoing and seemingly endless reviews at any time covering all or part of the ILEA services and area without further primary legislation. As such, it can act only as a permanent threat to the unified service which two Governments—two Conservative Governments, I may add—have decided in the past 20 years should remain a unified directly elected service as a result of overwhelming public and informed support.
Such a constant threat will inevitably damage the quality of the educational opportunity offered to the children, to their parents and to students. It will destroy its stability, it will hinder long-term planning, it will certainly hinder staff recruitment and, above all, I believe that it will unsettle the existing staff. All concerned with the provision of the education service know that in the last resort it is the quality of staff at all levels that determines the quality of any service.
The roots and the branches of the London educational service have grown continuously together over the past 115 years; indeed, ever since the London School Board was set out in 1870. Any gardener will tell you that when you start cutting the roots and branches of, say, a mature oak and replace it with some 12 saplings, you destroy the environment and you certainly destroy a tree which will take another 100 years to replace. Some 3,500 London schoolchildren opt to attend secondary schools in boroughs outside their home areas when they transfer to secondary education. The mind certainly boggles at the thought, let alone the cost, of 12 sets of administrative arrangements which will be needed merely for claiming and making payments for children and students who are being educated in boroughs other than in their home areas if secondary education were ever to be devolved as a borough responsibility.
I could give the Committee many more practical examples in terms of specialist services which can only be provided effectively and economically on a London-wide basis, epecially in regard to the education of children with handicaps. Many Members of this House and indeed of this Committee have shown on numerous occasions their special concern for the handicapped, and particularly for the needs of handicapped children. There are 30 per cent. more handicapped children in inner London than nationally, and for those whose needs cannot yet be met in their local schools ILEA provides some 100 special schools to cater for the whole range of handicap: autism, mental handicap, physical handicap, maladjusted children, the partially sighted, and those with partial hearing. Indeed, some 30 of them are boarding schools not even located in London

901
itself. I shall not detain the Committee further by detailing other examples of the unsettling effects of the present provisions of Clause 21 and the overwhelming case for the amendments which the right reverend Prelate so ably moved a few moments ago.
3.30 p.m.
After all the experience of the past 20 years, it is very unlikely that any objective review would come up with a different decision from all the previous decisions of which the Government have already taken full note. Nor are the amendments which are before the Committee today wrecking amendments; and nor do they take the heart out of this Bill—to use two phrases which the supporters of this Bill have recurred frequently in relation to a number of amendments which have been moved and voted upon in this Chamber over the past weeks as we have laboured through the Committee stage.
Now that the Government have been fully convinced of the case for retaining a unified education service in inner London, I urge them and the whole Committee to accept the group of amendments moved by the right reverend Prelate and thereby remove the sword of Damocles which will otherwise hang perpetually over the head of one of the greatest education authorities in this country.
Lord Beloff: Perhaps I may at this point explain why some people who, like myself, were in favour of an elected ILEA replacing the present structure are nevertheless favourable to the proposals in the Bill and find it impossible to support Amendment No. 101. When we argued the case for an elected ILEA rather than some kind of joint board, we took on board the view, which has been powerfully expressed by the noble Baroness, that there are great practical considerations which would make the maintenance of a central focus for inner London's education desirable, all other considerations being equal.
What is important is the proviso. If the other considerations are not equal—that is to say, if one came to the conclusion that the damage done to the education of children of all or part of inner London was greater than the advantages to be derived from a single authority—one would have to look at this matter again.
The admiration for the work of the ILEA which has been expressed by the right reverend Prelate—and I bow to his authority in these matters—is not widely and certainly not universally accepted in the education world, when its performance is compared with authorities which also have responsibilities for difficult and deprived areas, for ethnic minorities and so forth. On the contrary, some of us believe that the present educational philosophy of ILEA is extremely detrimental in particular to children in categories of that kind, and that a philosophy which places more emphasis upon notions of sexism, racism and the other bees which circulate in Mrs. Francis Morrell's all-too capacious bonnet, is not a philosophy that is going to help the young people of inner London become full citizens, whatever their ethnic origin or home deprivation.
We therefore hoped, and still hope, that the process of direct election—and I pointed this out when dealing
902
with the amendment on proportional representation moved when this Committee last sat—would produce not a monopoly of a single party or a monopoly of three parties but a proper representation of educational interests, both of the profession and of the parents, who are, in the last resort, the proper judges.
We felt that an elected body of that kind, which would not be connected to local government in general and which would not be connected through party ties to any particular version of educational philosophy but which would look at the scene as it is and do its best for the education of the children, would be the best resort. After all, one has only to pick up any daily newspaper on almost any day of the week to read of some new example of a new bee in the ILEA bonnet. There was the prohibition against little boys in elementary schools playing in football competitions; the desire, perhaps to create a nation of cissies. This is only the latest of many such examples. There are more serious examples than this. There is a denigration of intellectual effort and achievement. I know many people teaching in inner London schools who feel that the weight of the authority is against what they are trying to do for the chidren in their care.
So what does the amendment do? It allows or makes mandatory after a period of years a review of the situation to see whether the hopes that we had in a new, directly-elected body have been justified or whether the new body is merely a carbon copy of the old. The ILEA is being put on probation, and probation is usually reckoned a proper method of dealing with an offender. If the ILEA succeeds in the next five years, the Secretary of State's review can be perfunctory and may consist entirely of laudatory comments on the authority's achievements. But if the ILEA has not justified a case for maintaining it, it will, alas, have to be looked at again very seriously.
I fear that there is here a clash of interests. There are boroughs which probably could make a better job than the ILEA does of the education of their own children, although there are obviously considerable problems in relation to higher and further education, and so on. But in relation to schools, that is probably the case. That was the case which was argued for the devolution of this power to individual boroughs. If that were done, it might be that the children in the remaining boroughs would be even worse off than they are at present. There is a difficult question here to resolve. It would be resolved far better if the new ILEA did its work properly; and all of us must hope that this experiment with a directly-elected authority will prove to be something better than the ILEA's performance over the past few years.
Lord Alexander of Potterhill: I rise to support this amendment very strongly. It may be of interest to the Committee to recognise, first, that this is the creation of an ad hoc local education authority, the first in England. I started my career serving an ad hoc local education authority in Scotland. While I was still serving that authority, the ad hoc authority was abolished and Scotland was brought into line with England—always an unfortunate thing to happen. That is why I have spent my life coming to England—to try to get England's education service up to the standard that is to be found in Scotland. But that

903
change brought the education committee under the county authority, and two things happened. First, the quality of the personnel dropped very badly; and, secondly, education became less important than party politics.
If I shared the views of the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, I would support the amendment. As he said, an ad hoc local education authority has the prospect of people being elected because of their concern and interest in education rather than their commitment to party politics. All experience in Scotland until 1929 confirms that that is the most likely thing to happen. If that happens and at the end of five years there is a review—which I think should be optional; the Secretary of State can see whether he thinks it necessary—why on earth is there provision thereafter to dismember the authority, to cut off a leg this year and an arm next year, and to take away primary or secondary schools? This makes administration impossible. The doctrine of the Department of Education and Science traditionally is the seamless garment of education. That is what would be destroyed.
I very much hope that this experiment will succeed. I believe that it will succeed if your Lordships' House and the Government show confidence in the experiment, in the belief that an ad hoc local education authority offers a new prospect to the education service. For myself, I hope it might be an example that will be followed throughout the country, because I believe that ad hoc local education authorities will provide a better service than under the present arrangements. Therefore, I support the amendment in that faith and I very much hope that the Committee will accept it. Otherwise, the Government are virtually saying to the country, "We made a decision, but we have so little faith in our decision that we are making provision to change our minds, not only if we are satisfied to leave the system there but also to take it apart piece by piece because we have no faith in our decision."
Lord Stewart of Fulham: I think it is worthwhile looking at the reason why a unitary system of education in inner London has persisted ever since 1870. If one has an education authority that is very small, it is not able to make a variety of provision either, as my noble friend Baroness Serota suggested, for handicapped children or for the very varying demands not only of children but also of adults who use the education service for unusual pieces of knowledge—for the study of languages which only a few people want to study. If the education authority is too small, it cannot make that degree of variety of provision, but if the education authority is too large, it might be difficult for its members to know the whole area for which they are supposed, collectively, to be responsible.
The particular position of London was that one could have a large population in an easily manageable area. One had a population which now means, I believe, about 300,000 schoolchildren, about a quarter of a million doing further education and another quarter of a million adults pursuing evening education. Making provision on that scale enables the
904
authority to provide variety in every sphere. At the same time, because of the geography and population of London all this can be done in an area through which one can travel by public transport in half an hour. That is to say, it is a manageable area from the authority's point of view.
3.45 p.m.
These facts, or something like them, have always been so and that is why, in the first instance, the London School Board was set up as a single authority for that area, why that responsibility was tansferred to the education committee of the London County Council and why, finally, when the London Government Act was passed some 20 years ago the unitary system was preserved. However, it was not preserved without argument. The first draft of the London Government Act 1963 provided for exactly what this clause seems to have in mind—the cutting up of the education system among the 12 boroughs.
The Government had to face not only the Opposition in Parliament but a real outburst of opinion from parents, the public and the teaching profession. The meetings held in schools to protest against the dismemberment of the London education service were packed to the doors and it was not surprising that the Government changed their minds and preserved the unitary system by creating ILEA. Therefore, the decision that there ought to be a unitary system is not something that has arisen casually. It has arisen for solid education reasons and has persisted through all kinds of political storms.
It is noteworthy that in this clause the purpose of review seems to be that it might enable the Secretary of State, or give him colour, to introduce directives which would cut off pieces of the education system. As I and other speakers have said, all the evidence of the past is against that.
I am very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, spoke because it provides us with what we have been lacking for some little while—something approaching a reason for the harrassing of ILEA by a series of reviews which could go on year after year. As I understand the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, he welcomed the idea of a directly-elected authority because he felt that it would produce an authority whose philosophy would be more agreeable to him than the present philosophy of ILEA. That may be so, but I trust that we do not approach local government by saying, "I am going to arrange the authorities on the map, their size and their powers with a view to them producing my political philosophy" or, to put it more crudely, "people who accept my party's views on politics."
This is what we have to face. After all, who in the end ought to be the judges of what should be the philosophy and the practice of an education authority, or any other local authority? Surely it should be the citizens who pay the authority's rates and who vote for its members, and the parents of the children. They will be able to express their opinion on the working of ILEA in the ordinary process of election. To hear the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, one would have thought that ILEA could go its own way with whatever philosophy it chose to adopt without the public having any power over the matter.
However, before a review by the Secretary of State would come along under this Bill—unless, of course, the Secretary of State hurried the review forward to a point where it really would not be much use—there would have been an election for ILEA. If the parents—and they, after all, are entitled to a good deal of opinion on this—are dissatisfied with the way ILEA is doing its work, they can get rid of those members of ILEA and put in others who are more to their liking. That is how local government is meant to work, not with central Government stretching out a hand and gazing down a telescope at local authorities continually to see how they are getting on with their work. Let those judgments be made by the people who ought to make them; in this case, the citizens and the parents.
We must notice not only these reviews but also the matters to which the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London referred, the other burdens that are being imposed on ILEA: the ratecapping, the control of manpower, and the power not only to have one review but to go on doing so, apparently, as often as the Secretary of State pleases. Why should London alone of all local authorities be treated in this way? It can be justified only if London could be arraigned, as the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, wanted to arraign it, as an offender. That is to say, he says let us start the debate on the assumption that ILEA is not doing its work properly. All I can say is that the citizens of London do not think that.
The fact that someone can dig out a paragraph from a newspaper criticising the way that ILEA does its work is of no value at all. Long before ILEA, when there was the LCC, there were always paragraphs, particularly in the London evening papers, suggesting that the authority was not doing its work properly; but they persistently failed to persuade the people of London of that view. There is really no reason why we should accept such a criticism now. We have here a clause for which there is no real justification, for which there is no parallel, which could do great harm to ILEA and which we should do well to remove from the Bill.
Lord Alport: Although my name is not with this amendment, it is with subsequent amendments along the same lines, and so perhaps I may have an opportunity for a few moments to occupy the Committee's time to speak in support of the amendment proposed by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London. In the last Session when we were discussing, I think it was, the paving Bill, I tried to express my concern that the arrangements being made for the future of education in London should not in any way affect adversely the efficient administration, and consequently the educational welfare, of the capital's 300,000 children. My noble friend the Leader of the House on that occasion did his best to meet the representations along those lines which were made by members of this House of all parties, and we were extremely grateful to him. I should like to say, if I may, to my noble friend the Minister that I very much hope that he will show the same flexibility in his approach to this subject as his noble leader did on that occasion. This is not a matter of party politics in any way but it is something which closely concerns not only the
906
welfare of children but the interests of parents throughout the capital city.
This afternoon I return to the same theme. As I explained on the previous occasion, I do so on the basis of such knowledge as I have of a school which in some ways encapsulates the major social and educational problems of education in inner London—ethnic, social and environmental problems. I shall not repeat my previous arguments except to emphasise to your Lordships the importance, as has been stated by previous speakers, to the whole body of teachers in London schools, governors, and of course pupils and parents, of administrative stability and continuity, particularly at this present time when improvements in the standards of education within the area are urgently required and are not only planned but being put into operation.
It is difficult not to assume, as other speakers have done, from the wording of the clause that its object is to afford the Secretary of State an opportunity in five years' time or less to abolish ILEA and revert to the previous intention to divide its responsibilities among the boroughs. As the noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham, said, that is contrary to the opinions given by experts over perhaps 50, 60 or 70 years.
I must say that I was greatly disturbed by the contribution made by my noble friend Lord Beloff. This is not a matter of the philosophy of education. That is not the issue before us at the present moment. He talked about the best for the education of the children—provided, as the noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham, said, it is along the lines which he and others who think like him approve. I felt that that surely had an underlying taste, so to speak, of totalitarianism. It would be the Government of the day—not the elected representatives of ILEA, not the parents, not anyone except the Secretary of State representing the party political views of the Government of the day. I would remind some of my noble friends on this side of the Chamber, if I may do so without being too controversial, that the Government of the day before the end of this century or the middle of the next century may not by any means be the sort of Government of which they would approve. To establish situations which could be exploited by our successors, making precedents which will come back to our disadvantage at a future time, is one of the less wise things for any politicial party or any Government to do.
Most of us are gardeners. There is always a temptation to dig up a plant to see how it is growing. I am not a very good gardener and I do not know much about it; but I know very well that when I get impatient with a plant and dig it up it is never as good subsequently as I had hoped that it would be. ILEA, without the support of the GLC infrastructure, will be to all intents and purposes something new, having to equip itself with the many important services for which it at present relies on the existing central authority. If things are going all right administratively, leaving aside the question of educational philosophy, why dig it up? Why have an inquiry with all the expense and wasted effort which that would entail? But if things are not going all right, the Secretary of State has the power under this amendment—indeed, I think

907
that he has the power in any case—to hold an inquiry at any time that he thinks necessary.
I cannot understand why the Bill seeks to make an inquiry mandatory before the end of five years unless the widespread suspicion that the Government intend at the earliest date possible to abolish ILEA is true. If it is untrue, and I hope to goodness that it is, surely there is no reason why my noble friend and the Government should not accept the amendment and set the suspicions which are generally felt at rest both in the interests of the Government and in the interests of education in London during the years ahead.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: The noble Baroness, Lady Serota, speaks from a wealth of experience. Certainly none of the interests that she has declared in any way affect the value of her opinion. I also take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham—the elective point. But I would oppose this amendment not for all the reasons given by my noble friend Lord Beloff but because in the main the boroughs could make a better job of it. That, I appreciate, is a matter of opinion, and that surely is the crucial matter at the heart of our decision. It is perfectly legitimate to hold one opinion or the other without indulging in any form of rancour in expressing it. It is for that reason that I would urge your Lordships to oppose this amendment.
I find myself in some difficulty because the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London moved Amendment No. 101 and spoke to Amendments Nos. 105 and 106, and I find it difficult to deal with the ILEA group of amendments without dealing with them as a whole, and so in a sense this takes in Amendment No. 107, to which the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock spoke, and runs up to Amendment No. 109. With the leave of your Lordships, it is on that basis that I seek briefly to address the Committee.
I totally take the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Serota. This is not assuredly a wrecking amendment. It does not strike at the heart of the Bill. The position of ILEA does not affect anything else in the Bill and falls to be resolved on its own merits. It is, as one might put it, a one-off situation.
However, the concept of the Bill is to devolve power to the boroughs and to leave them to make the decisions. If, after five years, very substantial changes are required, such as abolition, which was mentioned just now by my noble friend Lord Alport, if that were to happen, that would have to be a matter for primary legislation. One cannot set education, or indeed anything, in a mould—
Baroness David: Perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to say this. I think that is not so, under the Bill as it stands at the moment.
4 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: With the greatest respect to the noble Baroness, as I see it, whatever should be the interpretation of the Bill, as a matter of construction as it stands—and I do not approach this on the basis that I fear the government of another party; I am saying this on the basis of any government—no
908
government could abolish the ILEA without introducing primary legislation.
The Lord Bishop of London: Will the noble Lord give way? If it be as he says, then what is the point of including the words in the clause which refer to all the functions being capable of being devolved to the boroughs? What is left? A body without any functions. It may be that technically it would still exist but I cannot conceive what it would do.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Perhaps I may assist the right reverend Prelate. With deference to him, as I see it, much depends on what is involved in the words, "transferred or divided" which appear in Clause 21. If that involves a very substantial change, such as abolition, I cannot conceive that that could be introduced other than by primary legislation. If it does not, then the transfer or division would fall within the ambit of the Bill and could be—and indeed would be—dealt with by the mandatory duty of the Secretary of State under Clause 21.
This amendment seeks to remove the power of the Secretary of State to make an affirmative order under Clause 21 and substitute for that mandatory duty this permissive power. I take the point mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady David, that to some degree transfer or division may import an ambiguity. However, I should have thought that in any circumstances where abolition were to be even contemplated, one would have to resort to primary legislation.
As the Bill stands, it is, broadly speaking, effective, subject to the qualification which I have conceded. If the boroughs within the ambit of devolved power cannot agree, then the mandatory reserve power ought to be implemented. It is wholly necessary, within the scope of the Bill as at present conceived, to have the mandatory review by the Secretary of State.
An affirmative order through the usual channels can always be effectively debated and one returns to the crucial point, which is a matter of opinion and a matter of judgment. Will the job be better done by the boroughs or by the centralised institution? Although I defer to experience of noble Lords who take a contrary view, I always feel that the smaller unit, especially in education, is preferable. For that reason, I shall oppose the amendment.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: I think that this is the first time on the Committee stage that I have presumed to come in on anything to do with London. I have come in on matters concerning the metropolitan counties because I have had some experience of them and I am entitled to express a view on them. However, the reason I now come in on this matter is because I think there is a parliamentary consideration which has been raised.
The right reverend Prelate and the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, made the point that what is now in the Bill is unnecessary because the powers are already there; there are already the powers, so there is no need for this. Then they went on to find all kinds of good reasons for saying that things as they now stand are likely to be better. They paid great tribute to the standard and the quality of the things that are now emerging. Those were the two arguments.

909
In relation to the first point, if they are saying that the power is already there and then they go on to say how wonderful it is as it now stands, are they suggesting that it will be detrimental to good educational facilities in the future because the power will already be there, quite apart from this clause in the Bill? It is suggested by the noble Lord on the Cross-Benches that the general quality of the teachers and the general organisation will be affected if there is a fear that the position might be changed. That is what I gather the noble Lord said. He said that some certainty has to be given that things will continue, otherwise the uncertainty means that the teachers are less likely to concentrate on doing the right thing or to continue doing what they want. If there is any substance at all in that point, the very existence of the powers, which it has been admitted are already there, makes it rather surprising that they can use both arguments.
Lord Alexander of Potterhill: May I interrupt the noble Lord? With respect, I do not think that at any point in my speech I said what the noble Lord is suggesting that I said. What I said was this. The policy of the Department of Education and Science has consistently been a seamless garment. In other words, education from infants to further education should be administered as one. I made no reference to the teachers.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: Thank you very much. I should not at all want to misrepresent the noble Lord. It may well be that his explanation of his first words will satisfy many members of the Committee. If I may say so, it does not altogether satisfy me because I received the impression that the whole point of his contribution was that one is more likely to obtain better results if there is certainty, if the knowledge that they are stabilised and firm, is there.
Lord Alexander of Potterhill: No, I think one is more likely to obtain results if there is an ad hoc educational authority; in other words, people elected for education and not for other purposes of local government.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: Yes, I accept that and I am rather inclined to agree with it. That is why I adhere to what is in the Bill. What the Bill is saying is that although we have had a general look at all other facets of government, we have preserved for the time being the ILEA, which would seem to be what the noble Lord wants.
However, then the Government have to say this because it is true. No one can say for a moment that ILEA has been free from controversy. I do not think that any member of the Committee would be prepared to say that everybody likely to be affected by it are happy about the way ILEA has operated in the past. The general indications we receive from speeches and from general moods that are made public are that there is some doubt in the minds of many as to whether we will be right in the future. Therefore, as I see it, what this Bill is doing is this, and this is why, in parliamentary terms, I accept it rather than the amendment. The Bill is saying that we are setting up ILEA again, despite the present controversy over other areas of local government, but there are certain
910
doubts, based upon various well-based experiences. My noble friend Lord Beloff was quite right to outline all kinds of matters which have caused considerable disquiet in many people's minds. If that kind of situation is repeated, there may well be a strong push to have the matter looked at.
Where the Bill as it stands has a great deal of strength is this. The people who from now on will be responsible for framing and organising the education for London will know that they will have to pass a certain test. They will have to pass the test five years from now or before that as to whether they have taken a route likely to create greater support for it than the route they have often taken in the past. I believe the very uncertainty which noble Lords are complaining about may well be the thing that would make [LEA much better than it would be if it had the near certainty that it is not likely to be put under the microscope. That is a pragmatic and very sensible way of looking at it, and it was brought out clearly by my noble friend Lord Alport, who gave us a graphic description.
I should not have thought that anyone needed to be told that if you dig up a plant and keep on digging it up to have a look at it, you will kill it; anybody knows that. When you look at a plant in your garden you do not look at it with the idea of digging it up but to see if it has greenfly and whether you can put on some spray that will remove the greenfly and allow the plant to be so much stronger and better as a consequence.
If I may say so, nor was I very disturbed at the threat of my noble friend as to what a future government might do. If, as he said, we leave the Bill as it is, there is a great risk as a consequence that other governments may do all sorts of things we do not like. I do not believe it needs this Bill or any other to take away from me fears of what other governments may do. Whether or not we have this Bill, other governments, with all the mandates that they can have, will do what they want, irrespective of this Bill. That is what elections are all about. If any government knew that they had not to pass the test of being examined every five years or less, the things they do may often be more horrible than they are now.
Although I am not an expert on how it affects London on day-to-day educational matters, from the point of view of parliamentary procedure and the general effect on the nation, and looking at it from a common-sense point of view, I think that the Bill as it stands is more likely to produce the sort of ILEA we would like than if it were left with the sort of freedoms which so often have been abused in the past. For that reason I can see that the fear—and there is a fear—of being found out may be one of the things which will cause the Government to do things which would not make them worry about being found out. I once saw on a calendar the words: "One of the advantages of speaking the truth is that you do not have to remember what you have said". I have always remembered that. In this instance, one of the advantages of knowing you might be looked at is as good a reason as I know for making it more certain that you will try to do what is right.
The noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham, brought up the point that my noble friend Lord Beloff wanted to preserve the Bill as it was because the ILEA as it is

911
and as it may be did not fit into his political considerations. On that matter, one ought to be fair. Maybe some of us can say that the reason the noble Lord, Lord Stewart, likes the Bill as it is now in regard to ILEA is that the political things which flow from it fit in with what he considers to be right. This is as strong on one side as on the other, but the fact that it might be examined under mandate is more likely to make it not do things which would make you bother, whatever your politics, that there would be anything very damaging arising from the examination which this Bill insists be taken within the five years.
4.15 p.m.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): I should like to say a few words in support of the amendment. I shall be extremely brief, as I speak as a total layman. It seems to me to be unnecessary to make the first review a duty rather than an option and to provide for further reviews when the Inner London Education Authority has been the subject of several external reviews in the last few years, as well as having set up three independent reviews of its own position. The uncertainty created by the possibility of breakup or transfer in functions cannot make long-term planning easy, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London said so eloquently when moving the amendment.
I am concerned as to what will be the future for the child with special educational needs, something which the noble Baroness, Lady Serota, has already mentioned. We should now be moving towards a system of integrated education. The Education Act 1981 made this possible but not probable in that it allowed, but in no way compelled or even encouraged, local education authorities to educate children with special educational needs in ordinary schools. In any case, the change would be gradual. Always there will be a need for a mixture of provision of special schools, special units within ordinary schools, special classes alongside ordinary classes into and out of which children move, and classes in ordinary schools which children with special educational needs will attend full time.
This last year has been critically important in relation to the thinking of the ILEA on special education. The Fish Committee has been extremely receptive to forward thinking ideas, and it is no exaggeration to say that no other education authority is currently reviewing special education in its area to this degree. The next few years will be very important. If real progress is to be made towards integrated education and if children with special educational needs are to be given the opportunity of developing to their maximum potential, this will not come about in an atmosphere of unease and instability. This is why I support this amendment.
Baroness David: There is no doubt about where the weight of the argument has been in the debate on this amendment so ably moved by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London, who really said everything that needed to be said about it. I think that perhaps one could disregard the rather extraordinary outburst of the noble Lord, Lord Beloff. If I may say so, I think the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway,
912
was extremely ill-informed, which is not usually the case. For one thing, the noble Lord said it was a matter of opinion or judgment that the boroughs could take on the educational commitment. He did not appear to know that there have been a great many reviews—
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I am very much obliged to the noble Baroness, Lady David, for giving way. With respect, I did not say that; and if I did say it, I did not mean to say it. I do not think I said it. We can see tomorrow what I did say. I shall not take up time now. The point was which could do it better—whether it could be done better under the amendment as proposed or under the Bill, "it" being education. That is what I was saying.
Baroness David: We shall be able to look tomorrow. I disagree very much with the noble Lord's reading of the Bill about primary legislation needing to be brought to Parliament before the ILEA can really be abolished or broken up entirely. I understand I have the support of the right reverend Prelate on that. We shall be interested to hear what the Government have to say in reply.
All we were asking for in the groups of amendments to Clause 21 is that the Inner London Education Authority should be treated in exactly the same way as any other local education authority. It should not have to be subject to this constant review. It is impossible for officers, with all their new responsibilities, the new set up without the back up of the Greater London Council, to go about their task if they are having to look over their shoulders the whole time and think about what the effect will be of what they are doing, and thinking the Secretary of State is looking at them the whole time. We are not going all that far in this amendment. We are asking that the review should be permissive, not mandatory. That seems to me to be not a great deal to ask.
I hope very much that in this case the Government can show some flexibility and perhaps agree with this amendment, which does not do any harm at all to the Bill and could do a great deal of good to the education service in London. I hope that all noble Lords in this Committee will be thinking today of the 291,000 children who are being educated in over 1,000 schools in the Inner London Education Authority. What we are doing today may have an effect on the way their education is provided in the next five years. I would ask very simply for the Government to be flexible and to think primarily of that education service and how best it can be provided with the least upset and interference in the next five years.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Arts (The Earl of Gowrie): I would certainly hope to echo the noble Baroness Lady David in expressing concern for the 291,000 children in London, not least that none of them will suffer during the present teachers' dispute. I should also like to join with her in congratulating the right reverend Prelate on the way that he moved the amendment. I could not help but recognise—he will not in any way mind this—that he was using whole phrases from a recent article by the education officer for ILEA, Dr. William Stubbs. However, if a bishop may speak to a brief, so may a Minister. We are together on that.

913
I have listened with great interest to a very vivid and interesting, if perhaps a little complex, debate. I have tried to unravel for my own mind, and I hope for the benefit of the Committee, the main strands of the debate. It seems to me that three main strands have emerged. First, it has been argued that Clause 21 should include only a permissive power and not a statutory requirement to conduct a review of the new ILEA. That was the point made by the noble Baroness just now.
Why do the Government wish for a statutory review? The short answer is common prudence. The clause requires this new, indeed novel, structure for the administration of education in inner London to be examined critically after a reasonable period of time—after five years. A similar provision for a mandatory review was included when the existing ILEA was established by the London Government Act in 1963. The provision was never used because it was repealed in 1967. Our view is that, had the review taken place, we might have been spared much controversy in the past few years over the right structure for education in inner London. The White Paper made clear that the Government consider that a unitary education service administered by a single authority offers at present the best prospect of meeting the educational needs of inner London and of improving the standards and cost effectiveness of the service. Here, the Government stand four square with what the right reverend Prelate said. We stand by that judgment. We stand by it in expecting what is reasonable for us to expect—that the new authority should vindicate our judgment and our confidence. But the new ILEA will be responsible for very substantial sums of ratepayers' money. And the Government have an obligation to monitor its use of this money.
A sensible new ILEA which lives up to reasonable expectations that it should concern itself wholly with educational matters has nothing to fear from a statutory review. But the provision for a statutory review recognises the very widespread unease that has been felt about ILEA in recent years. This was the nub of the point made by my noble friend Lord HarmarNicholls. A statutory review also recognises the Government's duty to see that the new authority fulfils its functions within its means, as my noble friend Lord Beloff argued most eloquently. If it does so, both the noble Baroness, Lady Serota, and the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth) can be confident that there will be no need for any anxiety or insecurity over the watching brief which this clause provides. I would say to the noble Baroness, Lady Scrota, that the whole point, as I, perhaps imperfectly, remember it, of the story of the Sword of Damocles is that, as a result of the sword, Damocles became a more sensible and realistic fellow than he looked like becoming. It seems to me simply not good enough to argue, as my noble friend Lord Alport argued in response to my noble friend Lord Beloff, that the latter was trying to impose his or my politics on ILEA. That misses the point of the argument of my noble friend Lord Beloff when he showed that he believed, as I do, that ILEA should only very tenuously be a political body at all.
The second strand of the debate has questioned whether, even if there is a need for an initial review, there should really be provision for a second or
914
subsequent reviews. That provision is intended to equip the Government to deal expeditiously with the need that may arise over time to make adjustments to the new structure which, after all, as many speakers have recognised, is an untried one. But the suggestion that the Government could use this power to influence ILEA's day-to-day running of education in London is surely absurd. Overall structures cannot be used effectively to respond to short term issues. The clause requires that a review should be carried out, a report on it then laid before Parliament and the approval of both Houses obtained before any reallocation of functions could be effected. This is not a tool that would allow the review provisions to be deployed to influence the ILEA in petty ways.
Another strand of the debate, it seems to me, has been real concern that it would not be appropriate for my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science to reallocate the new ILEA's functions by order, albeit subject to affirmative resolution. The 1963 Act contained a similar provision: as well as to review the existing ILEA, as I have said, to reallocate its functions if that was judged necessary in the light of the review and to reallocate them by secondary legislation. So there is certainly nothing odd in the idea that transfers of functions between public bodies may be made by secondary legislation, though I appreciate the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham, that this is inevitably controversial. I can perhaps therefore remind the noble Lord and the Committee of the significant safeguards built into the clause before any such secondary education can take effect.
First of all, a review must be undertaken. Secondly, the review must be capable of standing up to public and parliamentary scrutiny because a report of it must be laid before Parliament, which effectively makes the report a public document. Thirdly, any order proposing a reallocation of functions in the light of the review must be debated and approved in this House and in another place. I know that, by custom, such a debate lasts one-and-a-half hours but it would always be possible to arrange for a longer debate through the usual channels if the issue warranted it. I am sure that such an order would be subjected to careful scrutiny here and in another place and a longer debate would, in fact, occur. Anything to do with education in general or with the ILEA in particular is very seldom, it seems to me, passed over in a hurry on some wet Friday afternoon with or without, in the right reverend Prelate's words, serious public debate. The idea of serious public debate not taking place, as indeed it is taking place on this issue this very afternoon, is surely inconceivable.
4.30 p.m.
If secondary legislation were not available, any adjustments to the new structure would have to be made by means of fresh primary legislation, and that procedure would not make the fate of the new ILEA any less certain if, on scrutiny, it were found to be wanting in any major respect. It would, however—and I believe that this is the point that meets some of the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham—add what could be a damaging delay between verdict and sentence. That would be a recipe

915
for the very uncertainty and demoralisation which we are keen to avoid.
In response to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, as to whether the authority could be dissolved and elections cancelled by this order, the answer is an unequivocal, yes. Like the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Potterhill, I hope that this experiment will succeed, but if it does not succeed, the powers are there. If the ILEA were completely broken up and the inner boroughs became education authorities, elections to the ILEA would be cancelled. There would be no point in holding elections to a non-existent body. However, the ILEA's powers would then pass to individual boroughs, which are of course themselves directly elected. Therefore, education in inner London would continue to be run by directly elected authorities.
Perhaps I may clear up some of the difficulties raised by the argument between my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway and the noble Baroness, Lady David. If only some boroughs were removed from the ILEA area, the remaining core would remain directly elected. The excluded boroughs would then become directly elected education authorities in their own right.
Lord Kilmarnock: Before the noble Earl leaves that point, he gave an unequivocal "Yes" to my question whether the authority could be abolished and the election suspended if all its powers were removed. However, that is not what I understood the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, to say. May we have clarification from the Government Front Bench that that is the case? Is it the case that if all the functions of the ILEA, which is elected in May 1990—because that will be the second round of elections—were removed, elections, could then be suspended by order?
The Earl of Gowrie: The noble Lord asked me for clarification and I have just this minute given it; so I rest on the clarification that I have given. I believe that it is right and that it is common sense to provide for an initial statutory review of this untried procedure, structure and body. In my view it is also right and common sense to provide for subsequent reviews of the new ILEA, if they are judged necessary. In the light of a review, I do not find it in any way odd to provide for a reallocation of functions to be implemented by order, and I have cited the precedents for this. I do not think that the amendments are necessary. I think that they are alarmist, and I urge the Committee to reject them if they are pressed to a Division.
The Lord Bishop of London: I am very grateful to the noble Earl for what he has just said. However, I must confess that I remain wholly unconvinced. I should like to make two points. First, I can appreciate, particularly in view of the additional burden and duties which will be laid upon the ILEA, that some sort of review should take place. However, that is provided for in the amendment. We are not denying the need for a review; we are not denying that it should take place. We are leaving it to the Secretary of State.
The noble Earl has asked us to interpret the Bill as it stands in a reasonable and intelligent way, and that
916
is always a very good thing to do. Therefore, I ask him to assume that in future his Secretaries of State will also interpret the Bill, if amended as by us, in an intelligent and reasonable way. Of course, if the Secretary of State thinks that there is a need for review of the way in which it is working, he will take advantage of our subsection and will call for a review. We cannot have it both ways. Either we stick precisely to the wording of the Bill and its literal interpretation, or we do not. We cannot have interpretation in a reasonable and intelligent way on one side and not on the other. Whatever else one says about the Bill, if it does not contain the possibility of the ILEA being abolished after a period, then why is there included the phrase:
"those functions or any of them should be transferred"?
One does not use the phrase "any of them" unless by the first phrase one means "all of them". That seems to me to be quite clear. I do not think that I should ask leave to withdraw this amendment, and I must leave it to the judgment of the Committee.
4.36 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 101) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 142; Not-Contents, 133.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Adrian, L.

Ennals, L.

Airedale, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Alexander of Potterhill, L.

Ezra, L.

Alport, L.

Falkender, B.

Amherst, E.

Falkland, V.

Ardwick, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Attlee, E.

Fitt, L.

Aylestone, L.

Foot, L.

Bacon, B.

Gaitskell, B.

Banks, L.

Gallacher, L.

Barnett, L.

Galpern, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Bernstein, L.

Gregson, L.

Beswick, L.

Hampton, L.

Birk, B.

Hanworth, V.

Blease, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Blyton, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Boothby, L.

Henniker, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Hereford, Bp.

Bottomley, L.

Heycock, L.

Bowden, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Hunt, L.

Brockway, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Ingleby, V.

Buckmaster, V.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Jacobson, L.

Caradon, L.

Jacques, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Jeger, B.

Chitnis, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Collison, L.

Kaldor, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Kennet, L.

Darling of Hillsborough, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

David, B. [Teller]

Kissin, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Lawrence, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Leatherland, L.

Delacourt-Smith of Alteryn, B.

Lee of Asheridge, B.

Listowel, E.

Denington, B.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Diamond, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Lockwood, B.

917

London, Bp. [Teller.]

Rochester, L.

Longford, E.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Lovell-Davies, L.

Russell of Liverpool, L.

McCarthy, L.

Sainsbury, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Scanlon, L.

McNair, L.

Seear, B.

Mar, C.

Seebohm, L.

Mayhew, L.

Serota, B.

Milford, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Mishcon, L.

Shepherd, L.

Molloy, L.

Simon, V.

Monkswell, L.

Soper, L.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Stedman, B.

Mulley, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Nicol, B.

Stone, L.

Northfield, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Oram, L.

Strauss, L.

Peart, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Phillips, B.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Tordoff, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Tweeddale, M.

Porritt, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Walston, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Wigoder, L.

Rea, L.

Willis, L.

Reilly, L.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Roberthall, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Aldington, L.

Allerton, L.

Halsbury, L.

Ampthill, L.

Hanson, L.

Atholl, D.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Auckland, L.

Henley, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Holderness, L.

Beloff, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Belstead, L.

Hood, V.

Bessborough, E.

Hunt of Tanworth, L.

Boardman, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Boyd-Carpenter. L.

Ingrow, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Kemsley, V.

Caithness, E.

Kinloss, Ly.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Kitchener, E.

Coleraine, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Colville of Culross, V.

Layton, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Loch, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Long, V.

Cottesloe, L.

Luke, L.

Craigavon, V.

Lyell, L.

Craigton, L.

McAlpine of West Green, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

McFadzean, L.

Davidson, V.

Macleod of Borve, B.

De Freyne, L.

Margadale, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Marley, L.

Denning, L.

Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.

Digby, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Merrivale, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Molson, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Monk-Bretton, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Moran, L.

Elton, L.

Morris, L.

Erne, E.

Mottistone, L.

Erroll, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Faithfull, B.

Newall, L.

Forbes, L.

Norfolk, D.

Fortescue, E.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Onslow, E.

Gainford, L.

Orkney, E.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Geddes, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Gowrie, E.

Portland, D.

Gray of Contin, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Gridley, L.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

918

Reay, L.

Strathspey, L.

Reigate, L.

Sudeley, L.

Renton, L.

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

Richardson, L.

Terrington, L.

Rochdale, V.

Tranmire, L.

Rodney, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Romney, E.

Trumpington, B.

Rugby, L.

Ullswater, V.

St. Davids, V.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Vickers, B.

Sandford, L.

Vivian, L.

Savile, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Selkirk, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Sharples, B.

Wilberforce, L.

Sherfield, L.

Windlesham, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Wynford, L.

Somers, L.

Young, B.

Southborough, L.

Young of Graffham, L.

Stamp, L.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

Resolved in the affirmative and amendment agreed to accordingly.
4.47 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: This might be an appropriate moment to resume the House to take the two Statements. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Football Grounds: Safety
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Glenarthur): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement now being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary on football grounds: fire and disturbances. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a Statement. The entire nation has been horrified and appalled at the terrible tragedy at Bradford City football ground on Saturday. I know that the whole House will wish to join together in expressing our deepest sympathy for the families and friends of the dead and of the many who were injured, some of whom remain critically ill.
"The fire started just before half-time, at about 3.35 p.m., under the floor at one end of the main stand.
"The stand was an old one made of metal and timber with a bitumen and felt roof, and the fire spread extremely rapidly. There were about 3,000 people in the stand. The majority managed to move down onto the pitch; but a number tried to escape through the exits at the rear and found themselves trapped in a narrow alley between the back of the stand and the wall of the ground. In accordance with long established practice at sports grounds, the gates were locked to prevent unauthorised spectators gaining admission. It was here that many people died.
"The Chief Constable of West Yorkshire has informed me this morning that 51 persons died at the ground. Two others have died in hospital. Four more people reported to the police as missing are still unaccounted for. The bodies of most of those who died at the ground have not yet been identified.

919
"In addition, over 200 people were injured, of whom 60 are still in hospital. Twenty-two policemen were injured, of whom two are in hospital; and three firemen were injured, none of whom is still in hospital.
"The cause of the fire has not yet been ascertained, but a team of detectives from the West Yorkshire police, assisted by forensic scientists and members of the West Yorkshire fire brigade, began sifting through the debris as soon as it had been made safe to do so. The police have asked for witnesses to come forward who might be able to give evidence about the possible cause of the fire, and it is essential that members of the public should give every assistance.
"I should like to pay tribute to the courage and professionalism of the police and fire services. No one who has seen the TV film of the events can doubt that as much as could be done was done to get people out of the stand, and then to deal with the aftermath of the fire. I should like also to express the warmest appreciation for the dedication and skill of the medical and pathological teams, the ambulance service and all the hospital and voluntary agencies who have since been working day and night, treating the injured and consoling the bereaved.
"Further, the House will be aware that at Birmingham on the very same day many people were injured and subsequently one spectator died as a result of serious crowd disorder at the match between Birmingham City and Leeds United, arising from violence by groups of fans from both clubs. There were repeated invasions of the pitch, missiles were thrown, and the police were attacked.
"In all, there were 125 arrests, 96 police officers required medical treatment, of whom two are still in hospital, and over 80 spectators were injured. Some of the injuries were caused when a wall collapsed following a surge in the crowd, and it was a boy of 15 who subsequently died of the injuries he received. All 125 persons arrested have been charged by the police with various criminal offences. This was a further example of disgraceful football violence, which illustrates the link between the problem of crowd safety and the problem of crowd control. With regard to this incident, inquiries are of course also being made by the Football Association.
"Investigations at Bradford are continuing and inquests will be conducted both there and at Birmingham. I shall expect to receive further reports in due course giving the conclusions of the police, forensic and fire brigade inquiries in Bradford and of the police inquiries in Birmingham. But over and above these particular investigations and hearings, the magnitude of these events demands that urgent steps should immediately be taken to examine what can be done to prevent such incidents. With my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland I have therefore asked Mr. Justice Popplewell to chair an inquiry with the following terms of reference:
'To inquire, with particular reference to the events at Bradford City and Birmingham football grounds on 11th May, into the operation of the Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975; and to recommend what if any further steps should be taken, including
920
any that may be necessary under additional powers, to improve both crowd safety and crowd control at sports grounds.'
"I understand that Mr. Justice Popplewell will visit Bradford tomorrow.
"The inquiry's fundamental task will be to ensure that the demands of safety, on the one hand, and control, on the other, are not only each satisfied in themselves but also satisfied compatibly with each other. A subsidiary but important task will be for the inquiry to review what is known as the Green Code, that is the Guide to Safety at Sports Grounds, which provides guidelines for local authorities as to the conditions that they should require of clubs that seek certification under the 1975 Act. I shall ask that the inquiry should proceed with all possible speed, taking account of and supplementing, as necessary, the findings of the current police, forensic service and fire brigade investigations. I shall arrange for the chairman to be assisted by appropriately qualified assessors—for example, from the police and fire services—and to have available such technical advice and support as he requires. He will of course be able to make any further factual inquiries into what happened that he thinks necessary. If the chairman thinks it necessary or desirable, I and my right honourable friend will welcome any interim report or recommendations he wishes to submit.
"In addition, and in parallel with the work of the inquiry, I have decided to designate all grounds in the Third and Fourth Divisions of the Football League so that they become subject to the system of safety certification under the Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975. The effect will be to require such clubs to apply for certificates from the relevant local authority specifying in considerable detail what physical conditions and management practices—including as to fire precautions—must be followed. The Government announced only on 1st April that we should be extending designation to Third and Fourth Division grounds but starting with those with a record of club violence. It is plain, however, that the time for selective action has passed, and I shall accordingly be discussing with the football authorities immediately how universal designation may be implemented as soon as possible. It will, of course, be for the inquiry to recommend any changes in the present certification procedures or any other steps that should be taken to improve crowd safety and control. But I can see no reason why designating the Third and Fourth Division clubs or any of the other steps announced on 1st April should wait on their conclusions. It is clearly important that the public should be given all the protection that the existing law allows as quickly as possible, and that any measures to enhance safety and security that can be introduced speedily as a result of the work that has currently been proceedings should be implemented at the earliest possible date.
"To ensure that the measures I have announced of a swift inquiry and a new programme of designation do not leave gaps meanwhile in public protection, I am asking chief fire officers immediately to visit uncertificated sports stadia in their areas to advise management on what steps they should take to secure proper standards of crowd

921
safety in their particular circumstances. They will no doubt wish to discuss amongst other matters the opening and locking of gates at sports grounds. Whilst I imagine such visits will be the more comprehensive if chief fire officers are accompanied by other members of the local authority safety teams, this work will brook no delay and, for that reason, I consider the duty to fall best initially on chief fire officers.
"I must stress that the measures announced today are additional to those announced on 1st April after the meeting at 10 Downing Street with the football authorities. That programme of measures agreed to combat football hooliganism goes ahead with renewed urgency.
"The events at Bradford and Birmingham were in their different ways both tragic and sickening. Nothing will wipe away the memory of that terrible afternoon. But our task now must be to take urgent steps to minimise the chances of recurrence. The measures I have announced today are designed to that end. I will report to the House in due course on their progress and outcome."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, there are but three matters, following upon this tragic event at Bradford, which the House I believe would want to concentrate upon. The first is—certainly speaking on behalf of my noble friends but knowing that I speak on behalf of the whole House—that our hearts go out to the bereaved and the injured. Secondly, together with the noble Lord the Minister, to whom we are most grateful for repeating this Statement, we would want to say that we so much admire the action on this occasion of the police, the fire brigade and all those services who joined in to do what they could in this terrible tragedy. Perhaps I may also be allowed to mention in this context the reports that were definitely conveyed through the media of the nurses, off duty, who speedily rushed to the hospital and also many members of the public who at some danger to themselves immediately threw themselves into the task of a rescue operation, doing all that they could.
The third and last thing that all of us would concentrate upon is to see that such an event never happens again, certainly not from the same causes. Into those causes it is impossible and wrong to try to go today. There is a proper inquiry set up and, as the noble Lord the Minister has repeated, there is to be an inquiry which is headed by a notable High Court judge.
May I be forgiven on this occasion if, because of the seriousness of the event, I ask the Minister's attention to be drawn to the fact that there was a report issued in 1972 by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wheatley, called for by the then Home Secretary, Mr. Reginald Maudling, and the Secretary of State for Scotland into a somewhat similar incident, though not caused by fire? I should like to remind the House and the Minister, so that we do not ignore the reports that we call for, of some excerpts from that report. Were it not such a tragic national occasion, I should not keep the House, I assure your Lordships, by reading such quotations if I did not think that it was of some use. I
922
say that particularly because of the reference in the Statement to the locked gates at which so much of this tragedy occurred. If I may first of all remind your Lordships, Lord Wheatley, in reporting, said:
"On 4th February 1971 you asked me to undertake an inquiry with the following terms of reference:"—
(not dissimiliar to those which Mr. Justice Popplewell is asked to undertake) —
"To make an independent appraisal of the effectiveness of existing arrangements for crowd safety at sports grounds in Great Britain, and of the improvements which could be brought about within the present framework of the law: and to consider the nature of any alterations in the law which appear to be needed."
"While the terms of reference extend to sports grounds generally, the immediate concern relates to soccer grounds".
The next quotation that I should like, if I may, to give to your Lordships, because it is so relevant, is this:
"My task was to consider the problem of crowd safety at the grounds. Clubs which charge the public for admission have a duty to see that their grounds are reasonably safe for spectactors. That is a primary consideration. It is accordingly necessary that some standards should be imposed and observed. This has been recognised by the football authorities themselves. Hence their introduction of the certificate procedure. That, in my view, has been proved to be deficient and requires to be replaced by some other system".
There was in fact a technical report, which said this, as an appendix to the recommendations:
"There should be no obstruction in an exit e.g. no threshold provided at exit doors … All exit doors should be manned at all times while the ground is used by the public … Facilities should be provided to enable people to leave the ground at any time. For this purpose a number of reversible turnstiles or doors so operated as to limit the openings to the passage of individual persons might be considered".
Lastly—I need not read the quotation—Lord Wheatley recommended that there should be phasing of a licensing system such as was brought into being by the 1975 Act. His first category in the phasing covered first and second division clubs and national football sports grounds. As a second category came all English third and fourth division football league grounds and all Scottish second division football league grounds. My Lords, I repeat that the report was made in 1972. The Act came in in 1975. Somewhat after that, first and second division grounds were brought in. Ought we not to ask the question: why was it only on 1st April of this year that the third and fourth division grounds were brought into this matter?—only on 1st April, and then they were to be selected.
My only other question, and it is a brief one, is this. I think we all welcome the fact that an interim report would be welcomed if Mr. Justice Popplewell thought that suitable. Ought we to delay any longer in seeing that by some method or other it is not just a question, as the Statement says, of the police indicating to football grounds in their areas which are unlicensed and undesignated that exit doors and exits generally should be open? Should not that be a requirement put into effect immediately? If the only object of closing those doors is to see that people who have not paid shall not get in, is not the lesson we have learnt today that there are greater considerations than that?
5.3 p.m.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, of course we, too, would want to associate ourselves with the deep expressions of sympathy and indeed of horror at this appalling and quite unnecessary tragedy. We would want also to join

923
in the expressions of admiration for the work done by the public services in their attempts to limit the scope of the disaster.
May I begin by querying the wisdom of joining the hooliganism at Birmingham with the fire at Bradford as the subject of the one inquiry? I am bound to express some anxiety as to whether that is going to assist in preventing a recurrence of the situation at Bradford. The hooliganism at Birmingham was really an offshoot of the whole vast problem of football violence, which in turn is an offshoot of the whole vast problem of juvenile delinquency. It is certainly not a question on which I would venture to embark in replying to a short Statement in the middle of our afternoon's sitting.
As to the matter at Bradford, perhaps I may first welcome the appointment of Mr. Justice Popplewell, who is not only a judge of distinction but also a sportsman of considerable distinction. At the same time, may I indicate a niggling doubt in my mind? I know that a judicial inquiry is the popular nostrum of politicians if ever a problem of this sort presents itself. However, I cannot help wondering whether a judicial inquiry is, in this case, the most expeditious or efficient method of dealing with the particular problem that has arisen at Bradford. The causes of the fire will be ascertained without a judicial inquiry by the police or the forensic scientists, or they will not be ascertained at all. The cause of the speed with which the fire spread is known: it was because of the structure of the stand. Perhaps the Minister can confirm that in fact the stand was something like 70 years old. The death toll was contributed to very substantially, as we know, by the fact that the exit gates were locked. In addition to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, may I ask whether there is any technical difficulty in having gates or turnstiles which will allow people to leave but will not allow them to enter?
Is not the real problem one that is very simple to express? It is that if the regulations which have been made and which apply to the first and second division clubs had in fact applied to third and fourth division clubs, this tragedy would never have occurred. If that is right, is not the next question: why were the regulations not extended to third and fourth division clubs? And is not the answer to that question quite simply: because of shortage of money?
Mr. Justice Popplewell, I fear, will be unable to assist as to how money might be forthcoming. Can the noble Lord the Minister confirm that something like £2 million would have been required at this one stadium alone in Bradford to ensure proper standards of safety? Is it not totally unrealistic to expect a small club in a low division of the Football League, in the middle of a depressed area with a local authority which itself is short of funds, to find anything like that amount of money in order to make its ground safe? If that is so, is it not for the Government to make some proposals as to how sums of this order can be raised so that grounds can be made safe? In the meantime, and as an urgent interim measure, could the Government make it quite clear that any grounds or any parts of grounds which are not subject at the moment to the highest safety standards will, without fear or favour, be closed down at once?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for their comments about the Statement and I, too, would like personally to be associated with the remarks which both noble Lords have made. All our hearts go out to the bereaved. It does not take me to add to anything that has been said about how awful it all has been.
The noble Lords raised a number of points and perhaps I may deal first with those raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, about the Wheatley inquiry. That inquiry did lead ultimately in 1975 to the Safety of Sports Grounds Act. As to the particular point about exits, I think the noble Lord will know that paragraph 6 of the Green Guide—that is the colloquial term for the Guide to Safety at Sports Grounds—covers safety measures and safety requirements in relation to the flow of crowds out of the ground. Paragraph 6.7 and paragraph 6.14.5 among others specifically refer to the need to keep exits clear of obstruction. But the point I have to make here is that it is for the local authorities when issuing the safety certificates to decide what formal requirements to include in the certificate.
The noble Lord asked whether or not it would now be possible for doors to be kept unlocked to prevent the sort of tragedy that occurred on Saturday. Referring him again to that document, the guide recommends that the exit doors be opened before the end of play; and paragraph 6.14.7 recommends that they be manned all the time in order to cope with emergencies. I repeat that these are matters on which local authorities can insist in the safety certificate. I cannot comment from where I stand now as to whether or not any are likely to change their practices, but I should have thought they would be unwise not to do so.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, did not suggest that I should go into the causes of the fire for very obvious reasons. Police investigations into the cause of the fire are continuing. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, is not under a misapprehension. I read out the terms of the inquiry. If the noble Lord studies them I am sure he will realise that that is one inquiry. The immediate inquiry into the cause of the fire is being dealt with by the police, the forensic scientists and the fire brigade. They of course will come up with a report as soon as they possibly can.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, is concerned about the phasing of the implementation of the 1975 Act. The first division football grounds were designated in 1976, and as he indicated the idea was that this would be done in stages. The 1976 designations were followed by a topping-up procedure. Then in 1979 the extension was made to embrace all second division football clubs. The noble Lord has himself described how this was to be followed, as announced in April by designation of the other grounds.
There were difficulties—not just those associated with expense in the way the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, indicated—that made it difficult to do this designation in the way that the noble Lord would have liked. There were decreasing attendance patterns; and a general agreement that it was more sensible to proceed in stages. It is always very easy to be wise after the event, particularly so perhaps when it is a very tragic event. But so far as expense is concerned, and

925
Lord Wigoder's indication that perhaps the Government ought to support clubs who have to meet Safety of Sports Grounds Act requirements, I hope and expect that the Football Grounds Improvement Trust will for one, continue to aid clubs' expenses in this respect.
To turn to direct Government help, we shall be discussing with all concerned the details of proposals to extend designation under the Safety of Sports Grounds Act, but it is clear that clubs, like other entertainment businesses, have a responsibility for the safety of their clients. Of course, if one did this just for football grounds it would be putting them at an advantage over other sorts of sport. But these are all points which will have to be discussed in the light of the inquiry and the proposed extension of the scheme.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, praised, as I do, the nurses, the public who came to help, and others who so willingly rushed to aid at the scene. I can also tell him that I am sure that the hospitals and the health authorities are coping well. We should of course all pay tribute to the dedicated work in the emergency of doctors, nurses, ambulancemen and the ancillary workers. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services is in constant touch with the situation and all help necessary is being given. The noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, asked about the age of the ground. Yes, my Lords, it is about 70 years' old. I described its construction when I repeated the Statement. I think I have answered most of the points that have been raised. If there are any others on which I can usefully supply information, I shall of course do so as time passes and as more facts become known.
5.16 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: I wonder whether, before the noble Lord sits down—only because it is so important—I might mention this. He said that the guidelines that were affecting football grounds at the moment made it clear that exit doors should be kept open. May I remind him of the disconcerting statement made in the course of what he himself read out, which the Secretary of State has obviously given to another place:
"In accordance with long established practice at sports grounds, the gates were locked to prevent unauthorised spectators gaining admission. It was here that many people died".
Has not that guideline to be fulfilled immediately in order that this long-established practice cease now?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Lord. I imagine that it will. However, the point that I was trying to make was a fair one: that it is for the local authorities to enforce when it comes to the granting of the particular licence—if that is the right word to use—under this legislation. I am well aware of the difficulties and I deplore the fact that the doors were locked; but I can understand why that practice—to which I referred when I repeated the Statement,—has arisen. The noble Lord will be aware that it is because, sadly, people take risks which have been associated with a number of people who have tried to get into the ground. It has been established therefore for right or wrong.
Lord Ross of Marnock: If the Minister will allow me, he suggested there should be a single general
926
inquiry. The whole nation has been absolutely appalled by what happened at Bradford. People want to know what happened. They want to know about it quickly and what can be done. If this were Scotland there would immediately follow a fatal accident inquiry; and then after that, as happened in 1972, the Wheatley Commission would go into the much more general points in respect of that.
I think it was very unwise of the Government to put the Bradford incident and the Birmingham incident together. One was a story of tragedy and of heroism. Football fans who got out went back in and were hauling other people out. I think some tribute should be paid to them. The other was of a different character altogether.
The Minister suggests that the Football Grounds Improvement Trust could look into this. It is a pity that the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, is not here; he is the chairman. The trust has been doing sterling work. But remember my Lords, that that money comes not from the Government but from the "Spot the Ball Competition" and the pools promoters. The people who make most money out of football are the Government themselves, through the football tax. They take millions upon millions, and they leave very little for the football clubs. Will the Government consider their fairness to football in respect of what moneys they take out of it and how little they put back? There are hundreds of such stands up and down the country. They would have been replaced years ago if the Government had left more money with the football clubs.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I note the noble Lord's concern and that, in his view, it was wrong to combine the two inquiries. But although, emotionally, one can separate the two, in fact there are points about them which bear on one another. The fact is that as the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, will be aware, there has been some little discussion over the last few weeks about the very problem of crowd control at football grounds and how that could affect the safety of people who are in the grounds as well. In this particular case, if one is able to imagine what it would have been like if the ground had been fenced, I think the noble Lord will see that there is a conflict which is probably best resolved by the terms of the inquiry, which, as I said, will inquire, with particular reference to those events, into the operation of the Safety of Sports Grounds Act and recommend what, if any, further steps should be taken. I think that it covers both sides. That is why my right honourable friend has set it up in the way that it has been set up.
So far as expense is concerned, I note the noble Lord's comments. The fact is that these matters will be looked into in the way that I described just now to the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, and that we shall be discussing with all concerned the details of the proposal to make this extension. I can only repeat that clubs with sports grounds are in the entertainment business, so, so far as that is concerned, they themselves have a responsibility. It may seem rather an unpalatable thing to say, but it is a fact that they are in that position and I do not think one ought to let one's judgment be coloured in this instance by the tragic memories of 48 hours ago.
Lord Ingrow: My Lords, I should merely like to say that the concern and sympathy shown from all sides of your Lordships' House today will be warmly appreciated by all those who have suffered and who have helped, and, indeed, by all the people in the Bradford district at this time.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, in supporting what has been said by other noble Lords may I, as a noble Lord who lives not too great a distance away from the scene of this tragedy, put a couple of points to the Minister before discussion on the Statement is finished? In response to other questions about expense, he referred to the fact that in the final analysis it is the responsibility of the football clubs concerned. He must be aware that if this designation that has now been extended to the third and fourth divisions is carried out on a short-term basis, it will mean the end of most of the third and fourth division clubs.
Despite what the Government and the Minister think, they are not in the business of making money. None of them has made money for years. It takes them all their time to keep their heads above water and, very often, it is only because they find a successful local businessman who decides to plough substantial sums of his own money into the club that keeps them going. Very often, they are not just the local football team; they are the one focal point of social activity in a small town. It think it reasonable to support my colleague and friend who spoke earlier in asking for the Government to give some direct help quickly. If action is to be taken quickly there will have to be Government funding. They draw enough in tax on football and in other ways to be able to respond in a positive manner.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I note the noble Lord's concern and that he feels that without some sort of assistance this could spell the end of third and fourth division clubs. As I said, the further designation of these clubs that is to take place, and the discussion that surrounds it, must take into account the points that he made. I have nothing to add to what I said earlier to the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, and to the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, on that count. To ensure that this terrible tragedy is not repeated, the important thing is to get the results as quickly as we possibly can from the technical inquiries that are going on. That, I sense, is very much the mood of your Lordships and I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Ingrow for his helpful comment.
Lord Boothby: My Lords, I just want to ask one very short question. I think that the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, came as a great shock to the whole House when he reminded us that for the last 10 years successive Governments have been given repeated and authoritative warnings about the dangers which beset football grounds throughout the country and that no Government during those 10 years paid any attention to them. The noble Lord has not sought to excuse nor to apologise. It is a great reflection upon Whitehall!
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, it is simply not the case that attention has not been paid to these reports. As I said a little earlier, the phasing of the designation was
928
commenced in 1976 with the designation of first and then, in 1979, second division grounds and we were on the point, for a number of reasons which cover very many areas and different responsibilities, of extending it to third and fourth division grounds. I cannot accept from the noble Lord, although I share his concern, that no attention has been paid to it. That simply is not the case.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, can my noble friend give an undertaking that these inquiries will not be confined to football clubs? After all, there are old rugby league clubs, old racecourse stands and large numbers of other sports which attract very large numbers of spectators. The inquiries should not be confined to football just because this really ghastly tragedy happened at a football stadium and nowhere else.
5.26 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I note my noble friend's concern, and the inquiry will refer to the operation of the Safety of Sports Grounds Act. I am quite sure that, in looking into the conduct of the inquiry, Mr. Justice Popplewell will consider the sort of thing that my noble friend is concerned about. There are special aspects of rugby football of which I can certainly let my noble friend have details in due course. Other considerations apply to some other forms of stadia. Racecourses and so on differ quite considerably from football grounds. Dog tracks, for example, are enclosed and would come within the scope of the Safety of Sports Grounds Act, but not everything comes within its scope.
Lord Oram: My Lords, does the Minister confirm the statement of certain chairmen of football clubs, that money derived from racing can be ploughed back into racing stands, but that is not the case with football? Is there not a case for an inquiry not just into what occurred at Bradford, but into the whole question of finance? It is no use the inquiry coming out with suggestions about what should be done to increase safety if, as my noble friend behind me has said, there is no possibility of the clubs in their present financial situation being able to implement those recommendations.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the important thing is for the inquiry to get under way and in the light of that to determine what further steps ought to be taken. As I said when I repeated the Statement, my right honourable friend will report back to the House.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, may I support the point which has just been made by the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, and ask the Minister to take it rather more seriously than he appeared to do? As, for the past 60 years, as a player, referee, umpire and spectator, I have visited sports grounds of various kinds all over the country, I have been increasingly concerned for the safety of spectators at those grounds. This is not confined to soccer grounds and it is certainly not confined to third and fourth division soccer grounds. There are many soccer clubs in other leagues, in amateur leagues or in no leagues, which have stands which anybody visiting would see were fire hazards.

929
The noble Lord mentions the difference of rugby grounds, but how many noble Lords have been to Twickenham? Could not those two old stands which are built of wood very easily become much greater fire hazards than the Valley Parade ground, which I have known for many years? Is there not a case here for the Government to get in touch with local authorities throughout the country for a thorough examination and inspection of all accommodation, sporting or otherwise, where people gather together? Secondly, because, as has been observed by my noble friend Lord Dean, it costs money for safety, should not the Government look at the revenue which they receive from sport and decide that this is an issue sufficiently serious for Government money to be put into reducing the safety hazards in these arenas?
Thirdly, should not the Government bring to the attention of the inquiry the possibility, as is common in Europe, of municipalities owning the grounds on which these clubs play and leasing them back to them so that it is the municipal authorities which are able to take responsibility for the expenditure of money and for the supervision of safety requirements? I know that the noble Lord the Minister cannot answer directly, but will he bring this to the attention of his department and to the attention of the inquiry which is to take place?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, while noting the points that the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, has made, I have to say that I rather resent the fact that he suggested that I did not take seriously the comments of my noble friend Lord Onslow. I most certainly do take them seriously, and if the noble Lord had had to deal with this matter in the way I have had to deal with it today he would not feel in the least that it was anything other than an extremely serious matter; and anybody who feels otherwise would be quite wrong to do so.
The noble Lord may not be aware that Twickenham was designated in 1976. I shall study his other remarks. But so far as the term "sports ground" is concerned, I can tell him that the Safety of Sports Grounds Act applies to "sports ground", which means:
"any place where sports or other competitive activities take place in the open air and where accommodation has been provided for spectators, consisting of artificial structures or of natural structures artificially modified for the purpose".

British Aerospace: Share Offer
5.33 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, with the leave of the House and for your Lordships' convenience, I should like to repeat a Statement on British Aerospace which is being made in another place by my honourable friend the Minister of State for Industry and Information Technology. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a Statement about the outcome of the joint offer of shares in British Aerospace by the Government and the company.
930
"Approximately 264,000 applications were received from the general public (excluding institutional priority applications) for a total of approximately 790 million ordinary shares.
"Preferential applications were received from shareholders for approximately 23 million shares and from employees for approximately 3 million shares. All the valid applications will be allocated in full.
"Valid applications from the general public for up to 20,000 shares will be allocated a minim um of 100 shares and a maximum of 275 shares depending on the number of shares applied for. No allocation will be made in respect of public applications for more than 20,000 shares. On this basis, allocations will be made to some 260,000 applicants for a total of some 40 million shares.
"As announced on 1st May, approximately 80·8 million shares, 55 per cent. of the total offered shares, have been allocated to institutional priority applicants.
"It is expected that dealings in renounceable letters of acceptance in respect of the offered shares will commence tomorrow."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord for having repeated the Statement made in another place. It is quite clear from the Statement—and of course a number of matters are not yet clear—that the Government are in very urgent need of the money. At the time that British Aerospace was privatised the Government pledged themselves, for what pledges from the Government are worth, that they would retain a 25 per cent. holding. They have now decided to retain a mere one golden share. It is very difficult to know from some of the statements that have been made over the past month when the disposal was originally decided, but quite clearly the Government could not wait until the troubles of British Aerospace were out of the way before they did it; and so now they have raised the money.
What the Statement does not say is how much money the Government received or are to receive gross as a result of the sale of their shareholding. One thing, however, is very clear—the issue was very considerably over-subscribed. It would be interesting therefore to know what was the cost to the British taxpayer of the sale of these shares which the Government are holding in trust on behalf of the general public. We should like to know the costs that have gone out in respect of this.
The Statement, in so far as it refers to the various percentages of the issue that are going to be held by various classifications, is not at all clear. It would have been far better to state the number of shares classified under the same terms, as I observe British Aerospace did at page 57 of its accounts for the year ending 31st December 1984, from which it was clear that at that date and prior to this issue ordinary individual shareholders held 4.85 per cent. of the total issue; institutions held 44 per cent.; and the trustees of the employees' shares held 1.78 per cent.
Will the noble Lord confirm—I am working on the basis of the figures that have been put in the

931
Statement—that, after all the shares have been issued, the institutional shareholders will hold more than 70 per cent. of the company's reconstructed shareholding and that between 4 per cent. and 5 per cent.—and possibly even 4 per cent.—will be held by employees, with the balance being held by what are termed the general public, bearing in mind that as of 31st December the general public, in terms of individual shareholders, held only 4.85 per cent.?
Is it not clear that this is once again an exercise which is being carried out not for the benefit of British Aerospace itself; that all the talk about advantages to the shareholders is in comparative terms a lot of moonshine; and that all that has really happened is that the Government, as in so many other cases, are busy selling the furniture to pay the rent? Is not their real purpose to provide additional finance so that in due time, together with the proceeds that may possibly come from British Gas, the Government will be able to finance very large tax cuts as a run-up to the next general election?
Lord Diamond: My Lords, we, too, are most grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement. Although it is perfectly obvious and well established by now that the only possible advantage which can come from this exercise is to the Government's coffers, and that it follows on their well established procedure of scratching around for money wherever it can be found, nevertheless this is perhaps not the occasion to dwell on that aspect but rather on the aspect of the number of shares issued and applied for.
We are very glad that it has been decided that so far as employees' applications are concerned, those applications will be allotted in full. In regard to the institutions, I have one question to put, which I will come to in a moment. First, can the noble Lord say by how many times the offer has been over-subscribed? By that I mean the offer excluding those shares offered to institutions; that is to say, as to the 45 per cent. offered to the public at large, by how many times was that block of shares over-subscribed?
My question with regard to the institutions is this: inasmuch as the country will judge whether this offer was effective in a way that will improve the nation's interests, the public will want to know how the institutions come out of it. Can the noble Lord therefore say, first, what remuneration the institutions have received for the services they provided; and, secondly, what profit they stand to make out of the shares which have been allocated to them and which would seem to me to be no less than £40 million?
5.42 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Bruce of Donington and Lord Diamond, for their reception of this Statement.
I recall that the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, made exactly the same remarks in January of this year when I repeated a Statement in which we announced our intention to sell the remainder of our shares. I can do no more than remind the noble Lord of that exchange, rather than turn up Hansard and repeat exactly what I said in response on that occasion.
932
The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, will know that we dealt with the matter of the 25 per cent. shareholding in relation to the golden share. In 1981 we said that we were going to keep that amount of shares simply in order to ensure that the company would be retained in British hands. In the 1985 announcement we said specifically that we would hold no ordinary shares but would hold the special share especially to ensure the provisions of the company's articles in relation to United Kingdom control of the company. I repeat that the golden share should provide that no more than 15 per cent. of the voting shares in the company may be foreign held. Secondly, it will safeguard those of the company's articles requiring the directors to be British citizens. And lastly, it will retain the right relating to the nomination of the Government's director.
The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, asked me, as did the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, what the Government's gross receipts would be. At the selling price of 375 pence, which was the closing price less 5 per cent. on 30th April, it is estimated that the Government's proceeds will be a gross £363 million. It is not possible to pinpoint at this stage exactly the cost to the Government but it will be of the order of £14 million.
Both noble Lords asked also what good this will do to anybody, other than to add money to the Government's coffers. The Government believe that the normal pressures of the commercial market are the most effective spur to greater efficiency and competitiveness. British Aerospace has operated profitably and has competed successfully in international markets during the four years that it has been in the private sector. The retention of the Government's shareholding in these circumstances would serve no purpose. The restoration of the company to full private ownership can only give a further spur to its efficiency and competitiveness.
To underline that belief, I will mention four figures. Sales in 1980 were £1,423 million. After partial privatisation, sales rose in 1984 to £2,468 million. Profit before taxation in 1980 was £53 million, and in 1984 it was £120 million. There is no doubt in my mind nor in the mind of British Aerospace that it will continue unhindered in its pursuit of excellence and of profitability.
The noble Lord, Lord Diamond, asked specifically about the level of over-subscription in relation to the shares available to the general public. After 55 per cent. of the offer had been placed with institutions, and after the preferential applications from shareholders and employees have been satisfied, the issue was oversubscribed about 19 times.
I believe that I have now answered the questions raised by the noble Lords, Lord Bruce of Donington and Lord Diamond; if I have not done so I have no doubt that they will return to them.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that many of us will feel that the manifest sourness of the observations made by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, derives from his disappointment at the manifest success of this share issue? Is my noble friend aware also that many of us on this side of the House fully share the views of the noble

933
Lord, Lord Diamond, that it is enormously satisfactory that the applications made by employees for shares have been met in full? Many of us share the noble Lord's view that this is in any industry one of the most valuable aspects of good management and good morale.
Is my noble friend further aware that all of us would want to wish this great and important company success now that it is fully privatised and that we believe that, particularly with the HS. 146 aircraft, it is a winner?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter. I was aware of some of the points he made but I am most grateful to him for informing me of others. Certainly the over-subscription—particularly by the general public—indicates that the public have great confidence in the company. Indeed, it indicates that the general public are following the Government's philosophy of wider share ownership. It is of course a great pity that there could not have been made available even more shares to satisfy that market.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, may I ask the Minister—in all kindness, as I quite like him—not to repeat again the figures he gave for the sales of hardware? In this business, one does not sell hardware until three or four years after money has been put into design, research, and re-equipping. One cannot prove a political theory with the figures which the Minister gave to the House.
The noble Lord was trying to prove the success of a particular form of ownership by reporting an increase in sales. I am telling him that those sales were made possible by the investment, design and research which had taken place three or four years beforehand.
Having said that, I must say to the noble Lord that I draw a sharp distinction between the two lots of shares offered—the two sources of shares. There was a difference in the philosophy and in the purpose. But once those two lots of shares were put together, did we not see a completely different technique in marketing? I speak of the volume of advertising and of the commissions being offered. Did they not represent a new dimension in share marketing? If the Minister cannot provide any actual figures as to the cost of the operation, then can he say how it might compare with a normal sale of shares of a company?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I had no wish to mislead the noble Lord, Lord Beswick; nor, indeed the House. I was merely illustrating a set of figures which is available in the report and accounts of the company showing what has happened since 1980 and what happened in 1984. I accept, of course, as will anybody who has any knowledge of business, that there is a long lead time from an investment and a design concept into profitability. I was seeking to establish that the company has gone along very successfully. There has been no drop in its endeavours, its sales, its exports or its profitability since it was announced that the company was to be privatised. If this proposal had been anathema to the stockholders, the employees, and management, one might have expected a drop, but there has not been such a drop. I
934
expect the company to go from strength to strength and I am quite sure it will. Let me assure the noble Lord that the Government have no intention of withdrawing the close support that they have had with the company while the Government have been a shareholder.
The noble Lord suggested that because one-third of the shares were a new issue by British Aerospace—two-thirds being the Government's—there was something rather odd. It was certainly a joint venture. The company wish to increase its capital by an amount and the Government want to dispose of their shares. I explained this in January. It seemed a good idea that the two objectives should be joined. In so far as marketing is concerned, if we continued marketing companies, goods, and shares in the same way year after year, we would advance nowhere at all. I welcome the fact that the stock market is sufficiently flexible and alive to accept the new and differing opportunities that a share issue of this kind presents.
As regards my all-embracing figure of about £14 million worth of costs to the Government, I do not know what the British Aerospace costs are. That is their business, rightly and properly. No doubt the figures will appear in the annual report. If the noble Lord wishes me to identify certain areas in that £14 million, I will be pleased to do so.
Lord Oram: My Lords, have any special precautions been taken to avoid the necessity of calling in the Fraud Squad, as in the case of British Telecom?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, certainly scrutiny has taken place to ensure that no improper applications have been made or been improperly dealt with. If we subsequently find that such improprieties have taken place, no doubt the normal course will prevail.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, may I briefly comment on one remark made by the Minister, as he would expect me to do? He said that this share issue was to the advantage of a proportion of the British people; the shareholders and the employees. He omitted to say that this success has been paid for by all the British people and that now the British people are being denied the fruits of their endeavours. In typical Tory philosophy only a few will gain any benefit.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I cannot agree with the noble Lord, Lord Molloy. He turns things round, and has not asked a question. He has made a statement with which I thoroughly disagree.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will the noble Lord please answer the question which I put to him? I asked whether he would confirm that when the issue was complete the institutions—and by institutions I mean those defined on page 57 of the last accounts—will hold over 70 per cent. of the equity and that the staff will hold under 5 per cent. of the total equity?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I cannot confirm that because I do not have the necessary figures to do the arithmetic. If the noble Lord's figures are correct, I can see nothing wrong with either of them.

Local Government Bill
5.55 p.m.
House again in Committee on Clause 21.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill): My Lords, Amendment Nos. 102 and 103 cannot be called following the agreement to Amendment No. 101. Therefore, I call Amendment No. 103A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone.
[Amendments Nos. 102 and 103 not moved.]
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 103A:
Page 15, line 25, at end insert—
("( ) In conducting the review under subsection (1) above, the Secretary of State shall pay special regard to the needs of well established youth clubs.").
The noble Lord said: With the agreement of the Committee, and I hope my noble friend, I propose to speak at the same time to Amendment No. 135B, which is also in the name of myself and my noble friend Lord Newall:
Amendment No. 135B: Clause 47, page 30, line 30, at end insert—
("( ) In preparing schemes under subsection (1) above, special regard shall be paid to grants for well established youth clubs, due account being taken of any grants for such purposes by Local Education Authorities.").
These amendments reflect what I said at Second Reading; that it is a matter of concern that well established youth clubs—the club I mentioned at Second Reading had about 50 years life—need reassurance that they can rely on the financial support that they have had heretofore. Their concern arises from the fact that the ILEA has been warning various forms of charity, including youth clubs, that there will be a substantial reduction in this support. In fact, I have one set of figures which states that there will be a 75 per cent. reduction in the amount of support that the ILEA will be able to give to bodies such as youth clubs. Even if that is not so, there is a suggestion that the reduction might, at any rate, be as much as 25 per cent. In that case the four youth clubs—the Feathers youth clubs that I know about—would have to be reduced to three, and possibly even two, and that would be very detrimental to the sort of support that they give to youth and which I am sure your Lordships applaud.
The object of the first amendment is to ensure that when the review is conducted—and, I think, it is still to be conducted under the amendment which was passed—special regard is given to the needs of well-established youth clubs. The purpose of Amendment No. 135B is, in effect, to extend that special regard to youth clubs which are supported by the boroughs of London. These amendments are mild and could well be accepted by my noble friend. They make a particular point of referring to well-established youth clubs because one is conscious that over many years—it is very difficult to make this speech because I do not think that my noble friend on the Front Bench can hear me, with so much chattering going on.
The Earl of Gowrie: I am listening to my noble friend.
Lord Mottistone: I shall continue. The particular point of referring to well-established youth clubs is that, as you Lordships know, over recent years a whole host of other charities have been formed which will be in competition with these well-proven bodies. It could well be that even if there are not the reductions which ILEA is forecasting, and which no doubt are reflected in the metropolitan county areas as well, there will be a problem for the well established clubs. They may find that they are reduced anyhow because of the competition of newly established charities.
I very much hope that my noble friend can give me quite strong reassurances not only for myself but more especially for the dedicated people who run these clubs and who need to be firmly reassured. I hope that the reassurances will be very strong. Alternatively, almost as a fall back, I hope that the reassurances may be underpinned by acceptance of the amendments which would give statutory provision for particular consideration when the various reviews or schemes, as the second amendment would call them, come about. I beg to move.
The Earl of Gowrie: I think that I can give my noble friend and the Committee the reassurance that he seeks. I share his concern about the youth service. It does valuable work and makes a special contribution to the lives of a variety of young people in inner London, many of whom face uncommonly difficult circumstances.
There are other areas of activity which ILEA supports, or for which it is responsible, about which we might be equally concerned. A review under Clause 21 would look across the whole range of the new ILEA's functions, and proper regard would be paid to the circumstances and needs of all its functions in considering whether each was well discharged by the new body or might be better discharged by some other body. I would suggest to my noble friend that there is no need—and I would suggest also that it would not be appropriate—to pick out any one function for that attention.
My noble friend expressed concern in passing, so to say, about the funding of voluntary youth clubs and other bodies after the abolition of the GLC. I venture to suggest that that and some other points which he raised are matters which the Committee might debate when we come to Clause 47, which concerns grants to voluntary bodies generally. If a problem arises over the availability of grant aid, it will arise in 1986 and will have little connection with the review in 1991 to which my noble friend's amendment is primarily addressed.
Concern has been expressed about the ability of ILEA to support the youth services while subject to precept limitation. But precept limitation, as its name implies, does no more than set a limit and within that limit ILEA is free to decide how to deploy its expenditure. Again, this is a point to which, I would respectfully suggest to the Committee, we might return when we come to Clause 66 because Clause 66 concerns precept limitation. It and the important points that my noble friend raises have little connection, I venture to suggest, with the review under Clause 21, and it is Clause 21 to which this amendment is addressed. I am not trying to duck these issues in any way, I say to my noble friend, but I

937
suggest to the Committee that they are more appropriately dealt with at a marginally later stage.
Lord Mottistone: I am most grateful to my noble friend for the way in which he has replied to this amendment. I take fully the point that he makes about the need to delay real consideration of this matter until we get to Clause 47. With that in mind, I would propose at this stage to withdraw the amendment but to speak again and separately to my amendment, Amendment No. 135B, when we come to that so as to reopen the subject at that stage. I should like to have done it the other way around anyhow, but the Bill is written the way it is. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I cannot call Amendment No. 104 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stewart.
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 105:
[Printed earlier: col. 894.]
The noble Baroness said: This amendment and Amendment No. 106 were spoken to by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London when he moved Amendment No. 101 and are consequential. I beg to move formally.
The Earl of Gowrie: I have to say to the noble Baroness that I, too, spoke to these amendments during the previous debate but they are not precisely the same thing. I have to warn her that if they are put, I shall ask the Committee to resist them.
Baroness David: I am very surprised by what the noble Earl says because by deleting subsection (1) the Secretary of State is prevented from determing:
"whether and, if so, to what extent those functions or any of them should be transferred to or divided between all or any of the inner London borough councils and the Common Council or any body on which those councils or any of them are represented".
The determination has gone. It seems to me that it is consequential that that one line in subsection (3) should be deleted. The Secretary of State is now prevented from splitting up the authority by the carriage of the amendment today.
On Question, amendment negatived.
[Amendments Nos. 106 to 109 not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 109A to 109D had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Clause 21, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 22 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 109E not moved.]
Lord Molson Lord Molson moved Amendment No. 109EA:
After Clause 22, insert the following new Clause:—

(". (1) On the appointed day there shall be established for each metropolitan county which is a police area a body corporate whose purpose shall be to discharge the functions of metropolitan county police, fire, transport and waste disposal authorities and which body shall be known by the name of the county with the addition of the words "Joint Authority".

(2) On the appointed day there shall be established for the Metropolitan county of Tyne and Wear a body corporate to be
938
known as the Tyne and Wear Joint Authority, whose purpose shall be to exercise the functions of metropolitan county fire, transport and waste disposal authorities.

(3) The metropolitan district councils in the county of Tyne and Wear shall appoint the same persons to be members of the Northumbria Police Authority and the Tyne and Wear Joint Authority.")

The noble Lord said: On Saturday morning I had an unpleasant shock when I received a letter from the Public Bill Office which read as follows:
"Having now read your new clause and considered its effect on the Bill I am afraid I must advise you that if it is agreed to, it might render the Bill hybrid".
If part of this Bill became hybrid, the delays would be considerable, and if I moved and carried the amendment, it would be a complete breach of the undertakings which I have given to my noble friend the Leader of the House and the Ministers in charge. Let me say at the beginning that I do not in any way complain about the delay in the Public Bill Office in discovering this defect in the amendment. The whole issue of the hybridisation of Bills is an elusive metaphysical concept which few people are able to follow and even the experts find it extremely difficult to do so.
However, the learned clerks who discovered the defect in my original clause applied themselves with diligence to try to rectify what was a technical defect. The amendment that I am moving is free from that defect. I apologise to the Committee that it should be in manuscript form. However, I did not feel that it would cause any great inconvenience because the substance of it is exactly the same as the printed amendment which has been before the Committee for quite a long time.
The purpose of this amendment is a very simple one. The Government have drafted the Bill in order that three of the services which had previously been in the hands of the metropolitan county councils should be put into the hands of these ensuing authorities. They are: police (which is provided for in Clause 23); fire (in Clause 25), and transport (in Clause 27). The members of those joint authorities are to be appointed by the district councils. The purpose of this amendment is so simple that I shall not detain the Committee for very long. It is simply to amalgamate the three joint authorities which the Government propose in this Bill to set up. I ask them: why have three different joint authorities with separate offices, staffs and budgets? Surely it would make for economy and efficiency to have only one.
Since the Chamber has shown itself reluctant to hand over the disposal of waste to the district councils, this amendment by the noble Viscount, Lord Ingleby, to which I am now speaking, provides that disposal of waste shall be a fourth service. In addition to the simple argument that it would surely be better to have one office, one staff and one single budget covering all these three services, there is one additional one which I think is of some importance. Everyone from the Chancellor of the Exchequer down to the humblest housewife has to consider priority in the allocation of the money available. Surely it would be far better for there to be a single budgetary authority which would allocate expenditure as between these services, which the Government agree should all be administered by a single joint authority.
I want to make it quite plain that this is not on our part an attempt to return to the system which we advocated before, which was a system of direct election. I consider that that issue has been decided and I have no intention of raising it again. In this amendment we are accepting the Government's own procedure that the appointments to the joint authorities should be made by the district councils.
The general theory of this has been supported by two reports. One will be referred to later by the noble Viscount. However, I must take up with my noble friend the Minister a statement that he made the other day that the transfer of the disposal of waste was recommended by the Trade and Industry Committee of the House of Commons in its very interesting report, The Wealth of Waste. I read it and studied it and I could not remember that that had been a recommendation. Over the weekend, I have looked it up and I have found that that was not one of the summary of recommendations made by the Committee. The gist of the report assumes and approves the present system.
6.15 p.m.
I felt sure that the claim that my noble friend made must have some foundation somewhere. I do not expect him, in the short time since he took over his responsibilities, to have read this himself. However, his adviser quite clearly was thinking of page vi, where it draws attention to the fact that many of the waste disposal authorities do not pass on enough of the proceeds to the collecting authorities. That is dealt with in a subsequent page where they say that the waste disposal authorities should hand over to the waste collecting authorities more of the proceeds of the disposal, particularly in the case of the recycling of glass.
I felt bound to raise that matter because I felt that it would be serious if a very important report made by a committee of another House was disregarded by this Chamber. I am very glad that one of the main recommendations has been accepted by the Prime Minister in making Mr. Trippier responsible, over several departments, for recycling.
The Select Committee of the House of Commons, so far from recommending the transfer which is provided for in this Bill, assumes all the way through the report that the present system, of the lower tier authorities collecting the waste and the higher tier authorities disposing of it, will continue.
Today I had a letter from the Association of County Councils. Representations made by the urban authorities are necessarily regarded as being somewhat biased in this matter. This comes from the shire counties. I think it is of sufficient importance to read it to your Lordships. It says:
"I understand that you have tabled an amendment to the Bill which would constitute a single joint board with a common budget and issuing a single precept to replace the three joint boards proposed in the Bill. Such an amendment would be very much in accord with my Association's views, as you will know from the correspondence you have received from us. It would be in the interest of the shire counties neighbouring the metropolitan counties. If you thought it would be helpful I should be very happy for you to mention the Association's support for your Amendment when you speak on Monday".
940
Coming from the association of the shire counties, that is very valuable support for the amendment of my noble associates and myself in this matter. I do not think it is necessary to go into the long and technical arguments in favour of having large authorities disposing of waste. That has already been fully debated in your Lordships' Committee.
If the Government are not disposed to accept this very simple and, I should have thought, sensible amendment that I am moving, I imagine that my noble friend will revert to his old argument that these proposals are in fact MCCs mark 2. Really, I assure him it is not my intention that they should be so; and I do not think that they will be. I have a feeling that this idea of MCCs mark 2 is becoming just a little bit of an obsession in my noble friend's mind. I have a feeling that if he dined late on indigestible food and if his normal sleep, like infant slumbers pure and light, were disturbed by a nightmare, it would be a vision of a ghastly spectre rising from the ashes of the metropolitan county councils which had already been well incinerated. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: The noble Lord, Lord Molson, has moved on behalf of the noble Viscount, Lord Ingleby, Amendment No. 109EA. As this is a manuscript amendment, I must read it to the Committee. The amendment is, after Clause 22 to insert the following new clause:
(" . (1) On the appointed day there shall be established for each metropolitan county which is a police area a body corporate whose purpose shall be to discharge the functions of metropolitan county police, fire, transport and waste disposal authorities and which body shall be known by the name of the county with the addition of the words "Joint Authority".
(2) On the appointed day there shall be established for the Metropolitan county of Tyne and Wear a body corporate to be known as the Tyne and Wear Joint Authority, whose purpose shall be to exercise the functions of metropolitan county fire, transport and waste disposal authorities.
(3) The metropolitan district councils in the county of Tyne and Wear shall appoint the same persons to be members of the Northumbria Police Authority and the Tyne and Wear Joint Authority.").
Viscount Ingleby: I rise, metaphorically at least, to support this amendment so ably moved by my noble friend Lord Molson. In so doing, I should like to quote from the fourth report of the Select Committee of your Lordships' House on Science and Technology. Towards the end, at paragraph 75, it says:
"there is an obvious case on grounds of economy for replacing the multiplicity of joint authorities with a single joint authority in each metropolitan county and in London".
The report of your Lordships' House has said, "an obvious case on grounds of economy"; one bureaucracy instead of four; one precept instead of four, and most important, as my noble friend has just said, there would be some degree of self-discipline, some degree of self-determination at a local level of the priorities and the competing claims of the different services. I suggest that as much of this self-discipline as can be imposed locally is much better than having it imposed by Whitehall. These different services—fire, police, transport, waste disposal—are all surely different fingers of the same hand, and it would surely be much better if all the fingers were in the same glove.
Lord Home of the Hirsel: I should have been content to remain silent during the whole Committee stage of this Bill were it not that my noble friend Lord Molson for the second time during Committee stage has designed an amendment which would conflict with the central purpose of the Bill. I am not concerned with whether we call it an overall authority or joint authority, or whether it is elected or appointed; though I am bound to say that if we are to have one I should prefer the former. But this surely runs counter to the intention of the Government, which is that there shall be no overall body for London or the metropolitan areas. As my noble friend says, this amendment quite simply proposes that there shall be. In this Committee, we have for many years accepted that when another place passed with a majority a Bill to which this Chamber of Parliament has given a Second Reading, it is not desirable to use the Committee stage to reopen matters of principle. I believe this amendment in fact is doing just that.
I am not sure if my noble friend appreciates the thought and care which have gone into the formation of our procedures and their adoption. I have sat in this noble House for a good many years now, in Government and in opposition. I can say categorically that during all that time amendments calculated to alter the kernel of the Bill under discussion were by common consent never moved; and I hope we shall not depart from that custom because I believe that if we do we shall get ourselves into grievous trouble.
Of course there were very good reasons for this convention. The lack of it would increase the chances of clashes between the two Houses and make it very difficult to conduct our Committees in an orderly and coherent way. If it is said that change is desirable in this respect—and one has to face up to the fact that sometimes change is needed—then let the matter be sent to the Committee on Procedure where we can all he properly advised of the full implications of moving amendments like this on Committee stage. Do not let us proceed by rather haphazard amendments moved by individual Peers; much better that we should all change our rules, know what we are doing and be properly advised if that is the decision.
I shall certainly have to vote against this amendment if my noble friend puts it to a vote. I hope a good many others of your Lordships on all sides will do so for this reason.
Baroness Birk: With great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel, as I read it, and as I think any other noble Lord reading it would agree, the amendment does not set up an overall authority. In my submission, it is not a matter of principle. As the noble Lord, Lord Molson, explained very thoroughly and succinctly—and the noble Viscount, Lord Ingleby, as well added to our knowledge on this—what it is doing is gathering together police, fire, and passenger transport authorities which are in the Bill, anyway.
Last week in this Committee your Lordships voted on highways and traffic being set up as a joint authority. On Thursday of last week, waste disposal was set up as a joint authority. So all that the amendment does is gather together these functional bodies. We are certainly not considering an overall authority. The noble Lord, Lord Molson, did not say
942
that. If he had said it and the Committee did not like it, the Committee could obviously take action and turn it down. Nor did the noble Lord talk about elected or appointed authorities. What we are discussing, in my view, is purely a functional and management problem.
6.30 p.m.
The merit of the amendment is that it combines the services to which the Government refer in the Bill of police, fire and passenger transport with highways and traffic and waste disposal which the House has decided, following votes, should be operated at county-wide level anyhow. That is the position at the moment. This amendment does not do anything to change that. The services are linked in various ways. For example—I am sorry. I had not realised that the noble Lord wished to intervene.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: I only wish to ask the noble Baroness whether she is not playing on words. When, as she put it, you have gathered them together and when they are in the statute, you have set them up. What is the difference? You have gathered them together, and in the process of gathering them together you have set them up. It is therefore a play on words to say that you have gathered them together but not set them up.
Baroness Birk: No. I do not accept that at all. They are bodies that have been set up. We are not setting up new bodies and then gathering them together. They are bodies dealing with functional services. All that the amendment says is that these interlink. To continue the sentence when the noble Lord intervened, there is the obvious police-fire link which all of us must agree go together. There is then the link between highways and the policing of traffic control measures. As to waste disposal, the transport of waste and hazardous materials is very relevant. This is a purely functional matter.
If the Government are concerned, as they always profess to be, with efficiency and the understanding of local government by the electors, they must concede that one bureaucracy must be more efficient than four. Why quadruple something when it can be done, so to speak under one roof, particularly when this avoids duplication of essential support services like computing? The transitional arrangements from one county council to a single joint board carrying out most of the principal services will obviously be far more simple and, I would guess, far less costly than if a large number of bodies were involved. A district council joint board system of local government, as many noble Lords must agree, from their experience in local government, central government, in business and in management, would be far easier to understand than a multiplicity of different bodies. This has been pointed out by PA Management Consultants and the Institute of Local Government purely on the basis of the way the services have functioned.
To attempt to show this as some sort of nefarious and sinister trick to get these services into a political hold is, I would suggest with great respect, absolute nonsense. There is nothing hidden about this. These bodies are set up. Noble Lords can read what is on the

943
Marshalled List. They can hear the arguments that are put. If the House divides, noble Lords will be able to act as they feel. I object to the implication that we are discussing something that is not in front of us. That is not so. We are discussing the amendment before us with the original amendment. Because it makes good sense, it should have the support of the Committee. It will certainly have the support of my colleagues and myself.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I hope that my noble friends will be prepared to consider seriously the warning given by my noble friend Lord Home a few moments ago. It is embarrassing to have to say this when I sit alongside him but your Lordships will know that his services to this House and to the country are incomparable. It would seem very rash to disregard the warning he has given.
I wish to say a word on the merits in reply to the noble Baroness. The noble Baroness says that it is all very simple. You have four functions. So you put them together and it is more efficient. I believe, however, that your Lordships should visualise the kind of authority that would be set up if the amendment of my noble friend Lord Molson was accepted. It would be discharging four very important and very expensive functions. It would therefore, in the nature of things, be a large body, equipped, I understand, with precepting powers and levying a substantial precept. It is surely the experience of all of us, whether in local government or central government, that if you set up a body of that width of function, discharging so many important functions, its nature is that it attracts to itself even further functions and duties. Public spirited men and women serving upon it have the natural feeling that they can do things better than they would be done, for example, by the district authorities. They feel that, with the backing of the substantial and no doubt highly paid staff that they will have, they will be able to do things better. There will be an inevitable tendency—this has been seen in the case of the GLC itself—to take on further functions as time goes by,
Although the noble Baroness, with a delightful air of innocence, says that this is a practical arrangement, I beg your Lordships to realise, as my noble friend Lord Home has warned us, that it would be setting up a very substantial body, whether you call it a metropolitan authority mark 2 or mark 3, of the very kind that it is the purpose of the Bill, as approved by another place, approved by this House on Second Reading and approved by this Committee at the beginning of the Committee stage, to abolish. We are on a very dangerous path.
Lord Somers: I hope that the Government will remember that this amendment proposes a joint board that will not be directly elected. If it was to be directly elected, I grant that the fears that have been expressed that it would become an all-powerful authority over the separate districts might be well founded. It is not to be that. It will be formed of representatives from the districts themselves. Your Lordships have already agreed that there are certain functions that must be dealt with by joint boards. Why have three boards when one will do the job? As to the
944
fears expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, I should have thought that it would be perfectly simple to limit on paper the powers of the joint board.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: We have in the GLC a very good example of the weakness of that method of limiting activity. The GLC was expressly not given police powers. It has set up and is to this day operating a police committee.
Lord Somers: That may be so. One cannot avoid, I suppose, certain things going wrong, as we are all human. I should have thought, however, that it would be perfectly simple to lay down exactly what powers the joint boards had, and that if they went beyond those powers they could be brought to task.
I hope sincerely that the fears of some noble Lords opposite that the amendment is not in accord with Government policy will not prevent them realising that Government policy is not invariably right. Even Governments, and even the present Government, have been known to make mistakes. Personally, I think that this is one of them.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: It is with the complete agreement of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, that I speak. Of course we value, listen to and admire with affection and respect anything that the noble Lord may say; but he would be the last person to expect us to agree with everything that he says. The idea is insulting to him and ridiculous to us. I make no apology for wholly disagreeing with the noble Lord, and for saying that I think he is unexpectedly confused. The point at issue is that of an overall body. It is to deal with four areas: the police, the fire services, waste disposal—and I am afraid that I have forgotten the other one.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Transport.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: They are functions which I think can be reasonably joined together. They are in no sense overall. My noble friends and I shall be moving some amendments to add some kind of body to deal with the arts, voluntary bodies and other matters, which are not in any way connected, and it would be ridiculous to tie them in with the police, the fire brigade or anything else. Therefore, the issue of an overall body, which is the point of the Bill, is not being wrecked, and with the greatest respect I think that the noble Lord is quite wrong in suggesting that it is.
Lord Boardman: My noble friend Lord Molson referred to this not being a mark 2 metropolitan county council. Indeed, I think that my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter said that it was probably a mark 3 metropolitan county council. However, in so far as it is not a replica of the earlier amendment, I ask: what indeed is it? The noble Lord, Lord Somers, said that it would not be elected, but that is left in some doubt in the new clause, which says that it will be "established".
I believe that the argument put forward by my noble friend was destroyed by his own eloquent speech. He referred to there being one precept instead of four, and that the joint body would decide how the levy from

945
that precept would be allocated among these three separate functions. I ask noble Lords: what sort of arguments would take place in this joint board with one precept? How the people comprising this established body are nominated is something that no doubt we shall hear about later. But these joint board members will argue about how much should go to transport and highways, waste disposal and the police. Presumably they will be nominees of separate joint authorities, some having a direct interest in the police and having been nominated to the police joint board, and some with an interest in waste, and so on. How terrible it would be if they were ordered to dispose of one precept, which my noble friend suggests is the main advantage of this joint board.
I believe that there would be increasing bureaucracy. As my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter said, the joint board would add committees onto its joint organisation so that an empire would be built up, as indeed has happened with the GLC. I believe that this would be a very retrograde step, and I believe that it would be very close to the constitution that was suggested and put before this House on a previous occasion. My noble friend Lord Home has referred to the constitutional issue that arises from that, and therefore I hope that your Lordships will reject this amendment.
6.45 p.m.
The Earl of Onslow: I think that it might be worth while underlining yet again what my noble friend Lord Home of the Hirsel has said. The noble Baroness, Lady Birk, is one of the most intelligent Members of your Lordships' Committee. She knows as well as I do what her plan has been in this regard. First, she tried to persuade noble Lords to have one joint board. She said "That is nice. Now, what about two joint boards?" We are now dealing with a third. The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, is to move some amendments setting up such bodies on the arts, and so on, and before we know it there will be many joint hoards and central authorities.
I am sure that the noble Baroness would infinitely prefer them to be elected rather than appointed. If they are elected rather than appointed then heigh-ho! by the wave of a magic wand we have a new GLC or a new metropolitan county council. That is exactly what the Opposition has asked for, and when we were in Opposition if we had behaved like that to major Bills which had been given Second Readings in another place and in this House then we would have been accused of wrecking the Constitution, and the noble Baroness knows it. She would have been the best and the most effective of our accusers. The noble Baroness is far too clever to—
Baroness Birk: Before the noble Lord sits down, although flattery will get him almost anywhere, it certainly cannot extend to trying to read my mind. The noble Lord cannot look into the future with or without his crystal ball. I was talking to the amendment, and it is the amendment before us. We are not talking about going back to a GLC or a metropolitan county council; we are not talking about them being elected.
Lord Elton: If the noble Baroness—
Baroness Birk: We are in Committee. I would remind the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, that there is provision in the Bill itself for joint committees and I cannot see what all the big fuss is about. Evidently the Government's supporters are absolutely terrified that anything should be done to improve the Bill, which is our job—that is, to help revise it, to save the taxpayer money and to enable the Bill to work more efficiently. They just think that the word "abolition" applies to everything and everybody.
Lord Elton: This is the Committee stage and interventions are permitted within interventions. As the noble Baroness says that my noble friend cannot read her mind, I am sure she will be kind enough to explain what is in it. Is the noble Baroness saying that she will not in any circumstances now move to make these bodies elected bodies at a later stage?
Baroness Birk: Certainly not—I shall not say that I shall or shall not do anything at all. This is just ridiculous; it is childish. I expect better of the Minister than that. We are not playing kindergarten games.
Lord Elton: In the words of the lawyers, no further questions.
The Earl of Onslow: Can the noble Baroness categorically say that she would prefer this new joint body not to be elected?
Baroness Birk: I am not going to say that. This is absolutely ridiculous. Are noble Lords so uncertain of themselves that, if they are faced with something that makes sense, like the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Molson (I was going to say, moved by my noble friend but I had better not; it will do him no good), they are not alive enough and cannot read and take in any other amendments that come forward and treat each of them on its merits? It is just absurd to take one amendment and say that it will lead here, there and everywhere; it is nonsense. It must be examined on its merits to see what it says, and then noble Lords will see the sense of it.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I know that the noble Baroness does not mean to do this, but that wholly distorts the attitude of those she calls (and I am one) the noble Lords who support the Government. On the merits of the matter, yes, we seek to improve the Bill and we have a revisory role. Fortunately, I have received some support from an authoritative source for my previous interventions on the constitutional aspect. My noble friend Lord Home of the Hirsel makes it perfectly plain that, within this amendment, there is a challenge to the principle of the Bill. My attitude—I cannot speak for anyone save myself—is that I keep an open mind as to the merits of any amendment to improve the Bill and as to any derogation which will not impugn the principle. But this goes to the principle, and it is not right for the noble Baroness to sweep them all into one basket and suggest that we on these Benches are unreasonable. We are not.
Lord Kaldor: May I ask the noble Lord whether it is against the principles of the Bill to have one authority for waste disposal for a county instead of for each borough separately? Is that in accordance with the principles of the Bill if it is done separately for transport, for waste disposal and for the police? If they are joint county authorities, which have already been approved by the Committee, and it is suggested that we have one authority dealing with all three subjects, that would be against the principles of the Bill. Why is it against the principles? If anything is against the principles of the Bill, it is to have any joint authority on anything. That is not against the principles of the Bill because the Bill contains all kinds of exceptions to the general principle that boroughs and borough councils should be responsible for everything.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I sense the mood of the Committee that I should not reply but allow other noble Lords to contribute to the debate.
Baroness Seear: It may not have escaped your Lordships' Committee that the Government Front Bench and the Back Bench come alive in this Bill only when the so-called constitutional questions are raised. It must have been exceptional, for I have never heard it before, that when the noble Lord who is speaking for the Government made his Second Reading speech he concentrated entirely on so-called constitutional questions and did not defend what the Bill set out to do. I think that was extremely wise of him because there is nothing in the merits of the Bill that he is able to defend.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: I should like to reinforce the practical point made by my noble friend Lord Boardman. I believe that the outstanding point concerns the constitution. I do not think it can be brushed off as the noble Baroness brushed it off. The evidence we were given by my noble friend Lord Home of the Hirsel should be pondered on. To go deliberately into conflict on a principle and a convention as important as this would be dangerous. But I will leave that because what the noble Baroness has done—and she is so able in doing it—is to use an argument against one point to pretend that another is, as she said, "a sensible thing to do". She rather suggested that the effect of the amendment is that an ordinary, proper thing ought to flow. It is that aspect, with which I should like to deal, that I have seen from practical experience. I shall keep in the background the overriding constitutional point.
I believe it is a positive nonsense to suggest that a joint board could be effective for dealing with aspects as different as waste disposal, the police, transport and the fire service. They are quite separate organisations which need different techniques and expertise. If eventually we had to have the separate boards there would on those separate boards be people who knew all about the subject of particular boards. On transport there would be people who followed in detail the problems of transport. On the police board there would be people expert in matters flowing from the police. To suggest that it would be economical, would save money and make people work rather better by putting them all together in practical terms is a nonsense.
948
I should like to make an appeal to those members of the Committee who have sat on local authorities. I have many sad experiences of sitting on separate committees—the fire brigade committee is one I have in mind, or the transport committee—and going into detail, and coming to a conclusion which from the expert view one had was the right conclusion. Under the procedures of the local authority, before a decision had the full power of the local authority behind it, it went to what was known as a general purpose committee. When it went to the general purpose committee, with all the horse trading that went on—those who wanted something for the police struck a deal with those who wanted something to do with waste disposal—the outcome was that we were unable to gain expert, detailed guidance—
Lord Monkswell: Will the noble Lord give way?
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: I just wish to make the point first about the expert guidance which the separate committees want. Every time my noble friend Lord Molson has spoken in this Committee he has shown par excellence that he is a theorist, that he is not practical. He is like many theorists, as I understand them; he reads the small print—many people have got into trouble by not reading the small print, I accept that—and overlooks the big print. The big print on this is that joining together four separate committees into one joint committee would form a powerful organisation which would have the same powers and therefore the same dangers as the metropolitan council had in the first place. The main problem, again from practical experience, particularly as there is money involved, is that if there was enough money to cover the four groups, the most powerful sections in the group would take more money from the general fund to the detriment of the other three. The fact that they would have their precepts given separately would allow the individual authorities to reach better conclusions—
Lord Monkswell: Will the noble Lord give way?
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: I shall, but other people want to speak. Of course I shall give way, I always do, but I can save the time of the Committee by saying that I believe that however one tries to smooth it over, it could be almost another general committee, similar to the one that the Bill intends to remove. That is not looking at it in a sensible way; it is being partisan.
Lord Monkswell: I thank the noble Lord for finally giving way. The point I want to make is that he has raised what, to my mind, is a very dangerous argument which suggests that the whole validity of local government and, dare I say it, national government in this country is at question. The implication of his argument is that no specialist function, whether it be education, housing or social services, should be the province of the elected local authority but should be the province of a specialist body. Can your Lordships imagine the implications for local government in this country if we were to have different committees of the council operating completely independently—authorities in their own right for all the functions of local government? We should have a myriad of committees,

949
all making decisions in their own right, bearing no relationship to any other organisation or function. It is a recipe for a mad house. Just before the noble Lord stands up again I shall make a final point. How do the Government intend to explain the extra cost of running meetings, hiring meeting places, etc., buying new computers for the staff payroll for all these different bodies?
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: The only reason I rise again is to say that I was right not to give way originally. The noble Lord did not want to ask me a question; he wanted to make a speech. Now he has made his speech and he has confirmed every point that I tried to make.
Baroness Lockwood: I should like to support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Molson, in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Ingleby. The amendment is sponsored, I remind the Committee, by those two noble Lords and not by my noble friend on the Front Bench. Secondly, I remind the Committee that the amendment has nothing to do with the GLC, though the GLC has been called into question on two occasions. The amendment is concerned with the metropolitan counties.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, said on the constitutional point that he was prepared to support an amendment which sought to improve the Bill. I suggest that that is what this amendment attempts to do. In considering the metropolitan counties, by the provisions in the Bill we shall have three separate joint authorities: one for the police, one for fire, and one for passenger transport. The amendments which have been passed by the Committee will lead us to have more than three joint authorities. Surely it is sensible to have one joint authority concerned with all the services. The noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, says that they deal with specialist subjects. Of course they deal with specialist subjects, because they all have their own particular specialists. Equally, they will share specialists. They certainly will share the specialists in the whole of the computer services; they will share specialists in the field of legal services; they will share specialists in the field of financial experts. Therefore, there is a saving in the sense of each of the boards employing their own specialist back-up services which all boards would need.
7 p.m.
Secondly, I think there is a very important point to be borne in mind about the staffing of these joint boards. We say and think in terms of setting up three or four joint boards that there is a surplus of some of the technical experts that local government needs. But that is not so. Therefore all these boards would be competing for specialist services. Certainly when you look in the field of computer services and some of the technological back-up that the joint boards would need, then we would be moving into an area where there is a shortage of some specialists. It is therefore, for all sorts of reasons, important that we should improve the Bill in this way by having such a joint board.
I would again remind your Lordships of what the Select Committee on Science and Technology said,
950
though not by repeating the same quotation given by the noble Viscount. This was relating to giving a sense of perspective to the provision of these services. At paragraph 43, the Select Committee said that a broad perspective can be valuable in the integration of different services. The Select Committee report went on to say:
"Access of different services to common facilities can lead to cross-fertilisation of ideas and encourage informal joint planning".
On the evidence of the Select Committee, again I would urge your Lordships to support this amendment.
The Countess of Mar: I feel like putting up my hands and saying, "I surrender"! I have listened to a great many debates during the course of this Bill and time and time again we have had the constitutional matters raised. At the Second Reading, we were told it was not constitutional for us to vote against the Second Reading of the Bill. Now we come to the stage where we are told that it is unconstitutional for us to debate and vote on this particular question—as on several ones that have gone previously. As a Member of your Lordships' House, I am not allowed a vote in a general election. There are certain parts of this Bill which I object to. I cannot write to my MP and say, "Please object for me". I am not allowed to object in your Lordships' House, according to some Members on the Benches opposite. What is my constitutional position and what is the constitutional position of a lot of people sitting on Benches beside me?
From the very seat that I occupy, it can be seen that I am not a political beast; but I care very much about what happens to some of the organisations within the Greater London Council and the metropolitan boroughs. I think that good, basic common sense decrees that some of them should be kept together and that there should be overall authorities for some of the functions. Admittedly, overlapping functions need to be got rid of; there is no point in having them. But at the same time we must use our sense, please.
Lord Ingrow: One point has not been touched on at all as yet. The four bodies together are not the same. One of them is a police authority; one of them has magistrates attached to it. How is that going to work with the proportion of one-third magistrates on the police authority? Are they going to be able to share in the precept discussions on the fire authority or on waste disposal? This has not been considered at all. It would be quite wrong for the magistrates. I am treasurer of the association with 25,000 members who contribute valuable work to the police committee. How are they going to do it if this amendment is passed?
Lord Elton: Your Lordships have had a fascinating and instructive debate. After what my noble friend Lord Home of the Hirsel has said, I think that the most relevant remark came from the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. She said that at Second Reading I addressed myself to Second Reading points and that this side of the House became alert on Second Reading. She used the word "constitutional", but the substitution is perfectly valid. To me, it has been perfectly extraordinary to see the way that time and again we have returned to the general principle of the Bill to debate in

951
a series of formal speeches the general principles which we had thought established rather than proceeding with the smaller amendments which accept the principle and seek to improve the Bill within it. Noble Lords will see the large numbers of amendments which were withdrawn at various stages in the last five days.
I accept the charge that I addressed myself to constitutional points at Second Reading, because that is the duty of the Minister at the Box. I do not accept the point that I did not explain the reasons for the Bill. I ask the noble Baroness, if she wishes to pursue the matter, perhaps to read my speech again because I think a little bit of it must have slipped her mind.
We are now faced with two separate but related issues. The first is the intentions of this amendment and the second is its effects. The effects, as my noble friend Lord Home has pointed out—and many of my noble friends have echoed him—are the more important, but I owe it to your Lordships and to my noble friend Lord Molson to say a word about the intentions. The first declared intention of the amendment is a reduction in bureaucracy. That would lead one to expect, would it not, a bringing together of like with like? But the first function mentioned in the amendment, as my noble friend Lord Ingrow so aptly pointed out, is the police.
A police authority is not simply a committee of a local authority; it is unlike any of the council's management committees. It does not consist only of elected councillors nor does it consist of a collection of councillors and people co-opted by them. It consists as to two-thirds of elected councillors and as to one-third of magistrates appointed by the Bench. They have no elective authority whatever, but with the magistrates they form the police authority. The police authority is a different animal from other committees, and that needs to be noted.
The amendment does not, as you might expect, leave the functions undisturbed in their existing baskets nor because the police function is already in a different basket from the others; nor is it the same as the others. It is different. The police are regulated by a different body of statutes, entirely distinct from that relating to the other functions in this basket. To brigade the police with the waste disposal service is not to put like with like. Your Lordships may think that I have picked waste disposal as a sort of debating point. Obviously, it is easy to think of being mixed up with the collection and disposal of rubbish as being very different, and humorously different, from the function of looking after and keeping the Queen's peace.
Very well. I will give you another example in order to show that this is not a mere debating point. I pick up the service latched on to by the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, in a very skilful speech in which she said that we all think of fire and police together—or words to that effect. They are, I accept, both mobile services; they are both uniformed services; they are both disciplined services; they are both emergency services. And, unlike waste disposal and the police, they quite often operate together. Once again I must start by pointing out the considerable difference between the fire authority and the police authority. A fire authority consists entirely of elected councillors. It employs its
952
chief officer and all his men and has the final responsibility for operational policy. A police authority consists as I have already described it. It is not the employer of the chief constable; it is not the final authority. It shares responsibility with the chief constable and the Home Secretary. Its chief officer is not, in law, its employee; and they are different creatures.
I will not go on about the differences in statute: I have made the point. I will simply repeat that the amendment would not leave matters largely undisturbed: nor would it put like with like. It would not therefore achieve its first stated purpose of producing a streamlined bureaucratic service; and I would remind your Lordships that size does not always produce either economy or streamlining.
I think it may be the administrative support services that noble Lords believe can be "slenderised" by this amendment. Your Lordships should, for a start, recognise what the extent of those services is. For the police, for example, it is less than 10 per cent. of the total. What your Lordships probably may not know is that some of those services are already provided from outside the authorities on an agency basis. Even more to the point is that that agent is already in some cases one of the district councils in the metroplitan county areas. Where a metropolitan district council already provides the building and architectural service or the bulk-purchasing service for its metropolitan council, as does happen, it is our proposals that leave things undisturbed and the amendment which will redistribute them.
It will not, I repeat, achieve its first stated purpose. That would be achieved by schemes like those which already exist and which we encourage in advice which we have circulated to the district councils already and which will be available to the joint authorities when they are created. Indeed, it has been put to us that the advantages of the districts providing these services are so great that we should amend the Bill expressly to require such involvement. It does seem to us that this might be an improvement, and if it will help my noble friend I will certainly undertake to look very carefully, in the light of his comments, at what might be done along those lines to bring forward amendments at Report. That, of course, is much narrower than what he proposes in his amendment.
The second stated purpose of the amendment is to enable the new authority to take an over-view of total expenditure on joint authority services. My noble friend Lord Boardman has helpfully spoken on that. I would therefore merely remind your Lordships that the members of the joint authorities will all of them be members of the constituent authorities; they will all of them take part in the budgetary processes of the constituent bodies; and they will all of them be involved in the budgetary process of the joint authority. They will therefore have an ability to weigh these priorities properly. The amendments which I suggest might even increase their ability to do so.
I turn now from intentions to effects and of course to the point at which my noble friend Lord Home of the Hirsel started. I asked your Lordships to cast your minds back over what has happened since the Bill came to this Chamber. We started out with three joint

953
authorities for one function each. We now have four, because of the introduction of waste disposal, and we also have the function of the passenger transport authority added to that of highway and traffic control. I will not express now the strength of my feeling about that having been done: I merely state that it has been done and it seems to me that it may indicate a movement away from the pure principle of the Bill. That was, first, to devolve as many functions as possible from the metropolitan county councils to the metropolitan district councils and, secondly, to avoid creating county-wide bodies with multiple responsibilities which might begin, remotely perhaps, but menacingly, to resemble the bodies which the Bill abolishes.
The purposes which your Lordships upheld and endorsed at Second Reading, and thereafter on a Division, were such as I have just described. It seems to me that the amendments at present before us move away from those principles even if we do not look at them in the context of what has gone before. Movement there is, and I ask your Lordships whether the movement now proposed is not larger and more significant. Your Lordships will remember an earlier amendment that also sought to establish multipurpose joint authorities, which your Lordships rejected after debate. The significant difference between this amendment and that one is just that the bodies will not be directly elected. In every other respect the principle is the same. This amendment, like the earlier one, would set up county-wide multipurpose bodies with their own separate multifunctional bureaucracies and all the potential frustration and all the powers of precept which have proved so damaging and unacceptable in the abolition bodies in the past.
The noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, in what I regard as a helpful intervention from my point of view, said that it was ludicrous to resist the principle of accretion of functions to one body because that meant that you could never have a county council. Does that not let the cat out of the bag—that the accretion of functions creates a county council?
Lord Monkswell: If the noble Lord will forgive my correction, the point I was trying to make, and I think I made it in my intervention earlier, was that the arguments being used on the noble Lord's side of the Chamber would seek to deny the validity of local government; and by that I meant district councils. I raised the spectre of education, housing and social services each being separate organisations not coming to a council at the head.
Lord Elton: I accept entirely the point that the noble Lord intended to make. I addressed myself to the point which he actually made quite clearly, in my view; and that was that the body which you get by putting functions together is a local authority, and if you put it at the level at which the Bill puts it you finish up with something that is rather emotively called "Frankenstein Mark 2". I would not put it as strongly as that but the fact is that it is flat contrary to the principle of the Bill.
If your Lordships look at what noble Lords opposite have sought to do to this Bill from the Second Reading
954
onwards, and put that with this amendment, your Lordships will see that it is inimical to the spirit of the Bill. I return to the wise counsel of my noble friend Lord Home of the Hirsel, who can expect me, unlike the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, to agree with him in almost everything he says, and particularly in this, because we are a revising Chamber of Parliament. It is our job to revise statutes in the broad form in which they come to us from another place. Had your Lordships wished to break the mould of the constitution, you could have refused the Bill at Second Reading or, more politely, you could have accepted the reasoned amendment which the noble Baroness put down as the tactful way of suggesting the same thing without breaking the mould of the constitution. That you refused by a resounding majority to do.
Now we have a principle, not of wrecking, but of nibbling at the Bill, which finishes up at wrecking by accretion. My noble friend is right. We should not assist this process. We ought to get back to the proper function of this Chamber at Committee stage, which is not debating the wide principles agreed in another place and accepted at Second Reading, but improving the Bill subject to the form it has been given by that process. The only way your Lordships will do that—and it is late in the day—will be to reject my noble friend's amendment.
Lord Ezra: My name was on the original amendment, and therefore I should like to crave your Lordships' indulgence for just two minutes—for one minute—on the subject.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Elton: I do not wish in any way to be hostile to the noble Lord. Your Lordships have a right to hear what he says but I understand the convention of this Chamber is that at the end of a Committee stage debate the Minister replies, and then the mover speaks. I am open to correction: the rules of this Chamber are in the hands of this Chamber, but I am merely saying what I believe to be the case. If the noble Lord wishes to take my noble friend's place in this process, I am sure that is right, but I imagine it will be briefly. I do not wish to intrude myself in any way: I merely seek to preserve the conventions.
Lord Molson: I should like the noble Lord, in this case, to reply for me.
Lord Ezra: I have the agreement of the noble Lord who moved this motion to speak in his place and I will therefore do so. I should like to suggest that we should do best to regard this proposition strictly on the grounds of which would be the best, the most efficient and the most cost-effective way of doing what we have set out to do. It seemed to me all along that the whole underlying purpose of this Bill, as frequently proclaimed by Government, was that by removing one tier of the local authority in certain parts of the country we would thereby, and the ratepayers would thereby, achieve significant savings.

955
It is, therefore, perfectly proper, in my opinion, in going through the Bill in detail that as we come to each point we should decide whether the particular propositions within it will be the most effective and efficient way of proceeding. We have now, as a result of going through the Bill and including the propositions contained within it, a number of joint committees, a number of joint bodies. It is perfectly proper to question whether their whole operation could not more effectively be undertaken if they were to operate in concert and if the common services were to be brought together wherever appropriate. I should have thought that this is something that it is perfectly proper to consider and entirely within the spirit of the Bill.
Therefore, I conclude my remarks by saying that I hope that when we make up our minds on this as a Committee we shall bear in mind that the principle objective of this amendment is to make more efficient what is proposed within this Bill.
7.21 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 109EA) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 134; Not-Contents, 148.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Gallacher, L.

Amherst, E.

Galpern, L.

Ardwick, L.

Gifford, L.

Attlee, E.

Glenconner, L.

Aylestone, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Bacon, B.

Gregson, L.

Banks, L.

Grey, E.

Barnett, L.

Hacking, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Hampton, L.

Bernstein, L.

Hanworth, V.

Beswick, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Birk, B.

Hayter, L.

Blease, L.

Heycock, L.

Boothby, L.

Hooson, L.

Bottomley, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Bowden, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Hunt, L.

Buckmaster, V.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Ingleby, V.

Caradon, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Jacobson, L.

Chitnis, L.

Jacques, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Jeger, B.

Collison, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Darling of Hillsborough, L.

John-Mackie, L.

David, B.

Kaldor, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Kearton, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Kennet, L.

Delacourt-Smith of Alteryn, B.

Kilbracken, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Denington, B.

Kirkhill, L.

Diamond, L.

Lawrence, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Ennals, L.

Lockwood, B.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Longford, E.

Ezra, L. [Teller.]

Lovell-Davis, L.

Falkender, B.

McCarthy, L.

Falkland, V.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Feversham, L.

McNair, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Mar, C.

Fitt, L.

Mayhew, L.

Foot, L.

Melchett, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Meston, L.

956

Milford, L.

Rochester, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Mishcon, L.

Russell of Liverpool, L.

Molloy, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Molson, L. [Teller.]

Seear, B.

Monson, L.

Serota, B.

Monkswell, L.

Shepherd, L.

Mountevans, L.

Simon, V.

Mulley, L.

Soper, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Stallard, L.

Nathan, L.

Stamp, L.

Nicol, B.

Stedman, B.

Ogmore, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Oram, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Paget of Northampton, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Peart, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Tordoff, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Tweeddale, M.

Prys-Davies, L.

Walston, L.

Rea, L.

Whaddon, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Wigoder, L.

Roberthall, L.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Geddes, L.

Aldington, L.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Allerton, L.

Glanusk, L.

Ampthill, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Annaly, L.

Gowrie, E.

Barber, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Greenway, L.

Beloff, L.

Gridley, L.

Belstead, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Bessborough, E.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Boardman, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Halsbury, E.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Hanson, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Harris of High Cross, L.

Brougham and Vaux. L.

Hartwell, L.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Henley, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Caithness, E.

Hood, V.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Cayzer, L.

Ingrow, L.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Kemsley, V.

Coleraine, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Kitchener, E.

Colwyn, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Layton, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Cox, B.

Long, V.

Craigavon, V.

Lothian, M.

Craigton, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Crawford and Balcarres, E.

Lyell, L.

Croft, L.

McAlpine of West Green, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

McFadzean, L.

Davidson, V.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Margadale, L.

Denning, L.

Marley, L.

Digby, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Dilhorne, V.

Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Dudley, E.

Merrivale, L.

Dundee, E.

Middleton, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Monk-Bretton, L.

Elibank, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Elles, B.

Morris, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Mottistone, L.

Elton, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Newall, L.

Fisher, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Fortescue, E.

Onslow, E.

Gainford, L.

Orkney, E.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Orr-Ewing, L.

957

Pender, L.

Sharples, B.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Sherfield, L.

Portland, D.

Skelmersdale, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Southborough, L.

Reay, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Redesdale, L.

Sudeley, L.

Reigate, L.

Swinfen, L.

Renton, L.

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

Renwick, L.

Tranmire, L.

Rodney, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Romney, E.

Trumpington, B.

Rotherwick, L.

Ullswater, V.

Rugby, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

St. Alwyn, E.

Vivian, L.

Salisbury, M.

Ward of Witley, V.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Whitelaw, V.

Sandford, L.

Windlesham, L.

Savile, L.

Wynford, L.

Selkirk, E.

Young, B.

Shannon, B.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
7.31 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: I think that this might be an appropriate moment to resume the House. I should say that it has been agreed through the usual channels that we shall not return to this Bill until half-past eight. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Films Bill
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Reason be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Reason be now considered.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS REASON FOR DISAGREEING TO THE LORDS AMENDMENT
[References to the Bill are to Bill (79). The Commons Reason is printed in italics.]

LORDS AMENDMENT
After Clause 5, insert the following new clause:
("Levy on feature films, pre-recorded video cassettes or blank video tapes.
.The Secretary of State, after one year beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, and after consultation with persons considered by him to be representative of the film production industry may by order made by statutory instrument establish arrangements to supplement the financial assistance provided under section 5(1) of the Act by funds derived from any or all of the following schemes, that is to say—

(a) a levy from independent television contractors and the BBC of an appropriate sum of money to be determined by him in respect of the showing by them of feature films on television, or

(b) a levy at such rate as he may determine on pre-recorded video cassettes containing feature film material and sold in the United Kingdom, or

(c) the appropriate film proceeds of any levy scheme approved by him in respect of blank video tape sold in the United Kingdom.")

The Commons disagreed to the above amendment for the following Reason:
Because it would infringe the sole and undoubted right of the Commons to impose taxation, and the Commons do not offer any further Reason, trusting that this Reason may be deemed sufficient.

MOTION TO BE MOVED ON CONSIDERATION OF COMMONS REASON
[The Commons Reason is printed on Paper (157). References to the Bill are to Bill (79).]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey rose to move, That this House do not insist on their amendment to which the Commons have disagreed, but propose the following amendment in lieu thereof:
After Clause 5, insert the following new clause:
("Levy on feature films or pre-recorded video cassette
The Secretary of State, after one year beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, and after consultation with persons considered by him to be representative of the film production industry may by order made by statutory instrument, establish arrangements to supplement the financial assistance provided under section 5(1) of the Act by funds derived from any or all of the following schemes, that is to say—

(a) a levy from independent television contractors and the BBC of an appropriate sum of money to be determined by him in respect of the showing by them of feature films on television, or

(b) a levy at such rate as he may determine on pre-recorded video cassettes containing feature film material and sold in the United Kingdom,").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do not insist on their amendment to which the Commons have disagreed, but propose an amendment in lieu thereof as printed on Paper (157 a). I think that this debate ought to take place in Norman French. We find ourselves on a constitutional issue, rather than on an issue of policy. Let me say immediately that, if the Commons had considered and rejected that part of our amendment which it was proper for us to put to them on policy grounds, I would not be standing up today to seek to replace it. Let me say, also, that, if the whole of the amendment had been ruled unconstitutional and involving taxation, then again, self-evidently, I would not be here to suggest any alternative to it.
But we have a curious situation. The position is that this House in its wisdom decided to propose an amendment which enabled the Secretary of State—it did not require him—by order made by statutory instrument to seek to provide financial assistance for the film industry from a levy of independent television contractors and the BBC, a levy on pre-recorded cassettes and, thirdly, the appropriate film proceeds of any levy scheme approved in respect of blank video tape. It was that third alternative which the Speaker directed in another place should be considered as taxation and an infringement of the constitutional privilege of the Commons.
The result of that was that, despite some confusion in the debate and some wish of honourable Members to discuss those items which do not constitute taxation, it was not possible to separate the three paragraphs from the new clause. Therefore, the Commons did not consider the substantive issues raised by our amendment, which we are advised—and I believe that this advice is now generally accepted—do not raise issues of taxation.
I believe that it is the right of this Chamber to insist that another place should consider the amendments which we put forward by majority vote on policy grounds. I repeat that if they adhere to their view that they do not wish to have it, I shall not seek to take the matter any further. But I believe that we have the right to have those amendments considered and not to have

959
them fall by the wayside, because of a technicality. On those grounds, and on those grounds alone, I believe that we should support the amendment in lieu. In saying that, I should make it clear that although, as is proper, my name alone appears on the Marshalled List, I have been assured of the support of the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Hampstead, and of the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, who signed the original amendment. Also, the noble Viscount, Lord Mersey, has wished me luck in moving this alternative amendment this evening. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do not insist on their amendment to which the Commons have disagreed, but propose the amendment in lieu thereof.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, noble Lords will know that I have a lot of sympathy with the case put forward for the film industry. With the noble Lord and others, I attended a committee where the case was put very strongly and effectively to us, and so I have a lot of sympathy in terms of wanting to help that great industry which is a very important part of our country's economy. So there is no argument about that.
But here we are back again on a constitutional point. The Commons have now looked three times at the principle behind the Bill, and the principle now is identical to the one that they started with. It is true that on one little section of it, and on a technicality, Mr. Speaker ruled part of it out of order because of the money content. But the principle was not altered and the other place had a chance of making some variation if they wanted to do so.
The reason I shall not support this amendment—I hope that it is not thought worthy of going through the Lobbies again—much as I want to support the future of the film industry, is that I believe that if we appear to want to be in direct confrontation with the other place, it will not be good for the partnership of the two Houses which we shall want on many matters in the future.
I believe that we ought to take the hint—it is more than a hint—that the elected representatives have examined the principle three times. At the end of the day it is they who will be answerable for what happens because of what goes on to the statute book. I do not think that we ought to use our voting muscle on this matter. The noble Lord has made his point, and has shown how strong are his feelings in the way of seeing what can be done to get the necessary finance for the film industry. We have played our part and, because we do not want a direct confrontation, I hope that the Lobbies will not be used on this occasion. The request that I make to the noble Lord, having put his case very efficiently, is not to push this matter through the Lobbies. It will not do any good for the film industry or for the general work which the two Houses have to do together.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I made no attempt to raise again the substantive issues about support for the film industry. I can only conclude that the noble Lord has not read the consideration of our cause in another
960
place, because what happened there was that Mr. Speaker called upon the Minister to move to disagree with the Lords in the said amendment and there was no debate there on the substantive issues, on which I recognise he is as much concerned as I am. I do not think either of us wants to have that debate again. What we want to do is have another place give some attention to the opinion of this House.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, I rise to support this reframed amendment, in no wish to conflict with the other place. British Film Year has now begun and, since we last discussed the matters largely contained in this amendment, it has been shown by recent broadcasts—mostly sound broadcasts—and a general debate in the country that there is a wide interest and a wide concern about the British film industry. I stress the word "British". The British aspect of this is something which has given many noble Lords a good deal of anxiety on this Bill, for it seems that the Government have not fully appreciated the concern about the British film industry. They see the film industry as an international film industry in which we have a role to play. We have been over these arguments ad nauseam but I think it is important to mention that. It also explodes a myth, which may have prevailed at the beginning of the movement of the Bill through this House, that the British filmgoer was no longer an important factor.
People are very interested in cinema in this country. They have become more and more interested in cinema because they are exposed to it through television, and that is something which relates to this amendment. They are becoming more and more exposed to it because they see films on pre-recorded video tapes in greater and greater numbers.
Social habits are changing, as indeed they are in the way people spend their leisure. They go to pubs less often and they drink less beer. I suggest that they look at less television. Perhaps television contributed in some measure to the drift away from the cinemas, but, as I have said through the course of the Bill, I lay the blame for that at the feet of the exhibitors. The exhibitors have shown a certain will to improve the amenities given to the British filmgoer. We shall see that through this year, but at the present time most people see films and develop an interest in films through television and through the very excellent coverage which films are given on television and of course through the prerecorded video tape.
All this amendment says, quite reasonably, as was accepted by your Lordships in this House previously, is that in the event that this new consortium should be short of funds to such a degree that the Secretary of State thinks that a contribution from television and a contribution from people who produce prerecorded video tapes would in some way increase and improve the financial ability of the new consortium to add impetus to the production of British films, he may make the necessary arrangements. That seems to me to be common sense and I hope that your Lordships will again approve this amendment in its new form.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I should just like to add one word in support of my noble friend on the Front Bench. I support absolutely the right of the

961
Commons to impose taxation. It seems to me to be a right that we can in no way challenge; nor do we want to challenge it. I also think, however, that it is appropriate that the Commons should consider propositions placed before them by this House. What has happened in this case is that, instead of considering whether or not they shall impose taxation, they have in fact failed to consider the proposition itself. Therefore I think it right and proper that we should take it back and ask them to consider what we suggest. They can make their own decision; they can decide to impose or not to impose. When the Secretary of State makes an order, if he ever makes an order, they cart decide at that point what they will do about it. They can throw it out, accept it or reject it.
It seems to me unreasonable that the proposition should be thrown out in principle without consideration. That is in fact what has happened. I should have thought that my noble friend was right in asking them just to have a look at it again.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, for the brevity with which he introduced his amendment. I am not going to get myself involved this evening in constitutional issues, because they are well understood by all Members of your Lordships' House.
I would pick up one point that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, made in regard to my noble friend Lord Mersey. My noble friend sent me a copy of the letter which he wrote to the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, in which he said—I shall paraphrase because I do not have the letter at my elbow—that we have arrived at a position—he said this in his letter—that is untenable to him. He had not realised that we were going to get into a conflict which would be to the general disadvantage of the film industry. He ended his letter to the effect that he wanted no part of this any further. I do not think that I am wrong as to the general sense of what he said.
7.45 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, if the noble Lord will permit me, I have a subsequent letter from the noble Viscount which I think makes things clear. It says:
"Thank you for your note and I appreciate the constitutional position now. Yesterday"—
this was when he wrote to the noble Lord the Minister—
"I told Government both orally and in writing that I would not put my name to any more amendments on the Films Bill. I am sorry but that is the position for manifold reasons better gone into over a cup of tea. I imagine that you will go ahead with what I call the (a), (b) amendment as opposed to the (a), (b), (c) amendment, if you get me, and I wish you luck".
It was to that letter I referred when I referred to the views of the noble Viscount.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, reads out part of the letter. I think I have made my point.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, a further letter.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, may I read the rest of the letter? It continues:
"But perish the thought that we are to have yet another debate on this Bill, a sort of Fourth Reading. Really the issues have been debated to death already. Perhaps it need only be a 10 minute debate".
It is for exactly those reasons that I referred only to the constitutional issue and not to the substantive issues, and I spoke for only four minutes.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I have a rather different letter, my Lords.
Lord Mishcon: Oh please!
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I have a letter; no, it really is not good enough for the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, to sit there, arms folded, and say, "Oh please!"
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I will not do it with arms folded but what I will do is to remind the noble Lord the Minister, though I should have thought that he needed no reminder, of the convention of this House which is that you do not read correspondence to the whole of the House without the full permission of the person concerned. Unfortunately the noble Lord the Minister started by doing it and suggested that my noble friend might have been inaccurate, which is a neutral phrase that I should like to use. My noble friend was accordingly driven to reply that there was a further letter, in order to show that he was not inaccurate. But I would beg both noble Lords, if I may respectfully say so, not to quote correspondence unless there is a direct authority by the person who wrote the letter so to quote.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am quite happy to go along with that. It was not I who raised the question of what my noble friend Lord Mersey said. It was the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, who said, and Hansard will record what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh said, that my noble friend was in accord—
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: No, my Lords, Hansard will not say that.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: Well, my Lords, it was the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, who brought up what my noble friend said, and my noble friend is not here. Because he is my noble friend, I felt that it was not unreasonable for me to give my understanding of what he felt about this matter. I am quite prepared to leave what my noble friend Lord Mersey had to say because he is not here to speak for himself. But, having dealt with that, perhaps I may say in response to the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, and the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, that the other place has discussed the principle underlying paragraphs (a) and (b) of this amendment.
My noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls said—and there is no disagreement there—that in fact the other place has discussed this matter. The other place discussed it in relation to a general principle. That your Lordships' House decided to pass an amendment with the small paragraph (c), against which Mr. Speaker has ruled, is not disputed.

963
The principle of a levy has been discussed in the other place. The proposition that exhibition outlets for films should be levied to assist the film production industry has been considered on a number of occasions both in the other place and in your Lordships' House. The arguments for and against various levy options have been debated in detail. Indeed, the two strands of this particular amendment were discussed here during Report and Third Reading.
I listened very carefully to the arguments advanced. The Government's opposition to the introduction of statutory redistributive mechanisms has remained unchanged since it was first set out in the White Paper on film policy, following an extensive review of the industry. I believe that at this stage little purpose would be served by rehearsing yet again the arguments which the Government have previously advanced. I shall instead reiterate the central point. We do not consider statutory recycling mechanisms to be an efficient means of encouraging an economic activity that is essentially orientated towards the expanding market place for films which the traditional and new outlets for both cable and direct broadcasting by satellite represent. We believe that our general approach of moving away from the statutory intervention of the past and towards the creation of the right business environment is the correct means of encouraging the future prosperity of the industry as a whole.
I believe that those who wish—as I and my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls do—to see all sectors of the British film industry thrive should take this opportunity to consider the consequences for the film industry if this amendment is carried, with all the risk of further delay that it would entail.
It has been clear from the discussion that has taken place during various stages of the Bill that there is widespread sympathy with the plight of the cinema. I share the concern that no fewer than 24 cinemas closed in the first four months of this year alone. Other cinemas have closed since we first debated this matter. An aspect of this Bill which has been almost universally welcomed is its provision for the early removal of the Eady Levy. The Government's firm intention has been to end the levy burden on cinemas as soon as sufficient funds were received to meet the commitments of that levy to the levy's beneficiaries.
I am sure that noble Lords here this evening would wish to be aware that, according to our latest estimate, sufficient funds have now been received to enable us to abolish the levy as soon as this Bill is enacted. I must make it clear that to delay the enactment of this legislation will be to the considerable disadvantage of the hardest-pressed sector of the British film industry—and that is the exhibitors. That is the point to which the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, has addressed himself on a number of occasions—not least this evening.
There are other considerations which those who oppose the Bill should bear in mind. Under the existing films legislation, the Eady Levy will carry on until October—that is under the provisions of the Film Levy (Finance) Act 1981. While that goes on, more cinemas will close. In October, the levy will cease to
964
exist and with its expiry will go the funding it has previously provided for the National Film and Television School and the BFI Production Board. The Eady funding for the National Film Finance Corporation will end in July this year, and the NFFC itself will cease to operate in December.
This means that by the end of the summer the NFFC will no longer be able to function effectively, although it will exist as a shell thereafter. There will be no provision for its replacement by the British Screen Finance Consortium. The basis for the Government's contribution of £1·5 million a year to support film production and £500,000 a year towards project development and for short films will be lost.
The old provisions of the Films Act 1960 in relation to registering films and licensing cinemas and film distributors would, however, remain—at some considerable cost to the industry. The main purpose of the provisions here is to underpin the quota and allow a scheme such as the Eady Levy to operate. With the suspension of the quota and the demise of Eady, they serve no useful purpose, but the 1960 Act makes no provision—as this Bill does—for their removal.
I cannot see what the film industry could gain from an amendment which is merely permissive, to which the Government have made their opposition patently clear. I can see no advantage that would outweigh all the considerations of which I have just been speaking. I remind the House that the much vaunted statement—what is called the all-industry statement—which has been produced from time to time as evidence—most notably by the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Hampstead, during our consideration of the White Paper just some weeks before this Bill came to your Lordships' House—of opposition to the Government's film policy by,
"virtually all sides of the industry",
was not, in fact, signed by two of the three principal groupings in the film industry—that is, the exhibition and distribution sectors. If noble Lords intend to support this amendment and thus to delay still further the passage of this Bill, with all the implications that would have for the film industry, I ask them now to think again; to consider very seriously the possible consequences of their action upon the British film industry which they seek to support—and which they indeed claim they are trying to support by virtue of this series of amendments couched in similar terms.
I shall not repeat all the arguments that we have gone through. I merely underline the very grave dangers which will face the British film industry if further delay is occasioned in pursuing a principle which, time and time again, the Government have opposed. The Government have no intention whatsoever of implementing a levy such as is provided for in this amendment. I beg your Lordships not to delay the passage of this Bill. That would do undoubted harm to the British film industry, riding as it is on a successful wave. I believe that the industry would be gravely set back were we to delay the implementation of this Bill. I invite your Lordships to reject the amendment before us this evening.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord the Minister has in essence—and I hope that I am

965
not misrepresenting him—made two points. His first point was that the amendment was considered in another place. His second was that there would be some danger (he may even have said grave danger) in the delay which would be occasioned by this amendment being carried, sending the Bill back to another place, and having it dealt with—presumably with the amendment being overturned there.
On the first point, it is necessary to say that Mr. Speaker took the view that the amendment could be considered only as a whole. When he was questioned as to whether his ruling precluded any discussion of the subsections or any opportunity to say why they should be opposed (and it was a supporter of the Government who raised these points) Mr. Speaker said:
"The Lords' amendment is debatable in the negative sense, 'That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment'. I do not know whether, in the light of my ruling, the hon. Gentleman would wish to pursue the matter".—[Official Report, Commons, 30/4/85; col. 222].
The honourable gentleman did not. In other words, the point I am making—if I have to make it again—is that there was no debate on the substantive issues in another place.
On the Minister's second point, I rather feel that the noble Lord has gone over the top. We are talking about a period of perhaps two weeks between a decision of this House and a further decision in another place, and then possibly another two weeks before the Bill returns to this House again, if the Commons insist or do not insist on the amendment. That is the kind of time-scale which applied before. The amount of time taken in terms of column inches is not very great. The threat to Government time is not very severe. In view of the assurances we were given by the Government concerning the healthy state of the British film industry, I find it difficult to believe that a delay of approximately four weeks in the Bill receiving its Royal Assent will make any serious difference to the economic, financial or other prospects of the film industry.
I come back to the constitutional point. We have a right that the amendment carried here should be considered on a substantive basis by another place. In moving this amendment I am asking the House to offer another place the opportunity to consider the matters which they wished to consider and were prevented from so doing by the ruling of the Speaker.
8 p.m.
On Question, That the House do not insist on their amendment to which the Commons have disagreed but propose the amendment in lieu thereof set out on Paper (157 a)?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 83; Not-Contents, 100.

DIVISION NO. 3

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Birk, B.

Amherst, E.

Bottomley, L.

Attlee, E.

Brockway, L.

Avebury, L.

Caradon, L.

Bacon, B.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Barnett, L.

Chitnis, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Collison, L.

Bernstein, L.

David, B.

966

Davies of Leek, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

McNair, L.

Delacourt-Smith of Alteryn, B.

Mar, C.

Melchett, L.

Denington, B.

Meston, L.

Diamond, L.

Molloy, L.

Ennals, L.

Monkswell, L.

Ezra, L.

Mountevans, L.

Falkender, B.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Falkland, V. [Teller.]

Nicol, B.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Ogmore, L.

Fitt, L.

Oram, L.

Gallacher, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Galpern, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Grey, E.

Prys-Davies, L.

Hampton, L.

Rea, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Hayter, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Heycock, L.

Rochester, L.

Hooson, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Serota, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Shepherd, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Stallard, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Stamp, L.

Jeger, B.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Kaldor, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Tordoff, L.

Lawrence, L.

Walston, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Whaddon, L.

Lockwood, B.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Hanson, L.

Allerton, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Annaly, L.

Harris of High Cross, L.

Barber, L.

Hood, V.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Beloff, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Belstead, L.

Ingrow, L.

Boardman, L.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Kemsley, V.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Brookeborough, V.

Layton, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Long, V.

Caithness, E.

Lothian, M.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Lyell, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

McFadzean, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Margadale, L.

Cox, B.

Marley, L.

Craigavon, V.

Marsh, L.

Craigton, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Crawford and Balcarres, E.

Middleton, L.

Croft, L.

Molson, L.

Davidson, V.

Monk-Bretton, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Digby, L.

Onslow, E.

Dilhorne, V.

Orkney, E.

Dundee, E.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Elibank, L.

Elles, B.

Portland, D.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Rankeillour, L.

Elton, L.

Reigate, L.

Fisher, L.

Renton, L.

Fortescue, E.

Renwick, L.

Gainford, L.

Romney, E.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Salisbury, M.

Glanusk, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Glenarthur, L.

Savile, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Sharples, B.

Greenway, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Gridley, L.

Southborough, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Sudeley, L.

Swinfen, L.

967

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

Vivian, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Trumpington, B.

Whitelaw, V.

Ullswater, V.

Windlesham, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Wynford, L.

Vickers, B.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
The Deputy Speaker (Viscount Simon): The Question is, That the House do not insist on their amendment to which the Commons have disagreed.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.30 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.8 to 8.30 p.m.]

Local Government Bill
House again in Committee.
Clause 23 [Metropolitan county police authorities]:
Lord Monkswell Lord Monkswell moved Amendment No. 109F:
Leave out Clause 23 and insert the following new clause:
("Metropolitan and Northumberland Police authorities.
.—(1) As from the abolition date, a police force shall be maintained for every metropolitan district in England and in the County of Northumberland.
(2) From that date the police authority for a police area consisting of a metropolitan district or the county of Northumberland shall be a committee of the council of the district or county constituted in accordance with the provisions of this section to be known by the name of the district or county with the addition of the words "police committee".
(3) The police authority for a police area consisting of a metropolitan district or the county of Northumberland shall consist of such number of persons as may be determined by the council of the metropolitan district or the county of Northumberland, and of that number—

(a) two thirds shall be members of the council of the district or county of Northumberland appointed by the council,

(b) one third shall be magistrates appointed by the magistrates' courts committee for the district or the county of Northumberland from among their own number.

(4) The magistrates to be appointed members of a police authority for a metropolitan district or the county of Northumberland shall, subject to section 24 below, be appointed at such times, in such manner and for such terms as may be prescribed by rules made by the Secretary of State.").
The noble Lord said: I hope that I shall not detain the Committee too long. Amendment No. 109F replaces Clause 23 with a new clause which sets up new police authorities on the basis of metropolitan district boundaries and gives back to the county of Northumberland a much modernised police force of its own. These forces will replace the very large metropolitan county police forces.
With the leave and indulgence of the Committee, I shall mention other amendments which are subsequent and consequential to the main amendment to give a better idea of its full intent. Amendment No. 109G makes provision for transitional arrangements between the present metropolitan county police forces and the new police
968
authorities and chief constables to ensure an orderly change from the very large metropolitan county police forces and the smaller and more local police forces set up by the new Clause 23.
Amendment No. 109G: Clause 24, leave out Clause 24 and insert the following new clause:
("Interim police committees.
24.—(1) On the day thirty days subsequent to the Royal Assent to this Act there shall be established in each metropolitan district and in the county of Northumberland a body corporate which shall be known by the name of the district or county with the addition of the words "interim police committee".
(2) These interim police committees shall consist of such members as determined by reference to section 23(3) above.
(3) It shall be the duty of each metropolitan district council and the Northumberland county council and each magistrates' courts committee for such a district or county to appoint the first members of the interim police committee for that district or county not later than thirty days subsequent to the Royal Assent to this Act.
(4) It shall be the duty of each metropolitan police authority, together with the relevant interim police committees and each chief constable to make such transitional arrangements as may be deemed necessary to enable the change from metropolitan county police force to metropolitan district and Northumberland county police forces to take place without loss of police effectiveness, to arrange and agree the equitable division of property, rights and liabilities and manpower between successor authorities.
(5) The metropolitan county police authorities and the interim police committees shall cease to exist on abolition day and on that day all their property, rights and liabilities (including rights and liabilities in respect of contracts of employment) shall vest in the respective police committees.").
Amendment No. 121ZD deletes part of the provision relating to the composition of police authorities.
Amendment No. 121ZD: Clause 28, page 19, leave out lines 2 to 5.
This is really a drafting change as the point is covered by new Clause 23. It should be mentioned that the involvement of magistrates in the police authorities is retained at one-third of the membership of the police authorities, I may say not because of the merits or otherwise of judicial involvement in the accountability of the police but to minimise change and to reduce the scope for contentious argument in this debate.
Amendment No. 121AZF is a drafting amendment.
Amendment No. 121AZF: Clause 29, page 19, line 17, leave out paragraph (c).
The subsection is rendered null and void by Amendment No. 109G, which changes Clause 24.
Amendment No. 132C withdraws the power of the Secretary of State to set up new local police forces in an ad hoc way, and is really a drafting amendment because new Clause 23 does the same job on the basis of a planned change and treats each metropolitan district equally.
Amendment No. 132C: Clause 41, page 25, line 12, leave out paragraph (a).
Amendment No. 132D ensures some stability for the new local police forces to get on with the job by preventing future reorganisations for a period of five years unless there is specific primary legislation.
Amendment No. 132D: Page 25, line 45, after ("area") insert ("only after a period of five years from the abolition date").
The main effect of these amendments will be to replace very large police forces—on average 6,500 strong—with smaller, more local and more effective

969
police forces with an average strength of 1,000. They will also ensure that the police and local communities will have some stability in the immediate future for at least a period of five years without the prospect of the uncertainty which will be generated by the Bill as it stands.
The Committee should make no mistake. The inclusion of the provisions of Clause 41 will be deeply damaging to the effective operation of the police. The prospect of chief constables, chairmen of police authorities, chief executives and assorted civic leaders journeying up and down between their respective local authorities and Whitehall, arguing for or against setting up new local police forces—not just for the metropolitan areas but for every shire county that has large towns within its boundaries—must be horrific to Ministers, just as it is to those of us who have an interest in effective policing. Not only will that have a damaging effect on relationships at senior level and interfere with the clear decisions that need to be made at that level; it will also have a bad effect at local level as police forces try to establish and maintain links with local communities.
I am sure that we would all agree that the job of the police is, on the one hand, to fight crime and, on the other, to maintain public order. Let us look at the situation facing us. The police forces are better paid than ever before. They are equipped with all the technical gadgets that large size and hence large budgets make possible. Their powers of stop and search, arrest and detention are draconian to the extent that some are virtually unusable.
Here I must make a point. It is not my intention in this debate to criticise the activities of chief constables or police authorities in metropolitan areas. I would go further and say that from my own knowledge I would single out Margaret Simey and Gay Cox, the respective chairpersons of the Merseyside and Greater Manchester police authorities, as two of the most impressive examples of dedicated and effective women in public service in this country.
But we are faced with a rising incidence of crime and more problems of public order than we have had for a long time. While I would be the first to recognise that the major causes of increased crime will be the effect of unemployment, bad housing and other such factors in a society that preaches private greed and public squalor—the "I'm all right Jack" attitude and the attitude of self-help which in effect means the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer—I can also recognise that public order problems are not helped by the appearance that an alien authoritarian order is being imposed on people. My argument is based on the fact that 80 per cent. of crime can be dealt with only with the active assistance of the public.
I would also argue that public order will depend on the active acceptance by at least 80 per cent. if not more of the public of the fact that the police are the legitimate custodians of public order—implicitly that the police are working to protect them and are not the agents of hostile authority. It follows that the most significant resource available to the police in the fight against crime and the control of public order is their good relationship with the public.
That relationship must be good at all levels, from top to bottom—between chief constables as the operational head of the force and the police committee as representatives of the community. Here I must stress that by "the community" I mean the whole of the community and not specific sections of it represented by particular groups of representatives. Obviously the relationship between individual officers and individual members of the public is crucial.
Another vital resource is the individual ability of policemen and women and the auxiliary staff who make up the force. One of the problems with large police forces is that the chief constable cannot know all the individuals in a force 6,500 strong, but with smaller police forces he will be able to utilise his men and women much more effectively because he will be able to get to know their strengths and weaknesses and take account of them rather than treating the men and women as numbers on a roster.
Since the war we have grown used to the arguments for economies of scale. We have seen some of the effects of that in the way local government has been reorganised. It might be argued that one of the main reasons for this Bill that we have in front of us is the very real criticisms that were levelled at the local government reorganisation in 1974.
When we consider what has gone before in this Committee stage, it is interesting that almost all the arguments from this side of the Chamber have been in terms of retaining county-wide (or in the case of London, London-wide) services on a conurbation basis, rather than devolving them to the district levels. With this amendment from this side of the Chamber we are seeking to take a function of local government that is currently provided at the metropolitan county level and bring it down to the district level.
The Government have already conceded the arguments for smaller police authorities by the inclusion of Clause 41. I hope that they will recognise that what these amendments of mine seek to do is to make police forces more local than they are at present. This is for the benefit of the police in carrying out their duty to fight crime and maintain public order for the benefit of the local communities. I beg to move.
Lord Glenarthur: The noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, has described the effect of his amendment. I think he has made a strong case for the closest possible relationship between local elected members and the police, and I do not disagree with him. It is, after all, the very purpose of this Bill to pass to the metropolitan district councils as many as possible of the responsibilities currently held by the county councils. However, we have always recognised that there are some services, of which the police is one, which can be sensibly administered on abolition only on a countywide basis. The White Paper made clear that we are satisfied that the present general structure of police authorities is really working well and that it would not be appropriate now to consider breaking up existing police forces. I stand by that judgment.
The noble Lord, in speaking to his amendments, has perhaps tried to persuade the Committee that the metropolitan district councils would be entirely capable of running their own forces. I should remind the noble Lord that so strong were the arguments

971
thought to be, including those by the party of which the noble Lord is a member, for single forces over a wider area, that, even before the Local Government Act 1972 created the metropolitan counties, the process of amalgamation had already begun in those areas.
There are currently seven combined police authorities in England, including the Northumbria Police Authority which encompasses the areas of Tyne and Wear and Northumberland county councils. The noble Lord referred to Manchester. However, I have to tell him that none of the district councils in Greater Manchester has expressed to us any interest in setting up as a separate police area or in leaving the Greater Manchester police area to combine with another area or areas. None of the county boroughs in the area had a separate police force immediately prior to the creation of the Greater Manchester metropolitan county in 1974. Manchester and Salford had been amalgamated for police purposes in 1968, while Bolton, Bury, Oldham, Rochdale and Wigan were combined with the Lancashire county police area in 1968, and Stockport was combined with Cheshire in 1967.
However, I do not by any means entirely discount the noble Lord's arguments. Although the noble Lord puts it another way and disapproved of it, that is why Clause 41 of the Bill provides a power for my right honourable friend the Home Secretary to establish a metropolitan district or a group of districts as a separate police area within its own police authority and police force. Thus there are powers there in the Bill to achieve the noble Lord's central objective. I suggest to the noble Lord that this power, with the flexibility to make whatever arrangements might be judged right in the future, is more appropriate than to take what I think is precipitate action now to create separate police authorities in the way that he should like to see.
8.45 p.m.
I think that there are two important matters for the noble Lord to bear in mind. One is caution and the other is flexibility. I do not believe that it would be right, on abolition, to break up the existing forces in the metropolitan counties. I am all the more convinced, in the light of the arguments which he has deployed, that it is right to retain, on the other hand, the flexibility which Clause 41 offers. I know that there are others who do not agree and that they will seek in due course to delete that clause from the Bill. However, I believe that that, too, would be wrong.
My right honourable friend has made it clear that he does not intend to take the initiative in using his proposed powers under the clause. However, he has made it equally clear that he would be prepared to do so if the district councils satisfied him, once the joint authorities had been in operation for a reasonable time, that they would administer the services more effectively and that provision in the rest of the metropolitan county or nationally would not be adversely affected.
That is why I suggest to the noble Lord that those key features of caution and flexibility are best met by Clause 41, not by adopting the amendment which he
972
has proposed. I suggest that what we have proposed is the right way. It has been operating for many years—and operating effectively. There is not the demand for the noble Lord's proposal from the police services which he seems to indicate that there is. I hope that with that he will not see fit to press his amendment.
Lord Monkswell: I thank the noble Lord the Minister particularly for his opening remarks when he advised the Committee that I had a very strong case. However, I must take issue with the noble Lord the Minister in the sense that he repeated, I think on more than one occasion, the concept of sensible administration. When one is talking about the organisation and the relationship between local government and the police one is not talking about only an administrative relationship. One is talking about a very close relationship that involves the provision of finance, advice on the feelings of the local community with regard to police operational matters, advice from the chief constable to the police authority about operational and other matters, as well as a very intricate relationship with the Home Office. We are not talking about an administrative function of local government.
The noble Lord the Minister has said that he is happy with current police arrangements. I am surprised that a Government who were elected on a very strong law and order ticket, should, after six years in office, with the present incidence of crime and level of public order, say that they are quite happy with the police arrangements.
The noble Lord the Minister also intoduced into his arguments the policies of the Labour Party as they pertained 20 years ago. I think it must be recognised that 20 years ago the arrangements for dealing with the local constabulary were, quite honestly, in a mess.
Here I shall introduce the response to the Government's wish to include Clause 41. We had the ludicrous situation of Luton Town having been established as a police authority, losing it to Bedfordshire and being re-established again, and then losing it again. I am sure that that did not do the people of Luton and Bedfordshire one bit of good whatsoever, and the genuine criticisms of the Labour Party to the ad hoc developments and arrangements with the police were legitimate criticisms. There was some resolution of that criticism with the introduction of the Police Act and the introduction of the local government Bill of 1972.
It is precisely to avoid this ad hoc development, this Government interference if you like in local matters, that I seek to propose this amendment. My final words must be that I recognise that this amendment has been tabled very late; there have been very few speakers, although I am gratified to see the attendance in the Committee is improving now. There have been only two speakers so far in this debate. I feel that it would be wrong to test the feelings of the Committee on this subject. I advise the Committee that probably I shall seek to bring something similar before it at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 23 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 109G not moved.]
Clause 24 agreed to.
Clause 25 [Metropolitan county fire authorities]:
[Amendment No. 110 not moved.]
Lord Renton Lord Renton moved Amendment No. 110A:
Page 17, line 43, after ("Fire") insert ("and Civil Defence").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 110A. I suggest it would be convenient to the Committee to discuss with it the dozen or so other amendments on the Marshalled List which are in my name. These are to Clauses 25, 36 and 37, and Schedules 10 and 11. I should point out they include Amendments Nos. 121AZA to 121AZE on page 7 of the List. There is a forgivable mistake on the Marshalled List, in that my name has been omitted, but if my name had been placed in front of Amendment No. 121AZA as was intended, then it would have indicated that I had tabled those five amendments.
Amendment No. 112A: page 18, line 2, after ("fire") insert ("and civil defence").
Amendment No. 113A: page 18, line 3, after ("fire") insert ("and civil defence").
Amendment No. 114A: page 18, line 7, after ("fire") insert ("and civil defence").
Amendment No. 121ZE, Schedule 10: page 140, line 5, column 3, after ("fire") insert ("and civil defence").
Amendment No. 121AZA: page 140, line 24, column 3, after ("fire") insert ("and civil defence").
Amendment No. 121AZB: page 141, line 5, column 3, after ("fire") insert ("and civil defence").
Amendment No. 121AZC: page 141, line 18, column 3, after ("fire") insert ("and civil defence").
Amendment No. 121AZD: page 142, line 5, column 3, after ("fire") insert ("and civil defence").
Amendment No. 121AZE: page 142, line 21, column 3, after ("fire") insert ("and civil defence").
Amendment No. 122B, Clause 36: page 22, line 39, leave out ("and fire") and insert ("authorities and fire and civil defence").
Amendment No. 125A, Schedule 11: page 144, line 15, after second ("fire") insert ("and civil defence").
Amendment No. 127A, Clause 37: page 22, line 41, leave out subsections (1) to (6) and insert—
("(1) Any functions which immediately before the abolition date are exercisable by a metropolitan county council by virtue of regulations made under section 2 of the Civil Defence Act 1948 shall on that date become functions of the metropolitan county fire and civil defence authority; and accordingly references in those regulations to a county council shall include references to such an authority.
(2) Any functions which immediately before the abolition date are exercisable by the Greater London Council by virtue of those regulations shall on that date become functions of the London Fire and Civil Defence Authority; and accordingly for any reference in those regulations to that Council there shall be substituted a reference to that Authority.
(3) Subsections (1) and (2) above are without prejudice to any functions exercisable under those regulations by the authorities there mentioned in their capacity as fire authorities.").
Amendment No. 127H: page 24, line 8, after ("or) insert ("or (2)").
All these amendments have the same purpose and effect; namely, to provide that civil defence in the metropolitan counties shall be the overall responsibility of a joint fire and civil defence authority, as the Bill already proposes for London. I believe and dare to hope that this commends itself to the Government and all sides of the Committee. May I
974
say, would it not be lovely to find a way we could agree, and here the chance is heaven sent and comes on this amendment.
May I remind your Lordships that civil defence has to be planned, prepared, and if the need should arise it should be operated on three levels: first, central government has various departments involved, with the Home Office, of course, mainly responsible. Then, if we go to the other end of the scale we find that at truly local level, we may say at the grass roots, it has to be done by district councils and even with parish councils helping them, so that district councils would operate the warden and rescue service, the care of the homeless, emergency feeding and make good use of volunteers in doing so. All this is a responsibility laid upon the district councils in the Civil Defence General Local Authority Functions Regulations, 1983, which were approved by Parliament.
Then I come to the third level which comes between the two that I have mentioned because the efforts of district councils need to be co-ordinated, and planning staffs with their necessary expertise have to be provided. Communications also have to be provided, not merely at district level or indeed even at county level; but communications have to be provided on a wide enough scale to meet operational requirements and indeed to embrace the co-operation of all the services concerned.
The Bill as it stands, in what are at present the metropolitan counties, does not provide for those essential responsibilities. The metropolitan county councils are to be abolished-rightly in my opinion. I am a keen supporter of the Bill; but the Bill does provide in the metropolitan areas for joint fire authorities. If my amendments are accepted, those joint fire authorities would become joint fire and civil defence authorities.
I suggest that among the various advantages of doing that, there are really three principal ones. The first is that it would provide expertise for planning and co-ordination at the proper level, the co-ordinating level. Secondly, it would save quite considerable expense because if we do not do it in the way I am suggesting there would have to be separate planning staffs at district council level for each district council which would of course mean extra cost.
Thirdly, the proposal that I am putting forward would enable staff training and the recruitment and training of volunteers to be done at what is at present county level. I think I should mention that I have been in touch with some of the professionals in this matter. The emergency planning officers would welcome a joint fire and civil defence authority in what are now metropolitan counties. They have been assured, I am told, that the fire service would not dominate the scene because just as there would be a chief fire officer for each joint authority, also there would be a chief emergency planning officer. But of course the authority composed as put forward in Schedules 10 and 11 would be responsible for both sides of the matter.
We all know that at present some metropolitan county councils have a deplorable record in civil defence. They prefer nuclear free zones and the delusion that there is nothing that can be done. Some of them hold this view in spite of the dedicated work

975
of their emergency planning officers. Speaking for myself, however, and I believe for many others, I am confident that before long those areas will make up for lost time and will be ready to cope with their responsibilities for dealing with emergencies in peace and war—war, whether conventional or nuclear. There is, I believe, a growing understanding that this is what needs to be done. I beg to move.
9 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: This amendment, moved with his usual skill and clarity by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, will not, I hope, be met with constitutional arguments—namely, that this is a joining up of services that would be contrary to the whole principle of the Bill. I should be so displeased if the noble Lord were met with that argument—a pretty weak one, in any event—because I have amendments down in my name that go precisely to the same end. I should therefore find myself allied with the noble Lord, Lord Renton, in defeat instead of what I hope will be the case, allied in victory.
There is no doubt at all that these services should be combined for the very good reasons that the noble Lord has so persuasively put forward. I wish to speak briefly. It is, I think, sensible to make brief speeches at this hour of the night. And, especially when you are on a good wicket and you have an ally like the noble Lord, Lord Renton, you do not go and ruin it by making a long speech that wears down the patience of other noble Lords. I would therefore mention quickly the following points. In regard to staffing, touched upon briefly by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, it is obvious that if you split these services—quite apart from the need for communication of expertise—you land yourself in a rather extraordinary situation. I am advised that there are insufficient numbers of staff to provide for even a single officer for metropolitan district councils if you divide the present staff that exists.
Apart from that, the real, important point that I know the Committee would want to take into account is that the amendment does no more than propose the same system, as I understand it, for the metropolitan counties as is proposed for London. Possibly the most succinct sentence that I can utter before sitting down is this: 36 points of contact, 36 spheres of responsibility, and 36 separate plans in this field especially, make no sense.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I should like briefly to support the spirit of the amendment. The masterly exposition of my noble friend Lord Renton of the true nature of the problem of civil defence wholly supports the spirit of the amendment. Whether there is a joint fire authority and a joint civil defence authority as separate entities, or conjoined as proposed, is a matter for the consideration of the Government. The key is training at county level, the point so tellingly made by my noble friend. Of course, the chief emergency planning officer would be involved, as also, one hopes, if an awkward emergency were to arise—there could be such a situation—would a senior police officer.
As regards recalcitrant authorities, clearly the reserve powers under Clause 9 of the Bill, which are of
976
general application, would be appropriate. Without wishing to introduce an unfriendly note on this amendment, I wish to say that I take a different view about the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon—I think it is Amendment No. 119A. If that is the amendment, may I deal with it later when it is moved?
Lord Mishcon: I thank the noble Lord for giving way. I wish only to make the position entirely clear. There is a grouping of various amendments in my name and that of a colleague. They are, if I remember correctly, Amendments Nos. 127C, 127E and 127G. They are grouped with an amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Renton. Amendment No. 119A is entirely separate and will be moved separately. I would only ask the noble Lord, who is one whom I admire very much, that when he next prepares a speech and reads from it that the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, is masterly, he will do precisely the same so far as I am concerned because it would help.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I apologise but I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, as always, for putting me on the right track as to which amendments were the relevant amendments. In due course, if and when we come to Amendment No. 119A, I undertake to say that the noble Lord's presentation was masterly.
Lord Glenarthur: My noble friend Lord Renton has a very proper and well-known interest in civil defence matters. Of course, the Government fully recognise that it is essential there should be proper and effective co-ordination of civil defence planning at the three levels he described—that is, nationally, regionally, and locally. Indeed, we have already taken two important initiatives to ensure such co-ordination—the development of a fully co-ordinated central plan embracing all Government departments and the undertaking of a pilot study to explore the scope for improving regional co-ordination. But much more remains to be done, although I can assure your Lordships that we are fully seized of the importance of co-ordination.
My noble friend argued, and in this he was supported by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon—entirely, I think—that proper co-ordination of civil defence planning in the metropolitan counties can only be achieved if that planning is undertaken on a countywide basis. The Government have listened carefully to arguments which have been deployed not just in this House but elsewhere within the country. And we are persuaded by them. We are persuaded that, as is the case for the fire service, civil defence planning can only sensibly be administered on abolition on a countywide basis. I hope that I shall not disappoint my noble friend Lord Renton but I fear that I shall perhaps disappoint to some extent the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. My noble friend has given a list of the amendments which he proposes to move. The amendments to which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, referred, which stand in his name—Amendments Nos. 127C, 127E and 127G—are not necessary in terms of my noble friend's amendments.
Lord Renton: If my noble friend will allow me, I should like to try to avoid confusion. I was not presuming to pre-empt the discussion on the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, which are entirely separate in their effect.
Lord Glenarthur: My noble friend has made that point, but perhaps I may anticipate what the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, might say if he were to move his amendments. They are, in fact not necessary. As I understand it, if the amendments of my noble friend Lord Renton are accepted, they will be redundant. I can only conclude by saying that I should be delighted to accept my noble friend's amendments.
Lord Mishcon: Perhaps I may add to the general acclaim which I hear from the Govenment Benches for the noble concession made by the Minister. Perhaps I may point out that these amendments were put down with exactly the same purpose and it would have been within the normal graciousness of the noble Lord the Minister if he had recognised that and had merely said that the spirit of both sets of amendments was accepted, rather than to have said merely because the noble Lord, Lord Renton, is his very good and noble friend—and I envy him that friendship and I hope that I share it—"that amendment is accepted and the others are redundant because they come from this Front Bench". That does not meet with the usual graciousness for which the noble Lord has now become very well known.
Lord Glenarthur: Having been in the fortunate position of accepting an amendment from my noble friend, or, for that matter, from any other quarter of the Committee, the last thing I should want to do is to indicate any lack of civility to the noble Lord opposite in relation to the intention of his amendments. Nevertheless, I get the drift of what he said, and I hope he will accept that his argument has been met by the Government accepting my noble friend's amendments.
Lord Mishcon: I rise for the last time. I accept that the joint arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Renton,
978
and my humble self from this Opposition Bench have been met by a concession from the noble Lord the Minister.
Lord Renton: I believe that it remains for me to make two points. First, I should like to say how grateful I am to my noble friend for saying that my amendments are accepted. Secondly, I should like to commiserate with the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and to assure him that, in moving these amendments, I had no ulterior motive whatever to frustrate him. So long as he feels that the amendments which are being accepted meet the main purpose that he had in mind, which is similar to my purpose, I hope that he may be content. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Renton Lord Renton moved Amendment No. 110B:
Page 18, line 1, leave out ("fire").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 111 not moved.]
Lord Renton Lord Renton moved Amendment No. 112A:
[Printed earlier: col. 973.]
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 112A and 113 not moved.]
Lord Renton Lord Renton moved Amendment No. 113A.
[Printed earlier: col. 973.]
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 114 not moved.]
Lord Renton Lord Renton moved Amendment No. 114A:
[Printed earlier: col. 973.]
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 115 to 119 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Clause 25, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 26 [London Fire and Civil Defence Authority]:
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 119A:
Leave out Clause 26 and insert the following new clause:
("Fire services and petroleum licensing in London
26. The Secretary of State shall by order taking effect on the abolition date make provision for the London Residuary Body to exercise the functions relating to fire services and petroleum licensing undertaken before that date by the Greater London Council.").
The noble Lord said: I hope that the good will of the noble Lord the Minister and his reasoning will equally prevail in regard to the amendment which I am just about to move. Briefly, perhaps I may remind noble Lords what this amendment seeks to do. It is that by order the Secretary of State shall make provision on the abolition date:
"for the London Residuary Body to exercise the functions relating to fire services and petroleum licensing undertaken before that date by the Greater London Council".
This being the Committee stage, I wonder whether your Lordships will spare me having to put forward any manuscript amendment in the sense that together with fire services one obviously would want to include emergency planning. As I shall advance the same argument, I hope your Lordships will take it for granted that I am asking for the functions relating to the fire services, emergency planning and petroleum to be vested in the London residuary body.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I am sorry; I did not follow. The noble Lord said, "emergency"—
Lord Mishcon: Planning.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I am much obliged.
Lord Mishcon: That was a friendly intervention and I am grateful for it. I was referring to emergency planning.
Will the Committee take it for granted that in this argument I am accepting, as we all must accept, the abolition of the Greater London Council? At the Committee stage this is what I have to accept, and what I do accept. In answer to the earlier constitutional argument, except that your Lordships are a little fed up with hearing my voice I would have endeavoured to intervene by saying that there is a sharp difference in the sentencing policy of this country going back over the centuries, between ordering that somebody be hanged And also ordering that they be drawn and quartered. I was accepting, and do accept, the hanging. I am trying to see that the Bill is sufficiently improved, upon the basis of the hanging taking place, that there is not a further sentence of being drawn and quartered: in other words, that services are not emasculated and that the advantages of cohesion of services are maintained.
On a personal note, in the good old days of the London County Council, among other chairmanships (including that of the council itself) I had the privilege of being the chairman of the London Fire Brigade for five years. I also had the privilege at a different time for
980
some four or five years of being the chairman of the supplies committee of the London County Council. As a result of personal experience, I can tell your Lordships how it was that the other services benefited from the fact that the fire service was wedded to them in some way and how the fire services benefited from the fact that they, too, were wedded to other interlinked services.
9.15 p.m.
The supplies department of the London County Council—this was a reputation inherited by the Greater London Council—had the approbation of audit commissions and generally of people concerned with local government expenditure because it was known that the policy of bulk buying and very careful administration kept costs down considerably. The supplies department would buy for various departments of the council. That was not the only way in which things were coalesced, but I do not want to go back into the past because we are now considering a very different situation in relation to the various services and the way in which inter-house, as it were, they can be linked.
Let me give one example of what will be the position in the future as against what happened in the past, though I invoke the supplies services as a distinct example. For one moment I shall consider the superannuation fund. The London residiary body has a function, the servicing of the superannuation fund. That will mean that former non-uniformed staff of the brigade will draw their basic pensions and the payment of those pensions together with Pensions Increase Act payments. As an employer, the brigade will pay into the fund. As an employer of uniformed staff it will also be responsible for paying pensions to retired uniformed staff. Obviously would it not be preferable and more efficient in the use of experienced staff if all pension payments, whether to uniformed or non-uniformed staff, whether fund borne or rate borne, were made by one body?
I now turn to the next item, computer facilities. I looked at the Secretary of State's yellow paper. In paragraph 2.27.5 I found the following:
"The residuary bodies may have a particular interim role in maintaining at abolition some central facilities and support services which underpin both their own activities and those of successor bodies, in particular computer facilities and systems. The residuary bodies will be empowered to continue to provide such services to other bodies on an agency basis until permanent replacement arrangements can be developed and put in place. For these and any other directly supplied services, the residuary bodies will recover their costs from their customers".
It is logical that computer facilities should be placed under the residuary bodies. In the available time, it is going to be quite impossible for ILEA, the London waste disposal authority, the London fire and civil defence authority and how many other bodies one can only imagine formed out of the GLC organisation to develop their own programs and computer facilities for such functions as accounting, invoice payments, salaries payments, pensions payments and personnel records. All such bodies will need to rely upon existing computer facilities and computer systems with which the future staff of these new bodies are already familiar. The best home for those facilities obviously

981
lies with the London residuary bodies, and inter-organisational links can be minimised if the fire service is also part of the residuary bodies.
I referred to the supply services. Perhaps I may link with that scientific services because, also in the yellow paper, there was expressed a little glimmer of hope that borough co-operation would produce joint arrangements for both those services—centralised purchasing and scientific services. As I have said, there is absolute and total agreement as to the success and efficiency of London's supply department used, indeed, by all the London boroughs as well as the GLC services, ILEA and a number of other organisations.
In all the comment and observations on the Government's proposals there has been nothing but praise as well for the GLC scientific branch and many pleas that a method of ensuring its continuance as an entity should be found. In short, there is universal agreement that both organisations should remain intact and universal agreement that co-operation between London boroughs is, unfortunately, very much of a non-starter. The logical answer must be to retain both services within the London residuary body.
The logical answer adds to the argument for placing the fire service also with the residuary body in London. The fire brigade spends about £5 million a year, through the GLC supplies department, on such items as uniforms, fuel, non-specialist vehicles, office equipment and stationery, laundry and cleaning and security services. Some 7,000 square feet of supplies department warehouse space is required for brigade uniforms and footwear alone.
As for the GLC scientific services, the links with the brigade are such that they have even been called Siamese twins. A team of scientists are on rota to ensure that at least one is available 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, to give on-the-spot advice at chemical incidents and fires involving chemicals. Scientists also assist in investigating the cause of fires, giving advice on the suitability of materials, giving technical advice on operating procedures and attending various meetings on fire service matters with the Home Office, the Ministry of Defence and British standards committees. They carry out many more functions as part of the GLC's work as a fire authority.
I am going to beg the Government—and I mean this—that whatever their political attitude may be towards the CLC (and I have said that does not come in any way as part and parcel of my argument: I am accepting for the purpose of this argument the policy decision to abolish the GLC), for the sake of the citizens comprised in the Greater London area, they should not break up working arrangements and partnerships which have stood the test of time and have served the citizens of London well. They have proved their worth, both financially and operationally. I am asking that these partnerships are kept alive and are closely connected under the umbrella of the London residuary body. It would be an act of logic, reason and reasonableness and would not be, if the contrary were shown, blind dogma following a principle and doing ill service to the citizens of London. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: It is only with a due sense of extreme caution that I presume to oppose an amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, on a subject such as this, which is wholly within his special expertise. As I undertook to say—and I would have said it even without the undertaking—it is a masterly exposition, but the joint authority provision relating to fire services is scattered around this Bill in Part IV, and Clauses 22 to 41 and Schedule 11.
Although I do take the point of the noble Lord about the absence of petroleum licensing and of emergency planning, and I will add to that, if I may, the storage of hazardous substances and chemicals which have a propensity to cause fire, and although I should like to see some inclusion of appropriate safeguard provisions in the Bill, I do not accept this amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, as usual, has drawn your Lordships' attention to important matters which may well have been to some degree overlooked; but what is not understood is why the London residuary body should take this on board, unless the intention is to make it a permanent body and not a temporary body with a lifespan of some five years.
The effect—and I speak only of effects and not of intention—would be to load up the residuary bodies with yet another function. Assuredly it is not in the mind of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, to support any assertion at some later stage that they should be elected because, if I may say so, the noble Lord is a stickler for constitutional propriety. But the difficulty is, and I wish to state it frankly—the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, I see is in her place and she was unable to give any assurance in this regard earlier today—that the effect of amendments such as this could well run counter to the principle of the Bill as accepted on Second Reading.
It would do so in two ways, and they are distinct. One would be by rendering the residuary bodies permanent bodies instead of temporary bodies existing for five years until the London boroughs sort themselves out, there always being the residual reserve power under Clause 9. The second would be by opening the door—albeit ajar but open it nevertheless—to the question of election. For these reasons, as I see no necessity for transferring these functions to the residuary body, I oppose the amendment.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Plummer of St. Marylebone: I supported the abolition of the GLC because I recognised that it was in need of reform. But I am solely concerned to ensure that the arrangements which follow shall be as efficient as those which have gone before.
In Clause 26 once again a prime strategic role carried out by the GLC has been recognised by the proposal to set up a joint board for the fire service and civil defence in London. The London Fire Brigade will remain, at least for the moment, a single unit run by a joint board of borough nominees. This means that the brigade, which has been under local democratic control since 1889, is now to be under indirect control through nominees to a joint board. I have to say that

983
there is a danger therefore that the safety needs of London as a whole will be lost in favour of narrow local interests.
Experience over the years has shown that it is important that decisions on the siting of fire stations or location of appliances should be taken as at present purely on operational grounds in the light of priorities across the region as a whole. At the same time I would suggest that a joint board of 33 members must be too large for effective managment.
There is then the unrealistic timetable for the planning process issued by the Home Office in its advisory memorandum, which also appears to be much too optimistic. According to the timetable, the new authority is expected to be established in early September. Its first meeting must be held within three weeks of establishment. By mid-November—that is, at the most only eight weeks after its first meeting—the authority is expected to have submitted its draft establishment scheme to the Home Secretary; its draft management scheme to the Home Secretary; its proposed methods of obtaining support services to the Home Secretary; it application for redetermination of provisional expenditure levels; and the necessary input to enable the Government to make property transfer orders.
I would submit that this timescale is surely totally unrealistic, even if the Home Office have assumed that the joint board members—who, after all, are part-time borough councillors with other committees to attend on their own borough councils—and their staff can retain their mental and physical health while forgoing sleep for an eight-week period. I do not see quite how this is all going to happen.
The track record of the Home Office is also not altogether conducive to optimism in achieving such a timescale, given that they have not yet issued the report on fire cover standards which the Central Fire Brigades Advisory Council agreed on 27th November 1984 should be promulgated to local authorities. They have also failed to provide local authorities with adequate guidance in connection with the making of plans under the Civil Defence (General Local Authority Functions) Regulations 1983.
Other comments in the Home Office Advisory Memorandum show, I think, a lack of understanding of the integrated nature of the strategic services of the GLC now in support of the fire brigade to which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has referred. For example, the memorandum states that the statutory transfer of staff will relate only to staff,
"managed exclusively by the Chief Fire Officer and dedicated to fire brigade work".
No mention is made of the staff in the architect's building regulation division engaged on statutory fire precaution work which, believe me, is so important to the safety of Londoners. What will happen in regard to other excellent in-house professional and technical services on which the London Fire Brigade at present relies?
Paragraph 22 of the Home Office memorandum states, among other options, that the new authority might wish to recruit former staff of the GLC's
984
scientific services branch. Again, I think that this shows a complete failure to recognise the effects of fragmentation of this branch, when any loss of collective expertise and experience would inevitably affect adversely the complex range of work currently undertaken for the fire brigade.
Despite what my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway said, I believe that the logical answer is to place the fire service with the residuary body in London. Whatever the Government's political attitude towards the GLC may be, it should not break up working arrangements and partnerships which have stood the test of time and have proved their worth, both financially and operationally.
I should like guidance from the Chair, if I may, because I am not clear whether we are also discussing and including in the amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, moved the civil defence side of this, because they are essentially inter-related—
Lord Elton: I am not moving these amendments. Presumably, it is for the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, who moved the amendments, to answer.
Lord Mishcon: I can see a lot of force in what the noble Lord says. That is my brief comment at this moment.
Lord Skelmersdale: I understood that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, was addressing his mind to a whole series of amendments not necessarily in his name. Perhaps he would like to explain the position.
Lord Mishcon: I am most grateful to the noble Lord the Minister. I hoped that a short intervention might have been more appropriate. But I ought to say that, in fact, I am speaking not only to this amendment—I apologise for not making this clear to the Committee earlier—but to Amendments Nos. 123A, 124D, 126A, 127B, 127D and 127F:
Amendment No. 123A: Page 22, line 40, at end insert ("and in the London Residuary Body").
Amendment No. 124D: Schedule 11, page 144, line 14, leave out ("Fire and Civil Defence Authority") and insert ("Residuary Body").
Amendment No. 126A: After Schedule 11, page 144, line 29, leave out ("Fire and Civil Defence Authority") and insert ("Residuary Body").
Amendment No. 127B: Clause 37, page 23, line 3, leave out ("Fire and Civil Defence Authority") and insert ("Residuary Body").

Amendment No. 127D:

line 12, leave out

("Authority") and insert ("Body").

Amendment No. 127F:

line 15, leave out

("Authority") and insert ("Body").

Lord Plummer of St. Marylebone: As I understand it, that includes civil defence and perhaps I may say that the Home Office memorandum relating to this also contains some unrealistic proposals. Illogically, the Greater London Council's discretionary responsibilities and statutory duties for contingency planning for major emergencies and natural disasters in peacetime are to be laid on the shoulders of 33 London boroughs. I heard the noble Lord, Lord Renton, when he made a case for providing expertise

985
and co-ordination at the proper level and for not having some separate staff. Indeed, the noble Lord the Minister referred to the fact that there should be proper co-operation on a county-wide basis. Bearing in mind that "emergency planning" embraces all contingency planning for war and peace, and utilises the skills of the same staff, the proposed split is, to say the least, irrational and highly uneconomical. There is also the question of the capacity and expertise of off-site emergency plans which provide for major accidents—
Lord Elton: I am trying to be helpful and perhaps the noble Lord will give way. I may have misheard him or, alternatively, I may have misunderstood him. I thought he was under the impression that under the Bill it is proposed that civil defence and fire should be separated in London, but that is not the case. If I have misunderstood him, I apologise.
Lord Plummer of St. Marylebone: It is separated in certain ways which I find unrealistic. For instance, paradoxically, the preparations for war emergency planning, which I hope are less likely to require implementation, are to be undertaken by the new London authority, whereas planning for major accidents, which are more likely to occur and would be no respecter of borough boundaries, is to be devolved to the London boroughs, which lack the expertise, the resources or the strategic overview necessary for the effective co-ordination of all aspects of emergency planning and its implementation.
I could mention other aspects of this Home Office memorandum which give cause for concern, but as time is short I hope that my noble friend the Minister will justify the Government's position in this respect. I am afraid that the tone of this memorandum and its contents in no way allay fears that the proposed joint board will not be unwieldy, bureaucratic and more costly, all of which will be to the detriment of future safety standards in London.
Lord Elton: I am drawn to the Box by two things. I shall be succeeded shortly by my noble friend Lord Glenarthur, who is more intimately familiar with the up-to-date detail that comprises the lot about which my noble friend Lord Plummer has addressed your Lordships. I am drawn to the Box partly by the lure to which my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway also rose, and partly by the lure of the great pleasure of addressing in debate the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, with whom I passed so very many agreeable hours in previous years when I was at the Home Office.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has accepted that abolition will take place. I compliment him on that. He wants to preserve the cohesion of the London fire service, and I compliment him on that. What puzzled me very much was the fact that he proposed to maintain this not by transferring the function and responsibility of the fire service to a single statutory joint authority, which for other services has been regarded as attractive by his noble friends, but by transferring it to a body which is due to expire five or six years from now.
It seemed to me that, if the service provided by the London Fire Brigade was as vital as both he and I
986
thought it to be, it was odd that it should be transferred for safeguarding to such transient hands. The reason I was lured to the Box in that respect was that I could see no sense in it going to a temporary body unless the temporary body was to become permanent, or unless the noble Lord had a specific home for the London Fire Brigade to go to at the end of the period of five years. The noble Lord offered us no thoughts on that and therefore one is left with the perhaps unworthy doubt that the noble Lord might be intending for the London Fire Brigade to remain in the hands of the London residuary body for more than five or 15 years. That we have discussed often. I do not want to bring your Lordships back onto the well trampled ground of the principles of the Bill, but we have discussed this issue before and come to a view on it.
A number of the reasons that the noble Lord gave for this being a good place to be chime in rather with the perhaps more plausible reasons given by my noble friend Lord Plummer, who also agreed with abolition and also wishes to preserve the cohesion of the London Fire Brigade, as do we. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said that bulk buying was an important saving for the London Fire Brigade and should be preserved for it. I would remind the noble Lord, first of all, that in Merseyside Liverpool City Council effectively carries out the bulk buying for the whole of the authority. Therefore this can be done on an agency basis. We shall have a very large purchaser in the GLC area after abolition in the form of the new ILEA. It will be possible for them, or for a consortium of London boroughs, to act as the joint purchasing agency. It is not unusual in local authorities for one discrete organisation to act as the purchasing authority for others.
9.45 p.m.
The noble Lord expressed his concern about pensions. Firemen's pensions are in a separate scheme which is already the responsibility of the fire authority and would be the responsibility of the new board itself. Civilian firemen, on the other hand, are members of the general scheme and will go to the residuary body or to the body to which they eventually transfer after the period of five years.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, spoke of the dedicated computers: that is, the computers already at work exclusively for the London Fire Brigade and which operate, I believe, the Hazchem system. They will of course be transferred with the fire brigade, which is a going concern. As to the other computers, it is not our intention that we shall lose the benefit of those. They will not be dissipated on transition, at abolition. They will go to the residuary body in the interim.
I accept that the needs of safety are pre-eminent. I should have acknowledged the noble Lord's knowledge of this subject. The fire brigade has grown very considerably from 115 square miles to 620 square miles in the interim since the noble Lord served. The other statistics have increased likewise. I was responsible for fire service matters in the Home Office for only three short years. In that time and at that distance from the serving brigades I realised what an

987
intense interest and loyalty they generate in those who are interested in the brigades and who have responsibility for them. I recognise that in the noble Lord, and in no way do I want to gainsay the propriety of the noble Lord's wish to preserve the cohesion of the London Fire Brigade. What I do want to say is that it does not seem to me, for reasons which have become tedious to your Lordships, that the London residuary body is something to which the brigade should be passed—particularly with no other home for it to go to afterwards.
I will not have satisfied noble Lords in respect of the CFBAC documents on standards of fire cover which my noble friend is shortly to issue, or on a number of other points of detail. If my noble friend wishes particular items to be picked up, I look to him for that purpose.
Lord Mishcon: I am going to be very brief in my reply, for the following reasons. First, the two people who engaged for so many years—if I may humbly say this on my own behalf; but I have no need for humility on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Plummer—and who happily engaged in the service of London, have both united on opposite sides of your Lordships' Committee, and in the light of their long experience, in favour of this series of amendments.
Your Lordships will appreciate that it is not a question of dogma involved here; it is a question of practical experience. But for me to talk about an amendment of this kind—and I am not exaggerating when I say this—on which we feel so sincerely in regard to the safety of the citizens of London, and to test it in a Division at this hour of the night, with a fairly sparse attendance, would not be, in my view, living up to our responsibilities. Speaking for myself—and I cannot speak for the noble Lord, Lord Plummer—I would not be happy in my conscience if I asked the Committee to divide now and did not take this opportunity of dealing with the matter at a future stage of this Bill.
The other reason I make a brief speech is that we really are in danger of becoming hoist with our own petard. The petard is this. If you try to transfer something to another permanent body, you are going at the root of the Bill because you are setting up another permanent body. If you then say, "Well, we are trying to make the best of things and what we are doing, if you face us with that argument, is to say that there was no Royal Commission, no proper inquiries were made and the matter is being dealt with in a most casual way. What we are therefore trying to do is to see that you put it"—and I answer the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, in this straightforward way—"into a body that has at least five years of life". What the noble Lord, Lord Plummer, and I, and others with experience of these matters feel, is that when you have had that experience during the five years it will not be we who will be asking for an extension of time on these five years but a responsible Government. You cannot have it both ways.
It is a good debating ploy but we are not dealing with debating ploys. In this amendment we are dealing with the safety and the lives of Londoners. I shall not get your Lordships emotional and sentimental in regard
988
to, say, waste disposal, although I suppose that has a lot to do with the safety and health of Londoners. There are certain matters in the Bill which you cannot get romantic and sentimental about; but I can get sentimental about looking after Londoners when it comes to a huge disaster, let alone the question of war. What do you do in the event of war? Do you find everything split all over the place and, in an emergency, trying to get a united organisation backed up with other services? Are you then proud, having carried through an amendment on a debating point? I would not be. Therefore, because of that, I ask your Lordships' leave—
Lord Elton: Before the noble Lord concludes, I can see that he understands petards very well and is therefore an artilleryman as well as a fireman. It is a serious point and not a debating point as to whether the London residuary bodies are the proper recipients of a service such as this with no designated subsequent home for it. On the other hand, we have in the joint London Fire and Civil Defence Authority a body which is, contrary to what my noble friend Lord Plummer sought to convince your Lordships, of an appropriate size for dealing with these congruent issues which are extremely important to Londoners. It is in a position to do so and it will have the resources so to do. I believe it also has the time. The time is perhaps whittled away to the extent that some people concerned are not allowed to talk about future arrangements for political reasons, and that I deplore; but there is time.
I do not believe that the safety of Londoners is in any way at risk. I yield to nobody in my admiration for the emergency services of this country, the London Fire Brigade in particular. I do not believe that this transfer would in any way inhibit their efficiency, their morale or their future.
Lord Mishcon: I accept, as will your Lordships, the sincerity of the statements made by the noble Lord the Minister. I think the country would be a little happier in accepting these brave assertions if they did not run contrary to the advice of those engaged in these matters on the practical front as well as on the political front. If the noble Lord the Minister and his Government had decided to have behind them the force of an inquiry and a Royal Commission, or whatever it might be, before embarking on these reckless exercises, the country would listen to such assertions with a great deal more sympathy, understanding and confidence.
All that I can do is to put at your Lordships' disposal—and I do it in all humility—the experience of some 20 years in London government. I can say only this to your Lordships. For the reasons that I have already advanced I think that it would be quite wrong of me to put this amendment to your Lordships in order to test the feeling of the Committee. What I shall do in the circumstances, and most reluctantly, is to ask your Lordships' leave to withdraw the amendment and return to it at another stage.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Renton): Is it your Lordships' pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn?
Noble Lords: No!
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Leave is not given.
On Question, amendment negatived.
Clause 26 agreed to.
Clause 27 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 120 not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 121 and 121ZA not moved.]
[Amendment No. 121ZB had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Clause 28 [Number of members]:
Lord Tordoff Lord Tordoff moved Amendment No. 121ZC:
Page 18, line 42, after second ("the") insert ("views of each of those councils and to the").
The noble Lord said: We now move to Clause 28, which considers the membership of joint authorities. The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that the Secretary of State does not alter the numbers on any joint authority without first having the views of the metropolitan district councils that are concerned. It is important to set criteria under which the Secretary of State may exercise the new powers granted under this clause. One would not for a minute accuse the present Government of gerrymandering, but subsequent Governments might. The clause at present gives the Secretary of State unfettered powers to alter the numbers.
We are told that the districts are having powers returned to them, and the very least that should happen is that the Secretary of State should consult them before altering the membership of the joint boards. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Elton, said that democracy is strongest where the voter is closest to the seat of power, and one would hope that the Secretary of State will be prepared to consult at that democratic level.
This is one of a number of amendments which go into this area, but before we get into more detailed considerations we should like to have the Government's views, first, on the necessity of the Bill as it stands in terms of altering the numbers on joint authorities; and, secondly, whether they are prepared to consider accepting this or a similar amendment at a later stage which would put some constraint on the Secretary of State and stop him altering the numbers on joint authorities, as it were, at will. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: I am glad to say that I entirely accept that it would be appropriate to precede any change in the distribution of membership on a joint authority by consultation with the councils concerned. The noble Lord will forgive me if I reserve discussion of the way in which the number is arrived at until we come to the amendment in the names of several of his noble friends. The name that I remember is that of the noble Viscount, Lord Rochdale, because the matter relates to Rochdale. We shall get to the mathematics then. I am sure that in practice there would always be such consultation, but for the avoidance of doubt I am prepared to see a statutory consultation provision written into the clause.
990
We cannot accept the amendment as it stands because it puts the Secretary of State under two possibly contradictory duties. But I undertake to bring forward an amendment on Report to ensure that before making any changes in the membership of the joint authority the Secretary of State is required to consult the constituent councils of that authority. I hope that those noble Lords who tell me how inflexible I am have heard me speak.
10 p.m.
Lord Tordoff: I had expected to hear the Walls of Jericho falling at that. I say "Jericho" because it is just outside Bury, which is near Rochdale. I am most grateful to the noble Lord, and we look forward to the clause coming forward at a later stage.
Baroness Birk: Perhaps I, too, may add my thanks. I have said, I think more than once, how inflexible the Government are. It is very good to hear of this little piece of flexibility.
Lord Tordoff: With those remarkable words, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 121ZD not moved.]
Clause 28 agreed to.
Schedule 10 [Number of members of joint authorities]:
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 121ZE:
[Printed 13/5/85; col. 973.]
The noble Lord said: On behalf of my noble friend Lord Renton, I beg to move Amendment No. 121ZE. I understand it has been agreed to.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Tordoff Lord Tordoff moved Amendment No. 121A:
[Printed 7/5/85; col. 603.]
The noble Lord said: It will perhaps be for the convenience of the Committee if I point out that although five subsequent amendments are shown on the Marshalled List as appearing under the names of myself and my noble friends, and noble Lords who are associates on this clause, I believe they should stand under the name of the noble Lord, Lord Renton. Therefore I am speaking only to Amendment No. 121A.
As the noble Lord the Minister said, the noble Viscount, Lord Rochdale, has his name to this amendment. He has written to me today to offer his apologies for not being able to be here to speak to this amendment. I am also advised on this subject by another eminent Rochdalian, who is perhaps not so eminent but is larger in girth than the noble Viscount.
A noble Lord: Heavens above!
Lord Tordoff: I was not actually thinking of the noble Lord, Lord Evans, but of the honourable Member for Rochdale, who could give the noble Lord, Lord Evans, at least nine stones.

991
As the noble Lord the Minister has said, we now get into the arithmetic. It is really with a view to probing the Government on the arithmetic of the joint boards that this amendment has been tabled. As I say, this is a probing amendment. The object of the amendment as it stands is to increase the representation of the Rochdale District Council on the joint boards proposed in the Bill from two members to three. It raises the general question of the appropriate number of district nominees on the joint boards for police, fire, transport, and now waste disposal. It may be supposed that since this amendment is to a degree to assist minority representation on district councils being fully represented on the joint boards, the Liberal Party and the Alliance might be considered to be in a position of wanting this for their own particular purposes. That line of reasoning will not stand up in Rochdale because, as I understand it, the people who would be excluded under the present arrangements, as matters stand, are the Conservative Party.
The fact is that the proposed number of joint numbers bears no relationship either to the number of district councillors or to the populations they serve. For instance, in Greater Manchester only 30 out of the 642 district councillors will be appointed to a joint board, as compared with 22 out of 378 in West Yorkshire. This is part of the general arithmetic of the metropolitan counties being of different sizes and having different compositions.
However, some joint boards will be dominated by a relatively few constituent councils. For instance, in West Yorkshire an agreement between Leeds and Kirklees would dominate the whole of the joint boards, and Birmingham only needs to carry two other authorities with it for a majority. Sheffield holds a dominating position in South Yorkshire, and really this begs the question to some extent. Who do the individual members represent? Should they present a united front on behalf of their own authority, or do they act on behalf of their political affiliations? It is these questions that the amendment seeks to probe.
In relation to Rochdale, I should say that although it is the second smallest of the districts within the Greater Manchester Council, to have only two seats would mean that the people actually represent something over 100,000 constituents each, whereas the others, most of whom have three, with the exception of Manchester, who have five representatives, and Bury, who have two, represent populations of between 70,000 and 86,000 to 87,000. It is our belief that this whole question could be solved by increasing the number of members of the joint boards. In the case of Greater Manchester if this were increased from 30 to 33, if Wigan and Stockport were given an extra seat, and Rochdale was given an extra seat, the representation would be much more nearly equal across the whole span of the Greater Manchester area.
That illustrates the difficulties of giving reasonable representation on joint boards to different sized districts. It also illustrates the difficulty of making sure that all political interests are represented in due proportion on the joint boards. It is to try to identify these problems and to see what the response of the Government is that I beg to move this amendment.
Lord Elton: The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, said that this is a probing amendment which he brings before your Lordships. I shall read his speech with at least as much interest as he reads mine because it is a subject of great interest.
At the outset, I promised to explain to your Lordships the arithmetic. I think I should say that it is necessary that the arithmetic should be the same, and the formula by which seats are allocated to constituent councils should be the same in each case. I was glad to note that the noble Lord, although he appeared to have a special affection for Rochdale, which I could understand even more if the noble Viscount, Lord Rochdale, himself were here, did not seek to advance special pleading although he sought to advise me that if I were to agree with his probing amendment, it would be my party that benefited. I do not know whether that is special pleading or not. But as it is advanced on my behalf rather than his, I suppose his is marginally more acceptable.
The principle on which we worked and which produced the result to which the noble Lord drew attention is straightforward, and I can easily describe it. We take the district with the smallest electorate in the county and give it two seats. We then divide the number of electors by the number of seats to get the ratio for that authority of votes to seats. As it happens, in Greater Manchester there is a smaller electorate than Rochdale, and that is the electorate of Bury where there are 133,161 electors. That allocation gives us a ratio of votes to seat of 66,581: 1. If we apply that ratio and round it to the nearest whole number of seats of the remaining districts, we find that Rochdale has 152,853 electors, which, on that ratio, is worth 2.3 seats. This is rounded to two. It is possible to argue that the joint authorities that we propose are too small and it has been argued in another place that some are already too large. Our view, therefore, is that we have struck about the right balance. The authorities are not so large as to be unwieldy. On the other hand, we have ensured that each council is represented by at least two members.
The noble Lord did not say but may afterwards think that he might have said that Rochdale's entitlement to appoint only two members would inevitably mean that it will be in conflict with the requirement in Clause 32 to reflect party balance in making those appointments. In effect, he said so in another way as a philosophic rather than legalistic point. That clause expressly recognises that the reflection cannot always be complete, and that is why we have the words "so far as practicable" in the first line of the clause. If we were to increase the minimum number of seats from two to three, my understanding is that the average increase in the size of the authorities in question would be about 50 per cent. Therefore, this narrow adjustment at the bottom makes a fairly serious adjustment at the top.
The noble Lord asked me what the nominated members of the authority would represent. They would represent exactly as the Bill suggests; a combination of the interest of their council and of their party. That is why they are nominated by the council to reflect party balance.
Lord Tordoff: I am grateful to the Minister. It is obviously too late at night to start bandying arithmetic. I note that he has based his argument on the electorate, whereas, without having gone into the figures, the argument that I sought to place before him was inherently based on population. All I can say is that the arithmetic comes out rather differently on that basis. It would be wise if all of us were to go away and exchange numbers in reading Hansard tomorrow, and perhaps come back to the matter at a later stage. I am nevertheless grateful to the noble Lord for explaining the Government's position. I shall take further advice from those who have suggested to me that this is something that we should examine. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: As has already been mentioned, above Amendment No. 121ZA there should have been printed the words "by the Lord Renton".
Lord Elton: I come to the noble Lord's assistance. I think the noble Lord meant to say "Amendment No. 121AZA".
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I am most grateful for the correction. Above Amendment No. 121AZA, those words should have been printed. I propose, unless any noble Lord objects, to put that and the next four amendments as a group. Does any noble Lord move?
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendments Nos. 121AZA, 121AZB, 121AZC, 121AZD, 121AZE:
[Printed 13,75/85; col. 973.]
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 10, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 29 to 33 agreed to.
Clause 34 [Disqualification]:
10.15 p.m.
Lord Molson Lord Molson moved Amendment No. 121AA:
Page 22, line 20, leave out first ("the") and insert ("any")
The noble Lord said: This is a very simple amendment which I can move in a very few words. In this clause the Bill provides that a paid officer of a joint authority, who is employed under the direction of a committee or sub-committee, or a joint committee:
"shall be disqualified for being appointed or being a member of that other joint authority or for being elected or being a member of the local authority, as the case may be."
In recent years I think that there has been an increasing abuse in that paid officials of one local authority have begun to stand for election in other local authorities. I believe that there is a complete incompatability of responsibility between being the paid official of one local authority and being the elected member of another. I thought that this was an opportunity to raise this point, and I hope that the Committee will accept that there is something wrong in a paid official of one local authority being an elected member of another. I therefore move to delete the word "the" and to substitute the word "any". I beg to move.
Lord Elton: My noble friend's amendment would disqualify any employee of a joint authority from being an elected member of any local authority anywhere in the country, and not just, as we propose, from being a member of any of that joint authority's constituent councils. The Government thought long and hard about what provision should be made as regards disqualification of joint authorities' employees from membership of those authorities' constituent borough or district councils. Our overriding aim, which my noble friend has made clear that he shares, has been to ensure that there can be no conflict of interest, either real or apparent, between a person's employment and his interest as an employee, and his interests as a member of a local authority.
We came to the conclusion that it was right to retain unchanged the existing provisions of the Local Government Act 1972. Section 80 of that Act provides that any employee of a joint board or joint committee is disqualified from being a member of any of that board's or committee's constituent local authorities. The architects of the 1972 Act, and Parliament when it approved that provision, clearly judged that there was a potential conflict of interest in such circumstances against which there had to be safeguards. Employees of the joint authorities stand in precisely the same position and our view, therefore, is that the same safeguards ought properly to be provided. I remind noble Lords that this is not a Bill to create new powers and duties; it is a Bill to redistribute existing powers and duties.
However, my friend would have us go much further than the status quo. He would wish to see an employee of a joint authority disqualified from membership of any local authority. My noble friend is right that there is very real concern that some local authorities may be abusing the existing provisions of the 1972 Act by, for example, making cosy arrangements between themselves for a councillor of Authority A to be given a job with Authority B which in fact allows him to spend his whole, or almost his whole, time on the affairs of Authority A while he is provided with a salary by the ratepayers of Authority B. We share that concern and that is why we have established an inquiry, the Widdicombe inquiry, to consider this and other potential abuses.
I wonder whether I have said enough to convince my noble friend that we are considering exactly the problem to which he addresses this amendment but that it would not be proper to use this Bill for that purpose in advance of the findings of the inquiry, both because we shall not have had the recommendations of the inquiry and because it is beyond the purposes for which the Bill is constructed. I am sorry not to be more friendly to my noble friend because in this case his heart is pre-eminently in the right place.
Lord Molson: I am very much obliged to my noble friend. It may have been an oversight on my part, but I did not know of the appointment of, if I heard aright, the Widdicombe Committee. I am glad that the Widdicombe Committee is considering this matter. I realised that in putting down this amendment it was going outside the scope of the Bill, but I thought as I perused it that here was an opportunity to make a good point, which I did. Recognising how fundamentally

995
conservative the Government are, even in this somewhat destructive and revolutionary Bill, I bow to their desire not to make any radical change outside the scope of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 34 agreed to.
Clause 35 agreed to.
Clause 36 [Police and fire services]:
[Amendment No. 121B had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendment No. 122 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 122A had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 122B:
[Printed 13/5/85; col. 973.]
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 123 and 123A not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 124 to 124C had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Clause 36, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 11 [Police and fire services]:
[Amendments Nos. 124D and 125 not moved.]
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 125A:
[Printed 13/5/85; col. 973.]
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Skelmersdale: I believe that Amendment No. 126 belongs to Schedule 11. There is a misprint.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I am much obliged; I apologise.
[Amendment No. 126 not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 126A and 127 not moved.]
Schedule 11, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 127ZA:
After Clause 36,
Insert the following new clause:
("Reports on fire and police services
.—(1) The Secretary of State shall each year prepare and on the anniversary of the abolition date lay before each House of Parliament a report on the performance by each of the joint authorities for fire and police services established under this Part of the Act of the functions transferred to it under this Part of this Act.
(2) Each report prepared under this section shall include details of—

(a) the level of service provided by the joint authority;

(b) the total expenditure of the joint authority; and

(c) the number of staff employed by the joint authority.")

The noble Lord said: I propose to deliver the shortest speech your Lordships have ever heard me deliver. Why not? I beg to move.
Lord Elton: I shall tell the noble Lord why not. In many respects, these joint authorities are identical to local authorities. They will be given all the local authority powers necessary to run their services. The
996
Secretary of State does not report to Parliament on the way in which individual local authorities fulfil their functions and there is absolutely no reason why he should report on the joint authorities. He does not appoint the authorities. He is not responsible for the way the authorities carry out their functions. They are statutory bodies whose members are appointed by the constituent councils. The Secretary of State has no locus in relation to these bodies. It would not be appropriate for him to report on their performance, therefore. That was as short as I could make my speech.
Lord Mishcon: Would that I could reply in as short terms. I think that the noble Lord the Minister who has replied to me in the way that he has—and I am most grateful to him for taking the trouble to do so—has ignored the fact that the Bill gives the Secretary of State, as I understand Clause 66, the power to control, for at least three years, the budgets of the new police and fire authorities. He is also—and your Lordships might not have understood that from his reply—able to direct the manpower levels, the external servicing and the internal management schemes of the new authorities, if I have correctly understood Clause 83; and we are looking to see how, from the point of view of the economics of the country, these things are being dealt with, especially with the Secretary of State's powers. I thought therefore that when I said, "Why not?", the noble Lord the Minister was going to reply, "Why not?"; and that this amendment was accordingly going to be agreed to.
Lord Elton: I have a longer speech. I thought the noble Lord was going to be more easily satisfied than he was. My speech was addressed to the long term. The noble Lord's reply was addressed to the short term. The powers to which the noble Lord referred were interim ones, as he well knows. But since the noble Lord still requires convincing, I must tell him that the openness and accountability which he seeks is already plenteously in the Bill and elsewhere. The Bill extends to the joint authorities the provisions of Part II of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 on the publication of information by local authorities.
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment issued in 1981 codes of recommended practice on the publication of annual reports and financial and manpower statements by local authorities. The 1980 Act enables him, if he considers it necessary, to make regulations requiring authorities to comply with any part of the codes or to all of them. He has not so far found this necessary but he has the power.
The noble Lord addressed a wide range of bodies. If I may refer to chief constables, they are required by Section 12 of the Police Act 1964 to submit to their police authority as soon as possible after the end of each calendar year a general report in writing on policing in their area during that year. Section 30 of the Act requires the report to be submitted also to the Home Secretary. While there is no statutory obligation on chief constables to make their annual reports more widely available, it is their practice to publish them. Reports made by inspectors of constabulary to the Home Secretary on the efficiency of forces under

997
Section 38 of the Act are not published, it is true. Each year my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, however, already presents a report to Parliament by Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Fire Services on fire brigades in England and Wales. I am confident that the chief inspector will include in his report any matters arising from reorganisation that affects the organisation and efficiency of the metropolitan county and London fire brigades.
The noble Lord's concern was really addressed, I think, not to the long term, and therefore I am perhaps boring rather than enlightening him by giving him information which he already has. But we do not think it would be proper to require an annual report in the way that the noble Lord suggests because there appears to be no terminus to his requirement.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: The noble Lord never bores me; nor does any member of the Committee. Infrequently, he does enlighten me. Obviously I am going to study very carefully what the noble Lord has said; but I wonder whether, in his kindness, he would equally consider the possibility of even publishing these annual reports for Parliament during the interim period. I do not require his answer now; I am merely asking whether he would kindly consider that matter. In the circumstances, I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 37 [Civil defence]:
Lord Renton Lord Renton moved amendment No. 127A:
[Printed 13/5/85; col. 973.]
The noble Lord said: This amendment is consequential on amendments standing in my name which have already been agreed to. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 127B, 127C, 127D, 127E, 127F, and 127G not moved.]
Lord Renton Lord Renton moved Amendment No. 1:27H:
[Printed 13/5/85; col. 973.]
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 37, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 38 [Passenger transport]:
[Amendments Nos. 128 and 128A had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord Stallard Lord Stallard moved Amendment No. 128ZA:
Page 24, line 20, at end insert ("and for securing that certain of those functions are exercised on terms no less favourable than they are exercised immediately before the abolition date:).
The noble Lord said: We now come to the most important amendments to the Bill to be moved so far. It is very heartening to me to see so many noble Lords whom I know share my interest in and concern about the subject matter of these amendments still in their places at this late hour. I am now dealing with Amendments Nos. 128ZA and 128B. One follows from the other.
998
Amendment No. 128B: Schedule 12, Page 145, line 41, at end insert ("and shall be under a duty to exercise those powers so as to grant or secure that there are granted travel concessions—

(a) on terms no less favourable than any such concessions available in that metropolitan county area immediately before the abolition date; and

(b) to all persons of the descriptions mentioned in subsection (5) of that section who wish to take up such concessions.").

Clause 38 deals with the transfer of functions relating to passenger transport to the metropolitan county passenger transport Authorities; but it does not state which functions are to be transferred. Does it mean all the functions or only some of the functions; and, if it is the latter, which functions will be transferred and which will not? It ought to be obvious that in view of that ambiguity which exists in relation to these functions, a great deal of concern has been caused about the possible future, for instance, of the concessionary fares for the elderly. That is something with which I am mainly concerned and it is the subject of this amendment: namely, those people who qualify for concessionary fares, such as pensioners, men over 65 and women over 60, the blind and the disabled. It is not clear from this clause what will be the position in relation to those functions in the metropolitan counties if this clause goes through unamended.
Local authorities, including the metropolitan county councils, are at the moment empowered to grant concessions by virtue of the relevant Transport Acts. Those Acts also allow local authorities to reimburse passenger transport executives or any public service undertaking in regard to these commitments on behalf of the elderly and the disabled. As I understand it, the concessions operate in the following manner. An estimated amount is paid to the transport operator to reimburse him for notional journeys lost. This money comes mainly from the county council, from the county council rate for transport which is collected by district councils, although I know that in some instances the district councils contribute towards the cost. Here may I say that we are aware that London has been dealt with under separate legislation. Again, that is not very clear but it is not the subject of these amendments. It is certainly not as clear as it might be, even in that particular instance.
The Local Government Bill before us proposes to create metropolitan passenger transport authorities to fulfil the passenger transport functions of the metropolitan county councils. Such joint authorities—we have heard a lot about them this evening—which have been proposed in this Bill by the Government will consist of members nominated by district councils and will have the power to levy a rate for transport. A Bill being discussed in the other place based on the White Paper Buses, will—as I understand it so far from listening to and reading the reports of discussions on it—allow district councils to break away from the countrywide transport scheme and make their own transport arrangements, including concessions. Therefore, we can well understand the fears, apprehension and concern caused to pensioners' organisations, and many voluntary organisations such as, for example, Age Concern which continue to press for some clarity on the future of these concessions.
Quite rightly, they worry that joint authorities and district councils may be unwilling or unable to fund

999
concessions in their present form and that concessions for the elderly people will be lost or reduced in value in some areas. Of course, their fears are perfectly well and readily understood by those of us who have read further into this Bill, because Clause 66 states that the precept issued by each passenger transport authority will be controlled—or capped, in other words—by central Government for three years following abolition, and by controlling the precept the Government effectively determine the level of services, fares and concessions in each metropolitan area.
There are, therefore, good grounds for fears about the future of these concessionary fares for the elderly, the disabled, and the blind. They are all at risk unless we can clarify the position. These amendments are an attempt to clear up the ambiguity that exists in Clause 38 and Schedule 12 as they are printed at the moment.
I appreciate—and I do not have to repeat it at this late hour of the night—that most Members here will know the tremendous boon that travel concessions have been to the elderly and disabled. Those of us who still mix among our local people in the voluntary organisations will know that, because of these concessions, people are able, for the first time for many years, to get about, to travel, to visit places and people. They are, as I said, a real boon to people in those circumstances. At this point many of us are becoming committed to and interested in sponsoring and furthering schemes to bring in these old people who can now travel to all sorts of places. We intend to harness their expertise, experience, and skills to teach the youngsters who can be brought to those centres and so on. I think that this is a really worthwhile project and a very great experiment. It is one example of a project that would be in danger if these concessions were abolished or tinkered with in any way.
I hope that with those few words—there is scope for a long speech on the question of concessionary fares—and with the amendments themselves the Government will see fit to accept that this clause needs clarification, particularly in the area of concessionary fares, and that they will accept the amendments. I beg to move.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: While I have considerable sympathy with many of the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, I cannot at all see that these amendments do the job that he suggests. I strongly support concessionary fares, and anyone who has worked in social services is well aware of their great social benefit and of the benefit to the health of those who are able to have them.
Amendment No. 128ZA says:
"at end insert ('and for securing that certain of those functions'"—
it does not even specify what functions—
"'are exercised on terms no less favourable'"—
it does not say to whom they are favourable, be they the passenger authority or the passengers—
"'than they are exercised immediately before the abolition date.')"
The noble Lord, Lord Stallard, referred to ambiguity, but this amendment is so ambiguous in itself that it is
1000
of no help in securing any comment on concessionary fares.
I do not know whether he also spoke to Amendment No. 128B, but paragraph (a) of that is not acceptable. I know from my own experience that certain experimental schemes were introduced immediately before London Transport was handed over to the transport authority, and they were ideas that even in this House were not thought appropriate.
I remember the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, and I discussing how the morning concession hour was not very suitable, because it was affecting people getting to work, although the evening hour was eminently suitable to continue, and there was a great debate at that time. Although I should like to be confident—and I am convinced that the Government must intend that concessionary fares continue—I do not think that these amendments are the way to ensure it. So for that reason I do not support them.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: I should like to support my noble friend Lord Stallard. I think all Members of this Committee who know my noble friend will appreciate the long service that he has given in the London area in helping those who are disadvantaged in all fields, whether they be the disabled, the elderly or the homeless. Because he feels so strongly about the matter, I give him my support.
As regards what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, this amendment applies to the metropolitan authorities. London Transport has already been dealt with and so this amendment has to do with metropolitan authorities. If you are elderly or disabled, you will still be able to travel in the West Midlands at the concessionary fare until 11 o'clock at night, and so it is not too late for me to have the attention of noble Lords tonight.
Over the last five weeks I have had more letters and petitions about this amendment than I have had during the whole 10 years that I have been a Member of your Lordships' House. Only last week, I had three very large petitions—not encouraged by me—from the WRVS organisations, which have Darby and Joan clubs in the West Midlands. I have had many individual letters from elderly people in the Dudley area of the West Midlands, who are concerned that Dudley might pull out of the travel concessions when this Bill goes through. I have also had at least 50 letters from women's institutes and co-operative women's guilds, who are all concerned that they might lose the companionship that comes from being able to travel to their clubs and organisations at the concessionary fares.
Birmingham, from where I come, has the largest transport undertaking in the West Midlands, and free travel concessions for the elderly and disabled were included in a Labour manifesto. Then, when the Labour Party again controlled Birmingham City Council in 1954, they agreed that free travel should be given. Arising from that, a so-called Independent challenged the local authority and I think it was the Birmingham local authority who, for the last time, called two towns meetings which supported the local authority. Can your Lordships imagine trying to call a towns meeting when you have 1½ million inhabitants?

1001
If your Lordships go into the Library, you will be able to read how that same individual appealed to this noble House to do down what the Birmingham Labour Party wanted to do because it was contained in its manifesto. Fortunately, the appeal was upheld on behalf of the local authority. Therefore, Birmingham, the largest undertaking in the West Midlands, got its free travel through real democratic procedures, and did so the hard way. I say that because much time has been spent in this Chamber talking about manifestos which did not involve the hard grind through which the West Midlands had to pass.
10.45 p.m.
I would suggest, as my noble friend has suggested, that the travel concessions can really be cost-effective. This was the point that the noble Baroness mentioned. If people can get out of their homes and, as many of them would say, get away from the four walls that surround them, they can overcome loneliness. People say to you, "Somebody always talks to you on the bus". If you live a very lonely life that is very important to you. It can be cost-effective because it prevents the use of the social services and no doubt doctors' services.
In conclusion, in supporting my noble friend, I would say that to cut off travel concessions would be unfeeling and uncaring. I feel sure that the Government would not want to be classified as unfeeling or uncaring. Therefore I plead with the Minister to make it a duty of the new passenger transport authorities to retain the concessionary travel arrangements that they inherit.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I defer to the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, but I have to oppose this amendment because, with respect to him, I think that his concern is misconceived. As to the first point that he raised, as I construe Clause 38, it is a transfer of all functions. No doubt I shall be corrected if I am wrong.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher of Rednal; of course we are not concerned with London transport—it is not in the Bill—we are concerned with the metropolitan county passenger transport authorities which operate under Schedule 12. But where is the misconception? I would suggest that perhaps it is here. They will be under a statutory duty under the Transport Bill now before Parliament. Under this Bill the groups that will be eligible for travel concessions remain the same as under the Transport Act 1968, but with the addition of children. I think that that is achieved in Clause 138(5) of the Transport Bill.
To import the inflexibility and the rigidity, to maintain in perpetuity a minimum of terms which obtain before abolition date, appears to me to be wholly inappropriate. It would constitute an unnecessary and unacceptable fetter upon the manner in which the process of devolution of power under the principle of the Bill is supposed to operate. It is understood that it is proposed to amend the Transport Bill which is now before Parliament to oblige private operators to take part in local authority travel
1002
concession schemes. No doubt my noble friend the Minister, when he comes to reply, will deal with this.
Is it not therefore plain that travel concessions as such are not under attack at all? Is it not wholly inappropriate to lay down mandatory minimum terms for these metropolitan county passenger authorities which operate under Schedule 12 of the Bill? The suggestion that the Government are unfeeling or that there is any chain of causation in logic from the setting of a precept to the terms of the concessionary fares would be, I suggest, to stretch imagination far too far.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: Perhaps I may help the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, in construing this amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Stallard. The noble Baroness made only two objections to the amendment. She said, first, that some of its terms were vague. She cited two examples. She said that the word "functions" in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, was vague.
The noble Baroness went on to say that the phrase,
"on terms no less favourable than they are exercised immediately before the abolition date"
was vague because it did not indicate to whom those terms applied.
With respect to the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes—and I have, very sincerely, the highest respect for the tremendous work she has done for local government over the past few years—the word "functions" in the amendment is perfectly clear. If one reads Clause 38, one finds that the functions are there defined. It states that the object of Schedule 12 is,
"as from the abolition date, for transferring functions relating to passenger transport".
Therefore, that is an adequate definition of the functions for the purposes of this Bill. The clause goes on to make it clear that it is not the GLC that is concerned; that the functions relating to passenger transport are to be transferred to the metropolitan county passenger transport authorities.
As to whom the terms apply, that is made perfectly clear if one reads the proposed amendment with Clause 38. The amendment makes it clear that the terms applying on terms no less favourable must be for the passengers.
With the greatest respect to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, I did my best to follow his argument. I understood him to refer to Clause 138 of the Transport Bill which is still before the other place; therefore I was not able to follow the argument he put forward so eloquently, in his fashion, in that respect. That is entirely my fault, no doubt; nevertherless, I do not believe that the objections raised by Members opposite so far take away from the value of this amendment. I support most strongly what has been said by the noble Baroness and the noble Lord. Lord Stallard.
Baroness Lockwood: I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, missed a very important point made by my noble friend Lady Fisher in relation to concessionary fares. At present, concessionary fares apply across the whole of a county. If one of the district authorities decided to contract out of the passenger transport organisation and set up its own passenger

1003
transport service, then it would be possible for that particular district to fix a concessionary fare—perhaps at a different level, or in any case at a level which could apply only to that particular district. In the conurbations, it is very important that the people to whom concessionary fares are available should be able to travel freely across the whole of the conurbation at the same charge.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I, too, share the desire to preserve concessionary fares and agree with the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, and with others who have spoken that they are indeed a tremendous boon to the elderly and the disabled, However, these amendments, if accepted, would place specific restrictions on the powers of the PTAs which would apply to no other local authority outside London. Over the rest of the country it has always been the case that local authorities had full responsibility for taking their own decisions about the level of benefits to be provided through concessionary fares. The amendments would remove that power in the case of the PTAs, binding them indefinitely to decisions taken at a particular point in time by their predecessors.
Yet the importance which local authorities attach to their discretion in these matters is surely confirmed by the significant differences between some of the schemes operated in the metropolitan counties under the existing legislation.
Four of the counties operate schemes at present based on free fares, while Greater Manchester has a standard fare of 10p and West Yorkshire a half-fare scheme, although I understand that it is considering proposals to replace this with free travel. The Government have no wish to remove the scope for the PTAs or any class of local authority to use their own discretion in these matters.
The power of local authorities to take their own decisions on concessionary fares will be preserved by the Transport Bill, which has just completed its Committee stage in another place, as I believe the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, pointed out. The definitions of the groups eligible to receive concessionary fares will remain precisely the same as they are under the 1968 Act, with the addition of children where the powers of the shire county councils have been in some doubt. This is a point made by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway. The powers of the metropolitan county councils to provide concessionary fares for children were specifically confirmed in the 1983 Act. What the Bill will do, however, is extend participation in concessionary fare schemes to all operators, both public and private. That represents a very real advance, from the point of view of pensioners and disabled people, on the present situation where authorities have the power to restrict the usage of their schemes to a limited range of operators. I confirm what my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway said, that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has given an undertaking in another place to amend the Bill to give local authorities a power to oblige operators to take part in their schemes.
1004
I see no reason to believe that the PTAs will seek to restrict the extent to which their schemes cover the needs of all three groups listed in the 1968 Act; that is, pensioners, blind people and the physically handicapped. All the schemes operated by the MCCs apply to all three groups, and I would have thought it rather insulting to the members of the PTAs to suggest, as the amendments do, that they might wish to restrict that coverage in future.
Noble Lords have suggested that expenditure precept control would affect concessionary fares. Noble Lords have drawn attention to the discrepancy between the figures in the White Paper and the provision for 1985–86. These two figures are not, and were not intended to be, directly comparable. The first records what the local authorities were actually spending in 1984–85 and the second represents the provision made by the Government for what they regard as the appropriate level of expenditure on concessionary fares in 1985–86. That provision is in line with the provision made by the Government for this service in earlier years. The provision has, in fact, been increased in line with inflation. Local authorities are, however, free to make their own decisions about spending priorities within the resources available to them. As the figures show, their view about the level of spending on this item which was appropriate in 1984–85 was different from that of the Government. This position will not change in the future. Local authorities will still be able to make their own decisions within the limits of their overall resources.
Noble Lords have drawn attention to the fact that the overall expenditure of the new joint boards will be subject to the precept control set by the Secretary of State during the first three years of operation; but the expenditure level set by the Secretary of State will be a single figure covering all the services provided by the joint board—not only concessionary fares and general revenue support for buses and commuter rail services, but also debt charges, professional and technical services, tunnels and airports. These, incidentally, are what the functions of the PTAs will be. It will be for the joint boards to make their own decisions about the expenditure to be allocated to concessionary fares within that total.
It is true that the Government have never made any secret of their belief that the current level of spending on the general revenue support for public transport services in the metropolitan counties is excessive and needs to be brought down to more reasonable levels. It has, after all, doubled in real terms since 1979–80. But we have never suggested that the same consideration would necessarily apply to concessionary fares and that is why, when we took power in the Transport Act 1983, the Secretary of State indicated to the metropolitan counties the amount of expenditure and revenue support which he believed was appropriate for each of them. When we established the PEL system we deliberately excluded concessionary fares from the coverage of it. When in June of last year we gave preliminary advice to the PTEs about the need to bring revenue support down to the level of provision thought appropriate by the Government over the three years of the planning period under the 1983 Act, that advice applied to revenue support and not to concessionary fares.
11 p.m.
I hope I have been able to satisfy some of the concerns expressed by noble Lords who moved the amendment, but I would say that the amendments would place restrictions on the discretionary responsibility of the PTAs which do not apply to other authorities with similar powers to provide these fares. I would therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Kilmarnock: Before the noble Lord sits down, would he not agree that the action of this Bill and the Transport Bill as he has outlined it to us and when it comes to us, coupled with the precept control in this Bill, would be likely on the whole to diminish concessionary fares for elderly people? That being the case, do the Government not agree that they ought to keep this area under review? What would they do if they found that concessionary fares were being diminished across the country?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I think I said that it is up to the PTAs within their precept control to decide for themselves how best to spend the money. I also said that we consider that revenue support has over the years been too high. I would suggest that they should look for savings, or increased fares perhaps, for ordinary travellers and hold the concessionary fares.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: Can the noble Lord tell us what he means by revenue support being too high? Does he mean that everybody has been travelling on the cheap and some cheaper than others? What does he really mean by that phrase?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I think I mean more or less that everybody has been travelling extremely cheaply in certain districts. As I said, revenue support has doubled in real terms since 1979–80. In the same period the shire counties have kept their support to the rate of inflation.
Lord Stallard: I am grateful to noble Lords on both sides of the Committee for their support of the amendments, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes. I admire the work that she has done in this field in London on the councils on which she has served. But I was surprised and saddened when she said that she supported most of what we said but did not quite agree with the amendments and felt that they were not clear enough. Had she said that she would come forward with a clearer amendment of her own or help me to draft a better one if this one was not drafted properly, I should have been only too happy. It is disappointing if that is the only point of disagreement.
Likewise, I tried to follow the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, but he took us to the Transport Bill, which is not yet before the House. Like his noble friend the Minister, he seemed to be dealing with a debate pitched some months ahead when the Transport Bill may come to this House, an amendment on concessionary fares may be moved and some of us may speak on he amendment. I do not think that he really answered the points raised tonight. Obviously
1006
we do not have time to go into all the ramifications of those things tonight, but we shall come back to this.
Need I say that, to say the least, I am disappointed, as will be thousands of people outside who are concerned about what I call the ambiguity of the clause and schedule? The provisions could have been tightened up. If noble Lords thought that the drafting of the amendment was incorrect, the Government could have offered to assist if they accepted it in all other respects. I am not too big to accept their assistance. But that is not what they did. I am extremely disappointed. I shall read the debate very carefully tomorrow. I reserve my position to come back to the subject at the Report stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 128A had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Clause 38 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 128B not moved.]
[Amendment No. 129 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Schedule 12 agreed to.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 129A:
After Clause 38, insert the following new clause:
("Reports on highways and passenger transport.
.—(1) The Secretary of State shall each year prepare and on the anniversary of the abolition date lay before each House of Parliament a report on the performance by each of the joint authorities for highways and passenger transport established under this Part of the Act of the functions transferred to it under this Part of this Act.
(2) Each report prepared under this section shall include details of—

(a) the level of service provided by the joint authority;

(b) the total expenditure of the joint authority; and

(c) the number of staff employed by the joint authority.").

The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 129A. I am very conscious of the lateness of the hour. We have been discussing this matter so fully that a fairly brief resume of what is implied and what is asked for in the new clause will suffice, I am sure, to inform the Committee of the purpose of this amendment.
The purpose of the new clause is to require to be laid before Parliament annual reports on the performance of the new passenger transport authorities established by Clause 27 of the Bill. At present the metropolitan county councils set out each year their policies and programmes outlining the past, current and proposed level of transport provision and finance. These transport policies and programmes, or the TPPs (as they have become known) are very important documents. They allow for the publication of the plans, the annual reports, the budgets, and give detailed presentation of county-wide needs and priorities, level of service, expenditure and staffing levels. The new clause seeks to ensure that this level of public accountability must continue.
If the Secretary of State is to decide the joint boards' finance and manpower, as he is at present under the Bill, he should be answerable to Parliament for the consequences of his decisions and his actions. There

1007
are real fears that the Government will impose on the transport joint boards financial constraints which could have a serious impact on the level of service. If these restrictions on the service of public transport have to be the consequences of Government action, then Parliament should be kept informed.
The Secretary of State should report to Parliament on an annual basis, giving a full analysis of the level of service provided by the joint authorities. I believe that these are modest proposals. As I have said, these reports are already provided by the metropolitan counties. I believe they are the kind of proposals which the board of any private company would assume it would have to implement in relation to its shareholders. Therefore I commend this new clause to the Committee. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My hope is that my noble friend the Minister may look favourably on this. It is a reasonable request. It would provide public safeguard. It is something that is worthy of consideration.
Lord Elton: I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, would do me a kindness and save the Committee a little time by referring to the remarks which I made in my first brief response to the amendment of his noble friend Lord Mishcon; in a similar sense I refer to what I said on Amendment No. 127Z in relation to reports on fire and police services. I had expected the amendments to be taken together and everything I said in response to that amendment related also to this.
However, I did not deal specifically with transport matters. I will tell the noble Lord that the passenger transport executives, the PTEs, and the passenger transport authorities, the PTAs, are already required, by Section 16(1) of the Transport Act 1968 to produce and publish joint annual reports on the exercise and performance of their respective functions. The reports contain a substantial amount of information. As I am sure the noble Lord knows, a typical report will have sections covering, among other things, bus operations, rail operations, finance, personnel, engineering and property.
The PTEs are required under Section 3 of the Transport Act 1983 to prepare each year a plan containing their proposals for the following three years in respect of services and fares and their assumptions of revenue support. The plans which are published have to be accompanied by estimates of their costs, the demand for their services and the benefits to potential users. Subject to only limited amendment by the Transport Bill, these requirements, I can reassure the noble Lord, will remain. The reports and plans prepared in accordance with them will provide a very comprehensive picture of past performance and future intentions. The reports envisaged by the noble Lords will contain no information which was not already publicly available. They would merely create an unnecessary additional task for the Government and the PTAs. Given that what the noble Lord wants is to preserve the safeguards, and given the fact that they are preserved, I hope the noble Lord will be content with that.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. I think there is a slight difference, since he is going to have such responsibility now, in not providing the reports direct to Parliament, but I do see the point he has made and think perhaps when we get to the Transport Bill there will be an opportunity to probe further. So with his reassurance, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 39. [Airports]:
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 129B:
Page 24, line 21, leave out subsections (1) and (2) and insert—
("(1) In the case of any airport in respect of which a metropolitan county council has property, rights or liabilities, the Secretary of State shall by an order coming into force on the abolition date provide for the transfer of the property, rights and liabilities of the metropolitan county council in respect of the airport to the metropolitan county passenger transport authority.")
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 129B removes a misunderstanding. The proposed amendment provides for the direct statutory transfer of the metropolitan counties' interest in airports to the passenger transport joint boards. The reason for this is threefold. Each airport serves the whole of its county area, not just a part of the area. The commercial and industrial interests of the whole county would be affected if the future of any airport was put at stake. The passenger transport joint boards are now under Amendment No. 58D, which was discussed last week, the effective strategic transport authority of the county area, and it seems only logical and common sense that they should assume responsibility for the airports so that co-ordinated transport planning can continue.
The joint board provides a greater degree of certainty (and this is the real purpose of the amendment, to remove uncertainty) for decision-making than any form of voluntary co-operation. They are given the ability to precept and once the decision was taken, it would be more certain of implementation. Other co-operative arrangements would require each participating authority, in some cases as many as 10, to ratify every decision before progress could be made. Without that degree of certainty, essential investment in a field that is growing rapidly all the time would be likely to suffer. There is concern that agreement will not be reached. This has prompted the Government to seek the reserve powers in the Bill, and it surely makes sense to avoid uncertainty immediately. That was a view endorsed by the Committee on the 9th May, when reaching its decision on waste disposal arrangements for which similar reserve powers also exist in the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: As the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, explained, his amendment would require MCCs' interests in airports to be transferred by order to the metropolitan county PTA. It removes the prior option for the metropolitan district councils to agree on the distribution of those interests among themselves, and on voluntary arrangements for the continued operation of the airports.

1009
Let me briefly sketch out the background to Clause 39. Greater Manchester, Tyne and Wear, West Yorkshire, Merseyside and West Midlands MCCs have interests of some sort in the relevant regional airport. The extent of those interests varies, both legally and financially. Manchester is 50 per cent. owned by the Greater Manchester Council and 50 per cent. owned by the Manchester City Council. There is a joint committee. Incidentally, that seems to work extremely well, so there is no reason why that should not work. Again, Newcastle is split between Tyne and Wear, which have 72 per cent., and Durham County Council with 14 per cent. and Northumberland which have 14 per cent. Leeds/Bradford airport is 33⅓ per cent. owned by West Yorkshire MCC and one third owned by Leeds Metropolitan District Council and Bradford Metropolitan District Council. So there is no reason why joint committees should not work. The MCCs' interests in these consist of the right to make appointments to those committees, and to share in the financial benefits and liabilities. Clause 39 provides for those interests to be transferred, by order, either directly to the metropolitan district councils or, only if they fail to agree on the operation of the airport by a committee of districts, to the relevant metropolitan county PTA. I f they wish, the districts may make voluntary arrangements to take over the MCC interests and, with any other co-owners, run the airport. If they do not wish to do so, they may allow the interests to be transferred to them acting jointly within the statutory context of the PTA. This, in the Government's opinion, provides a proper and democratic choice.
It is a choice which I believe should be offered, because it would allow some districts, if they so wished and if the other districts in the metropolitan county agreed, to take no part in the running of an airport and to renounce their rights to any interests in it. That must be sensible. It would allow the interests to pass to those districts which have sufficient interest and enthusiasm to wish to run their local airport.
I believe that this amendment would both unnecessarily restrict the districts' free choice and run counter to the best interests of the airports. I hope therefore that it will not be pressed.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I am grateful to the noble Lord for explaining one or two points that were perhaps confusing. I would suggest, however, that the proposals in the Bill could lead to as many as 10 different authorities having a finger in a particular airport. The examples given by the noble Lord involved two or three authorities. In respect of Manchester, he was talking about two very powerful authorities. I shall, however, study the noble Lord's reply carefully. I am grateful for what he has said, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 39 agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 130, 131, 131A, 132 and 132A not moved.]
Clause 40 agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 132B, 132C and 132D not moved.]
Clause 41 agreed to.
Lord Denham: This is the position, I believe, that has been agreed through the usual channels that we should reach tonight. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Berkshire Bill [H.L.]
Reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with amendments.

Charities Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to.
House adjourned at eighteen minutes past eleven o'clock.