Lords Sitting of 19 March 1986

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Leicester.

Heathrow-Gatwick Helicopter Link
Lord Harris of High Cross: 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 can justify the ending of the helicopter link between Heathrow and Gatwick, in view of their acceptance of the need to operate the two airports as a "dual hub" for the London area to continue competing successfully against international competition.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, in accordance with a direction given in 1984 by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport the helicopter link ceased on 7th February this year. British Caledonian has applied for a new licence to the Civil Aviation Authority, who have granted it but referred the matter to my right honourable friend. He is now considering the Civil Aviation Authority's decision, the transcript of the hearing and the many further representations on the decision which have been submitted to him. He has not yet reached a decision.
Lord Harris of High Cross: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for that courteous reply. I should like to press him on two related matters. The first is whether he and his right honourable friend are aware that international travellers transferring between Heathrow and Gatwick now have to suffer the inconvenience and delay of going through baggage, immigration and Customs control twice over, which is avoided by the helicopter link? Secondly, are he and his right honourable friend aware of the danger both to British airlines and to British airports from the consequent loss of business, which will only benefit our competitors in Europe and the United States?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I assure the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross, that my right honourable friend is fully aware of both the points he makes. The problem is very complex. There are cogent arguments on both sides. There are the commercial advantages to be weighed against the environmental disadvantages. I shall certainly remind my right honourable friend about those points, but I am sure he will be taking them into account.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the commercial advantages to which he refers are very substantial in this matter, involving the risk of the transfer of interlining traffic from British airlines and British airports to Schipol or Charles De Gaulle airports? In view of the attitude throughout the
960
aviation world to the major importance of this issue, will my noble friend press his right honourable friend to come to an early decision to have the service resumed?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, my right honourable friend will come to a decision as soon as possible. I shall certainly convey my noble friend's remarks to him.
Lord Underbill: My Lords, is it not a fact that this link was used, on average, by some 90,000 passengers a year? Can he say what are the noise levels involved compared with the noise levels for landing aircraft? Can the noble Viscount also say whether helicopter flights would come within the limits of air transport movement at both Heathrow and Gatwick?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, the noise number index, or NNI, is the accepted method of measuring noise disturbance. For the information of your Lordships, 35 NNI is the low annoyance rating and 55 NNI is the higher rating. The highest NNI value caused by the air link over the proposed route is estimated to be under the low annoyance rating; that is, 27.5 NNI.
On the ATM limits, as the link is between Gatwick and Heathrow my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport has made clear in another place that he has no present intention to set an ATM limit other than at Stansted.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, may I urge my noble friend to consider again this suspending of one service before an alternative method is in place? It is unthinkable that we, the hub of European traffic, should put ourselves at a grave disadvantage, more particularly when the noise factor is below the 35 NNI which is measured. Can we not have an early decision? If not, ought we not to have a special debate in this House underlining the urgency of replacing what ceased on 7th February at the earliest conceivable moment?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I remind my noble friend that the helicopter service was first introduced on a trial basis in 1978. It was renewed for a further five years in 1979 and was not intended to last beyond the opening of the M.25. But I shall draw my noble friend's remarks to the attention of my right honourable friend, who I hope will be making a decision within weeks rather than months.
Lord Rugby: My Lords, does the noble Viscount the Minister envisage any chance of there being a direct express rail link between the two airports which will not stop anywhere in London?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I do not think that matter has been considered.
Lord Polwarth: My Lords, will the Government bear in mind that at the inquiry into this matter it appeared that much of the noise to which exception was taken by objectors could not be directly attributed to this service but was due to general aircraft and helicopter movements in the area?
Viscount Davidson: Yes, my Lords, I am aware of that.
Lord Morris: My Lords, if my noble friend said, as he did, that this service was intended for a trial period of five years from 1979, how can he say that it was not intended to extend the service longer if it was run for a trial period?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, it was introduced for a trial period in 1978. The renewal application was approved in 1979 to run to 1984, but it was then stated that that trial period would end when the M.25 was opened.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, although the Minister said that there was no intention on the part of the Secretary of State to have a limit on ATMs at either Heathrow or Gatwick but to have one at Stansted, assuming that he is compelled to have a limit on transport movements, would helicopter movements be included or would they be excluded?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I am informed that the air link would be affected.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, will my noble friend consider that, if the M.25 was an alternative, surely it is possible to lay on a sealed bus from transit area to transit area so that people transferring do not have to go through Customs and immigration at both ends? They would have to go through no Customs and immigration to catch another aircraft to their Continental destinations, and thereby they would not go round Britain but would use Britain, to the great benefit of British arrangements.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I think that I may be beginning to suffer from schizophrenia. I see my noble friend Lord Glenarthur sitting beside me. I think that that matter could be one for the Home Office as well as for transport. But I shall certainly bring it to the attention of my right honourable friend.
Lord Harris of High Cross: My Lords, if the noble Viscount were a betting man, what odds would he give us that there will be an answer that is both early and favourable?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I have to say that that is a hypothetical question, as I prefer not to bet.

Museums and Galleries: Funding
2.44 p.m.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will encourage museums to boost their funding through their own enterprise.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Lord Belstead): My Lords, yes.
962
The Government propose to change the system of funding the nine national museums and galleries supported from the arts programme. The aim is to give the institutions greater incentive to maximise their receipts and to use them more effectively.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, I thank the Minister very much for that reply. Will the Government encourage museums to organise independent exhibitions and other things for which the public can pay and which will bring in money to them? Will the Government allow that money definitely to go to the museums themselves?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the answer to that is definitely yes. Perhaps I ought to remind my noble friend that there is a Private Member's Bill in your Lordships' House which would seek to end that, but that the Government do not agree with that particular Bill.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, do we really want to "boost" museums?
Lord Belstead: No, my Lords; in that sense I do not like the word either. But we want to improve their independence and their general financial state; and, if I may say so, nothing could have done more to that end than the Budget of my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer yesterday.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that, as his answer indicated, there is some contradiction in this House asking the Government to encourage the museums to use their own initiative to increase their fundings when within the last ten days noble Lords have given a Second Reading to a Bill which would knock the very base from underneath the trustees of museums being able to do just that? Is he aware that, fortunately, the House has the chance to mitigate some of the excesses of that Second Reading tomorrow night when it goes into Committee?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the Government believe strongly that the trustees of the institutions must have the freedom to introduce charges if they believe that that is right in the particular case of their own institution. At the same time, in 1983 the Government gave a manifesto undertaking that we would keep up Government support for the arts, and this we have done. This Question is about museums and galleries. Since 1979 Exchequer funding of national museums and galleries financed by the office of arts and libraries has increased by 19 per cent, in real terms.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that we on this side of the House support all methods of fund raising, including business fund raising, which I was instrumental in starting when I was Minister for the Arts? Is he also aware that we are wholly opposed to charges for entry to museums, and that such charges should not be associated with fund raising? There are the two things to be considered: on the one hand, fund raising by all legitimate means; but, on the other, charges for entry to museums, and even invitations of a semi-compulsory nature of that sort

963
for entry, are to be opposed as they have the effect of reducing very rapidly the numbers of people visiting the institutions.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, perhaps this is something that we ought to discuss on the noble Lord's Bill tomorrow. I congratulate the noble Lord on introducing the concept of business sponsorship for the arts in, I think, 1975. At that time, business sponsorship for the arts was running at about half a million pounds. Today it is running at £20 million.

Nuclear Weapons Test Ban Treaty Negotiations
2.48 p.m.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what response they will make to the proposal by General Secretary Gorbachev of the Soviet Union that the USA, the UK and USSR should resume the trilateral negotiations for a comprehensive test ban treaty abandoned in 1980.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Young): My Lords, our view remains that a resumption of negotiations would be premature before progress has been made towards resolving outstanding issues, particularly verification.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness whether she is aware that I raise this issue for a second time this week because of its supreme importance? Does she not agree that a ban on nuclear weapons tests would be the greatest contribution towards ending the escalation and worsening of nuclear weapons? Is there not a danger that in view of the West's attitude the Soviet Union may not renew its unilateral decision not to carry out these nuclear weapons tests; and will the Government consider that, irrespective of any delay in a summit meeting, it might be possible to have a trilateral negotiation on this particular subject to prevent the acceleration of the arms race?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I am aware, of course, that the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, raised a very similar question on Monday. I have read both his Question and the answers which were given on that occasion. I am also aware of the sincerity with which he asks his questions and the strength of his feeling about the issue of nuclear testing. May I make it quite clear that the Government would also like to see progress made but, as I have said to him and as my noble friend Lord Trefgarne said to him on Monday, what is important is that we should be quite sure that we can have the tests verified. We are not sure that the verification is possible at this present time. Until it is, we cannot enter into something when it would be possible for one of the parties to the arrangement to cheat.
Lord Chelwood: My Lords, how does one reconcile what one hopes is a genuine desire on the part of Mr. Gorbachev to restart negotiations with the way in which he turned down out of hand at a few days' notice what seemed like an extremely important offer from President Reagan to share the latest American know-how on verification, which is surely the key to this question?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I very much appreciate the point my noble friend has raised in his supplementary question. Of course we welcome President Reagan's statement that if we are able to agree on verification proposals he is prepared to move forward on the ratification of both the threshold test ban treaty and the peaceful nuclear explosions treaty.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, would the noble Baroness agree, therefore, that we should give top priority to verification programmes? Can she say what funds we are applying to these programmes? Also, can she comment on what appears to be the new attitude of the Soviet Union towards verification and the offer of India and other countries to join in a programme of scrutiny and monitoring? Do Her Majesty's Government support that?
Baroness Young: My Lords, if I may take first the last point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, the six-nation offer was made last October to set up monitoring stations on their territories as part of an international monitoring network, and it was not directed to the United Kingdom but towards the United States and the Soviet Union, immediately before the Geneva summit. But even with third party monitoring, we have some doubts that the testing moratorium would be adequately verifiable. Third parties could have a role to play in an adequate verification regime for a comprehensive test ban treaty; and of course these ideas could be pursued at the Committee on Disarmament.
On the other point the noble Lord raised, the recent proposals that were made by the Soviet Union in response to the American proposals are in fact a renewal of the moratorium. But of course it does not overcome the difficulties which we find in gestures of this type. The Soviet offer to exchange observers is on request only: it seems therefore that it is not the verification we require.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that the implication of many of these questions is that somehow or other Britain is a warmongering nation and that Russia is a peace-loving nation and that because of our obstinacy we will not agree to what is regarded by Russia as a peace move? As she rightly refers to verification, would she kindly spell out what it is the Russians are objecting to in allowing so-called comprehensive test bans not being verified in a proper way? Is it not very clear that if they do not agree to verification of the kind that is simple and right then they are phoneys—that's all, just phoneys?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I agree with very much of the noble Lord's supplementary question. It is very important that we should find methods of verification I and that politically there should be the confidence to

965
believe in them. Unhappily, neither of those two exist at the present time although we wish that was in fact the case. What Mr. Gorbachev said before Christmas was an appeal to the United States to join the Soviet Union in a moratorium, but he said that any verification proposals would be dependent on a prior United States acceptance of a moratorium—and that of course would be something very difficult to accept.
Lord Boston of Faversham: My Lords, the Minister said these were matters which could be raised in Geneva. Would she say whether in fact they are going to be raised there? On President Reagan's recent invitation to the Soviet Union to view new verification procedures in Nevada next month, does she not feel that the very fact the President has issued that invitation is a further indication that there is overwhelming evidence that verification is no longer a problem and therefore there is no longer any reason to delay a resumption of talks for a comprehensive test ban treaty?
Baroness Young: My Lords, we have welcomed the renewal of the United States invitation to the Soviet Union to send observers to Nevada. We regret that the Soviet reaction has reportedly, once again, been negative on that matter. Referring to the Conference on Disarmament, of course negotiations referring to that would be premature before progress has been made towards resolving all the outstanding issues, and especially verification. In answer to the earlier question, that is obviously a forum where matters of verification could be pursued.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, could the noble Baroness say what the response of the Government has been to the offer of the Swedish and Indian Governments to help in the negotiations about verification?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I hoped I had given the Government's response when I answered an earlier supplementary question on the six-nation offer. The six nations are of course India, Sweden, Argentina, Tanzania, Greece and Mexico.

Tanzania: Aid
2.56 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what is their new policy towards aid to Tanzania.
Baroness Young: My Lords, there is no new policy on aid to Tanzania. We have told the Tanzanian Government that we are ready to provide balance-of-payments support once economic reforms are in place along lines advocated by the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. Meanwhile, we are continuing to provide modest capital aid to maintain recently completed major projects such as the Songea-Makambako Road and for certain other rural
966
development and health projects. We also maintain a significant programme of technical co-operation for English language training, for the universities and for the Tanzania Harbour Authority.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that it has been reported that when her honourable friend the Minister of State visited East Africa she said that no further British aid would be forthcoming for Tanzania until Tanzania had agreed to the IMF conditions? Is that the policy of Her Majesty's Government, or was that misreporting?
Baroness Young: My Lords, my honourable friend Mrs. Chalker was reported as saying that we would give no more aid until Tanzania agreed with the IMF. We are not offering aid, except where it is needed to ensure that existing projects remain effective, such as providing for road maintenance. Further aid must depend on an economic climate in which we could expect it to bring real benefits.
Lord Oram: My Lords, does not the first Answer of the noble Baroness indicate that there is considerable linking between the provision of aid to Tanzania and their performance in relation to IMF proposals? Is it not wrong that we should be appearing to administer our aid programme almost as the agents of the IMF, because has not that organisation already imposed deflation on quite a number of economies in the third world and thereby substantially contributed to the global slump?
Baroness Young: My Lords, the reason for the original Answer I gave is that we believe that Tanzania should conform to the principles laid down by the IMF and if they did not do so the benefits of any aid would be short-lived and largely wasted. There is need for a structural adjustment. Aid that allows developing countries to delay making reforms that are necessary can in fact do more harm than good.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, if it is clear that any aid we give will not take into account how the recipient country reacts to the recommendations of the IMF, would that not be tantamount to undermining IMF influence and suggestions?
Baroness Young: My Lords, yes; that indeed was the point that I was making. The aid that we are giving is in support of specific projects to which we have already contributed to make quite sure that they remain effective, but at the same time we hope that Tanzania will accede to the requests of the IMF.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, is the noble Baroness not aware that there has been widespread criticism of the policies imposed by the IMF in many third world countries over the past few years? There have been criticisms from all sides, as my noble friend has pointed out, because those policies have led to deflation and to a reduction in the standard of living of third world countries and contributed to the world depression. Does the noble Baroness not agree that Tanzania is a shining example in Africa of a country that has concentrated on rural development, which has less corruption in administration than most third

967
world countries have, while at the same time it is suffering from commodity price reductions which are hitting its economy very strongly? Does she agree that Tanzania is one of the countries that Her Majesty's Government wish to assist, but not simply according to the dictates of the IMF?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I think that if the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, looks at my original Answer to his Question he will see that I have made it quite plain that we have not cut off aid to Tanzania but that it is being provided in specific instances. Indeed, we are spending £14.5 million on aid to Tanzania in this financial year. That includes £5.8 million on technical co-operation to provide training, teaching and advice. Although we have great sympathy with the economic problems with which Tanzania is faced, we believe that the IMF programmes and World Bank assistance remain central to the task of structural adjustment and economic policy reform, and indeed for restoring economic growth and for the management of its debt problems.
Lord Chelwood: My Lords, how confident can we be that British aid for Tanzania, to which I am in no way opposed, actually reaches the targets for which it is intended? Have there not been great difficulties over that question in the past and can we have some reassurance on it?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I think it is precisely for the reason that my noble friend has identified, that there have been difficulties in the past, that the greatest care is taken to try and ensure that the aid that is given reaches the people for whom it is intended.

Business
3.2 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon, my noble friend Lady Young will, with the leave of the House, repeat in the form of a Statement an Answer which is to be given in another place to a Private Notice Question on the recent discussions with the trade unions over GCHQ.
With the leave of the House, I should like to say a brief word about the length of speeches in this afternoon's debate standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bottomley, to which your Lordships have agreed to apply a five-hour time limit. On the principle that the mover is allowed approximately 20 minutes and that the Minister should rise to reply not less than 25 minutes before the scheduled end of the debate, all other speeches could be as long as 15 minutes. If any noble Lord should speak at even greater length he would be doing so at the expense of other speakers in the debate.

Voluntary Organisations and Abolition of MCCs
3.3 p.m.
Lord Bottomley Lord Bottomley rose to call attention to the needs of voluntary organisations following the abolition of the GLC and Metropolitan Counties; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it is my intention to deal generally with voluntary organisations and then to mention those voluntary bodies with which I am particularly involved, and briefly to explain the difficulties caused to them by the abolition of the GLC and the metropolitan authorities. I am sure that there are many other noble Lords who have expert knowledge and experience who will highlight the problem now facing voluntary organisations which has been caused by the present Government's policies.
All our social services have their origins in voluntary efforts. Many have now been taken over by central and local government. We remember people like William Booth of the Salvation Army, Octavia Hill, who was concerned with the housing of the poor, Benjamin Waugh, the founder of the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, Thomas Barnado, whose name still survives in the homes that he provided, Charles Booth of the London School of Economics, who wrote the outstanding book on social services, and Canon Samuel Barnett, founder and first warden of Toynbee Hall.
Toynbee Hall is an outstanding example of voluntary service to the enrichment of life and extended education for deprived sections of society. This university settlement in the East End of London celebrated its 100th anniversary last year. Among many leading personalities who gave their services voluntarily were the late Sir Huw Wheldon, Sir William Beveridge, and Clement Attlee, the post-war Labour Prime Minister.
Toynbee Hall is associated with the beginnings of free legal advice, the Workers' Educational Association, the Citizens' Advice Bureaux. The first Citizens' Advice Bureau was established at Toynbee Hall. They now operate throughout the country and their offices are staffed mainly by volunteers. Any member of the public can enter a Citizens' Advice Bureau and obtain free, confidential and impartial advice on any subject. I was associated with the Citizens' Advice Bureaux when I was a Member of Parliament for Middlesbrough, and I know of their excellent work.
Last week I met the centre organiser in Middlesbrough who told me how valuable an Asian part-time assistant was in dealing with the minority groups; there is a substantial number of ethnic minority groups in Middlesbrough. She told me that because of lack of money they would soon have to dispense with her services.
In Rochester, for which I first sat for Parliament, an association of carers was formed in 1981, with the help of the Equal Opportunities Commission, to assist and advise anyone caring for a disabled or elderly relative at home. It proved highly successful but its future is now insecure. The association made repeated requests for a grant for the current year without success. Caring for disabled and elderly people at home saves the Government millions of pounds, but if the association of carers does not receive financial help, it may have to give up that voluntary work.
The Middlesbrough law centre provides an important service for deprived sections of the urban area of the district. Middlesbrough Council has been helpful, but the pressure on public sector funds gives

969
little hope to its being able to meet its present commitments, let alone pay for the increased pressure on the service.
The abolition of the GLC and the metropolitan authorities will cause great difficulties for the arts, the theatre and for sports organisations. The local authorities were generous contributors to the funds of those bodies. If money is not forthcoming, it will mean that young people will be deprived of adequate training facilities and equipment to enable them to improve their own skill and initiative.
Other countries realise the value of their young people competing in world events such as athletics, swimming, football and cricket and putting up good performances. National pride constrains them to do better than we do in providing the facilities for young sportsmen and women to give of their best. Other members of society are being denied opportunities to enjoy visits to the theatre. The threat to Sadler's Wells is an example. Art galleries and cultural centres are having to restrict their activities.
I live in the London borough of Waltham Forest. That council asked the Department of the Environment for £900,000 to help voluntary organisations which until then had been funded by the GLC, but the council is to get only one-third of this amount. This means that voluntary bodies, such as the Co-operative Development Agency and the Council for Voluntary Services, will not get sufficient money to do their work satisfactorily. Many other voluntary organisations are closing down altogether.
I am chairman of the Attlee Memorial Foundation. The foundation pioneered Phoenix House, which is doing excellent work in curing drug addiction. The foundation is also responsible for creating and running a playground for able-bodied and disabled young people in Tower Hamlets. There, Asian and other young people can join together in games and entertainment, thus establishing good race relations. With the abolition of the GLC, it is uncertain whether funds will be available to carry on this good work. In the Tower Hamlets district, many voluntary bodies previously getting help from the GLC have been told that they can get no further financial assistance. The same can be said of other districts. In Merseyside, for instance, there are many organisations which are being denied help.
In the early 1960s, Middlesbrough shared the doubtful distinction with Notting Hill of facing the first racial upheavals in the country. The council took immediate steps to keep the problem under control and to prevent it happening again. As part of this campaign, the council has provided an international centre which, incidentally, I opened last Saturday. The place was packed to capacity with representatives from Asian, African, Middle East and West Indian communities. To be sure of success, more money is needed, but government policy is making it difficult for this to be provided. Speaking last weekend at the Conservative Party Conference in Felixstowe, the Prime Minister paid a particular tribute to workers in victim support schemes. She said that they had helped 125,000 people last year. She also said, "They do wonderful voluntary work."
The Government are to give a grant of £130,000 to help the National Association of Victim Support Schemes in their work. But the National Association of Victim Support Schemes considers that the grant is insufficient to meet the needs of many schemes currently facing extreme financial difficulties. Accordingly, there is little chance that the grant will be adequate to alleviate the problems of those schemes which are likely to be affected in the next financial year, due to the abolition of the GLC and the metropolitan authorities.
Last month Princess Anne launched the South Save the Children Fund. The proceeds of the fund will go towards projects maintained by the Save the Children Fund in the third world. Some local authorities are sympathetic but now say that they are unable to give any money.
Voluntary organisations vary in their purpose, size and sophistication. I have mentioned the national charities. There is also the multitude of smaller groups which put so much effort into their particular subjects. Among these are the many local resident groups, those concerned with bringing help to people in distress, self-help groups set up by unemployed people and many ethnic minority organisations. It is clear that these voluntary organisations make a valuable contribution to the wellbeing of our society. They provide services and assistance for those in need: small groups can often operate more rapidly and flexibly in response to requests for help; they mobilise volunteers and other community resources and they bring new needs to our attention and are not constrained by an identity with authority.
In these difficult times with mass unemployment, with so many people living close to the poverty line and with an increasing proportion of the population who are elderly, we need to provide positive support and encouragement for voluntary organisations. People have more free time than they have ever had, through enforced unemployment, redundancy, early retirement or a reduced working week. This represents a tremendous reservoir of skills and experience. We cannot tackle the problems of society alone. We need the commitment and valuable work which voluntary organisations provide.
The VAT concessions to charities which were announced in yesterday's Budget are very welcome. They will, for instance, help such bodies as the Spastics Society. That organisation was taxed on goods which had to be purchased to provide the care, education and advice for those who suffer from cerebral palsy. The more facilites that were provided, the greater was the tax burden. The VAT concessions will therefore enable more work to be done.
Another welcome move by the Chancellor is the encouragement by tax relief given to workers who contribute through the payroll and companies which make gifts to voluntary bodies. But these concessions do not compensate for the reduction and, in many cases, the abolition of grants previously made by the GLC and the metropolitan authorities. The needs of voluntary organisations are very real. Some are in the process of winding up their affairs. The help offered to charities in the Budget will not assist them in providing the services that they were able to give before.
In 1978, the Wolfenden Committee produced and published a report on the role of voluntary organisations. It was then estimated that 5 million people worked voluntarily for some organisation every year. This voluntary work was equivalent to that done by at least 400 full-time staff. The Government have established a transitional fund with a budget of £20 million to fund single district voluntary activity in the metropolitan county and Greater London Council areas.
The mechanism for transitional funding is very similar to that used for urban aid and comprises 75 per cent. Department of the Environment funding and 25 per cent, district or borough funding in the first year, with the department's contribution declining to zero in 1989–90. Final allocations by the Department of the Environment were announced on 12th February. The councils were then informed of the projects which the department had approved. This has meant that local authorities have not had time to agree which voluntary organisations they are prepared to fund by 31st March. As a consequence, many organisations which were unsuccessful in receiving approval from the department and will not now have an assured alternative funding, have staff working through redundancy notices and are in danger financially.
Some organisations have attracted European Social Fund money. At present, this depends upon the metropolitan county and the European Social Fund matching each other's contribution pound for pound. If the transitional allocation is less than the current and anticipated funding given by the metropolitan counties and the GLC, then the ESF money of the same amount is also lost. This is therefore a double blow.
Collective arrangements are provided for in Section 48 of the Local Government Act 1985, and enable districts or boroughs within the metropolitan counties and GLC to establish a scheme for funding collectively countrywide voluntary sector work. These collective schemes are not working except in one case where there has been a substantial arrangement—the Richmond scheme in Greater London. Greater Manchester too has provided a budget, but in the case of West Yorkshire there has been no budget. In Merseyside, there has been no agreement and in the West Midlands, where belatedly last month it was agreed to fund five organisations, there has been none of a social welfare nature. There are no schemes in South Yorkshire or Tyne and Wear.
The timetable for this post-abolition funding scheme is hopelessly inadequate to enable the voluntary organisations to put their bids into the scheme, receive the outcome and plan accordingly for their future funding if necessary, or to enable the local authorities to provide a working scheme and to provide fair and considered responses to grant applications. Voluntary bodies depend on voluntary contributions as well as grants from central and local government and their earnings from commercial undertakings and investments. There is a vital role to be played by voluntary organisations in a wide range of services to the community. It is very desirable that those who voluntarily give of their time, love and talents to help others should share with those who are
972
professionally engaged in caring for the less fortunate members of society.
The Government are expecting more and more effort and achievement from voluntary bodies and yet making it more difficult for them to do their work. I was a member of the post-war Labour Government when the structure of the modem welfare state was established. There were many who questioned the need for voluntary social organisations. We now realise that voluntary effort is needed more than ever to blaze the trail for fresh development and to keep authorities in touch with basic needs. I beg to move for Papers.
3.25 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Glenarthur): My Lords, it is clear from the list of speakers that many of your Lordships welcome the opportunity this debate provides to discuss the possible effects of abolition on the voluntary sector, and that they will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bottomley, for raising the matter and for the concerned and clear manner in which he has expressed his views. The Government also welcome the debate. It gives me an opportunity to set out the Government's position and to remind your Lordships of the action we have already taken to help, as the noble Lord, Lord Bottomley, said, this most important aspect of our national life.
Let me first say where the Government stand. Contrary to the impression that the noble Lord, Lord Bottomley, has just given, we have a first-class record of support for the voluntary sector. Central government grants to voluntary organisations have risen from about £93 million in 1979–80 to more than £224 million in 1984–85, an increase of over 57 per cent, in real terms. The Manpower Services Commission has also provided increasing support for voluntary organisations engaged in programmes for the unemployed. In 1984–85, it is estimated that such payments amounted to more than £414 million. Through the urban programme and other schemes we have promoted increased funding for voluntary bodies by local authorities. And we have helped voluntary bodies in less direct ways, particularly by improving the treatment of charities. Since 1980, we extended tax relief for gifts by covenants to the higher tax rates; we reduced the minimum period for donations by covenants from more than six years to more than three; we exempted direct gifts and bequests to charities from capital transfer tax and development land tax; and we extended VAT reliefs for medical equipment and aids for the disabled.
In addition to all that, your Lordships will have noted the far-reaching proposals contained in the Budget speech of my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer yesterday. In it, he proposed three new types of tax relief: first, on donations by companies. Companies (other than close companies) will be able to claim tax relief for one-off gifts to charity, broadly in the same way as they can now claim relief for gifts by four-year covenants. The relief will be on gifts up to a maximum equal to 3 per cent, of the ordinary dividends paid by the company. Secondly, there is higher rate relief. The Government will remove the present annual limit of £10,000 on the amount of charitable giving through deeds of covenant

973
for which an individual taxpayer may claim higher tax relief. Thirdly, there are payroll deduction schemes. There will be a new scheme from April 1987 to encourage individuals to make donations to charity through deductions from their wages and salaries. Employees of participating firms will be able to get tax relief on donations of up to £ 100 a year. So I think our credentials in this field are impeccable. There are no grounds whatever for believing that we would deliberately or by neglect inflict serious damage on the voluntary sector.
Last year, during the Committee stage of the Local Government Bill, my noble friend Lord Elton gave specific assurances that it was not our intention to damage worthwhile voluntary activity through abolition. In support of those assurances, we provided a package of measures. Funding of the voluntary bodies concerned is of course a matter for local authority decisions, and the measures were designed to facilitate the change for voluntary bodies which now have to seek funding from districts rather than counties. Let me remind your Lordships of those measures; and no doubt my noble friend Lord Elton, when he comes to reply, will answer particular queries.
First, we ensured that local authorities have the powers they need to fund voluntary bodies. In Section 48 of the Local Government Act 1985 we provided the power to set up collective schemes for funding countywide voluntary bodies. This was a new power and supplemented the numerous powers individual authorities already have to fund the voluntary sector. In particular, it ensures that boroughs and districts operating Section 48 schemes do not have to fund countywide projects under Section 137 of the Local Government Act 1972. We took that funding right out of the 2 pence limit.
Our second measure was to ensure that boroughs and districts have the resources they need. The rate support grant settlement ensured that successor authorities have access to all the resources that the GLC and metropolitan authorities would have had next year if they had still existed; and the settlement, as those of your Lordships from shire counties will know, took due account of the needs of our cities. I should make clear that there is no GRE for voluntary sector grants, but there are GREs that recognise the need for many of the services that voluntary bodies help to provide. And in London, where the value of GLC grants was particularly large and unevenly distributed, it proved possible to take specific account of the geographic distribution of £35 million of GLC grants to local voluntary bodies.
Thirdly, as well as all the existing resources, we added transitional grant. I must make it absolutely clear that that is extra support. It is not and never has been intended to support all the projects that boroughs and districts are taking on from the counties. Transitional grant is, if you like, an incentive payment to local authorities. It is an indication of the priority that we give to voluntary bodies. It recognises that local authorities have to make positive decisions to fund voluntary bodies. It is an encouragement for them to do so. But we have always made clear that £20 million did not represent a Government valuation of projects local authorities would take on. Nor were we surprised when it was oversubscribed. That was always
974
expected: we would have been surprised and disappointed had it not been. The transitional grant allocations have been made, and project approvals issued, and the Government's role there is virtually complete.
Fourthly, we took a whole series of actions to ensure that successor authorities considered the needs of voluntary bodies in good time. In April last year we gave a grant to the London boroughs, and seconded staff to Richmond, to ensure that what would be by far the most complicated and largest collective scheme got under way in good time. In May last year my honourable friend Sir George Young wrote personally to the leader of each metropolitan district drawing attention to the needs of voluntary bodies and urging early action both on individual grant giving and on collective schemes. He offered Government assistance with the costs of setting up collective schemes. What a pity it was not taken up in the way that it should have been!
In July last year the Local Government Act placed a duty on co-ordinating committees to consider the need for collective schemes—a duty that has been fully complied with. In August last year authorities were asked to submit initial transitional grant bids by mid-October, mainly to ensure that authorities would start looking at voluntary sector applications in good time.
All the indications are that, taken together, those measures have been effective. Let me deal with collective schemes first. Local authorities are under no obligation to report to Ministers on their actions, but I understand that in every area they have considered whether or not to have a scheme. In all the areas except Merseyside, there was a clear decision either to have, or not to have, a scheme. I must emphasise that decisions were taken. It was not a question of neglect or default. In Tyne and Wear, for example, the authorities saw a need for a collective scheme for projects dealing with economic development only. In the West Midlands, there was, I understand, a clear view that, wherever possible, voluntary projects should be funded by individual districts.
In Greater Manchester, positive decisions have been taken that some organisations are to be funded and some are not. In London and West Yorkshire, schemes have been set up and arrangements have been made for temporary support to organisations where final decisions have not been taken. In South Yorkshire and on Merseyside, the authorities are, I understand, in agreement that collective schemes are not the right way forward, but they have expressed their willingness to assist county-wide voluntary bodies on an individual basis.
Let me turn now to individual authority decisions. I must make it clear once more that local authorities have no duty to report to us either what their decisions are or when they take them. But my understanding is that many authorities have already taken their grant decisions, or will be taking them very soon. All but two of the Conservative authorities in London, for example, have made their decisions, and the other two are on the point of doing so. I have no doubt that councillors in those authorities where final decisions have not been taken are just as aware as we are of the needs and worries of the voluntary sector. I am sure that voluntary bodies are knocking on their doors as

975
loudly as on your Lordships' doors; and it must be the case that all authorities are capable of taking final decisions in time, as many have done already.
Both in collective schemes and locally, decisions will have been taken not to fund or to reduce funding for some voluntary bodies. Some of those cases will no doubt be mentioned today. But let me stress that those are decisions for local authorities: they, and they alone, are responsible for taking them. My noble friend Lord Elton told your Lordships on 20th May last year that there would be no Government interference with them, and that we could give no guarantees about what local authorities may in the end decide. The need for public support of local voluntary bodies is to be judged at local level, in the light of local priorities, by locally-elected councillors. Surely that local power to decide is the best basis for the difficult decisions that have to be taken.
I thought it important to stress early in the debate that the Government have provided local authorities with the means and resources to fund voluntary bodies-. The timetable for decisions has been tight, but not impossible. There is no reason why all authorities should not take decisions by the end of the month or, as in the case of the London boroughs grants scheme, provide interim funding where decisions have not been finalised. The worries expressed last year, that the boroughs and districts would not provide substantial levels of funding for voluntary organisations, have proved groundless. The worries that districts and boroughs would be unable to co-operate over voluntary bodies have been largely overcome.
I am confident that the final area of concern, that decisions may not be taken in time, will also prove to have been a worry without foundation, and I look forward to a flourishing voluntary sector in our cities for many years to come.

GCHQ Staffing Policy
3.37 p.m.
Baroness Young: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat the Answer that has been given to a Private Notice Question in another place on GCHQ by my right honourable and learned friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. It reads:
"Representatives of the Council of Civil Service Unions called on me yesterday, at their request, to discuss the Government's future intentions for staffing at GCHQ. I explained that the Government's decisions affecting GCHQ had been taken in the interests of national security to ensure that GCHQ's operations would, in future, be free from disruption. That objective had been achieved and there was no change in the Government's basic policy. The Government intended that this policy be applied as sympathetically as possible in individual cases.
"Over 99 per cent, of GCHQ staff members have accepted the revised terms of service. There is, however, a small number of union members at GCHQ who, from the outset, have not accepted the revised terms and conditions of service (the so-
976
called B and C optants). They have been offered alternative jobs or premature retirement on redundancy terms.
"A few of the staff who originally accepted the revised conditions of service and resigned from union membership (the so-called A optants) have subsequently rejoined. It follows from this that they are in breach of their conditions of service. In all fairness to the overwhelming majority who accepted and continued to honour those terms, they have been asked to honour their original commitment by resigning from the unions they had rejoined. If they fail to do so, they will be subject to disciplinary procedures.
"The union representatives asked me yesterday whether those staff would be liable to dismissal as a result of disciplinary proceedings. I informed them that disciplinary matters at GCHQ were of course the responsibility of the director of GCHQ and that he had informed the head of the Civil Service that he did not regard dismissal as an appropriate penalty in the proposed proceedings for those who had rejoined the union in the circumstances of the past months unless there were factors of which he was unaware. I stressed the importance of this explanation, which was welcomed by the union representatives.
"For all but the small number of people to whom I have so far been referring, the restructuring at GCHQ, designed to meet the special requirements of that organisation, is of course going ahead in consultation with the Government Communications Staff Federation. This will bring real benefit not only to the management of the operation but also to the overwhelming majority of GCHQ staff, who, I repeat, have accepted the revised terms of service".
My Lords, that concludes the Answer.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Baroness for repeating that Answer to the Private Notice Question asked in another place. We welcome the Government's prudent decision to retreat from their initial obdurate position and not to continue with the proposal to dismiss staff who have rejoined unions.
Can the noble Baroness explain fully the reasons why the Government decided to make this concession? What advice was given by Sir Peter Marychurch, the director of GCHQ? Did he recommend that dismissal was against the public interest? It is reported that those who have rejoined and those who never left the union could stay at GCHQ but that the first category—that is, the rejoiners—could face penalties such as fines and demotion. Can the noble Baroness say whether that is the case? Is a distinction being drawn between those who have rejoined and those who continued their membership; and, if so, why?
Finally, do the Government at last recognise that the decision in January 1984 to ban the union was, as a distinguished journalist, Mr. Hugo Young, said in the Guardian yesterday (and I quote):
"perhaps the single most unnecessary folly even this government has committed"?

977
Will the Government now reconsider the remarkable offer of a no-disruption agreement made by the unions and ask the unions whether that is still on the table?
Lord Rochester: My Lords, from these Benches I join in thanking the noble Baroness for having repeated the Answer to the Private Notice Question in another place. We are greatly relieved that the Government have now decided that GCHQ employees who rejoined their unions after receiving the £1,000 in compensation for loss, not of union membership but of employment protection rights, should not be dismissed. However, I should add in view of what the noble Baroness said that we think it would be deplorable if those employees, or any who after January 1984 remained in their union, were to suffer any other penalties such as fines or demotion.
The real issue, as we see it, remains that of the restoration of trade union rights at Cheltenham. I still hope that the Government might find it possible, at the end of the day, to reach some accommodation with the unions which would safeguard both our defence capability and trade union membership rights. If they do not, will not the inevitable result be that the morale of civil servants will suffer further damage at a location where it is essential that it should be sustained? Indeed, will not morale suffer more widely in the service as a whole? Will the noble Baroness the Minister bear in mind that the Alliance parties remain strongly opposed to the action taken by the Government two years ago and are committed to union membership rights being restored at GCHQ?
Finally, in the interests of continuity of public policy and of national security, we very much hope that even now the Government will reconsider the possibility of seeking some form of no-disruption agreement with the Civil Service unions at GCHQ which involves independent arbitration as a last resort in disputes concerning pay and employment conditions.
Baroness Young: My Lords, both the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, and the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, asked a series of questions on the Answer which I have given to the Private Notice Question. I will answer them in the order in which they were asked.
It is important to remember that 99 per cent, of employees at GCHQ have accepted the revised terms of service, so the Government have achieved their objective of ensuring the smooth running of GCHQ without disruption. Having achieved what we believe are our basic objectives, we wish to deal sympathetically with those other individuals.
The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, asked what advice the director of GCHQ had given. The director has made it clear that he would not regard dismissal as an appropriate penalty in the proposed proceedings for those who have rejoined in the circumstances of the past months unless there were factors of which he was unaware. As for the B and C optants, they have been offered alternative jobs or premature retirement. If these jobs are unsuitable and they do not wish to accept premature retirement, the search for jobs will continue. I want to make that plain to the whole House so that everyone will understand that we are, I
978
hope, in the circumstances, being both firm in our objectives and fair to those who are in GCHQ.
I was asked about the penalties for the A optants who rejoined the unions. As the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, will be aware, these are set out in the Civil Service code. I was also asked whether there was a distinction between those who rejoined and those who had continued in membership. Of course, those who have continued in membership of the unions—the B and C optants—will have had the offer of alternative jobs or premature retirement.
It is, of course, the A optants who will be eligible for the restructuring—this question was asked by both the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, and the noble Lord, Lord Rochester—and we believe that the new structure will cover all the GCHQ staff who have accepied the conditions and continue to comply with the Government's revised conditions of service. This is a major simplification of the structure of the grades and pay arrangements at GCHQ. Over 100 different grades will be assimilated into 15 grades specially tailored to meet the particular needs of GCHQ. In general, these grades will not have direct counterparts in the rest of the Civil Service; and, of course, GCHQ's primary work is different from that of the rest of the Civil Service.
Both noble Lords asked why we had not accepted a no-disruption agreement. There were discussions with the unions in 1984 on their offer of a no-disruption agreement. They were unable to give effective guarantees against industrial action, which is vital for national security. Even this limited union offer was subsequently repudiated by the conference of the two largest unions. This confirms the Government's belief that a no-disruption agreement does not provide a viable option.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, will consider that the points which I have made in explaining the restructuring of GCHQ, which we believe will give greater flexibility for management and increased pay for the staff, will be helpful to the morale of those who are working in this very important Government establishment.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Baroness a very brief question. In her answer the noble Baroness said that a search was being made for jobs. Could she say where these jobs are to be found, in what parts of the country, and what are the prospects?
Baroness Young: My Lords, my understanding is that the alternative jobs offered will be in other parts of the Civil Service. As I said at the beginning, it is our intention that we should try and offer jobs which are acceptable to the B and the C optants, if they prefer to look for another job rather than to accept the terms of premature retirement.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, I understood that the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, was not asking why the no-disruption agreement was not achieved but whether or not the Government were willing lo try again to get a no-disruption agreement. May I ask the noble Baroness the Minister if this is so? Arc they willing to try again?
Baroness Young: My Lords, as I hoped I had made clear in the answer to the first question that was asked, the Government believe that, now that over 99 per cent, of employees have accepted the revised terms of service, the Government have achieved their objective, which is to ensure the smooth running of GCHQ without disruption. We believe that this is now the right way forward. I explained in answer to the question that was asked why we felt that a no-disruption agreement was not a viable option.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that a sense of injustice still rankles among the civil servants at GCHQ and that the Government should try to settle that feeling by attempting to achieve another no-disruption agreement?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I hope the noble Lord will accept that 99 per cent, of those employed at GCHQ have accepted the arrangements which we have outlined. This fact, coupled with the restructuring agreement which will be negotiated between the staff federation at GCHQ and the Treasury, will, we hope, indicate to those who have agreed to these new terms the importance that we attach to their work and their conditions of service.

Voluntary Organisations and Abolition of MCCs
3.54 p.m.
Debate resumed.
Lord Banks: My Lords, perhaps we may now return to consideration of the position of voluntary organisations after the abolition of the GLC and metropolitan county councils. I am sure that the whole House is grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bottomley, for raising this very important matter this afternoon and for drawing the attention of the House to the disturbing situation which prevails.
I listened very carefully to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, and noticed that he began by defending the Government's general attitude toward voluntary organisations; but, of course, this afternoon we are not discussing that attitude or whether it is good or bad. What we are discussing this afternoon is a more limited but very important point, which is whether the position of those bodies which originally relied on the GLC or the metropolitan county councils for an essential part of their funding is satisfactory or not in the new situation.
It seemed to me that the criticisms which were put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Bottomley, were not in fact answered, at any rate at this stage, by the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur. The facts which I have in my possession indicate that the transitional system is not working smoothly nor well. As both noble Lords made clear, there are two principal methods of replacement funding. One is the collective scheme and the second is transitional funding.
Perhaps I may look briefly at the collective scheme, to which both noble Lords made reference. As your Lordships may recall, this is where the boroughs or districts agree by a two-thirds majority on the
980
operation of a scheme and one borough takes the administrative lead. In the GLC area some £27 million has been allocated for this purpose, but it is £1¼ million less than the director of the scheme felt to be necessary. The scheme is called the Richmond Scheme because the borough of Richmond is taking the administrative lead in it, though of course all the boroughs are involved and they spent some four months haggling over the budget.
It seems to me that the important fact is that most final decisions will not be taken until the end of this month, March, and barely a quarter of currently funded organisations will know by the end of the financial year whether or not they are to be funded next year. The House will appreciate that forward planning for voluntary organisations in those conditions is extremely difficult. I believe it is true that it is intended that funding should continue in the GLC area on the old GLC-funded basis for a further three months. Nevertheless, as the noble Lord, Lord Bottomley, has said, redundancy notices have already been issued. Some decisions have been made and some of the existing schemes will not receive further funding.
One example is the Citizens' Advice Bureau at Tooting Bec mental health hospital, which helps patients and families. I believe that the Conservative view is that it ought to be funded by the borough, but in point of fact the patients come from all over London and that seems to justify funding on a wider scale. At any rate, as I understand the position at the moment, there is to be no funding for that organisation.
The Richmond Scheme has taken the decision that it will fund only schemes which operate in a minimum of four boroughs. One wonders what will happen to those schemes which operate in two or three boroughs. Clearly they will have to apply separately to those boroughs. One wonders whether they will get an even-handed response from the different boroughs or whether they will fall between several stools.
When one looks round the rest of the collective agreement areas and the rest of the metropolitan areas, one sees that a budget has been agreed in Greater Manchester but, so far as I am aware, there is no budget covering social welfare projects in West Yorkshire, Merseyside, West Midlands, South Yorkshire or Tyne and Wear. I should like to ask the noble Lord who is to reply to the debate whether that is an accurate picture and that there are no welfare projects in those areas which are to be funded on a collective basis; and, if that should be so, do the Government regard that position as satisfactory? Also, do the Government agree that the timescale is indeed very restricted? In fact, the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, admitted that it was restricted, but do the Government agree that the restriction in the timetable is one of the factors which are causing these problems?
Turning to the transitional funding, which is money made available by the Government for Government-approved projects, as the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, explained, some £20 million has been made available for this arrangement, but again there is the problem of delays and the fact that decisions have not been made and organisations do not know whether or not they are to receive any further funding; and there is also the problem of a very restricted timetable.

981
The National Council for Voluntary Organisations made a request to the Government for emergency funds to allow the boroughs, districts and voluntary organisations to establish and understand those new arrangements. That would have given a breathing space and prevented an abrupt cut-off of funds. I regret that the Government have so far not felt able to accept what seems to be a reasonable and sensible proposal.
The Advice Services Alliance has commented in a most disturbing way on how in its view the Government are putting advice and law centres at risk. It issued a statement on that just last week, on 12th March. It points out that every working day over 35,000 people get advice from the country's 2,000 independent advice and law centres. It goes on to say that hundreds of advice centres are likely to lose all or some of their funding because of the abolition of the GLC and the metropolitan councils and because of rate limitation and changes in the urban programme policy.
The organisation argues that up to one half of the advice and law centres in Great Britain may close or face serious cutbacks. If that is correct—and it is put forward by a responsible body—surely the Government would agree that that is a serious situation. Incidentally, it has complaints about the general funding system. It says that funding from both central and local government is piecemeal and inadequate. It argues that the present funding situation is chaotic. Some seven government departments share responsibility for central government funding for advice centres, but none of them has the ultimate responsibilty; and that situation is exacerbated by the abolition of the GLC and the metropolitan county councils.
Perhaps I may give three examples of centres that may have to close. One is the Paddington Law Centre, which was formerly funded by the GLC. Its borough of Westminster has not put it forward for transitional funding. It applied to the Richmond Scheme, but it was turned down. It has no other sources of funding, and present funds run out on 31 st March.
Then there is the Merseyside Welfare Rights Resource Unit. That was funded by the Merseyside County Council. There is no replacement funding scheme for Merseyside, and there is no hope of help from Liverpool City Council. Private sources have provided the unit with three months' funding to cover salaries and running costs, but there is nothing further to come from those sources. On 31st March 1986 its current funding will cease; it has the three months, and no funds beyond June 1986.
The third example is the Acocks Green Advice Centre, which was funded as to 95 per cent, by the West Midlands County Council. It had not heard at 12th March whether it would get transitional or replacement funding. Its funding expires on 31st March 1986.
A month earlier, on 14th February, the National Association of Citizens' Advice Bureaux, which is one of the constituent bodies of the Advice Services Alliance, with at that time two months to go to abolition, said that 27 of the services that it provides for the bureaux throughout the country were still at
982
risk. I understand that the position today is that 11 are still at risk. It is not likely that those 11 will be saved, but even if they are it seems an unsatisfactory way in which to conduct the transfer—that bodies carrying out a valuable service should be put in that position.
The funding from the GLC and the metropolitan counties to the Citizens' Advice Bureaux service in 1986 was £850,000. I understand that as a result of intense negotiation with the local authorities in anticipation of abolition it has secured £483,000 of long-term, replacement funding, leaving £367,000 of Citizens' Advice Bureaux service funding with no guarantee of long-term continuation.
As I understand it, it was not the Government's intention that the CAB should suffer in that way. One recalls the reassuring remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Elton, during the passage of the abolition Bill through this House, and there is the statement made in October 1984 by Mr. Kenneth Baker, when he said:
"Turning to the abolition of the GLC and the metropolitan county councils, we are well aware of the concern expressed about the future of voluntary groups currently funded by these authorities. As you know, it is our firm desire that abolition should not in any way impede worthwhile voluntary endeavours".
Yet it is clear that as a consequence of that measure some wholesale voluntary endeavours are to cease; some are left in a state of great uncertainty; some are obliged to scurry around seeking alternative sources of funding in a haphazard way at the last moment; while all are subject to the pressure of a tightly restricted timescale.
I hope that in those circumstances the Minister will be able to say that the Government will, after all, accede to the request of the National Council for Voluntary Organisations for the provision of an additional measure of funding for one year only to allow an opportunity for that serious situation to be eased.
4.7 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark: My Lords, I must apologise first to the noble Lords, Lord Bottomley and Lord Elton, for the fact that I cannot stay till the end of the debate. Your Lordships will know that Bishops try hard to clear their diaries when taking part in a debate, but it is sometimes difficult, and I did not feel that it was right on this occasion to override the engagement that I have this evening.
Preparation for this debate has inevitably led me to reflect and to look back, as I am sure it has other speakers in this debate. In the Second Reading debate on the Local Government Bill last April, and in the subsequent debates, there were many cogent references to the near impossibility of effecting such a massive change in the structure of local government in the space of about 10 to 12 months. It was feared that many individuals might be hurt in the process (and I am not simply referring to voluntary organisations at this point) and that many problems, and not least those that affect the voluntary organisations, might still be unresolved by the day of official extinction. I remember particularly the noble Lord, Lord Plummer, with his experience of London government, referring to the especial difficulties of getting London boroughs to work together harmoniously and promptly if previous experience was any guide.

983
Those of us who were anxious, therefore, about the future of the voluntary organisations hoped that those gloomy predictions might nevertheless be proved wrong. But with 10 days to go, as the noble Lord, Lord Banks, made clear, it does not look like it. I have to say that in spite of what the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, said, he must know full well that it is a totally unsatisfactory situation for any organisation, even government, to have decisions about future funding left to the last few days.
As we have heard, morale is desperately low among those who face imminent redundancy and a threat to their future. I notice that the noble Lord puts the blame squarely on the local authorities. But the fact is that the timescale has been appallingly short, quite apart from the difficulties about evaluation and cooperation that were bound to arise in the early stages.
I want first, therefore, to express the very fervent desire that nothing like this will ever be allowed to happen again. Even if GLC forward funding saves the day in London by giving everyone more time, the stress and human cost has already been so severe that it will take a long time for some organisations, their staff and their management bodies fully to recover. The point at issue for many of us is not the continuation of every organisation without exception. I notice that Ministers are very careful now to preface the words "voluntary organisations" with the adjective "worthwhile". Clearly, there is a debate about what is meant by "worthwhile". However, the point at issue is that time is needed for that debate. Time is needed to make new and workable guidelines. Time is needed, surely, to behave in a responsible manner where people's jobs are at stake and perhaps a valuable community resource as well.
During the debate on Second Reading the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, chided me gently for not acknowledging the extent of extravagant and unnecessary spending by various local authorities. Having previously been a Minister in the Department of the Environment, he had good reason to know about some of that. The noble Lord had in mind in particular, I believe, housing. In some cases, the sums involved and the waste of resources have, I know, been very considerable. I should therefore like to take this opportunity of accepting the criticism and making that acknowledgment now.
I am indeed aware that some of the grants made to voluntary organisations, by the GLC, for instance, invited criticism and that the public has in consequence gained an overall impression of extravagance and extremism. But in fact the amount involved in such disputable grants was not large, especially taken as a percentage of the whole. A vast range of necessary and important work has been sustained by these grants over the past few years. For the sake of pruning back some suckers, if that is what we are about, the whole tree of voluntary and statutory partnership has been, and is being, exposed to very considerable strain.
I should like to illustrate this, and what it has meant, in two particular ways that have not so far been mentioned. I shall try not to produce too many particular illustrations because I recognise that other speakers will want to do this later. However, the first that I shall mention is certainly, in large measure,
984
concealed from the public view. The London Voluntary Service Council estimates that the equivalent of about two and a half members of staff, full time, have been used over the past two years in coping with the endless problems and acute uncertainties created by the scale and manner of the reorganisation. The director himself estimates that he has had to spend over half his time on this issue for the same period. He has been increasingly unable to tackle all the other issues that press upon such a body in our largest city and national capital. That has been the experience of many voluntary bodies—their best executives spending more and more time trying desperately to find or secure funding at this critical moment.
The second example concerns children's services. As one commentator has put it,
"Voluntary groups have been forced into being played off against each other".
Child care seems to be coming off worse. Different councils have reacted in different ways. But in many inner city boroughs in London—Tower Hamlets and Lambeth in particular—it looks as though many child care projects will be coming to an end either this April or next, depending on the GLC forward funding. These are not causes or areas that are likely to attract large amounts of private giving. Nor can the projects be run with a skeleton staff. You cannot allow that to happen where you are working with children.
Looking to the future, two key questions emerge. One is that of persuading or helping local authorities to support work done by voluntary organisations when their own statutory services are under pressure. The noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, referred to this last April. As a former director of social services, she can see all too clearly, I am sure, what might lie ahead. The Government have of course maintained that the demise of the GLC and the metropolitan counties will enable the boroughs and the districts to use all or part of the rate that the GLC or the county would have levied in order to sustain the work for which they accept some responsibility. This was mentioned in the reference to the rate support grant. But it is not actually happening very much, and in some cases not at all, even with transitional funding. And the signs are that it will not. Both Conservative and Labour controlled authorities, although for different reasons, seem agreed that the other pressures are simply too great.
I wish therefore to ask the Minister whether the Government will reconsider their earlier refusal to enlarge the Section 137 rate or, as an alternative, consider introducing a small rate of a similar kind specifically for the support of the work of voluntary organisations within certain broad, defined criteria. At present, local authorities are claiming that they do not have the funds available even though allowance has been made in the overall rate support grant or in other ways. And of course transitional funding is going to taper away to nothing over the next four years. What is needed, I believe, is some visible mechanism that makes the connection obvious. While this would still be a charge on the rates, it would be easier to justify, would leave room for the local voice and give statutory expression to the partnership with voluntary organisations that the Government, I know, are very anxious to sustain.

985
My second question is to ask the Minister whether he would consider setting up a departmental review of the decisions now being made by the London boroughs' grants scheme and its metropolitan equivalents, and by individual boroughs or districts, to see what has actually happened to all the applications, the criteria that have been used and the difficulties encountered, and to see which organisations have fallen between two stools, and why. I refer to this business of not being eligible for cross-borough or collective funding and not eligible for single borough funding. It seems that the tug-of-war between central and local government on the one hand and between cross-borough funding and single borough funding on the other is causing acute problems for certain organisations such as the CAB, already mentioned, the family service units, or, to take one specific case, the Spitalfields care workers in Tower Hamlets.
The Home Secretary emphasised recently that law and order issues are complex, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, did in his report on the Brixton disorders. If the problems of the inner city are not to be solved simply by pumping money into new buildings, setting up new organisations, or in other ways that are felt to be extravagant or not to serve the purpose intended, no more will they be solved simply by pumping more money into the police forces and taking it away from voluntary organisations in order to pay for that. Yet this is how the equation is almost beginning to look.
Far from the difficulties we already face being eased, I believe they will get steadily worse if voluntary organisations diminish still further. I hope that we can all unite today in our determination to preserve and strengthen all the good work which is already going on through voluntary effort in the community to reinforce the fabric of society against the many forces that are undermining or attacking it and to give some relief to those organisations which at the moment see their existence threatened within a week or two.
4.20 p.m.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, I begin by thanking my noble friend Lord Bottomley for initiating this debate. It is well that we should bear in mind that it relates to the needs of voluntary organisations following the abolition of the GLC and metropolitan counties. If I may say so with respect, calling in aid yesterday's Budget announcement has no immediate relevance to what we are discussing although in the long run, undoubtedly, the help to charities will be of assistance.
The record of my noble friend Lord Bottomley in the field of social service and of public activity is equalled only by that of his wife, Lady Bottomley.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, it is right that I should pay tribute to her as well in the course of this debate. Without her, how far would the noble Lord have travelled, I wonder?
However, we have already had notable speeches on this important question from my noble friend and
986
from the noble Lord, Lord Banks, and right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark. In due course we shall be examining with care what the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, has said in his attempted explanation. I would not call it exactly an attempted vindication of what has been done so far by the Government, because it is abundantly clear that a great deal has been left undone.
There is one common factor which will be accepted by all sides of the House and by the Government as well; namely, the value and importance of the network of the 2,000 or so independent advice and law centres which exist, many spread over different parts of the country.
I attended the meeting of the Advice Centres Alliance, to which the noble Lord, Lord Banks, referred, on 12th March. I noted that the Government sent a PPS along to that conference, where experts in the field had gathered from all parts of the country. As a former PPS I remember how important the work performed by those who carry out little errands for Ministers of State is. The PPS was a very admirable young man who said frankly that he had come to listen and not to take part in discussions. There it is—and I must not hold that too severely against the Government. I appreciate the seriousness with which both the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, and the noble Lord, Lord Elton, approach this problem.
However, at that conference we learned that about 35,000 callers call at the advice centres every day for advice. About half the centres are Citizens' Advice Bureaux (CABs). Last year they dealt with just under six million inquiries covering the whole range of social, personal and family problems. It is a remarkable achievement that our society has created this on a largely voluntary basis. I shall say a little more about that in a moment.
Some people go to these centres needing advice as to how they should try to solve their problems. Others need immediate professional legal advice and representations. Broadly speaking, the CABs and the law centres meet both contingencies, with some overlap on the part of both.
The volume of work that the centres have attracted has shown how deep is the need that they are attempting to meet. Ministers in this House and elsewhere have admitted their importance and value. Indeed, we were impressed by the assurances given, I am sure in the utmost good faith on his part, by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, that abolition of the GLC and the metropolitan county councils would not damage that valuable voluntary sector. The noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, gave the same assurance today.
Unhappily, those promises are not being fulfilled. We have already had some examples given. Voluntary organisations in London and in the metropolitan counties are facing utter confusion. In the conference to which I have referred, on 12th March, of the Advice Centres Alliance they wrote in their joint declaration by all the major advice networks in the United Kingdom:
"The present funding situation is chaotic. No one government department has overall responsibility for funding, although seven departments,"
as has been indicated by the noble Lord, Lord Banks,
"have some involvement".

987
They continue:
"The result is a large variation in legal and advice provision between different areas. Each year existing agencies are faced with financial insecurity, and forced to divert valuable time and resources to the annual round of funding negotiations".
Those existing difficulties have been greatly aggravated by what has followed: the abolition of the GLC and the MCCs together. That, I regret to say, was done in a hurry without forethought of the grave consequences. There was no Royal Commission which preceded it, and no careful examination of its implications for local authorities or the people involved. We are now paying a high price for the failures to anticipate and now the inability of desperate last-minute measures to put the situation right.
I greatly hope that the message which will emerge from this debate is that the Government must introduce immediately an emergency funding package to provide for the contingency funding at existing levels of voluntary organisations currently funded by the GLC and the MCCs until the various successor schemes which the Government have introduced can begin to function efficiently. As has been said, something along that line has been proposed by the National Council for Voluntary Organisations as well.
If that immediate action is not taken, it means a sentence of death on many of these valuable organisations. So far the successor schemes have failed to deliver. We have had some examples in the speeches we have heard already. In London—and there are similar critical problems elsewhere—out of about 700 currently-funded organisations which have applied for funding only 118, I am told, know their fate and their future. Hundreds of currently-funded organisations have no idea what their future will be or when it will be decided. How can we run any organisation on that basis, whether voluntary, commercial or professional?
I understand from sources in the Greater London Council that only 80 per cent, of approved grants will be paid this year because of staff shortage. At this stage we are entitled to ask whether the London Residuary Body will guarantee to pay out in full all grants already approved. That would be something. At least we should have expected that.
With regard to borough funding, very few London boroughs have yet taken decisions as to which of their local voluntary organisations they will be able to support in the next financial year. A large number are left in the dark. Time will not permit the detailing of the numerous pleas that I, and I am sure most of us will have received for help from these centres. My own particular concern has been with law centres and I have already had two "goes" (if that is the right word) at the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and another Minister on that matter.
May I say at once that I regard law centres as being in a very special position, not only because I have taken a personal interest in them and indeed was present at the birth of several of them, but because they are concerned with the giving of legal aid and advice. Access to justice is an essential part of any civilised society. It is an essential part of the rule of law in this country and elsewhere. We pride ourselves on it. Surely the provision of legal services should be a central, national, governmental funding responsibility. It is not a matter for local authorities.
988
Very often there is inevitable conflict between what a legal advice centre may recommend and the interests of the borough council concerned. I remember one experience of that, and I hope that my right honourable friend to whom I am referring will not mind my telling this. I opened the Adamsdown Law Centre of Cardiff, the constituency of the then Prime Minister. With great kindness and willingness he attended the opening. Six months later he said, "What on earth have you done to me? Your Adamsdown Law Centre has enabled one of my constituents to bring an action. Because she has broken her leg falling down a hole in the pavement it will cost the ward £60,000 to put the pavements right". That is exactly what law centres are for and what they were doing; but one can well understand that not much love was gained in the relation between the centre and that particular area. However, that may not be characteristic. I hasten to say that the enthusiasm of my right honourable friend Mr. Callaghan for law centres has continued in spite of that experience.
There is no time to give more than an example or two of the fate of some of the law centres. About 12 years ago I opened the Paddington Law Centre. It now has 239 current cases. It is scheduled to close on 27th March when its funds will run out. The Westminster City Council has refused to help it and transitional funds are not to be forthcoming. The centre, which employs eight people, has an extensive workload. Well over 200 cases are outstanding. Most of the staff have been given redundancy notices and will have to leave by the end of the month. What a lot is lost by the loss of these staff and the law centres.
The emergence of law centres is a tribute to the largely voluntary young men and women—lawyers and non-lawyers alike—who brought them into being, prompted not by wanting to make money, but by the stirrings of their social consciences. They have shown that they are willing to help in the face of the miseries and worries which they see around them. The support of the few paid lawyers and a mass of volunteers will give way to disruption because of the destruction of some of these centres. In many cases they will be irreplaceable; they cannot be replaced.
Another startling example is the Liverpool 8 Centre which covers Toxteth, a place which calls for as much support as can possibly be given, especially by way of legal aid, if further riots and unrest and attempts to take remedies outside the law are to be avoided. This centre is left with no public funds for the new financial year. So far it has raised a few thousand pounds from charitable sources. The last time we debated law centres the suggestion was made that they should do more by collecting from charity themselves. There is a limit to that, and the limit has been reached.
In view of that ominous object above, the clock, there is no time for me to take the matter further. However, the need to rescue these imperilled centres is very great. This is a situation of the Government's own creation. I shall not go into the merits of whether or not the GLC and the metropolitan councils should be abolished. However, the effect and result of abolition has hit this area in a way which I do not suppose the Government really anticipated. It is certainly not something for which they have provided. Now, unless they deal with this situation, created on their own

989
responsibility, the consequences of doing nothing in terms of social order will be grave indeed. What has already happened in some of the inner cities ought to be warning enough.
4.37 p.m.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, I take part in this debate with very great pleasure, more particularly because the noble Lord, Lord Bottomley, has initiated it. The noble Lord and I have had a long association with voluntary organisations ever since the war, when my sister and I started the North Riding Association of Youth Clubs and the noble Lord helped us very much. He was then Member of Parliament for Middlesbrough. Therefore, I congratulate him very much on initiating this debate and it is a very great pleasure to take part in it.
It is also a very great honour to speak immediately after the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones. I happen to know that the noble and learned Lord has a great interest in legal matters to do with voluntary organisations, and is also interested in the mental health situation as he is president of an organisation with which I am closely associated. Therefore, all of us here today are (as we often are in your Lordships' House) in no way in opposition to one another but are anxious to do the right thing and to find the right way to do it. That is not at all an easy task.
I can remember the time when local authorities did nothing at all about voluntary organisations. I sat on the first government youth committee set up by the Ministry of Education in about 1938, and our job was to try to make the education committees in all local authorities pay some attention to and do something for the training of young people in voluntary organisations. I can remember travelling around the country making speeches in order to try to get local education authorities interested in voluntary organisations. That was quite a long time ago. However, it was a start and it has been growing ever since.
It is impossible to over-estimate the enormous value of all the societies that have been discussed here today, which I shall not go into, because at the end of the day they save local authorities so much money. They receive millions of pounds worth of help from personnel which they would never be able to provide in terms of cash. That is one of the reasons for us to urge all the boroughs who are taking over these responsibilities to realise from the start that assistance to these societies is an investment, not an extravagance. This is something that will bring things to them. If they had to pay for everything done by the voluntary organisations, these things would not be done. This is something that the Government should take into account in the financing.
I understand that it is difficult for the Government to follow up everything that is happening in the boroughs at present. I agree with those people who have said that time is an important factor in all this. There is too little time to organise properly. I only wish that there could be an interim period in which the arrangements could be made and financed by the local authorities. But if the local authorities do not fix matters up quickly enough it would be a thousand pities if what is being done suddenly has to come to an
990
end. That is why I hope that the Government w ill give this their consideration.
There are many schemes which will work very well. The other day, I was looking at the Richmond scheme for London, where there is a budget of £27 million. I believe that will be a great success, but the tiding-over of grants from one borough to another is making everything difficult. The timing is difficult to estimate. That will be part of the responsibilities which this change will necessitate.
I have also been given papers by the National Society of Voluntary Organisations on voluntary sector loans or subsidies, which may be temporary, for £20 million for one year. The noble Lord, Lord Banks, has mentioned that, and he is right. Twenty million pounds sounds a lot of money, but it is nothing to what the local boroughs would have to pay if all these organisations come to an end. That would be devastating. I appreciate and understand the difficulty that the Government have, but there is a strong case to be made for some tiding-over, even if some of it had to be refunded from the boroughs eventually. But we should not let the whole thing collapse now, because to try to revive it would be enormously costly.
I was talking to someone the other day about the Arts Council and the help it has had from the Government, all of which I strongly support. It is vital that the work of the Arts Council should be strongly supported as a result of all this reorganisation. But the Arts Council is one body. Art is very varied, but it is still one subject. Voluntary organisations cover hundreds of different matters. It is not possible to amalgamate everything and put it into one body so that it can be easily run. It would be quite impossible to do that. Arts are one subject, but voluntary organisations cover a huge field of community work and activities. One cannot treat them by handing it all over to one centre, because there is not one centre that could handle it. It is extremely important to realise that the whole problem is so complicated and varied.
I was told (and I believe it to be true) that Liverpool and Merseyside, which has proved to be one of the most difficult areas, has refused to co-operate in the reorganisation. When the Department of the Environment offered £500,000 if the area would produce £300,000 to make the transition, it refused the £500,000 and it did not produce the £300,000. So far, Merseyside has not come together with any sort of joint scheme and therefore the fate of many organisations is in the balance. However, grants have been offered and it is up to Liverpool to receive those grants and to make the best of them. But at present, so far as I have been told, that metropolitan county refuses to do that.
There are a number of boroughs and councils that have agreed, are busy reorganising and will continue to give grants. That shows that it can be done. It is only a few areas that are proving to be so intransigent. On that, I have the sympathy of the Government because they are anxious to help; yet in places that help is not being accepted.
Looking at the situation today, it seems to me that the timetable is the real difficulty. It would help if more time could be given to the major organisations which, with their efforts, would put new heart into the activities of so many organisations. I know that the

991
noble Lord, Lord Elton, is a keen worker for voluntary organisations, as indeed is the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur. They will appreciate all that I am saying and will do their very best to help. But the local authorities must co-operate. The majority are doing so, but there are these one or two exceptions. I feel it is a great mistake. They should be pressed by their own ratepayers to help in these matters.
Finally, yesterday, when we heard the Budget for the first time, I was extremely encouraged by the items in the Budget that will help charities and voluntary organisations. If we can achieve that from the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Budget, let us try to get something else as well to tide us over, for I believe that at the end of the day it will work. I do not want it to be knocked on the head now when all it needs is another six or nine months to keep it going. I hope that the Government will realise that, while we are all supporting them in every way, there is this essential timetable which is so difficult to organise. If they could make an interim gesture, that would be of enormous help.
4.48 p.m.
Lord Rhodes: My Lords, I join those who have congratulated the noble Lord, Lord Bottomley, on the way he led the debate today. There is no one in this House better fitted to initiate such a debate because he has spent a long time caring for others. It was grand to see and hear him this afternoon. If we have to attend the pre-funeral rites of the Greater Manchester Council we should be allowed some indulgence in praising it.
When the GMC was set up, and we in Saddleworth were carved out of Yorkshire and thrust into Greater Manchester, we did not like it. We said so. But over the years that have intervened the GMC has proved itself to be a first-class authority. The fight against abolition has highlighted some of the achievements of the GMC during the past 12 years. Loyalties are a slow and tender growth and pride in our institutions is a precious thing. No authority in this country has done better than the Manchester Metropolitan Council in fostering that desirable thing. It is what our country is short of, is it not? It is time that some of our town halls woke up to the fact that a bit of prestige goes a long way in the world today.
The Government are clobbering it in about a fortnight, just when we should be celebrating its maturity as an imaginative authority. What is happening this week? The Queen is going to Manchester to open one of the finest new exhibition halls in Europe. It never would have come to pass if it had not been for the fact that the GMC stepped in and organised the rebuilding and rehabilitation of 26 acres behind the Midland Hotel, Manchester. It was the site of Manchester's old Central Station. A company was formed to refurbish and equip it as an exhibition centre of 10,000 square feet. Of course it has been a costly venture, but it has been worth it.
How could we have got Europe to subscribe, as they did, to Manchester if it had had to go through 10 local authorities? We in Manchester received in total £40 million. The GMC also did a good job in providing a more secure base for major organisations such as the
992
Hallé Orchestra. We have also increased the range of arts activities and so on on a county-wide basis. Now, with the demise of the GMC pending, the districts are likely not to embrace their new responsibilities, not because they are opposed to them in principle but because they cannot afford to exceed the limits particularly of non-statutory provision.
In addition, there is the extra burden that is being placed on local government councillors.
During this phase—and I am going to say something that is probably unusual—of the life of the GMC we have had a Lord Lieutenant in Manchester who has been a tremendous influence in furthering the prestige of Manchester and all that it has stood for. He has done a wonderful job.
The noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, when he replied to my noble friend Lord Bottomley, recounted some of the things that had been done by the Government. Let me just remind your Lordships of some of the things that have happened since the GMC received notice eight months ago. When the Local Government Bill became law at the end of last summer the districts and the county established a co-ordinating committee which got on with making the best of a bad job. They worked against a quite unnecessarily short period of time. They had only eight months, which was nothing like enough, in which to implement major changes. The introduction of joint authorities for police, passenger transport, fire and waste disposal is the least satisfactory unit of local government. It has placed extra burdens on local authorities, local councillors, and there must be some doubt whether these arrangements can sensibly stand the test of time.
Another deficiency in the Act was its handling of the superannuation fund, which in the GMC is about £1,000 million. The Act said that it had to be placed with a lead district on the basis of a unanimous vote; otherwise it passed to the Residuary Body. In this case, as the districts could not agree, it has passed to the Residuary Body. It should have been resolved by a majority decision. It is worrying that an unelected body should be administering important aspects of local government. Similar problems have arisen on the voluntary sector. The Act provided for a collective scheme to fund the voluntary sector across the county. Here, in order for a grant to be made and a contribution from all the authorities to be binding, a two-thirds majority is required. In Manchester seven authorities are required to agree to vote for each voluntary scheme.
Now I come to what I really want to speak about in this debate. Today, and every day in the week except Sundays, there is a queue outside Strangeways Gaol of as many as 500. Who are they? They are those who have come to visit people in the gaol. They have allowed to them a quarter of an hour every day. They stand outside that gaol in terrible weather, wet through; children run about in danger from traffic.
Then there came together a committee to do something about this situation. What are the credentials of the committee? I will give them to your Lordships: the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders, Manchester City Social Services Department, the prison governor, the unions (both the uniformed and the non-uniformed), the Greater Manchester Area Health Authority, the

993
Greater Manchester Probation Service and the Save the Children Fund. Moreover, an organisation that I have the honour to lead has promised to administer it—the Selcare Trust.
Selcare Trust was formed by a group of probation officers, magistrates, judges and interested members of the public who felt committed to the idea of giving practical help in many varied ways to the disturbed, lonely and frequently homeless ex-offenders. It was felt that these problems could not be controlled, let alone solved, by the statutory authorities without the help of the community and the neighbourhood where such problems arise. The type of thing that Selcare has done over the years has increased by leaps and bounds. Now it has a turnover of over £1 million and it is growing every year. So they formed themselves into a committee.
We approached the GMC for money. We wanted from the GMC £185,000. They were absolutely magnificent in the way they received that request because at once they said, "Yes. You can have your £185,000". Also from the Home Office we were backed splendidly at the same time, the offer being contingent on the grant from the GMC going through.
What was the timetable for all this? Although it started in September we still await a decision. The GMC's sub-committee on financial assistance to outside bodies agreed on 5th November last year to find £185,000 funding as a one-off payment. On 8th November the GMC applied to the Department of the Environment for the Minister's consent and approval. Here may I say that the Leader of your Lordships' House helped the application along because he sent his backing to the Minister for the Environment. They agreed that this should happen.
Various hindrances have cropped up. The last one concerned Trafford, the authority of Manchester which took it to court so that the GMC could not pay the money over. Trafford lost the case and now I believe it has gone to the residuary body, which is what might be called a transit place for the handing over of money through to the local authorities.
Are we going to wait until we are told that it is too late? I should like a reply from the Minister today about this. It is a standing disgrace to society that this pitiful queue is outside the prison in Manchester and I understand that the same thing applies at Armley Gaol in Leeds. It has been exacerbated by the fact that it is a remand prison now and of course more people are involved. Please, will the Government tell us whether it is a fact that the programmes which have been agreed by the GMC will be honoured by the districts, even after the end of March? If this can be done, they will help the voluntary bodies associated with the statutory bodies to go ahead with this work and at the same time they will be making it quite obvious that the Government have a heart—because unless they show willing on this everybody will say that they have not.
5.3 p.m.
Baroness Stedman: My Lords, I too should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Bottomley, for initiating this debate today because I believe the situation facing the voluntary organisations in the metropolitan counties and the GLC is extremely serious. All that
994
some of us feared when the Bill was going through this House is now happening. There are problems relating to timing; there is a lack of co-operation and consultation between the successor funding agencies; and in some cases there is what appears to be some lack of commitment to the voluntary sector from the district councils. Few of the successor bodies seem to feel a real sense of any responsibility towards voluntary organisations which they did not have to fund previously.
The Government have said all along that resources, and more, which were available to the metropolitan counties would be available through the successor funding authorities, but although extra funding has been provided with voluntary organisations in mind, as the Minister has said, the districts sort out their own priorities and it does not seem that voluntary organisations always figure very high in those priorities. The result is that the voluntary sector projects are losing out. No one is taking the responsibility. Money is not being made available and redundancy notices are being issued.
A few weeks ago I had the opportunity of going to Liverpool, and I talked to some of the Merseyside county councillors. Merseyside is essentially an area which is one of the most disadvantaged regions in Europe. A high proportion of the population of that city are completely dependent on state benefits and other forms of public expenditure, just to enjoy a basic level of subsistence; and since few groups have heard whether they will secure funds they have been trying to economise over the past weeks. Workers have been leaving, morale is very low and organisations have had to explain to their clients that they can offer no long-term commitment. Closure of many of those organisations is now becoming a real threat.
There are differences between those organisations which have been totally dependent on the county and other services which may have other sources of money. I am talking about organisations like the Netherley Citizens' Advice Bureau, which has been providing tribunal representation in a community where 61 per cent, are claimants on social security benefits, in an area with the highest population of single parents in the whole of Merseyside and with the second highest number of 12 to 24 year-olds. Where and to whom will those people turn now? I am talking about the resource centre, which provides education and information to combat racial discrimination. There is only one whole-time worker involved, but no funding is yet available.
There are other vitally necessary services which may have access to other sources of finance but they have not had enough time to sort themselves out, and even where the metropolitan county has not been the only source of funding there are situations where the other sources have been dependent on what the county has been able to put into those schemes. Where the groups have attracted some district council interest in the past, this may be withdrawn if the major districts do not contribute; and, in any case, time is now very short to sort out the complex arrangements.
In Merseyside, I am told that because the Government and the county were totally unclear about the nature of the funding of the voluntary sector, of its geographical area of operation and of the range

995
and type of services that were offered, the guidelines which were drawn up were quite inappropriate for the area and the organisations concerned. They tell me that the rules and procedures have been changed in order to try to accommodate the voluntary sector, but in many cases it has been with disastrous results.
All this coming and going has meant that the successor funding bodies have not been able to get together. They have not had access to accurate data and they have tried to act responsibly because they have been imposing what they call a viability rule, which means that if one of the bodies has offered a sum of money others will consider—but only consider—making a contribution. In practice, that has meant that if nobody does anything definitely, the voluntary organisation may well slide into oblivion by default.
This is proving a particular problem in Merseyside for those organisations which are countywide. Many of them are based on Liverpool, with 33 per cent, of the population of the county in that city. We all know about Liverpool's budget problems, with a deficit of some £37 million; and if Liverpool will not or cannot put any money aside to fund discretionary projects then no transitional money will come to Liverpool and Liverpool will not put its portion into any other scheme. If Liverpool does not contribute, then the other successor bodies may well impose their viability rule and will not contribute either. So failure by Liverpool to participate is quite disastrous.
In Toxteth, not only is the law centre affected but the community council needs help from Liverpool, as does the Netherly youth trust for the deprived and socially handicapped and their children's holidays. Those are just two of the organisations that are likely to fall. The metropolitan county has also used EEC money for some projects, but to continue using that money there must be matching funding from the district. The Apprenticeship Action Committee offers training for young workers and for redundant building and construction workers. If matching money is not found, then £94,000 from Europe will be lost and 41 full-time posts will be at risk.
Similarly, the Greenbank Project aims to provide permanent jobs for the physically disabled in engineering, printing and microelectronic works, and aids for the deaf and the blind and computerised wheelchairs. There will be £210,000 at risk from the European Social Fund and 96 full-time jobs will go if those matching funds are not available.
The same situation applies to grants from the Sports Council and the Arts Council. At present the metropolitan county supports the arts and the voluntary organisations to the tune of some £4.5 million. The Merseyside Development Corporation may fund some of the groups to the tune of £600,000, subject to the approval of the local districts. The Department of the Environment successor funding body, involving the co-operation of St. Helens, Knowsley and the Wirral, using transitional money, may produce £224,000. This still leaves some £3.75 million to be found. Money actually on the table from the Sports Council, the Arts Council and the British Film Institute amounts to £1.15 million.
This is a serious situation in Liverpool and Merseyside as a whole, and it indicates that the vast
996
majority of social welfare-type organisations have little or no chance of securing money to allow them to operate after 31st March. As we have been reminded several times today, that is now only days away.
I have concentrated on Merseyside this afternoon because I believe that it may have the greatest problems. In the current climate of scarcity of resources, I believe that it is ironic that the social welfare organisations may be the ones that have to close their doors. I think that it shows a lack of caring for, or understanding of, the problems of the people living in those socially deprived areas. Even at this late stage, I would join with colleagues from both sides of the House and ask the Government to show concern and to try to do something to save or to tide over the voluntary sector. The reliefs for charities for April 1987 contained in the Budget are welcomed, but they are not in time to keep the voluntary organisations open in 1986.
5.13 p.m.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, I too should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Bottomley, for giving us this timely opportunity to look at the needs of voluntary organisations. If I may, I should like to congratulate him on the comprehensive picture that he gave. I do not think that he is in the Chamber at the moment, but I should also like to apologise for missing the beginning of his opening speech.
With only two weeks to go, the message coming across is one of uncertainty and confusion. Many organisations still do not know whether or not they will receive funding. I should also like to say how very welcome yesterday's news about tax relief was.
I shall confine myself to organisations dealing with the needs of disabled people. I should like to look closely at a handful of them to see how worthwhile they are and how necessary they are for the people whom they serve. First, two organisations, one in London and one in Greater Manchester, which seem to be doing valuable jobs, have been refused funding. First, in London, FOLDAR, the Federation of London Dial-a-Rides, has been refused funding by the London boroughs' grant scheme. Since the dial-a-ride service, about which we are all very happy, is to be funded by London Regional Transport, FOLDAR's role is changing. It is moving towards developing the service, making sure that the needs of customers are taken into account and ensuring that those who could benefit from the service know all about it and use it. For example, very few people from the ethnic minorities or people with mental handicap use dial-a-ride at present. FOLDAR still has a necessary and useful job to do to ensure that disabled people can travel around London.
My noble friend Lady Masham has asked me to give her apologies as she will be unable to speak. She has had to go to a meeting of which she had not received notice but which it is very important that she attends. She has asked me to say that some dial-a-ride services do not cross borough boundaries. That, of course, does not meet the need of the disabled traveller.
CALL, the Cancer Aid and Listening Line, has been refused funding at present by Greater London Council. They are meeting again next week, and there is just a chance that they will reconsider the decision.

997
CALL started four years ago as a telephone line offering support, information and advice to those who have or have had cancer. Last year, a grant of £5,000 from Greater Manchester Council was received, which was 50 per cent, of its budget. It was able to expand and meet an ever-growing demand.
The service is not duplicated by any other organisation, voluntary or statutory, in the Greater Manchester area, where over 15,000 new cancer patients are diagnosed every year. I know that it is not strictly a "disabled" organisation, but cancer can of course literally disable physically, and it can certainly have a metaphorically disabling effect on the sufferer and on his family. When someone has cancer, the life of the whole family is affected.
CALL'S value is acknowledged throughout the area by doctors, social workers and hospitals. Unless Greater Manchester Council has a change of heart next week, CALL will lose 50 per cent, of its funding and go back to offering a greatly reduced service. A person with cancer can feel very isolated and very much needs the support—emotional, psychological and practical—that CALL can provide. Surely that is beyond price.
I move now to organisations which do not yet know whether they will receive funding. The Greater Manchester Coalition of Disabled People is a county-wide organisation, completely managed by disabled people and existing to ensure that disabled people have the necessary facilities and support to live independently and have control over their own lives. The coalition started in 1981—The International Year of Disabled People—and after four years of careful voluntary development it received a grant and began to implement its policies. There were positions for three full-time disabled staff, and activities began to take shape.
As the coalition's future is still uncertain, it can give its staff no assurances about the future, and it has not been able to consider any expansion or development of its activities, which, of course, is essential in a new organisation.
Lambeth Accord is a London example of a project whose future funding is still uncertain. That project was started in response to the EEC's wish to support schemes dealing with the issue of economic and social integration for people with disabilities. An essential element of the scheme is that it is supported financially by all the statutory authorities concerned. The central staff core of the project are the co-ordinators, each one funded by a different authority. The GLC's contribution was that of a housing, transport and planning co-ordinator. At present it is unclear where the funding of that project is to come from. If it cannot be found, the matching EEC funding will be lost. I appreciate that that concerns only one post within the project, but Lambeth Accord's view is, understandably, that it concerns an area of work which is crucial when considering social and economic integration.
Of course, as the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, said, when an organisation loses European Social Fund support as well, funding is doubly reduced. Another organisation whose ESF money is at risk is a very imaginative scheme which the noble Baroness,
998
Lady Stedman, has already mentioned—the Greenbank Project. It is unique in this country, although its problems are not, and I should like to talk about it at length. The Greenbank Project, which I think the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, has said is based in Liverpool, is a countrywide organisation which trains handicapped people along with some able bodied people so that there is an element of integration. Seven workshops were opened in 1983 to teach basic skills, and another followed in the next year. The scheme was organised as a youth training scheme funded by the project's charitable income and MSC money. In 1984, five workshops teaching higher skills were opened, funded by the project's charitable money, plus ESF money and money from the Liverpool inner city partnership. The initial capital for the Greenbank project—£20,000 of it—was raised by a paraplegic who is the manager of the workshop, and who did a wheelchair push from Land's End to John O'Groats, which is 908.4 miles, in 15 days. In fact, he is here today.
The Merseyside County Council and the ESF approved funding for a consortium of six cooperatives from April 1985 to 30th March 1988. Each year, 32 young people, predominantly handicapped, will receive a year's comprehensive training in marketing, management, financing and formation of co-ops etc., while continuing with the more specific vocational training that they receive at Green bank's training workshops. This innovatory programme is a unique opportunity to allow even the most severely handicapped people on Merseyside the chance of gaining open and full-time employment in an environment that is able to adapt to the needs of the individual.
Three of the co-operatives were launched on 29th November 1985. The noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, told your Lordships about them and what they are doing. The other three can only be launched when some money from a public authority to match the remaining two years of ESF funding is found. There is a very real danger of losing this ESF funding if they do not obtain matching funding by April this year. Altogether the Greenbank Project has invested £50,000 of its charitable money in capital for the co-operatives.
I feel there is surely a moral obligation on both central and local government to support this three-year contract. If the co-operatives are successful, they will enhance the employment prospects of all handicapped people throughout the next decade and bring us into line with our counterparts in the rest of Europe.
All the organisations to which I spoke said that they would try to carry on whatever happened, even if they could offer only a very reduced service or if various aspects of their work were curtailed. They would carry on, because of the commitment of those involved in the work and the demand for the services and the projects. But very few of them will arise unscathed like a phoenix from the ashes of abolition: because of the uncertainty, they are confused, worried and exhausted and there has been no forward movement or growth. I think that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark put it very well earlier on.

999
In a world geared to the young, the healthy, the agile and the rich, many disabled people desperately need the support, help and advice provided by voluntary organisations. It may well be that most of the worthwhile organisations will eventually receive funding—I very much hope so. But at present what is needed, as the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot, said, is time, a breathing space to sort things out. That is what I hope the Minister, who I know is a very understanding man, will be able to provide so that these organisations can survive over the next few months and then go on in strength to support and help those who need them.
5.23 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, like the noble Baroness who has just spoken so movingly, I join other speakers in paying my tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Bottomley. I cannot imagine anyone better qualified to open this debate. When you think of all the work he has done at Toynbee Hall and elsewhere, you see him as being in the tradition of Clem Attlee and William Beveridge who did so much there, but of course in a wider sense did more than any two men to improve the lot of the poor. But the noble Lord, Lord Bottomely, was in a position—and most effectively he made use of that position—to discuss the matter generally.
I feel that in these few minutes, at this time of day, all I can do is deal with one or two illustrations. But in a sense this debate is valuable because of the totality of the witness provided. No one person can really say a great deal in a few minutes in connection with this vast subject. As regards the general issue, I would say that all of us—and this applies to people on all sides of the House—who are dedicated in greater or lesser degree to the voluntary bodies may approach the question from at least three angles.
One may approach the question from an ideal angle. Anybody who is attached to any voluntary body can see that that body would benefit if they could only get more help. That is not possible, perhaps, in this world. Then one can hope for a standard of provisions provided by an enlightened government. Finally, one can ask the question: what is possible from the present government? What is it reasonable to expect from the present government? It is from that angle that I shall be offering these few remarks. In other words, I am taking for granted, for the moment, what might be called Thatcherite philosophy and asking: do they really mean to produce this result? I think, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, said, that they do not. There is a large element of muddle. It is not a question of deliberate government policy. A lot of it is just unthought-out and this has come about in a way that they themselves probably regret. If that is at all true, there is an element of hope in that prospect, because they can at least put that right without any conflict with their principle.
But to come to individual cases, as I have often said before, I have been associated for many years with a body called the New Horizon Youth Centre in central London. There, up to the present, we have nothing to complain about. We have the same grant that we had before. So I am not—to use a coarse expression—bellyaching about the treating of the New Horizon Youth Centre; at any rate, not yet. But I must point
1000
out that even a centre like that, trying to cope with homeless young people, is not acting in isolation. The young people need legal advice; they need health education; they need places to leave their children; they need help in getting employment; they need advice centres, and so on. So when one says that they are getting the same grant, one must realise that they will be disadvantaged if in these other respects the facilities are diminished, which is either happening or is in danger of happening.
However, I am not going to talk about them, partly because I have spoken about them often but partly because they are not complaining—not yet. I should like to speak about something else, about one particular organisation. The noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, and others have dealt with much wider illustrations where far more people are involved, but this is a concrete example of how a particular organisation is likely to suffer. I gave some notice to the noble Lord, Lord Elton, so he probably knows what I am talking about.
This is an organisation called the Community House Information Centre, and if I say that I am not connected with them that is, in a sense, an advantage. I do not come at this with any particular bias in their favour. They are known for short as CHIC—they do not like to be called chic—and they are in north Marylebone. The area is one where there is a large number of Bangladeshi families and CHIC were the first agency to recognise their needs. In their very small staff, as I found when I went there, they have a Bengali speaker and a Chinese speaker. I have made a good many inquiries and I have been assured on all hands that they are rendering an invaluable pioneering service.
The question is: will they or will they not be able to continue under the new arrangements? For the past two years, they have been wholly dependent on a grant from the GLC which has now come to an end. One might suppose that they would benefit from the transitional funding arrangement, and if they were in Camden they would. But they happen to be in Marylebone, which comes under Westminster City Council. If they were in Camden, they would no doubt benefit, but Westminster City Council are very reluctant to seek transitional funding. In fact, they have apparently up to now declined to seek transitional funding.
In Camden, a body such as this would hope to obtain transitional funding, but it is impossible for them to obtain that money because Westminster refuse to make the application. They are making desperate efforts to raise money by voluntary means and are meeting with some success. I appreciate that for every £1 they raise Westminster will contribute another £1, so that for the moment they seem to be temporarily saved—that is to say, they are likely to survive for the present year—but they are living in the most precarious possible condition and that is the result of government policy.
I do not for a moment think that the noble Lords, Lord Glenarthur and Lord Elton, if they were asked about this, would say, "We do not want them to continue". They would probably say, "Oh, yes, we want them to continue but somebody else has to make arrangements for that". This whole set-up introduced

1001
by the Government—the rather desperate outcome of the abolition of the GLC and the metropolitan counties—is a supreme example, to repeat myself, of muddle. I honestly do not think for a moment that the noble Lords opposite or their superior Ministers have planned this immediate outcome. I only hope that as soon as possible they will take steps to think it all over, enter into the spirit of the voluntary bodies, as I believe in their hearts they wish to do, and come to the House next time with a very much better answer.
5.32 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: My Lords, if I am not in my place at the end of the debate to listen to the noble Lord the Minister and to the noble Lord, Lord Bottomley, as the debate concludes, I hope that they will forgive me. It depends on when the debate finishes, but the train for Manchester calls. When the noble Lord the Minister does reply, I hope there will be no complacency over this issue, because, as has been shown during the debate, a critical situation faces a large number of very worthwhile organisations.
One of the valuable things about this debate is that it cuts right across the party. People have spoken from different sides of the House. I was bound to notice the very high proportion of noble Baronesses who have spoken, some of whom are very intimately engaged with various voluntary bodies.
There are several reasons why the Government should listen and act in this matter and recognise that there is a real moral issue here. One is their own professed commitment to voluntary bodies. If you have a philosophy—and I am not questioning or arguing about it for the moment—that it is a right policy to roll back the frontiers of the state, to leave more to individuals and to leave room for enterprise, particularly in voluntary bodies, you must be envisaging a very vigorous partnership between the funding of the state and the kind of enterprise and initiative which is being enlisted in support of tackling various problems which we have in our country. Very few people would argue today that such bodies should depend primarily on charitable giving, covenants from individuals and that sort of thing. One of the points that has already been effectively made in this debate is that efforts to raise money sap the energy of many voluntary organisations, and the more they are thrown into that field the less effective they become. The bread and butter, the thing on which they must depend, is funding either from local authorities or from central government.
I listened with care at the start of the debate when the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, spoke of the Government's rising contribution to voluntary organisations. He said that the figure was something like 55 per cent, up on the year 1979 in real terms. But if that is so it does not seem to me that it is anything very surprising or even very admirable. If you have their particular kind of philosophy the proportion of support from central government for voluntary organisations ought to be very much higher now than what we have in fact seen. After all, these organisations save both local authorities and central government a great deal of money. The noble Baroness, Lady Elliot, made that point very well in the debate. That is one
1002
reason why I believe the Government should listen very carefully to what is being said in the debate and recognise that there is a moral issue here. Their own professed commitment to voluntary bodies is at stake.
Secondly—and the point has come up again and again in this debate but it still bears repetition—many of us in the House listened to very clear commitments during the debates on the abolition Bill that worthwhile voluntary organisations would not suffer during this transition period. It is all too clear that as the date for abolition draws nearer they are suffering already. A great deal of damage has already been done. What we are now engaged in or should be engaged in is a damage limitation exercise. It is rather as though—if one may use the metaphor—you are going up a long and difficult hill in a vehicle and the decision has been taken to change gear. What has come with the abolition of the GLC and the metropolitan counties is a very major change of gear. There is a danger of missing gear altogether and failing to climb the hill.
It may be argued that the prime responsibility rests on the various local authorities. References have been made in the debate to delays in producing schemes from some of the metropolitan counties. But I think the answer given to that is also correct—that the time pressure has been enormous and that what is really needed is more time in order to limit the damage that is likely to be done. I would submit that the greatest responsibility really rests on central government. I am not in any way trying to absolve the local authorities from their own share of trying to produce the right kind of arrangements and the right type of transitional funding but there are very great pressures on them. Surely central government must recognise their prime responsibility in this matter, especially as they initiated the whole question of abolition. May we please have no buck-passing on this issue while the voluntary organisations suffer a great deal? That is the second reason why there is a moral issue here: because of clear commitments given in this House and in the other place about the effect of abolition.
The third reason why there is a moral issue is that we are talking here about services to some of the most deprived areas in British society. Some in the debate have spoken for London. I come from Greater Manchester and I would endorse everything which my noble friend Lord Rhodes has said about the Greater Manchester council, about what it did during the years of its existence and about how much we dread some of the effects of its passing. These areas in the metropolitan counties, particularly in the North of England, are very hard hit indeed by industrial recession. They have among them an exceptionally high proportion of poor, deprived and unemployed people, and high proportions of ethnic minorities. Many of the voluntary organisations are working in those fields.
I have before me a list of 28 organisations from Greater Manchester. Please bear in mind that Greater Manchester is probably not the worst affected—I admit that readily. I should like quickly to read the names of some of those organisations, because that will give the House an idea of the range of work which is covered. I shall not read them all; there is not time for that. They are: Action for the Victims of Medical

1003
Accidents; Action Resource Centre—to strengthen community activities; Action on Disabled Persons' Transport; CALL, the Cancer Aid Listening Line, which has already been mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy; and the Chinese Information Service.
Ethnic minorities feature on this list: Community Regeneration; the Coalition of Disabled People, again mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy; the Community Work Training Group; the Federation of Marriage Guidance Councils; the Mobile Outdoor Pursuits Unit—for youth; the Young Citizens Programme, also for youth; the Employment Research Group; the Jewish Blind Society; the National Council for One Parent Families' and the Pre-Retirement Association of Greater Manchester. That is just a small selection of those which are listed here, none of which know where they will be shortly nor how many of their activities they will be able to continue. I would submit to the noble Lord the Minister that there is a serious question here facing many bodies doing a great deal of valuable work. The bodies on the list which I have given and the others which I did not read out have at stake no fewer than 95 full-time jobs of people who do not know where they will be shortly.
There is a moral issue here also in the sense that information is freedom. Many of those organisations work in the information field. We have a very complex state, with networks of social services that are sometimes very difficult to understand. What many of those agencies are doing—and law centres have been mentioned in this connection—is helping people to understand what are their rights and how the system operates. That help is most urgently needed.
I submit that there exists here a very serious situation. Most of us will look forward with very great interest, and perhaps with some hope, to the reply that the noble Lord the Minister will give the House tonight.
5.40 p.m.
Baroness Lane-Fox: My Lords, like other Members of your Lordships' House, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bottomley, for initiating this debate. What a wealth of experience of local government and of voluntary organisations is represented among those noble Lords taking part! My only qualification, apart from once having been a county councillor and having worked for three years in the offices of a rural district council, is that I have been and I am involved in a number of voluntary organisations, not least as adviser to one of the large charitable trusts on their disbursements to charitable causes. That work has made me very aware of the vast number of appeals, of the needs served by the vast number of voluntary organisations and of the great danger of overlap because the right hand does not necessarily know what the left hand is doing.
That has taught me to have a horror of new organisations springing up, unless it is quite certain that their ground is not already covered. There will always be only a limited amount of money available for disablement causes. Any spare funding is desperately needed for the basic requirements of care and real help for disabled people in the community. I
1004
should say that in this, as in everything connected with help for disabled people in the community, there is a lack of sources of informal advice, and that that is where an overriding need exists. When people are in a crisis and in difficulty, they want an access point at which to obtain immediate advice. To a large extent the Citizens' Advice Bureaux meet that need, and I therefore echo the worries expressed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones.
I have tried to assure some organisations that were doing useful work for the disabled that, provided they were free from propaganda or bias and had politically neutral projects, they would find developments working in their favour. It did not surprise me at all that they were unready to believe me, because it was unknown territory. It is more than a relief to find that some organisations are now content with their funding. They have found that there is new government money over four years, to be distributed by the successor authorities. That sum is in addition to the 100 per cent, rate support grant, and I understand that its purpose is to erase problems that may occur during the transitional stage. If there is a hold up, it is likely to be due to bias or because the help has become stuck within the successor authorities. From what we have heard this afternoon, it sounds as though funds have indeed got stuck on many occasions.
I was sorry and surprised to hear of the difficulties of the Association of Careers as described by the noble Lord, Lord Bottomley, for that is indeed an important and valuable organisation. I hope that its problems will be met and solved. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), I extol the work of the Green bank project and plead with the authorities to save it.
For those of us who are old hands at fund-raising, it is more than encouraging to hear that the London boroughs have agreed on a grant scheme to assist voluntary bodies whose activities are Londonwide, to the tune of £16 million. Because the Richmond unit is so new, it is still rather obscure to me, but some organisations already know from that source what is to be their lot. On the other hand, 33 individual Dial-a-Ride bodies that were funded by London Regional Transport find their position to be satisfactory. For that I am thankful. So many alarm bells were sounded in my ears as to their plight that I was almost sickened of life. Nothing I could say reassured them. Although I rejoice now, I am disappointed that my reports of satisfactory discussions with both the Secretary of State for Transport and the Minister, Mrs. Chalker, did not convince them. It would have saved everyone a lot of steam and worry if only they had listened at that time.
Dial-a-Ride is an excellent arrangement, and for something that is so innovative and new it has quickly made its mark. In future, LRT's national advisory committee on disabled travel should be urged to look for ways of giving more vehicles so that users are not compelled to book several days, and even several weeks, in advance. The question of meeting the needs of those disabled travellers who want to travel further also deserves attention. The worry is about the coordinating committee, FOLDAR. It has six workers—four full time and two part time. Now it is expected that their role is to be undertaken by LRT's advisory committee on disabled travel and that the

1005
efforts of the two would overlap. It is essential that the best help shall not be lost, but I still say that overlap must be guarded against.
In earlier debates, there was a good deal said about the future of concessionary fares after abolition. The threat put by Members on the Benches opposite was that those concessions would end ruthlessly. It is good to hear that the London boroughs have agreed to appoint a travel concession officer so that the concessions will continue for elderly, blind and handicapped permitholders, and that the GLC's scheme for the elderly will be copied. That is my understanding of the situation from the Kensington press. I understand that discussions have already been held with the travel operators and that post offices will be distributing travel permits after March. The local authority association has agreed that proper publicity shall be prepared and LRT is producing posters that will be widely displayed. It is always the dissemination of information that is so necessary.
The fears that were expressed about travel have at least been allayed. Those of us who care about the progress of vital work to help disabled people should indicate their relief where that is appropriate, in order to give credence to the valid points they wish to make, and so obtain even more care in the community. We would do well not to cry wolf.
We are told that the Government will set up a new charitable trust for London that will give grants to voluntary bodies. I understand that at least £10 million will come from surplus assets after the disappearance of the GLC. I believe it is the intention to attract matching finance from the private sector, and the Budget proposals must surely help in that respect.
Those of us who are concerned about the arts must be pleased that there is to be made available £43 million in addition to the 100 per cent, grants for funding of the arts. Obviously there will never be enough to satisfy all our hopes, but that at least gives those of us on the Carnegie council concerned with arts for disabled people reason to look for some compliance with our request to establish better facilities for disabled people to enjoy and participate in the arts world. What is needed is that the Arts Council and the managements will look kindly on our requests.
It is for the best friends of progress for good causes to extract from the sizeable new help that is going to be available the best possible value for the intended beneficiaries. May we hope that the grants to overcome transitional difficulties will quickly be used to that effect.
5.50 p.m.
Lord Soper: My Lords, I am almost irresistibly attracted to a discussion on voluntary organisations. I have been mixed up with them for most of my adult life and I am the more grateful, therefore, to my noble friend for introducing this topic today and for the prospects, which I think increase with each speech, of some kind of constructive result.
I list, if I may—although at this stage in the debate it is more a matter of reiteration than initiation—some of the qualities that belong to voluntary organisations
1006
which I cherish and which I am jealous should not be impinged upon or eroded; and I clearly recognise a real danger that that might happen.
One of the great advantages that belong to a voluntary organisation is that it has an element of freedom in creating conditions which later on can form a kind of bellwether effect. I refer, for example—though modesty prevents me from saying too much about the Methodist foundation of it—to the fact that the voluntary bodies associated with child care were initiated, first of all, through the churches and that the crèches which first of all were in the West London Mission, with one in Manchester, have now become a broad highway of enlightened civic administration. Therefore, I am the more jealous that voluntary organisations should not be impaired when they have this great and positive contribution to make to an improved kind of civic administration and to a more immediate improvement in the society in which we live.
Secondly, it is unquestionably true that voluntary organisations can mobilise and utilise the devoted and vocational qualities of those who, for no other reason than that they have a compassion and a sense of vocation, will dedicate themselves to causes which at that stage are necessarily unpopular or unknown. It is in this respect that we do great damage to any community if we impoverish a number of those who can so contribute and, in my judgment, there is a real danger that that also is likely to happen.
Furthermore, I hold the conviction that sooner or later the society which can really be called a community must make a co-operative attempt to provide that those voluntary organisations which are contributing to that immediate and better society should be merged with and married to an administration of a more legalistic kind. I believe that there is always a need for that kind of marriage and I hope that it will so continue. These are moral issues.
Let me, then, turn to what I believe to be the threat. The noble Lord the Minister was not complacent but seemed comparatively satisfied with what has been happening. I am sure he has been listening to the debate and it seems to me that it is unquestionable now for any fair minded person to say that administratively the situation is not a shambles. In fact, in some ways it is almost only the preamble to a shambles. Those who imagine that within the next few weeks everything will sort itself out in a reasonable fashion are surely crying for a moon that is not there anyhow.
This is a question which requires not only an immediate rescue attempt but the recognition that the procedure whereby we move towards a different kind of civic administration, with the elimination of the great councils and of the Greater London Council, has already been shown in the informed speeches to which we have listened today to be an impossibility within the framework of the time schedule and, indeed, to be ill-conceived and in many cases to be inoperable. That has been established, by whatever means. People are prepared, as are Members of your Lordships' House, to look kindly on some of the basic considerations of what is happening with the demolition of the Greater London Council. In fact, we have been made aware time and again in the speeches to which we have

1007
listened of the way in which the facts of the matter preclude any kind of optimism that within a short time our present problems will no longer be there to vex us.
I do not defend every voluntary organisation. Of course I do not. As a churchman I know that in some cases voluntary organisations have a greater commitment to sentimentality than they have to some of the greater values such as a sense of the sensitive qualities. Sensitivity is just as much a matter of moral obligation as is the proper use of one's feelings. I would not for one moment seek to defend some of the more extravagant voluntary organisations which run themselves into the ground—and not too soon. But I am further convinced, listening as I have to most of this debate, as to the supreme value of those organisations which have been defended this afternoon and this evening.
It is in that regard that I add one other area which has not been sufficiently recognised as yet; that is, the problem of the ethnic minorities. Already in London there are Indian and Chinese minority movements, which I believe are admirable, that have been refused the kind of funding which they require. I give your Lordships a local habitation and a name to what I am trying, panoramically, to describe. In Uxbridge for example, there is and has been for the past one-and-a-half years an organisation dealing with the problems of women of Asian lineage and descent who have, until now, been more or less confined to their homes according to certain habits and principles that belong to other faiths than the one to which I belong.
A most excellent and efficient effort is being made to bring to such women a sense not only of community but also of training. They have been denied access to the funding of the local authority and for reasons which need to be ironed out they have been denied the opportunity of the transitional funding. It is highly likely that unless something is done immediately they will cease to operate as a community; and that will be to the impoverishment of a society which already has enough problems on its hands in Uxbridge,
Finally, what is to be done—
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Elton): My Lords, will the noble Lord forgive me? I seek knowledge because if I can answer noble Lords I like to do so. I do not think the noble Lord named the organisation he has been speaking about. Whether I shall be able to give an answer before the end of the debate, I do not know, but I should like to give a reply at some stage and it would help if I could have the name.
Lord Soper: My Lords, if I have the actual title of it I will write to the noble Lord and let him know what it is. However, I am quite sure of the facts that I produced and that they are well justified.
What seems to me to be the immediate issue is the suggestion made by my ecclesiastical and noble friend the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark that there should be an allocation of public funding which will be specifically directed towards the boroughs so that they may provide more opportunities for funding what they now feel they cannot do because of the impoverishment they suffer. They have had to make harsh choices and in some cases the voluntary
1008
organisations have been the victims of this kind of unfortunate decision.
I am quite sure that there should be a fund which can be used for dealing with problems which cannot be resolved immediately, so that there will not be the requisite and obvious necessity of dismissing staffs which later on could perhaps be recovered and brought back.
I return, as I started, to what strikes me as the essence of the case. I have heard a great deal lately of what is called "caring capitalism". I am not going to take the opportunity of saying that the only thing that I think associates those two ideas is that both words begin with the same letter. What I should prefer to say is that if caring is really a principle then there is widespread conviction that in this particular respect care is very low down on the list. I do not say that with any venom or with any satisfaction. I believe it is true.
Perhaps your Lordships will allow me to say—as on Wednesdays I always speak in the open air earlier in the day—that there is an increasing sense that in so many respects the idea of privatisation has taken precedence over the idea of public responsibility. If that is so, I commend to your Lordships the opportunity that we have here for those who champion caring capitalism to make good their claim. One of the ways they can do it is to defend the voluntary associations at their time of peril, believing that, whatever the short-term effects of such benevolence and good will, they are preserving one of the finest and best opportunities for our children to enjoy a better sort of world than that in which we now suffer.
6.1 p.m.
Lord McGregor of Durris: My Lords, as all other speakers, I wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord Bottomley, for creating the opportunity for this debate on a subject which I believe to be vital to a democratic society. I must also declare an interest as being the president of both the National Association of Citizens' Advice Bureaux and the National Council for One-Parent Families. These bodies work within whatever framework of local government is designed by Parliament; and I shall avoid political considerations.
My present concern is with the transition from one set of arrangements to another, though the experience of the organisations with which I am familiar does not support the eloquent satisfaction of the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur. The National Association of Citizens' Advice Bureaux was given many official assurances that the service would not suffer as a result of the abolition of the GLC and the metropolitan councils. That expectation has been falsified. In 1985–86 the GLC and the metropolitan counties funded the CAB service to the extent of £850,000. By intensive negotiations with the local authorities we have secured nearly £500,000 of long-term replacement funds, but we are still some £350,000 short, with seven actual working days left until the end of the month.
Some CAB activities and services have failed to secure further funding. Let me give your Lordships two examples. First, there are the nine staff salaries and operating costs for the law centre part of the Paddington CAB, which was mentioned by a number

1009
of noble Lords. The cost is some £119,000. The London Boroughs Grants Committee would not consider a grant for this purpose and referred the CAB to the Westminster Council, which was willing to match half the expenditure if the CABs raised the other half. We have written to 200 trusts and have sought funds from other sources, but without success. Therefore, we fear that this provision will cease.
Following the stirring speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, I make only one comment on the tragic loss of this law centre. I believe that the most remarkable feature in the efflorescence of law centres in the last 15 years is that their mostly young and frequently very radical members, lay and legal, have pinned their faith on law as an instrument of social betterment. Is that faith to be destroyed in order to save a few candle ends?
My other example is the West Midlands Money Advice Unit, which serves the 62 advice bureaux in that area. When the Payne Committee on the Enforcement of Judgment Debts reported in 1969, its recommendations included the establishment of an enforcement office acting for all courts, served by financial welfare workers who would assist multiple debtors by providing the services that the rest of us obtain from our bank managers and accountants. None of the Payne Committee's recommendations in this field was implemented, yet the need which was urgent then is inescapable now, given today's level of unemployment.
The CAB service has been inventive, where funds have permitted, in providing advice and a service which the Payne Committee thought should be part of the administration of justice in the county court. Thus the path-breaking and long overdue efforts of the CAB in the West Midlands will come to an abrupt end; unhappily the mire of debt in which too many people paddle for too much of their lives will remain.
I could give your Lordships several other examples, but the essential point is that the financial loss to the CAB services as a result of the abolition of the GLC and metropolitan counties is in fact resulting in the disappearance of advice services without which, for many people, the status of citizenship becomes a mockery and justice a facility for the better off.
The CABs have been acting in recent years to develop a new technique of funding through partnership agreements with local authorities. CAB grant aid is offered on a tapering basis over three years, with the local authority assuming full funding responsibility in the fourth year. We have also used this method successfully to secure replacement local authority funding where we were previously committed to permanent CAB grant aid to bureaux in places where local consumer centres have closed down. We have been directing an increased proportion of our central government grant aid in this way, once we had tested and demonstrated its value in providing partnership between the CAB service, the local authorities and central Government.
In 1981–82, 18 CABs were involved in such partnerships and the grant was £33,000, which amounted to 3 per cent. of the total grants made to bureaux. In 1986–87, over 200 bureaux will be operating such partnerships and the CAB grant will be approaching
1010
£1 million, which is rather more than half of the total grant which we receive from the Government. If a further £325,000 were available to us, we could establish next year a further 60 partnerships, which would achieve half a million pounds' worth of permanent funding from local authorities.
I emphasise that significant and encouraging development in order to show that voluntary bodies can adapt themselves quickly to new circumstances. We do not wish to stand by like a Greek chorus, wringing our hands and muttering "Woe is me!" But there is ample woe. We yet see no prospect of escape from the present nightmare of the transition from one set of arrangements to another. We pointed to the likely difficulties; we were given repeated assurances that our service would not suffer. It has suffered to the immediate financial extent of some £350,000.
To that must also be added our estimate that £60,000 of staff costs have had to be incurred in the attempt to replace funding which previously came from the GLC and the metropolitan counties. In addition, we have some 13,500 voluntary workers, some of whom feel very demoralised. No wonder the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark referred to the stress and human cost which government policy has imposed on many voluntary organisations.
I turn now briefly to the contrasting experience of the National Council for One Parent Families. Although the council's GLC grant of £58,000 for 1985–86 was promised month after month, nothing had been received by early February and the council would have run out of money by the end of March. It was compelled to issue redundancy notices to the staff and prepared to close down by the end of March. We mounted a rescue campaign and received help from many friends who included the noble Lord, Lord Elton, members of the DHSS and the City Parochial Foundation. Indeed, I am pleased to have this opportunity to say "Thank you" to all of them for their support.
In the event, we were given and promised sufficient assistance to enable the redundancy notices to be withdrawn and to enable us to see our way forward, even without the GLC money. The London Boroughs Grants Committee was helpful and sympathetic and approved a grant of £64,000 for the financial year 1986–87, payable at the beginning of next month. As it turns out, a recent letter from the chairman of the London Residuary Body to the principal officer of the GLC makes it clear that the National Council for One Parent Families, together with other voluntary organisations which are due grants from the GLC and which have fully satisfied all grant conditions, will receive outstanding payments from the London Residuary Body.
The National Council for One Parent Families was lucky and scraped through that crisis without damage, but many bodies are not so circumstanced. Some need funds to tide them over the present crisis so that they can raise money; and we should remember that it is a crisis which has hit many organisations at the end of their financial year. Others will need assistance to wind themselves up and to deal with outstanding obligations. In short, in all the areas affected there is urgent need for an emergency fund, as other noble

1011
Lords, including the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, have emphasised. Of all the items in the catalogue of anxieties compiled during this debate I believe that this is the most urgent. Within and without this House the reply of the noble Lord, Lord Elton, will be treated as a test of government intentions.
6.15 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, it is 19th March, and therefore 12 days before the implementation of the Local Government Act 1985 abolishing the GLC and the metropolitan counties. Time is not on the side of the voluntary organisations, many of which do not know whether they are to receive funding. It is timely that the noble Lord, Lord Bottomley, has initiated the debate.
Her Majesty's Government subscribe to the policy and practice of partnership as between the statutory and the voluntary sectors. That was evidenced in the speech of my noble friend Lord Glenarthur; he quoted the amount of money that has been given to voluntary organisations at a national level. I am conscious of that because I know that both in the matters of delinquency and of handicapped children the partnership of Barnardo's and the Ministry has produced positive work. Furthermore, the concessions in the Budget yesterday by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, of which many national organisations are appreciative, give evidence also of the Government's intention to support the voluntary organisations.
However, I would say this. The concessions given in the Budget will not in this area immediately help the voluntary organisations either countrywide or within local authorities. I hope that that will be clearly understood. I think that quite a lot of people have not understood what was in the Budget yesterday and are looking for help that they cannot at this moment get.
I was going to give facts and figures, but many noble Lords have done so adequately and therefore I shall not. But I should like, first, to mention resources. Many of us today talk about the voluntary organisations, the money that they need and the work that they do. However, I wonder whether it is fully appreciated also that they are a resource for the local authorities. If they give up, the local authorities will be the poorer and the law of diminishing returns will set in. That point should be clearly made. The work of many of the voluntary organisations is absolutely indispensable. If those organisations give up or are given up, the local authorities will have to undertake that work; otherwise, they will be in severe difficulties.
We all know that if a local authority does a job of work, inevitably that is more expensive than if a voluntary organisation does it. It is very much for the local authorities to realise the resource that they will lose if those organisations give up. I am putting it at its lowest. There are other levels. For instance, a voluntary organisation uses volunteers. Some local authorities do too, but not on the same scale. Voluntary organisations can carry out innovative work which local authorities cannot do under their terms of reference. I repeat, therefore, that to lose the work of the voluntary organisations will put an extremely heavy strain on local authorities.
1012
Another point made by many noble Lords is the question of time. Your Lordships will remember the jingle that says:
"Time, you old gipsy man,
Will you not stay,
Put up your caravan
Just for one day?"
That is what we need, but we shall not get it. Time moves on.
In connection with time, I should like to talk for one moment about relationships. My noble friend Lord Glenarthur insisted today that it was for the local authorities to carry out the work under this Act of Parliament. You can take a horse to the trough, but you cannot make it drink. Even my noble friend Lord Elton, with his skill and charm, cannot do that. It is the same with local authorities. If you are going to build up a partnership between local authorities and voluntary organisations under a different system, as the noble Lord, Lord McGregor, has said, it is a question of establishing relationships.
Relationships cannot be established in a short time or in a hurry. If you want to give your friends bulbs for Christmas, it is no good planting them the day before: they have to be planted in the summer. However much we may wish it, we cannot expect local authorities to co-operate with the voluntary organisations and vice versa without time being available to establish what each wants and how each can help the other. Hurried relationships very often fail.
I should like to ask my noble friend Lord Elton four specific questions that have already been put. First, I should like to ask my noble friend why the arts, in a part of the world where I have colleagues working for the Greater Manchester Council for Voluntary Services, have been able, I understand, to get money. I support the arts; I am glad for the arts. But how is it that they can get the money whereas those who are vulnerable and who need help in our society are unable to do so?
Secondly, how is it that there is a charitable trust set up for London but not for the metropolitan counties? Unemployment in the Midlands and the North, I think I am right in saying, far exceeds even that in London. It is to me astonishing that a charitable trust should be set up only in London and not in the metropolitan counties. I have to say that many of us are disappointed that the charitable trust does not operate until 1987. It really needs to operate straightaway.
The third point is that made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark. I reiterate and support this call for a rate to be allocated for voluntary organisations. This would, I am sure, help local authorities. It would help the voluntary organisations. It would smooth over the relationships between voluntary organisations and the local authorities.
A fourth suggestion, also made by other noble Lords, has to be seen bearing in mind that one cannot force a relationship quickly and that time is not on our side. I should like my noble friend the Minister to consider whether the emergency fund for this year can be taken over. That would at least give us a year to establish relationships, to get going the mechanism

1013
that the Government want and to maintain also voluntary organisations that are a resource to the country, that help the vulnerable and that are valuable in their assistance to local authorities.
6.5 p.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, I have never, before this evening, enjoyed being the last speaker on the list. But on this occasion I have been fortunate enough to hear a highly-informed debate in which all speakers have been in total agreement and have given merely different examples to prove the same point. They share great anxiety about the future of some of the voluntary organisations.
As it is rather late, I should like to avail myself of my noble friend's relevant and appropriate Motion to examine the needs of the voluntary organisations in one particular borough. I have chosen the borough in which your Lordships' House is situated; namely, the City of Westminster. I have tried to find out the relevant facts. I hope that they are accurate because I, too, find that there is a great deal of confusion and anxiety among groups that are spending a great deal of time pursuing different leads, sometimes to no avail.
In a debate such as this, it is perhaps important, first, to recall the motives and values that underlie the work of the voluntary sector. It must be true to say that, right from the start, the pioneers of the welfare state saw voluntary bodies playing a vital but complementary role to that of the statutory sector. They argued that while the state should ensure an appropriate allocation of funds, as much as possible should then be left to the initiative, the enterprise and the sense of compassion of individual citizens. They recognised that many people are able and, indeed, willing to serve the public. To reject their help means delaying social advance, inhibiting self-criticism, experimentation and innovation. Those early pioneers saw that the consumer of welfare provision needed the voluntary bodies to fill the gaps. These are gaps that voluntary bodies are so much better equipped to fill through being more flexible and more innovative, and having the ability to remain close to the ground and therefore in touch with the true needs of a very changing society.
There is little doubt in 1986 that the needs of the inner city communities are constantly changing. It is therefore vitally important that voluntary organisations should remain to respond to those needs. Everyone will agree, I believe, that the GLC and the metropolitan counties tried to remain closely in touch with the true needs of the community around them. It is for this reason that they funded many groups that have come in for criticism when, often, they were trying, in fact, to be innovative and to keep in line with what was needed around them.
I have tried to ascertain whether the voluntary organisations operating within the boundaries of Westminster have found replacement for their GLC funding. As already explained, those groups operating across borough boundaries can apply for Richmond Scheme funds, but those operating within borough boundaries are at the mercy of their local authorities. It is evident that some local authorities are not as merciful as we should like.
1014
To assess the type of help that is needed, it is important to see the pattern of the community living within Westminster. It is a very complex community; it is very varied and polarised. Some very highly well-to-do people live in Westminster. But, increasingly, there is a high proportion of very elderly residents and a high proportion of groups from the ethnic minorities. There are many homeless young people who have come to London in search of those golden pavements and who end up in Westminster needing help and housing. There are also a large number of residents who live in rented flatlets or bed-sits.
There are people who are dependent on means tested benefits, often with little or no command of our language or knowledge of the system. It is for that reason that the expert advisers are indispensable, and particularly so in this very varied community who live in Westminster. The Westminster council has acted, so far as I have been able to ascertain, in the following way. First, alone among all the London boroughs, Westminster did not apply for any transitional funding in respect of local projects currently funded by the GLC. Apparently they could have expected to receive £300,000 to £400,000 of central government money; but the Westminster councillors argued that they would rather stick their necks out straight away and try to get replacement funding which would be permanent. I am not sure whether the voluntary organisations agree with this decision because they are suffering at the present moment from the decision made by the Westminister councillors.
The Westminster grants sub-committee invited all voluntary organisations which had previously been funded by the GLC to apply for grants. In order to help the groups that had been turned down by the grants committee the city council set up a pound for pound matching scheme. As I understand it, of the 42 voluntary organisations previously funded by the GLC who applied to the borough only seven obtained the sum they asked for, 17 were refused completely, and the rest received a proportion of what they had requested or their requests were deferred. It was at this point that I remembered with great clarity that in the debate on the Local Government Bill the noble Lord, Lord Elton, repeatedly spoke about worthwhile voluntary organisations not suffering. I therefore attempted to establish the work being done by those 17 groups whom Westminster had refused and who had previously received half a million from the GLC.
As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester said, "worth while" is a very relative term. What is worth while to one person is not at all worth while to another. What is utterly useless in the eyes of one group is life giving for another. I would argue that groups which had lost their funding were in my view enormously worth while.
There is the Voluntary Action Westminster group which is providing an enormously vital service to Westminster's less privileged residents by coordinating voluntary work in the borough. I would argue that the Paddington Federation of Tenants and Residents' Association was very necessary for all those private tenants who live in the borough and who badly need to be helped by an association that will advise them of their rights vis-à-vis their landlords.

1015
I do not think that I need to add to what my noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones and many other speakers have said about the work of the Paddington Law Centre, which seems due to close; it could not possibly be considered as anything but highly worth while. I could go on for a long time outlining these different groups. So many of them seemed to be helping and countering the real needs of many of the residents of Westminster. They were trying to fill the needs of those least privileged inhabitants of this borough.
Finally, may I say one word about the matching scheme offered by the city council. Although I am sure that all of us agree with the principle of attracting private money towards voluntary work, these funds sometimes do not end up with the groups who most need them. We all know that fund raising is now highly specialised. Many of your Lordships are constantly drawn into it. Sometimes it is through a contact that one hits the jackpot. Sometimes it is on the "old boy network" that one attracts money to a particular group.
It is absolutely true that particular groups are viewed more according to their emotional appeal than to the relative worth to the community of the services they provide. They are the ones who find it extremely hard to attract private funds. This has been proved by the fact that the City of Westminster grants committee offered as much as £200,000 to this matching scheme but the deadline for application was put off until May because so far only £140,000 has been allocated. That proves that groups were finding it difficult to raise the funds in order to have them matched.
I can only agree with all the previous speakers when they say that it is a very worrying time for these essential organisations if they are to continue their work. As previous speakers have said, it has all been very hurried. These people are trying to carry on their work while at the same time trying to understand the new rules and to make sure that their funding continues. There is a danger that these very innovative groups which are trying to help people in need will have to close their doors. I would urge the Minister to consider carefully the emergency package which my noble friend Lord Elwyn-Jones has suggested; and the suggestions which have come from all the other speakers this evening.
6.36 p.m.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, the remarkable quality of this debate leads me, even more than I had anticipated, to congratulate my noble friend Lord Bottomley on his decision to inaugurate it, and on the warmth and absolute commitment which he contributed in his opening speech. We are greatly in his debt for this as we are for so many other things that he has done in his lifetime of service.
I have to say, on the other side, that I was amazed—I must say, appalled—by the rosy picture which was presented by the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur. It has not produced echoes from any other speaker in any other part of the House. The noble Lord seemed to me to be moving in a different world from that of other noble Lords, all of whom are involved in one way or another in the work of voluntary organisations. One of
1016
the great advantages of your Lordships' House is that we have here such experience on which we can draw. The noble Lord must realise that there is deep concern. This has been expressed from all parts of the House.
I feel that my task in winding-up for these Benches is to put together the many valuable, very carefully researched, points which have been made in the course of today's debate, and to put forward a cohesive programme before the Minister for consideration by his right honourable friends.
My noble friend Lord Bottomley quite consciously did not table a Motion on which we could have voted. Had he done so this would have divided the House. It would have placed the Minister with his back to the wall. He would have felt obliged to say no to some very important proposals which have been brought forward during the course of this evening. My earnest plea to the Minister is not to close the door to any of the proposals that have been put forward.
There is very great and genuine concern, not only among your Lordships but also among the voluntary organisations themselves and the people involved by their thousands in different parts of the country who do not know what their future is. They do not know whether they will be able to carry out the mission that for many of them is almost sacred. There is equal concern among those who represent them: the National Council for Voluntary Organisations, the London Voluntary Service Council and the Voluntary Organisations of Personal Social Services Group. All of them have expressed deep concern.
I should like to make one or two preliminary remarks. There will of course be a great welcome for some of the initiatives which were announced in the Budget yesterday. I am grateful to my noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones and to the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, for saying that, however welcome these may be—and we may have a chance to debate them—they will not affect in any way the situation that we are debating tonight. The Finance Bill has not yet been introduced, let alone passed. We are talking about issues for the future.
At a time of great hardship for the really poor in our society, over the years an increasing burden has fallen on voluntary organisations. One matter we are all proud of is the way in which voluntary organisations have responded to the challenge that has been placed before them. The Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Elton, seemed to recognise that in the many debates on the Local Government Act 1985, and he gave many assurances (I have them before me) which I am sure were made in good faith, that the voluntary sector would not be worse off as a result of the abolition of the GLC and the metropolitan authorities. However, as has been said by almost every noble Lord and noble Baroness who has spoken today, this has simply not been the case. The system—I will not say the Minister—will not be able to deliver by the time limit of the end of this month. We have been reminded several times that there are only 10 days to go. It cannot be done in 10 days. When one looks at the situation today, there are literally hundreds of sound voluntary organisations, many of which we know personally and with which we are directly involved, which will go to the wall unless urgent action is taken.

1017
If we look at London, the West Midlands, Greater Manchester, Merseyside, West Yorkshire, South Yorkshire and Tyne and Wear, we see that the fate of hundreds of voluntary organisations still hangs in the balance. Many face closure or slow death. Others will have to curtail their activities. Too often, if voluntary organisations die, they do not come to life again; or, rather, it is very hard to bring them to life again. Therefore the Government's pledge, which was made during the passage of the Bill, that no harm would befall voluntary organisations after abolition, however sincerely made, can now be seen to be hollow.
I want to give just a few examples. Very many have been presented by noble Lords, but perhaps we may look at the whole span. We know of the difficulties of the Richmond scheme, and I shall say what should be done about that later. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester has referred to the great problems and the great difficulties which they face in Manchester with a very small budget. Many organisations there do not know what their future will be. West Yorkshire has no budget set at all, and a committee which is beset by difficulties. I thought that the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, did a wonderful job in analysing the problems of Merseyside where there is no agreement even for establishing the coordinating committee.
The noble Lord, Lord Banks, referred to the West Midlands. I come from the West Midlands and there, as I understand the situation, there has been a belated agreement to fund five organisations, but none of them is of a social welfare nature, so they do not touch on the issues of concern to noble Lords. As regards South Yorkshire and Tyne and Wear, there are simply no schemes available. Tyne and Wear agreed to a collective scheme for employment and economic development projects only as it was felt that there was very little truly countywide social welfare activity, and of those, four employment projects have been turned down by the Department of Employment.
So far as the NCVO can tell—and they have been very helpful in collecting information and advising the voluntary organisations—none of the collective schemes established has had time to process all the applications and ensure that all eligible projects know that their funding is secure before 31st March. My noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones put to the Minister a particular question which does not just relate to what happens at the end of this month but relates to the funding from the GLC during this very year. I hope that the Minister will be able to answer that question.
We have referred to the Richmond scheme. I think that 1,101 organisations submitted a total of 2,040 applications for funding. For some extraordinary reason, the committee meets only monthly. Even now, it meets only monthly. So far the committee has decided the fate of only 118 organisations. Its March meeting will take this total, it hopes, to 180—that is, 180 out of 2,040 applications. For the rest—and some may be considered at the meeting in April—the committee is expected to decide on 20th March to use its contingency fund to give them three months' money until it can consider each application. That is better than nothing but, for an organisation that does not know whether it will be in existence in three
1018
months' time, unless it pays very heavily, it must start disposing of its staff right now. Of course, that has already happened. There have been literally hundreds of people in different organisations who have already received their redundancy notices and who expect to leave their jobs.
As the noble Lord, Lord Elton, will remember, there was some warm thanks and praise for his initiative in establishing the London Trust, which was referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull. It looked very good. However, no money will be forthcoming from the London Trust until the second half of 1987. It will not affect the situation which we are talking about now. Only just over £600,000 will be available in 1987. Of course, as the noble Baroness, lady Faithfull, reminded us, there is no similar scheme for the metropolitan counties.
There are other bodies which have not been mentioned. Last weekend I was in Tyne and Wear and I made inquiries about this matter, as I think all noble Lords have been doing in the areas where they either live or visit. The districts have been given the total of their allocations but, as yet, no list of approved schemes. Therefore the council can give no assurances and the organisations continue to be totally unsure of their future. The organisations include the Search project, which involves working with the elderly: the National Schizophrenia Fellowship; the Northern Council on Alcoholism; Sense, an organisation with which one of my sons is involved, and which is a project working with children with hearing impairment and visual handicaps; and PHAB, which is concerned with physically disabled youngsters.
Newcastle council, being rate capped, has had to consider reducing its ordinary grants, because if it did not it would suffer the prospect of penalties if it met the demands made upon it. With a heavy heart (but because of the hard heart of the Government) Newcastle is having to impose a cut on the five largest district voluntary organisations. They include the Council for Voluntary Service, the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, family service units, the Citizen's Advice Bureaux and the Council for the Disabled.
Ever since this whole sad debate began no one has referred to those nasty little organisations which were said to be the reason that the GLC had to be abolished—no one at all. Not a word has been said about the "way out" organisations because everyone now realises that those were not the main bodies being helped by the GLC and the metropolitan counties. We see now, in all its starkness and misery, the absurdity of the decision that was taken last year.
Noble Lords have given many examples of good voluntary projects now in peril. There are the Citizens' Advice Bureaux, admirably explained by the chairman, the noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris. There are the voluntary service units; the law centres, with which my noble and learned friend is so deeply involved; the Association of Carers; voluntary centres; self-help schemes; the Greenbank scheme, referred to so admirably by the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth); welfare rights centres; child care services; prison visiting; the Save the Children Fund; education resource centres; youth centres; and centres for the blind and disabled. Those are not the types of

1019
organisations that we were hearing about at the time the Bill went through.
Several proposals have been put forward today and I hope that the Minister will consider each one and will not say no to any. One that was put forward by my noble friend was that an emergency sum should be established—whether it is £20 million or £25 million is open to discussion. It might not all be spent. If someone gets a speed on and the job is done the money will not be needed, but unless some such money is provided we shall see, on a mass scale, voluntary organisations going to the wall.
Secondly, my noble friend Lord Graham did not take part in today's debate, but he took part in the debate on the Local Government Bill last week. He said that nine London boroughs have stated that they expect to spend all the revenue accruing to them under Section 137 without taking on any former GLC projects. My conclusion from that is that we should make more effective use of Section 137 in regard to the need to create a greater revenue capacity. I believe that councils should be allowed greater flexibility on Section 137 money. The 2p rate should be increased to 4p to compensate for abolition and rate capping limits, which should be raised accordingly.
Thirdly, voluntary organisations need permanent and professional staff. This has not been mentioned during the debate and I am sure your Lordships will forgive me for raising it. Many voluntary organisations are now being obliged to take on part-time staff under the MSC community programme. I have nothing against that; I think it is admirable. But part-time people are being taken on rather than the permanent staff who are paid a fair rate for the job and who have had effective training. Voluntary organisations need to be recognised for the invaluable work they do and the quality of their work.
Fourthly, I should like to pick up the point made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark, which is that there should be some kind of working party to review just what has gone wrong. These are the proposals.
To the noble Lord, Lord Elton, I say, "Please, no rejections; no guarantees that cannot be met; no soft words and compliments that do nothing to stop invaluable, compassionate work and force dedicated workers to be made redundant". Not only is this confusion and near-desperation that has been reported from all parts of the House of the Government's own making but it must also be for the Government to find the way through. I say to them: please reject none of these proposals.
6.54 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, nobody pretended to me when I took the torch of abolition from the sadly failing hand of my late friend Lord Avon that it would be an easy task. It was not easy at the start and it will not be easy at the finish, but I believe that it will be worth while. Like my noble friend Lord Glenarthur, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bottomley, for providing the occasion for this debate. I am sure that that gratitude is shared by all noble Lords who have taken part in it and I believe that most of them have
1020
indicated as much. I am also grateful to my noble friend Lord Glenarthur himself for the clear, concise and I would agree elegant, but I think not self-satisfied (as was suggested elsewhere) way in which he put before your Lordships the facts of Government funding of the voluntary sector in the abolition areas and of the mechanisms under which voluntary bodies in abolition areas will in future have to operate.
My noble friend reminded your Lordships that in the rate support grant statement the Government transferred to the boroughs and districts the whole of the resources to which the GLC and MCCs would have been entitled if they had continued to exist. That settlement, as some of your Lordships have cause to know, actually favoured the inner cities at the cost of the shires. There can therefore be no question whatever of the boroughs and districts being asked to take on any inherited voluntary sector funding for which they have not also inherited the RSG resources. In other words, they start level with their predecessors, or they would have done so had we not intervened on their behalf. We intervened by providing over and above those RSG resources £40 million-worth of transitional aid spread over four years. That is £15 million in the first year, not £5 million overall as I believe I heard the noble Lord, Lord Bottomley, say in his opening speech. I hope that my noble friend Lady Elliot of Harwood will recognise that this money is additional to what is being spent at present. It is not and it never was intended to be in substitution for it. This is extra money to account for the difficulty of allocating the existing money, which has not been diminished. That being so an emergency fund cannot be the answer.
I do not pretend that a number of bodies are not faced with great difficulty, but we should consider for a moment from what that difficulty, and hence your Lordships' anxiety, arises. In nine cases out of ten it arises either because a local authority or a funding body has come to no decision or because it has come to a decision that does not favour some activities that the noble Lord in question would prefer to see continued and supported by the local authorities.
Let me deal with that second case first because it is in this context that I believe I may have been a little misrepresented. The reassurance which I gave to the House when I was taking the Local Government Act through its various stages was that the resources that went to the abolition authorities would go to their successors—and so they have. But at no time did I say that central government would see that those successor authorities would spend those resources in the same way as their predecessors did; still less did, I say that central government would direct those successors as to what voluntary activities they were to support. On the contrary, time and again, and on every aspect of the Bill, I said that its purpose was to transfer functions and decisions closer to the electorate and closer to the ratepayer. That means transferring them away from, not towards, central government.
It is the boroughs and the districts who in consequence must now decide in place of the GLC and the metropolitan county councils how the ratepayers' money shall be spent. If they take a decision which any of your Lordships, or I or the Government regret, deplore or disagree with in any way, I have to remind

1021
your Lordships that it is their ratepayers' money that is in question and that it is their ratepayers who elected them to make those decisions. That is democracy, my Lords. It is not for us to lecture them about matters for which they are responsible not to this House but to their own electorates. I listened with particular attention to the noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris, because I have long been aware of his concern for, and his distinguished services to, Citizens' Advice Bureaux. Also, I saw a letter signed by the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster as well as the noble Lord himself which showed an expectation of very drastic changes across the board for Citizens' Advice Bureaux, and the noble Lord, Lord Banks, reflected that fear.
I am perfectly ready to be corrected and I shall read the record with great care because I have the greatest respect for the source of information which it represents. As I understand it, there are some 900 Citizens' Advice Bureaux in the United Kingdom and only one bureau (which, I understand, is Acock's Green, which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Banks) appears to be in danger of closure as a result of abolition. Acock's Green bureau, as both noble Lords know, is in Birmingham and Birmingham has a very good record of support for the voluntary sector. It supports a number of Citizens' Advice Bureaux and I understand that Birmingham has still to take a decision on Acock's Green.
Perhaps I should start with Tooting Bee Hospital Citizens' Advice Bureau. I understand that that has secured private funding for a year and that during that year it will be considered for later support by the Richmond Scheme; so that there is no immediate danger there.
Law centres are not, noble Lords will agree, part of the CAB network as such and they will also know that only a handful are funded by central government, thanks to the interesting extra-statutory intervention of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, in the late 1970s, for which he received a perhaps grudging accolade from his erstwhile Prime Minister, to which he earlier referred. For the rest of the law centres, the Government's policy, clearly stated before abolition, is that the decision whether to fund them is a local matter. Whatever that decision is, it is for the local authorities themselves to defend it. The decision on Paddington, for instance, was taken by Westminster. The noble Lord told us that they offered matching funds for half the cost of the CAB contribution to that centre. But it must be for them to make that decision and it must be to them that the noble Lord addresses his concern.
The noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris, has expressed great disappointment in the Government's commitment to Citizens' Advice Bureaux. I believe that the references that he made were to exchanges on the subject of the National Association of Citizens' Advice Bureaux and in that case, I remind him, government funding of the National and Scottish Associations, which is now at very nearly £8 million, will be increased above that figure by more than the rate of inflation next year. His concern was tonight about the individual bureaux and I have to say that I was aware that some funding for specialist support services could be at risk in some areas: that will, I fear,
1022
make life more difficult for some Citizens' Advice Bureaux. But, subject to what I read in the Official Report tomorrow, I do not believe that it will affect their basic generalist advice-giving role, using volunteer workers. With that reservation, it therefore seems that the worst effect of abolition on the CAB service will be at the margins, and that reflects the very high regard the service is held in in this country—a regard which is shared, as I have sought to show, by the Government, whose commitment to the National and Scottish Associations has risen to its present level from only £1·85 million when we came into office.
That is country-wide; and it is in London that noble Lords have suggested in one respect or another that abolition has resulted in devastation. Certainly, there has been difficulty and it will continue, but devastation? That seems to me to be a relative term and it is prudent to ask what exactly it is relevant to. In this case, the comparison which is most often made—and it was made several times tonight—is with the level of funding by the Greater London Council for the same purposes. If that is the bench mark, it deserves fairly close examination, because it is a highly mobile bench mark. In 1981–82 it stood at £8 million. In 1983–84, when abolition had already been signalled, it had risen to five times as much—about £40 million. In 1984–85, during which year the Abolition Bill was making its very public progress through Parliament, it went up a further £ 16 million to £56 million.
In that year, the increase alone was double the total expenditure in 1981–82. In the year now just concluding, 1985–86, we are told to expect that this total expenditure, including stress borough expenditure, will come to £82 million and, of course, the farewell distribution that the GLC are seeking to add to that expected total would amount to a further £25 million on top of the £82 million put out by more conventional routes, making a total of £107 million altogether.
What is it that we are seeking to compare with that highly mobile bench mark? What funding are we looking for in 1986–87 as fair? What we do expect is £27 million from the boroughs through Richmond for London-wide groups, plus £16 million with transitional grant support from boroughs to local groups, plus £5 million from London Regional Transport for Dial-a-Ride; and that alone comes to £48 million. In addition, there is the funding which the boroughs themselves would give over and above their traditional grant allocations. Their bids suggest that this would amount to nearly £16 million and, even if this figure were halved to £8 million, we should still be looking at expenditure next year which matches the GLC's outturn in 1984–85. If it is not halved, then it exceeds it.
By that year, 1984–85, the effects of abolition were foreseen and the GLC funding had already increased to seven times what it had been only three years before. It has been suggested that even this is far too little but I wonder whether some people would not suggest that the boot was on the other foot. I have to listen to all sides of the argument and there are many I hear who say that this is too high, who argue that it is too far up the spiral of spending which the GLC mounted in the face of expenditure constraints. So

1023
which GLC figure should we match?—£8 million; £40 million; £56 million; £82 million or £107 million? I think that collectively the voluntary sector in London are now set to receive more than they expected to get a year ago, when, indeed, they accepted high-risk grants from a GLC whose likely future has been known since 1983.
That is the collective figure, but your Lordships' eyes are naturally caught not by the crowd, as it were, but by the individual. The collective picture does not mean that there is no reduction on 1985–86, whatever that figure turns out to be, and it does not mean that all activities that were paid for by the GLC in the past will continue to be paid for by the boroughs in the future. That I accept. That is largely the ground of complaint of many noble Lords. But that reduction is not accidental and neither is it imposed, as I have shown, by curtailment of government funds. It is the intended result of decisions deliberately and advisedly taken by authorities elected for that purpose among others.
Outside London, the figures are at once less clear and less dramatic. The districts have, of course, always been the main funders of voluntary bodies and the county contributions have been relatively smaller. The estimate of £14 million funding which the counties produced while the Bill was going through Parliament included arts bodies, and the funding to voluntary bodies overall was rather less. We have allocated some £4 million in transitional grant allocations to the metropolitan districts. That is in support of expenditure plans amounting to some £5.5 million on local projects. In addition, we estimate that they plan to spend a further £5 million on county-wide projects. Both in London and elsewhere the funding of some bodies which have been hitherto regarded as part of the voluntary sector will be now covered by funding from the Arts Council and the Sports Council.
In future years the new trust for London, with its £10 million endowments, will be a further source of grants to voluntary bodies. That endowment will come, as was made clear when the Bill was going through Parliament, from the sale of surplus property by the Residuary Body. It is too early to say whether sufficient funds will be available for similar trusts in other areas, but that is a necessary pre-condition before we can undertake to set one up.
That aside, the funds are there and, as my noble friend Lord Glenarthur earlier said, the rate support grant is there. What we are left with is the plain fact that the priorities of the successor bodies are not always the same as those of the counties. So I must say to the noble Lord, Lord Bottomley, that if Waltham Forest or Tower Hamlets do not wish to fund causes that he, the GLC, or indeed I, favour, that is for them. As for the things in Middlesbrough and Rochester, which the noble Lord also brought into the debate, I have to remind him that this debate is about the effects on abolition areas. Middlesbrough is in Teesside and Rochester is in Kent; and those we are leaving intact.
If the districts in Greater Manchester choose to fund some county projects under their Section 48 scheme but reject others, are noble Lords saying that we are to say they are wrong? If London boroughs have different views of the world from that of the GLC—
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he would accept that sometimes, with the best will in the world, district authorities might wish to fund certain bodies yet the pressures to which they are subject do not really make it possible?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I will come in part to that, but in part I have already passed it because I have pointed out that the resources are there and the decision is for the districts. The question I was, not altogether rhetorically, asking the House and the right reverend Prelate was: did the right reverend Prelate and the House think that the Government ought to tell the districts what to do with their money? If so, there is not much point in having the districts there. Then the question arises as to whether they have got the money—which I have demonstrated. Another question will then follow: are there other constraints which will prevent them from using the money in that way? I shall return to that before I conclude.
I think I shall curtail my remarks because, if I may say so, that was a very useful intervention by the right reverend Prelate and it is always nice to have a Bishop with us at the finish, too, to fulfil that useful purpose.
On the single authority schemes, as my noble friend has acknowledged, a number of boroughs and districts still have to make their decisions. It is late in the day and that does make for anxiety and difficulty in the voluntary sector, and I take this opportunity to urge them again to make very swift decisions where this has not been done already. Some schemes are multi-authority, and are for Section 48: others are single-authority, and are for Section 137.
It has been suggested that in London some fall between. The boroughs which at Richmond decided to draw the dividing line at three-borough schemes are the same boroughs which make the decisions on funding non-multi-borough schemes individually. They therefore own both the stools that noble Lords fear voluntary bodies may fall between, and there is therefore no reason, in administrative terms, why they should.
I can also assure my noble friend Lady Elliot that all the Merseyside authorities have committed themselves to helping ex-county voluntary groups within the resources available. I can also tell both my noble friend and the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, that we have provided a transitional grant of half a million pounds to Liverpool City Council. The decisions on spending of course, as is clear, remain with them.
These decisions, as I said before, are not Government decisions and the Government do not therefore control the processes or the speed with which they are arrived at. But I think I should say that we have exerted ourselves all along to get them arrived at in good time. As my noble friend reminded your Lordships, it was in April 1985 that we grant-aided the London boroughs and seconded staff to Richmond to get the biggest scheme in the country off the ground as early as possible. My honourable friend, Sir George Young, wrote personally to the leader of every metropolitan district in April of last year to urge action on this front and to offer help with the setting-up costs of collective schemes, simply because we were already

1025
saying that time was short. Other steps followed in subsequent months.
I accept that difficulties do arise from the sheer volume of applications for grant for cross-county schemes. This has led to the backlog to which the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, referred. In Richmond the steering group of councillors has addressed itself to this problem in a way which I am sure will commend itself to my noble friend Lady Elliot of Harwood, because they have decided that the director should have discretion to extend grants for up to three months to groups where final decisions have not been taken. That decision has to be confirmed tomorrow by the full meeting at which all boroughs will be represented. My honourable friend, Sir George Young, has written to the chairman in support of that eminently practical suggestion. It is a sensible and reasonable proposal, to which I add my own support. I hope and expect that it will be endorsed tomorrow.
If I may say so, it demonstrates that local authorities are in a position to deal with these issues themselves, as the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, would wish. I am not surprised that the LVSC has devoted a good deal of time and resources to these matters. I should think that the voluntary bodies would consider this to be exactly the sort of work with which they wanted help from that body.
One matter of interest to them was raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, in his interesting speech: that is, what happens when the GLC has promised to pay but has not done so? I can tell the noble and learned Lord—although I think he has heard it from other lips than mine in an earlier speech—that the London Residuary Body, or the appropriate successor authority, will be responsible for any outstanding contractual commitments by the GLC to pay approved grants. They will, of course, have to be contractual commitments.
Lord Rhodes: My Lords, does that apply to Manchester, too?
Lord Elton: My Lords, it applies to everybody, all residuary bodies.
In the last few days there has been growing interest in these matters and I have received letters from Members of another place and another party suggesting that these were political issues—speaking as if Tory boroughs, aided and abetted by a Tory Government, were bringing chaos to London's voluntary sector by meanness and delay. I notice the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition nodding his head in support of the allegations made by his honourable friend who speaks from the official Opposition Front Bench in another place.
I must say that I find that approach a little surprising, even in the starkly political context in which it has to be read. It was, after all, the Conservative boroughs who, with the Liberal Richmond, got the London collective scheme off the ground, and in the teeth of Labour opposition. They got if off the ground with the help of the Conservative Government and in the face of a flat refusal, at first, by the Labour boroughs to have any part of it at all. And after that refusal they sought to delay its establishment
1026
through legal manoeuvres. I ought to add that all but two of the boroughs have taken their grant decisions, and in the other two decisions are imminent. If there is chaos from delay, it does not appear to be any more the responsibility of the Conservative-led authorities.
The politics of this—and sadly it is a political matter—are that the party opposite has all along been committed to proving that abolition was damaging and would not work. So far, they have been surprised, I believe, although they would not admit it, by the extent to which it is not damaging and does work. I cannot and do not criticise them for drawing attention to instances where there are difficulties or where they think that there will be loss. It is important in such cases to be clear where the blame lies. It does not lie with the Conservative Party at either national or local level.
The right reverend Prelate suggested an ingenious device for hypothecating a proportion of rates—it was the other right reverend Prelate, who has not been able to listen to the answer—to the support of voluntary bodies. Local authorities habitually draw a picture of how every pound is sliced up, and that serves to show how the money is raised and on what it is spent. If the right reverend Prelate and, I think, my noble friend Baroness Faithfull—lurking as always out of sight—had something more in mind, I shall have to look at it.
Your Lordships will have noticed that we have an hour in hand. I do not intend to take it all, but I think that your Lordships would wish me to answer as many points as I possibly can. The particular points that I have in mind were made by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, who referred to the North-East Section 48 scheme. I have to say that the Department of the Environment has not turned down four employment projects in Tyne and Wear. It has merely asked for information about them on a county application to forward-fund them. There are, of course, no restraints on district funds next year, and it does not need to ask for our approval at all.
The noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris, mentioned the case of the National Council for One-Parent Families. I am grateful for his comments. It was like the sun coming out of the middle of his speech. I should make it clear that thanks to a GLC delay of many months, we received the GLC application to make a grant to the national council only on 27th February, and we gave consent on 7th March. That story demonstrates both that the means of decision lie in hands other than ours and that we act to help the voluntary sector when it lies in our power to do so.
The noble Lord, Lord Rhodes, asked me about Selcare, which is a well-established and highly-regarded organisation. Its contribution to the care of offenders and ex-offenders is greatly valued by all the agencies in the criminal justice field with which it co-operates. It is responsible for developing many imaginative schemes, but forward-funding is a use of money expected by successor bodies for purposes chosen by the abolition authority. We therefore naturally asked the Greater Manchester Council on 4th December for the views of the successor districts on the use of the money it proposed. It has not so far replied to us. Although I believe that one district may

1027
have opposed the suggestion, we have to await that information, and so it is not us who are standing about.
I think that the noble Lord, Lord Soper, was referring to the Hillingdon Asian Women's Group. If he was not, I shall have to write to him. If he was, I have to tell him that it was Hillingdon that decided not to put that group forward for transitional grant; it was not turned down by my department because an application was not received.
The noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth) referred to FOLDAR. I am sure that she is aware that London Regional Transport is taking on the funding of Dial-a-Ride, and it is to it, and not to Richmond, that it should turn and which will consider whether it is still necessary. I understand that it is considering that matter now. The cancer link bid was addressed to the Greater Manchester districts. If, as I believe, they do not favour it, it is to them, I regretfully have to tell the noble Baroness, that she should address her moving plea. Accord Lambeth, I can tell her, has had approval given by my department for transitional grant of £12,000.
The noble Earl, Lord Longford, was kind enough to give me notice (I am very sorry not to be able to call it chic, because I think that is a very appropriate term) of his interest in the body called CHIC—the Community House Information Centre. That group has applied to the Richmond scheme, and I understand that its application is now being considered and is likely to be put to the committee during April. I have referred to the interim arrangements until that date. It has also applied to ILEA for grant, but I have to tell the noble Earl that its activities do not appear to be particularly relevant to ILEA'S function as an education authority and it does not therefore seem an appropriate object for transitional grant by that route.
I shall not deal with the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman—I shall write to her—because I see that although your Lordships are not yet impatient, you soon will be and you will miss much good material as a result.
In conclusion, therefore, I have to say that I will, as always, read with great care the comments that your Lordships have made. I shall finish in one minute by saying that we have, as a Government, acted to give all the resources that the GLC and the metropolitan county councils would have had under the rate support grant settlement, and have given it to the boroughs and districts, undiminished. We have acted to provide £40 million of additional cash beyond that. I nearly left out something that I should not have left out because your Lordships will want to hear it, and I shall substitute it for my peroration.
I am grateful to your Lordships for drawing my attention to many matters. Many of your Lordships have said that it is the 2p ceiling on the Section 137 rate—that brings me back to the constraints to which the right reverend Prelate was drawing my attention—which prevents otherwise willing authorities from funding deserving organisations.
Your Lordships will, I hope, have listened carefully when my noble friend pointed out that we had relieved pressure on that ceiling by removing the funding of all
1028
Section 48 schemes, such as the Richmond scheme, from that ceiling; but the anxiety remains, and I am acutely aware of it. The anxiety is that this year's arrangements make pressure on the ceiling damaging, nonetheless. I have to say that we consider it important not to pre-empt the outcome of the Widdicombe inquiry, which is looking at the whole area of discretionary spending. The solution in the meantime does not, I believe, lie in raising the limit, as the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, suggested.
However, I am in a position to make an announcement about one aspect of Section 137 which I know will be helpful to local authorities and therefore to the voluntary sector. Your Lordships will know that authorities with relatively low rateable resources have in the past been allowed to include a certain amount of the rate support grant that they receive in calculating the product of a 1p rate for the purpose of the 2p limit. This has given them, in effect, a higher limit than they would otherwise have had from merely relying upon their rateable resources.
One consequence of the rate support grant settlement for 1986–87 is, as again your Lordships are well aware, that the amount of grant that those authorities can include is substantially reduced. If we took no action, many authorities would face a cut in the amount that they can spend under Section 137. That has been the source of much complaint.
I can now tell your Lordships that my right honourable friend will be consulting local government about proposals to ensure that, for the purpose of Section 137, in 1986–87 the product of a 1p rate will be maintained at the level applying in 1985–86. That will help some of the hardest pressed authorities, including many in metropolitan areas. My noble friend Lady Elliot of Harwood said that the Budget was a good thing, but that we should see whether we cannot get something more. I am glad to tell my noble friend that this step will result in a useful release of resources in the area about which she is concerned.
My other credentials I was going to put into a bag and spread along the Table in a peroration. I have disgracefully overshot my time. I apologise. The case rests.
7.28 p.m.
Lord Bottomley: My Lords, I should like to express my thanks to all who have contributed to making this debate a success. The fact that so many of your Lordships have joined in the discussion shows the interest that there is in voluntary organisations.
We are now only days away from the abolition of the GLC and the metropolitan authorities. The fate of hundreds of voluntary organisations still hangs in the balance. Some face closure or slow death; others will have to curtail their activities severely. Government pledges that no harm would befall voluntary organisations after the abolition of the GLC and the metropolitan authorities can now be seen for the false promises that they were. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Lothian Region (Edinburgh Western Relief Road) Order Confirmation Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Employee Involvement
7.30 p.m.
Lord Rochester Lord Rochester rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they consider, in the light of statements included in recent company annual reports in accordance with Section 1 of the Employment Act 1982, that companies are doing enough to promote employee involvement.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, your Lordships will recall that Section 1 of the Employment Act 1982 makes it a statutory requirement that every company employing more than 250 people in the United Kingdom should include in its annual report a statement describing the action taken during the year to introduce, maintain or develop arrangements aimed at, first, providing employees systematically with information on matters of concern to them as employees; secondly, consulting employees or their representatives on a regular basis so that the views of employees can be taken into account in making decisions which are likely to affect their interests; thirdly, encouraging the involvement of employees in the company's performance through an employees' share scheme or by some other means; and, fourthly, achieving a common awareness on the part of all employees of the financial and economic factors affecting the performance of the company.
It is rather more than a year ago that in another Unstarred Question I asked Her Majesty's Government what conclusions they had reached in monitoring the action reported to have been taken by companies during the first year of operation of Section 1. Last June, the Department of Employment published a note giving its conclusions. Among other things, it said:
"A particularly encouraging feature was the diversity of individual practices which was reported by companies … It serves to emphasise that companies are best left to develop individual practices according to their own particular circumstances. A prescriptive approach would only disrupt these many and varied systems which already exist".
It added:
"It is also encouraging that the great majority of the reports included an employee involvement statement, that about a third of these covered action under three of the four sub-headings of Section 1, and that about half were supported by detailed descriptions or examples".
That was one way of looking at it, but less than six months after publication of that departmental note the Parliamentary Under-Secretary at the time, Mr. Peter Bottomley, described the lack of detail in half of the company reports that had been monitored as disappointing. Worse still, in his view, were the results of an analysis by the Institute of Personnel Management of the second year reports appearing as a result of Section 1. I quote from his remarks. He said:
"The IPM observed a continuing lack of detail in many reports and they concluded that companies are failing to observe the spirit of the law relating to employee involvement. The legislation asks clearly for a statement of action, not policy".
In their own comments on first and second year reports, the IPM considered that the test of the legislation was whether in the second year there was an improvement, particularly among those companies which in the first year had been reluctant to include more than a short general statement. The institute concluded:
"The answer from the sample survey is clearly 'No'. The results are very disappointing. Over 50 per cent, of the statements are identical to the first year, leading to the conclusion that many companies are meeting this statutory requirement by a standard paragraph to be included unchanged along with the similar requirements on disabled persons."
The verdict of the Institute of Personnel Management was that the shortcomings of Section 1, in practice, cast doubts on its effectiveness as an instrument of change. It feared that by the time the third and fourth year reports emerged, unless there was some major change in the voluntary approach they would have been set in standard paragaphs and largely ignored. It saw the most helpful signs as the increase in employee share schemes and employee reports and thought it was perhaps in that direction that reform lay.
The first question that I should therefore like to ask the Minister is whether the Government agree with this approach to the problem, and, if so, what they are willing to do to encourage particularly the preparation and distribution of reports to employees. In the case of employee share and similar schemes, I gladly acknowledge at this point the steps announced in yesterday's Budget Statement which may be of help. I refer to the Chancellor's so-called personal equity plan, the discussions that are proposed to get an attractive profit-sharing scheme off the ground, and the plan to improve schemes to encourage tax relief on approved employee share schemes. I cannot resist the temptation to remind the House that ideas of this kind have long been advocated by the Liberal Party—they are nonetheless welcome for that—but I suggest that they are not enough.
A year ago, I commended to your Lordships the code of practice and accompanying action guide which was first published jointly by the IPM and the Industrial Participation Association more than two years ago and which since then has twice been revised. I asked at the time whether the Government proposed after consultation with interested parties to place their own imprimatur on that document or to publish their own code, as they had done in the case of closed shop arrangements and picketing.
In reply, the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, said that the Government were not convinced that the code would be made any more effective by doing this. Last May, the then Secretary of State for Employment went a small step further in stating that the Government endorsed the code. However, since the Industrial Participation Association last year estimated that only between 600 and 700 firms are committed to employee involvement to any major extent, I must next ask the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, whether the Government are now prepared to become more directly involved in this way, as a means of improving our industrial performance in both the private and public sectors.
Last April, Mr. Tony Baldry, the Conservative Member of Parliament for Banbury, introduced in another place, with all-party support, a Bill to place on the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service the duty to promote in its advisory capacity the IPA/IPM code, but there was not time in the last parliamentary Session to debate it. I appreciate that ACAS might itself have reservations about exercising such a duty, lest this should be seen as prejudicing its independent status. But I must then ask the Minister the question: in that case, should not the Government, which accepted responsibility for incorporating Section 1 within the Employment Act 1982, now themselves, in their executive capacity, do more actively to promote employee involvement?
There are various other possible ways in which progress might be made. I am on record as having said on a number of occasions that in all organisations employing more than a certain number of people there should be consultative bodies of some kind. An alternative approach now being canvassed widely is that employees should be given statutory rights to receive information and to be consulted within certain defined parameters.
I know very well that the Government have until now insisted that employee involvement must be developed voluntarily. For my part, I have tried hard to develop a consensus in the matter. But I fear that if the Government remain entirely passive they may later come to regret it. Apart altogether from the pressures which continue to come from Europe for further legislation in this field, there are those growing unceasingly within our own society which would in my view be better embraced and channelled into some generally acceptable way rather than that they should eventually explode in forms which employers would greatly deplore.
There is much more that I could say, but my purpose in asking this Question is not so much to express my own thoughts as to provide the Government with the opportunity to give the House their up-to-date views on the matter. Can it be right that in 1986 it is only when people are at work that they may still be denied representation or even information when major decisions affecting their lives are made? I do hope that the Minister will be able to tell us of some further positive action which the Government plan to take in response to that question, for I believe it to be the most basic of all in this field.
7.42 p.m.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, I should like to begin by welcoming the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, who is to reply for the Government, to this debate. This has become an annual debate, I am afraid, between on our side of the House the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, who was responsible for Section 1 of the 1982 Act, and myself, and a series of Ministers on the other side of the House. As the noble Lord said, we have had the noble Lord, Lord Belstead; we had at the beginning of it all the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie; and we have I suppose some hope that, if things go on as they are, next year we may actually have the Secretary of State himself. Meanwhile we welcome the noble Lord, Lord
1032
Trefgarne, to the debate, and we hope that he will have something rather more helpful to say than previous speakers.
I want to make four points this evening. First of all, I want to remind the Government of the provisions of Section 1 of the 1982 Act, and how modest they were. As was said at the time, this part of the 1982 legislation was a million miles from Vredeling and light years away from the despised fifth directive. As the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, has said, it provided merely that companies with more than 250 employees would include information in their annual report, not to the workers but to their shareholders, simply telling them what they had done to inform their workers, to consult their workers and to develop their awareness of factors affecting the performance of the company; and also what they had done to encourage employee shareholders.
It was addressed from the directors to the shareholders. It was nothing to do with trade unions; it was nothing to do with collective bargaining; it only had to appear in the annual report. But we hoped that the fact that it went into the annual report would make companies think about what they were doing and perhaps over a period of time improve what they were doing. But it was a very modest scheme, and the Government accepted it during the passage of the Employment Act 1982 as a very modest scheme. There was nothing in it that progressive companies had not been doing for years. That was what we said at the time.
The second thing I want to say—and here, again, I agree with what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Rochester—is that, nevertheless, all the evidence is that the great majority of companies, contrary to what was said in the first report by the Department of Employment, do not really carry out fully and satisfactorily the modest spirit of Section 1 of the 1982 legislation; and, in a way much more seriously, given the way in which the case for the provision was made in 1982, there is now no further stimulus for change. That is essentially what the Institute of Personnel Management survey says.
In the first year we had a series of studies—the Department of Employment study, as the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, has mentioned; the ACAS study, and the IPM survey. They all showed that the majority were not giving positive encouragement to all four aspects of Section 1 of the 1982 Act, and indeed that only about one-third of the companies passed the IPM tests, modest as they were, on all four aspects. Another one-third were doing nothing, or very little. As the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, has said, the IPM, in its second year survey, reported that the results were very disappointing. It said in its second year survey that one might have wondered:
"Would there be an improvement"—
as a result of the Act—
"… among those companies reluctant to include more than a short general statement?"
As the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, said, the answer from the sample survey is clearly, "No".
I think this is an understatement by the ever-polite IPM, which has done excellent work in this field. One sees from its second year survey that only 15 per cent.

1033
of the firms involved in the survey report an improvement and that 85 per cent, say that they are in the same position as they were before. They report with the same words, or they report in very similar words, which suggests that they are still in the same position.
More important still, the improvement in so far as there is an improvement is concentrated on those who gave the most satisfactory answers last year. Twenty per cent, of those who passed all four tests last year have improved their position, but only one firm in the lowest category has improved its position. The IPM says on page 5 of its second report:
"These shortcomings"—
the shortcomings in Section 1—
"… in practice cast doubts on the effectiveness of the Companies Act as a statutory instrument of inducing change and keeping at bay the unwanted EEC legislation";
the legislation that is unwanted by the Government.
"By the time the third and fourth year reports emerge, unless there is some major change in the voluntary approach, they will have become set in standard paragraphs and largely ignored".
I should have thought that this year the spokesman for the Government would come back and tell us that, in the light of the second survey of the IPM, he accepts that this provision of the 1982 Act is not working out as it was intended to do and that it has ceased to have any dynamism in it. I should have thought that the Government would be particularly concerned about this in terms of what they have said in the past about financial participation. The IPM have said that what is required to carry out the provisions is an increase in profit sharing schemes, employee shareholdings, group incentive schemes, pension fund involvement and so on. There is not much to report in the IPM survey in that respect.
That contrasts, I should have thought, with what the Government are now saying about financial participation. The Chancellor said in his Budget—curiously enough, he said it while he was saying what the Government were doing for the unemployed, but never mind:
"It might make sense to offer some temporary measure of tax relief to the employees concerned to get profit-sharing agreements of the right kind off the ground".— [Official Report, Commons, 18/3/86; col. 172.]
Indeed, at one moment the Chancellor seemed to be suggesting that, in order to get profit sharing and financial participation off the ground, the Government might consider consulting the TUC—although naturally he could not bring himself to say the actual words.
Nevertheless, in the Budget the Government are proposing certain minimal improvements to existing legislation governing approved employee share schemes. I would have thought that in that context, and in the context of a Government who have now come out and said that they want to encourage that aspect of employee involvement, we might find a rather more positive approach taken towards Section 1 of the 1982 Act.
We are asking for something more positive than we have had in previous years. We are asking in the first place whether the Government now agree with the
1034
Institute of Personnel Management that it is a busted flush of a provision. I am asking in particular whether the Government will now take up the role that we have asked them to take up in previous debates and themselves investigate the extent to which firms are not only making returns but are actually improving their involvement provisions.
We are asking also whether the Government will do more about shareholding schemes and to encourage an increase in such schemes. In conclusion, we ask the Government whether they wish to adopt for yet another year their entirely passive attitude towards Section 1 of the 1982 Act.
7.51 p.m.
The Minister of State for Defence Support (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, I have listened with considerable interest to the speeches made by the noble Lords, Lord Rochester and Lord McCarthy, and I am heartened by the general acceptance of the desirability of promoting and advancing better employee involvement practices. We seem to be agreed on where we want to go. We all accept the need for employee involvement—but some of us part company on how we get there. I dare say that it was ever thus.
Just over a year ago the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, as he mentioned, asked a Question about the conclusions we in Government had drawn from the early efforts made by companies to comply with the requirements of Section 1 of the Employment Act 1982. Tonight the Government are asked again if companies are doing enough to promote employee involvement.
We have heard of the studies there have been of companies' compliance with "Section 1", and it has been suggested that the results have not been good. I must say I do not consider their conclusions represent an overwhelming statistical expose of non-compliance. The Institute of Personnel Management's second-year analysis, of which we have heard from both noble Lords, was based on a sample of 162 companies In fact, the largest survey of which I am aware was undertaken by the Department of Employment, covering 750 companies. Its conclusion was: yes, more could be done, but let us not forget the wide variety of employee involvement practices it revealed—a variety and extent which found an echo in other surveys.
But we should not conduct this discussion in the spirit of the two men in the story who argued over a glass of wine. The optimist said, "It's half full", while the pessimist claimed it to be "half empty". We can get ourselves diverted from the real issues in that fashion if we look exclusively at how well company reports are written and how much detail they give—important though those are. Indeed, a company with good practices might write a bad report that fails to do them justice, and vice versa.
There is some reason to believe that many companies which have made only very general statements in the Section 1 reports do have good employee involvement practices which justify their general claim. This point was made in the Government's published survey of the first year Section 1 reports. But whatever our judgment on those points, whether we are swayed by the full reports or the

1035
half-empty ones, we are all agreed that more needs to be done. In one sense I could say whatever has been done is never enough—whether we are talking about involving employees more, training our people to be more efficient, or winning our way into the world's markets. The nub of this whole matter is: which way forward is the best way? Do we coerce people or do we carry them with us willingly?
The Government, as your Lordships will know, believe that this legislation provides companies with an opportunity to review their employee involvement practices regularly at board level—and where necessary to improve them. We have always seen this as a long-term process, a constant challenge. This requirement, by bringing the question annually before the company, can remind them of this challenge. But genuine progress has to be worked for over a sustained period. It cannot be conjured into being by legislation—least of all by the prescriptive proposals put forward in Brussels. Those proposals may be more ambitious on paper, but they are defeatist in reality. Imposing a procedure from outside will never be as effective as prompting people to come to grips with those issues for themselves.
In outlining what has been achieved, and pointing out what needs to be done, the evidence does not suggest that we are on the wrong road; rather, it points the way forward. Some companies have already made great strides. Boots, for example, has a comprehensive system for informing and consulting its staff, which includes regular communication meetings and staff councils, backed up by bonus and employee share schemes. ICI—as the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, knows—has long pioneered involvement by its employees and has evolved a structure of consultative committees that meets its particular needs. Its individual recipes for success may not work for others, but they illustrate that, when you get it right, the company and its employees reap real benefits. That is the sort of progress we want to see: not state-imposed theory but good company practice.
Let me set out why we believe that legislation is not the way forward in these matters. First, we believe that successful employee involvement depends above all else on a genuine spirit of co-operation, and not on the coercive power of formal machinery. Co-operation springs from a sense of shared purpose, from the genuine desire of the participants of an undertaking to work together towards a common goal: the success of that enterprise. Co-operation simply is not possible without consent.
Secondly, the benefit of employee involvement cannot be realised in practice unless the particular arrangements suit the circumstances of each individual business. To pick one solution and to try to impose it on the large multinational, the local family firm, or the multishop chain, apart from its inherent impossibility, would constrain the growth of the many and varied practices that firms are already choosing to meet their particular circumstances, and which the Government wish to encourage.
The third reason why we eschew legislation is that the benefits that employee involvement can bring to an enterprise are their own best recommendation. It is as necessary for successful business management as it
1036
is to serve the particular interests of the employees. In a competitive world, companies have to make full use of all the resources available in tackling the problems of economic change. A company's major resource is its people: their creativity, their imagination and their energy. One cannot force that out of them—look at the Eastern Bloc countries—but with their consent and agreement one can unleash it, especially when all concerned are aware of the advantages that will ensue.
Fourthly, the Government believe that a compulsory framework would produce a number of harmful effects: investment would no longer be attractive; firms would incur direct costs in changing to, or establishing, the system laid down by legislation; commercially sensitive or confidential information would be at risk; and decision-making would be slowed down; finally, the variety of current practice in the employee involvement field would be lost. These side-effects of legislation would undermine competitiveness and be bad for jobs. You cannot involve employees if you have priced them out of a job.
I think we are all clear by now that the Government will not introduce further legislation and, indeed, will continue to resist efforts from Brussels and elsewhere to impose rigid, prescriptive solutions on everyone, regardless of their circumstances. So what are the Government doing to encourage better employee involvement? First of all, we are always looking to our own practices as an employer to see how we can improve them. My noble friend Lord Belstead, in last year's debate, referred to particular examples of the efforts being made in several government departments, and I am happy to say that many such efforts continue.
For instance, one more recent example is the National Health Service Register, which is part of the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys at Southport. A statement on employee involvement has been agreed and put into operation which will provide staff with the opportunity to influence and be involved in decisions which are likely to affect their interests. Management and staff are represented at a regular series of meetings designed to ensure an efficient two-way flow of communications. A lot of work has gone into this exercise and early indications are that it is proving very successful.
The Government take every opportunity to persuade companies to introduce, maintain and develop employee involvement arrangements appropriate to their individual circumstances: through ministerial speeches at seminars and conferences, through visits and by articles in magazines and journals. We shall continue to do so. The Government actively support the efforts of business, professional and specialist organisations to promote employee involvement. As an example, we have endorsed the code of practice jointly produced by the Industrial Participation Association and Institute of Personnel Management. I am pleased to record that the code's impact and popularity continue unabated.
Another means of genuine involvement is to give employees a financial stake in their company's future wellbeing. When you are in the same boat, you tend to row together. Time may show our achievements in

1037
this field to be of crucial importance. Since we came to power in 1979 the number of all-employee share ownership schemes has grown from only 30 to well over 1,000 today—and no sign of a let-up. The Government's privatisation programme has set in train a massive and prolonged boost to wider share ownership. We remain totally committed to giving more employees a financial stake in their future.
In his speech yesterday, my right honourable friend the Chancellor emphasised the advantages of moving to a system in which a significant proportion of employees' remuneration depended directly on the company's profitability per person employed. A move to such a system, he said, might be achieved if employers and employees negotiated profit-sharing agreements, possibly with a measure of tax relief provided by government. To that end, preliminary discussions will be held to see if a workable tax relief scheme is feasible; to be followed, if it is, by a consultative document. This is further evidence of this Government's commitment to giving the workforce the chance to have a greater stake in their company's success. In addition, the personal equity plan and the halving of stamp duty on share transactions will widen the experience of shareholding and create a more favourable climate for management and workforce to pull together for the benefit of all concerned.
I shall now touch on one or two of the points made this evening. The noble Lord, Lord Rochester, wondered whether it was not disappointing that less than half of the companies gave detailed descriptions of their employee involvement practices—referring of course to the monitoring exercise. We should of course have preferred them to give more details, but other evidence suggests that in most cases those companies with only general entries in reports on employee involvement in fact involve their employees successfully.
The noble Lord also referred to his disappointment that the IPM had found no improvement in its second year analysis. It is disappointing that the analysis did not reveal more progress than it did, but we must keep the results in perspective. One problem it underlined was that of companies with well-developed arrangements which had not changed in the reporting year. Does a simple statement that nothing has changed count as a poor report? We must remember that we are
1038
not after reports for their own sake, or even change for its own sake, but good arrangements in practice.
The noble Lord, Lord Rochester, also asked about encouraging employee reports to be passed to employees themselves. The Government are not going to hold up one form of employee involvement such as employee reports and say that that is the way to do it. Companies must pursue whatever methods they think are best suited to their circumstances. If employee reports are one such method, then so be it.
Finally, I sometimes think we mislead ourselves if we think of employee involvement as some sort of formal consultation mechanism which we can bring in or out of existence by legislation. Really involving employees in the enterprise of the company is not about formal procedures; it is a constant task of management. And like so many of the tasks facing us in this country, it is not an easy one. But success rarely comes easily, and if we look at the successful concerns, they are usually the ones which properly utilise the full potential of their people at work. That success is its own best advertisement for employee involvement and more than anything else will provide the springboard to wider and better employee involvement practices across industry.
Like so many things in life, employee involvement depends ultimately on the participants—the men and women on the factory floor, on the sales team, and in the Boardroom—and not on the Government. The Government will keep asking the questions, but the answers must come from within industry itself.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I put this point? If he says, as I think he did, that the survey of the IPM can be faulted because it is considerably less comprehensive than that which was provided by the DoE in June 1985, will he then give an undertaking that a fuller and equally comprehensive survey will be undertaken by the DoE in the immediate future?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am not in a position to give the noble Lord the sort of sweeping assurance that he asks for. However, I can assure him that the surveys will be quite up to the mark.
House adjourned at eight minutes past eight o'clock.