Lords Sitting of 13 March 1986

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Rochester.

Electricity Resale: Legislation
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, further to their Statement printed in the Official Report on 5th December (col. 1404) as requested by Baroness Burton of Coventry, concerning their wide-ranging discussions with the electricity industry, they will state what progress has been made on the proposed new legislation and whether this will be brought forward this Session.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, as the noble Baroness will know, these measures were not among those referred to in the Queen's speech for inclusion in this Session's legislative programme. However, the Government remain committed to introducing this legislation as soon as parliamentary time is available.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, the Minister has done his best and that I appreciate. But this matter first arose over the abuse by some landlords of the resale of electricity. Does the Minister recall that I brought to the attention of the department on whose behalf he has to answer today the statement made by the Minister of State for Energy in Standing Committee F when dealing with the Gas Bill (at col. 1154 of Hansard) on 27th February?
Does the noble Lord further recall that the Minister said:
"It might be helpful if I described the action that the Government propose to take over the recommendations of the Director General of Fair Trading on the resale of electricity. The Director General discovered clear evidence of abuse in overcharging for electricity. As a result of his report, the Government intend to introduce an order requiring that the price"—
Noble Lords: Order!
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, it is a question. I am asking whether he recalls it—
"requiring that the price charged for electricity by landlords should be clearly set out in an itemised statement and that the landlord must be responsible for stating the maximum price".
Noble Lords: Order!
Baroness Burton of Coventry: May I ask the Minister whether the Government stand by that statement, and whether he anticipates that the House can be told whether action will be taken soon? No delay was mentioned by the Minister of State.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I appreciate the concern that the noble Baroness expresses. As I hoped to indicate in my original Answer, the Government too share that concern. As the noble Baroness will be aware, there are many pressures on the parliamentary timetable. The Government are fully seized of the importance of this matter and hope that the necessary legislation will not be long delayed, particularly as other pressing matters of consumer safety and price indications are also involved in this possible legislation. The remarks made by my honourable friend in the committee in another place refer to this proposed legislation.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, the point that the noble Baroness is making is a very important one because most of the people who are concerned are those who are living in rooms or various types of accommodation, and are more often than not those people—
Noble Lords: Question!
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware—we know very well that he is aware—that many of the persons concerned are those who are in the lower income brackets and therefore have little redress when they appeal directly to the landlord for any help? It is important that those persons about whom the noble Baroness has spoken should be protected.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, that is exactly the purpose of the legislation that we hope to be able to bring in as soon as possible. I would give perhaps two small crumbs of comfort to the noble Baroness. As from the new tariffs being introduced next month, in April, the daily availability charge will be fixed as a maximum, the same as an ordinary domestic consumer would have to pay; and the maximum tariff chargeable will also be fixed the same as an ordinary consumer would have to pay in most of the electricity boards.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Burton, quoting from a speech made on behalf of the Department of Energy in another place, seemed to indicate, as I understood it, a degree of urgency? The reply of the noble Lord this afternoon seems to be rather more vague. Can we have an assurance that there are complete diplomatic relationships established between the Department of Energy and the Department of Trade and Industry, and that they are both of the same mind and hold the same degree of urgency on this matter?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I can certainly give the noble Lord that assurance. The reference which he makes to what was said by the spokesman from the Department of Energy refers to legislation which will be promoted, I hope, by the Department of Trade and Industry. As I am a spokesman for both departments in your Lordships' House I can assure the noble Lord that that is correct.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell the House whether any reference will be made in any new legislation to the increase in standing charges, which seems to be a continuing process? When added to all the other standing charges, particularly in the case of pensioners, great difficulty is created when one considers that the standing charges amount to about £4.50 a week before we even switch on a light bulb or a gas appliance, or buy anything. Will anything be said in legislation about the need to reduce those standing charges?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the question of standing charges is a slightly different matter in that the proposed legislation refers to the "passing-on", if I may put it that way, of the standing charge from the landlord to the tenant. I am not quite sure from where the noble Lord gets the sum of £4·50 a week for standing charges. My understanding is that the highest sum for standing charges in any of the electricity board areas is somewhere in the region of £7·80 a quarter.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I am sorry, but I said that that was the sum when added to other standing charges like, for example, telephone, gas and water. If you put them all together you arrive at that amount. I thought that the noble Lord the Minister and other noble Lords would understand that.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, in that case, I think that it really is a very different question altogether.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, does the Minister realise that however early this matter may be considered, if it is to be taken up in the next Session, it will be at least a year before this abuse by some landlords is dealt with? Moreover, this matter affects some of the poorer sections of our community. Could not the Minister persuade the department to get a move on?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I remind the noble Baroness that the report of the Director General of Fair Trading was only published in June last year. It takes a certain amount of time to translate the Director General's recommendation into legislation; and, as I have said, there are other matters also involved in the possible legislation. I am aware of the concern expressed by the noble Baroness. However, as she will be aware, there is a good deal of advertising going on at the moment. Moreover, there are existing rules as well, and this will only be an improvement on the existing rules. There is quite a considerable campaign of advertising and there will be more advertising following the new tariff arrangement which will take place next month. It is hoped that that will draw people's attention to the problem.

Iranian Embassy: Repair Costs and Rates
3.14 p.m.
The Earl of Kinnoull: 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 effect the recent High Court decision concerning the Iranian Embassy in London will have on the ratepayers of Westminster.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Young): My Lords, may I refer the noble Lord to Westminster City Council for the details he requires since the matter is one for them. I understand, however, that Westminster City Council are considering alternative courses of action following the recent High Court decision.
The Earl of Kinnoull: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. I recall that Westminster City Council have so far spent over £200,000 on simply making the structure of the building safe. In view of the very unusual circumstances surrounding the situation, are Her Majesty's Government considering any plans to indemnify Westminster City Council against the costs which they have already incurred until there is proper satisfaction between themselves and the Iranian Government?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I understand the point behind my noble friend's question, and I can say to him that, of course, we are sympathetic to the difficulties which Westminster City Council face. The requirement to carry out work on environmental grounds and the recovery of the costs are matters for the city council. However, I can assure my noble friend that FCO officials keep in very close touch with the city council officials and give them assistance and advice. Also, Westminster City Council is kept fully informed of the negotiations with the Iranian Government over damage to diplomatic property both in the United Kingdom and in Iran.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, will the noble Baroness confirm that the difficulty arises in the main because we are not in diplomatic relations with Iran? Will the noble Baroness say what is the reciprocal position in relation to our embassy in Tehran?
Baroness Young: My Lords, we are involved in quite complicated negotiations with the Government of Iran which cover both British property in Tehran as well as Iranian property in London. I am sure that the noble Lord will appreciate that it would not be appropriate to go into the details, but I can assure him that we are actively engaged in negotiations.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, will the noble Baroness treat this as a matter of urgency? Is she aware that the burnt-out shell of this building has been disfiguring a distinguished terrace of houses in Princes Gate, and is it not time that something was done? Have the Government no powers to take it over?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I can very much sympathise with the point that the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, makes in this matter. As he will be aware, legislation is under consideration to enable the Government to acquire the title, in exceptional circumstances, of premises formerly used for the purposes of a diplomatic mission which the government concerned refuse to dispose of. However,

693
I cannot, of course, give any commitment about when that may take place or when it could be used.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, will my noble friend inform me about whether this is a parallel situation to that of Rhodesia House, which remained empty for a number of years because relations ceased with that country? In that instance a rate bill of approximately £¾ million mounted for Westminister. Or was that a different situation because it concerned a Commonwealth country, and a foreign nation creates different problems?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I cannot give an answer to my noble friend specifically on Rhodesia House. However, in order to make the position quite plain about what lies behind the Question of my noble friend Lord Kinnoull, let me say that it is not a question of non-payment of rates; it is a question of costs which Westminister City Council have been put to in order to make sure that the building is safe.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, the noble Baroness has explained that there are difficulties between Great Britain and Iran and that the normal diplomatic sources do not exist. Usually in those circumstances some other government will act on behalf of the other two. Is that situation being examined by the Foreign Office so that the matter can be properly cleared up?
Baroness Young: No, my Lords, in this particular situation we are negotiating directly with the Iranian Government over our properties in Teheran and the Iranian Government's properties in London.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: My Lords, I should like to follow up the matter by asking my noble friend why it is not possible for the Government to answer Lord Strabolgi's question. Why can they not repair the property concerned before it deteriorates further and then add that sum to the bill already accumulating?
Baroness Young: My Lords, as I understand the position the Westminster City Council have now spent a considerable sum of money making the building safe under the health and safety regulations. One of the subjects of negotiation between ourselves and the Iranian Government concerns the claims with respect to damage to the property which occurred when there was the difficulty in the then Iranian Embassy, and they are balanced against the claims which the British Government have against Iran for British property in Teheran which was affected by the Iranian revolution. There are a number of complex interlocked negotiations going on. What I can say to my noble friend is that we are actively engaged in trying to make some progress in them because we should all like to see progress made.

The Jobstart Scheme
3.20 p.m.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: 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 the response has been from the nine pilot areas to the
694
jobstart scheme, applicable to those who have been out of work for more than 12 months.
The Secretary of State for Employment (Lord Young of Graffham): My Lords, in the nine weeks to 7th March 14,363 invitations to attend in-depth interviews at jobcentres were issued to long-term unemployed people in the nine pilot areas; 10,507 interviews have been held and some 80 per cent. of those interviewed have agreed to follow up a positive opportunity as a result.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, is the Minister satisfied with those results? Is the Minister aware that there is a slight worry that perhaps the idea of the exercise not only was to offer job opportunities to people but was a back-door method of finding out whether people were genuinely unemployed?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I thought that everyone in your Lordships' House would be concerned on both counts: to ensure first that all long-term unemployed people get as much help and assistance as they can, and secondly, that they are genuinely unemployed. This measure in itself is there to determine what help we can give to long-term unemployed people.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that his remarks are most encouraging? Can he give us some idea of when he is going to be able to extend the scheme more widely, because it seems to be an excellent plan for a very necessary problem?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, we announced a pilot scheme which started on 6th January, and we are studying the results as we go along.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, did the noble Lord see the report in the Guardian this morning which seemed to say that the operation had been low-key, and that many benefit offices were refusing to involve themselves in the scheme and operate the scheme because of the implications involved? Can he comment on that? Can he also tell the House how many employers, if any, have taken up the £20 a week subsidy which has been offered under the jobstart scheme?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I regret to say that, perhaps exceptionally, the report in the Guardian was totally erroneous. It referred to the job-starts for the whole of the pilot schemes as if they applied throughout the country and drew conclusions from that that could not be sustained. For example, it said that 100,000 people had not turned up to attend interviews, which indeed would be surprising considering we issued only 14,000 invitations. There are many other details like that. In fact, no benefit offices or jobcentres have refused to co-operate in the pilot schemes which are for the help of long-term unemployed people. It is open to anyone in your Lordships' House to visit one of the jobcentres or the benefit offices, and you could not fail to be impressed, as I am, by the great spirit there in finding genuine help for the long-term unemployed. So far as the jobstart allowance is concerned, by the 7th March

695
we had received 121 applications, and of these 80 have been accepted and 35 rejected.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, the noble Lord has given a lot of figures. There is one he has not given. In these nine pilot schemes can he tell us how many long-term unemployed there are? From that number, what is the percentage of those who have been asked for interviews and have accepted the propositions put to them?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I can certainly let your Lordships' House have details of numbers from memory. I believe that the total number of long-term unemployed within the 9 pilot areas is in the order of 35,000. I shall certainly write to the noble Lord with the figure if that is incorrect. Of that some 80 per cent. of those interviewed—that is 14,300—have agreed to follow up a positive opportunity as a result. Many of those have gone on the re-start programme, some are going to join job clubs, others are interviewing for jobs, and still others are interviewing for places on the community programme. Many different opportunities are available. It is a pilot scheme and we are following it through. I do not think I should make a formal report to your Lordships' House in answer to a Question but find some other suitable occasion for it.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, following that response will the Government publish information on a regular basis in the Department of Employment Gazette on monthly unemployment statistics, or in some other suitable way, giving an indication of the number of people taking part in the jobstart scheme and other similar schemes?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I shall find a suitable method of ensuring that that information becomes known in due course.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, in the light of that encouraging start does my noble friend intend to spread this scheme generally throughout the country?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, the purpose of a pilot is to study the results. Once we have studied the results we shall see what to do then.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, one has to say that the noble Lord has this afternoon given us what he thinks are good results—he gave us the figures. Does he accept that these good results should now be showing in the inner cities, particularly those with the greatest unemployment, such as the West Midlands?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, what we are finding through these pilots is the best way to help long-term unemployed. We have seen some interesting results from them and we are now studying the results urgently to find how we can spread them as soon as we can. We shall not waste one day in doing so. We will find ways of helping long-term unemployed people whether they live in rural areas or in inner cities.

Investor Protection
3.27 p.m.
The Earl of Buchan: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how they intend to draw the balance of responsibility between self-regulatory organisations (SRO) and the Securities and Investment Board (SIB) now that they have conceded additional powers to the SIB to impose rules directly on the SRO without reference to a court compliance order procedure.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the Government have undertaken in another place to bring forward an amendment to the Financial Services Bill on this matter. The amendment would give the Secretary of State a power to direct a self-regulating organisation to alter its rules. The Secretary of State would be able to transfer this power to a designated agency. The power would be exercisable if the organisation's rules did not afford to investors protection at least equivalent to that afforded by rules made by the Secretary of State or designated agency, as appropriate. The precise form of this amendment is still under consideration in consultation with interested parties.
The Earl of Buchan: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord the Minister for his comprehensive Answer. I have, however, one other small question for him. I accept that the wording of this Question is exceedingly obscure and seems to owe a little to the late Beachcomber in the Daily Express—court compliance order procedure, SIBs and SROs—but there was a serious point behind the Question. It was, as it were, to put down a marker and to record now the great interest in the Bill currently in the other place. I therefore ask the noble Lord the Minister whether this was not a suitable and timely Question.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, when the noble Earl says that it is attracting a great deal of interest in another place, he is of course quite right. In fact, it has not even finished its Committee stage there; it still has to go through the remaining stages. Perhaps I would not be out of order in suggesting that we in your Lordships' House should really wait and see what the Bill looks like when it arrives here at Second Reading, and I have no doubt that there will then be ample opportunity for all these points to be raised at that stage and subsequent stages.
The Earl of Buchan: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that answer.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, bearing in mind that the noble Lord has drawn our attention to the fact that this Bill still has to go through many stages, would he nevertheless not agree that it would be desirable for us to aim at simplicity of organisation and have clearly defined rules for the various regulatory bodies and not have too many SROs?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, with respect to the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, that is a matter which must

697
wait to be discussed in your Lordships' House when the Bill arrives here.

Business
3.31 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that the Report stage of the Local Government Bill will be adjourned at approximately 7 p.m. for a short period and that during this adjournment the Second Reading of the Land Registration Bill will be taken.

Easter Recess
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may also be for the convenience of the House if I announce that, subject to the progress of business, it is proposed that the House should rise for the Easter Recess on Wednesday, 26th March, and return on Monday, 7th April.
The House will sit at the usual time of 2.30 p.m. on Wednesday, 26th March.

Local Government Bill
3.32 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 2 [Prohibition of political publicity]:
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 17, at end insert ("except material produced for the purpose of—

(a) eliminating unlawful racial discrimination; or

(b) promoting equality of opportunity, and good relations, between persons of different racial groups.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, it may be useful for me to point out while I am moving this first amendment that it is supported from all quarters of the House. I remind the House of the actual provisions which are now incorporated in Clause 2(1) as a result of an amendment that was agreed to at Committee stage. The clause reads:
"A local authority shall not publish any material which, in whole or in part, appears to be designed to affect public support for a political party".
Your Lordships may recall that an amendment was moved in Committee to except cases where material is published for the purpose of carrying out the duty of a local authority under Section 71 of the Race Relations Act 1976. I also remind the House that it was pointed out during the Committee stage that many local authorities published material to enable them to carry out that duty under the Race Relations Act.
In addition, material is published by the local community relations councils which in most cases are funded at least in part by the local authority and also by the Commission for Racial Equality, which, as your Lordships will know, is a statutory body. The House will not wish me to repeat all the arguments raised in our debate in Committee, but I believe the background to the matter is rather important.
The House will recall the widespread support at Committee stage for an amendment to deal with race
698
relations, but two arguments were advanced against it. First, following a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, the noble Lord, Lord Broxbourne, argued that the adoption of Amendment No. 4 at Committee stage, with its express reference to one statute, would exclude all other statutes from consideration. I believe I am correct in saying that that view appeared to be supported by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate.
It will be noted that the present Amendment No. 1 does not refer to the Race Relations Act, but seeks to except material produced for the purposes set out in paragraphs (a) and (b) in the amendment. I am certain that there will be general agreement throughout the House with those objectives.
On the second argument, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate stated, in column 549:
"we consider that the courts would not hold that material promoting racial equality or dealing with race relations questions would be prohibited".
That was encouraging, but the noble and learned Lord continued:
"The courts would be able to draw a distinction between material which provides objective information and promotes good race relations, on the one hand, and material which openly attacks the National Front".—[Official Report, 18/2/86.]
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate went on to say that if a local community relations council wished to put out material which directly attacks the National Front the Bill does not prevent it from doing so provided that the publicity and the material is not funded by the local authority for that purpose. Those statements illustrate clearly why the amendment am moving is absolutely essential if a local authority or a community relations council is effectively to carry out the provisions referred to in the amendment. Unless this exception is included in the Bill a local authority would be inhibited in carrying out those duties.
I was disappointed that the Government had not decided to bring forward some form of amendment to deal with the important question of publicity concerned with race relations. I remind the House that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate said:
"Certainly as far as the Government are concerned we have heard new points and we certainly wish to consider the matter further in the light of that".
The noble Lord, Lord Elton, said:
"This is an issue which the Government wish to consider between now and Report stage. That is normally an offer which is accepted by an Opposition which wishes to move an amendment but the Government are acutely unhappy with the wording proposed and without commitment agree to consider the issue as well as the wording to see if something can be arranged—and that is said without commitment".—[cols. 557–58.]
I emphasise that I recognise that those two statements were made without commitment, but it is disappointing because I am certain that the Government are as sympathetic as anyone else in the House in wishing to ensure that proper attention is given to dealing with radical incitement and racial discrimination. I am disappointed that the Government have not brought forward an amendment.
During the Committee stage I referred to a report in the Observer newspaper which spoke of the alarming rise in racist attacks on schoolchildren. I could have referred to an earlier report on 12th December which

699
appeared in the Guardian written by that paper's education correspondent. That correspondent expressed concern that National Front leaflets are being handed out to schoolchildren at school gates as part of a recruiting drive. The correspondent also said that the National Union of Teachers is stated to have collected information from all over the country on incidents where the National Front is trying to gain influence over schoolchildren. The article went on to say that the deputy chairman of the National Front was stated to have admitted that leaflets for schoolchildren were part of the Front's tactics.
The point I wish to make is that, unless this amendment or something like it is approved, local authorities could be held to be unlawful should they decide to publish material drawing parents' attention to this racial acitivity, on the grounds that such material could affect support for a political party, in this case the National Front. On the day after our Committee stage my attention was drawn to the Yorkshire Post, which during the three previous days had published special features on National Front activity and had expressed the serious concern of the chairman of the Leeds United Football Club about National Front activity to influence persons attending their matches.
Publicity issued either by the local authority or by the local community relations council to deal with that sort of racial publicity could be caught by the Bill as it stands in subsection (1) of this clause. In our debate the Minister suggested—and that was the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate—that the Commission for Racial Equality would be satisfied with the deletion of the words from subsection (1) as proposed in the amendment which was actually carried by your Lordships at that stage.
However, since the Committee stage the National Council for Voluntary Organisations has emphasised that there are occasions when community relations councils and black community groups may need to produce publicity material which directly attacks a particular position of extremist, racist political parties such as the National Front. Also, the wording of this new amendment which is now before your Lordships is supported by the National Council for Voluntary Organisations; it is supported by the Commission for Racial Equality, which is a statutory body; and is also supported by the National Association for Community Relations Councils.
Without this amendment local authorities are going to be placed in considerable difficulty in combating certain racist and racially discriminating activities in their areas. As the Government themselves have not put down an amendment, and as I am sure that the Government wish to deal with racist activity in the same way as would anybody else in your Lordships' House, I hope the Government will say that they accept this amendment which I now propose to move.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I wanted to say a word in opposition to this amendment, although a cross-party amendment such as this demands the ultimate respect of your Lordships' House. If your Lordships would bear with me for a brief moment, any meticulous examination of Clause 2 will show that this
700
amendment, far from being essential (as the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, has said) to protect any of the activities on the part of the local authorities to which it refers, is not necessary—this on the assumption, to be made at the outset, that as a result of such activities public support for a political party is affected. As your Lordships know I have had difficulties in the past with the construction of Clause 2; but on reexamination—and on this I seek the confirmation of my noble friend the Minister in due course—the position which renders this amendment unnecessary would appear to be as follows. The analysis proceeds upon the assumption that Clause 2(2) affords an essential and effective measure of safeguard and that Clause 2(2) should not be excised as proposed by the subsequent Amendment No. 3.
If the material is produced for the purpose of eliminating unlawful racial discrimination or for promoting equality of opportunity and good relations, and if it is published as part of a campaign—and the dictionary definition would be, "a series of connected publications designed to achieve an end"—it would be apparent to the court that such was the design and then, if it was so apparent, the safeguard provisions of Clause 2(2)(b) would apply. The Bill, expressly recognising in its intricate and somewhat puzzling construction that apparent design of the campaign and apparent design of the publication and the material which constitutes the prohibition in Clause 2(1) are disparate but nonetheless intrinsically related, built this measure of mandatory safeguard into Clause 2(2) of the Bill.
In those circumstances, no valid, positive purpose would be served by accepting this amendment. Indeed, its inclusion in the Bill would tend to conflict with the definition of "publish" in Clause 6(3), unless Clause 6(3) were amended to accommodate this exception—an amendment which would not be desirable for a myriad reasons and, indeed, one that has not been proposed.
3.45 p.m.
As the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, has said, the safeguard provisions of Clause 2(2) have been very substantially enhanced as a result of the first Division at Committee stage; since when that alternative route to prohibition under Clause 2(1) and 2(3), the probable effect on public support for a political party, is no longer open. The only test is now, on objective consideration, whether the material appears to be designed to affect public support for a political party. The fact that the publication has affected, may affect or is likely to affect, or, to use the words of the noble Lord, Lord Underhill (words which he used a moment ago), could affect public support for a political party, as will often be the case, on a true construction of this clause is wholly irrelevant and not a matter for the court.
Questions of racial discrimination, the activities of the National Front, to which reference has been made, and equality of opportunity are dealt with by other statutory provisions, and surely it is best to leave them to be dealt with by such other provisions or by amendment of such other provisions. It is for these reasons, with deep respect to those who support this amendment, that I beg leave to oppose it.
The Lord Bishop of Rochester: My Lords, I should like to support the noble Lords from each of the other Benches in your Lordships' House who are moving this amendment this afternoon so as to make quite clear that we on these Benches also feel very strongly on this matter. I feel sure that it is both necessary and right to single out race relations for special treatment in this Bill. The promotion of good relations is already enshrined in the 1976 Race Relations Act. Surely we must make sure that this Local Government Bill is consistent with that Act, and we must be careful to see that any new legislation does not run the risk of worsening race relations.
Unfortunately, as we have already been told, there are extremist political parties whose political platforms are based on racist policies. This means inevitably that community relations councils come into direct conflict with such parties and that their own publicity material has sometimes to be directly aimed at countering such racist propaganda. Many community relations councils, such as that with which I have been associated for many years in the Medway towns, are, as the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, has said, funded at least in part by local authorities. Unless this amendment to the Bill is made, they would be very seriously impeded in their work. Indeed, as we have also been told, among other things they would be unable to publish material for circulation in schools explaining to children why the policies of these extremist political parties are harmful and why they should not be supported.
There is one other reason why I think that this amendment is important. It is that I consider it to be quite essential that there should be no grounds for legal doubt about the provisions of this Bill because any such doubts could so easily lead to the courts being used to exploit such a situation. Without this amendment the Bill could prevent the promotion of good relations and might even protect the promotion of bad race relations. That surely cannot be right, and I hope we shall make this amendment today.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, I rise with considerable diffidence to express a doubt about this amendment. My diffidence arises from the fact that not only do I much respect the movers of the amendment, but several of them are my political allies and I notice they are supported by my right reverend friend—if I may so call him—the Bishop of Rochester.
My doubts really arise from the letter which has been distributed by the Council of Voluntary Services, or by some branches of the council, in support of an amendment similar to this one. If I may just read a passage to your Lordships, it says that there is considerable concern about this section of the Bill, and continues:
"The first concern relates to the race relations implications of Clause 2(1). Because extremist political parties such as the National Front have racist policies, there are occasions when community relations councils and black community groups need to issue publicity material which is designed to affect public support for these parties."
I was much impressed by the anxieties expressed at the Committee stage and elsewhere that good relations between different elements of the community should be encouraged. I sympathise with the aims but I wonder whether it is really right that public money
702
should be used for the purpose of publicity material which is designed to affect public support for certain parties. I am not sure that I wholly accept the argument that race relations are in a special category and that parties which advocate racial hatred are the only ones which are harmful in a community. I would, I think, dissent from that.
However, in any case this would create a precedent for spending public money, not for positively encouraging good race relations (which is done already) but for material aimed at particular political parties. I am not sure, to judge from what was said earlier on, that this is either legal now or something to be approved of. The letter goes on to say:
"For example, in the interests of racial harmony a CRC may issue a leaflet, paid for with local authority funds, calling on the public to join a campaign to prevent the National Front organising a march through their area".
My Lords, detestable though they may be, the National Front are, so far as I know, legal; and subject to by-laws, and so forth, it is legal for them to march. If they march in a particularly provocative way, so I understand, they may well be in trouble with the law; but that surely is a matter for the police. I am not at all sure therefore that it is a proper use of local authority funds to campaign to prevent a lawful body doing something which is lawful. They may be wrong and we may dislike it, but is it a proper use of public funds by a local authority?
I may have misunderstood the effect of this amendment, and I wish to emphasise again that I wholly sympathise with the objectives of its movers, but I think that I would need to be rather more convinced than I am that this is a proper matter for local authority money. It is certainly a matter for voluntary societies, the Church or education authorities to promote positive racial harmony and all other forms of harmony in a community. However, I am doubtful whether they should go so far as apparently some of the councils for voluntary service think they should be allowed to go and to use public money for these purposes, to aim their propaganda very deliberately at certain bodies, and indeed attempt to stop certain activities—and in stopping them, I suppose, they might well create a confrontation which would do more harm than good to race relations. I raise these questions and perhaps at the end of the debate I shall have them answered.
Lord Denning: My Lords, I suggest that your Lordships do not accept this amendment, much as we sympathise with the objectives of it. The Widdicombe Report made it quite clear in their one recommendation that:
"There should be an express statutory prohibition of local authority publicity of a party political nature;".
No exception is admitted in that recommendation, but it is now sought to put in an exception in a special category in regard to race relations. Will this be a precedent for other exemptions? Let us analyse it for a minute. It is obviously directed at allowing the funds of the local authority to be handed over to community relations councils and the like, who will then use it for propaganda against the National Front.
We have had the National Front before the courts in a case which I heard. It is certainly a political party

703
with a certain amount of support. None of us may like its objects, but it is beyond doubt a political party. It has candidates which stand for Parliament. The case arose in Great Yarmouth. The National Front, through its proper organisations, arranged for a conference in Great Yarmouth and booked a hall. The local authority allowed it and arranged its meetings. Afterwards, owing to some influence behind the scenes, the local authority revoked its decision and said that the National Front could not hold its conference in Great Yarmouth. They came to the court over which I presided, and there was no evidence to suggest that there would be violence or disorder of any kind. We said that the council must implement its promise and must allow the conference to be held for this political party. There, my Lords, is the case showing beyond question that the National Front is a recognised political party.
Is it right that an exception should be made in this Bill for local government funds to be used for this party political purpose? I would once more suggest that it is premature to decide it at this stage. Your Lordships must remember that the Widdicombe Report was an interim report. I suggest that this difficult question could be considered by them in the interim before they come to make their final report. I shall read the very last paragraph of their report:
"We are very conscious that the main part of our work lies ahead. One of the questions we shall have to consider in our main report is the rights of the public to challenge local authority activities and decisions".
They have not been dealt with in this Bill so far.
"This is a wider issue on which we have already asked for views from the local authority associations, the local Ombudsman, the Audit Commission and others concerned. At that time we shall be looking to ensure that the citizen has a prompt, effective, inexpensive and local remedy for dealing with complaints about local authorities. It seems to us that the question of controlling tone and presentation of local authority publicity should not be considered in isolation now, but dealt with when we come to the question of local government activities generally.".
I suggest that your Lordships should decide not to make an exception at this time. I am not sure that the Government have not already intimated that the matter will be dealt with in the next Session. The final Widdicombe Report should be out this year. We shall have the final report by next Session. Is it not best to leave the matter now rather than to introduce a special exception at this stage? It is a special category with which we sympathise, but it is perhaps better to leave it until we have the final Widdicombe Report. I hope that your Lordships will not accept the amendment at this stage.
4 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I rise to support the amendment but I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, and the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, that the case should not rest on the question of the National Front. I am a little sorry that the letter sent out by the voluntary organisations rested on the case of the National Front. I agree with the noble and learned Lord that the National Front, whether or not we like it, exists. Who are we to say that it should not exist? I, personally, do not like its views, but that is neither here nor there.
704
I support the amendment on the grounds of my experience with the Swann Committee. I sat on the Swann Committee, which looked into the education of the children of the ethnic minorities. On that committee were 22 people, 12 from the indigenous population and 10 from the Indian sub-continent and the Caribbean islands. I learnt a great deal from the people who sat on that committee, and I was grateful to them.
It is said that this area is different from any other. It is a different area. We set up a special committee to look into the education of the children of the ethnic minorities: why can we not look at this special area? I suggest that the question of race relations is something absolutely fundamental in our day and age and in our land. It is a very sensitive area in a way that perhaps other areas are not. I believe that the amendment, if passed by your Lordships' House, would make for better relationships between all sectors of our society. I commend the amendment to your Lordships' House.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I am sorry that my noble friend Lady Faithfull should speak in those terms, because I feel that she has not seen the depth of what is behind all this. I commend particularly the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, who presented all the doubts that one has about the matter.
If the whole question of race relations was handled by bodies such as those that Lady Faithfull mentioned, and they were the only ones to do so, there would not be a problem. I, personally, do not think that it is right to select one particular area, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, so clearly said, and pick it out for special treatment in this Bill, which is general. Be that as it may, race relations are very important. It is very important that they should be properly cared for in this country.
The trouble is that there are people who seek to exploit race relations and other minority interests. The people who do that do not have particularly in mind the well-being of the people whom they are exploiting: they have the aim of destabilising the country and its government. They are there, and your Lordships know that they are there. I could quote right now an example that I have in my hand, but I shall not bother because I think that every noble Lord knows about it.
In the Bill we should have an arrangement which makes clear that it is wrong to use public money for partisan purposes. That is what is behind the Bill. We must not have exceptions which erode that principle, however well meaning they are, and which will give an opportunity to those people who are keen only on destablising the country's whole system of administration and government to exploit the position as it stands.
I very much hope that noble Lords opposite will not press the amendment, because I do not think that it will achieve the aims that they have. There is a perfectly good Race Relations Act to take care of their particular problem. I think that the amendment may do extreme harm and may make it so much easier for the wrong sort of people to drive a coach and horses through the Bill's principles.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: My Lords, I am indeed shocked to hear the speeches to which I am listening

705
this afternoon. I never thought that your Lordships' House would be spending the afternoon defending the activities of the National Front in the way that I am hearing. In Committee I pointed out my concern about the Bill, which was that it would, in fact, cause local authorities which make grants to their community relations councils, but which do so fairly grudgingly, not to continue to do so. It would be possible for them to be told by their legal advisers that because their community relations councils criticise the National Front, which is, in fact, a political party, that would put them outside the law.
The purpose of this amendment is merely to tell the local authority that if what is being done is for,

"(a) eliminating unlawful racial discrimination; or

(b) promoting equality of opportunity, and good relations, between persons of different racial groups",

then the financing of the organisation is not illegal. That is what the amendment does.
It is wrong for Members of your Lordships' House to exaggerate the position. What I am saying is that if the amendment is not included and Clause 2(2) stands as it is, in actual fact there will be legal advisers who will tell their councils that they need to be careful about funding their community relations councils. Is that what your Lordships want? I cannot really believe that that is what your Lordships want. Since I cannot believe that that is what your Lordships want, I cannot understand why there is this particular attitude to the amendment.
I do not want to put the interpretation that one would be forced to put on our Lordships' attitude, but I cannot for the life of me understand why your Lordships do not think we ought, in fact, to make sure that local authorities do not cease to fund community relations councils out of fear of breaking the law.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Pitt of Hampstead, was right when he said that he did not wholly understand the debate on this amendment. I think that he was a little unfair to some noble Lords, not only on this side of the House but on the Cross-Benches, when he accused those who had criticised the amendment of defending the activities of the National Front. Let me tell him at once that that is completely untrue.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way?
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, if the noble Lord would have the courtesy to wait, I shall give way to him in a moment. I thank the noble Lord.
I have listened to every speech in this debate and none of them has for one moment defended the activities of the National Front. If the noble Lord likes to get up and quote to me somebody who had, I shall be delighted—
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: My Lords, the last speaker did. The last speaker said that he did not approve of the activities of the National Front but that the National Front was a political party. In fact, the noble and learned Lord did that, too. He said that it was a political party and therefore was entitled to take these attitudes.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, the noble Lord entirely confuses two things. To defend the activities of the National Front would be a very serious allegation against any noble Lord. The more one knows of that disagreeable and unpleasant body, the less any decent-minded man in this country is happy to defend it. But it is a totally different thing to say, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, said, with the authority of a Court of Appeal decision behind him, that the National Front had established its status as a political party. To establish your status as a political party does not amount to defending you. Let me say at once that there are several political parties in this country—authorised, recognised political parties; and, indeed, I see some of their representatives here—which I do not defend for one moment, and it is utter confusion of counsel for the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, to get very excited and to say that because the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, with high authority behind him, held that the National Front was a political party, he was thereby defending its activities. He is more than capable of speaking for himself, but as a great admirer of the noble and learned Lord I could not forbear to intervene at once on that point.
The point is a perfectly straightforward one which should not be confused with these acerbities. Subsection (1) of Clause 2, to which this amendment applies, states:
"A local authority shall not publish any material which, in whole or in part, appears to be designed to affect public support for a political party".
That is a very important part—almost a core—of this Bill. What many of us feel is that if, because of dislike of the National Front, racism and all that, your Lordships put an exception of this sort into this Bill, the exception will not stop there. There are other bodies for which the exception can also be argued enthusiastically by a number of people. The clear-cut effect of the Bill to ban ratepayers' money being used to support a political party will be compromised if this amendment is carried into it. I therefore very much hope that your Lordships will not carry it into it.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, I had not intended to speak on this amendment, but I really feel that as a result of the speech made by my noble friend on the Front Bench here I ought to say a word to make it absolutely clear that, in general, noble Lords on these Benches are wholly in support of this amendment. I must say, too, that we are in some danger of becoming confused. Perhaps some noble Lords are in danger of becoming even more confused than they were before. In part, I would blame that, if I may, with all respect, on my noble friend, because I genuinely feel that his arguments were directed not at this amendment but at a circular letter which he has received from another source, and it is important that we direct our attention exclusively to what is said in the amendment.
The noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, said that it would be entirely wrong for public money (the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, who speaks with greater clarity, referred to ratepayers' money) to be spent on these activities. But public money is already spent on these activities. We have passed an Act of Parliament to make it essential that public money shall be spent, and it is spent by central government on these organisations. This amendment seeks to enable local

707
authorities to assist voluntary bodies and themselves to undertake functions which are already undertaken with the assent of the people, and with the assent of Parliament, by central government. That is all it does, and I hope that we accept it.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, may I also draw attention to the terms of the amendment? I should have thought it would be common ground in your Lordships' House that it is extremely desirable that we should eliminate unlawful racial discrimination and promote equality of opportunity, and good relations, among persons of different racial groups. Those are good objectives, and it is essential that they should be asserted loud and clear in this House, because there are movements the other way not limited to a single group. There are outbursts in a contrary way, of a sinister character, which are taking hold of some of the young generation.
Here is a situation where there is a risk that a local authority faced with local uproar, fighting and hatred could well be inhibited by the terms of Clause 2 as it stands from saying a word. What have they got to be? Have they to be silent onlookers, like the people of Berlin in the early days of the growth of the Nazi movement? That was the final, fatal sin that went to destroy Germany—the sin of being silent onlookers. Is this what we are inviting local authorities to be, in the face of activity which does the opposite of the perfectly lawful objectives of this amendment, which are to make it lawful for a local authority to produce material, when it is necessary for local peace and harmony in its own community, for the purpose of eliminating unlawful racial discrimination—that would be a matter of action by the local authority which would be in conformity with the law—or
"promoting equality of opportunity, and good relations, between persons of different racial groups"?
Those are activities and actions, and an approach, which, so far from condemning them, this House should wholeheartedly support, and I greatly hope, therefore, that this amendment will be approved by the House.
Lord Somers: My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble and learned Lord that everybody should dislike unlawful discrimination, and also should be anxious to reduce unemployment. But those desires are not the monopoly of any one political party, and what this Bill is seeking to avoid is the hanging of the desire for racial equality or increased employment on to any one political party. They are universal desires. They are not at all political subjects. So far as discrimination is concerned, I can only repeat what I said two days ago on the subject of sexual discrimination: that lack of discrimination means total lack of discrimination. It does not mean removing discrimination against one side but keeping it against the other side. This would sometimes—not always—mean discrimination against the white man, and that in his own country.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I, too, should like to support this amendment. I did not intend to speak, and I shall not delay your Lordships very long. But I am also concerned at the number of references to the
708
National Front. I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Faithful, was quite right. We are not discussing the National Front, nor is the National Front mentioned in the amendment at any stage. But we are discussing what I thought ought to have been a universally accepted principle. I should have liked to go further, not on this amendment but in other areas.
I would say in regard to race relations generally that we ought to be scrutinising every piece of legislation that goes through either House, or goes through local authorities, to make sure no legislation is passed that offends the race relations policy as enunciated by Parliament in various Acts that have been enacted. I cannot see any objection to that. It should be virtually a standard clause in legislation nowadays that there is no offence to race relations or to our policy of establishing equality between the races. That should be accepted by everybody. I am therefore a little surprised and a little worried.
I was disappointed when I heard the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, for whom I have the greatest respect. I seem to recall the noble and learned Lord saying in a previous debate in Committee that it was a very narrow line—he was quite right—and that he felt at that stage (this was my understanding and the noble and learned Lord will correct me if I am wrong) that perhaps the safest way would be to include the amendment. I was surprised therefore to find that he seemed to have changed his mind, although we have taken out the objection to the amendment which I seem to recall the Government had, which was that it specifically mentioned the Race Relations Act and it would be dangerous to mention one Act and not to mention any other. At that stage that seemed to be a perfectly reasonable objection. That objection has been removed from this amendment. I should have thought, therefore, not only that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, would have had his doubts alleviated but that the Minister himself would be able to accept the amendment as meeting the objections that he seemed to have in the first instance.
I was strengthened as well in the view I held originally that the clause was so badly drafted anyway that the whole clause could have been rewritten and the Government should have taken the opportunity to take out the clause and come back with a completely different one. I now know that that was not possible and is not possible now. The Society of Local Authority Chief Executives has argued almost from the beginning of the Bill, and is still arguing, that the clause is too vague on the very points of legal niceties with which the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, dealt. The society said:
"We have reservations about the degree to which prohibition rests on the intention or design of publicity material. If there is to be an attempted definition of material which is party political, it should be based as specifically as possible on the nature of the material available; firstly, to allow the courts to make a judgment on whether material should be caught under the Act; but also so that local government lawyers who have the task of advising local councillors may have clear guidelines on the basis in which to give their advice".
That seems to be very important. Local government solicitors and lawyers are in the day-to-day position of advising councillors on what to do. Where there are no clear guidelines as to what they ought to be doing difficulties will arise.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way and I shall be very brief. There are the clearest guidelines. If it is apparent that the object is to do something—
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I think that perhaps we are getting into a little procedural difficulty. We are on the Report stage. As my noble friend is explaining himself in a material part of what he said originally, I am sure that if he asked the leave of the House he would get it. Nonetheless, perhaps he would very kindly ask for it.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I apologise for not asking the leave of the House, and not having done so I shall sit down.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord but I have made the points that I wanted to make. I am concerned at the trend of the discussion and argument this afternoon from some speakers. My main point is that I would have advocated, and would still advocate, that all legislation should be scrutinised to make sure that it does not offend the race relations policy as enunciated by Parliament in previous Acts.
The Lord Advocate (Lord Cameron of Lochbroom): My Lords, when the amendment similar to this was discussed during our Committee proceedings my noble friend Lord Elton and I agreed without commitment, as the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, reminded us, to consider the issues that were raised by publication of material whose purpose was said to be to eliminate unlawful racial discrimination or to promote equality of opportunities and good relations between persons of different racial groups. Reference was made then to the manner in which the National Front and similar groups pursue their political objectives. I am sure that in this House we are all at one in total disagreement with those objectives. This has been stated in every debate that has taken place on this Bill, and of course on others. Equally we must all be at one in abhorrence at many of the ways in which those objectives may be pursued. But it is right, as noble Lords have reminded the House this afternoon, that the National Front is a lawful body and it can within the law continue to carry out its activities. I shall come back to this point in a moment but it is important to bear that in mind.
As I made clear in the earlier debate, the Government in no way wish to prevent local authorities from issuing or funding publicity that promotes good race relations—and not merely see it as silent onlookers, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, said of an earlier period elsewhere. One of the dangers in a debate of this kind is that of concentrating on a particular scenario. I was very grateful to noble Lords and in particular to my noble friend Lady Faithfull for bearing that in mind.
It is perhaps just as well to remind your Lordships of the relevant statutory background. We recognise that the local authorities have a duty, imposed by statute under the Race Relations Act 1976, and I quote:
"to make appropriate arrangements with a view to securing that their various functions are carried out with due regard to the need to eliminate unlawful racial discrimination and to promote equality of opportunity and good relations between persons of different racial groups".
710
Noble Lords will observe that in the amendment before us only part of that section is included in the exception. Obviously in carrying out their function for education it is proper that the local authority should promote equality of opportunity and good relations in the schools. That is not in doubt. But I would observe that there is nothing in those words which imports a licence to attack political parties which have opposing views.
We further recognise that in terms of the local government legislation applicable to both England and Wales and to Scotland local authorities are empowered to incur expenditure which in their opinion is in the interests of their area or any part of it, or all or some of its inhabitants. Included within that is the power to incur expenditure on contributions to the funds of any charitable body in furtherance of its work in the United Kingdom. That is what the statute says. They may also incur expenditure on contributions to the funds of any body which provides any public service in the United Kingdom—that is what the statute says—otherwise than for the purposes of gain. This discretion is elaborated by the provisions of Clause 3 to which my noble friend has set down amendments.
It is clear from our debate this afternoon and from what we have discussed earlier in Committee that the first issue is the propriety of qualifying the clear prohibition that is contained in Clause 2(1) as it now stands. I wish to make it absolutely plain because it is important that that prohibition applies to the local authorities alone. It is a prohibition directed to them. There is nothing in the 1976 Act which gives a local authority a licence to attack a political party in any publicity material that it may produce from making appropriate arrangements with a view to carrying out any of its functions.
4.30 p.m.
It is noteworthy, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, reminded the House, that the Widdicombe Committee, which was fully aware of the statutory duties incumbent upon a local authority, made no recommendation for exclusions of any kind, let alone of this kind, from the party political prohibition that it recommended. Moreover, as Widdicombe pointed out in paragraph 227, it is already widely accepted and recognised by the courts—for instance, it was in the GLC case in 1984—that it is unlawful for local authorities to use political funds to advance the interests of a political party. Of course the opposite must follow: that it is unlawful to do so to attack another political party.
I do not in any sense impugn the good intentions that have occasioned the amendment. It is clearly intended to permit publicity for the limited purpose of countering, as has been said, misleading publicity. That may be the intention behind the amendment, but it is as well to think of what its wording can actually be said to mean.
The amendment could well allow publicity that was issued for the stated purpose of promoting good relations between persons of different racial groups but which would be intentionally designed to attack the policies of another party—the immigration policy of the Government or the immigration policy of the Opposition. That is not the purpose of local

711
government, as the Widdicombe Report made perfectly plain. That is why it is so dangerous to consider this matter simply in the context of the National Front or other extremist groups of that kind.
Your Lordships are being asked to deal with that matter on a much more general basis in the amendment. The amendment does not concern an exception that will merely say that local authorities may issue publicity attacking the National Front. The amendment is seeking to do so on much more general grounds. I would counsel your Lordships that there are inherent dangers in that course.
The policies that might be promoted could be those of the majority group to which those in the local authority belong. Thus, such publicity may be supporting general policies. That is precisely the issue at which the prohibition in Clause 2 is directed and which, as I understand it, noble Lords in all parts of the House have accepted. As a result of this amendment, that principle would be breached—and yet the local authority would remain scatheless.
As I have said, Widdicombe's initial report made no such recommendation. The present amendment would in practice allow far more than that which the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, and others who have spoken in favour of the amendment, suggested. Indeed, it could never be restricted to the position with which they have dealt.
At the end of the day, the noble Lord did not answer the criticism that I made when we last debated this matter, in Committee. We were reminded then by my noble friend Lord Broxbourne of the Latin tag, expressio unius exclusio alterius. All the noble Lord has done is to adopt part of the wording of Section 71, thereby saying that matters are different, but by taking out part of the other wording he does not remove the sting of the criticism that he has, I suggest, implicity accepted.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, made reference also to the kind of problems that can arise. He took as an example the distribution outside a football ground of National Front literature. If such action causes or has reason to cause some breach of public order, then there are other ways of dealing with it than by putting an exception in this Bill. Indeed, I believe that the noble Lord is well aware of that. It is for that reason that, on the first issue, I say that the arguments made do not warrant the making of such a fatal exception to the purpose of the prohibition, which I understand to be acceptable to all noble Lords.
The second issue that has been raised in speeches relates to the position of voluntary organisations. They come in by virtue of subsection (3). This Bill does not impose any obligation upon them. It would not impede them in their lawful activities. The Bill will simply and solely place a duty upon local authorities. That must be right, because whether they be the authors of a publication under subsection (1) or the funders or publishers of publicity by others under subsection (3), they must remain responsible for ensuring that the prohibition is not breached.
I say with very great respect to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway that he has rem acu tetigisti—he has touched the point of this clause with a needle. He
712
has got it in one, and there is very little that I can say further by way of explanation of the purpose of that clause. I simply add to what he has said that subsection (3) is clearly intended to prevent a local authority from getting around the prohibition in subsection (1) by using others as its agents, be that by way of providing money or some other form of assistance to secure such an end. I am sure that instances in which a condition requires the exclusion of political propaganda from, for instance, theatre programmes are well known to your Lordships.
It is intended to secure also the principle underlying subsection (1)—and it is the very principle to which my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter and others in your Lordships' House have spoken this afternoon—that ratepayers' money shall not be employed, whether it be by direct funding or by indirect funding, where other assistance, such as the provision of a printing press or the like, produces prohibitive material. Subsection (3) is there to see that that principle is adhered to at all times.
I understand that it has indeed been the practice since the GLC case for a local authority to impose certain conditions upon the form of publicity for which the funds that they may provide are employed. If it is directly concerned in the printing or in other means of assistance for the publication of the material, then the local authority can itself see the material and make up its own mind as to whether the material breaches the prohibition. However, that provision should not be seen as inhibiting—and it does not inhibit—local authorities in any way in the exercise of their general discretion to support charities and other non-profit making bodies in their work.
I was very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, for raising the example that he did, because it was one that had caught my eye. It seems to me that the particular instance that the noble Lord brought to the attention of the House was clearly an improper use of ratepayers' money on the basis upon which this clause is founded. There is a proper way of dealing with such marches—which, after all, are perfectly lawful assemblies unless the local authority takes other steps. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, pointed out, there is a correct way of dealing with the matter, and that is not to embark upon a public campaign using ratepayers' money for the purpose.
I have seen other publications which refer, for instance, to the National Front as being a terrorist organisation. Again, that could hardly be said to be promoting good race relations. It is that kind of thing at which this particular subsection is directed—if the local authority knows.
I have taken up much time in answering your Lordships, and I regret doing so. I can only assure the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, that we have looked again at the issues in the light of the speeches made by noble Lords in Committee and in the light of the discussions which have since continued. We can well understand the motives which have led the community relations councils and other bodies to issue publicity of the kind referred to, and to express the concerns that they have. But the question is whether it is right that local authorities should produce or finance the production of party political material, even in the circumstances described, more than is allowed by the present law.

713
I have to say that the Government still believe that the proposed amendment raises serious issues of principle. As I say, we have discussed the sort of material which the national association has brought before us, but the question must be put as to whether publication of material of a nature such as we have discussed this afternoon should be authorised at the ratepayers' expense. The Government have concluded that it would be setting an extremely dangerous precedent to enable public authorities, whether directly or indirectly, to finance publicity campaigns against political organisations engaging in activities not otherwise proscribed by law.
I have already made clear in Committee that the provisions in the Bill do not of themselves prevent voluntary organisations, including community race councils, from engaging in publicity or campaigns, with local authority funds, which counter the arguments put forward by particular organisations. Of course, it would not affect what they do with funds from other sources. What it would prevent, where local authorities have imposed conditions on the employment of funds provided by them, is the use of ratepayers' money by those organisations to produce party political material against other political parties. I suggest that there is a compelling argument that such matters are properly financed as a matter of free choice by the individual citizen or (dare I suggest it?) by other political parties.
I and my colleagues recognise the strong feelings in the House on this issue. We cannot, I regret to say, accept the amendment proposed, not least because of the potential it would give for producing party political material on a far wider scale than is intended by the noble Lords who proposed the amendment. It would lead to the very imprecision in the law against which Widdicombe warned in paragraph—
Baroness Seear: My Lords, perhaps I may be permitted to intervene so that the noble and learned Lord can clarify a point for me. All the matters mentioned here are based on legislation which has been through Parliament and, therefore, must be assumed to be for the public good. This is a genuine question and I am not trying to score a party point. Does the noble and learned Lord make any distinction—because I believe the distinction sometimes is made—between propagating things which are based on law as being objectives which should be pursued, and objectives which are simply matters of party policy?
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: My Lords, what I am saying is that I make the distinction that the material which is struck at here is material which is designed to affect public support for a political party. On the other hand, as I think the noble Baroness is putting to me, if one has a different intention in mind then that, of course, is not struck at; although, as my noble friend Lord Campbell pointed out, it may be that there will also come with it some affect upon a political party. However, it is the intention which is important. That is what the local authority has to look at. That is what they know about, and that is the test that the court will apply, as my noble friend pointed out.
714
As I was saying, to have an exception of this kind would lead to imprecision in the law, against which Widdicombe warned in paragraph 175—a point which, again, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, made. For those reasons I cannot invite your Lordships to accept the amendment.
I should also say, in parenthesis, since the point was raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, that the Government await the publication of the Widdicombe Report in full, but it will be understood that I can give no assurance as to what will come out of it.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I am certain it will not be the wish of the House that I should deal in detail with all the various arguments put forward. Needless to say, I am most disappointed with the Lord Advocate's reply.
The noble and learned Lord said that I did not fully quote the provisions of Section 71 of the Race Relations Act. He referred to the fact that every local authority should,
"make appropriate arrangements with a view to securing that their various functions are carried out with due regard to the need"—
and then follow the two points mentioned in my amendment. But local authorities have done, and are doing today, those very things. They are finding it necessary to issue publicity material to deal with racial incitement and discrimination. Community relations councils which are funded by local authorities are finding it necessary to issue literature to deal with the situation. They are finding it necessary to do so in order to protect school children. They are finding it necessary in order to avoid disturbances at sports events. That is being done today. Unless we insert this amendment that can be imperilled.
I was glad to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, say what she did. There may be some fault on my part because I quoted extracts from papers which stressed the National Front. However, a communication from the National Association of Community Relations Councils does not refer to the National Front or to any particular organisation. It refers to bodies which endeavour to propagate the lack of human rights and which propagate racial discrimination. I echo the point made already. What we are endeavouring to do in this amendment is to include what is already provided by Parliament in the Race Relations Act. Why did Parliament pass the Race Relations Act if it then intended to say, "But you must not do anything about it"? Parliament wants local authorities to do something about it. It wants local community councils to do something about it.
The question I pose to noble Lords is this. If the amendment is not carried, how will a local authority be able to issue literature to deal with the points which I have mentioned in the amendment? How will community relations councils, which are partly funded by local authorities, be able to carry out their work? Without the amendment what chief officer or legal adviser to a council is going to say to his local authority, "Go ahead"? There will be grave doubts, and I am glad the point was made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester.

715
I believe this is an important issue. If we do not carry the amendment the position will be terribly misunderstood by people throughout the country. Therefore, I wish to press the amendment this afternoon.
4.48 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 100; Not-Contents, 133.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Alport, L.

Kagan, L.

Annan, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Ardwick, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Aylestone, L.

Leatherland, L.

Bancroft, L.

Listowel, E.

Banks, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Birk, B.

Lockwood, B.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Longford, E.

Bottomley, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Briginshaw, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Brockway, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Milford, L.

Buckmaster, V.

Mishcon, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Mulley, L.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Nicol, B.

Caradon, L.

Oram, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Paget of Northampton, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Phillips, B.

Collison, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Crawshaw of Aintree, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Rathcreedan, L.

David, B.

Rea, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Reilly, L.

Diamond, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Rochester, Bp.

Ennals, L.

Rochester, L.

Ezra, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Faithfull, B.

Seear, B.

Falkender, B.

Serota, B.

Falkland, V.

Shackleton, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Silkin of Dulwich, L.

Fitt, L.

Simon, V.

Flowers, L.

Stallard, L.

Gallacher, L.

Stedman, B.

Galpern, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hampton, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Tordoff, L. [Teller.]

Hayter, L.

Underhill, L.

Hooson, L.

Vernon, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Hughes, L.

White, B.

Hunt, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Ingleby, V.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Jacques, L.

Jeger, B.

Winstanley, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Beloff, L.

Aldington, L.

Belstead, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Ampthill, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Auckland, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Beaverbrook, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Broxbourne, L.

716

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Malmesbury, E.

Butterworth, L.

Mancroft, L.

Caithness, E.

Marley, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Cathcart, E.

Merrivale, L.

Chelmer, L.

Mersey, V.

Coleraine, L.

Milverton, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Mottistone, L.

Cox, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Moyne, L.

Davidson, V.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

De La Warr, E.

Nairne, Ly.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Denning, L.

Orkney, E.

Drumalbyn, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Ebbisham, L.

Pender, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Porritt, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Portland, D.

Elton, L.

Renton, L.

Ferrers, E.

Rochdale, V.

Ferrier, L.

Rodney, L.

Forester, L.

Romney, E.

Fortescue, E.

Russell of Liverpool, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Gainford, L.

St. Davids, V.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Gisborough, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Glanusk, L.

Sandford, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Savile, L.

Greenway, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Gridley, L.

Shannon, E.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Soames, L.

Harvington, L.

Somers, L.

Henley, L.

Suffield, L.

Holderness, L.

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

Hood, V.

Terrington, L.

Hooper, B.

Teviot, L.

Hunter of Newington, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Thorneycroft, L.

Ilchester, E.

Thurlow, L.

Killearn, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Kimball, L.

Trumpington, B.

Kinnaird, L.

Tryon, L.

Kitchener, E.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Vickers, B.

Lauderdale, E.

Vivian, L.

Layton, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Westbury, L.

Liverpool, E.

Whitelaw, V.

Long, V.

Wilberforce, L.

Lothian, M.

Wise, L.

Luke, L.

Wolfson, L.

Lurgan, L.

Wynford, L.

McAlpine of Moffat, L.

Young, B.

McFadzean, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.56 p.m.
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 20, leave out ("particular").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in speaking to Amendment No. 2 I shall also speak to Amendment No. 3. There was a great deal of discussion on these amendments at Committee stage and I think that the general conclusion of noble Lords, other than the Minister, at the end of the debate was that there was very little point in keeping subsection (2) in the Bill.
I am very sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, is ill and unable to be here today, as he would have moved these amendments

717
and I am sure he would have been much more persuasive than I can be in explaining the case for deletion of Clause 2(2)(b). It was the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, who asked why there should be "particular regard" in Clause 2(2)(a) and just "regard" in Clause 2(2)(b). Had this any significance, he asked?
The Minister undertook to look at the disparity. As he has not come forward with any proposed alteration I hope he will look favourably on our Amendment No. 2. I have read most carefully the Minister's justification for keeping Clause 2(2)(b) in the Bill, in cols. 574 and 575 of the Official Report of 18th February, and I confess that I am still confused. In his first speech the noble Lord, Lord Elton, said:
"We are looking at Clause 2(2)(b). The test there is applied to material which is published as part of a campaign … The test therefore is: what was the campaign intended to do? If it is a factual campaign, saying, "If we proceed with this policy the effects will be so and so; if we proceed with another, they will on the contrary be such and such", that is not designed to change support for a political party. The incidental effect on the national voting figures when a local authority, pursuing the interests of all its electors, puts before them the consequences of national policy, does not get caught by a definition which asks whether the material was designed to alter the support for that party. It is designed to inform the public and they can make up their own minds about which party is supporting the right policy".
But in his second intervention he said:
"We are simply concerned that material which might appear neutral when it is not part of a campaign, and which is the material which links the intentions of the authority to the campaign, should not by its neutrality escape the effects of the Act: so that the consequence is that the campaign itself, which is of a nature of which the Committee disapprove, also escapes the effects of the Act".
That, in a way seems to me to contradict the earlier comment. If we are confused and mystified, what will councillors, and more particularly the officers advising them, do when faced with this unclear clause? I suppose the Minister's argument is that paragraph (b)is necessary to prohibit material which is in itself innocent but which would have political effects in the context of a campaign. That appears unsound. The matter is adequately covered by Clause 2(1). All material is subject to the prohibition there, so the political publicity which is supposed to be tainting other material in the same campaign would be barred anyway.
Consideration will obviously be given to the general context of material in judging whether it falls foul of the apparent design test in Clause 2. The test would be impossible to apply otherwise. It is, for instance, an essential element of the context of publicity opposing, say, rate capping that the Government support rate capping and the Opposition do not. That explains why paragraph (b) is unnecessary.
It is also undesirable because it introduces a new and vague concept: that of a campaign. "Campaign" is not defined in the Bill. In Committee the noble Lord, Lord Elton, simply said:
"I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, does not recognise a campaign when he sees one, but there have been a number in London which most of us have recognised".—[Official Report, 18/2/86; col. 571.]
But that is hardly adequate as a definition. Some campaigns are easily recognisable, but it might not be so easy to determine where one campaign begins and another finishes. Is a campaign to be defined in terms of its objective? A campaign by a local authority aimed at increasing employment might then be seen as
718
having the same objective as the Labour Party's "Jobs and Industry" campaign. Is the non-party political local authority publicity to be linked to the party political campaign? It seems to us to be unfair and dangerous to give the courts the job of interpreting that expression in such a controversial and politically charged area as this.
Widdicombe is very firm in a number of places in the interim report that local authorities should not be prevented from campaigning. In paragraph 34 the report states:
"Local authorities should be able to use their powers, with incidental persuasive effect, in support of or opposition to pi 'posed legislative changes".
In its conclusions at paragraph 221 it says:
"It is important at all times, but perhaps particularly in tunes of wide political differences, that our political system should accommodate the free expression of opposing views on controversial matters affecting them. In the recent contest that includes issuing information about abolition and rate-capping".
The amendments that we are discussing have the support of all parties in the House. We believe that there are adequate safeguards in Clause 2(1) and that the retention of this subsection will serve only to confuse. It is unnecessary. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I want to seek the assistance of my noble friend. I support Amendment No. 2 but oppose Amendment No. 3. Is it in order for me now to speak just to Amendment No. 2?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I think it would be proper for my noble friend to speak to both.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I am much obliged, my Lords. I support Amendment No. 2. It seeks to remove a distinction which would no doubt be apposite in an advisory code of guidance but is quite out of place in context with the tripartite safeguard provisions of Clause 2(2). Those safeguard provisions are requisite to justify the interventionist measures of Clause 2(1) and (3) without undue or unacceptable restraints upon a local authority. Such is the importance of those measures in the structure of the clause that total clarity in the drafting is essential.
If under Clause 2(2) construed as a whole discretion is left to the court, as indeed it should be, the words "regard shall be had" in subsection (2)(b) are the mandatory statutory absolute in terms of grant of such judicial discretion. Those words have binding effect not only in the courts of first instance but in all revisory courts. What is the meaning in those circumstances to be given to the word "particular" in subsection (2)(a) sought to be excised? Assuredly the discussion which ensued at Committee stage on old Amendment No. 6 gave no answer to your Lordships. I respectfully suggest that there is no answer.
In supporting Amendment No. 2 on the basis of clarification of those essential measures of safeguard afforded by subsection (2)(a) and (b) it follows that I oppose Amendment No. 3, which seeks to excise subsection (2)(b). Amendment No. 2, in a sentence, is to be supported because it removes from the Bill the semblance of a distinction which on examination simply does not and cannot exist.

719
The amendment could serve perhaps to influence a redraft of subsection (2) so that the phrase "shall have regard" governs the three matters to which the subsection refers, so avoiding the consequent double drafting of "shall have regard" in paragraphs (a) and (b). One could redraft and try to make sense in English of the whole thing by putting the phrase "shall have regard" to govern the rest. But that is a matter of cosmetics and not a matter on which I should take your Lordships' time.
The far more important matter of substance—and again here I speak subject to correction by my noble friend the Minister in case I have it wrong—is this. I oppose Amendment No. 3 because the excision of subsection (2)(b) would remove an essential safeguard for the local authorities. The "material … published as part of a campaign" is included in "any material", if your Lordships see, referred to in subsection (1), and is subject to the very wide definition of "publication" in Clause 6(3). So as a matter of construction of the clause as a whole Clause 2(2)(b) must be read as being in qualification of subsection (1) and hence as affording a safeguard.
The value of that safeguard, as I mentioned previously, has been very much enhanced by the removal of the second limb of prohibition in subsection (1) at Committee stage, with its counterpart, if your Lordships remember, which lay in subsection (2)(b); because the test to be applied by the court is no longer whether the material can reasonably be regarded as likely to affect public support for a political party, or, as the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, said on the previous amendment, "could support". That is not now the case. The only test now is whether on objective analysis it appears to be designed to affect public support for a political party. The alternative route to prohibition on the ground of probable effect where there was no apparent design has now been closed.
Before making a finding on apparent design the court is enjoined to have regard to political reference under Clause 2(2)(a); and also where the material is published as part of a campaign. One has only to open a dictionary to see what a "campaign" is. It is a series of connected operations designed to achieve an end. When I looked at the dictionary I wondered whether that was where the draftsman found "designed" for the drafting. It is an unusual form of drafting. One does not usually find "designed" in this form in a statute. However, it comes perhaps from its use in the definition of "campaign".
There are therefore these two safeguards. First, in 2(2)(a) there is a reference to political parties or persons; and, secondly, where the material is published as part of a campaign regard shall be had to the effect which that campaign appears to be designed to achieve under Clause 2(2)(b).
In the result—this is why this safeguard is of such crucial importance—it is all but inconceivable, save in a wholly exceptional case, that, where material is published as part of a campaign designed to achieve an end, and that end appears to be designed (I should like to put it as generally as possible) to achieve some purpose of importance to the community, if no
720
reference is made in such material to a political party, or persons identified with a political party, the court would conclude that the prohibition had been breached. That is the effect and the importance of these mandatory measures of safeguard notwithstanding that inevitably many campaigns will affect support for a political party. However, whether it has such effect, may have such effect, could have such effect, or is likely to do so, is not a matter for the court. It is only because the Bill recognises the relationship between the apparent design of the campaign in relation to the apparent design of the publication of the material to which the prohibition relates that it has built in this mandatory measure of safeguard which is Clause 2(2).
I may have misconstrued the clause; I have had difficulty with this clause before. But if I have got it right then surely the last thing that any of your Lordships would want to do, would be to remove a measure of safeguard. I shall seek confirmation later as to whether I have got it right.
Lord Denning: My Lords, I hope your Lordships will not accept either of these amendments. In a way it is essential that the local authority should be given some guidance as to how they will decide the important question of whether the publicity is designed to affect support for a political party. It is a very difficult question for the local authority to decide. It is important for them to have guidance upon it.
Let us take Clause 2(2)(a). If one has in a piece of publicity a reference in terms to the Conservatives or the Conservative Party, or if one has in terms a reference to Mrs. Thatcher, then one pays particular regard to that. It is obvious. That is done in order to effect the support or otherwise of a political party. That is there already in Clause 2(2)(a) and "particular regard" should be had to the fact that they are named.
5.15 p.m.
Clause 2(2)(b) deals with the important point of something which is not open, is insidious, is wrapped up in the course of a campaign, which does not name any party, or any politician, but has insidiously running through it party political propaganda.
Although the noble Baroness referred to one part of the Widdicombe Report, in support of what I have said I feel that in this respect the Government are following the very advice in paragraph 228. Inevitably there is a problem in distinguishing between publicity which is legitimate and that which is not. The report says,
"We wish to rule out such practices as:

(a) the use of party political names in local authority publicity;

(b) publicity which is party political in style;

(c) publicity which makes its points by reference to well known politicians;

(d)"—

this is the campaign point—
"publicity campaigns, the scale of which, given their political context, may have the effect of advancing the interests of a particular party even though the subject matter is not overtly party political".
That seems to be the advice of the Widdicombe Report and that is the practice that they want to rule out. In those circumstances that has been translated into the present clause, which I hope will remain as it is and not be left out.
Lord Silkin of Dulwich: My Lords, I always have a dislike for unnecessary words in a statute. When I see in two parts of a subsection the words "particular regard" and "regard" then I assume that the word "particular" is an unncessary word unless there is something to indicate the contrary.
The only thing that I can see which could possibly indicate the contrary would be if the intention of the legislature were that greater regard should be given by the courts to subsection (2)(a) than to subsection (2)(b). Is that the intention? No doubt the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate will be explaining to us in due course whether, if it comes before the court, the court or the local authority when making its mind up is required to say, "We must pay more attention to subsection (2)(a) than to subsection (2)(b)." I am bound to say that I criticised this clause as a whole at Committee stage, and, if that was the intention behind this particular word, my criticisms would have much greater force than they did at that time.
Having listened to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, with regard to Clause 2(2)(b) I find that what he was saying is very much what is in my mind. I should like to give an illustration of that and perhaps my noble friend on the Front Bench may consider the point I am making.
Clause 2(2)(b) tells us that when the court or local authority has to determine whether material falls within the prohibition, it shall have regard—where the material is published as part of a campaign—to the effect which the campaign as a whole appears designed to achieve. I take it that if that means that if the campaign as a whole is designed to achieve something which is not within the prohibited class—that is, that the campaign is designed as a whole not to affect public support for a political party even though incidentally it may do so—then the court would take the view that the prohibition does not apply.
Let us apply that analysis to the wording of the last amendment in this group. Let us suppose that the campaign is a campaign which, taken as a whole, appears to be designed to eliminate unlawful racial discrimination or to promote equality of opportunity and good relations between persons of different racial groups. If that is the apparent intention of the campaign as a whole, then the mere fact that in the course of that campaign there may be something which would otherwise, taken on its own, fall foul of the provisions of Clause 2(1), would take it out of the mischief of Clause 2(1). I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate will explain whether or not that is the Government's view on this matter, because it is most important. If that proposition is right, then I for my part would prefer to retain subsection (2)(b) because it would then be an important safeguard which would go quite a long way towards mitigating the effect of the loss of the amendment which has just been lost.
However, if that is not the intention, if I am wrong in my analysis and if the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate tells me and the House that that is not the way in which a court ought to look at Clause 2(2)(b), then I am bound to say that once again my criticism of the clause as a whole is reinforced and it becomes a wholly unintelligible clause which no court
722
will find it easy, if at all possible, to construe in a way which accords with the intentions of Parliament.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness opposite for raising these issues and I am very sorry, as I am sure we all are, to hear of the illness of the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, and wish him a speedy recovery. I was aware that the noble Lord was concerned to have these issues raised for clarification.
I should like to begin with Amendment No. 3 which deals with Clause 2(2)(b) and thereafter move on to Clause 2(2)(a). Clause 2(2) is of course intended as being an aid to how Clause 2(1) should be interpreted. Clause 2(2)(b) applies where material is published as part of a campaign. The interpretation of Clause 2(1) requires a determination as to whether the material:
"appears to be designed to affect public support for a political party"
in a case where the material is published as part of a campaign, and the local authority and the courts should not just look at the particular material for publicity in isolation, but should also have regard to the effect which the campaign appears to be designed to achieve. I think that in a sense the noble and learned Lord, Lord Silkin, raised the point just now. I had attempted to answer that point when I replied to the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, during the last debate. It is a question of the design of the campaign. There may be certain incidental effects, but the important matter which the court has to look at is the design of the campaign itself.
In Committee the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, pointed out that you cannot publish a campaign. However, you can of course undertake a publicity campaign, as Widdicombe pointed out. It is also important to recognise that the techniques of campaign advertisement are such that the flavour of the campaign may not be distinguished until the later or, indeed, the last round of the campaign, so material which is apparently innocuous in character when looked at in isolation can take on a wholly different character when seen in its full context.
It is important to bear in mind that when embarking upon a campaign the local authority must themselves know perfectly well what they are doing. However, of course, they can only be judged objectively when they are challenged and, therefore, it is then important to look at the material in its context, if it has a context. By the same token—and my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway made a point which I think is entirely correct and very valid—material which may, upon examination, within its four corners appear to offend, could, when looked at in the context of a campaign, be seen to involve no apparent design to affect support for a political party.
Therefore, this paragraph provides an important test which is to be applied to the material from the point of view both of the local authority and of the court when adjudicating upon any challenged material. If the local authority embark upon a campaign by means of publicity—a campaign which is designed to affect support for a political party—then that publicity is forbidden. Any material within it, in judging whether it is in breach of the obligation has to be looked at in full and not simply within the four corners.

723
If a court in considering challenged material thinks that it is part of a publicity campaign, then it is required to have regard to the effect which the campaign as a whole is designed to achieve in determining whether the material offends the prohibition. I suggest that that is a perfectly proper way in which to set out how to deal with these two different tests—the one which the local authority has to apply, and the one which the courts, if challenge arises, have to apply.
I should make it clear—and I think that the noble Baroness raised this point—that it has been argued that any campaign, for instance, by a local authority to increase council house sales, will be bound to appear to be designed to affect public support for a political party and the Bill effectively aims to stop a local authority campaigning on such a head. We do not accept that. As with the test in Clause 2(1), we believe that we are offering an objective test for local authorities contemplating starting or joining in a campaign. It seems to me that a campaign which genuinely—and I underline the word "genuinely"—sets out to sell more council houses, is in no danger of being a campaign which appears to be designed to affect public support for a political party. There seems to be no inherent reason why the party politics of the matter need be prayed in aid in such a campaign.
The Government are not against campaigns; clearly they can provide a useful means of disseminating information or getting over a message. However, it is because they are, in the round, such a normal and effective means of communication in present-day society, and because material produced as part of modern publicity campaigns is often significant only when considered in relation to the overall context of the campaign, that we believe local authorities should have regard to the effect they appear to be designed to have as well as looking at the individual items of publicity material of which they are comprised. Likewise that is the test which the courts should apply in the event of challenge.
I now turn to the word "particular" which occurs in subsection (2) and which serves a quite different purpose. Most of us would recognise that, in deciding whether publicity appeared to be designed to affect public support for a political party, the use that the publicity made of party political names and personalities is of considerable importance. What the word is intended to make clear is that this should be of particular importance in consideration of whether material in itself in whole or in part, falls within the Clause 2 prohibition.
The use of party political names and personalities to put across a message is one of the principal mischiefs at which the Bill is directed. The use of the word "particular" is to give emphasis to and to stress the importance of that factor. While it may be less important for this to be done in relation to a court's oversight of the prohibition at judicial proceedings, it is judged important for the emphasis to be underlined for the consideration of local authorities when they are looking to their primary obligation—not to offend against the prohibition. It is for this reason that the word "particular" has been included in this place.
724
I take comfort from the fact that in particular the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, supported the inclusion of this word. I do not suggest that it has any large scale merit. I do not suggest that lawyers would have especial—I was going to say "particular"—difficulty in dealing with the matter, but what we are dealing with here, as I said at the outset, is that we are giving guidance to local authorities as well as to the court, and we are making it quite plain that one of the principal mischiefs at which this clause is directed is that which was identified in paragraph (a), and that that matter must be brought firmly to the attention of the local authorities when they come to consider whether or not to publish in the first place. I hope that with that explanation, the noble Baroness may feel able to withdraw these amendments.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, on the first point it would be of great help to some of the non-legal Members of this House who find some difficulty in following the arguments if the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate could say quite simply: have the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Silkin, got it right? Is paragraph (b) a protection, and would the removal of it be to the detriment of those concerned?
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: My Lords, perhaps with the leave of the House I may respond to that. I think I made it plain that it acts in two particulars. It can be both a safeguard in the circumstances which my noble friend outlined. Of course it is also directed to the other area where what would appear to be innocuous can, when seen in full context, be within the prohibition. It acts in two ways.
Baroness David: My Lords, I feel very humble having faced four noble and learned Lords, and all of them against me on Amendment No. 3 to delete 2(2)(b). On the other hand, I have had considerable support for deleting "particular" in Amendment No. 2. I do not see why 2(2)(a) should be seen to be so much more important than 2(2)(b). I am uneasy about the drafting of this clause. We might perhaps at Third Reading make an attempt to redraft it so that it is clearer, because there is no doubt that there is still a great deal of confusion. As I have had support for leaving out "particular", I shall divide the House on Amendment No. 2.
5.33 p.m.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Aylestone): My Lords, th: Question is, That Amendment No. 2 be agreed to? As many as are of that opinion will say, "Content"? to the contrary, "Not-Content"? I think the "Not-Contents" have it. Clear the Bar.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone): My Lords, Tellers for the Not-Contents have not been appointed pursuant to Standing Order No. 51. A Division therefore cannot take place, and I declare that the Contents have it.
[Amendment No. 3, not moved.]
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 2, line 28, at end insert—
("( ) Any person responsible for incurring or authorising any expenditure declared unlawful in this section shall be liable to repay it to the local authority concerned and, where two or more persons are found to be responsible, they shall be jointly and severally liable to repay such expenditure.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment seeks to introduce a new subsection to Clause 2. I would not go to the stake on the wording of it, but I hope that I may be able to convince your Lordships, and in particular my noble and learned friend on the Front Bench, that there is a reason for having this extra subsection. What it seeks to do is to make local councillors and their officials who approve expenditure on the rates for publicity contrary to the earlier subsections in Clause 2 personally responsible for breaking those provisions.
It has been suggested that Section 19 of the Local Government Finance Act 1982 performs this function adequately. I suggest to your Lordships that it does not. Subsection (1) states:
"Where it appears to the auditor carrying out the audit of any accounts under this Part of the Act that any item of account is contrary to law he may apply to the court for a declaration that the item is contrary to the law"—
and the subsection continues. The important thing is that the auditor can only act when he is carrying out the audit of the accounts.
It may happen that this action in contravention of the earlier part of Clause 2 occurs at some time which is some months before the next audit is due, and that at the time that the local councillors sought to finance some sort of material designed to affect the public support for a political party they were so carried away by enthusiasm that they forgot or even disregarded the possibility that they might be nabbed by the district auditor in seven months' time, or whenever it might be.
It seems to me that we need a more positive provision which can be brought into effect immediately. In the event that a campaign of an illegal sort is mounted—against which some ratepayers might reasonably, under the terms of the Bill, seek an injunction—we should have a system by which the learned judge considering this might have the power immediately to bring into effect the sense of my amendment.
That surely would be a much greater deterrent than the possibility that the district auditor might—it does not say that he invariably will—find something wrong so that he can exercise Section 19 of the Local Government Finance Act 1982.
I believe that we need to have this extra strength of deterrent built into Clause 2. I hope your Lordships will agree that this will be helpful. I do not think it is something that would often have to be used; but, as applies so often, the law is a deterrent quite as much as, and in many cases more than, it is an instrument for the implementation of a penalty. I should have thought that this is an example of where that might be useful. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, your Lordships will be grateful to my noble friend Lord Mottistone for moving this amendment because it makes a valuable and crucial distinction between the
726
surcharge proceedings and the proceedings under Clause 2. I support the spirit of this amendment because it seeks to inject an immediate, effective and realistic sanction regarding the observance of Clause 2. It only deals with reparation—there is nothing punitive about it—in the event of a breach of Clause 1(1) or (3).
I raised this point in column 1077 on Second Reading. I questioned whether the civil courts can order reimbursement of sums improperly expended on political publicity by councillors in these Clause 2 proceedings. For one reason or another, as my noble friend the Minister had to answer rather a lot of questions of greater importance, and I fully understood that time was getting on, we did not have the answer until today. My noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate has just said on the previous amendment that Clause 2 proceedings are only relevant to the position of the local authority. Hence the value of this amendment coming now to highlight whether it is not fair, reasonable and requisite that the spirit of this amendment should be considered by your Lordships now.
5.45 p.m.
Let us consider whether the elements of this commend themselves to your Lordships. The first is the use of the term "shall be liable". Your Lordships may think that that is entirely apt and reasonable because it enables the court in its discretion, having regard to all the circumstances and the means of each particular person as a defendant, to make such order as may be just or no order at all. To be straight with my noble friend, one of the reasons why I could not support the amendment in its present form is that it does not deal with the joinder machinery—who can join whom as defendant, what defendants, what is the procedure, and so on. Until one has given thought to erecting the machinery for joinder of the personal defendant it would be wrong to introduce the amendment in this form.
The second concept in the drafting your Lordships again may think is a fair and reasonable concept. This concept is of joint, several even perhaps shared or apportioned liability on the part of recalcitrant councillors who took part in (these are my words and are not in the amendment) and supported a decision to publish material in contravention of statute. Your Lordships may think that it is only right that these recalcitrant councillors who took part in and supported the decision should be liable to reimbursement of sums improperly expended.
But the problem is that the amendment goes much wider than that. It is not a mere technical matter of drafting. Observe the words:
"Any person responsible for incurring or authorising";
and consider whether this is not a very large net with a very fine mesh in which far too many of the administrative minnows might be caught. In other words, it is unacceptably wide, but the principle must be right. It is an important principle because before a decision is taken by the councillor he has first to consider the codes of guidance under Clause 4. Those have been produced in full consultation with the councillors in determining (your Lordships will see the provisions of

727
Clause 4) whether to incur expenditure on publicity; so they have the advantage of that.
Of course, the codes have no legal effect and are not admissible in Clause 2 proceedings. But that is not the point. The point is that they have the guidance before they make the decision of determination. Then there is the tripartite safegard in Clause 2(2) which, thanks to the endeavours of the noble Baroness opposite, is now more satisfactory—and at this point I was about to make an observation but I think that I will not.
First of all, the councillor has his recommended code of practice, then he has these measures of safeguard in Clause 2(2), and if notwithstanding all that the recalcitrant councillor makes a decision and it is by inspection on the face of it material apparently designed for supporting a political party then why—as any of your Lordships on any side of the House might ask—should he not be liable, if he has the means and if it is reasonable, to make reparation in those very proceedings? Since among all your Lordships, surely it is common ground that we really cannot have a misuse of ratepayers' money for political purposes, is this not a reasonable way of looking at it? Really, in those circumstances, if the codes are ignored, if the safeguards are spurned, then, although I cannot support this amendment for the reasons I have given, I welcome the spirit of it and commend its broad spirit to your Lordships.
Lord Denning: My Lords, when we considered this Bill earlier I said that there is nothing in it about enforcement. How are you to do it? This amendment suggests quite a good way. The really recalcitrant councillors who determine to indulge in political propaganda with the ratepayers' money are liable to repay it jointly and severally. I agree that the wording of it is very uncertain and doubtful at the beginning but it has a very good precedent.
If you first go back to 1963 but now come to Section 19 of the Local Government Finance Act 1982 you will find that this very provision has been in the statute book; that an auditor may apply to the court for a declaration that expenditure is unlawful and when the court makes a declaration—and I will read the very words of this statute:
"it may also order that any person responsible for incurring or authorising any expenditure declared unlawful shall repay it in whole or in part to the body in question and, where two or more persons are found to be responsible, that they shall be jointly and severally liable to repay it".
There it is. The very precedent, with the very situation, going back to 1963. But certainly the modern section is Section 19 of the Local Government Finance Act 1982. I wonder whether this amendment is necessary at all, whether that existing section does not deal with the whole thing, and therefore whether we might not go ahead perhaps leaving out the amendment and, if I am right, trusting to the existing law.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, I should like to support this amendment. As I understand it from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, under the current legislation, Section 19 of the 1982 Act, the responsibility is surely on the district auditor or the auditor to take action. This seems to me a more direct,
728
quicker and more succinct way of taking action against wrongdoers. If something like this is not put in the Bill then the worst thing that can happen to councillors is that in due course they may be liable; and that is a long way down the course. They may go on doing wrong things, and therefore the sooner you can take action the less the ratepayers will have to suffer financially.
We have had many examples; and I may on other occasions on this Bill, perhaps later on today or on the Third Reading, draw attention to some of the most glaring examples of where extremist councillors are continuing to break the law at a cost to the ratepayers. They seem to be flouting the law. I will give chapter and verse later on. But this amendment is an effort which I am sure has wide support in this House because nobody, wherever he sits, could think that this does anything but try to be a cheap, effective and quick way of dealing with those who are transgressing the law.
Therefore, I very much hope that noble Lords in all parts of the House will support this amendment and that the Government will say, "This is one of the occasions where there is no harm at all in accepting this amendment. It cannot do any harm—therefore let us accept it". They have already thrown a bone to the Opposition on the last amendment. Why not throw a bone to the loyal Back-Benchers on this occasion?
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: My Lords, I take note of what my noble friend has just said about bones. Of course, there can be skeletons in cupboards as well. There is one here and I think that it is important to draw your Lordships' attention to it. It has already been alluded to by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning. That is that there is provision in the Local Government Finance Act 1982 for ordering by the court of repayment of unlawful expenditure. I think it is important to bear in mind that there is other expenditure which also breaks the law and is just as heinous as that with which we are dealing in this Bill.
I would make that point in passing because that expenditure is covered by the terms of Section 19 of the 1982 Act, and if I may I will very briefly refer to it. It says that the court may:
"order that any person responsible for incurring or authorising any expenditure declared unlawful shall repay it in whole or in part to the body in question and, where two or more persons are found to be responsible, that they shall be jointly and severally liable to repay it as aforesaid".
But the important thing is that there is a discretion in the court. It proceeds:
"The court shall not make [such] an order … if the court is satisfied that the person responsible for incurring or authorising any such expenditure acted reasonably or in the belief that the expenditure was authorised by law, and in any other case shall have regard to all the circumstances, including that person's means and ability to repay that expenditure or any part of it".
Your Lordships will observe that we have an echo of the first part but nothing of the second part of that section in what is proposed here. It is right, of course, that an individual should be protected in this way. Where the individual is not blameworthy he should not be punished. The result of this amendment would be that a very severe measure would be attached to, I accept entirely ultra vires expenditure; but there are other cases where ultra vires expenditure is incurred where really there could be no distinction in principle in the question of penalty.

729
That being so, I would suggest that there is no good reason in principle why in this Bill we should provide a penalty which is much more severe than that which attaches elsewhere to the unlawful expenditure in local government. It would not serve to strengthen local accountability; it would not, in fact, be directed at those who deliberately breach the prohibition in Clause 2; and it would remove the protection which I think, in fairness, the law ought to have in relation to this kind of expenditure.
I am very well aware why my noble friend raised this. I think it has been very useful to have this matter brought before the House and discussed at this stage. However, I hope that the noble Lord will feel that against the background I have outlined it would not be appropriate to proceed in this case to make an exception where adequate safeguards already exist in law to recover repayments from those who are truly responsible for unlawful expenditure.
6 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, before my noble and learned friend sits down, I wonder whether he could answer a question which has been in my mind during this short debate. If the procedure he has referred to, and obviously prefers, under the 1982 Act is employed, is the district auditor necessarily involved or can any aggrieved person go to the court and ask to have penalties imposed on those who have authorised the improper expenditure? A good deal turns on this because although district auditors are very worthy officials, they can never be accused of acting with undue haste, as we have seen in recent cases; and if action under this Bill, when it becomes an Act, has to be taken it would be so much more effective if it could be taken quickly. Can he answer that point?
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend, and with the leave of the House perhaps I might reply by saying that the duty lies on the district auditor in the first place; but if he refuses to do anything, the aggrieved person may then apply to the court.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, before my noble and learned friend sits down, can he say, if this procedure is effective—as he has said—how many times it has been used since 1982? Can he also say whether it has been effectively used?
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: My Lords, again, with the leave of the House, my information is that it has been used on two occasions. In the first instance, the district auditor did not win the case. The second case was a technical one and instigated with a view to the clarification of the law: there was no question of a surcharge there. So far, these are the only cases which have occurred but I am not of course suggesting that the paucity of cases suggests that the existing law is not a useful deterrent.
Lord Denning: My Lords, may I suggest perhaps that this could be considered before Third Reading? Why not let whoever is aggrieved go straight to the court and not have to go through the district auditor? By a simple provision, that could be done in this statute and it would be a good thing to do it in this
730
statute so as to show people that they are liable if they go wrong.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, for what he has said. I wish he had said that as firmly in his initial speech, because that would have been helpful. I am not at all happy with the response that I have had from my noble and learned friend. With the greatest possible respect, I do not think he took up the points which I made specifically, and I am very disappointed indeed that he did not take the very point that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, has just made. I am also sad because he did not seem to me to answer the points which were much more intellectually advanced by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway. I would have hoped that we could have had a much more positive response.
What is missing from this Bill in this particular case is the ability of a ratepayer to take immediate action, if that is what is necessary, because the sort of thing we are trying to guard against is something that can do its damage before the district auditor gets anywhere near his audit. It is a matter, really, of having some sort of proper way of tackling the particular problems that this Bill is seeking to deal with.
I appreciate that there are other offences just as heinous but perhaps they do not fall into quite the same category where there is a need for immediate treatment, because when we are talking about information we are talking about programmes of information which catch people's imagination over a brief period of time. Then time moves on and the next attack comes up. On the other hand, some other heinous offence, such as not setting a rate, is a long-term matter. So there is a difference and I hope that perhaps my noble and learned friend might give me a chink of a hope either that he will read with great care what everybody has said and have a jolly good try to come back with an amendment of his own on Third Reading or that he will be happy to discuss the matter with my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway (if he would be happy so to do) and myself in between now and Third Reading, which is coming remarkably soon. If he can do that we might arrive at some sort of resolution, rather than having to rely on Section 19, which I do not believe fits the bill.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I should like to say a few words, not having spoken before on this particular amendment, before the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate replies. I too very much hope the noble and learned Lord will say that he is prepared to examine this matter between now and Third Reading. I am quite sure that he will read what has been said with the utmost care; but I am sure it would give us even greater pleasure if he could tell us that he was able to move in the direction suggested by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: My Lords, with the leave of the House, perhaps I may simply say this. Obviously the Government will look very closely at what has been said today. I think I would accept a point that I tried to deal with earlier. We are aware of the problems of mounting a realistic and effective

731
challenge as early as possible. I should remind the House that this is something the Widdicombe Committee are currently looking at and which may be comprehended within their report at the end of the day. Perhaps I can simply respond in that manner therefore, and I hope that my noble friend will accept what I have said in the spirit in which it is given.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, that is not quite good enough! However what I will do, if I may, is to discuss matters with my noble friends and see whether the noble Lord, Lord Harris, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, might like to join with us. Perhaps we could see whether we could come up with something which masters the points quite justifiably levelled at my amendment. Perhaps we could try that out on my noble and learned friend during the next four or five days: I shall do that whether he likes it or not. I now beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 [Other restrictions of existing powers]:
Lord Hayter Lord Hayter moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 2, line 29, leave out subsection (1).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, those of your Lordships who have the Marshalled List in front of you will see a startling contrast between the amendment standing in my name and those of other noble Lords and the amendment standing in the name of the noble Lord the Minister. I think it is fair to say that in many cases the noble Lord the Minister and ourselves are trying to do the same thing; but my amendment has at least the virtue of being simple.
I am afraid that I have to explain the background to this amendment. It sounds rather complicated. Clause 3(1) amends Section 142 of the 1972 Local Government Act and Section 88 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act of 1973, so that in future a local authority would only be able to arrange for publication within their area of information relating to the functions of the authority, as opposed to information about local government. We have had some cases quoted during the Committee stage from which arise many problems.
Section 142 itself makes an important distinction between making information available on application and, on the other hand, arranging for the publication of information. The two things, if you think about it, are very different. Clause 3(1) should not significantly limit the former but it most certainly limits the latter, and I shall come to that in a moment.
Section 142 is often used by local authorities to fund advisory agencies. Some of those, like the citizens' advice bureaux, are concerned primarily with making information available on application. The public go to them for advice and they get it. Others, such as agencies dealing with welfare rights and take-up campaigns, often rely upon the publication of information as their main method of communicating with the public. The work of those other agencies will be seriously affected by the clause as it stands.
The proposal to narrow Section 142 to the functions of a local authority would mean that advice agencies
732
could circulate information only about matters relating to the functions of the local council. That will result in some extremely bureaucratic and artificial examples. I shall give two. However, before I come to that I shall make a point which is a good illustration of what is at the back of my mind. Today, I received a letter from the Kirkness advice workers group in Huddersfield, West Yorkshire. I shall read just the first two lines. It states:
"The Kirkness advice workers group which represents over 50 voluntary organisations in the area has got a number of serious concerns about this Bill".
That is a comparatively small part of the country, but it has 50 organisations which are concerned about the Bill. We can multiply that all over the country. We must try to simplify the Bill as far as possible.
I shall now give the two examples that I promised. The first relates to an advice agency funded by a district council. It could not send out any information about welfare rights, social security or health matters because those are the functions of central government and the health authority but not of the district council. That illustrates that point. The most absurd example of all, perhaps, is that all advice agencies could have leaflets on their counters but only some agencies could send out the leaflets, because the Bill allows advice agencies funded by local authorities to have a wide range of information available on application but restricts what they can send out. We talked about that point in Committee, and I shall not elaborate on it.
As I understand it, the Government's amendments provide a three-pronged response to those examples. First, they propose an amendment which deals with the problem of different tiers of local government. In some ways, that is helpful. Secondly, the Government may well argue that there are many other powers in existence which local authorities may use to fund voluntary organisations' publicity—that would be on different subjects—and many authorities use the powers under Sections 142 and 137 when other powers are available. Thirdly, the Government may well argue that, where there is no specific power available, local authorities can use—here we become complicated—Section 137(3) of the Local Government Act 1972, which states:
"A local authority may, subject as aforesaid, incur expenditure on contributions to any of the following funds, that is to say (a) the funds of any charitable body in furtherance of its work in the United Kingdom; or (b) the funds of any body that provides any public service in the United Kingdom otherwise than for the purposes of gain".
Lawyers do get up to tricks, do they not?
Our response to that is that Government Amendment No. 6—I should have said that Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 are in the Marshalled List to be discussed together with the Government's agreement—deals with the problems of local government but not the publicity about central government's functions. Secondly, it is important from the voluntary sector's point of view that those powers are made widely known.
The Government have talked about producing a circular once the Bill is enacted. It could include many of those powers with examples on how they can be used to fund different types of voluntary organisations. Nevertheless, we feel that there are still some types of

733
voluntary organisations which could only be funded through Section 137. That leads to a third point, which is that the use of Section 137—this will come as a surprise to many of your Lordships—is limited to the product of a 2p rate. For a variety of reasons, not least the abolition of the GLC and the metroplitan counties, some local authorities have now reached or are close to reaching their 2p limit.
The voluntary sectors are therefore seeking an undertaking from the Government that if they support the idea of local authorities making more use of that section to fund voluntary organisations' publicity, then the Secretary of State for the Environment should exercise his power to increase the 2p limit in certain areas. Further, since Section 137(3) relates only to charities and bodies providing a public service, I shall also seek to move Amendment No. 8 to the Bill, which currently restricts Section 137(1) in an unacceptable way.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Elton): My Lords, am I to understand that the noble Lord wishes to take Amendment No. 8? Is he speaking to it? I understood that the agreement to which he earlier referred was that Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 went together on their own. Doubtless we can change that, but my notes have been shuffled on a number of occasions already and I do not want to become more confused than perhaps I now am.
Lord Hayter: My Lords, I should say that my notes have been shuffled as well on a number of occasions. No, it is clear to me that Amendment No. 8 will be brought before the House only if by some ill chance Amendment No. 5 is not carried. We are not speaking to Amendment No. 8 at the moment.
If Clause 3(1) is to remain, albeit in the amended form as set out in Amendment No. 6, the voluntary sector is, first, reserving the right—let me put it that way—to bring Amendment No. 8 to the notice of your Lordships' House, if by any chance we should lose this amendment. Secondly, I should like an assurance from the Government that the 2p limit on Section 137 spending will be raised to meet the new demands that will be made upon it in many areas.
The simplest solution of all is to follow the Widdicombe Committee's recommendation and leave Section 142 as it is—in other words, to delete Clause 3(1) from the Bill altogether, as the amendment proposes. That would overcome all the voluntary sectors' concerns and would have the added advantage of overcoming all the other concerns about which I have talked. I sincerely feel that the amendment goes a long way to meet the Government's objective of trying to get the right balance between the powers of government and those of the voluntary organisations. I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Serota): My Lords, I should mention to your Lordships that, if Amendment No. 5 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 6.
Lord Denning: My Lords, I hope that your Lordships will not leave out subsection (1), because Sections 142 and 137 are terribly complicated and
734
difficult for anyone, even for me, to understand. Section 142 has been used to a great extent and the Widdicombe Report states in paragraph 65:
"The scope of this section is undoubtedly very wide. Local authorities have been able, quite lawfully, to rely on its provision to undertake a variety of publicity exercises, some of a broadly political nature".
I need not go through it all. Local authorities have been trying to use it over the abolition of the GLC. They have been using it over rate capping, and so forth. It seems to me absolutely essential that Section 142 should be narrowed. At the moment it enables local authorities to deal with anything relating to local government matters. That is wide enough to cover a multitude of sins or whatever it may be.
As I understand it, under the clause as it will stand, information will be confined to matters relating to functions of the local authority. We know what those are. There are many—housing, education, Sunday trading and so on. A local authority can deal with all those functions and explore them as it likes, but it should not have any wider power. Although it is difficult to limit "relating to the functions", nevertheless I think that the judges or the local authorities can do it. They can deal with all those functions and have whatever publicity they like, but they should not go wider and trespass on matters which are political in their nature.
The judges have tried to impose a limit by saying that it must be confined to information and not go on to persuasion. That is not a very satisfactory line for anyone to draw. Information can turn into persuasion at any time. It is absolutely essential to bring in some amendments to Section 142 so as to make the position clear, and for that reason—I shall not go further into the matter—I support the Government's Amendment No. 6.
Lord Sandford: My Lords, I should like to speak to both these amendments and to start by thanking my noble friend on the Front Bench for having fulfilled the undertakings he gave to us in Committee, which were that he would look at this matter again and, if possible, come forward with an amendment which met the points that we were making, and he has done that. On the other hand, I have to remind your Lordships of what Widdicombe said about Section 142. The committee said that Section 142 should be left unchanged. They rejected the view that this is too wide a scope for local government publicity, and Amendment No. 5 is the amendment which gives precise effect to what Widdicombe recommended. That was a body which the Government called into being to advise them, but in this respect their advice has been ignored.
We have not had very much from my noble friend about why the advice of Widdicombe has not been accepted on this point. My noble friend said nothing in his first speech at Second Reading. In his winding-up speech, he said what he and his colleagues had decided to do, but gave us no justification for it and not very much in Committee, except to the effect that they disliked local authorities publicising the fact that they had declared nuclear free zones and matters of that sort. I do not think that is very important. In fact, from a purely party political point of view it is probably an

735
advantage to have our opponents behaving in such a silly way.
But I ask your Lordships to note that the Widdicombe Comittee published its interim report in July, and there have been a number of things which have happened since then which might have occasioned the Government to take a different view from the view that the Widdicombe Committee took then.
Of the events which have occurred, I put the following four before your Lordships. Parliament, in that very month, passed the death sentence on seven metropolitan counties, which included in their membership the ringleader, the GLC, for perpetrating the abuses with which this Bill is designed to deal and the execution of those seven authorities is now less than three weeks off. Secondly, the Labour Party has itself now set about removing Militant Tendency at least from the two authorities where its effect has been most baleful—namely, Liverpool and Lambeth—and no doubt it will go on to do the same elesewhere. If it does not, its fortunes at the next General Election will, of course, be parlous—a fact which it obviously knows very well.
Thirdly, the Queen's Bench Divisional Court disallowed the appeals only the other day of the London Borough of Lambeth and the Liverpool City Council—two authorities in which these activities have been particularly notorious—and surcharged 80 of their councillors. Fourthly, we know now that the district auditors are about to move on six further Labour councils—namely Greenwich, Hackney, Sheffield, Camden, Islington and Southwark—and will be surcharging another 300 Labour councillors.
I should have thought that with all that action, covering the 13 authorities which my noble friend at Second Reading described as being the ones that are causing all this trouble, and with all those councillors being removed, if there was a need for any adjustment between what Widdicombe recommended and what we now need to do, it was in the general direction of doing rather less than Widdicombe had proposed, and causing less inconvenience and restraint on the remaining authorities, whom no one is accusing of causing any of these abuses at all.
So, on the face of it, one would favour Amendment No. 5 as against Amendment No. 6. But of course one has to face the political realities and I put it to the House that they are these. If, as I suppose, the sponsors of Amendment No. 5 are not to be satisfied with what my noble friend on the Front Bench had to say in response to their amendment—maybe they will be and that will be fine—and press Amendment No. 5 to a Division and win it, two things will happen. First, my noble friend will not be able to move his Amendment No. 6, which, inadequate as it is, is at least something; and, secondly, when the Bill goes back to the other place with subsection (1) taken out of it, it is absolutely certain in my mind that it will be put back in and we shall then end up having gained nothing at all. So my advice to your Lordships is that Amendment No. 5 should not be pressed and that we should accept the third or the quarter of the loaf which is offered in Amendment No. 6.
Baroness David: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask him whether that is the policy of the Association of District Councils, of which he is president?
Lord Sandford: Not at all, my Lords. It is my own personal view, which is what I normally express to your Lordships.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I thought that we might have a view from the official Opposition on this matter. Perhaps it is reserved. In the interests of expedition, I will make my concluding speech now and it can stand unless the noble Baroness makes it necessary to trespass in the accustomed manner on your Lordships' patience with a further speech.
I have listened with care to the arguments which noble Lords have put for the omission of the whole of subsection (1) of this clause of the Bill. Your Lordships will recall, I dare say, how I explained at an earlier stage that both the Government and a great many private people were becoming increasingly fed up with the way in which some local authorities have recently developed a new style of publicity on which they spend considerable sums of money in promoting their own views on matters which no one can seriously hold to be part of their proper function. We had the spectacle of London boroughs pursuing their own defence and foreign policies on the hoardings in their streets. Whether that strikes one as comic or tragic or, as I believe, both, it was certainly not one of the purposes which Parliament created these authorities to fulfil. It is not, therefore, a purpose for which it is proper for them to spend the money which they take from their ratepayers, nor indeed the money which they take from taxpayers.
The power under which these few but significant authorities felt able to make this expenditure was the power provided in Section 142 of the Local Government Act 1972 in English legislation. The parallel to that in Scottish legislation is Section 88 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973. It is these two sections of existing legislation that Clause 3(1) sets out to amend. We approached the task of making that amendment in a somewhat simplistic way, perhaps, though I think it was a pretty commonsense approach that we adopted. We converted the sections simply to exclude the interpretation that the maverick councils, which are not only the councils which fall to be abolished on 1st April, were placing upon them which enabled them to lay down policies that were outwith their functions and responsibilities.
Since then, in both Houses and outside them, it has been borne in on us that this is too restrictive. While we remain firmly of the opinion that local authorities have no business in posturing as though they had national responsibilities and doing so at public expense, we accept that the functions of other tiers of local government in their area are the proper concern of a local authority and that it is proper for them to communicate with their electorates and their public on that subject. It is because we are still entirely convinced that local authorities should not spend public money as if they had the power to make treaties or declare war that I cannot ask your Lordships to accept Amendment No. 5 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hayter, and his supporters.

737
The effect of that amendment would be to leave unaltered Section 142 of the English Act and the equivalent section of the Scottish Act. That would mean leaving them in the condition which now permits this ludicrous waste of public money, and the surcharges which we have recently seen and to which my noble friend referred do not bite on this abuse. The alternative is not, I am persuaded, to leave the Bill as it is now drafted, because that would exclude local authorities from an area which is, we recognise, their proper concern. Instead, I therefore ask your Lordships to support the Government Amendment No. 6, to which I shall, with your Lordships' leave, now speak. I shall not take leave to speak on Amendments Nos. 7, 9, 10 and 13, which are relevant to publicity-related expenditure, in the same way that the noble Lord, Lord Hayter, did not speak on Amendment No. 8. On Amendment No. 8, I merely tell the noble Lord that it would survive any untimely reverse on this particular amendment were that to take place.
Perhaps I may explain what we have done. Rather than making piecemeal amendments to Clause 3(1), we have chosen to remove the substance of Clause 3(1) completely and replace it with new subsections. The need for this arises chiefly because our proposals require separate provisions to be made for Scotland. The amendment is drafted in response to the specific anxiety to which I have already referred, expressed to us by those who pointed out that local government functions and responsibilities exist and are discharged at a variety of levels and that knowledge of them is important at every level and should be disseminated at every level.
The first amendment to Section 142 contains three paragraphs. Paragraphs (a) and (c) repeat the provisions previously in Clause 3(1). The effect of these provisions is that in Section 142(1) and (2) of the principal Act the references to "local government matters" would be replaced by the words,
"relating to the functions of the authority".
Paragraph (b) of the amendment contains the provision which broadens our original proposals in Clause 3(1). It provides that:
"A local authority may arrange for the publication within their area of information as to the services available in the area provided by them or by other authorities".
What "other authorities" means is defined in the second amendment to Section 142.
This makes it clear that in England and Wales principal councils, the Common Council and parish and community councils will by this amendment be able to make information available or publish information about the services available in the area provided not only by themselves but also by other tiers of local authorities such as parishes, districts and counties, by the Inner London Education Authority, by any joint authority established by Part IV of the Local Government Act 1985, and by any authority, board or committee which discharges functions which would otherwise fall to be discharged by two or more local authorities. In Scotland, local authorities to which Section 88 applies will similarly be able to publish information about the services provided by other tiers, including services provided by any authority, board or committee which discharges
738
functions which would otherwise fall to be discharged by two or more local authorities.
These amendments provide local authorities with the wider powers to produce publicity within the sphere of local government which we undertook to consider while ensuring that their powers are limited to matters which are properly within the sphere of local government. They apply generally to the different tiers of multi-purpose authorities ranging from the parishes to the counties. My noble friend suggested that we had gone well beyond Widdicombe. I think it is fair to say that we have stayed well within the spirit of Widdicombe. We could not—I did say that my notes have been shuffled and your Lordships are seeing evidence of that. As my noble friend did not dwell long on Widdicombe, I shall not do so either.
The noble and learned Lord has already drawn your Lordships' attention to the way in which we have kept within the spirit of what Widdicombe proposed.
"Publicity, unlike for example lobbying, raises issues in its own right concerning the proper use of public funds and the risk of party political advantage. There is therefore a need for caution in the framing of publicity powers, and while they should extend to matters relating to local government, they should not be open-ended in the … subject matter they cover".
We entirely agree.
I ought to anticipate difficulty by saying a brief word in exposition or furtherance of what the noble Lord, Lord Hayter, said. I know that my noble friends are concerned about it. I refer to the power of local authorities of all kinds to fund bodies other than themselves that provide a public service. The noble Lord has already reminded your Lordships that the Bill does nothing to amend the provision of Section 137(3) of the principal Act. As he rightly told us, that section empowers local authorities to incur expenditure on:

"(a) the funds of any charitable body in the furtherance of its work in the United Kingdom; or

(b) the funds of any body which provides any public service … otherwise than for the purposes of gain".

That widens the criterion and that is why the lawyers got up to that trick.
Neither this amendment nor the Bill strike upon those powers in any way. Nor does it prevent them from publishing or paying for information about any of the services provided by the other authorities. Here I think your Lordships have perhaps missed a point. The span of services for which local authorities are responsible at one level or another is perfectly enormous. To take the quickest sample—education, environmental health, general health, countryside, planning, food and drugs, gypsies, town development, sewerage, housing, roads, consumer protection, social services, fire, weights and measures, transport, crematoria, public libraries, local licensing duties; I could go on—to say that those matters are being cramped within a narrow area of interest is not to understand the provision of existing statutes.
I have tried to be brief. I have tried to show that the scope which our amendments give to local authorities is very considerable indeed, and much more than has been suggested. Incidentally, the difficulty which I think the noble Lord, Lord Hayter, put before me of a local authority anxious to assist a voluntary body promoting an advice service for take-up social security

739
is swept up in the list of responsibilities which I have already read out. I hope I have shown that local authorities therefore will be able to cover a great spectrum of the matters with which your Lordships are concerned.
Rather than repeating and adding to the tedium of the things I said at Second Reading, which my noble friend said were inadequate, I will merely add that there are a great many Members of your Lordships' House and of the community generally—not only members of my party—who are affronted to see their money (whether they are ratepayers or taxpayers) spent by local councillors posturing as though they held national, foreign and defence policies within their hands. That is not what the rates are for. I hope, therefore, that, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, has advised, your Lordships will leave Clause 3(1) in the Bill, and when it comes to it will accept the amendments which I propose in Amendment No. 6, which will relieve so many of my noble friends of the anxieties they have about it at it stands.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, before the Minister sits down and before the noble Lord, Lord Hayter, decides whether he is going to divide the House on this amendment, perhaps I may ask one or two questions. As the Minister knows, it has been common for district councils to make their voice heard on matters that may not be strictly related to their functions—such as public transport, local hospital services, water and sewerage (which the noble Lord himself mentioned), and others.
The noble Lord's amendment would enable a local authority to inform people about matters that are within the remit of another local authority or joint board in its area. We on this side of the House consider that that is a step in the right direction. However, my feeling is that the amendment is still too limited and that it would be more acceptable if, given the right wording, it could be extended to cover the work of all public bodies in government departments, such as the DHSS and Department of Transport, in so far as they affect the people in a particular council's area.
I wonder whether the Minister will give consideration to that point, so that we might be able to extend the amendment at the next stage of this Bill. It seems wrong that we should hamper proper democratic activity in local authorities simply because of a few activists who have gone beyond what is reasonable. The noble Lord, Lord Sandford, made that point extremely well.
One other point is not made clear by the noble Lord's amendment; that is, whether councils will have the right to comment upon and publicise proposed changes in local government functions and their consequences for the people in their locality. Widdicombe said that they should, and we say so too. The words in the clause, even as the noble Lord proposes to amend them, do not seem to cover that point specifically.
On balance, we would prefer to leave the law as it stands and as it has stood successfully for the past 40 years. Before we make up our minds, I will be grateful to the noble Lord for his comments.
Lord Elton; My Lords, the noble Lord puts me in a slight difficulty as I do not know the intentions of everybody else. I made a winding up speech and the noble Lord has asked me to reply to him before I sit down. In theory I am still standing, although I am sure that I was in contact with the Bench. If this is the end of the matter, then I shall give the noble Lord an answer, but if the noble Baroness is to make a speech then I shall probably have to reply to it—and I must not waste time, speaking three times.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I rise to say thank you very much to my noble friend the Minister for carrying out in his Amendment No. 6 that which he promised he would in relation to my amendment in Committee. Although his amendment is not quite as good as we would have liked, it is very nearly there.
Baroness David: My Lords, I shall be brief because the noble Lord, Lord Hayter, has put the case for getting rid of Clause 3(1) with such skill that his comments need no elaboration. As we might have expected, the Minister has made a very spirited defence of the Government's position and has described his own amendment very clearly. However, although he quoted from and referred to various parts of the Widdicombe Report, he was very selective. Whatever Widdicombe may have said as to posing this or that possibility, he concluded his report by saying that subsection (1) should be deleted. That is the position we want to hold on to. So do the voluntary organisations.
The amendments that the Government have brought forward are at least an improvement on what went before, and we are pleased to see them. However, we do not believe that they go far enough, as the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, has just said. They will allow specified publicity across tiers of authorities, so that is an improvement. However, the existing scope of Section 142, allowing authorities to publish information as to local government matters affecting the area, is still narrowed by the Bill and is restricted to information on functions or services available.
Even as amended, the Bill would still be contrary to Widdicombe's recommendation that the scope of local authorities' general powers to issue publicity should be as currently set out in Section 142. I may say to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, who commented that it is a difficult section to understand, that local authorities have been perfectly well able to understand it for 14 years and so it cannot really pose a great difficulty.
Even under the Government's amendments, publicity would appear still to be ruled out on wider issues, such as closure of local amenities that may be vital to the life of a community—for instance, a railway, shipyard, sub-post office or hospital; the principle of proposals such as rate capping or the abolition of a tier of authority; and services provided by other public authorities in the area—for instance, drug dependency clinics run by health authorities, and flood protection, such as the Thames Barrier, run by a water authority.

741
6.45 p.m.
Those seem to me to be clearly matters of local concern in which, as Widdicombe said, local authorities should have an effective voice. When the Minister gives his final reply, perhaps he will comment on the points I have mentioned. He may be willing at a later stage to widen the clause, if we do not carry our amendment, to make it possible—as the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock was asking—for other matters to be included. That is all I want to say at the moment, except to back up what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Sandford; that the demand for restricting the use of Section 142 is very much less than it was when Widdicombe reported, and when the Bill was first introduced in another place.
Lord Elton: My Lords, this can indeed be a brief intervention because I have set out before your Lordships the reasons for keeping Clause 3(1) in the Bill. When your Lordships read Hansard I hope that you will grasp, if you have not already done so, the very wide extent of the matters on which local authorities will be enabled to comment under our amendment.
The noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, suggested that we might amend the subsection further. That encourages me to think that he will assist us to keep it in the Bill for that purpose, in order to urge that upon me on Third Reading. If the clause is not there, he will not be able to do so, and therefore he will of course be voting with us on the first amendment if the noble Lord, Lord Hayter, is still persuaded that he should progress it. The noble Lord asked also whether local authorities will be able to comment upon proposed changes to the functions and powers of local government as Widdicombe suggested. Yes, they will be able to do so, as Widdicombe suggested. That is embraced in the amendment.
The noble Baroness asked a number of questions. I do not possess the encyclopaedic knowledge of local authorities' powers that would give me an instant reply, except in respect of drug dependency clinics. There are in that instance hospital service powers under the Public Health Act. I am assured that local authorities have public health powers. I am prepared to write to the noble Baroness to set the record straight.
I have made clear the very large number of matters that local authorities will be able to publicise. If a parish is threatened with something that affects everybody to the extent that the parish council is itself involved, then that suggests to me that at that local scale the proper course is for the community to get together. The local parish councillors would be quite able to take an active part in that procedure in their personal capacity. I say that because we do not believe that it is the law of the Medes and Persians and received wisdom that a local council should have the authority to speak upon every matter that is of interest to parishioners.
That said, your Lordships' minds must be clear that there is an overriding case for keeping Clause 3(1) in the Bill. We have made advances in our amendment for which my noble friend—before he heard the catalogue that I read out—gave very grudging but recognisable thanks and recommended your Lordships to accept. Since then, I hope that I have
742
revealed that they were far more generous than he understood them to be. If asked to consider Amendment No. 5, I hope that your Lordships will throw it out and accept Amendment No. 6.
Lord Hayter: My Lords, I should have prefaced my remarks on Amendment No. 5 by saying a courteous word to the Minister because it is true that he has done several things that he promised he would do, and for that we are grateful. However, I still feel—partly on the ground of simplicity—that our amendment is the better of the two. I therefore wish to press it to a Division.
6.50 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 5) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 66; Not-Contents, 107.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Kearton, L.

Attlee, E.

Kilbracken, L.

Bancroft, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Barnett, L.

Kissin, L.

Bernstein, L.

Lawrence, L.

Birk, B.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Bottomley, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Brockway, L.

Mishcon, L.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Nicol, B.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Ogmore, L.

Collison, L.

Oram, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

David, B.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Russell of Liverpool, L.

Diamond, L.

Seear, B.

Donoughue, L.

Serota, B.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Shackleton, L.

Falkender, B.

Stedman, B.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Gallacher, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Glenamara, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Tordoff, L.

Greenway, L.

Underhill, L.

Gregson, L.

Vernon, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Hayter, L. [Teller.]

Wigoder, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Hunter of Newington, L.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

Ingleby, V.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Jacques, L.

Jeger, B.

Winstanley, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Winterbottom, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Ypres, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Ashbourne, L.

Cathcart, E.

Auckland, L.

Chelmer, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Coleraine, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Beloff, L.

Colwyn, L.

Belstead, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Birdwood, L.

Cottesloe L.

Boardman, L.

Craigavon, V.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Davidson, V.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Broxbourne, L.

Denning, L.

Butterworth, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Caithness, E.

Donegall, M.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

743

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Munster, L.

Elton, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Ferrier, L.

Newall, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Gisborough, L.

Orkney, E.

Glanusk, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Pender, L.

Gridley, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Reay, L.

Renton, L.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Renwick, L.

Harvington, L.

Rochdale, V.

Henley, L.

Rodney, L.

Holderness, L.

Romney, E.

Hood, V.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Hooper, B.

St. Davids, V.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Kimball, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Sandford, L.

Kitchener, E.

Savile, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Shrewsbury, E.

Lauderdale, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Layton, L.

Swinfen, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

Long, V.

Teviot, L.

McAlpine of Moffat, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

McFadzean, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Trefgarne, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Trumpington, B.

Mancroft, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Marley, L.

Vivian, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Ward of Witley, V.

Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Wise, L.

Merrivale, L.

Wolfson, L.

Mersey, V.

Wynford, L.

Mottistone, L.

Young, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.58 p.m.
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved amendment No. 6:
Page 2, line 32, leave out from beginning to end of line 5 on page 3 and insert—

("(a) in subsection (1) (power to make information available) after "other authorities" insert "mentioned in subsection (1B) below" and for "as to local government matters affecting the area" substitute "relating to the functions of the authority";

(b) after that subsection insert—

"(1A) A local authority may arrange for the publication within their area of information as to the services available in the area provided by them or by other authorities mentioned in subsection (1B) below.";

(c) in subsection (2)(a) (power to publish certain information) for "on matters relating to local government" substitute "relating to the functions of the authority".

(1A) After the subsection (1A) insert by subsection (1) above, in section 142 of the 1972 Act insert—
"(1B) The other authorities referred to above are any other local authority, the Inner London Education Authority, a joint authority established by part IV of the Local Government Act 1985 and any authority, board or committee which discharges functions which would otherwise fall to be discharged by two or more local authorities.";
and in section 88 of the 1973 Act insert—
"(1B) The other authorities referred to above are any other local authority and any authority, board or committee which discharges functions which would otherwise fall to be discharged by two or more local authorities,".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment during our recent debate. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, in moving that further consideration of this Bill on Report be now adjourned, may I say that we shall not return to this Bill until at least 8 o'clock. I beg to move.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill
Brought from the Commons endorsed with the certificate from the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill, and read a first time.

Land Registration Bill [H.L.]
7 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I rise to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
The Bill is very technical. It gives effect to the recommendations of the Law Commission's Report on Land Registration, No. 125, together with small amendments to take account of the recent extension of the "right to buy", brought in in 1984 and now consolidated in the Housing Act 1985. That report is the first in a projected series of four reports in which the Law Commission is examining certain aspects of the law of land registration which may need to be brought up to date. The intention is to make the system of registration easier to understand and operate. If it succeeds in this purpose, the Bill will benefit both solicitors and members of the public who use the system and the Land Registry, and the staff of the Land Registry who serve them.
The benefits of the registered system of conveyancing are, I think, not in doubt. But it has to be admitted that the Act of 1925, which is the governing statute, is not particularly happily drafted. There are many obscurities and anomalies, and it is a tribute to the Land Registry over sixty years that they have managed to operate it as satisfactorily as they have. The present Bill deals with three areas of the law which are considered at present to be unsatisfactory: the conversion of title, the registration and protection of leases, and the method by which the priority of dealing in certain equitable interests in registered land is determined. I shall deal with each of these in turn.
I turn therefore to the conversion of title. It is a fundamental feature of English land law that title to land is relative rather than absolute. Thus, two or more people may have some sort of title to the same piece of land, and one person's title may be good against all the world except somebody else with a better title.
The registered system reflects this relative nature of the subject by providing for various classes of title. It also provides for the conversion (or, better still, the upgrading) of one class to another. There are four classes of registered title: absolute title, good leasehold title, possessory titles and qualified title. Three of these classes—the absolute, the possessory and the qualified—may each be either freehold or leasehold. Thus, there are in fact seven different categories. Absolute title is of course the best kind of title to have, and it attracts the full indemnity provisions of the Act.

745
Good leasehold title is granted to a tenant where the quality of the landlord's title cannot be ascertained. Possessory title is given where the title may be subject to the possibility of some other third-party claim. A qualified title is subject to some specific and identifiable defect which is recorded on the register.
The existing provisions for upgrading inferior classes are extremely difficult to interpret. They are contained in Section 77 of the Act of 1925. Clause 1 of this Bill supplies a completely new Section 77. We trust it is much simpler and much more logical. If the clause is passed, all conversions will take place either on transfer for value or on any other occasion on application or at the instance of the registrar. Inferior freehold title may be converted to absolute title if the registrar is satisfied as to the title. Inferior leasehold title, including good leasehold title, may be converted to absolute leasehold title if the registrar is satisfied as to the title and as to any reversionary title. Possessory title may be converted without documentary evidence after 12 years' registration. In the case of possessory freehold, it will be conversion to absolute freehold; and in the case of possessory leasehold, to good leasehold.
I come now to the registration and protection of leases. Clause 2 of the Bill deals with the registration and protection of leases. In the Act the treatment of leases is complex. Broadly speaking, in order to qualify for registration, a lease must be for more than 21 years and must not be inalienable; that is, it must not contain an absolute prohibition on dealing. If it satisfies these conditions, and is granted out of registered land, then it must be registered. If however it is granted out of unregistered land, its registrability depends on a variety of factors, including the length of the lease, the length of its unexpired term and whether or not the land is in an area of compulsory registration.
If the land is in an area of compulsory registration, and if the lease is granted for a term of 40 years or more, or is assigned with 40 years or more to run, it must be registered on grant or assignment; otherwise, the transfer will be void as to the legal estate. If it has more than 21 years to run, it may be registered. If it has 21 years or less to run, it cannot be registered. In non-compulsory areas the position is even more complicated, but again there are leases which must be registered, or may be registered, or cannot be registered.
It would be impossible to eliminate all these complexities, but Clause 2 has the effect of establishing a single period of more than 21 years by reference to which the registrability of the great majority of leases may now be determined. The clause enlarges the category of compulsorily registrable leases by including leases granted for a term of more than 21 years or assigned with more than 21 years to run. This brings leases granted out of unregistered land into line with leases granted out of registered land, which are compulsorily registrable if they are for a term of over 21 years.
Clause 3 removes the bar to the registration of inalienable leases, that is, as I have said, leases containing an absolute prohibition against dealing. The reason why these leases have not in the past been registrable is, no doubt, because it was thought that they were unlikely to change hands. But the Law Commission
746
pointed out that leases which are expressed to be inalienable may in fact be transferred if the landlord waives the prohibition. The Law Commission concluded that there was no good reason for excluding them from registration. Clause 3 will permit their registration.
Clause 4 deals with the protection of leases which are not registrable. There are certain classes of interest, known as overriding interests, which are protected notwithstanding that they do not appear on the register. At present leases for 21 years or less are protected in this way only if they are granted at a rent and without taking a premium (or, as it is technically termed, a fine). This means that gratuitous leases and leases granted at a premium are not at present protected as overriding interests. The only way in which they can at present be protected is if the tenant takes steps to have their existence noted against the landlord's title.
The Law Commission saw no good reason for precluding such leases from the category of overriding interests. Consequently, as a result of Clause 4, such leases will be treated in the same way as other leases. If they are granted for 21 years or less they will be overriding interests.
I may summarise the effect of Clauses 2, 3 and 4 in this way: henceforward the great majority of leases for over 21 years will be compulsorily registrable on grant or assignment; leases for 21 years or less will be overriding interests, and will therefore be protected even though they do not appear on the register.
Clause 5 achieves the abolition of the Minor Interests Index. It is a basic feature of land registration that equitable interests should not appear on the register. The register is concerned with legal ownership rather than beneficial or equitable ownership. However, the Land Registration Act 1925 provides a system whereby dealings in certain equitable interests, categorised as "minor interests", should be recorded off the register. This record is contained in an index, which is called the Minor Interests Index. The priority of such dealings is determined by the date on which the applications for entry in the index are received by the registrar.
In the standard textbook on the subject, Ruoff and Roper on Registered Conveyancing, the Minor Interests Index has been described as "valueless". In practice it is largely ignored. At the time of the Law Commission's report fewer than 100 entries had been made in the previous 20 years and there had been fewer than 50 searches.
The Law Commission concluded that the Minor Interests Index should be abolished. Instead it recommends that the good old rule known as the rule in Dearle v. Hall (1828) 3 Russ. 1 should apply to dealings in equitable interests in registered land in the same way that it applies to equivalent interests in unregistered land and personal property. Under this rule the priority of dealings in such interests is determined by the dates on which notice of them is given to the trustees of the fund.
So far as existing entries in the index are concerned, Clause 5 provides that these too should now be subject to the rule in Dearle v. Hall. Priority will depend on the order in which notice of an application for an entry

747
in the index was issued by the registrar to the trustees. Anyone who, as a result of the clause, suffers loss because of the alteration in priority or otherwise will be entitled to be indemnified out of public funds.
This may seem to be a somewhat unexciting Bill, but the changes which it makes are useful and will be welcomed by all those who are concerned in the conveyancing process. I accordingly ask this House to give it a Second Reading. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
7.11 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, the Law Commission has been very useful, as one would expect it to be, in regard to matters affecting property law and land registration. Indeed, between the years 1970 and 1976 it produced four excellent working papers, and now we are considering the Second Reading of a Bill which emanates from a report of the Law Commission which was printed in the Commons in October 1983. I mention that because the noble and learned Lord has often pointed out to the House so correctly that to get a slot into the programme of legislation for recommendations of the Law Commission is not an easy matter. It has taken some two and a half years for that slot to be achieved, and from these Benches I should like to congratulate the noble and learned Lord on having achieved it even at this date. I also believe that your Lordships would want to thank the Law Commission for the useful work that it has done which has produced undoubtedly a very useful Bill.
It is a technical Bill, but it happens to deal with matters that affect little people very often in the case of the transfer of their homes. The easier the machinery is for that to be done, the more economical it can be and the less trouble it is when those vital transactions in the life of the average human being take place. I welcome every one of the provisions of the Bill without exception, but I should not be sincere with your Lordships if I were to say that the profession of which I have the privilege to be a member is altogether happy with the state of the registration of land.
One useful thing that has been accomplished over the years is the setting up of the joint advisory committee between the Law Society and the Land Registry. That has achieved a lot. I know that the Law Society and my colleagues in the profession are grateful for that ability to discuss problems which exist in regard to land registration. But even more than the technical points cleared up by the provisions of the Bill is the anxiety that many of us have (and it is an anxiety which is placed upon the shoulders of, I repeat, many people to whom a transaction in regard to their home is so vital) about the delays which in some areas take place in land registration.
I hope that your Lordships will forgive me and be patient with me. I shall not read out a whole lot of figures, but I must do something of that kind in order to make the point that I want to make, and there are few opportunities to discuss conveyancing in your Lordships' House and certainly the machinery of it. These are figures given by the Land Registry and printed in the Law Society Gazette. I shall just deal
748
with the figures over the four quarters of 1985 and show your Lordships, if I may, the terrible disparity among what happens in the various district registries.
I start with the first quarter of 1985, January to March, and I am dealing with working days. For first registration of a title Croydon achieved 24 working days; Tunbridge Wells achieved 85. There was an average over all the district registries of 48. The victor in transfers of part and disposals of first leases was Swansea, with 29 working days. What is wrong with Tunbridge Wells I cannot tell your Lordships, but again it comes bottom of the league with 103. A victory is achieved by Plymouth in dealings of the whole part with 10 working days. On that occasion Croydon was at the bottom with 26; Tunbridge Wells escaped with 22.
For the second quarter, from April to June 1985, on first registration Croydon emerges again as the best with 30; Tunbridge Wells has 74. On transfers of part and disposals of first leases, Nottingham is the victor with 37 working days; Tunbridge Wells has 92. Again in dealings of the whole, Tunbridge Wells is the worst but one with 30 working days, against the best of 11, which was achieved again by Swansea. I thought that that would bring joy to my noble and learned friend who is sitting behind me, and I shall bring out Swansea on every conceivable occasion that I can.
For the quarter July to September 1985, on first registration Croydon was again the best with 28 working days; Tunbridge Wells had 85. On transfers of part and disposals of first leases, Peterborough and Plymouth share the victor ludorum with 40; Tunbridge Wells has 106 working days. I have never represented Tunbridge Wells in any shape or form in Parliament or otherwise, and therefore I continue without any personal hardship. Here again in dealings of the whole, the figure for Tunbridge Wells is the second worst with 35 working days, against Durham which achieves 12.
I bring your Lordships up to date with the last quarter of 1985. For first registration Croydon is the best with 30 working days, and Tunbridge Wells the worst with 95. On transfers of part and disposals of first leases, Peterborough and Plymouth both achieve 42 working days and are the best; Tunbridge Wells has 105. In dealings of the whole, the best is Durham with 14, and second worst is Tunbridge Wells with 40.
I hope that your Lordships will forgive me for having read out those figures to show the sheer dreadful disparity between the number of working days as between the best district registry and the worst. Your Lordships will wonder, as I do, what is happening in Tunbridge Wells.
If I were to leave the matter at that, your Lordships would wonder whether the short speech that I am making is as constructive as it should be. I say that something has to be done in regard to the administration here. Whether it is that the districts are understaffed, or that they ought to be recognised, I do not know; but I throw out a purely personal suggestion if I may. It may have its difficulties. County courts have a geographical area to cover and one would have thought that in a county court it would be very suitable—this is, however, a personal view—to have a land registry office which need only be staffed by a few in order to look after the area covered by that county

749
court. We might then have more uniformity of time which is being taken—in some cases, lamentably taken—in regard to the work of the land registry.
There is one more thought that I venture to put to your Lordships on this Bill. Should an occasion be taken to try to harmonise the law and practice relating to the conveyance of land, and especially of homes, in the EC? And should we take a leading part in trying to effect that harmonisation? Would that not be another suitable subject for the Law Commission or for one of your Lordships' committees that sit in regard to EC laws and practice to investigate?
I repeat, as I said at the beginning, that this is a welcome Bill. It deals with a few technical but important matters. However, the situation in regard to the registration of land, with regard to the disparity of time taken in various district registries, and the length of time taken by some, cannot be ignored on one of the rare occasions when we discuss the conveyancing of land.
7.24 p.m.
Lord Wilberforce: My Lords, since my noble and learned friend Lord Denning, whose name is down on the list of speakers, has had to leave the Chamber, perhaps from these Benches I might be permitted to add a very few words in welcoming this Bill. I am sure that all your Lordships, lawyers or not, would wish to thank the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack for having introduced the Bill with such gusto, and even apparent enjoyment. That perhaps prompts the thought—it is a glimmer of hope—that he might be tempted to emulate his great predecessor, the Earl of Birkenhead, and attempt a redrafting of the law of property in just such simple and popular language as the noble and learned Lord used in expounding the tortuosities of this Bill. We are very grateful for having these difficult matters explained to us so clearly.
Perhaps I may make three points very briefly. The first is to endorse wholeheartedly what has come from the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, about the necessity to speed up the process of registration. I have often spoken on the subject in this House. I believe that I did so on the first occasion on which I had the privilege of addressing the House. I know that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack has used his influence and such money as he can get to improve the staffing in the registration offices in order to complete (as should have been completed years ago) the process of registration of land in this country. If we are to follow the suggestion which came so happily from the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, that we should try to harmonise the conveyancing laws with the EC, a necessary step would be completion in this country of the total process of registration—something to be devoutly wished for.
The second point relates to Clause 4 of this Bill, which deals with overriding interests. That is section 70 of the 1925 Act. As the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and your Lordships know, there is outstanding a problem in relation to overriding interests. That is the problem thrown up by the case of Boland—the case of the occupying wife, or the occupying mistress—which has been held by a decision of this House to amount to an
750
overriding interest, thereby greatly complicating the process of conveyancing. There is an outstanding problem there. The situation is not satisfactory. A Bill was introduced a little time ago but the Law Society found it too difficult and one is still in the process of hoping that somehow, by collaboration between the Law Society and the Lord Chancellor's department, some progress may be made on this. It ought not to be left where it is. The situation is unsatisfactory. Admittedly the pre-existing Bill did not quite solve the problem, but there ought to be some other way out.
The third point relates to Clause 5, which introduces the case, dear to the hearts of all equity practitioners, of Dearle v. Hall. It had a humble origin in 1828 in a decision of Sir Thomas Plumer. It has since then received more exalted approval. It was approved in this House by Lord Lyndhurst, a Lord Chancellor who has a particular claim on our affection at the present time because he married while on the Woolsack. He approved this case in the House of Lords; but Lord MacNaghtan said that it created more injustice than it had cured, so perhaps it has not an altogether untarnished reputation.
If we have time and the luxury to indulge ourselves at Committee stage, we may be willing to debate whether it is desirable to refer to this somewhat tarnished case by name in Clause 5, or whether we should simply refer to the section in the Law of Property Act, Section 137, which, while setting out the principle of the case, does not refer to it by name. I can see a very pure discussion between various sides of this House as to whether we should leave in the reference to Dearle v. Hall or whether we should take it out. At any rate, it is very nice to see it there, and I have no doubt that the principle which Clause 5 adopts of applying it to the minor interests which would otherwise be on the minor interests index is a perfectly sound one.
This is a good and useful Bill. It will simplify many titles. We are very grateful to the Government for having found time to bring it before the House, and most particularly grateful to the noble and learned Lord for the patience and clarity with which he has commended it to us.
7.28 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I should like to thank both noble Lords who have participated in this debate. I should like to begin by endorsing what the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said about the usefulness of the Law Commission, although this is a fairly humble example of that usefulness.
I think that the greater part of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, was concerned with the disparity, as he saw it, in the time to dispose of business. There is a dark side and a brighter side to this. One does not forget that there are three million applications to the land registry every year for official searches, and two million applications a year for registration. If one looks at what one would have thought, if one had simply listened to the figures of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, was the unhappy state of Tunbridge Wells when compared with the comparative bliss of Durham, this is not really due to inefficiency on the part of the land registry. It is

751
because land is so popular in Tunbridge Wells and so relatively unpopular in Durham, and there are fewer conveyances.
If that had been a stable situation over the years then it would have been fairly easy to deal with by having an enormously big registry in Tunbridge Wells and a very much smaller one in Plymouth, or some of the other places. However, in fact it has not been stable. There have been record intakes, which have been particularly evident in the South, and that of course includes Tunbridge Wells. Conveyancing activity is high and the record intakes have led to an imbalance between various offices in different parts of the country. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, that efforts are being made to restore the balance and to reduce completion times overall.
I am told that the next set of quarterly completion time figures will confirm the reduction of discrepancies. We shall continue to try to cope with the matter. However, there is a brighter side from the point of view of the inhabitants of Tunbridge Wells as regards the time they have to wait for registration. I hope that that time will be reduced and that the inhabitants of Tunbridge Wells will be duly grateful both to me and to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, for raising the subject.
I think the noble Lord raised a question about the use of county courts, which, of course, I shall take on board as a suggestion. My present information is that to some extent this may prove to be disproportionately costly when application to ascertain whether the land is registered can be freely made to the district land registry, and happily without paying any fee.
The problem of harmonising the European land law with English land law, based on free and common socage, rather daunts me. As my noble and learned friend Lord Wilberforce has said, it is true that certainly a condition of that would be the completion in this country of the land registration process which has been a Cinderella of governments ever since 1886, or some such time. In the past when there was a purge or a constraint upon manpower or expenditure it was often the land registry which paid a disproportionately high price as a type of Cinderella, while its larger and less attractive sisters elsewhere in the spending departments were spared.
I think that I can safely say without blowing my own trumpet that I have tried to get on with the business of totality of registration. As of now, 80 per cent. of the population of England and Wales—happily I do not have to concern myself with the Northern kingdom—are now catered for in compulsorily registrable areas, and by the end of this year I shall have worked up to 87 per cent. I can assure both the noble Lord and the noble and learned Lord that I take these esoteric parts of my duties quite seriously.
The possibility of then harmonising the law of property in European countries, which I fancy is based on alodial ownership, and our own based on tenure from the Crown with all kinds of graftings on it even since 1925, is a rather pious hope. All the European countries' registration systems were usually originally adopted for the sake of exacting taxation from the unfortunate owners of land, so it follows a somewhat
752
different path. One of the few common law countries to have adopted a system of registration is Australia. I know that my noble and learned friend Lord Wilberforce is a great expert on the Torrens system, which I think was invented by a marine surveyor. That is the system which they have adopted and it is very different from ours and could not be grafted on to it. Land law is excluded from the harmonisation provisions of the European Treaty and I should expect to find myself slightly daunted by the prospect of harmonising ourselves with the Code Napoleon countries on the Continent.
My noble and learned friend rightly moved on from speeding up the process of registration to completion, to Clause 4 of the Bill with its references to "overriding interests". When I saw the report in Boland, I naturally tried to get a reforming Bill which would deal with some at least of the problems involved. It will be within the recollection of the House that I introduced a Bill last Session. However, the Law Society speaking through the eloquent mouth of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon—who speaks for the Law Society in this House as well as for the Labour Party on legal matters (and I always wonder how he marries the two)—rather abruptly withdrew its consent and signified its disapproval by moving amendments which would have totally destroyed the value of the Bill.
I have often said, and I say again, that law reform is either by consent or not at all. I do not intend to reintroduce this Bill. The Law Commission is working on a further report on overriding interest. I do not think I had better go further into that this evening. So all is not lost. In the meantime I am very grateful indeed to the noble Lord and the noble and learned Lord who have played a part in the debate. I shall take on board my noble and learned friend's fine point on Section 137 of the Law of Property Act and reflect upon it deeply.
I do not think that I am likely to be another Birkenhead in this field of activity. Lord Haldane in his autobiography said that it takes three successive Lord Chancellors to effect an important change in the law, and claimed to be the putative father of the 1925 Act because he had been Lord Chancellor some time around 1911. It certainly was not carried through until Lord Cave's Chancellorship. My father wisely left the subject alone in both of his tenures of office, but I shall certainly reflect deeply upon the need for a new Birkenhead—the only Lord Chancellor ever to have achieved a first in law in the honours school of jurisprudence at Oxford. However, I am not sure that I can offer very much hope for the result of my mediations. I am very grateful to everyone. I beg to move.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure.
Moved accordingly, and, On Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.38 to 8 p.m.]

Local Government Bill
Further considered on Report.
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 3, line 6, leave out from ("1972") to ("power") in line 7.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 7 I also, with your Lordships' leave, will speak to Amendments Nos. 9, 10 and 13. These are all amendments to Clause 3(2) of the Bill and concern Section 137 of the 1972 Act in England and Wales and Section 83 of the 1973 Act in Scotland. These existing provisions allow local authorities to incur expenditure in the interests of their area where they have no relevant specific powers.
Broadly they specify the limited circumstances in which a local authority may incur expenditure under Section 137(1) which is in the interests of the area on publicity. Your Lordships will be aware that we made a clear statutory prohibition on the use of Section 137(1) powers for publicity subject to two limited exceptions. In line with Widdicombe we do not consider that local authorities should have general powers to provide publicity which they consider to be in the interests of their areas, as I was saying just before we broke for dinner. We have, however, always made it clear in our proceedings in this House and in another place that Section 142 should be available to local authorities to publish information which relates to what is being carried out under Section 137(1).
This matter was raised in another place. My honourable friend the Minister for Local Government then made it clear that he considered that Section 137 was a function, so that this had been achieved. He promised that he would look at the possibility of an amendment which would introduce a provision to remove any doubt that Section 142 was available for this kind of publicity. It was expressed in terms of making it clear that Section 137 spending was a function for the purposes of Section 142.
Our Amendment No. 10 puts it beyond doubt that this is the case. It also makes it clear that publicity of this kind which relates to Section 137 spending should fall within the 2p limit in Section 137. It is in our view most important to make the position on the Section 137 account quite clear, and this follows the recent Court of Appeal judgment in the case of The District Auditor v. Leicester City Council, which held that all the staff and related costs spent on carrying out projects authorised under Section 137(1) should be included in the account and count towards the limit. I hope your Lordships will agree that it is sensible that the Bill should make the point clear since it has already been established, and in a way which is consistent with the Leicester judgment.
Amendment No. 13 makes similar provisions for Scotland. That amendment then makes clear the general position on Section 137 related publicity. There is, however, an outstanding and specific problem. We have made it clear that Section 142 may be used by local authorities to publish in their area information about what is being done under Section 137 spending. Where local authorities wish to produce publicity incidental to their economic development activities under Section 137, however, they will often need to publish material outside their area to promote these activities rather than simply publicising information.
754
Your Lordships, I think, will all have seen material of this sort. Amendment No. 9, therefore, allows local authorities in England and Wales to continue to promote their economic development as they now may do under Section 137.
Some noble Lords may have noticed that we are not making parallel provision to allow Scottish local authorities to publish incidental economic development publicity under Section 83. This is not because we do not wish Scottish local authorities to be able to produce such publicity. On the contrary the amendment, as already worded, ensures consistency of treatment for local authorities north and south of the Border. This is because Section 7 of the Local Government and Planning (Scotland) Act 1982 provides all Scottish local authorities with specific powers to engage in industrial promotion activities, and stipulates that only the powers in that section may be used for the purposes of industrial promotion.
The section also confers ancillary powers on regional and islands councils in relation to industrial promotion and specifies the circumstances in which district councils may engage in, or contribute to, such activity. No such specific powers are currently available to the English local authorities. That is why we need the amendment for them and not for the Scots.
Specific provisions relating to the promotion of economic development are therefore unnecessary in Scotland, and the wide definition of industrial promotion in Section 7 of the 1982 Act means that in practice Scottish authorities already enjoy powers equivalent to those with which the new English provision is concerned. I should add that Amendment 7 is merely a paving amendment for the more substantive amendments. These amendments provide a package of sensible changes. I apologise for taking so long to explain them. I beg to move.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, we on this side certainly appreciate the intention of the Government and the Minister in trying to clarify some uncertainties as to the impact, one upon the other, of the use by a council of powers under Sections 137 and 142. Once we have got over the hurdle of the great gap and difference in the philosophy behind the Bill, in responding to these amendments what we ask the Minister is whether he fully understands what they will mean in practice in a number of areas.
We have been given some illustrations. My remarks on this amendment will largely be to provide the Minister and his advisers with what we have been told, and to ask them to respond to those outside who have expressed genuine concerns. We fear that the costs for proper publicity incurred under Section 142 on the promotions of the activities under Section 137, wholly within the totality of a 2p rate, will bring inordinate pressure upon what a council wishes to do under the Section 137 provisions.
We are primarily using as an illustration—and in fact the Minister was also able to use this—the job creation aspect. I listened to every word he said in addition to my own notes, and he referred to the two areas—that is, inside the authority's area and outside the authority's area—where publicity was likely to be incurred.

755
We already have a lot of concern, however worthy the intentions of the Government and the Minister are, that authorities shall not be disadvantaged by the abolition of the GLC and the metropolitan counties, and that many of the good things previously undertaken by the GLC and the metropolitan counties ought reasonably and prudently to be taken on board by the receiving or residual councils.
We have a situation where the existing 2p rate, which is in the gift of the in situ councils, is already stretched enormously. The Minister will be aware that the majority of schemes carried on by the boroughs in using their 2p rate relate to economic development and employment assistance. In fact, 70 per cent. of the money spent by the GLC under Section 137 was spent on generating economic development and employment assistance. I am told that in the other metropolitan counties the figure stretched between 64 per cent. and 90 per cent. That is what they spent.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I missed what that was a percentage of and it is important to the noble Lord's argument.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, it is the expenditure of the 2p rate. The Minister is seeking fairly to provide a mechanism for boroughs, for instance in London, to carry on that kind of job creation work once the GLC has gone, but still within the 2p rate. What do they do at the moment within the 2p rate and what scope have they? No matter how much is given or how complicated are the formulae which are being grappled with in town halls, we still come back to the central point.
Let me give the House some of the examples of the problems that we have. I am told that at least nine London boroughs—Greenwich, Hackney, Haringey, Hammersmith and Fulham, Islington, Lambeth, Lewisham, Southwark and Wandsworth—anticipate hitting their Section 137 limits next year without taking on any former GLC schemes. These are the GLC schemes, which most fair minded people would acknowledge—though they have shown up as being the cause of great controversy—that they would want to see carried on. For example, let us take Greenwich, which was also badly hit by the new block grant mechanism. The 1985–86 limit of £894,000 was fully spent. If Greenwich spent fully its 2p rate on schemes which it considered to be worthy, yet a proportion of the previous expenditure by the GLC was taken on board equitably—and some of the schemes that the GLC funded might have been in Greenwich—then there would be a problem. The 1986–87 limit is already reduced to £787,000 with commitments of at least £861,000 before any account is taken of the ex-GLC schemes. Greenwich tells me that the present problem threatens employment for council staff, employment in, and the existence of, groups in the voluntary sector and the council's programme of assistance in co-operation with local commerce and industry.
In Southwark, 60 per cent. of the Section 137 spending is on economic development and training, 35 per cent. on advice and training and 5 per cent. on welfare and other services. In 1985–86 the 2p limit is
756
already 79 per cent. committed. Ex-GLC commitments, including Southwark's contribution to the Greater London Enterprise Board, will push spending well over the limit. Outside London there are similar examples. We are not arguing against the principle. I am trying to put the reality to the Minister. If the publicity which is looked upon as proper, legal and lawful in accordance with this and other legislation is carried out, then boroughs are placed in an impossible position. I do not have a solution. I ask the Minister to make some comments at the appropriate time on this dilemma.
In the West Midlands the county council Section 137 expenditure is greater than the total of the districts' 1986–87 limits. We have already been told that 75 per cent. or 80 per cent. of the West Midlands expenditure was on job creation, economic development and employment assistance. If that kind of work is to be picked up by somebody, even if the boroughs in the West Midlands spent nothing and simply perpetuated the West Midlands work—took it on fully—it would exhaust the combination on their 2p rate precept. In Newcastle I am told that the 1986–87 estimates already indicate an over-commitment of Section 137, even without the consequences of abolition.
I have other examples but I do not believe they would strengthen my case. For accounting purposes authorities will be required to include expenditure on publicity for Section 137 schemes under both the separate publicity account and the Section 137 account. Why should one function of authorities be singled out for special treatment in this way?
I have another point to make to the Minister to which I hope he will be able to respond. All three local authority associations tell me that the amendment which the Minister has tabled is not to their liking. They are talking about it being rejected. I am not talking in terms of moving an objection, but the councils say, first, that the amendment is wholly unexpected and, secondly, that it has been done without consultation. We are well aware of the galloping timescale. There is a deadline and there has been a very short period between Committee stage and Report. The Minister is responding to events that took place at Committee stage. I can understand his great difficulty. The unexpectedness comes from the Minister's desire between Committee stage and Report stage to produce these amendments. I can understand the difficulty of consulting fully, but it needs to be put on the record that all three local authority associations are saying that the amendments are unexpected and have been put forward without consultation.
8.15 p.m.
I believe that the Minister must say something more, not for the purposes of the amendments, which we well understand, but on the impact of the amendments especially on the ability of authorities, which will have responsibilities, to carry forward the good work from the former metropolitan authorities and to do so within the constraints, not least the constraints of rate capping and so on. I shall not enter into the arguments on rate capping, but those are further burdens placed on hard pressed authorities

757
which already have a horrendous total of real responsibilities in the employment creation field especially and in other areas as well.
I ask the Minister when he can at an appropriate time in the debate to give us the benefit of his observations.
Lord Denning: My Lords, I hope that these amendments will be accepted. It is important that the law on this point should be clarified because the Widdicombe Report shows how uncertain and ambiguous it is. Section 142, which we considered on previous amendments, I hope is all right on the information and publicity matters. But Section 137 has given rise to much controversy. The Widdicombe Report thought it should not apply to publicity or authorised publicity, but it recognised that some local authorities thought that it did and, on the advice of leading counsel, the money was being expended. In those circumstances the Widdicombe Report thought the matter must be clarified. An important passage in that report at page 63 states:
"In our view it is in principle an important and valuable power for local authorities, though in our Main Report we shall have to consider its precise scope. It should be freed from involvement with publicity, by amendment to make it clear that a local authority cannot use it to incur expenditure on advertising of any nature whatsoever".
The paragraph continues to make suggestions about amendment.
In these amendments the Government are not waiting for the main report. They are dealing with the problem at once and seeing to what extent Section 137, with its limited funds, can be used by the local authority. There are pages and pages of existing powers and it is important, as the report says, to define how far it can be used for publicity. There are two amendments: one appears in the amendment about the various ancillary matters that may be dealt with. The other is in the clause which states:
"by way of assistance to a public body or voluntary organisation where the publicity is incidental to the main purpose for which the assistance is given".
So the amendment defines the exact extent to which money can be used on publicity by the local authority; and that is a very desirable thing to do, to clear up the ambiguities and uncertainty which existed before.
It does two important things. One is:
"For the purpose of promoting the economic development of the authority's area, where the publicity is incidental to other activities".
The other (which is in the clause as it stands at the moment) is:
"by way of assistance to a public body or voluntary organisation where the publicity is incidental to the main purpose for which the assistance is given".
There you have a clear definition, as I see it, in the amendment, of the way in which the funds under Section 137 can be used by way of publicity. It is very important for the law to be clarified in this way, and being cleared up by this amendment, I hope that your Lordships will support it.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, for saying much that I had intended to say, and for saying it quite typically in half the compass and with twice the clarity that I
758
could hope to achieve. Therefore, I need scarcely advert to the reasons for this amendment further than I have done already.
I think that I should say to the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, who made an interesting speech on the subject of the Section 137 expenditure limits, that he illustrated his theme from the expected impact of the Local Government Act 1985 on boroughs and districts in areas of metropolitan authorities that will be abolished by that Act on the 1st of next month. In fact, he did so to the extent that I had to remind myself that the Bill is about publicity expenditure and, given that the 2p limit of the combined boroughs of Greater London is something like £40 million, I doubt if the impact of the cost of this sort of promotion, which relates only to expenditure on publicity, will be very great. Having said that, I think that it is perhaps in season to say a brief word about Section 137 spending and its quantum, because it is within the bounds of the Bill, I suppose, to the extent that I can respond to the noble Lord.
He asked about the Government's current thinking on the present limit, which is the product of a 2p rate. We recognise that the local authorities' powers under the section have been used to fund a wide range of schemes and initiatives in the voluntary sector, but there are difficult issues of principle involved in considering the long-term future of local authorities' discretion in spending powers. As noble Lords are aware, the Widdicombe inquiry has been asked to consider, within their general terms of reference, the need to clarify the limits and conditions governing discretionary spending by local authorities. We think it is important to be able to consider that committee's recommendations before making changes in the present basis of local authorities' Section 137 powers.
In other words, the clarification that the noble and learned Lord referred to was overdue, and I am glad to put it in the Bill. But the noble Lord is actually asking about whether the ceiling is high enough, in effect.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I am grateful. What I am concerned about is, for instance, even the marginal cost of publicity. We are talking about the appropriateness of expenditure on publicity under Section 142. It is quite properly related to the principle of the Section 137 expenditure. What I am saying to the Minister is that, without taking on the extra responsibility of taking the devolved responsibilities from the metropolitan authorities, even the marginal cost of the publicity which might be needed, we are told, could very well be too much.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I think I have taken the point, and I think I was right in what I said before I gave way. The noble Lord is concerned about the height of the ceiling. He is saying that so much is being shoved in through the door that the ceiling ought to go up.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords—
Lord Elton: My Lords, I must remind the House that we are now at Report stage and that we must not indulge in exchanges as in the Committee style. Therefore, we think that we must be able to consider the committee's recommendations before making changes in the basis of the ceiling.

759
The broad arguments for an immediate increase in the limit for the metropolitan districts and the London boroughs have been put to us on a number of occasions, notably during the passage of the London Government Act 1985, as the noble Lord will remember. This is an issue which we shall certainly wish to address in considering the long-term position on local authorities' discretionary spending in the light of the Widdicombe findings.
Against that background, we remain of the view that we could not countenance any substantial amendment to the present rate-product limits in advance of the Widdicombe Committee's report next year without the clearest evidence that otherwise worthwhile projects, particularly where there are existing commitments, would be adversely affected. I should say, however, to the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, that my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, the Member for Mitcham and Morden, recently met representatives of the AMA to discuss a number of issues relating to Section 137 programmes next year. The Government are now giving urgent consideration to the information which they provided and to that from individual local authorities about specific difficulties which they foresee in 1986–87 in containing planned and permitted expenditure within their present Section 137 limits. Of course, we shall also take on board what the noble Lord has said in the course of this debate. I hope that with that explanation your Lordships will be satisfied to take this amendment into the Bill.
Baroness David: My Lords, am I right in thinking that the Government are justifying Amendment No. 10 on the grounds of present publicity for economic developments carried out under Section 137; so that restricting such publicity to the 2p account under Section 142 in the future will only replicate the existing situation?
Lord Elton: Yes, my Lords, I think that is very nearly what I am saying. I am not sure that the noble Baroness got the two sections the right way round. What we are saying is that Section 137 expenditure is a function for the purposes of Section 142. As I understand it, it properly forms part of the Section 127 expenditure total; but that was unclear and, in the light of Widdicombe and also of the case which I quoted a moment ago, we have now clarified it.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Deputy Speaker (Earl Cathcart): My Lords, in calling Amendment No. 8, I should advise your Lordships that if Amendment No. 8 is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 9.
Lord Hayter Lord Hayter moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 3, line 10, leave out from ("may") to end of line 14 and insert ("not itself incur expenditure under subsection (1) above on publicity, but it may incur expenditure to enable a public body or voluntary organisation to promote their own aims and objectives provided such publicity is not otherwise prohibited.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we seem in this amendment to be straying on to arguments which were put forward on both sides in relation to the last
760
amendment. But, once again, I am trying to get back to the recommendations of the Widdicombe Report, where Widdicombe was recognising that local authorities sometimes use their Section 137 powers to fund voluntary organisations. Often this is because the voluntary organisations are involved in new work which is not yet covered by statute.
Widdicombe recognised that if the local authorities were prohibited from using Section 137 for their own publicity, this prohibition naturally would have to exclude voluntary organsations' publicity. Otherwise, a number of important projects would also be prohibited. He therefore recommended—and I am quoting:
"the exclusion of publicity from Section 137 (Section 83 in Scotland) should be so framed as not to prevent bodies funded under that section from issuing publicity to promote their own aims and objectives provided they are not acting as proxies for local authorities in unauthorised publicity."
This amendment, which is in my name and in those of others, is designed to incorporate that in the Bill.
As I understand it, local authorities are allowed to use Section 137 to give grants for publicity, but only if the publicity is incidental to the main purpose for which the grant was given. So far as I can tell, this means that if a local authority is given a large grant, only part of which is for the purposes of publicity, that is all right; but if a local authority is given a small grant for publicity only—for example, £1,000 for printing some leaflets—that is not all right. In fact it is prohibited.
8.30 p.m.
One may be wondering where the logic lies, but in many cases the one thing a voluntary organisation actually needs is a grant which is for the direct cost of publicity. The other aspect of a campaign can often be carried out by volunteers or through donations, but the one cost which is sometimes beyond the means of voluntary effort is the cost of the publicity itself. Yet this is the one thing that a local authority seems to be prohibited from funding under Section 137.
I now commend Widdicombe's original wording to the House. The amendment makes the position quite clear. There is no danger of Section 137 being used as a loophole for political propaganda, since the last part of the amendment makes it quite clear that the prohibition on political publicity still applies. Therefore, voluntary organisations cannot be used as "front" organisations for political purposes. This amendment simply makes it clear that whereas local authorities' own publicity cannot be funded under Section 137(1), publicity of voluntary organisations relating to their own aims and objectives can be. I beg to move.
Lord Denning: My Lords, may I suggest that accepting this amendment would cause a great deal of confusion? The amendment we have just agreed to, No. 6, will cover all the grounds on which the local authorities can spend money on publicity. Once we have done that and got the various amendments in, it seems to me impossible to reconcile this fresh amendment in addition to those we have already passed. It would introduce a good deal of confusion and therefore I hope that it will not be pressed.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I rise briefly because I put my name to this amendment. The reason was that I thought it should be absolutely clear to the public body or voluntary organisation that they can promote their own aims and objectives. This is misunderstood, I think, among a number of voluntary organisations and some of them are thinking that this cannot be done. I should also just say that publicity, whether it is by means of the local radio, the press or pamphlets, is a social-work help to the members of the community to know what in fact voluntary organisations are able to provide for them.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I am a little puzzled that voluntary organisations should think that they cannot publicise anything, because really all they are being prevented from publicising is what is in Clause 2, and many of the things they want to talk about have no relation to politics at all. I am advised that the difference between Amendment No. 8 and the existing wording of the Bill is that clever people who want to exploit the situation and defeat Clause 2 could do it much more readily under Amendment No. 8 than they could under the Bill as it stands. Therefore, from the point of view of the Bill's main object, with which we are all agreed, it would be better if we did not go ahead with this amendment, No. 8.
Baroness David: My Lords, I am constantly surprised by the attitude that some noble Lords opposite take about the attitudes of voluntary organisations and indeed of many ordinary people. They seem to be seeing Reds under the beds everywhere. This seems to me to be really a very straightforward amendment which is not going to create any trouble or harm. As the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, said, this really should be supported. I am really amazed at some of the things I have heard today, and I think I will stop there.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, at this late hour, especially, I do not want to become at all emotive but really in a sense I am amazed that the noble Baroness, for whom I have so great a regard, as she knows, should feel displeased in this way; because on an objective analysis—which is the only form of analysis which is worth anything at all—I totally agree with the way my noble friend Lord Mottistone has just put the position. There is nothing more to be said. You can turn this subject into an emotive one, but that will never get it right.
There is behind this a common desire, a common will, on all sides of this House to put an end to the abuse of ratepayers' money being used for party political purposes. All we are discussing—and it must be an objective and not an emotive discussion—is the best and most efficacious way of doing it. This amendment, I am afraid—although certainly it could never be the intention of the noble Baroness opposite—opens the stable door for the horse.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, before the noble Lord rises to reply, is it the case, as the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, has suggested, that a voluntary organisation whose aims and objectives are to campaign for a certain purpose and which receives, let us say, as the
762
noble Lord, Lord Hayter, gave in his instance, £1,000 for the printing of material, would or would not be banned from so doing? That is what we want to know.
Lord Elton: My Lords, my capacity for amazement was exhausted very soon after I became a Minister, but even had it not been I would not have been amazed, I think, by anything I have heard from behind me this evening. However, the noble Baroness has said enough to show that I must start by trying to explain where the logic of the Bill lies, as the noble Lord, Lord Hayter, put it, and why we consider there are sufficient other powers for the funding of voluntary organisations for legitimate publicity activities, and why the effect of his attractively simple amendment would in fact he to allow authorities who wish to to give grants to a wide range of very questionable organisations for publicity activities which had nothing to do with local government.
First, I think I should again remind your Lordships of the very important fact of which the noble Lord himself reminded us just before dinner. That is that under present law Section 137(3) of the 1972 Act gives local authorities general powers to incur expenditure on the funds of any charitable body in furtherance of its work in the United Kingdom. That is the first answer to the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock. It also gives them general powers to incur expenditure on the funds of any body which provides any public service in the United Kingdom otherwise than for the purposes of gain. That is the second leg of the answer to the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock.
Nothing we are doing in Clause 3 of this Bill would place any restriction on the use which local authorities make of these powers to fund such bodies for publicity. Under Section 137(3) local authorities would continue to be able to give such organisations both general and, if they wished, specific grants for publicity purposes. The publicity would not need to be "incidental" to their main purposes.
Charities and voluntary organisations which provide a public service in the United Kingdom would continue to be able to use local authority funds to carry out publicity campaigns on any topic, subject only to the existing wider law and their own existing constitutions. With the single exception of the prohibition of party political publicity, the whole of this field would remain as open to them in future as it is today. So that is the answer to the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock.
Going on from that, I would say that this is a wide power. It covers a whole host of registered charities, including the Citizens' Advice Bureaux, MIND, and very many local organisations—I mentioned both those two specifically in anticipation of the presence of certain noble Lords who are interested in them, but I do not think they are present—including community relations councils. It also covers all bodies that provide a public service in the United Kingdom.
I am advised that that definition covers all organisations providing a service which is available to the public at large otherwise than for the purpose of gain. A great many organisations which have been under a misapprehension about the Bill's effects will I hope read what I have said and be reassured.

763
My Lords, you may say that if Section 137(3) is so broad, why not complete the job and give local authorities free rein to fund voluntary organisations for publicity, as the noble Lord, Lord Hayter, proposes. What voluntary organisation does Section 137(3) exclude? Put simply, the answer is that it excludes organisations which are not registered charities and which do not provide a public service other than for the purpose of gas.
As my noble friends will be quick to remind me, that includes some rather odd bodies. We must remember that the definition of voluntary organisation given in the Bill is very wide. The definition is:
"a body which is not a public body but whose activities are carried on otherwise than for profit".
That definition goes far wider than the definition of charities and wider even than the definition in Section 137(3) that I quoted a moment ago. It embraces not only local CND groups but a whole range of sometimes very curious single-issue campaign groups of which your Lordships will be aware.
The funding of such organisations at public expense needs to be treated with some care, particularly the funding of publicity by such organisations. Publicity, as Widdicombe has said—unlike, for instance, lobbying—raises issues in its own right about the proper use of public funds. We agreed with the committee that in that very sensitive area, there is therefore a need for caution in the framing of the local authority's powers. We agree that they should not be open-ended in the potential subject matter which they cover.
Although I have more material, I believe that I have replied to the specific points that the noble Lord, Lord Hayter, raised. As that is the function of my speech, I hope that I have persuaded him not to press his amendment.
Lord Hayter: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord the Minister. As he recommended in his few words, the voluntary organisations should read and see what he said. He thinks that they will be satisfied, and I have a suspicion that I agree with him. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 3, line 11, after ("only") insert ("—

(a) for the purpose of promoting the economic development of the authority's area, where the publicity is incidental to other activities undertaken or to be undertaken by the authority for that purpose, or

(b)").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 3, line 14, at end insert ("but the following provisions of this section apply to expenditure incurred by a local authority under section 142 below on information as to the services provided by them under this section, or otherwise relating to their functions under this section, as they apply to expenditure incurred under this section.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Denning Lord Denning moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 3, line 14, at end insert ("and any such public body or voluntary association shall use its resources on publicity only when it is incidental to the main purpose for which the assistance is given.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is really an amendment supplemental to those which have already been made. May I recall, as my noble friend Lord Elton said, that under Section 137, as it stands, a local authority may incur expenditure on any of the following funds:

"(a) the funds of any charitable body in furtherance of its work in the United Kindom; or

(b) the funds of any body which provides any public service in the United Kingdom otherwise than for the purpose of gain".

Section 137 already contains a wide power. The new clause provides that a local authority may incur expenditure only by way of assistance to a public body or organisation where the publicity is incidental to the main purpose for which the assistance is given.
I understand that to mean that if one of the voluntary bodies is arranging as its main function to have a conference in a hall, there can be publicity because that is incidental to the organisation's main purpose, and therefore the money can properly be used for laying on that conference.
The point I make is that although the local authority can provide money for that type of publicity, I want to make sure that when it is provided for that purpose the organisation is bound to use it for that purpose. That was obviously the clause's intention. The object of my amendment is to make sure not only that the money is given for that purpose but that it is used by the voluntary organisation for that purpose. The measure is supplemental to the one which has already been agreed. I hope that your Lordships will accept the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, for putting forward this amendment, and for taking such care in setting out the reasons for this proposal. This issues that he raises are, I find, difficult ones.
First, we are concerned to ensure that when bodies are in receipt of public funds they use those funds properly. We are on common ground on that. That is why we have made it the responsibility of the local authority to police its own grant-giving. The local authority is in general responsible for ensuring proper systems of accountability and for monitoring the way that bodies receiving local authority assistance spend their grant.
Secondly, we are concerned to maintain the freedoms of the voluntary sector. I am sure we are on common ground there. We are concerned with the proper use of local authority funds. We do not wish to set damaging restraints on the use which voluntary organisations make of their own funds.
The proposal which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, has made is obviously a considered one. He seeks to strengthen the system of accountability for grant-giving, in the particular case of organisations in receipt of grant-aid for incidental publicity under Section 137(1) powers. It also would

765
place a duty on organisations receiving such assistance to confine themselves to publicity incidential to the main purpose for which the local authority has given assistance. I see that the noble and learned Lord agrees that I have that right.
What worries me is that in doing this the amendment conflicts with our second concern. It would not only restrict a voluntary organisation in the use it made of assistance; it would stop it from using any of its own resources to fund publicity which was not incidental to its main purpose for which the local authority had given assistance. It would prevent a voluntary organisation from using either local authority money or its own money obtained from other sources. That goes beyond our concerns with ratepayers' money, and it might also I think impose unfair restrictions upon voluntary organisations' use of their private funds. It might be incidental to other purposes of theirs which are not their main purpose but which might be perfectly proper.
The restrictions that would impose would, in some cases, be quite arbitrary. If, for example, a local authority gave a grant to an organisation for the disabled, for a specific research project and publication of a research report, that organisation would then he prevented from using its other resources for more general publicity.
If those are, as I believe them to be, the side effects of the noble and learned Lord's amendment, on reflection, he may feel he is being less than fair to meritorious organisations and perhaps he may not feel it right to press the amendment at this stage.
Lord Denning: My Lords, I realise that I have put the amendment a little wide. My original draft was that the local authorities should give the funds, and the voluntary body:
"shall use such assistance on publicity only".
I did not want a voluntary body to be able to switch funds from one purpose to another and get around the law like that. I therefore included "its resources". I gather from my noble friend the Minister that had I kept to my original draft it might have been acceptable. I was a little nervous. I should perhaps have let the local authority do its own monitoring by inquiring of the body what it is doing with the money. That might do just as well as placing on it the obligation that I have mentioned. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Airedale Lord Airedale moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 3, line 16, leave out ("refers to") and insert ("means").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, subsection (2D) consists of two definitions—I think I can safely say that—the test of a definition being that you can use either set of words and produce the same meaning. The second definition uses the word "means", which is the word that you usually find in an interpretation clause indicating a definition. But the first definition uses not "means" but "refers to".
It is important that when Parliament means the same thing, Parliament should use the same words, because otherwise you set lawyers straining to find a difference where none exists, arguing: "Parliament
766
must here mean two different things, because otherwise Parliament would have used the same words". Accordingly, in order to avoid any confusion, I beg to move this amendment, which replaces "refers to" with "means" in the first of the two definitions.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I have been waiting for this moment with ill-concealed impatience for the whole of today. I am very happy to say that I agree with every word the noble Lord has said and I advise your Lordships to accept this amendment. I should add that, for consistency, it will be necessary to reflect the change in one of our amendments to Clause 3(2) and I should tell your Lordships that now, because I shall have to do that at Third Reading.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 3, line 21, at end insert ("and in section 83 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 (which makes corresponding provision for Scotland), after subsection (2B) insert—
"(2C) A local authority may incur expenditure under subsection (1) above on publicity only by way of assistance to a public body or voluntary organisation where the publicity is incidental to the main purpose for which the assistance is given; but the following provisions of this section apply to expenditure incurred by a local authority under section 88 below on information as to the services provided by them under this section, or otherwise relating to their functions under this section, as they apply to expenditure incurred under this section.
(2D) In subsection (2C) above—
"publicity" refers to any communication, in whatever form addressed to the public at large or to a section of the public; and
"voluntary organisation" means a body which is not a public body but whose activities are carried on otherwise than for profit.".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 7. My Lords, I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 4 [Codes of recommended practice as regards publicity]:
Lord Airedale Lord Airedale moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 2, line 28, leave out first ("Different").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I cannot believe that the interests of good draftsmanship can require that the word "different" should have to occur five times in three lines of print. I have set about trying to see which of the words "different" could be discarded, and it occurs to me that the first word "different" could be discarded without making any difference to the meaning. I trust that the Minister will not be taking a different view. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I hope that your Lordships will not feel there is any element of favouritism in my treatment of the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, and that he will not feel that he has any prescriptive right to the support of government. But again I have to say that he is engaged in work with which I sympathise and agree, and I hope your Lordships will accept the amendment.
Baroness David: My Lords, of course we are all delighted to accept the amendment, but we were reminded on an earlier occasion today that the drafting of this Bill has been extremely careless.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I do not think I can accept that on behalf of the draftsman. It seems to me that the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, has done a service in clarifying and simplifying the English of the Bill and that is always welcome. But the drafting of a Bill goes very much deeper than that and I can vouch for the assiduity, the wisdom and, indeed, the hard work of the draftsman in those depths of language which we all find so difficult to follow. But that in no way diminishes my gratitude or enthusiasm for the noble Lord's amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 5 [Separate accounts of expenditure on publicity]:
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 4, line 26, at end insert—
(" (5) The Secretary of State may by order provide that subsection (1) does not apply to publicity or expenditure of a prescribed description.
(6) Before making an order the Secretary of State shall consult such associations of local authorities as appear to him to be concerned and any local authority with whom consultation appears to him to be desirable.
(7) An order shall be made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment follows on from an amendment proposed in Committee by my noble friend Lord Elliott of Morpeth. I recall that it was welcomed by the noble Baroness, Lady David, because she said it would give a great deal of help to local authorities in carrying out their duties under the Bill when it becomes an Act.
The effect of the amendment would be to give the Secretary of State the power to provide by order that certain categories of expenditure on publicity should not be included in separate publicity accounts. Your Lordships will be aware that we consider that the publicity account needs to be wide-ranging. We agree with the view taken by the Widdicombe Committee, who said that,
"authorities were not sufficiently conscious of their overall level of publicity expenditure".
The committee reported that at present,
"Few—if any—local authorities keep a separate centralised record of all expenditure on public information, advertising and consultation activities. Much expenditure of this kind is incurred by individual service committees and is not aggregated on a routine basis for the authority as a whole. Many of the larger authorities have staff and a budget specifically allocated to the public relations function. But even where this is the case, the public relations budget is likely to account for only a part of the authority's information and advertising."
The present situation is clearly unsatisfactory and we are proposing a broad publicity account to remedy it.
But, while the account needs to be broad-ranging, it does not need to be all-inclusive. My noble friend Lord Elliott of Morpeth expressed it admirably when he said that,
"whereas we want an all-inclusive definition of publicity for the purposes of party political prohibition, surely it is unreasonable to be exhaustive in trailing a boat through local authorities' expenditure looking for items of expenditure on publicity which are minute."—[Official Report, 24/2/86; col. 895.]
The Government do not wish local authorities to have to engage in unnecessary effort and expense in
768
order to include the more marginal elements of publicity or expenditure in the account that have no clear relevance in terms of public accountability. We would, of course, want to have detailed discussions with local authority interests before we formulated our descriptions of the items to be excluded. The amendment reflects this in subsection (6).
This is a matter on which local expertise may be very important indeed. But, as my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale explained in Committee, we have in mind cases where the inclusion of some items of expenditure in the account would involve disproportionate expense; cases where the amounts involved are very small and/or accounting systems are very devolved. The sort of examples we have in mind at present, prior to consultation, are expenditure on letters to parents or circular letters about holiday arrangements for a waste collection service. These, we think, may well be de minimis.
There is one final point which your Lordships may want to note. The amendment proposes that the exclusions to the account will be made by order of the Secretary of State. The proposed subsection (7) would provide that the order should be subject to parliamentary procedure. It would be made by statutory instrument, subject to the negative resolution procedure in both Houses, and there will be an opportunity therefore for your Lordships to hold me up to my undertaking that we will consult. We decided that this was the most appropriate way and more appropriate than a direction in this case, as my noble friend Lord Elliott proposed in his amendment. However, it will still allow for flexibility, which is essential in this field as we gather experience. I commend the amendment to your Lordships and I beg to move.
Baroness David: My Lords, I am, of course, very glad to see this amendment because I supported the noble Lord, Lord Elliott, when he moved Amendment No. 20, as it was in Committee. Unfortunately, he is not here. At col. 896 of the Official Report of 24th February, I gave a long list of matters which I thought should be considered in the definition of "publicity", which is,
"any communication, in whatever form, addressed to the public at large or to a section of the public".
I hope that the Minister has looked at these and that they will be covered by the new subsection in Clause 5. I should be glad of a little reassurance on that point, but of course we welcome the amendment.
Lord Elton: My Lords, by your Lordships' leave, I have col. 896 in front of me as I speak. I shall ensure that the suggestions the noble Baroness makes in that column and in the contiguous columns are taken on board in the process of our consideration of how to draft the order.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 6 [Interpretation and application of Part II]:
9 p.m.
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 5, line 3, at end insert ("other than a communication comprising only factual information about employees and other agents of the local authority and the facilities made available by them.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I am not quite sure how necessary this amendment is but no doubt the Minister will tell me very quickly. I am not quite sure whether the amendment which has just been passed will cover all the things that I want to have covered here.
The Minister gave the assurance that the Government accepted that there is a case for excluding marginal expenditure from the requirements of Clause 5, and an amendment to the one we have just passed has been tabled. The Minister also said that other examples of material that should be properly excluded may emerge from discussions and consultations with local government, but this relates only to separate accounting. Even so there is still widespread concern in education circles over whether communication in relation to educational activities will be restricted by the Bill. This seems a particularly apt time to raise this point as the Government have recently published the Education Bill which had its Second Reading earlier this week.
Clause 24 of the Education Bill proposes that governing bodies should produce annual reports. During the Second Reading debate the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, said that it is,
"a general principle of accountability that I should like to see provision made for the wider dissemination of information about schools, especially their budgets and curricula, to any parents or members of the public who wish to receive it".—[Official Report, 10/3/86; col. 448.]
In her reply the noble Baroness, Lady Young, pointed out that Clause 24 of the Bill had this wider dissemination of information as its objective. Surely the communication of a whole range of uncontroversial publicity within the education world has wide support. Yet the governors' report as proposed by Clause 24 of the Education Bill would be subject to all the strictures of this Act as I see it at the moment, including separate accounting, unless it is excluded from that provision by the Government amendment to Clause 5.
Clause 6(3) states:
"'Publicity', 'publish' and 'publication' refer to any communication, in whatever form, addressed to the public at large or to a section of the public".
Other communications which would also be affected by this clause, if not amended, include college prospectuses, booklets on school admissions, letters from head teachers, invitations to school open evenings, as well as notices outside schools and colleges giving information such as opening times and the names of the head teachers and principals—also the information required by Section 12 of the Education Act 1980 relating to proposals to make significant change in the character of a county school or indeed the closure of a school.
Appreciating that the definition of "publicity" has been widely drawn, this amendment seeks clarification from the Government whether uncontroversial publicity, particularly in the education world, was ever meant to be restricted by this Bill. The Council of Local Education Authorities is extremely anxious about this point, and so I should like some reassurance from the Minister.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I share the surprise of the noble Baroness when she finds herself moving this
770
amendment because, like her, I felt that we had probably addressed the concerns which she has now voiced. Perhaps I may very briefly say that we have provided in Amendment No. 15 to Clause 5 that:
"The Secretary of State may by order provide"
that the Clause 5(1) requirement to account separately for publicity
"does not apply to publicity or expenditure of a prescribed description".
Thus it is possible to identify exemptions by categories of publicity such as circular letters to parents from teachers, as I mentioned, or from boards of governors as the noble Baroness mentioned; or by categories of expenditure such as the staff or other administrative costs involved in producing an item of material. We have also provided for consultation with the local authority associations and any local authority with whom consultation appears to the Secretary of State to be desirable about how we are to define the exemption.
The proposals for a separate account will not come into effect until a day is appointed by order. We have no firm date in mind. As I have already said, we shall want to discuss with the associations the precise parameters of the account before bringing Clause 5 into effect, and the date cannot therefore realistically be before the financial year 1987–88. I hope that the noble Baroness will accept that we will consult fully and that this does indeed give us time so to do. We shall be able to look at all the categories about which she says there is concern and we shall, if the people who have spoken to her are the people I believe them to be, actually be talking to them or their representatives in the process.
Baroness David: My Lords, it is very nice to have assurance doubly sure. I am grateful to the Minister for that. I shall of course read what he has said and pass it on to the people who are anxious; but I hope that everything is now going to be well. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 5, line 14, at end insert—
("(5) Nothing in this Part shall be construed as applying to anything done by a local authority in the discharge of their duties under Part VA of the Local Government Act 1972 or Part IIIA of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 (duty to afford public access to meetings and certain documents).").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, both my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale and I undertook at Committee stage that we would introduce an amendment of this kind. It is intended to make clear that the publicity provisions in Part II of the Bill do not conflict with local authorities' duties under the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985. The amendment does this by an addition to Clause 6. In effect it is a declaratory provision that nothing in Part II of the Bill,
"shall be construed as applying to anything done by a local authority in the discharge of their duties under Part VA of the Local Government Act 1972 or Part IIIA of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973",
as amended by the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985. If your Lordships can follow that verbatim you have done very well, but it reads quite nicely in Hansard and I think you will see its

771
effect. In layman's terms that material made available under that Act should not be construed as "publicity" for the purposes of this Bill.
Broadly, the Local Government (Access to Information) Act requires local authorities to give public access to council and committee meetings and make related papers available for inspection. As I explained in Committee, we would draw a firm distinction between, on the one hand, publicity as defined in the Local Government Bill—that is a communication,
"addressed to the public at large or to a section of the public",
and, on the other, papers primarily for use by the local authority or the council which members of the public and press who are interested can inspect. The fact that those papers are open to the public to inspect does not mean that they are addressed to the public or to a section of the public. The present amendment is in fact a declaration of that distinction, and is provided for the avoidance of doubt. For that reason, I commend it to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, the noble Lord makes a reasonable case of the removal of doubt. However, we are here looking at current practices against the background that some practices and purposes are objected to, including publicity that can be seen, if not wholly then substantially, to have a political purpose.
As the noble Lord has pointed out, under the 1985 Act there has been further clarification. The access to information Act specified a number of ways in which that Act and the Government encouraged local authorities to be more open. I may use the phrase, rather loosely, more open government—although, as an ex-local government man, I am very conscious of the fact that there are times when one is inhibited by a range of pressures from being as open as some people might want.
The 1985 Act talked in terms of all meetings of a local authority to which it applied being put on a common footing by providing for public access to council meetings and to meetings of committees. It provides for access to agendas, reports, and minutes of meetings, which should be open for public inspection.
The Minister will be aware that some authorities already go far beyond that. They do not do so for any political purpose. We are talking in terms of the desire of councils—and I do not even say of some councils because I believe it is a growing trend—to make their deliberations and considerations of business as open as possible. They are happy not only to make agendas and copies of papers accessible for inspection but also, in a number of instances, as in Leeds, to go beyond the requirements of the Act in making documents available.
I am the president of the Association of London Authorities, and I am very proud to be so. That organisation has just produced a charter for open government. It seeks, in the way in which it is entitled to do so as a major and responsible association, to encourage a movement in which agendas and open reports will be supplied on a regular basis to individuals and to groups upon payment of a reasonable fee. In other words, one may not only go to the town hall to
772
find out what is going on but if one hears about a document and would like a copy, then one will be provided. The association is advocating also that community groups should wherever possible receive copies of papers in the same way that the members of the committees receive them.
I was about to say that I was delighted to see the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, in his place. I intended to make a reference to another aspect of publicity. The noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, knows the Newcastle-upon-Tyne scene very well and I was about to tell the House that I have an association, which I declare, with the National Federation of Market Traders. I use this as an illustration. There are many groups of people who are vitally affected, in terms of their livelihoods, by the decisions and determinations of local authorities. Outwith what one might call close negotiations with council officers and any group, I am talking about the democracy; that is, papers for committees and so on.
I intended to refer in the presence of the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans—who was certainly in his place until a minute ago—to the fact that there is a great controversy going on between market traders in Newcastle-upon-Tyne and the council relating to a major publicity event later this year on the Newcastle quayside. Great interests are involved.
I can certainly see that groups such as market traders, chambers of commerce, and others, may very well benefit from having maximum access to information. I want to ask the Minister—I hope not too tortuously—whether he sees any objection to an authority being even more open and accessible than the degree to which he has already explained they will be under this Bill in relation to the 1985 Act.
I very much hope that the Minister will recognise that anything which is seen as an inhibition on the ability of council officers to feed their populace more effectively with information is to be frowned upon. I have here a document from The Society of Local Authority Chief Executives, which is a body highly respected in this House and in other places. The letter is sent by the Association of District Secretaries, the Society of Directors of Administration in Scotland, the Society of County Secretaries and the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives. That letter states that legal advisers,
"will be faced with the dilemma of advising their councils on a day to day basis on the information and publicity they plan to issue"
before ever a case which might be challengeable gets to the courts.
9.15 p.m.
I want the Minister to understand that already there has grown up while this Bill has been going through the House a great reluctance on the part of council officers for fear that they would be accused of giving information which could be either miscontrued or deliberately misused for political purposes. Rather than put their councils into difficulty they are being more cautious, even if it is simple commercial information to market traders and shopkeepers. They are inhibiting themselves from making this information available.

773
Therefore, as far as we are concerned the amendment is sensible and right, and is in pursuance of the reflections by the Minister and his advisers between Committee and Report stages. However, I very much hope he will say something helpful about not inhibiting those councils who intend, not for political purposes but for democratic purposes, to make their proceedings more widely known, easily and quickly, at a proper charge. I am not referring to costs on the ratepayers but to a proper charge for the provision of the information that is needed.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, we on these Benches should like to thank the noble Lord for this amendment, which I think comes in response to amendments along the same lines moved by my noble friend Lord Winstanley during the Committee stage, under Clause 2, and a similar amendment which I moved under Clause 6.
There is only one question that I wish to ask the noble Lord. The amendment we moved under Clause 6 during the Committee stage read as follows:
"Nothing in this Act shall prevent the publication of material, or any other action, by a local authority in exercise of its functions under the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985."—[Official Report, 24/2/86; col. 908.]
I see that the wording in the noble Lord's amendment appears to be slightly more restrictive than that. It refers to,
"the discharge of their duties under",
in effect, the Local Government (Access to Information) Act. That appears, therefore, to be rather more tightly drafted than what we had proposed. It would appear also only to exempt material made available in satisfying the minimum requirements of that Act but not practices which that Act would encourage, which I think was the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, about positive progress in the direction of freedom of information which that Act was encouraging.
For example, the access of information Act requires councils to make council and committee papers available to the press on application. Therefore, if a journalist applies for a paper and is given it by the council, the council is safe. If, however, the council welcomes press scrutiny and promotes maximum freedom of information it might want to send those documents to all the newspapers in the area. If it did that, would it be open to prosecution? Could there not be a situation in which a committee report is sent to rival newspapers, one of which has asked for it and the other has not? In that case, will the council be liable to prosecution in the one case but not in the other?
I do not want to cavil at this amendment because, I repeat, we welcome it; but it raises that question of interpretation and whether I am right in thinking that what the noble Lord is giving us is perhaps slightly less than we were asking for.
Lord Elton: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, asks whether local authorities can sell their order papers and minutes, and the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, asks whether they can give them away. The purpose of the amendment is exactly what it was stated to be when it was asked for. It does what noble Lords opposite asks that it should; that is,
774
to make it clear beyond peradventure that Part II of the Act shall have no effect upon,
"anything done by a local authority in the discharge of their duties under Part VA of the Local Government Act 1972 or Part IIIA of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973.".
Those provisions comprise the duties of local authorities to afford public access to meetings and to certain documents. If an authority goes beyond its duty under those parts of those Acts, I say, subject to advice, that then it is certainly not protected by those parts of those Acts or therefore by this amendment.
Local authorities will become culpable only if the documents which they put out are in fact improper in some sense of Part II of the Act. Part II of the Act is not aimed at the minutes and agendas of council meetings, so it would take some exertion on the part of a council to make them offensive to the Act. I suppose it would be possible for council members to make very special speeches which took the form of a publicity broadsheet and they could have them printed in a particular form which made them suitable for sticking up on public walls; but then I think your Lordships would agree that they would not be doing anything that they were required to do under Part VA of the Local Government Act or Part IIIA of the Local Government (Scotland) Act. They would be doing something which your Lordships intended that they should not do, which is displaying part of a public campaign. They could still do that if it were not political and if it fell within the code.
I see that the noble Lord wants to interrupt me. In that case I shall be able to read a note which has been handed to me.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I rise so that the noble Lord may better read the note which has just come from the Box.
The interesting point that the noble Lord makes is that the agenda or the minutes must not contain something which can be seen to contravene the proscriptions in Clause 2. I am told that in Islington and Hackney they make available and send out the verbatim reports of council meetings, and that the verbatim reports will very often contain remarks of a politically offensive nature; that is, remarks by which some people would be offended by virtue of their content. In fact, I am simply asking the Minister whether, in the proper fulfilment of their democratic wish to make known to bodies such as tenants' associations, and so on, what has happended in the council meeting, the members of the council would be caught or stopped from reporting the council meeting proceedings if the content of the minutes was seen to be somehow or other a form of political propaganda and not merely the democratic dissemination of information.
Lord Elton: My Lords, the noble Lord asked a very specific question and I have already given a very specific answer as to the purpose of this amendment and what it does. I have to stand on that answer because that is what the purpose of the amendment is and it is what the amendment does. The noble Lord now asks what the rest of the Bill would do about a particular action by the council. That would depend entirely on the case, would it not? If it fell within the

775
definition of the amendment, there would be no case to answer because the definition says that no part of the Act shall apply to it. If it went beyond the definition of the amendment, then that protection would be withdrawn.
I cannot in fact answer a hypothetical question about the legal status of the minutes of proceedings of a particular borough council on a particular matter because that could only be decided by the courts; but I can well see that the proceedings would have to be of a very particular sort (if we can use that word again after our earlier debates about the word "particular"), and I should have thought that the report would have to be distributed in a very particular way in order to make it subject to action under the Bill. But I cannot say without knowing the facts. What I can say is that where the documents exist and are used, as is required under the Acts that I have quoted, this part of the Bill does not apply to them. That is what we were asked to do, that is what the amendment does, and I now ask your Lordships to agree to it going into the Bill.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 7 [Transfer requires mortgagor's consent]:
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 5, line 17, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I do not know how your Lordships relax, whether listening to my noble friend or not. But I have never been able to see well and I have never been able to run, and so I do not play sports, but I take very long baths from time to time. In my bath I not only wash but read. Last week I had run out of my normal literature and turned to this Bill. As I was idly flicking the pages, I came across this sentence:
"A local authority may not dispose of their interest as mortgagee of land without the prior written consent of the mortgagor".
When I discovered what that meant I learnt that in fact it was wrong. What the Bill intended to say was that a local authority must not dispose of its interest.
As a result of discussions with my advisers, I discovered that the word "must" was not usual in statute and, therefore, the word "shall" would be appropriate. This is the result of my damp cogitations. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 5, line 22, leave out subsection (2).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with this I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 20 to 23 en bloc.
I hope that the House will appreciate that this is a good and effective piece of consumer affairs legislation. This set of amendments is designed to protect borrowers whose mortgages are transferred either after they have withdrawn their consent or where the consent has ceased to have effect; for example, because it was given more than six months before the disposal was actually made.
It would cause a great deal of uncertainty if disposals made in good faith were subsequently declared void because someone had inadvertently overlooked a withdrawal or an expired consent. In the art of
776
conveyancing it is essential that documents of title (which include, in these circumstances, the consent) can be taken at face value. The Bill contains, therefore, a procedure which enables a local authority to certify that consent has been given and has not been withdrawn. This implies a duty on the authority to satisfy itself, before certifying, that this is in fact the case. Nonetheless, mistakes can occur, and if by chance something has gone wrong the certificate will validate the disposal.
As my noble friend Lord Elton told your Lordships' Committee, we want to ensure as far as possible that borrowers who find their mortgages transferred in this way will have the right to require the matter to be put right. The amendments achieve this. If the House requires me to do so, I can go into great detail on this complicated situation, but I doubt whether that would be your Lordships' pleasure. Assuming that, I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 5, line 27, at end insert ("and if consent is withdrawn or ceases to have effect the authority shall return to the mortgagor any document in their possession by which he gave his consent.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 5, line 28, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
("(4) A disposal made without the consent required by this section is void, subject to subsection (4A).
(4A) If consent has been given and the local authority certify in the instrument effecting the disposal that it has not been withdrawn or ceased to have effect, the disposal is valid notwithstanding that consent has in fact been withdrawn or ceased to have effect.
(4B) In such a case any person interested in the equity of redemption may, within six months of the disposal, by notice in writing served on the local authority, require the authority, the transferee and any person claiming under the transferee to undo the disposal, on such terms as may be agreed between them or determined by the court, and execute any documents and take any other steps necessary to vest back in the local authority the interest disposed of by them to the transferee.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 5, line 36, leave out ("and").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 5, line 38, at end insert—
("(c) require a local authority making a disposal to secure that notice of the fact that the disposal has been made is given to the mortgagor, and
(d) prescribe the form of that notice and the period within which it must be given.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 24:
Before Clause 10, insert the following new clause:
("Retirement and re-election not to affect membership of joint authority
.—(1) In section 32 of the Local Government Act 1985, after subsection (1) (appointment to joint authority to terminate if person appointed ceases to be a member of constituent council) insert—
"(1A) For the purposes of this section a person shall not be treated as ceasing to be a member of a constituent council where he retires by virtue of—

(a) section 7(3) of the Local Government Act 1972 (retirement of metropolitan district councillors), or

777

(b) paragraph 6(3) of Schedule 2 to that Act (retirement of London borough councillors),

and is re-elected to membership of the council not later than the day of his retirement.".
(2) In section 31 of that Act (replacement of members of joint authority), at the end add—
"(3) Where a constituent council exercises its powers under this section to replace a person who has continued to be a member of a joint authority by virtue of section 32(1A) below and notice is given not later than seven days after the council's annual meeting next following his retirement and re-election, his appointment shall terminate and the new appointment shall take effect upon the notice being given.";
and in subsection (2)(b) after "subject to" insert "subsection (3) below and to".
(3) In Schedule 12 to the Local Government Act 1972 for paragraph 6A (annual meeting of new authorities) substitute—
"6A.—(1) Paragraph 1 above applies to a joint authority as it applies to a principal council, except that the annual meeting of the authority shall be held on such day between 1st March and 30th June (both inclusive) as the authority may fix.
(2) Paragraph 1 above applies to the Inner London Education Authority as it applies to the council of a London borough.".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, as I explained at Committee stage on 24th February, under existing statute, owing to a technical defect in the Local Government Act 1985 and the way it works with the Local Government Act 1972, it could happen that in a local election year there could be a period of about a month during which the London fire and civil defence authority and other joint authorities, though not, I should add, ILEA, were without elected members. The legal position is the same in the metropolitan counties, but the difficulty is less because only a third of the district councillors retire in any one year. The Government have therefore consulted the relevant local authority associations on what needs to be done about this. This new clause is the result of that consultation.
9.30 p.m.
Subsection (1) of the new clause provides that membership of a joint authority established under Part IV of the 1985 Act should not cease if the cessation results from his retirement by virtue of local elections, provided he is re-elected at those elections. This is analogous to the provision made for local authority committees in Section 102(5) of the 1972 Act. So re-elected councillors would remain on the joint authorities.
This, however, produces a consequential problem. Under Section 31(2) of the 1985 Act members recalled by their constituent council can normally only be replaced after one month's notice. This would delay the effect of the new council recalling, if it so wished, the appointees whose tenure had been extended by the new clause.
Subsection (2) of the new clause resolves this difficulty by disapplying the requirement of one month's notice in such cases, and allowing the new council to make the new appointment with immediate effect, as if they were filling vacancies rather than replacing the member. However, it would be unreasonable for this susceptibility to accelerated recall to persist throughout the appointee's term, so this expedited procedure is only to be available in a case where the constituent council give notice of the change not later than the end of the seventh day following the day of their own annual meeting for that year.
Subsection (3) of the new clause is necessary because there would remain a possibility that new appointments will not be made in time for the joint authorities' annual meeting. Paragraph 1 of Schedule 12 to the 1972 Act provides for the constituent councils to have their annual meetings, in a year of ordinary elections, on the eighth day after the date of retirement of councillors or on any day within 21 days from that date. In a year such as 1986, when the elections are held as late as 8th May, this could mean no annual meeting being held until 2nd June. Yet the joint authorities are required by the same paragraph, as applied by paragraph 35 of Schedule 14 to the 1985 Act, to hold their annual meetings by the end of May. Subsection 3 therefore makes an amendment to the 1972 Act having the effect of requiring the joint authorities to hold their annual meetings before the end of June. The reference to ILEA in the subsection merely maintains the existing provision.
The new clause necessitates an amendment to the Long Title of the Bill to take into account these adjustments. I should also add that the new clause will not apply to the Common Council of the City of London because the council retires annually in December.
I have gone into some detail because it is a matter which I regretfully bring late to the House. However, I think I have given enough to show the way in which it is drafted, and I beg to move.
Baroness David: My Lords, I cannot resist a comment. The Minister said that he has to bring this forward now because of a technical defect in the 1985 Act. It just goes to show that that Act was brought forward in a very great hurry and had not been carefully enough considered, and there have been a lot of tidying-up operations ever since. We hope that this will perhaps be the last of them. This again forces a change in the Long Title of the Bill. However, naturally we shall not have any objection to the amendment, but I could not resist that comment.
Lord Elton: My Lords, with the leave of your Lordships, I cannot resist saying that in the small hours of this morning I reflected on the hour at which the noble Baroness had tabled some of her amendments. The drafting was perhaps a little less good than it should have been, but we are all friends here and I shall not reproach her. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Orr-Ewing Lord Orr-Ewing moved Amendment No. 25:
Before Clause 10, insert the following new clause:
("Contracts of local authorities.
. In section 135 of the Local Government Act 1972 after subsection (4) insert—
"(5) Any provisions in standing orders under subection (3) above shall be unlawful if it prohibits or could cause or permit the prohibition of the employment of a person or imposes restrictions or could cause or permit the imposition of restrictions on the employment of a person on any grounds which are not related to competitiveness or to competence to execute the work or of supplying goods or materials provided that it shall not be unlawful to make such reasonable provision as is necessary for the purpose of complying with any enactment for the time being in force.".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is an interim Bill, as we have been reminded once or twice, which deals with the Widdicombe interim report. During the debates the Government have told us on a number of occasions, when we have sought to draw attention to some grave omissions, that they will be dealt with when the full report becomes available, and the follow-up legislation.
However, I am always worried when those assurances are given because sometimes governments run out of time, or they run out of steam or they run out of the will to carry on. Therefore, I always urge governments to grab the opportunities to set matters right or at least to reduce abuses when they have the chance. There have been one or two growing and glaring abuses which have been very costly to the ratepayers and to the taxpayers. The amendment seeks to draw attention to, and one hopes stop, some of those abuses.
As has been pointed out by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, however good the Act, it will not be very effective unless people are able to take action quickly, effectively and relatively cheaply so that they do not become bankrupt in the process or if the law turns against them.
I want to draw attention to what has been happening in the civil contracting area. In the early part of last year the construction industry was given a specific and unconditional undertaking by the Government that legislation to deal with abuses would be introduced in the current Session of Parliament. A number of firms continued to tender for major defence contracts in the secure belief that the Government would be as good as their word. They now find that certain Left-wing local authorities are changing, varying and abusing the tender lists and inquiring whether certain firms, which have in all honour won contracts, have affiliations either with South Africa or have undertaken nuclear work. I do not know whether that includes nuclear power stations, but it certainly includes cruise missile sites. Sometimes—and this has happened as regards Manchester and Tameside—tendering firms are being asked if they have ever contributed to political funds during the past five years. It is retrospective: if they have done any of those things in the past five years then they are not allowed to tender even though their tenders may be the cheapest, the best and save the ratepayers' money.
Birmingham City say that anyone attached to South Africa may not tender. Leicester City say that anyone who has nuclear contacts may not tender. Stoke City say that anyone who has South African contacts may not tender. Cambridge City say that anyone with South African contacts may not tender. Tyne and Wear have the same stipulation as regards South Africa as do Derbyshire County Council. Peterborough Council have stipulations as regards nuclear contacts, particularly the Molesworth site which is not too far away. The London Borough of Southwark say that if a firm has done any work on nuclear sites, it may not tender.
I am sorry that the Government's original intention to put the matter right seems to have faded and perhaps they can explain to us why. They may even
780
argue that one case has been brought and won. The case was the Leicester Rugby Football Club against the city council over the council's attempt to discriminate against the club because one or two members of that club had, of their own volition, played rugby football in South Africa and so they were not allowed to use the grounds. The case was won. However, that does not mean that Leicester City Council have stopped doing it. They have continued to do exactly what they were doing previously. So although they have been found guilty in the courts, if we do not have any teeth to our legislation and we do not have effective sanctions, the abuses will go on. I am afraid that I cannot accept the situation because it has not cured the ill.
If contractors were to seek to deal with cases of abuse under the existing law through the highly uncertain, long and expensive procedure of judicial review, each case would have to be dealt with on its individual merits. One council may well be faced not only with one case but with a whole series of cases. The position needs to be set right. There seems little doubt that if the councils concerned were taken to law, they would take the matter right up to the House of Lords in each case and in the process the firms affected would be subjected to highly damaging and further discrimination. Even then, given the very understandable reluctance of the courts to interfere with the discretion of an elected local council, there is serious doubt as to whether they would win.
Therefore, I ask my noble friend to say that we have an opportunity in this Bill to set the matter right and to honour the promises which the Government made, presumably in good faith, to the civil contracting industry. If they do not take action, if they do not express views, then I fear that this process, this practice, this malpractice, will spread to the detriment of the councils, and particularly of course to the detriment of the ratepayers who foot the bill. I beg to move.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, this is a particularly nasty new clause. I certainly hope that the Minister will have no truck with it.
Lord Orr-Ewing: Why?
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I will explain why, at length.
Lord Broxbourne: My Lords, not at length, just clearly.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: And clearly. Clearly at length. The purpose of this amendment is to remove from councils the powers they have for what is called contract compliance. Contract compliance is comparatively new in this country but not new in many other countries. It is the right, the power, the ability, and the need of people paying for goods and services—and that is not only to supply them, but to be in business and make a profit out of supplying them—to have some say and indication in the kind of practices which the suppliers of their goods are carrying on. That is perfectly honourable and defendable. Although I was not aware of the individual roll of honour of local authorities which have taken—
Lord Orr-Ewing: Dishonour.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Roll of honour. Those authorities, in their interpretation of their role of serving their local people, have decided, whatever their views—and the two issues were of South Africa and disarmament and the nuclear issue—not merely to use words but to take some action within their gift. I say they are perfectly entitled to do that.
Let us examine what this amendment seeks to do. The amendment would affect not merely issues affecting the civil contracting business. I may be wrong, but by and large this was the narrow field of business to which the noble Lord referred. He said that abuses had come to light, and that the Government had let the noble Lord down in that they had not carried out their promises. The main complaint of the noble Lord was that he had been let down by his Government.
Rather than wait for the Government to take action, I understand, he has, quite fairly—although, having looked at the Long Title, I am not certain whether a new clause of this kind is within the scope of the Bill, but no doubt the Minister and his advisers will indicate this—sought to have the matter debated, and that is perfectly proper.
Many councils have in their standing orders—and that is what we are talking about—a requirement for contractors to honour nationally negotiated wages and conditions. There are requirements on such matters as training; the number of apprentices; health and safety; and action on sexual and racial discrimination. This amendment would rule out such practices except where there were legal requirements—an example would be the 3 per cent. quota for employment of disabled people under the Disabled Persons Employment Acts 1944 and 1958.
I stand to be corrected, but that would be the effect of the amendment, whatever the purpose. Surely we are not going to say to a council seeking to spend the ratepayers' money and to manage the affairs of the town to the best of their ability—but they are also politicians, because that is why they are in control and their politics have prevailed—that it would be unlawful, when compiling a list of acceptable people to tender, to lay down those things. I say that that would be completely wrong. The alternative is for an authority to spend the ratepayers' money without knowledge, knowing that some practices may be carried on by suppliers of services which they believe are anathema but which they allow to continue. It is possible that the noble Lord and anyone else who wishes to speak may intensely dislike the carryings on by a council and its putting money where its mouth is.
9.45 p.m.
I have been given a brief which is full of the examples of discrimination that exist particularly against women and ethnic minorities. This discrimination occurs not only in small firms, but particularly in large firms. I do not speak about the civil engineering or contracting industries. If an authority wants to redress what it considers to be an imbalance in employment I see no harm in that.
I have an example here of an inner city district of Bristol, St. Paul's, where Unigate, a large organisation, had two black workers out of 111. One has to believe
782
that that is accidental. But it is not accidental. There is a need to correct the imbalance. If an authority decides to leave it to someone's good sense or any such means to correct the imbalance, with respect that will not do. An authority that is moved to discriminate positively in telling employers that what they do is entirely up to them must say that as a council it will not give ratepayers' money, if there is an alternative, to a firm which operates in that way.
The noble Lord is closer than I am to the CBI.
Lord Orr-Ewing: No, my Lords.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, he may be very far away, but I am a bit further away than very far away. I believe the House will accept that he is closer to the CBI than I am because of his past very creditable record in industry. This is what its director general has said:
"I believe that it is in the country's interests for everyone to develop their full potential in employment, irrespective of their sex, race, colour or creed. Employers have an important role to play in this by taking positive steps to ensure equality of opportunity at work. To do otherwise would not only be unfair to the individuals concerned, but also socially and economically short-sighted.
"For this reason the CBI has decided to issue to its members and to the general public a formal statement of its own commitments to the principle of equal opportunities in employment".
This House is well aware of this matter because of our debates. Part of the Scarman Report—the noble and learned Lord has always been helpful to us—said:
"discrimination—by employers and at the workplace—is a factor of considerable importance, and one for which the sustained efforts of the local authority, the Careers Service and the Manpower Services Commission to place young black people in work cannot easily compensate.
"All the evidence I have received, both on the subject of racial disadvantage and more generally, suggests that racialism and discrimination against black people—often hidden, sometimes unconscious—remain a major source of social tension and conflict … Changes in legislation are not, however, I suggest, the principal requirement if discrimination is to be rooted out".
I could go on but I shall not. The illustrations that the noble Lord gave in support of his amendment certainly do not commend themselves to me. I cannot understand how the noble Lord can make out a case for a public authority, in spending public money, deciding that it wishes to do so with caveats and restrictions on who shall be the beneficiary and recipient of ratepayers' money. These are democratically elected councillors. They are regularly subject, unlike many of the boards of directors in the companies from which they are purchasing, to change and defeat, and to challenge in many other ways. I certainly hope that the Minister will have no truck at all with this amendment.
Lord Broxbourne: My Lords, I certainly had not intended at this hour of the night to inflict any observations on your Lordships, particularly in view of the fact that the case for the new clause has been so clearly and eloquently made by my noble friend, but I am provoked to do so by the speech of the noble Lord from the Front Bench opposite to which we have just listened, and, in particular, by his reference to what he calls "contract compliance". This is not a term of art in the building and civil engineering industries. It is a very recent importation with no very well established pedigree.

783
If I may say so to your Lordships, I speak with perhaps some little background of experience in these matters. I practised for many years in building contract cases and in civil engineering contract cases, appearing for builders, civil engineering contractors, building owners, local authorities and private and public parties. I am also, and have been for many years, the author of Annotations on the Standard Forms of Building Contract. It is just going into a new edition, and the publishers have decided to re-name this work, Walker-Smith on the Standard Forms of Building Contract. But I could not resist pulling their legs to this extent, that they waited until I changed my name before they changed the name of the publication.
But against that background of experience I feel impelled to tell your Lordships that contract compliance, in the sense adverted to by the noble Lord opposite, is a heresy in regard to our normal practices in building and civil engineering contracts. Of course, there are conditions which are germane to the actual execution of the contract works. Of course, fair-wages clauses and such like take a place, a natural and proper place, in the standard forms of building and civil engineering contracts. But my noble friend's new clause is not directed to that at all. It is to matters being taken into account extraneous to the operation of the works—political matters which should not figure in these contract cases. I hope therefore that my noble friend the Minister will reject the heresies of the noble Lord opposite, who, if he cannot adopt the ipsissima verba of my noble friend's new clause, will at any rate take to heart the words of wisdom with which my noble friend has instructed your Lordships.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I recognise that strong feelings have been aroused by abuse of the contractual process by a few local authorities who seek to discriminate against contractors on purely political grounds. I dare say that if the political grounds were different from those which the noble Lord opposite has said were so acceptable, he would find them less acceptable than he does. I am glad to say that the vast majority of authorities wish to have nothing to do with such provocative posturing.
I must make it absolutely clear that we share my noble friend's concern at the introduction of noncommercial considerations into the contractual process. However, we have informal but distinguished legal advice that the existing law is adequate to deal with the more blatant examples of political discrimination such as the banning of contractors connected with the cruise nuclear programme or those who have South African connections.
Local authorities must act reasonably in the discharge of their functions and they risk a successful challenge in the courts if they abuse their powers. I recognise that companies and their trade organisation face a difficult problem in deciding whether or not to challenge such abuses in the courts.
My noble friend will recognise that there are problems in drafting legislation, to which the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, referred, in the only passage of his speech with which I could feel a certain amount of sympathy. The difficulty of drafting
784
legislation to prohibit political discrimination without, on the one hand, restricting the imposition of desirable though not strictly commercial conditions concerning, for instance, equal opportunities and health and safety matters or, on the other, seeming to invite the courts to say that anything not actually restricted in such legislation, is by implication permissible.
This is not therefore a matter that we can expect to get right simply by introducing a brief provision on the Report stage in the revising Chamber. I am sure my noble friend is well aware of that and that it was his intention in putting down the amendment with, I think, the support of the Federation of Civil Engineering Contractors, to probe the Government's policy on this issue. He will recognise that the amendment as drafted would in fact have no direct effect on the mischief that it is intended to prohibit. It is most unlikely that an authority's standing orders would make provisions for excluding contractors on ideological grounds, and grounds which might be those favoured by the noble Lord opposite or they might be absolutely reprehensible to him.
Exclusion takes place when the local authority draws up a list of contractors and the standing orders do not apply at the stage when the list of contractors is drawn up. But I assure my noble friend and your Lordships that we by no means under-estimate the seriousness of the problem. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has therefore invited the Building Employers' Confederation and the Federation of Civil Engineering Contractors to liaise with my department with a view to establishing how best to proceed. If appropriate provisions can be drafted, and it can be shown that the benefits from further legislation outweigh the risks I have described, we will give every consideration to legislating at the earliest opportunity. In the meantime, I still hope that a company will challenge this blatant abuse of the contractual process in the courts and thereby uphold the well-established principle that in this area, as in all others, local authorities must act reasonably and in accordance with the fiduciary duty owed to their ratepayers. In the light of what I have said, I hope that my noble friend will agree to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, I should like perhaps to disabuse my noble friend opposite because I think he may be mistaking me for Hamish Orr-Ewing, who is a remote cousin of mine and much more closely connected with the CBI than I am. I think I have been only once through their portals in my 37 years of parliamentary life. So I think that the noble Lord has got the wrong On-Ewing; but it does not matter because he bears the right name!
I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Broxbourne for his contribution. His masterly knowledge proves that you have to be very careful speaking in this House, even at this late hour, because you may get a very knowledgeable chap sitting opposite to you and that brings sense to the discussion.
I am grateful to my noble friend for having assured us that he will initiate some discussions, because this is a growing practice and, as he quite rightly says, it is both serious and highly undesirable. I am not now referring to normal standards about injury, colour and women—all those are absolutely right. I accept those

785
as part of the contract, as my noble friend said, but I do not accept a political connection in that a firm with an honourably-accepted and competitive tender for work which may be laying down roads in some RAF base should be henceforth excluded even though their tenders may be the lowest and their work most efficient. I would wish my noble friend rapid success in bringing the parties together to try to establish a code of conduct; and on those conditions I beg leave to withdrawn this amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
In the Title:
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 26:
Line 6, leave out from ("amend") to ("the") in line 7 and insert ("the law as to the effect of retirement and re-election of, and").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is consequential on Amendment No. 24. I should like to take this opportunity to satisfy a convention which I believe to exist, though I am not certain, and to say that the special status of the Common Council of the City of London will necessitate a minor amendment to Clause 6 on Third Reading. Even if there is no convention, I have now satisfied it. My Lords, I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, in moving that the House do now adjourn I am sure that my noble friends would like me to express the Government's gratitude for your Lordships' speedy consideration of the Bill and the good humour with which the proceedings have been conducted.

Alcoholics Anonymous (Dispositions) Bill [H.L.]
Committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.
House adjourned at one minute past ten o'clock.