Lords Sitting of 19 July 1989

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

Horniman Museum: Future
Baroness Gardner of Parkes Baroness Gardner of Parkes asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they will be appointing the independent trustees for the Horniman Museum, in view of the abolition of the Inner London Education Authority in March 1990.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Trumpington): My Lords, it is intended that key members of the "shadow" board of trustees for the Horniman Museum and Library will be appointed this autumn. The directors of the museum are commenting on a management consultant's report and compiling a list of possible trustees. The Museums and Galleries Commission is seeking legal advice on the composition of a constitution for the new charitable trust, and a skeleton constitution should be available for discussion later this month.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Have any discussions taken place with the director of the museum about the museum's future?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Minister for the Arts recently met the director of the Horniman to discuss progress. The prospect of the planning period is an exciting one, balancing important tasks behind the scenes, such as introducing a planned programme of conservation, with highly visible public service tasks. This is a major challenge and one which, by building on the strength of its place in the hearts of Londoners, the Horniman Museum is confident of meeting.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that I do not think the directors of the Horniman will be in favour of too long a planning period? I am sure that they would very much like to be free of the present Government—so should we all, but that was a slip of the tongue—and free of the present organisation so that they can run themselves.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the noble Lord is presumably aware that the museum is to pass from ILEA to link with the LRB if necessary. We are anxious that this process should be as brief as is legally and practically possible. It is, however, the most expedient way of transferring staff and property to the new trust taking advantage of all the relevant expertise offered by members of the LRB. We are hoping to proceed as quickly as possible.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I am delighted about what the Minister said concerning the appointment,
772
probably in October. Will the trustees, directly they are appointed, have full powers to negotiate the transfer of the collections and to deal with matters of staff and any assets which will be necessary if the museum is to achieve, as we all hope, full independence by April 1990?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, perhaps I should correct the noble Baroness. I did not mention a month. I said that the trustees would be appointed this autumn. In other respects I concur with what she says.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, in the improbable event of my finding my way to the Horniman Museum, what will I find in it?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the Horniman's collections are immensely rich and varied—
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Baroness Trumpington: The outstanding ethnographic collection presents a worldwide view of human culture and belief as seen through arts and craft. There is a natural history collection ranging from a fully grown walrus—against which visitors can weigh themselves—to exotic birds. The aquarium and vivarium are both high on the list of visitors' favourites. The world class collection of 6,000 musical instruments also contains the renowned Carse collection of 18th and 19th century woodwinds.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, in addition to having told us what is in the museum, can my noble friend tell us about the very wide educational activities of this museum?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the Horniman has a full and popular education programme for both adults and children, ranging from formal lectures to art, craft and pottery instruction, and—of particular interest to my noble friend—concerts, performances and activities such as boomerang throwing.
Lord Gainford: My Lords, can my noble friend please tell us where this wonderful building is?
Baroness Trumpington: Yes, my Lords. It is in the south of London.

Community Care: Scotland
2.43 p.m.
Lord McCluskey Lord McCluskey asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they intend, when announcing their decisions in response to the Griffiths Report on Community Care, to state what are to be the implications for community care in Scotland.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Sanderson of Bowden): My Lords, as you will know my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland made a written statement on 12th July in

773
another place about his plans for community care in Scotland in the light of the Government's response to the Griffiths Report. A copy of that statement was placed in the Library.
Lord McCluskey: My Lords, does the noble Lord recognise that in that statement the Secretary of State asserted that the current arrangements for sharing responsibilities for services for the mentally ill between health and social work authorities in Scotland have generally worked well? Does he acknowledge that in Scotland there is widespread disagreement with that statement, coupled with deep disappointment that the Secretary of State for Scotland did not follow the lead of the Secretary of State for Health in England and Wales and announce a specific grant to encourage local authority support for services for the mentally ill? Finally, will the noble Lord advise the Secretary of State for Scotland before he publishes his White Paper to have the good sense and the humility to do what he did not do in the Griffiths exercise; namely, to seek the advice of those who tried with inadequate sources to provide help for those who need it in Scotland?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I agree that in many arrangements there is always room for improvement. However, the present arrangements have resulted in significant reductions in the number of mentally handicapped and ill patients in long-stay institutions. I am sure that the noble and learned Lord, who has a great interest in this matter, will realise that.
Between 1979 and 1987 the number of mentally handicapped people in hospitals fell by 21 per cent. The number of long-stay mentally ill patients fell by 13 per cent. We have placed a high importance on having the right facilities in the community. Expenditure in the community health service has increased by 43 per cent. in real terms since 1979.
The arrangements recently announced for community care are designed to form the basis for further improvement in co-operation and co-ordination. Of course, the Scottish Office will be happy to meet representatives of the Scottish Association of Mental Health to discuss arrangements for the mentally ill.
Finally we wish to consider carefully whether there will be any advantage in introducing in Scotland the specific grant proposed for England or whether the resources might not be as effectively used in other ways. Decisions have not yet been made.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, the Minister referred to a statement made by the Secretary of State for Scotland in another place in which he emphasised that the primary objective of care in the community should be that of sustaining people in their homes for as long as possible. Recognising the great variations in individual circumstances, will the Minister ensure that the White Paper will allow for the maximum flexibility in dealing with individual people in need of care? Can he also say when the promised White Paper on the Griffiths Report will be published and whether there will be a separate White Paper for Scotland?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, yes, we have in mind and high on the agenda individual packages for individual needs, whether it is residential day care or respite care. Present indications show that it will be a GB White Paper with a Scottish dimension; in other words, there will be a Scottish input. We hope to publish it in the autumn.

School Meals: Take-up
2.45 p.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs Baroness Ewart-Biggs asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether there has been any change in the take-up of school meals resulting from the Social Security Act 1986.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, the overall trend in numbers taking school meals has been downwards for many years. Figures from the latest school meals census show that 2·8 per cent. fewer school meals were provided on the day of the 1988 count than on the corresponding day for 1987. It is not possible to say how far that reduction is attributable to the 1986 Social Security Act, which provides for a cash sum instead of a free school meal for schoolchildren whose parents receive family credit.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that general Answer. Is he aware that the most recent census on school meals, carried out in October 1988, showed a most alarming decrease in the number of children having free school meals? The decrease was 31 per cent., which represented 337,000 children, out of which 7,000 were reported from Manchester alone. Does the Minister agree that the reasons for the decrease is the low take-up of family credit? Therefore, will he say whether the Government will extend eligibility for free school meals to those children whose parents receive family credit? Will he also say whether the Government will set up a review, as they did in 1983, of the prices charged, whether they are deterring parents and whether the children are substituting for school meals junk food and sandwiches from home, which are not good for growing children?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I agree that the number of pupils having free meals has declined. Until April 1988, children whose parents received supplementary benefit for family income supplement received a free school meal. Since then children from families in receipt of income support—which replaced supplementary benefit—and those pupils who themselves receive the benefit are still entitled to receive free school meals.
Family income supplement has been replaced by family credit, which includes a cash addition for each child in place of free school meals. It is payable throughout the year, not only in term time. The amount is reviewed annually and it amounts to rather more than the average cost of a school meal.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, what evidence is there to show that the take-up of family credit has

775
anything to do with the number of children receiving free school meals? What is the evidence to show that that is an indication of anything?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, there is no evidence.
Lord Peston: My Lords, surely one possible piece of evidence is that the two occur at the same time, so they go hand in hand. Bearing in mind the figures which the noble Viscount has given about the general decline in the number of young people receiving school meals, and which seems deplorable, do the Government agree with the old-fashioned view that if all children took school dinners the communal spirit of the school would be improved and it would be good for education?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, that is a point of view. It is the Government's policy as far as possible to replace benefits in kind with benefits in cash, so that parents can have a choice as to how they use their money.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, is the health of the children being monitored, bearing in mind the number of those not receiving school meals but having inadequate types of food?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, the question of diet is best left to local education authorities as providers of meals. But the prime responsibility for what children eat lies with their parents. A survey of diets was carried out six years ago, but much has changed since then. Over 70 LEAs banded together in the FEAST —Fun Eating At School Today —campaign. That is a national advertising campaign to promote changes in the services provided. Those include encouraging moves towards healthier eating, greater choice and value for money. The campaign began in January of this year and is off to an excellent start. I am happy to pay tribute to that exciting initiative. In addition, all children are made aware of the importance of healthy eating through the curriculum in schools.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, will the Minister accept that the sum of £2·55 per week given to people on family credit does not leave much scope for choice? Will he also accept, as the noble Baroness said, that that has meant a great increase in the consumption of junk food by children who cannot afford anything else? Is it not time that the Government began to think of imposing a national standard of nutrition for school meals?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, the sum of £2·55 per week is over the year as a whole. That is roughly equivalent to £3.30 per school week.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, am I to understand the Minister to say that the survey on which he bases his comments is six years old? He said that a lot has changed since then. What does he mean by that? If a lot has changed, why is there not another survey to bring the information up to date?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, your Lordships can see how much our diet has changed over the past six years.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, will the Minister say what is the take-up for family credit, which contains, as it does, an allowance for school meals?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I cannot tell the noble Baroness that, but I can say that difficulties such as those mentioned by the noble Baroness are not limited to families on benefit. It is not right that the budgeting difficulties of the minority should deprive the majority of families of the benefit of having the help in cash rather than in kind. Providing much more generous family credit will make it easier for more families fully to meet their parental responsibilities. However, there is a limit to the extent to which the Government can, or should, dictate how working families spend their money.

Government Departments: Training
2.52 p.m.
Lord Rochester Lord Rochester asked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress has been made in developing training in government departments since the publication in December 1988 of the White Paper Employment for the 1990s.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the Civil Service's approach to training already largely conforms with the framework for training set out in the White Paper. This emphasises the need for sound planning, investment and professionalism in the training and development of staff.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply so far as it goes. Does he agree that the White Paper is written as though the only people in need of training are those in industry and commerce? There is hardly a mention of what needs to be done in national and local government. I suspect that most of the training there is cognitive rather than experiential. Would not all public services benefit greatly from the use of trainers experienced in helping to manage change in the private sector?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the Civil Service's record on training is extremely good and is highly regarded in training and development circles of all types. The White Paper is a framework for the national training effort and does not differentiate between government departments and other industries. On the other point raised by the noble Lord there is a great deal of cross-fertilisation in training between government departments and industry.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, will the Minister tell the House, in view of the welcome commitment in the White Paper to the need for improving training and prospects for women, what is especially being done in those areas in public service and the Civil Service generally?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, again the Civil Service's record on employing women is very good. There are increasing numbers of women at senior

777
and middle management grades. I gather that a report has just been published on the future for women in the Civil Service. A copy will be placed in the Library.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, will the noble Lord accept that the abysmal performance of British Rail management in the recent dispute points to the need for a really good look at retraining for British management throughout industry?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, that is another question; the White Paper relates specifically to training.
The Viscount of Oxfuird: My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that principles of total quality management are used in the training process of civil servants?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the Civil Service is active as a major employer on several of the industry lead bodies which are helping to define workplace standards of performance and has incorporated them into its training programme.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, taking account of the questions already asked, is the noble Lord not aware that the Government's record in the field of training over the past few years is disappointing if not disgraceful? For example, the number of trainees in manufacturing industry has fallen from 210,500 in 1981 to 93,000 in 1988. Is that not a grave and ominous decline for a country that depends on manufacturing and exports?
Furthermore, are the Government not cutting the YTS budget by £150 million by 1991? Is that not an appalling story? How does the noble Lord justify it?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the Question appertains purely to training in government departments. There, the Government's record is extremely good with over £300 million being spent —approximately 6 per cent. of the pay bill. That is in line with the best practice among employers generally.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the Government's record on training in government departments must be set against their record generally and that the general record as regards the prospects of the United Kingdom is appalling?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, of course, that is why the White Paper was published last year.

Business
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that the Committee stage of the Local Government and Housing Bill will be adjourned at about 7 p.m. for about one hour and that during this adjournment the Second Reading of the Human Organ Transplants Bill will be taken.

Legal Profession: Government Proposals
2.56 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to make a Statement relating to the future of the legal profession. The Statement is as follows:
When I published the Government's Green Papers on the legal profession, which were designed to remove any unnecessary restrictions in the provision of legal services, I undertook to make a Statement to the House before the Summer Recess. I have received over 2,000 responses to the Green Papers, and held discussions with many of those directly involved. I would like to take this opportunity to thank all those who helped in that process. All the points which were put to me in writing or orally have been carefully considered. The Government are today publishing a White Paper containing their own proposals for legislation.
The Government propose to introduce legislation which will set out broad objectives designed to further the interests of the administration of justice, to increase access to justice and to extend the range of those possessing rights of audience before the courts. All those involved in granting rights of audience will be required by the statute to have regard to these objectives. An independent statutory Advisory Committee on Education and Conduct will give advice on the achievement of these objectives. Again there will be a statutory requirement for all those involved in granting rights of audience to have regard to this advice. The advisory committee will have a membership broadly as set out in the Green Paper, but, in order to emphasise its independence from the Government, it will have the power to appoint its own staff.
The Government propose that both the Bar and the Law Society should have a statutory entitlement to grant rights of audience to their members in all courts. All those called to the Bar should receive rights of audience in all courts. On qualification solicitors will continue to receive rights of audiences equivalent to those they now possess. Solicitors will, however, also be eligible to progress to rights of audience in some or all of the higher courts, if they have achieved the necessary standards of competence and conform to appropriate rules of conduct.
All rules relating to the competence and conduct of advocates will continue to be made by the professional bodies, but, building on the current arrangements for the Law Society's rules, all changes in such rules will in the future require the concurrence of the Lord Chancellor and each of the four Heads of Division (the Lord Chief Justice, the Master of the Rolls, the President o1 the Family Division and the Vice-Chancellor). All these will be required to have regard to the statutory objectives and the advisory committees's advice.
Other professional bodies might subsequently be empowered by Order in Council, approved in draft by both Houses of Parliament, to grant rights of audience in particular classes of business in particular courts, provided that their competence

779
and conduct requirements satisfied the Lord Chancellor and the four Heads of Division. Similar arrangements will apply for the future to any professional body which might want to have the right to issue legal process or to take steps in proceedings on behalf of others. These rights are at present reserved by statute to solicitors.
The importance of ensuring that both a wide range of barristers generally and an adequate choice of specialist barristers are available to take cases in court requires that the Bar should continue to be able to make its own rules about partnerships and multi-disciplinary practices. Considerable concern was expressed in the responses to the consultation that removing such rules might threaten the future viability of the Bar. The Government attach great importance to the continued existence of a vigorous independent Bar.
Solicitors, who are also frequently involved in litigation, ought to be treated on an equal basis to barristers. The Government therefore propose to remove the existing statutory restrictions which prevent solicitors forming multi-disciplinary partnerships, but to provide that the Law Society will henceforth be allowed to make its own rules about partnerships and multi-disciplinary practices. Except in so far as such rules are related to advocacy and the conduct of litigation and are approved as necessary in the interests of justice by the Lord Chancellor and the Heads of Division, they will be subject to review under the new restrictive trade practices legislation proposed in the DTI White Paper, Opening Markets: New Policy On Restrictive Trade Practices. The links between the two sets of proposals, including an extended role for the Director General of Fair Trading, are set out in the two White Papers.
The Government propose also to remove the present statutory obstacles to multi-national practices and to ensure that lawyers from Scotland and Northern Ireland will have the same rights in England and Wales (and vice versa) as lawyers from other European jurisdictions will have under Community directives.
The Government propose to legislate, as the Green Paper suggested, to replace the provisions in the Building Societies Act 1986 with a power to allow the Lord Chancellor to recognise professional bodies as competent to authorise their members as authorised practitioners to undertake conveyancing for their borrowers. Conveyancing by such practitioners will be subject to the existing requirement that it is supervised by a solicitor or licensed conveyancer; and every such authorised practitioner will be required to offer its clients a personal interview with the solicitor or licensed conveyancer having conduct of the transaction. Throughout the transaction that solicitor or licensed conveyancer will have a paramount duty towards the borrower.
There will be a detailed code of conduct laid down by statutory instrument by which authorised practitioners will have to abide. Moreover, authorised practitioners will be prohibited from providing conveyancing services to both seller and
780
buyer in the same transaction (except in very limited circumstances) and from providing estate agency services to the seller and conveyancing services to the buyer in the same transaction. Making the provision of one service conditional upon taking another (so-called "tying-in") in connection with house purchase will be prohibited. Authorised practitioners will be required to charge for their conveyancing services on a basis that is not less than the true cost of providing them.
These arrangements are designed to provide adequate protection for individual clients and also to ensure that all those who want to provide conveyancing services, whether small firms of solicitors or large financial institutions, can compete on fair terms.
Litigation will be permitted to be undertaken on the speculative basis now allowed in Scotland. It will also become possible in such cases for there to be a moderate percentage uplift on the ordinary taxed costs otherwise payable, within a maximum to be prescribed by statutory instrument. There should, however, be no introduction of any kind of contingency fee linked to a proportion of the damages received.
My Lords, I have dealt with these issues in particular because they are those about which there has been most public comment. These proposals, and others, are presented in more detail in the White Paper. Taken together, these proposals, which are an integral part of the Government's wider programme of improving access to justice, represent an appropriate balance between the encouragement of competition and the maintenance of standards in the administration of justice and the provision of legal services. I believe these proposals provide a satisfactory framework for the future.
3.7 p.m.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for making the much awaited Statement and for the publication of the White Paper which sees the light of day today. How much daylight there will be remains to be seen in what clearly will be contentious debates on several of the provisions in the White Paper.
Can the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor give an indication of the Government's programme for the future handling of this important matter? Will there be an opportunity to debate the White Paper before a Bill is introduced? Further, when is it proposed to introduce such a Bill? Should there not be an opportunity for the House to discuss the White Paper before a Bill is introduced? Normally, that would be the procedure, I venture to think, after a White Paper has been published. Is it contemplated that there will be such an opportunity? I do not suggest that it is possible to fit in a debate between now and Thursday week, but there will be an overlap period of some weeks when the House resumes in October. I have not, happily or unhappily, been a fly on the wall at the discussions, but perhaps there will be the opportunity for a debate of substance before the Bill is produced.

781
As to the White Paper, clearly there has not been sufficient time to examine it in detail —I had the benefit of receiving a copy before lunch —but it would seem that some of the more objectionable proposals have gone, such as those tending to undermine the independence of the Bar, and, indeed, of the judiciary; no doubt as a result of the consultations which have taken place on the perhaps too hurriedly prepared Green Paper.
It is gratifying, for example, that the advisory committee is to be wholly independent, that there are proposals for improvement in legal education and that there is to be a new office of legal services ombudsman, the value of which on the face of it looks useful at any rate to those of us on this side of the House. However, its value will only be known after a constructive examination of the precise proposals and when all the details relating to it have been fleshed out.
Sadly, there is one glaring and crucial omission in the Statement and in the White Paper. The Statement claims, in the last paragraph, that the proposals are:
"an integral part of the Government's wider programme of improving access to justice".
but we hear no further words about improved access to justice in the sense of increased provision to enable those who cannot afford it to go to justice —not a word. I submit that it is regrettable that there is no clue or indication of any proposed extension or improvement on legal services to those who most need legal assistance in present conditions. There is no provision for that in the White Paper as far as I have been able to read it this morning.
Even as regards proceedings which are of vital importance to the subject, there is no provision for legal assistance in the White Paper. These proceedings, for example, may relate to his home and may concern rent or possession disputes. Another problem may concern his family and the monstrous complexities of matrimonial disputes. These matters have resulted in difficult and expensive litigation. There may be problems with his work. At present an employee, unless he is supported by a trade union, is not likely to be able to afford to go to an industrial tribunal. Such a facility is not open to him in terms of expense.
There are also consumer disputes and insurance issues. There are proceedings affecting a citizen's rights vis-à-vis the state; for example being subject to a compulsory purchase order. We have had signs of that difficulty as regards the Channel Tunnel. There are also planning inquiries. Suddenly a person may find that the whole environment in which he lives has altered fundamentally. There are also immigration tribunals. In some ways they provide perhaps the most flagrant example of the absence of legal aid and advice. There are also the fields of social security and medical appeals tribunals, besides criminal injury compensation proceedings. For none of these matters is there provision for an extension of legal aid and advice.
Is it not the case that the policy of the Government has been to reduce the level of legal aid in a number of ways? Whereas in 1979 70 per cent. of the population qualified for legal aid, that percentage
782
has fallen to 50 per cent. and it is still falling. This reduction has taken place at the very time when tribunals have increased in their numbers and complexity. The importance of their work has also increased. Alas, the network of law centres has also been in decline. I refer also to the citizens advice bureaux, family, housing and other advice centres. These facilities badly need strengthening but they are not getting it.
There is not a word about these matters in the Statement. Therefore we greatly hope that, when we come to resume discussion of these subjects, the Government themselves will have given urgent thought to them in the coming months so that this glaring omission in the gap between the noble words about improving access to justice and the reality of the diminution of it may be faced squarely by the Government.
Lord Meston: My Lords, we join in thanking the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for his eagerly awaited Statement. We are thankful now to have the considered view of the Government to set against the Green Papers that were published in January. I for one am particularly grateful for the comparative table in Annex B to the White Paper, which is most helpful. It enables us to compare the proposals in the White Paper with those in the Green Papers. It may enable some of us to put the latter where many wanted them to go in the first place.
This is certainly not the time to rehearse all the arguments in detail. It is not just the lawyers who will want time to study the small print. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, has just said, not only were the Green Papers silent on the strengths of the existing system but they were also silent on the topic of legal aid. On my reading so far, the White Paper, too, is silent on the topic of legal aid. Now we have government policy as distinct from propositions in consultative Green Papers, I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor can tell us whether the Government accept and are concerned about the decline in the number of solicitors taking legal aid work.
Do the Government accept that there will still be a substantial risk of their proposals reducing the number of local solicitors available to the public and, conversely, producing a concentration of larger firms in the larger towns competing only for the more profitable work? If so, I hope that the Government will indicate how those trends can be reversed. I hope that at the forefront of our thinking will be the survival of the small firms whose conveyancing work enables them to do legal aid work.
I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor can agree that the response of the Bar has been constructive and that the catalyst of these Green Papers has accelerated a considerable number of practical and structural changes in the operation of the Bar most of which were already under way without any necessity for legislation. I hope the Government now recognise that the Bar does, and will continue to, provide a cost-effective service.
Whether or not we have an opportunity to debate this matter before the legislation comes, we shall need to look carefully at the conveyancing proposals

783
which, as the White Paper seems to indicate, must concentrate on the protection of the consumer. The picture of the large institutions providing all the conveyancing services to both parties as well as lending money was quite alarming. The trend towards one-stop shopping, meaning one-choice shopping, must certainly be arrested. The consumer must be protected as regards the terms on which money is advanced for these very important transactions.
Likewise we shall need to look very carefully at contingency fees. I am pleased that the Government appear willing to confine the proposals for such fees. I wonder whether the Government have estimated and allowed for what seems to be an inevitable increase in litigation which will be brought before the courts on a contingency fee basis. I welcome the recognition of the independence of the Bar. I am concerned about only one matter in that respect: it is dealt with in paragraph 3.23 of the White Paper. Apparently it is proposed to introduce a new criminal offence of impersonating a barrister. As far as I can see, that will stop me being in more than two places at once. I wonder what will be the penalty for this very serious offence.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords who have spoken. As regards the serious matter of the offence of impersonating a barrister, we are very open to suggestions as to what maximum penalty might be appropriate.
It is important to recollect that the Green Papers were dealing with the organisation of the legal profession and related matters such as contingency fees and authorised practitioners. Legal aid has always been provided in general terms through the legal profession. The White Paper is concerned with examining the arrangements in that connection. We spent a good deal of the last parliamentary Session discussing legal aid and the Legal Aid Act. Under that Act a new Legal Aid Board has been set up and to some extent the administration has been transferred to it. What we are concerned with here is the way in which the services may be delivered. As regards questions about a debate, these are matters for the usual channels. The Government express the hope that it will be possible to obtain an early opportunity for legislation in this area.
Dealing with matters concerning conveyancing which the noble Lord, Lord Meston, raised, the emphasis is of course on providing to the person who wants conveyancing services those that he wants together with proper protection for his interests. That is what the White Paper seeks to achieve.
I am very happy to recognise the changes that the Bar itself has proposed. I wish these changes well. They are in my view highly constructive changes which will themselves contribute to achieving the aims which the Government set out in the Green Papers and which remain the aim of the White Paper.
Lord Morris: My Lords, I broadly welcome my noble and learned friend's Statement on the White Paper. How do the Government intend to handle
784
the general problem with regard to the fact that the legal profession, as demonstrated in its response to the Green Papers, was concerned not so much with the delivery of legal services as about being paid for delivery of those services? Perhaps I may also suggest a suitable punishment for those who have the temerity to impersonate a barrister: they should be compelled to perform as a barrister for at least a week.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, that is obviously a suggestion for consideration. The responses to the consultation papers have been extremely valuable, interesting and varied. I am sure that in the vast majority of cases the interest that the respondents have sought to serve is the interest of justice generally.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, as someone who was very critical of the original Green Papers, I should like to say also how much I welcome the fact that the noble and learned Lord has introduced a White Paper for further consideration and discussion. It is quite clear that he has listened to the responsible views expressed as to the fundamental principles which lie at the basis of the administration of law in England and Wales. One is most grateful that he should have done so. No doubt he was greatly assisted in his task, and I am sure that he would want to pay tribute to the fact that the Faculty of Advocates in Edinburgh condemned the same unacceptable proposals in the Green Papers as did the Bar of England and Wales.
From a quick reading of the White Paper, the question of rights of audience would still seem to be left largely in the air and to be deferred. The rules for qualification of non-barristers to practise in the superior courts appear to have the concurrence of the Lord Chancellor and the judges. I wonder what will happen if the judges should differ from the advisory committee as to the contents of those rules. Can he help us as to whether the advocates will be truly independent, will be available to all, will obey the cab rank rule, will not be involved in the investigation of evidence and will be subject to the same rules of discipline as members of the Bar? If there were any dispute about that, it would seem that the judges might well be drawn into the political arena. I should like some assurance from the noble and learned Lord on that point.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, with regard to the noble Lord's first point, I am in the habit of paying attention to the views not only of the Faculty of Advocates but also of the Bar of England and Wales. I have seen the views of the Faculty of Advocates on these matters.
The noble Lord asked about the proposals for rights of audience. The rules for qualification and for conduct of solicitors are proposed to be made by the Law Society, having regard to the advice of the advisory committee. The present rules are subject to the consent of the Lord Chancellor, the Lord Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls, as concerns training, and subject to the consent of the Master of the Rolls as concerns conduct. I am proposing to make that requirement for consent somewhat more

785
general as these rights of advocacy would relate to the whole width of the court structure.
The content of the rules is a matter for discussion. This is a framework within which these matters can be discussed between the advisory committee, the professions, the four Heads of Division and the Lord Chancellor. This is a framework for progress and for development of the kind which my noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice advocated towards the end of his speech in our debate on 7th April. I certainly took it that this kind of structure might well meet the aim he had in mind in producing a structure which would give us the opportunity of satisfactory progress.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble and learned friend aware that many people will appreciate both his basic courage in coming forward with these proposals and the obvious care which he has given to the representations made to him in respect of what was set out in the Green Papers? Is he also aware that at any rate some of us are very glad that he is continuing with the proposal to give right of audience in the higher courts to members of the solicitors' profession? It has always seemed to me slightly ludicrous that the most junior member of the Bar is entitled, if anyone is foolish enough to brief him, to appear before the highest courts in the realm and before your Lordships' House, whereas the most experienced solicitor with 40 years of experience in the courts is not so permitted.
Is he further aware that many people feel that this is a belated but very sensible effort to modernise in some respect our somewhat old-fashioned system? Many of us have a deep affection for that system but have to accept that it is both expensive and often very slow. Therefore the moves which my noble and learned friend intends to make with the legislation forecast by the White Paper are welcome. Many of us wish him good luck in the no doubt stormy battles that lie ahead for him.
Lord Rawlinson of Ewell: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord replies to those comments, will he accept that it is perfectly absurd to talk about decreasing costs by allowing the right of audience to solicitors of 40 years' experience? None of them —I have one beside me here —would ever want to appear before your Lordships' House. A great fear has always been that we might move into the American system, where litigation is far more expensive and takes far longer. What will happen if the Lord Chancellor disagrees with the judges after the advisory committee's proposals? What will be the position if the judges disagree with the Lord Chancellor, as, alas, we have seen in the recent past?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the judges are entirely entitled to disagree with the Lord Chancellor. If it is this Lord Chancellor in question, it is probably this Lord Chancellor who would be wrong. On the other hand, the structure which we have proposed will minimise the risk of that and enable rational discussion to take place. Between the advisory committee chaired by a judge, the professional bodies, the Heads of Division and the Lord Chancellor, the prospects for rational discussion reaching an agreed conclusion are about
786
as high as they could be in any assembly. I certainly hope that this structure will produce progress. I am extremely grateful to my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter for his expressions of support.
I shall not go into the question of costs today because they are elaborate and, although one could do so, I think that they are matters which must be taken into account in the future. I believe that this is a structure which will produce sensible progress in the interests of those who wish to use the legal services in this country.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, since the House debated the Green Papers of the noble and learned Lord on 7th April, it is clear that he has made important concessions and that those are contained in the White Paper. Unfortunately, the House at this stage has not had the opportunity to study the White Paper in detail and therefore the question of a debate, which was raised by my noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones, has not been fully considered by the noble and learned Lord.
The traditional reply to a request of this kind is that the matter must be processed through the usual channels. But, with respect to the noble and learned Lord, on this occasion that is not quite enough. The House will require to know whether it would be advisable to have a full debate on the White Paper between now and Prorogation. We should be grateful for the advice of the noble and learned Lord in this respect.
Would it therefore be appropriate for the House to ask, through the usual channels, for a full debate on the White Paper, or is the noble and learned Lord in a position to say that, in fact, such matters would be better dealt with in a Second Reading debate on a Bill which he is certain will follow in the Queen's Speech?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, it is not possible for me to say whether legislation will be introduced immediately following the next Queen's Speech. But we certainly expect, and I hope, that we shall have an early opportunity of introducing legislation. So far as concerns the debate, as your Lordships know we had a fairly full debate on 7th April into these various matters. Of course, for my part, there is nothing I like better than to debate matters about the legal profession. But, on the other hand, I am well aware that there are many others who have other interests to pursue. The interests of the House as a whole must be taken into account.
So far as I am concerned, I feel that taking into account the debate which we had on 7th April, and the written representations of which we have had a large number, views have already been clearly expressed. Therefore, I should have thought that a Second Reading debate on the proposals, if they come forward in legislation early, would be perfectly satisfactory. But, as I said earlier, these are matters for the usual channels. Nevertheless, since the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition has asked me about this, I think that my own personal view is that a further debate at this stage in this Chamber is probably not necessary having regard to the other pressures on the time of the House.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is my noble and learned friend aware that his acknowledgment of the part played by the Bar Council during the consultation period was well justified? Is he also aware that the Bar Council has in fact, for the past two years been working on various changes in the profession which he would find welcome? Would it not be better, therefore, to study the effects of those changes, instead of of embarking upon the legislation to follow what we understand to be in the White Paper, which is bound to be controversial on many points? In particular, is he aware that, although he seems now to be placing this in the hands of the profession, the Statement he made about multi-disciplinary practices and about partnerships, possibly, for the Bar to be in hands of the profession will be controversial, and that he may well wish to reconsider those matters before legislating?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I believe that it is right to make progress by legislation. I have certainly carefully considered the matters about multidisciplinary practices and partnerships. What I have put together on the subject is the result of very careful consideration of this matter and also consideration in relation to the White Paper published yesterday by the Department of Trade and Industry.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, I have not read the White Paper, but perhaps I may ask, first, whether it applies to Scotland. I rather imagine that is does not. But, if not, what will happen about Scotland? Will there be a separate White Paper in that respect? Secondly, when the Government are considering wider proposals, as was mentioned by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, will they be considering an extension of the inquisitorial system which, after all, is widespread in Europe, with which we shall become more and more involved?
Thirdly, when it comes to widening rights of audience, to which many people attach the very greatest importance and upon which we very greatly welcome the stand of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, do I understand correctly that the framework of which he speaks is to be entirely composed of lawyers? Finally, at what stage, in considering whether rights of audience should be extended, are clients and other professions to be consulted and what rights will they have to take part in the final decision?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I must say, first, that the White Paper relates to England and Wales and not to Scotland, although I indicated the reciprocal arrangements based upon the provision under the Community directives towards the end of my Statement. So far as concerns changing from our present system to an inquisitorial one, that is obviously a very large question indeed. But the Civil Justice Review, which I indicated we were proposing to implement in its main outline, suggested that perhaps in relation to small claims those adjudicating might take a more inquisitorial line. That is certainly a development which I think the noble Lord would welcome.
As regards the framework, this will not be composed entirely of lawyers. I proposed that the
788
central role of the advisory committee, which will be chaired by a judge, will consist of a majority of persons who are not practising lawyers. That is the Government's way of putting into the system, in a very central and important position, people who have an interest in, and an understanding of, the situation, but who are not themselves lawyers. Therefore the lay people, the clients, will have a voice in the framework in the way I described. I believe that that is a valuable aspect of the framework which we are proposing.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, perhaps I may thank my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor for the concessions he has made and for having truly kept a wholly open mind. But, in particular, I should like to thank him for the concession he made during this discussion, to which I attach considerable importance; that is, self-regulation of the Bar. As regards that concept, can my noble and learned friend say whether within that area of self-regulation the Overseas Practice Rules will be included?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the Overseas Practice Rules would not be part of the system which would require, so far as concerns changes, the approval of the Heads of Division and the Lord Chancellor. The rules which the Lord Chancellor and the Heads of Division would be considering would be rules relating to advocacy and litigation in this country. Accordingly, that particualr machinery would not come into the overseas practice.
I have sought to improve the proposals in the light of the consultation and, for example, to propose that the rights of the Law Society should be on the face of the statute, rather than subject to a statutory instrument as was originally proposed.

Associated British Ports (Hull) Bill
3.38 p.m
Read a third time, and passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Procedure of the House: Select Committee Report
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. This meeting of the committee was wholly devoted to agreeing an up-to-date edition of the Companion to the Standing Orders and a revised edition of the Brief Guide to procedure and practice, which your Lordships will recall was suggested in 1987 by the group on the working of the House. For the most part, that was a rather complicated editorial task. It resulted in a simple revision of those two documents to incorporate the current Rules of Procedure. There are 10 matters which, though of small import are nevertheless important, that are listed in the report under the headings (a) to (j). They are all self-explanatory. I shall say no more about them unless your Lordships wish me to. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Second Report from the Select Committee be agreed to.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
Following is the report:
ORDERED TO REPORT:—
1. REVISION OF THE COMPANION
The Committee have considered and approved a new edition of the Companion to the Standing Orders and Guide to the Proceedings of the House of Lords prepared by the Clerk of the Parliaments.
In the course of preparing the new edition a number of minor points have been identified which the Committee draw to the attention of the House as they represent small procedural changes or the clarification of previous practice hitherto without written authority. These points are as follows:
(a) Taking the Oath
The Group on the Working of the House which reported in 1987 (HL Paper 9 of 1987–88) recommended (para. 112) "that Peers should be asked to take the Oath in a clear and audible manner", to aid the identification of new Peers. The Group had in mind occasions when a new hereditary Peer takes his seat without formal introduction. The Committee endorse this recommendation and recommend that it should be noted in the new edition of the Companion. It presupposes that Lords will extend to a new Peer the courtesy of listening quietly while the Oath is taken.
(b)Reference to strangers
The Companion (page 40) currently discourages reference "to persons in the Gallery". The Committee believe that reference to strangers in other parts of the Chamber is equally undesirable, and recommend that the new edition of the Companion should record this.
(c)Foreign languages
The custom of the House has long been that the gratuitous use of foreign languages in debate has been considered undesirable, but this is not stated in the Companion. The Committee recommend that guidance on this matter should be included in the new edition of the Companion, as follows:
"It is undesirable to use a foreign language in debate, except where the matter in question demands it."
(d) Exhibits
The production of exhibits in debate has long been considered undesirable. Only members close enough are able to see, and the reader of the Official Report is at a loss. To use an exhibit may also be emotive and may lead to disorderly proceedings as objects are passed round the Chamber. It is proposed to give guidance on this matter in the new edition of the Companion, as follows:
"Exhibits should not be taken into the Chamber or produced in debate, whether to illustrate a speech or for any other purpose."
(e) Questions on Church of England matters
The 1984 Companion includes in the list of inadmissible questions those "relating to Church of England matters". This does not correspond with the intentions of the Committee when they considered and reported on the matter on 15th February 1977. The Committee plainly intended to refer only to questions on matters within the responsibility of the Church of England. The rule as currently expressed would catch questions on Church of England matters within the responsibility of the Government. The Committee recommend that the revised Companion should reflect the original intention of the Committee.
(f) Daily number of Questions for Written Answer
The practice of the House has been that Lords do not table more than six Questions for Written Answer per day. This convention helps to ensure prompt attention for those questions which are tabled, and appears to cause no inconvenience. The Committee recommend that this convention should be recorded in the Companion.
(g) Public Bills rejected by a Select Committee
Past practice has varied as regards the treatment of such a Bill in the list of Bills in Progress at the back of the Minutes of Proceedings. The Committee recommend endorsement of the practice followed on the Hare Coursing Bill (1976) and the Foreign Boycotts Bill (1978), whereby a Bill rejected by a Select Committee would be listed as "Reported from the Select Committee that the Bill should not proceed". This would indicate that the Bill is still theoretically "in progress", but that to allow it to proceed further would be to disregard the recommendation of the Select Committee.
(h) Withdrawing a Bill
(i) On the motion for a stage
According to the 1984 Companion (page 101) a Lord who withdraws the motion for a stage of a Bill is presumed not to have withdrawn the Bill unless he notifies the Clerks. Since in most such cases the Bill will not in fact be proceeded with, the Committee recommend the reversal of this presumption.
(ii) Between stages
According to existing practice, a Bill may be withdrawn between stages without notice by unanimous leave of the House. This the Committee consider an unsatisfactory procedure. The principal objection is that, in considering whether leave should be granted, the House is required to make a substantive decision without notice. Bills once introduced are in the possession of the House, and not in the sole ownership of their sponsor; yet members of the House who have taken part in earlier proceedings on the Bill are given no warning to be present. Furthermore, it would be discourteous for the Lord in charge of the Bill not to give his reasons for wishing to withdraw the Bill, so he must make at least a short explanatory speech. Yet, since there is no motion before the House, there can be no debate on the subject. There is, therefore, no orderly opportunity for other members to inquire further into the matter and no proper means for the Lord in charge of the Bill to reply.
At present, the only alternative to accepting the Lord's request for leave to withdraw the Bill is to refuse him leave. In that event, he may put down a motion to withdraw the Bill which can then be debated and decided in the usual way. While this second step does provide the conditions necessary to enable the House to come to a considered decision, the present procedure requires two steps in order to achieve that position. The Committee recommend that this protracted procedure be improved by eliminating the first step: withdrawal of a Bill should in future only be done with notice, on a motion "That the Bill be withdrawn" which may be debated and, if necessary, decided on division.
(i) Short Debates
The current Companion gives no guidance to Lords who wish to intervene in a Short Debate but who do not appear on the list of speakers. The Committee recommend that Lords whose names do not appear on the List of Speakers may intervene before the final wind-up speeches if time allows, but in so doing must have regard to the time constraints on the debate.
(j) V.C.s and G.Cs
The Committee recommend that Lords who are the holders of the Victoria Cross or the George Cross should be described on the Floor of the House as 'noble and gallant', as are Admirals of the Fleet, Field Marshals and Marshals of the Royal Air Force.
2. REVISED EDITION OF THE BRIEF GUIDE
The Committee have considered and approved, with amendments, a new edition of the Brief Guide to the Procedure and Practice of the House of Lords, as revised by the Group on the Working of the House in 1987, publication of which has been delayed, so as to allow revision of the two procedural guides to proceed together to prevent discrepancies.
Lord Morris: My Lords, I note that one of the changes considered to the Companion to the Standing Orders touches upon the important question of the use of foreign language in debate. It reads:
"It is undesirable to use a foreign language in debate except where the matter in question demands it".
Are Welsh and Latin considered to be foreign languages for that purpose? Another important matter is that the committee recommended that Members of the House who are holders of the Victoria Cross or the George Cross should be properly referred to as noble and gallant. In order to ensure that neither I nor anyone else commits a solecism, could we have a list in the Library of those noble Lords who are currently holders of the VC or the GC?
Lord Aberdare: My Lords, on the first point about foreign languages, I am sure that Latin is a foreign language. Welsh is in a rather more delicate position and has a special standing. As your Lordships probably know, it is permissible to take the Oath in Welsh. On the other hand, it would be rather difficult if one of your Lordships were to address the House in Welsh. It would be difficult for most of your Lordships to understand and almost impossible for Hansard to get it down. The convention has always been, therefore, that we address the House in English. However, the proposal says:
"except where the matter in question demands it".
That allows some latitude for the use of quotations or special words.
In answer to the other question put to me by the noble Lord about VCs and GCs, I shall see what I can do to find a list of those of your gallant Lordships who are holders of either the VC or the GC.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord for what he said about the Welsh language. Is he aware that Welsh is one of the two languages of southern Britain and is the older of the two and that it also has a special status under the Welsh Language Act 1966, which I had the privilege of piloting through the other place and which is looked after in this House by my noble and learned friend?
Lord Aberdare: My Lords, ydwyf
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I am much obliged.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Extradition Bill [H.L.]
3.43 p.m.
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Representation of the People Bill
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, I understand that no amendments have
792
been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged. —(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Local Government and Housing Bill
3.45 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Hesketh): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee. —(Lord Hesketh.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Disqualification and political restriction of certain officers and staff]:
Baroness Stedman Baroness Stedman moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 11, leave out subsection (2)
The noble Baroness said: This is the first of a long list of amendments dealing with the proposed restriction of political activity by council officers. We believe that this is a case of the Government taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut. Many of us see the whole Bill as an abuse by central government of local government and those who work in it.
Parts I and II are particularly obnoxious. My amendment seeks to deal with Clause 1(2). At the same time, with the permission of the Committee, we shall be discussing Amendment No. 6 in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, which deals with the same point from a slightly different angle.
As the clause stands, it would disqualify anyone from standing as a Member of Parliament at Westminster or as a Member of the European Parliament if he or she holds a politically restricted post. The amendment would delete that subsection and would mean that, while chief executives, chief officers and their deputies could not stand for election to another local authority, they would be able to stand for election to the Westminster Parliament or to the European Parliament.
We support the restricting of the local political activities of those officers; but there is no good reason to prevent their involvement in national politics. We should distinguish between the local level, where there may be a conflict of interests, and the national level, where the categories (a) to (e) as defined in Clause 2(1) can stand as a Member of the Westminster Parliament or of the European Parliament.
There may be cases where that right is abused; but should all chief officers and their deputies be politically restricted in that way merely because of

793
the misdemeanours of the odd one or two? Surely we should be establishing machinery to deal with the few cases of abuse rather than assuming the guilt of hundreds of public servants.
The specific example that I would put is that of David Brough, whom I met recently, who is head of committee services in the London Borough of Hillingdon. He has been a parliamentary candidate in two parliamentary elections. He would, if the Bill is passed as it stands, be prevented from standing as a parliamentary candidate by virtue of the fact that he is a deputy officer and earns over £13,500 a year. People such as David Brough accept the need to prevent twin-tracking. What they cannot accept is that they should be prevented from participating in any kind of political activity. Hundreds of local government officers are affected by this or may be affected by it in the future. There is Michael Gray, who at the moment is a planner in South Tyneside. He is the leader of the Conservative group in Sunderland. I should have thought that the Government would have wanted to preserve any support they have in the North East and would do all that they could to encourage Michael Gray if he wanted to stand for Westminster or the European Parliament. If the Bill goes through, he will be one of those who is affected.
It is iniquitous that those people should be singled out for such treatment when people who do comparative jobs in the outside world, and who may be carrying out services for the local authority if those services are privatised, will be able to stand for Parliament while those who are doing the jobs in the local authorities will not. That is manifestly unfair and should not be allowed to go through. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I must congratulate the noble Baroness not only on her fine sense of time and space in slipping in the amendment at the beginning of the Committee stage of the Bill, but on the forthright way in which the amendment has been drafted and on the forthright way in which she has addressed it.
As will be very clear, the amendment goes a good deal further than our Amendment No. 6 which is being taken at the same time. If I say a word about the latter amendment first, perhaps that will clarify the debate for the benefit of the Committee.
Amendment No. 6 does not seek to restore the right of membership of the House of Commons or the European Parliament to local government officers in politically restricted posts. Indeed, we rather assume that most local government officers who found themselves Members of the House of Commons or the European Parliament would resign from their posts, because they could hardly do both these paid jobs at the same time.
The reason for Amendment No. 6 is that it seems to us quite wrong to make it impossible for local government officers in politically restricted posts to announce themselves as candidates for the House of Commons or the European Parliament. After all, inevitably a majority of those who announce themselves as candidates will not be elected. The ability to stand as candidates, both in the national
794
legislature and in the European Parliament, is an important part of the First Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights.
Perhaps I may remind the Committee of the terms of that convention. Protocol 1, Article 3, provides that standing for election to the national legislative body is in principle a right for everyone. So the removal by Clause 1 of the Bill of the right of those in politically related posts to stand for Parliament would have to be justified as a lawful restriction upon this right.
If it were to be justified as a lawful restriction upon the right, the Government would have to show that there is significant evidence of abuse of such a right which would be dealt with by the proposed restriction. In other words, they would have to show that the restriction was not arbitrary, because otherwise the European Court would be unlikely, I should have thought, to uphold a law of that kind. It would be much more likely to hold that such a provision was in conflict with the First Protocol of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The Court would almost certainly find that, if a restriction did not arise out of a serious and legitimate problem in practice, and did not actually, as drafted, address the problem and that problem alone, the restriction would be arbitrary. In those circumstances, the Government would have great difficulty in upholding their proposed legislation in the European Court if they were challenged.
It is the view of learned counsel who have been advising the National Council for Civil Liberties on the matter that it is strongly arguable that the removal of the right of holders of politically related posts to stand for election to local councils, as opposed to the national legislative body, is an unlawful limitation on their freedom of expression. That is going a good deal further than these amendments go and it is a matter to which we shall turn in dealing with later amendments.
The point which I must emphasise to the Committee as strongly as I can is that the Bill may have been introduced, or this part of the Bill may have been introduced by the Government and by some noble Lords speaking at Second Reading as a remedy for the abuses which we re identified of twin-tracking. However, the effect of many of these proposals, particularly those to restrict rights to stand for and hold office in the national legislature, is to go very much further than the twin-tracking abuse which it is claimed they are to remedy.
In learned counsel's opinion, and in our opinion, there is a serious risk that the proposals are an infringement of the civil liberties of many thousands of people in this country. The noble Baroness said hundreds, but it would be many thousands of citizens of this country. It is a restriction which ought not to take place and which is not justified by the facts.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I oppose the amendment. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has just talked about a serious and restrictive policy in practice. That is exactly what we are talking about. How can a person be a public servant and work for an authority, if at the same time he is a Member of Parliament or of any body which requires him to be

795
away from his job for great periods of time? I think the noble Lord said —and I agree with him —that what would happen in practice is likely to be that a person could not do it and therefore, so far as the European Court's requirements are concerned, in practice it would not be a contravention of any article.
How can one be impartial in giving advice and doing one's job if one is a known political activist, practising in a way which comes within the terms of the amendment? I just do not see how it can be done. If it is to be done, if one can say, "Yes, there are examples of such people", it is sad that that should be so. It is quite contrary to all that I have ever found to be acceptable in local government officers during the many years when I was in the service. It was not done then and was not heard of.
We cannot say that this is the kind of problem to which the noble Baroness refers in her amendment. In practical terms, one cannot do both jobs together properly. If one did, as I see it, it would be wrong and therefore I certainly oppose the amendment.
Lord Ross of Newport: I believe that the person concerned in Hillingdon was quite a senior officer in the GLC. I can see the former leader of that authority nodding. Certainly in the other place there are a number of instances of former civil servants who have been elected to Parliament and who had much to contribute in the House.
I think I am right in saying that the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, is purely to make sure that that is allowed to continue. I do not think for one minute that an officer elected to the House of Commons or the European Parliament could possibly retain his job for very long, although an attempt was made in the case of that particular person. Surely it would be in the person's terms of employment that, if he were successful in such an application, he would have to resign. However, I do not think we should put a total ban on his right to stand. That cannot be right.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Surely one must look at the matter from the point of view of the working of a local authority. If one is an elected member of a local authority, one relies on the permanent officials —particularly the senior permanent officials with whom the amendment is concerned —to give absolutely impartial political advice.
What is the position, if one is a Labour elected councillor, on a politically controversial issue coming before the council? If advice was given to such a councillor by an official who happened to be the local Conservative candidate, both the councillor and the official for that matter would be in an impossible position. Surely one must accept that the way in which local government —and indeed central government—works is that there are elected persons who are expected to be, and generally are, though not always, members of political parties. Then there are the senior officials who are supposed to give absolutely impartial advice to the elected members. I agree that there is probably no question of anyone being a sitting Member of Parliament and a local
796
authority official, because he would not have time. At any rate, one could rely on the party Whips to see that such a person did not do both jobs for very long.
However, we are concerned here with the chap who is a candidate, going about putting the political view of the party for which he is standing and seeking votes. At the same time, that man or woman is supposed to give impartial advice to the elected members of the authority. It is an impossible situation and I am worried that even the vivid fantasies in which the Liberal Party is apt to indulge include expecting that kind of thing to happen.
The Earl of Onslow: It seem to me that Macaulay got it right in the middle of the 19th century. He produced the idea of incorruptible civil servants who are trained to do a job on platonic ideals. Funnily enough, he copied that idea from the Chinese. However, to underlie the point made by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, let us assume for the sake of argument that the GLC is still in existence, and that the head of the civil service of the GLC is standing as a Conservative Member for Lambeth or, let us say, Putney and is going round making vicious attacks from a party political point of view on the lamented —not the late lamented —Ken Livingstone for his running of the GLC. That strikes me as being something that we should not put up with.
We should surely have a platonic ideal of the Civil Service with civil servants who are neutral and who can make decisions according to facts and not according to rhetoric. Rhetoric and emotion enter into politics, but facts and logic should control politicians. We cannot have it both ways. We should have a Civil Service composed of, and local authority civil servants who are men of integrity and balance, but we cannot have it both ways. Therefore, I strongly hope that we defeat this amendment.
4 p.m.
Lord Jay: Both the two Members of the Committee who have just spoken referred to central government and the central Civil Service, which of course this Bill does not affect, as well as to the local civil service. Perhaps in his reply the Minister could explain the relation between the limitations and restrictions which exist in the national Civil Service and those which a local civil servant will have to fulfil if this provision becomes law; that is to say, if this amendment is not passed. This Bill applies only to local civil servants. Will there be similar increased restrictions introduced for the national Civil Service and, if not, why in this particular respect should we discriminate only against local civil servants?
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: This is a difficult matter. My noble friend, with respect, slightly confused civil servants with local government officers. I think we all realise that local government officers are not civil servants. At this point we are talking about local government servants. On the face of it, if one is talking about someone deciding that he will stand for Parliament and having a three-week election campaign and not getting in and not having to resign in order to do that, that may be acceptable. But of course that is not what happens with

797
parliamentary candidates. That is the problem. They are prospective parliamentary candidates for quite a long time. So, in the case of local government, one would have to live with the fact that it is not abnormal for someone to be a prospective parliamentary candidate for two years. One would have someone who was warming up a constituency as a parliamentary candidate while also being a chief officer in a local authority. He may possibly have opposing points of view to the other members of the local authority. Even if that were not the case, he would mix up the point of view he was expressing as a parliamentary candidate with that he was expressing to his political masters in the council.
In view of that, I see the point of what the Government are doing. I am bound to say that it is a new idea to me. I always thought that twin-tracking was about candidates standing for election to local authorities and not for Parliament, as I believe the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said. However, I agree with my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter that over a period of time a prospective parliamentary candidate cannot give impartial advice in a way that would satisfy the council or would satisfy the electorate of the council, however much a man of integrity he may be. Therefore, I think that the Bill as it stands is correct.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: This debate is getting off the rails very early on. Many of the contributions are not about the amendments which are before the Committee. I find that very unfortunate. Amendment No. 6 in particular is about candidatures. It accepts that it is not possible to be a senior officer of a local authority and to be a Member of Parliament or a Member of the European Parliament. I think that that is common ground between us. However, there are cases where people can be and should be allowed to stand as prospective candidates without losing their job as the result. All the examples I know reflect on the Conservative Party rather than on the Labour Party.
Reference has been made to the GLC. The head of the office of the Conservative Leader of the GLC, Sir Horace Cutler, was not only the leader of Hillingdon Council but was also a parliamentary candidate for one of the seats in Hillingdon. He was elected and remained a local government officer. The honourable Member for Chorley was head of a housing department in the GLC. After he had been elected, he not only refused to resign, but he demanded a very large golden handshake as the price for being forced out of office. The honourable Member for Buckingham was a member of the Diplomatic Service right up until the time of his election to Parliament. All those people are Conservatives, and the first two were members of a Conservative-controlled council. If there are abuses, they are certainly not abuses by the radical Left wing in this country.
I suggest that we would do well to get back to the thrust of Amendment No. 6, which is that it should not be a restriction of people's civil rights to stand for a national legislature if they are senior officers in a local authority. We shall go into the definition of senior officers later. I have just realised that I used the word "abuse" in relation to three Members
798
of another place. I did not mean to use that term, and if I used it I certainly withdraw it.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I should say to the noble Lord that I was not trying to make a party political point. I was thinking about all councils of any political colour and all candidates of any political colour.
Lord Hesketh: These two amendments would mean that local authority officers in the politically restricted group would be able, no matter how senior their position, to be Members of Parliament or of the European Parliament, and even more importantly could be adopted as candidates for those positions. I say "more importantly" because it is likely that anyone elected to these posts, as my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter pointed out, would resign as a local authority officer, as it would be difficult, though not impossible, to combine the two activities.
We have made it clear that declaring oneself as a candidate for public elected office was one of the forms of public political activity with which the restrictions would be concerned. The only exception was for parish, town and community councils. The Opposition's own amendments, and the proposed new clause in Amendment No. 20, recognise the reasonableness of including such activities, for they include candidature for public elected office as one of the permitted categories of restriction.
That is only common sense. To declare oneself a candidate for elected office in a principal council—that is, county council, district or borough council —Parliament or the European Parliament, is to subject oneself inescapably to a string of activities declaring to the world what one's political views are and trying to persuade others to share them. Why, then, this proposal to allow local authority officers to announce their candidatures as either Members of Parliament or Members of the European Parliament? The main argument is that there can be no overlap between the candidature as an MP or MEP and work for a local authority. We do not think that this is the case: it is impossible to take part in political debate on the nation or on an international plane without getting involved in consideration of policies which are bound to have repercussions on the work of any principal local authority. Think of questions about the role of the public sector, for instance. The lack of conflict cannot stand as a possible justification for allowing these candidatures.
Such a lack of conflict simply does not exist. If the Committee considers the range of matters on which we regularly express views, both in this House and in another place, it will see that many are intimately bound up in the work of local authorities, as is the case in this Bill which we have started on its course in Committee today. They include the role of the public sector, public housing policy, roads policy, education policy and the care of the elderly and the handicapped.
Our objection to public political activity by senior local government officers is that it is neither plausible nor possible for them to function at the same time as both impartial advisers and executives

799
of their authorities and committed, vociferous politicians pressing a particular point of view.
If Members of the Committee consider that objection together with what I have said about the inevitability of Members of Parliament expressing views on matters affecting local authorities, they will see the clear, logical reason why subsection (2) is in the Bill and ought to remain there, and why it is not acceptable to allow local government officers in politically sensitive jobs to offer themselves as candidates for Parliament.
The noble Lord, Lord Jay, queried the relationship between these proposals and the rules which apply to the Civil Service. We have modelled the proposals as closely as possible on those for the national Civil Service, but differences and quirks exist between local government and central government. As a result there will not be a perfect mirror image.
Finally, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, argued that the prohibition on standing for, and being elected to, Parliament breaches the provision in the European Convention on Human Rights which guarantees freedom of expression in elections to the legislature. The European Commission of Human Rights, the guardian of the convention, has repeatedly recognised that that right is subject to limitations which are not arbitrary and do not interfere with the expression of the people's opinion. We believe that our proposals serve an important end and meet that test. That is why we urge the Committee to resist the amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Perhaps I may add one more word. The Minister has failed to address or to understand Amendment No. 6. I remind the Committee that Amendment No. 6 provides that candidature for the House of Commons or the Parliament of the European Community shall be a possible exception in regulations laid down by the Secretary of State. In other words, the Secretary of State has the power, even if the amendment is carried, to make such provision for very senior and politically sensitive posts —and we shall be debating the matter in detail in a moment—if there is any conflict.
In his reply the Minister used the phrase —which I think he will come to regret—that such a lack of conflict simply does not exist. One cannot make statements of that kind. The noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, gave two examples —one Conservative and one Labour, and she could also have given a further example of one Democrat—of candidates for the House of Commons who are local government officers holding politically restricted posts in whose case there has been no conflict whatever. She supported that case, of which much greater detail can be provided if the Committee wishes.
It is simply not possible for the Government to state, in a double negative statement of that kind, that such a lack of conflict does not exist. The European Court will require evidence of such conflict if it is to be persuaded that the restriction is not arbitrary. The point that has to be made is that the Government have made no attempt whatever to back up their statements about conflict.
4.15 p.m.
The Earl of Onslow: I should like to come back to the point that was raised earlier. The impartial Civil Service was introduced in the middle of the 19th century to get rid of jobbery, hocus-pocus, bribery and corruption by both Tory and Whig candidates. The ideal was introduced by Macaulay, who invented the impartial Civil Service. The fact that people can produce examples of either Conservative or Labour Members of Parliament who have been local authority officers does not in any way remove the temptation and the possibility of corruption. I use the term corruption in its 19th century sense. One cannot have people subject to outside discipline. Michael Heseltine ceased to be a member of the Welsh Guards half-way through his National Service because he wanted to be a Member of Parliament. He was told that he could not serve in the Army and be a Member of Parliament, or even stand for election to Parliament. That was his choice, and I believe a perfectly reasonable one.
I suggest that one cannot have anything other than a platonic Civil Service. The Government's position enhances that view of a platonic Civil Service. I hope that the Committee will go along with that view and that my noble friend will resist the amendment strongly.
Baroness Lockwood: Are we not in danger of creating a great many anomalies with the proposal put forward by the Government? As my noble friend has said, there are provisions in the Bill for a list of very sensitive posts to be agreed by the Secretary of State. However, we are concerned with the professionalism of people who are employed in local government. People in other professions also often find themselves in very sensitive situations, giving advice and guidance to clients, but the Bill selects just one group and withdraws some of their civic rights. As a result a number of anomalies could be created.
We shall be discussing later what is a senior local government officer. For example, it may be that we would say that a health visitor was a senior local government officer, on the basis of salary, but we would say that a nursing sister in a hospital was not a local government officer. She would therefore be in a different position. One of those two people would be eligible to stand as a candidate and one would not. A lawyer employed by a local authority would not be in a position to accept candidature, but a lawyer who operated outside local government, and gave very sensitive advice on controversial issues, would be able to stand as a candidate.
In the past we have always relied on individuals applying professionalism to the post which they occupied and for which they were paid and divorcing that from their public and political activities. I believe that that same principle can be applied to local government officers, just as it can be applied to others. If the government proposition goes through many anomalies will be created and many people, comparing like with like, will be placed in a very disadvantageous position.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: I hope that my noble friend will stand firm and not be seduced by the arguments

801
which have been addressed to the amendments. I say that as the former Secretary of State who appointed the Widdicombe Committee to deal with what was becoming a growing scandal in local government. Since the deliberations of the Committee, successive government proposals have taken the main proposition that one cannot be a senior officer of an authority and an elected councillor, and that principle is now to be applied where it needs to be applied, across the board.
The principle is quite clear. As the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, said, it is the professionalism of the public servant. I adopt her words: if one starts with the main proposition that one is trying to safeguard that professionalism and to prevent it being corrupted—and I use that word in the same sense as another noble Lord—by involvement on the political side, it seems to me that everything else falls into place. Of course it is a constraint on the freedom to engage in political activities on the part of those who have chosen to make their career in the public service and who have achieved a level of importance and influence which would be in conflict with their involving themselves in politics. But that is their choice. It is perfectly clear. The history of Parliament and of local authorities is full of cases of people having crossed the line. They have decided to abandon a career on the profesional side of local government in order to stand as a local councillor. I had such a person in my constituency.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: Perhaps the noble Lord —
Lord Jenkin of Roding: I should be grateful if the noble Lord would allow me to develop the argument. It is perfectly clear. However, to argue, as the noble Baroness has done, that lawyers in the private sector and members of other professions are not subject to the same constraints is wholly to ignore the facts.
If one has to deal with a local authority as a resident of that area, because, for example, one tries to buy one's council house from that authority, and one finds that the chief housing officer or his assistant are well known local councillors from a neighbouring authority or are standing as parliamentary candidates and openly condemn the sale of council houses, how will one ever be satisfied that one will get a fair deal?
In the case of the lawyer, the individual can go elsewhere. He is not obliged to be advised by a lawyer who is standing for Parliament or is a well known political figure. However, if the lawyer is employed by the local authority and one has to deal with that local authority, one has no choice. It is therefore right that a lawyer employed by a local authority should be subject to the constraints in the Bill.
Again I adopt the phrase of the noble Baroness; it is a case of safeguarding the professionalism of public servants in local authorities. If one adheres to that principle, all the special pleading for one particular man, job or candidature is seen to be just what it is—special pleading for particular cases or categories of case. It inevitably encroaches upon the clear boundary that should exist between paid professional public servants and those, like many of
802
us in this Chamber, who chose to make their careers in the world of politics. The two cannot be combined under our system. As my noble friend pointed out, that has been the case for many years in the central Civil Service. The Widdicombe Committee and the pamphlet that preceded it, entitled The New Corruption, set out to translate those principles in the same way for local government. They were long overdue and I very much welcome them.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord whose logical contributions to our debates I regularly admire. However, he was not addressing the specific amendment before the Committee; namely, the right of a senior local government officer to stand for Parliament or the European Parliament. He was opening the general debate as to whether a senior official in a local authority could stand for a local authority. That is not the issue before the Committee at the moment. The only question before us is the right of a senior local government officer to stand for Parliament as is his normal civic right and duty, if he feels so disposed. It is that right which the Bill seeks to withdraw and which the amendment seeks to protect.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: If the noble Lord was intervening as I was about to sit down, I should say that his argument falls firmly, if one adheres to the principle of safeguarding the professionalism and independence of senior local government officers. Once he has crossed the Rubicon and publicly declared his political allegiance, his position as an impartial adviser to a local authority is bound to be prejudiced.
I therefore totally support my noble friend in resisting both the amendments, however beguiling and attractive the apparent logic of the arguments that have been adduced in their support. If we are to cut this cancer out of local government —and it has been a cancer of considerable and offensive proportions in certain parts of the country —we must deal with it properly. I believe that the Bill does that.
Lord Monson: Before the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, sits down for the second time, perhaps I may put one point to him. The individual who seeks to buy his council house is far more likely to run into difficulties in practice if the local government officer with whom he has to deal is secretly, rather than openly, opposed to the sale of council houses.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: Of course, one cannot stop a local government officer having his own opinions. Councillors are well able to take account of that. But they are private opinions and he is not standing up elsewhere, making speeches and writing articles in a sense contrary to those of the authority that he advises. That is the difficulty.
Perhaps I may make one other point to the Committee. When we in the Department of the Environment began to tackle the problem five years ago, the group that was most enthusiastic to see us deal with it included some of the leading members of the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives. They had had to live alongside individuals in their

803
authorities who occupied politically sensitive posts and who had engaged in and were openly engaging in politics. They found it deeply offensive. Some of the messages that reached me and my department at that time from senior members of SOLACE convinced us that we were right to press ahead. I do not see the distinction between standing for a local authority and declaring one's political allegiance by active political involvement in any other way. It is not permitted to senior civil servants and should not be permitted to senior local government servants.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, persists in resting his argument on the integrity and professionalism of civil servants, both local and national. I believe that he has sought to cast a slur which is offensive to the overwhelming majority of those men and women who are proud to call themselves professionals in the service of both local and national government. There may be individuals who do not act as the noble Lord would wish, but on the basis of his evidence and our evidence that this is not wholly a one-party issue, illustrations can be seen of maladministration by political parties everywhere. Yet, when one listens to the case put by Members opposite, it is always a Labour, Left-wing inspired issue. However, if we are to assume that it is not —I withdraw any inference that I drew from the imputations made by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin —we must have names and instances.
On Monday of this week a number of noble Lords were invited to listen to NALGO officers of all parties and all levels of responsibility. At the end of each hearing, I asked broadly the same question: "Has the issue ever been raised by your fellow officers, councillors, citizens or any other groups who know that you are a politician active in one area, but give professional advice in another?" All of them —of all political parties and more than one from any one party—said, "Never, ever".
So what are we being invited to do today? Some people may detest the behaviour of certain individuals, but at the end of the day we are seeking to lift the slur on the professional integrity, not merely of individuals but of the professions. As one who has served for many years in local government and as a professional in some of the fields that have been attacked, I very much resent the imputations.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, is still intervening in my speech, and I must bring it to a conclusion. The noble Lord mentioned speaking before I sat down for the second time. However, let me say that if his noble friend Lord McIntosh, had not mentioned the honourable Member for Chorley, it had been my intention to do so because that was clearly a totally unacceptable case. I accept that not by any manner of means has this been all on one side, although I believe that the real mischief was happening in some of the local London boroughs and it was that which provoked the whole subject. However, in so far as the noble Lord, Lord Graham, said that there had been a slur cast on local
804
government professionals as a whole, with the greatest respect to him, I must say that that is absolute rubbish. Nothing that I said or every have said could leave anyone to believe that I do not have the highest regard for the many dedicated senior people in local government with whom I have come into contact.
As we are dealing with this amendment, I must say that I do not think it makes any difference whether it is a parliamentary candidature, a European candidature or a candidature for a local authority which is in question. What is wrong (and it is tackled by this Bill) is when a senior public servant in a local authority crosses the Rubicon and is still, while doing that job, actively conducting a political campaign as a candidate. That creates an impossible and undesirable position. It is right that this House should legislate in the way that Clause 1 provides. This amendment would water down that legislation and I hope that it will be resisted.
Lord Trafford: My Lords, I should like to intervene, on two grounds. One is that I do not like this amendment. I believe that, on practical grounds if no other —I accept entirely the theoretical grounds put forward by my noble friend —many Members of this House must at one time or another have been either a political candidate for the other place of have assisted in canvassing for friends who were standing in one interest or another for the other place. Noble Lords must recognise how very difficult it is to avoid in anything that one says as a result of one's own political activity, or in promoting that of one's colleagues or friends involving the local authority in the area in which one is active, or indeed perhaps local authorities generally. That is extremely difficult.
As a candidate who nursed constituencies —I think "nursed" is the word which I think my noble friend was seeking —I know that it is inevitable that one will meet the officers of the local authority and local councillors as well as many other people. It becomes impossible to carry out that function satisfactorily if one is in any way involved in the activities of a senior local government officer.
It seems to me that the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, reinforces the argument that I am putting forward. She used the example of a solicitor who was employed by the local authority compared with a solicitor who was consulted by the local authority. They are indeed two quite different animals. The person who is consulted is covered by the professional codes which operate for lawyers and for others —the noble Baroness mentioned medical and nursing personnel and so forth —whereas the person who is employed directly is not only a professional in his own field but is also a senior employee of a specific authority.
Undoubtedly there is a place for politics. There is a place for all kinds of opinions and the expression of those opinions. With this amendment one is not moving into the realm of the thought police, which was the tenor of the intervention in the speech of my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding. It seems to me on both practical and theoretical grounds —with no slur whatsoever cast on any local government

805
professionals, whatever party they may adhere to—that it makes no difference. It would be just as difficult whichever party they happened to belong to, including the party of the noble Lords opposite.
On both theoretical and practical grounds this appears to me a reasonable suggestion. Everyone knows that there is a place for politics. Those of us who choose, of our own volition, to enter that field know whether or not our actions and our professional activity are consistent with it in terms of both our life situations and our jobs. I do not believe that this provision places a very great restriction at all on a civil liberty. To a very large extent the arguments framed against it are, if I may use the expression, considerably overblown.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I rise to oppose the amendment. I hope that my noble friends on the Front Bench will remain firm. I do not oppose the amendment because I envisage that any local government officer who wishes to get into the business of politics will always be of a Liberal or Labour persuasion. This matter cuts across party lines. I have no doubt it is possible that there are as many Conservatives as members from other parties who will be offended by our words this evening.
During my time in local government I found that the most effective local government officer was the one whose policies I found it impossible to detect. Apolitical officers were, I found, always the most effective. There were a number of reasons for that. I regard a good relationship between members and officers as essential to the healthy provision of good local services for people. I discovered that, if an officer was of the same political persuasion as myself, there was always a temptation to compromise that officer in the business that one was conducting. On the other hand, if an officer is overtly not of the same political persuasion as oneself, it is always difficult to perceive the advice that he gives as objective. That is natural. It is natural on the part of the public when they know that someone is overtly political one way or the other. It is very important for the good working of local authorities for its officers to be seen to be objective and to be seen to be apolitical.
I want also to reinforce the point made by my noble friend Lady Carnegie. It is seldom that someone simply announces three weeks before an election that he will stand for Parliament; that he will take paid or unpaid leave with the permission of the authority, run for Parliament, either win or lose the seat and then resign to enter Parliament or return to his work. More likely there will be a year, or in some cases even longer, maybe two years, during which the individual will have been overtly canvassing opinion, trying to persuade people and actively moving around the country or the constituency, or, what is even worse, being overtly active in politics in the constituency in which the local authority happens to be.
Therefore, the idea that one can stand right back and be totally objective and apolitical when giving advice is like asking someone to be superhuman. Being seen to be objective is very important. The noble Lord, Lord Monson, spoke about someone
806
who wished to buy his home and said that if this amendment were passed it would be better to be overtly political than possibly secretly political. Perhaps I may just say that someone who is overtly political and overtly opposed to the policies of the government of the day creates an air of intimidation. Not all members of the public can walk into a local government office and apply to buy their homes when week after week they are reading letters in the press, are being canvassed or have literature pushed through their doors to the effect that that particular department is run by someone who is overtly opposed to the policy of the right to buy. Therefore the air of intimidation is very damaging.
Policemen, the armed forces and civil servants make their choice. People who move into those careers make choices. They know that by entering that line of work they are not choosing a political career. I think it is time that we depoliticised local government as far as possible. I believe that that would be welcomed by the majority of competent local government officers. My noble friend Lord Jenkin spoke about the way in which apolitical professional local government officers would welcome a return not only to being professionals but to being seen to be professionals. I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will reject this amendment.
Baroness Stedman: My Lords, I have listened to the debate with great interest. I served for 29 years as a member of the local authority. Indeed I was a local government officer before that and a secretary of NALGO at that time. I also had four years in government as a junior minister. I yield to none in my admiration for the impartiality and professionalism of those who served me both in local and in national government. I resent the implication made by some noble Lords opposite that local government officers are somewhat less careful about their impartiality and advice than are civil servants.
I also speak from personal experience as one who has worked with a senior local government officer as a parliamentary candidate. For some 13 years in my constituency we had a senior local government officer as our candidate. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, is not here, because he would probably support what I am saying. At no time did we have any problems. That candidate gave up all his weekends and all his holidays, took no time off from his employment and, so far as I know, there was never any question that there was a difficulty about him being a parliamentary candidate. There was no difficulty about him working in the constituency. He resigned as a local government officer when he became a Member of Parliament and he did that job as well as he had done his local government work.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, said that these candidates can make their choice and can leave local government if they want to enter politics. Yes, I suppose they can. What I am afraid cif is that many of our senior local government officers, if the Bill goes through unamended, will feel that they have to take that choice and we shall lose them to local government and not necessarily gain them to

807
national or European politics. They may not have a seat which they can win. I would rather see them staying in local government.
I also remind the Committee that most of these senior local government officers are also members of their professional institutes or associations, which lay down pretty strict codes of conduct as to how their members should behave as treasurers, surveyors, engineers or what have you. The professional associations would have something to say about it if members became too politically involved while they were doing their jobs.
I am sorry that the Minister was not as helpful as he might have been when he replied. I was rather expecting the usual reply, that the amendment was badly drafted or that it was not in the right place. But neither of those suggestions arose, either about Amendment No. 1 or about Amendment No. 6. On reflection I believe that Amendment No. 6 is perhaps the better one and at this stage, with the leave of the Committee, I beg to withdraw Amendment No. 1 and hope that when we reach Amendment No. 6 on the Marshalled List the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, will decide what he wants to do about that.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 35, leave out subsection (5).
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I should also like to speak to Amendments Nos. 4, 14, 22, 24, 25 and 38. With these amendments we come to the point which so many noble Lords opposite thought they were speaking about when we dealt with the last amendment. In other words, we are dealing now with issues of twin tracking and service on local authorities by local government officers.
I make it clear from the outset that these amendments represent not only one compromise but two compromise positions, because we are anxious to see how far we can persuade the Government by the force of sweet reason that their proposals for dealing with twin tracking go very much further than Widdicombe or their own White Paper intended or that common sense might dictate.
Amendments Nos. 2, 14, 22, 25 and 38 would keep the restriction on twin tracking, but would restrict that to chief officers, deputy chief officers, the newly defined head of the paid service, as it is defined in the Bill, and the newly defined monitoring officer: in other words, those officers who are in a truly senior position responsible for giving advice to members of the council on behalf of their departments, and whose objectivity we entirely agree ought to be maintained by political restriction.
Before I go on to setting out the argument in more detail, I wish to refer to Amendment No. 4 which is a weaker alternative to the amendments to which I have just referred. It would restrict twin tracking to the head of paid service, the monitoring officer and chief officers and deputies and it would abolish other restrictions than local authority membership only for more junior staff, rather than abolishing all
808
restrictions for them. If the Government are antagonistic to Amendment No. 2 and its following amendments, perhaps they might look more kindly upon Amendment no. 4.
The problem with the Bill as it has reached us is that it does not reflect what Widdicombe suggested, because it introduces a completely new concept of a salary bar at £13,500 which was not contained anywhere in the Widdicombe Report. It does not reflect what the White Paper says because it introduces this new salary bar. It reflects the definitions of politically sensitive posts which Widdicombe used and which were defined more closely in the White Paper—definitions of "political activity" as holding office in a political party, speaking or writing on behalf of the political party or canvassing for it —but it leaves to regulation far too much definition of what is meant by "political activity".
As we have already seen that the Secretary of State is prepared in drafting a Bill to be much more draconian in his definitions both of "political activity" and "politically restricted posts" than had originally been planned, one must raise the possibility that, subsequent to the Bill receiving Royal Assent, the Secretary of State will introduce in regulations more onerous restrictions than have so far been announced.
All this is compounded by the fact that there have been no draft regulations made available to Parliament. If we had had draft regulations —as, to be fair, we had for some aspects of the Water Bill, even though I complained about the inadequacy of that information —we could have debated them. If there were matters which we thought objectionable we could have sought to have them taken out by amendments to statute, but in the absence of draft regulations we are forced to rely on the tit-bits of information that drop from the lips of Secretaries of State and Ministers for local government, principally in Committee in another place.
That is not very satisfactory and it does not provide an assurance to us that the regulations will not be too onerous. There are so many issues left undetermined in the Bill as drafted. They are issues fundamentally of civil liberties. They are not issues about twin tracking. Almost all the very few examples which have been given of abuse by twin tracking —I think back to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, at Second Reading —were of chief officers and deputies and people in particularly responsible positions and twin tracking would still be banned under our amendments. So the noble Lord's objectives would be achieved under our amendments. The difficulty is that so many other posts —we shall be spelling this out in more detail in later amendments —which cannot by any stretch of the imagination be thought to be politically sensitive, will be covered by the regulations to be laid under the Bill.
The fundamental question arises as to how many there are. If we take what Widdicombe said in 1986, his calculation was that there were approximately 70,000 local government officers of the rank of principal officer and above. If we take the 7 per cent. pay settlement which has been offered to local

809
government officers to take effect from 1st July —it has not been accepted by NALGO yet, but if it were to be accepted —that figure of 70,000 would rise to 114,000 local government officers who would be caught by the political restriction definition.
In addition, no fewer than 8,600 members of the fire service —fire fighters, no less —would be caught by the political restriction because they earn more than £13,500 a year. Whatever one may think about the abuses to which the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, referred —I do not differ from him in condemnation of some of those abuses —I do not think he was speaking about 8,600 members of the fire service and I do not think he was really talking about 114,000 local government officers. I am sure he would agree that the definition in the Bill has gone much too wide.
It is not just the definition of who is covered by this which raises problems. There is the whole question, totally ignored by the Bill and Ministers, of how the regulations are to be implemented. Is it a requirement that all local government officers engaged in political activity at the time of Royal Assent shall resign or immediately be required to give up their political activity? If they appeal under the procedure laid down in the Bill, will they be allowed to retain their posts or maintain their political activity while the appeal is being heard? If they receive a salary increase subsequent to the passing of the Bill, will they immediately be caught by its provisions and be excluded from political activity, or must they refuse the salary increase whether or not promotion is involved? Increases in salary are actually awarded.
What will be the effect on the morale of those in local authority service? Is a bar on the salary of £13,500 the best way to encourage good morale and good spirit in the service? One may be doing the same job as a school teacher, a sub-station officer in the fire service or an assistant quantity surveyor and suddenly the social conscience which has driven one into political activity will no longer be permissible, because one is receiving above a certain salary. That is a nonsense as the examples which have been given make clear.
How will the restriction be enforced? We understand from Ministers that the prescription will extend to a ban on canvassing and putting up posters. Who will go around looking at posters in the windows? Who will keep a record of canvassers for political parties? We are moving far too rapidly into a state where the regulation of the Secretary of State will set up a "thought" police, as someone has described it. We shall be spying on loyal, honourable members of local government service because they have reached a salary of more than £13,500. We shall be looking at what they do outside their working hours and deciding whether that is in breach of the regulations laid down by the Secretary of State.
One of the people who saw us on Monday raised a point which had never occurred to me and which was not raised in Committee in another place. He pointed out that if, under recent legislation, his service was privatised the political restrictions would be removed. However, if the privatisation contract failed —and there have been such cases where the
810
local authority have had to take back the service —the political restrictions would be reimposed. What kind of a recipe is that for a professional local government service? The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, used the word over again.
I argue that the provisions, which extend to well over 100,000 members of local government service, are a direct challenge to the professionalism of that service. They make it virtually impossible to ensure that local government officers have the incentive to advance their careers without giving up their civil rights. I argue that the Government have it badly wrong, particularly the extent to which they have departed from Widdicombe and their White Paper.
Let us put on one side the examples used by the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, and others. Whatever has been said in the past, let us agree that twin tracking by chief officers and senior officers is wrong. Let us make that common ground. But let us not then go from an undoubted abuse to a draconian measure affecting more than 100,000 people and doing severe damage to the professionalism of the local government service. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Cullen of Ashbourne): If the amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment Nos. 3 to 7 inclusive.
Lord Rippon of Hexham: I entirely support the general policy of the Government ir, implementing the Widdicombe Report. However, I have a great deal of sympathy for the concern expressed about the nature of this and other provisions in the Bill. I believe that the provision goes too far in allowing the Secretary of State to make regulations to:
"incorporate such requirements for restricting his political activities as may be prescribed".
I make the general criticism that I have previously made about legislation which has come before Parliament. This is another bulky Bill which to a large extent is skeletal. It lays down general principles but does not provide any indication of what may eventually appear in the large number of regulations which can be made under it. There are more than 30 provisions allowing the Secretary of State to make regulations or orders or to lay down codes of conduct. In nearly every case they are subject simply to negative resolution. I do not believe that that is good enough and, as far as it lies within our power, we must put a stop to the practice of drafting such legislation. There are so many provisions which allow the Secretary of State to make regulations which might, in the wrong hands, contain provisions which nearly all Members would wholly deplore.
As a member of the legal profession I must declare an interest; otherwise, I should put up a case for privatising the drafting of legislation. An enormous burden now falls upon approximately 45 parliamentary draftsmen who are paid an average salary of £30,000 a year. We are manifestly wrong in believing that that is the way in which we can put legislation on the statute book. Over the past 10 years, 50 Bills have been passed affecting local government. Some barely survive a parliamentary Session, much less a Parliament. It is not a sensible way in which to legislate. While I wholly approve of the Government's attempts, I believe that in many cases we are not going about it in the right way.
Baroness Stedman: I support this group of amendments. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has explained the difference that a modest salary increase can make to the number of people who will be affected. He spoke of the absurdity of the involvement of 8,500 fire service employees. Many people who receive London weighting will earn that amount. Technically, it is not their basic salary but they are drawing that amount or more, including London weighting and various locally agreed salary incentives.
What will happen when someone is decreed to be above the limit and proscribed from doing what he wishes? If that person appeals, what will happen during the course of the appeal? Can he continue or must he suspend operations until the appeal is heard? What timescale do the Government have in mind for appeals to be dealt with? Have they any idea how many appeals are likely to arise as a result of this part of the Bill?
The Government are laying down trouble for themselves. The arbitrary bar will prevent those who wish to work in their community and serve their local authority from applying for jobs if their salary will rise above that low level. For example, jobs which have recently been advertised include a housing officer in Harrow from £13,311 to £13,566. That puts the job within the scope of the regulation. The same applies to a planning assistant in St. Helens and an assistant minerals officer in North Yorkshire. Such people with special skills to offer, who wish to work in local government, may sit back and ask, "Ought I to be applying for the job if I also wish to put something back into the community?".
The Government have not thought the matter through. They have not thought about where the arbitrary figure of £13,500 will leave them and the damage that it will cause to local government and its services.
5 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: When the noble Lord replies to this amendment, perhaps he can tell us exactly who is included above this salary bar, what the implications are of it and why it is fixed at that point. Also, perhaps he can say what will happen when there are salary increases each year in the salary round. I wonder whether this way of defining people to whom the Bill applies is the best one. I mentioned that point on Second Reading and I suggested that there might be another way of defining the position on the scale above which the Bill will apply. Perhaps the Minister can help us on those matters. It will then be rather easier for us to know where we are and what we should be doing.
Lord Bellwin: Perhaps I may make another observation to answer the point made by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. I certainly did not have firemen in mind when I gave illustrations and examples. Usually firemen do not give advice to the public on matters other than fire, on which I am sure they are well qualified.
As I said before, I listened sadly to the whole debate. I am sorry that it has to take place, and I am sorry that there has to be legislation at all. I listened
812
to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman. I pay tribute to former fellow practitioners who certainly know the business. They also know, as I do, that this sort of debate would have been unheard of in their time. The whole subject was unheard of because it was a matter of great pride to local government officers that they retained their own political views and no one knew of them.
I took the point made by my noble friend Lady Blatch. She said, "In all the years that I was in local government and working at first hand with the officers, I did not know and did not want to know what were their politics. I was concerned that they should do a good job; and that, and only that, mattered to me".
Having said that, I believe that there are some 3 million employees in local government service so that if the figure was 100,000 or so, that represents about 3 per cent. Therefore, at present it will not apply to 97 per cent. I believe that those figures are right and I am open to correction.
This is all a matter of confidence and a matter of standing and reputation of local government. As I say, it is so sad that we should have seen the deterioration which we have seen. That has brought about the need for legislation in the first place. I take the point referred to by my noble friend when he spoke with his great experience about regulations. That problem has arisen in the many Bills which I have introduced into the House. Sometimes one wonders whether there is not a better way of achieving that other than by regulation.
Coming back to the basic point, this is a shame but I do not believe that £13,500 is so sacrosanct. I do not think it will have anything like the adverse effect which the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, spoke about when she said people would say "Well, there is a choice. Because of that do I go in or stay out?" Most local government officers —and I also pay tribute to them —are proud of what they do and are proud of their impartiality. That is a matter of pride for them. When we have seen the adverts for those like-minded to the party in power, they have cringed more than any of us, that that has been the case. They have deplored that. My noble friend Lord Jenkin referred to the representations made by SOLACE and others. That was and is a fact. Therefore, I regret that this is as it is. I fear that it is necessary. I do not support the amendment, although I pay tribute to some of the observations made by the noble Lord. Basically, there is a problem here which will have to be tackled. It is being tackled and I support the way in which the Government are doing that.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My noble friend Lord Bellwin said many of the things which I might have said. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is normally very thorough in his preparation for these debates and I would not necessarily challenge the figures that he has given; but we are talking about 2.5 or 3 per cent. of the total employment by local authorities.
I should like to make one point touching on something the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, said. It must not be assumed that the only way in which

813
a local government official, who has achieved a position of influence and importance in his profession, can put something back into the community is by engaging in politics. It seems to me that if you are the kind of person who feels that it is through the political machinery that you wish to influence the life of the community in which you live, then you do not choose to go into the public service in the first instance. If you want to put something back into the community, there are a myriad of voluntary bodies of all kinds. There is an enormous range which is expanding all the time. I know many local government officials at different levels who play an enormously important role in bringing their expertise into that kind of community work. They do that without in the slightest way tainting, or even appearing to taint, the advice which they give to the authority which they serve or the function which they perform.
In politics we are inclined to believe that the only effective way to take part in community life is by standing for election and serving on a local authority parliament. Far more people achieve that through the voluntary sector. Therefore, when we consider exactly where the boundaries should be drawn, that is a perfectly legitimate question to be asked. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is right when he says this goes wider than Widdicombe. However, we should bear in mind that we are talking about people who have chosen a career in the public service, where they are likely to serve political authorities of all political persuasions and perhaps, in some cases, successively in quite short periods. Once they have reached a position at a certain level, even if that appears to us comparatively junior, it makes it difficult for them and those they serve if they are overtly pursuing a political career at the same time. There are other ways—and in some cases better ways—of serving the community, and that should be an avenue which is open to them.
Lord Kirkhill: I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, should reflect upon the fact that many local government officers—professional in every sense of that word—choose to serve in the public service as a matter of conscience and social persuasion. By doing so, they usually enjoy—if that is the correct word—a lower salary than they would otherwise have obtained had they been engaged in the private sector. To further deny them the opportunity of political persuasion by being a representative in another local authority is entirely draconian.
The Earl of Carnarvon: The noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, said that she had served for 29 years in local government. I am not far behind her. We seem to have strayed over the major part of the Bill before we have reached Clause 6, so perhaps I may add a few words.
I realise what the Government are trying to do and that there have been notable abuses of the present unrestricted position in certain parts of the country. However, I do not believe that that is a sound argument for imposing wholesale prohibition on very large numbers of people by the imposition of a financial limit. I accept that certain staff, because of the nature of their work, should be restricted from
814
standing for election to local authorities. However, I believe that the clause is much too widely drawn. The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, referred to senior staff who should be giving impartial advice, and with that I quite agree. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, several times referred to employees of local authorities who have important posts and posts of influence. In Hampshire, for example, a cut-off level of £13,500 would result in 1,000 members of staff of the county council being restricted. Teachers are exempt for very good reason —they do not influence policy. The same applies to other categories of staff. Firemen have already been mentioned. There are also trading standards officers, estate officers, recreational wardens, home help organisers, and many others.
There are 47 county councils in. England and Wales and therefore there may be in excess of 30,000 county council employees who would be affected. No doubt later this evening we shall be debating an amendment that I have tabled. However, I believe that the figure of £13,500, as written in the Bill, is far too low.
Baroness Stedman: The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, referred to the fact that these people do not have to be on local authorities in order to put something back into the community. I agree that there are many voluntary organisations in which people can help and which are glad to have people help them. Again, however, that raises a question in the minds of some local government officers as to whether they are doing political work for those voluntary organisations.
The noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, referred to a meeting. We had one young lady who told us that she was on a parent-teacher association and occasionally had to cross swords with the education authority. Is she to be told that she cannot be a member of the parent-teacher association because that is political? We had a disabled councillor with us who did a lot of voluntary work on access for the disabled. He is an ex-Lord Mayor of his city. Occasionally he had to take the local authority or the county council to task. Is he to be told that that sort of work is political, and that he cannot continue with his voluntary work because it brings him into opposition with his local authority? Another example is a lady involved with the campaign for Scottish devolution. Perhaps that is a little more political than some of the others, but it is not an official body as such. It is a group of people in Scotland who are campaigning for more independence for themselves. Is that thought to be in conflict with the work she is doing as a planning officer in her authority? Is a person in Essex who is helping with the campaign to clean up beaches considered to be in a political organisation? These people do not know where they stand or what is to be classed as political.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: I should like at this point to say a word or two in regard to Scotland. In Scotland we have two tiers of local government —regional and district —and our community councils have no statutory functions. England is quite different with county, district and

815
parish community councils and many joint boards all with statutory functions.
I have received a letter from the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, who is very concerned about these matters. He had a meeting with three East Lothian district council officials and they told him that they fully approved that any officer, first, holding the position of chief officer or deputy, secondly, having powers of delegation from a committee, or, thirdly, falling within Clause 2(3), should be in the politically restricted area. However, they felt that the PO grade in England and Wales of £13,500 was far too low a figure to apply to Scotland. It would include all professional posts such as architects, environmental health officers, planners, surveyors, senior librarians and social and community workers. Do the Government really wish to include all those professional officers within Clause 2(2)(a)?
Lord Rippon of Hexham: We have gone a little beyond the omission of subsection (5); but in so far as we have gone on to talk about the salary limit, then I share the views expressed by the noble Earl, Lord Carnarvon, and others, that £13,500 appears to be far too low, especially if one takes into account such factors as overtime and the special position of people in the fire service who are not involved in giving advice on policy. I should like to add also, in the light of discussions we have had, my hope that my noble friend the Minister will at least agree that we should see the draft regulations which are proposed before we go much further.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: These amendments would delete all the controls over public political activities other than the ban on membership of Parliament, the European Parliament and principal councils, and would limit that ban to chief executives, chief officers, their deputies and the monitoring officers. This represents the furthest that the Opposition are prepared to go in recognising that there is a problem in senior local government staff simultaneously undertaking their job as impartial servants of their local authorities and acting as partisan political activists.
To explain why this is not acceptable to the Government, I need to demonstrate two things. First, it is important to control more than simply membership of an elected body. Secondly, this case applies to more than chief executives, chief officers and their deputies. On the first point, I have to ask the committee to consider each of the four categories of political activity that we have proposed should be regulated in addition to membership of principal councils and Parliament.
The first of these is offering oneself as a candidate for those bodies. For the reason explained on Amendment No. 1, we think that the arguments against membership apply as much to offering oneself as a candidate. Secondly, there is holding office in a political party. Again, this seems to be something that clearly is incompatible with holding sensitive posts in a local authority's service. How would a Conservative or Labour chairman of a local authority committee feel if he knows that the
816
committee clerk advising him is chairman of the local branch of the SDLP or the Green Party? How will a Liberal or Labour councillor feel in getting advice from an assistant treasurer of the authority who in his spare time is treasurer of the local Conservative Party? We think that such relationships undermine the proper functioning of local government and should be controlled.
The third category is canvassing for candidates for principal councils or Parliament or for a political party. Again, this seems clearly incompatible with the sort of impartiality demanded of those holding sensitive posts. Consider the case of a housing allocation officer who in his spare time goes round his local housing estate canvassing for his local party's candidates. How are tenants, or would-be tenants, going to react? Or consider the councillor who finds that the assistant chief officer advising his committee was going round his ward canvassing for policies totally different to those on which the councillor was elected.
The final category is speaking or writing in public on a matter of party political controversy. We shall be consulting local government about the precise definition of this, but we think that the definition will concentrate on activities which appear to be designed to promote the cause of a political party, as opposed to contributing to a debate on a controversial matter. This we think is bound to be seen as undermining the impartiality of the officer concerned in exactly the same way as the other activities. If the assistant housing manager mounts an attack on the policies he is responsible for administering, how is anyone going to be confident about the professional impartiality of his advice? There is no difference if he is advocating the policies of his council in a way that is designed to win support for the controlling group on the council. Both undermine his position.
On the second point, whether to confine the restrictions to a limited number of very senior staff, the argument turns on the definitions of the politically sensitive posts that the Government have proposed. We are proposing essentially that in addition to the chief executives, chief officers and their deputies the restrictions should apply to three other groups of officers.
The first are the assistants to political groups. The arguments there are very different from the others, and we shall return to them on another amendment. However, I may briefly say that this is because we do not think that these posts should be subsidies to local political parties. Secondly, there are the officers to whom have been delegated a function of the authority. Here the case seems to be clear. If an officer is, on his own, to be given the task of making the authority's decision for it, then the public and the councillors are entitled to assurances that he will not seem to be using that power to further his own political ends. If he is simultaneously an active politician, that will be difficult to accept.
Finally, there are the officers who hold sensitive posts as defined in Clause 2(3); those who regularly advise councillors, those who regularly speak for the council to the media, and those who regularly deal with the public in circumstances where the public

817
would think that they could influence the authority's decision. In the interests of proper administration, we want to ensure that there can be no suspicion that those officers are carrying out those functions with an axe to grind.
We cannot, of course, claim that the provisions of the Bill will stop this. What it will do, however, as in the Civil Service, is remove obvious grounds for suspicion that this is happening. Human nature being what it is, people are unlikely to believe that those who are running both tracks will always and in every case scrupulously separate their personalities between the impartial official and the active politician.
We therefore think that it is necessary to bring into the politically-restricted group not only the most senior officers, but also those who are in sufficiently sensitive posts to give rise to concerns that they could be subjected to conflict between their paid work and their political activity. That is what the Bill does, and we think that it does it in a reasonable and effective way.
Many Members of the Committee, including my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour, drew to our attention the level of £ 13,500. That level was selected on the basis that that is the recommended minimum for the grade of principal officer. Proceeding from that point, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, suggested that the figure had risen from 70,000 to 114,000 people particularly if the 7 per cent. pay award, that is a matter of dispute at the moment, is accepted.
In another place, my right honourable friend the Minister for Local Government said that if the 7 per cent. increase comes into effect the figure of £13,500 will be increased. My noble friend Lady Carnegy asked whether or not it would be possible to redefine the limit other than by cash. There is no obligation on any local authority to adopt any particular salary structure or system of salaries. Therefore the only common denominator between all authorities is cash. That is why we have had to use it as the only way of describing posts that is bound to apply to all local authorities.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, asked: who will enforce the restrictions? After his many arguments concerning the complications involved, I return to the point I made earlier to the noble Lord, Lord Jay; namely, that these proposals very clearly reflect those that already exist for the Civil Service at the present time and do not cause any problems. The noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, asked what will happen if someone's salary is increased over the threshold. The power in Clause 2(2) to exempt the duty to list posts could be used to make appropriate transitional arrangements in the case that she brought forward.
My noble friend Lord Rippon once again criticised the regulation-making power as a general feature of the legislature. Every Minister who has to deal with the large numbers of regulations must have sympathy with the noble Lord's comments. But regulations give a flexibility to respond to changes in practice which primary legislation cannot give. We thought that, on balance, it was right in Clause 1(5) to opt for flexibility. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, asked about the situation regarding consultation. We intend to consult local government in detail on the
818
regulations to implement Clauses 1 to 3. We intend to consult both on the basic policy questions and on the text of the regulations. I hope that a consultation document on the policy will be sent to the local authority association in August. That is our firm intention.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, also asked: what happens when an appeal is in progress? That is clearly a matter to be decided after consultation. It would be possible to exempt staff while an appeal is pending, and to exempt only those where the local authority has given a certificate under Clause 3(2)(c). We shall decide in the light of the comments that we receive, on the basis of the consultations as they proceed with those who will be able to make a great contribution to those consultations.
It must be remembered that we have modelled these proposals as closely as possible on those that already exist for the Civil Service. I believe that the complications are not as great as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, suggests. I apologise if I have ventured somewhat away from the amendments themselves, but the debate itself travelled a little further than the amendments. For that reason I have taken some time. I hope the Committee will resist the amendments.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I do not have any doubt that the Minister was seeking to be helpful in his reply. Indeed there were helpful elements. It is helpful to know that the consultation document will go to the local authority associations in August. That means that, though the time for consideration of this part of the Bill in Committee will have passed, nevertheless there will be something that we can get our teeth into at Report stage. It is helpful to know that we have learned a little more about appeals. Unfortunately, in his reply the Minister is now using the consultation document as a way of saying that he cannot give firm answers to the questions raised by Members of the Committee on all sides of the Chamber.
As the noble Lord, Lord Rippon, said, it would have been preferable if the draft regulations had been available for consideration while we are in Committee, when we can give them the most detailed consideration. Though he was trying to be helpful the Minister was not convincing. He left us in the position that the Secretary of State has the power by regulation to impose such restrictions as he thinks fit. In his reply the Minister gave virtually no further idea of what those restrictions will be. There is certainly no further evidence that those restrictions are necessary on such local authority staff as he thinks fit.
The definition of a politically sensitive post is still unclear. In any case, it has been overtaken by the salary bar that was criticised by Members of the Committee on all sides and to which the Minister offered no defence. We are left with Clause 1(5), and our consequential amendments, which give the Secretary of State virtually the power to do what he likes. If one could write Shakespeare into legislation it would be from King Lear. The Secretary of State,
"will do such things,—
What they are, yet I know not; but they shall be
The terrors of the earth".

819
That is not a satisfactory situation to find ourselves in. The Minister has not answered the very grave concerns expressed on all sides of the Chamber about the extent of these restrictions and the deprivation of civil liberties implied by them. It is appropriate that I ask the opinion of the Committee on this matter.
5.27 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 2) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 84; Not-Contents, 112.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Jay, L.

Alport, L.

Jeger, B.

Amherst, E.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Ampthill, L.

Kagan, L.

Aylestone, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Blease, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Listowel, E.

Bottomley, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Bradford, Bp.

Lockwood, B.

Broadbridge, L.

Longford, E.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

McNair, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Mais, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Monson, L.

Carter, L.

Mountevans, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Ogmore, L.

David, B.

Peston, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Rea, L.

Ennals, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B. [Teller.]

Rochester, L.

Ezra, L.

Ross of Newport, L.

Falkender, B.

Sainsbury, L.

Falkland, V.

Scanlon, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Seear, B.

Foot, L.

Seebohm, L.

Gallacher, L.

Shackleton, L.

Galpern, L.

Stedman, B.

Gladwyn, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Strabolgi, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Grimond, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hampton, L.

Underhill, L.

Hanworth, V.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Walston, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Whaddon, L.

Hayter, L.

White, B.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Willis, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Winstanley, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Young of Dartington, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Brookeborough, V.

Arran, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Auckland, L.

Butterworth, L.

Bauer, L.

Caithness, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Caldecote, V.

Bellwin, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Beloff, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Belstead, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Bessborough, E.

Chelmer, L.

Birdwood, L.

Coleraine, L.

Blatch, B.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Blyth, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Borthwick, L.

Cox, B.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Craigmyle, L.

820

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Merrivale, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Mersey, V.

Dilhorne, V.

Middleton, L.

Dundee, E.

Milverton, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Morris, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Faithfull, B.

Nelson, E

Ferrers, E.

Nelson of Stafford, L.

Fortescue, E.

Onslow, E.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Orkney, E.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Oxfuird, V.

Gray of Contin, L.

Pender, L.

Greenway, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Gridley, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Prior, L.

Pym, L.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Rochdale, V.

Harrowby, E.

Rugby, L.

Henley, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Hesketh, L.

Shannon, E.

Hives, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Holderness, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Stockton, E.

Hood, V.

Strange, B.

Hooper, B.

Strathcarron, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Strathspey, L.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Sudeley, L.

Keyes, L.

Swinfen, L.

Killearn, L.

Teviot, L.

Kimball, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Thurlow, L.

Layton, L.

Trafford, L.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Trefgarne, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Trumpington, B.

Lytton, E.

Ullswater, V.

Manton, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Margadale, L.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Marley, L.

Young of Graffham, L.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.35 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, line 35, leave out from first ("of") to ("every") and insert ("a Code of Conduct applicable to").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 13. This amendment seeks to make clear the Government's intention in respect of matters governing and defining political activities. This is one of the benign aspects of this part of the Bill.
We believe that the Minister is anxious to get this matter right. We all know what a code of practice is. It is a body of opinion and guidance which is looked upon as helpful. We ask that this code of practice shall not be left to others, but shall ultimately be the creature of the Secretary of State. We ask that it should be prepared and issued only after consultation with the appropriate bodies. The amendment preserves the principle of consultation and taking advice.
We believe that the lead in the issue should be taken by the Secretary of State. We do not look upon this as a delaying tactic or as something designed to buy time. There is a fair measure of agreement that, if the Government go down this route, those who are to be caught or affected by the provision should have some guidelines. In advance of taking the wrong

821
route or putting themselves in jeopardy, they need to have the best possible advice.
We have tabled the amendment in that spirit. We shall listen carefully to what the Minister has to say about the amendment and about his intentions in the matter. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: It will be helpful to consider together Amendments Nos. 3 and 13. They deal with the suggestion of a code of practice as an alternative to the Bill's proposals. The effect of Amendment No. 3 is to replace, with a proposal for a code of conduct to be issued by the Secretary of State, the Bill's proposal that the terms of employment of officers holding politically restricted posts should incorporate restrictions on public political activity. Amendment No. 13 would require consultation with a variety of representative associations about the code of conduct.
The crucial part of these proposals is therefore the replacement of the Government's proposals for binding rules on the restrictions to apply to public political activity by those holding sensitive posts in local government with something rather more imprecise.
The Government believe that it is essential that there are clear rules which should apply across the whole field of local government on what officers are free to pursue their political avocations and which officers should, like civil servants, be expected to preserve political neutrality as professional advisers and spokesmen, and from what actions they should abstain in order to preserve that neutrality.
Such clear rules can now be provided only by legislation. Until not many years ago, there was such a code of practice. It was not written down, but everyone knew what was expected of them and behaved accordingly. If any noble Lord doubts this, I suggest that he consult the standard authors of 20 years ago: Sir Kenneth Wheare on Government by Committee or the Royal Institute of Public Administration study of The Town Clerk in English Local Government. The general understanding was that local government officers were not publicly active in politics.
Contrast that with the position now. Not merely have we seen a chief executive of a district council who is a councillor in a neighbouring district, we have seen a chief executive of a district council who was chairman of the local Labour Party. We read that 10 per cent. or 20 per cent. of the members of this London borough or that London borough council hold posts in other authorities which we would regard as politically sensitive.
We have therefore tried a code of conduct —a code of conduct of the best possible kind, one established by the common consent of those involved. It has, however, sadly broken down. When such codes break down then having them written down by local authority associations will not, we believe, revive them. Regretfully, we can only have recourse to legislation.
The amendments do not say whether the code would be binding on the officers concerned in any more than conscience. As I said, we have seen what
822
has happened to the traditional standards of conduct in this field. There is no reason to think that a code written by local authority associations or issued by the Secretary of State with the approval of Parliament would have any different effect.
Local authorities would be free to take it into account or not. How far the code was followed in any authority would therefore depend on the discretion of the current councillors. If a council changed political control—a not unheard of event—the new councillors might find that their predecessors had given the staff terms of appointment which left them free to pursue parallel political careers, even though the new councillors might disapprove of such arrangements.
Further, the amendment would link the effects of the code of conduct to chief executives, chief officers and their deputies. We think that the problem of incompatibility goes much wider than this. What is at issue is the problem of people being both impartial advisers and active politicians: this is not confined to the select group of chief executives, chief officers and their deputies.
The usual phrase is to warn Members of the Committee not to be led astray by siren suggestions. I do not think, however, that I can realistically suggest that these suggestions have the degree of attractiveness that even superannuated sirens would have. Effectively these amendments are a proposal to defer indefinitely any reinforcement of the traditional convention.
The Government believe that the provisions in Clause 1 are essential if we are to maintain the tradition of the impartiality of local government officers, It is for those reasons that we shall oppose these amendments.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: As always I am grateful to the Minister who has taken great care to be clear in what he says. He may well be right, in the light of events, in his view that one needs 20, 30 or 40 years after an understood ethos has been accepted and has been broken, or is breaking down, to reflect upon whether one can do it better in the future. The noble Lord rests his case upon the change of a council which may well have been operating its interpretation of a code of practice in one way and then, when the opposition comes into power, decides to interpret the code of practice in another way. The same, of course, applies with a change of government.
The Government's attitude to these matters may be offensive. I believe that it is offensive to the majority of those who are practitioners in local government. I do not dispute their entitlement to believe that they are acting in the interests of the majority of the electorate of the country. I am not saying that they are right; but they are entitled to believe that they are acting in that way. All I am saying to the Minister is that if there were a change of government, then of course that government would be entitled to change the law.
The Government rest their case upon these matters being enshrined, as we say, "on the face of the Bill". We should have thought that the

823
Government who are pretty confident, if not arrogant, about their ability to interpret what is right in most areas, could well have said, "We believe that we know what is right in this area" without needing the full panoply and majesty of the law to support them.
In the light of the Government's clear intention to legislate, we seek the maximum goodwill and co-operation of the people concerned. We believe that a code of practice —we are certainly not saying at this stage what it should contain or exclude —would be a better way of dealing with the situation. However, we recognise the realities. We shall consider what the Minister has said: we may well return to the matter at a later stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 4 not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 not moved.]
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 2, line 40, at end insert ("in accordance with section (voluntary Code of Practice) below").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 44. What is proposed here is to insert a code of practice into the Bill and also to introduce a new clause. We seek to promote the preparation and acceptance of a voluntary code of practice, setting out the extent of acceptable political activity at the rank of principal officer and above. What is suggested is also designed to probe the Government's intentions on the type of political activity to be restricted.
Reference was made in earlier debates to what the Widdicombe Committee understood to be politically sensitive and restrictive activities. There was also reference to what other individuals do. I should remind the Committee that the Widdicombe Report suggested that political restrictions be approached through agreed amendment to local authorities' terms and conditions of service. This, the report suggested, was the best approach as political activity is not a concept readily amendable to legislation and is not the subject of legislation in the Civil Service context. It was felt that flexibility was required in local government, as it is in central government, to deal with particular cases. The report proposed joint approaches involving the Local Authority Conditions of Service Advisory Board with legislation introduced only as a last resort.
The noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, mentioned many interesting activities which local government officers believe could well be held by either the Government or by local authorities to be matters meriting political restriction. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, tried to help the Committee. He said that there were often ways in which an individual could exercise his desire to serve the community: not by being a councillor in some other area, but by being involved in voluntary activities.
We come to the point of who will decide whether the level of politicisation in the voluntary organisation is such that it will demand the attention
824
of those who will lay down the diktat that that is the point at which it should stop. We can all give illustrations of benign organisations which are non-political in intention, but which nevertheless from time to time are moved to take up political stances. There may be a community activity which is all-party or non-party, in which the individual is heavily involved. It may be the question of a road going through a sensitive area or the building of a supermarket.
Local government officers who are not politically active may become active in a residents' association or in the "Save our Town Hall" or "Save our Playing Field" campaign. They are exercising their rights to be involved in voluntary organisations, but they may suddenly find that they are involved politically. It is not a party-political activity, but, nevertheless, they may come up against the party-political machine. They oppose the council. They oppose the councillors. They seek support from other councillors. Before they know it, they could be involved.
The difficulty that the Government face is that the goal post will be shifted when £13,500 becomes worth less by the mere advance of salary scales or inflation. One can pursue activities which at one moment are non-party political, but which may be held to be politically highly successful when the group scores a success against the council.
Local authorities currently address a variety of key issues through agreed custom and practice. The Minister will be well aware of the areas that that procedure covers: interest in contracts, acceptance of hospitality, outside activities, including membership of societies, dealing with confidential information and recruitment procedures. The purple book and the buff book set out national terms and conditions of service for white-collar and manual workers respectively. They embody national agreements which can be varied locally.
The Government have been high-handed by assuming that negotiated agreement is not possible. It has been possible previously. The amendment seeks clarification from the Government as to what they intend when they produce their list of politically acceptable activities. In the second amendment we seek to impose a duty on LACSAB and the local authority associations to prepare and publish a code as soon as practicable. I know that the Minister will want to be helpful. I should be grateful if he could comment on the amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: Nobody has denied that it will be difficult to define precisely the proscribed area of political activity. There is a nearly seamless robe. The noble Lord, Lord Graham, made some fair points about where the line is drawn. He also has a point when he says that it may be easier to have a code of practice which would express the matter in general terms, rather than to have specific rules which lay down clearly whether one is on this side of the line or the other. That is inherent in any legislation of this kind.
On the previous amendment, my noble friend effectively demolished the argument that some kind

825
of voluntary code would be the way to do it. As we all recognise, the vast majority, especially of senior local government officials, well understand the canons and conventions, but, until the whole subject was brought into the open with the pamphlet The New Corruption and the subsequent appointment of the Widdicombe Committee and the evidence given to it, felt powerless to do anything. There seemed to be no guidelines, no signposts, as to how they could make representations to councillors or, in some cases, their own staff.
What is now necessary, and what the Bill and the regulations will achieve, is to point to the nature of the activities which must be regarded as out-of-bounds for senior officials. In practice, if someone becomes involved in a voluntary campaign in the way described by the noble Lord, Lord Graham, and begins to come into the public domain where embarrassment may be caused to his political chiefs (the councillors), to the council, if he is on the staff, or to members of the public who have to deal with him, that is the point at which the chief executive, or his own senior officer, has him in and says, "Look, I think you have to consider your position. I think that you are sailing dangerously near the line. Here are the rules which are set out clearly. You are a valuable local government officer. You want to consider your position and watch what you are doing. My advice to you is, not to cease to have anything to do with the campaign—I would not dream of asking you to do that—but not to adopt such a high profile. You should not be part of the deputation" or whatever it may be.
Without having some clear rules, which the Bill and the regulations will set out, the senior man will find it much more difficult to tender advice to and guide the member of staff. That is the way it will work in practice in the great majority of cases. I do not deny that there will always be some instances where people will feel so strongly, or so politically committed, that they will try to find a way round the rules and say, "I got myself through the regulations". There may be the odd case, but the general pattern of what it is wanted to achieve will have been laid down. There will therefore be ways to bring public pressure to bear to ensure that the system works.
I do not want to repeat what I said earlier, but it is clear that without this provision unacceptable practices were becoming almost common. They were not limited to one political party. When there was controversy between the Government and Labour-controlled local authorities, it looked as though one were criticising the Labour-controlled authorities. People came to me and said, "Go easy on this, because you will find some of your political friends will be in difficulties". I said that that actually made it easier for me to appoint the Widdicombe Committee. It was an argument that I used when I was persuading some people to collaborate.
I met all the local authority associations. We discussed the membership of the committee. The Committee will recognise that we included people of all parties and of none. The argument was that the activity was not confined to one political party. It was becoming dangerously accepted within local government as a whole. As a result, all the local
826
authority associations and all the political parties worked closely to ensure that the Widdicombe Committee was able to reach a conclusion.
Therefore, without wanting to anticipate my noble friend's response, I think the point that is made is that we need to have clear statutory guidelines. Let us by all means examine exactly what they should be. But if those guidelines exist, then it should be possible for senior management and local authorities—and it may well be trade union leaders who are equally unhappy, sometimes, about the political involvement of the people of influence in the local authority —to point to something and say, "Look, you are going over the line. You must consider your position". Of course there will be the odd exception, but that would be a very much better state of affairs than at present.
6 p.m.
Lord Hayter: I should have thought that the noble Lord who has just spoken could have gone further and said, "I therefore propose to vote for the amendment". What does the amendment say about the code of practice? It says that authorities shall prepare and publish a voluntary Code of Practice for local authorities covering the scope of acceptable political activity by officers at the rank of principal officer and above.
That is precisely what the noble Lord wants and what the code of practice will do. It is far better to do that, than to leave it to the Secretary of State who will change from one political party to another and dictate exactly what he wants. I should have thought that the noble Lord would support the code of practice.
Lord Hesketh: A code of conduct is not something that we believe could usefully be added to the provisions. What we believe we need are clear rules. Those are what Clause 1 will give us and those are what the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, was referring to. A further code of conduct might, however, be useful if it came from the wishes of local government officers themselves. However, I have to say that to date there has been no initiative to produce one. Perhaps the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Graham, will provide a spur to those officers to produce one.
With the next Amendment No. 8, we shall come to voluntary bodies which the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, mentioned. I shall not anticipate that debate, except to say that there is a distinction between participating in a voluntary body and using that body as a platform in order to promote a political party.
With regard to the position of local government officers and their involvement in political activity which is not party political, as I have said we shall consult local government about the definitions of the activities to be restricted. The sorts of areas which we shall need to cover will be exactly those described by the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton.
However, even after that has been defined, at the end of the day there will be a requirement for common sense. Beyond that, I feel that it would not be to the benefit of the Committee for me to repeat

827
the arguments concerning our position on a voluntary code, with which I dealt on the previous amendment. I say no more than this. It is for the reason that I gave earlier, that we believe our job is to provide those clear rules at the start, that we resist the amendment to provide a voluntary code.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: The Minister has been helpful in his reply. I do not think that there is a great deal of difference between the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, and noble Lords on this side. He said more than once that what we needed were clear statutory guidelines. I asked for a clear voluntary code of practice. However that may be, as far as possible we want there to be no dubiety about codifying those activities which are acceptable and those which are not. We argue that this should be conceived and brought together not merely by the Secretary of State but by other people.
Interestingly, the Minister said that he and his colleagues had issued an invitation to the local government unions concerned to produce a cock-shy at what they felt was acceptable. Perhaps the Minister can tell the Committee whether, if and when that was done, tomorrow or next week, it would be accepted. I understand that the reason why local government representatives have not produced such a thing up to now is that they have not been encouraged positively to do so. But if they did, would it be given serious consideration? If I have got that wrong, then of course I apologise to the Minister and his advisers.
However, if the Minister is telling us that, at the end of the day, there will be clear guidelines on what is understood to be "political activity" and what is not, and on the kind of political activities that are tolerable and those which are intolerable in the context of the Bill, then we shall have gone a very long way.
To the best of my knowledge, we have clumsy phrases like "holding office in a political party, speaking or writing publicly on matters of party political controversy" and "canvassing at elections". These are pretty big chunks, but they leave an enormous area of other activities, particularly in an open, voluntary, democratic society. We are not arguing that there is no need in 1990 to have a better understanding, particularly in the light of the last 10 years and the whole changing atmosphere in the relationship between local and central government.
I do not intend to press the amendments, but we shall consider what the Minister has said. Before I sit down, perhaps he will reply as regards his invitation to the local government unions. If his invitation to the local government unions bears fruit and they produce what they believe is a sensible list of activities, will it be treated sympathetically? Can the Minister answer the question?
Lord Hesketh: I must make clear what I said. I said that if a code were forthcoming, it might —I repeat the words to the noble Lord, Lord Graham —be useful. In the light of those circumstances, if it were useful it could well make a useful supplement to the regulations themselves.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I am sure that those outside the Committee will be able to read what the Minister has said, as helpfully and usefully as we in the Chamber have heard it. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 2, line 40, at end insert—
("(5A) No requirements prescribed in regulations under subsection (5) above shall be taken to apply to activities undertaken for or on behalf of any voluntary organisation, whether or not such activities relate to any matter of political controversy.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is very appropriate, because it takes up the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding. Earlier he suggested that there were other outlets for the social conscience of senior local government officers than working for a political party. We agree with that. We think it is true of a number of amendments which we have put down on this subsection of Clause 1. We agree that work for voluntary organisations ought not to be caught by the regulations to be imposed by the Secretary of State. We think that that should apply, even if on occasion —as happens —the work of the voluntary organisations coincides with the objectives of a political party.
After all, it is hardly possible for a voluntary organisation to conduct its activities entirely on the premise that nothing it says will ever be taken up by a political party and used in a political argument. That would be to impose absurd restrictions on the work of voluntary organisations. In practice, many charitably registered voluntary organisations, forbidden by their charitable status from undertaking political activity, still have occasion to campaign, and still find themselves on occasion in agreement with political parties of one persuasion or another.
I could give a very large number of examples, many of which I have been closely involved with on the Water Bill. Many of them are frequently in contact with Members of this House and another place about prospective legislation. They are, for instance: the National Council for Civil Liberties; the Society for the Protection of the Unborn Child; Friends of the Earth; Greenpeace; the Keep Sunday Special Campaign and the opposite of that —the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, is not present —SOS, whatever that stands for; the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children; the League Against Cruel Sports; the Council for the Protection of Rural England. They have been very active on what might be thought to be political issues in connection with the Water Bill.
The Ramblers' Association is also very active. The RSPCA seeks to put down amendments to Part IX of this Bill. The London Voluntary Service Council is also active. I could go on indefinitely. However, all of these are voluntary organisations. They are restricted by their charitable status from undertaking party political activity; but they have, on occasion, to undertake political activity to exert pressure on a government or a council in power, whether it be Labour or Conservative. In this amendment we seek

829
an assurance that such activity will not be included in the regulations laid by the Secretary of State in Clause 1(5) of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: It is always tempting, when the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is so urbane, to agree with him in the interests of harmony, sweetness and light. However, on this occasion, I have to say that this amendment is quite unacceptable. I say that from the standpoint of one who, when I was Secretary of State, spoke to the National Council of Voluntary Organisations on precisely this subject. I believe I made that speech in 1984. It concerned the right of voluntary bodies to take part in political debate, provided they did not breach their charitable status—one is talking primarily here about charities—so as to forfeit the tax relief to which they are entitled as charities. That is of course a matter for the Charity Commissioners and for the Inland Revenue.
However, I was concerned to state the policy of the Government at that time, which was that we did not expect active, concerned voluntary bodies to be political neuters. That speech is on the record and can be examined. I believe that speech was well received by its audience. Nicholas Hinton (who was then the general secretary of the National Council of Voluntary Organisations) expressed concern that there appeared to be growing opposition to that policy. He took the opportunity in a newsletter of drawing the attention of all the member organisations to that point. That is the point from which I start. Therefore, quite clearly the great mass of political activity in which a local government officer may become involved should in no way fall foul of the provisions of this Bill.
However, I was also the Secretary of State for the Environment who had more public money laid out against him than, I suspect, any previous or subsequent Minister. Mr. Livingstone, whom the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, will remember with mixed feelings, once boasted that he reckoned that something like £35 million was spent on the campaign in defence of the GLC. That is in an order of magnitude greater than the sums that were spent by any political party in the preceding general election. The majority of that money was not spent on advertising in the national press and on other advertisements and on the hoardings with which we all became so familiar—that mischief has now been dealt with elsewhere, because the rules which apply to government have always been very strict on that—but went to a wide range of so-called voluntary bodies which were perfectly clearly, and had always intended to be campaigning bodies, irrespective of whether they were charities.
I do not know what the sum involved was. If one were to exercise a guess, I would say that probably somewhere between £5 and £10 million was spent by the GLC on advertising per se, and the balance was spent on using the powers under local government legislation to pay sums to voluntary bodies. Some of those bodies were of course perfectly respectable; but I shall not weary the Committee by reminding it of some of the bodies that most emphatically were not.
830
The idea that one should have a blanket exemption from the provisions of this Bill for any local government officer, however senior, provided he is carrying out activities under the guise of a voluntary body, whether or not that is subvented by his local authority, so that he can engage in activities which would clearly be regarded as political, seems unacceptable to me. I honestly do not think that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, can have thought this matter through.
The problem is one of definition. I do not think many of us would have too much difficulty in, as it were, recognising which side of the line a body falls on. It is the old problem of trying to define an elephant. Most of us would recognise one if we saw one, but it gets a little difficult if we try to write down a definition of what an elephant is. However, I think one can see the principle here perfectly clearly. As I said earlier, I sought to enunciate to the National Council of Voluntary Organisations that government policy does not mean voluntary bodies have to be political neuters as they can of course take part in political activities. But at the other extreme one has campaigning organisations which clearly should be caught by the provisions of the Bill. I can see that in drawing up regulations in this form, the Government will need to steer a careful line because they do not wish to inhibit political representations by voluntary bodies. There may well be useful contributions to be made to voluntary bodies by local government officials. However, somewhere the line has to be drawn, and it certainly in this amendment is not drawn in the right place.
The amendment would leave a glaring gap in what we all recognise should be the principle by which this part of the Bill is governed. Having seen the matter as it were from both sides in government, I urge the Committee to resist this amendment if it is put to a Division. I hope that my noble friend will add the weight of his arguments explaining why we could not accept this kind of blanket exemption.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Winstanley: Perhaps it might be appropriate if, from where I sit in the Chamber, I endeavour to draw the careful line to which the noble Lord referred, and draw it betwixt the noble Lords, Lord Jenkin of Roding and Lord McIntosh of Haringey, on this issue. It seems to me that there is a conflict here which cannot possibly be resolved in a form of words such as an amendment.
As the noble Lord rightly said, there are voluntary bodies and voluntary bodies. Many voluntary bodies start off entirely as voluntary bodies aimed at providing a service, but they rapidly turn into campaigning bodies. I can mention the example of Shelter which came into being as a voluntary body designed and set up in order to provide living accommodation for homeless people. It then, fairly rapidly and inevitably, evolved into a campaigning body designed to conduct campaigns against local housing authorities in order to ensure that housing provision was made.
No one, not even the noble Lord himself, can draw up a list of voluntary bodies and say that some are voluntary bodies which provide a service and others

831
are campaigning bodies. One cannot do that because voluntary bodies constantly shift from one side of the line to the other. Why should they not shift from one side of the line to the other? There are two bodies which exist to provide service and help for one parent families. One is the National Council for One Parent Families which in the main is a campaigning body, and rightly so. It carries out excellent campaigns. The other is Gingerbread, of which I happen to have the honour of being president. That body exists primarily to provide services for one parent families. Those are two different bodies which may each stray on one side or other of the imaginary line which the noble Lord has drawn. I do not think that any Minister or any government can start making lists. An impossible situation would be created if the department or any Minister in this Government or any other were to say that a list of voluntary bodies existed to which it would be quite illegal for a senior local government officer to belong. That would be impossible, and I do not think anyone is suggesting that should happen.
However, to say that membership of any voluntary body whatsoever should be allowed may again cause difficulties. What really matters is how a senior local government officer conducts himself in relation to his membership or otherwise of a particular body. That is what we are concerned with. I do not think anyone in this Chamber, wherever he sits, would defend a senior local government officer playing an active political role in the course of his membership of a voluntary body. That would be improper behaviour and, I believe, ought to be dealt with in this Bill or in some other way. However, I do not believe that it can be provided for wholly by the noble Lord's amendment. Nor can it be provided for by ignoring the matter as the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, seemed to suggest. Perhaps he could tell the Committee what we should do. Surely, the noble Lord agrees that it would be an outrageous limitation on the liberties of senior local government officers if they were not permitted to join the CPRE or the Ramblers' Association, for example. That would be intolerable. What does the noble Lord suggest should be done instead in order to control the activities of senior local government officers who happen to be members of voluntary bodies of one kind or another?
Lord Jenkin of Roding: The Committee wishes to make progress with the legislation, but I have been asked a question and I shall reply to the noble Lord. It seems to me that the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, has asked precisely the right question: what activities of a local government officer should be singled out as being on one side of the line? Certainly it is not the nature of the charity. Nor is it the degree to which the charity is itself a campaigning body.
The CPRE has been mentioned. That is a very effective campaigning body. One could not possibly say that it would be wrong for a local government officer to have anything to do with it. However, he should not front it. The CPRE may be involved, for example, in the issue of whether houses should be built on the fringes of towns and whether a new town
832
like that at Hook should be built. The noble Earl, Lord Carnarvon, has left, but I think that he would agree that it would be quite wrong for a senior member of the planning department of a local authority in Hampshire to be involved in such a campaign, even if waged by a voluntary body.
It is the activity of the officer which must be the test. I am sure that it is not beyond the wit of the parliamentary draftsman when drawing up the regulations to use a form of words which would make the position clear. As I said earlier, the council or senior executive could then say to an individual, "Watch it, you are getting too near the line". The vast majority of individuals would have a clear sense of duty to the obligations of their office and the authority they serve and would draw back. That is what has been lacking hitherto and what this Bill is intended to provide.
Lord Hayter: I find myself in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin. However, I should point out that if the amendment is turned down, we are back to the Bill, which is what we should be discussing, and the words:
"incorporate such requirements for restricting his political activities as may be prescribed for the purposes of this subsection by regulations made by the Secretary of State".
That is what the argument seems to centre around. The noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, suggests that if the Secretary of State is to make regulations we should know about them and see whether we agree. If we do not agree at least we shall know what the limits are. Does the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, agree with me that at the moment it is the Secretary of State who will bring out those regulations?
Lord Jenkin of Roding: I had assumed that that was what we were talking about. We discussed earlier whether there should be a voluntary code of practice or whether there should be a code of practice in addition. An invitation is now being made to local authority bodies to consider whether a code of practice would help. I would assume that this was a matter for the regulations under the Clause 1(5) procedure.
I think we are all agreed that it is not the nature of the voluntary body but the activities of the officers to which the question should be addressed.
Lord Ross of Newport: One further point occurs to me. If we are not careful we shall stop any local government officer of any standing from helping any charitable or voluntary body. Those officers will make the excuse that this Act of Parliament places them in some difficulty and therefore they cannot help. County treasurers or their deputies may help local causes. Chief officers or their deputies may give legal advice freely and willingly. Bank managers often become treasurers of local bodies. If we are to say that there will be problems in defining exactly what is political activity and what is not the situation will be clouded.
Many local government officers who help worthwhile causes throughout the country will take the easy way out and say, "Sorry, I cannot help". That is a tragedy. It has to be considered if the regulations are to make any sense.
Lord Hesketh: The amendment has two features. The first is very praiseworthy: to make it clear that the Government's proposals will not debar local authority staff—even if they are in the politically restricted grades—from worthwhile public activity in many different fields in which some form of public controversy is likely, if not bound, to arise. Voluntary bodies are active in many different fields, and the Government have no intention of trying to restrict the ability of local authority staff to play their role in their local community in any way, as long as what they do does not undermine their impartiality in discharging the duties of their job. In this the position is exactly parallel to that in the politically restricted grades in the Civil Service.
With that we can all sympathise. We cannot sympathise however, with the other feature of this amendment; which ignores the purpose of the proposals in Clauses 1 to 3. The reason why we think that the restrictions on public political activity are essential is that we do not think that someone can simultaneously represent himself as both an impartial expert adviser and a committed active politician. The problems created by trying to fulfil both roles simultaneously are not affected by the stage on which one chooses to play the politician.
That is the flaw that undermines the amendment. It assumes that because the platform is worthy anything done from it must be acceptable. It ignores the fact that many different actions can happen on the same platform. If someone is trying to promote a political party, doing so from the platform of a voluntary body may be very effective: but it does not alter the fact that it is the promotion of a political party.
I must therefore advise the Committee that we think that this amendment is fatally flawed, as indeed are the amendments that follow. We do not think that we can define that which is to be restricted by looking simply at the context; we must look at the intention—at its purpose.
We have said that there are four sets of public political activities that we think should be covered by restrictions. Some of those we think have a very clear, immediate political content: being a candidate for election as a councillor or Member of Parliament; being the officer of a political party; canvassing in favour of a candidate for elective office or for a political party. We do not see how any of those can be other than political. Clearly those are not the sort of activities at which these amendments are aimed. The other category is not, I admit, as clear cut. It is speaking or writing in public on a matter of current political controversy in such a way as to appear to take part in party political debate.
The Committee will remember that over recent years we have spent a significant amount of time debating the correct definition of the types of party political publicity that local authorities should not issue. We consider that there is a legitimate read-across from what local authorities may do to what officers of local authorities in sensitive posts may do publicly. The definition of what constitutes contributing to party political debate must therefore, we think, concentrate on the question of what appears to be designed to affect public support for a political party.
834
When we consult local government on the form of the regulations under Clause 1(5), we shall probably want to draw on that experience in trying to draw the distinction between the legitimate rights of local authority officers to continue to participate in public activities of many kinds and the public political activities that we see as objectionable.
The Committee will no doubt recall the 1986 and 1988 Local Government Acts. There were the Jeremiahs who claimed that our proposals in that field would be the end of effective campaigning by local authorities and voluntary bodies that they supported. I have seen no signs of that now that we have had experience of the legislation. I do not believe that a similar approach in this field will produce the ill-effects which some have predicted.
I can reassure the Committee that our proposals will not restrict the general activities of local government officers in voluntary organisations. The only restraint that they will place upon them will be speaking or writing publicly in a way that appears to contribute to public party political debate. That is all. It is for those reasons that we reject the amendment.
6.30 p.m.
Baroness Phillips: Before my noble friend replies, I must say that I find this argument comes very ill from a Government who appear to have changed the rules that I recall were in operation when I was a Minister. We were told that we were never supposed to refer to ourselves as Labour Ministers. We were Members of Her Majesty's Government and we spoke, as I have always understood it, rather as a mayor speaks; in other words, totally non-politically. We were certainly not allowed to go on any programmes—the Minister an check this point—once we were Members of the Government. In other words, we were paid officers in exactly the same way as some of the people whom we are discussing are paid officers.
However, Members of this Government go on "Any Questions" and "Question Time". Ministers are on every kind of programme. They speak as Conservatives; they do not speak as Government Ministers. So far as I can see, it is exactly the same argument. They are certainly not impartial. They definitely speak on behalf of the party they represent, but they are members of the Government. As I understand it, they are not supposed to do that; but everyone accepts it. However, when it comes to local government, for some reason we must have a different set of priorities. I find the argument confusing and, if I dare say so, slightly hypocritical.
Baroness Blatch: I must take issue with the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips. We find ourselves in agreement on so many things, but not on this issue. There is a distinction between being a member of a party and a member of Government, and being a member of the Civil Service serving that Government.
The functions of both parties are very different. A government Minister is engaged in determining policy and strategy. The role of the officer is to implement that strategy. Therefore, when a Minister speaks publicly, he is often defending proposed

835
policy, as my noble friend on the Front Bench is doing today. When the policy is enshrined in an Act, he defends that Act publicly. There is therefore a distinction between the roles of a politician in government and of a servant of that Government engaged in implementing policy.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: In his reply, the Minister referred to the earlier Local Government Act which laid down the controls on party political activity by local authorities. He sought to draw an analogy between that and local government officers. As I believe he was not involved at the time, I should perhaps remind him that that Act went against the recommendations in the interim Widdicombe Report in one significant respect to which the noble Lord referred; namely, Widdicombe did not think —and we did not think—that the intention of the local authority was the proper test. We have always believed that it should be the effect of the local authority's activity rather than the intention of the local authority's activity because intentions are peculiarly difficult to define objectively and accurately.
The Government are now making exactly the same mistake with respect to local government officers' involvement in voluntary organisations. To assert, as the Minister did in his reply, that the intention of the local government officer in participating in the activities of Shelter, the Council for the Protection of Rural England or the Ramblers' Association is the true test and that party political activity on the platform of those organisations should be excluded seems to us wholly wrong. The minimum that the Minister should have stated in reply was that certain organisations, which, because of their charitable status, are excluded from party political activity—we have all been given examples of those—should be excluded from the provisions in the regulations.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, is always an interesting former member of the Thatcher Cabinet. As he is carried away in the flood of Thatcherism, he leans out rather more than other people do towards the shores of sanity. On this occasion I certainly thought that he leaned out a little towards the shore of sanity. He reminded us of an admirable speech that he made to the National Council for Voluntary Organisations when he was Secretary of State, but I do not think that in that speech he ever indicated support for the view that is now being put from his Front Bench; namely, that it is a question of the intention of the individual in supporting a voluntary organisation, not the platform used. He was defending the right of voluntary organisations to take up political issues when those issues were inevitably part of the campaigning objectives. That is a right which, as he rightly said, should be preserved. I gladly give way to the Minister.
Lord Hesketh: There are just two small points that I wish to make. I referred to "activity" rather than "intention". In fairness, it is rather hard to expect the Government to respond by referring to a registered charity which is not even mentioned in the amendment and expect them to take a position on it.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: In due course, we might have to return to the concept of a registered charity. In the long run, that might be the protection that we shall be forced to seek, but it would be very much a fall-back position. Voluntary organisations, more widely defined, have a valid role even if their activities are campaigning and those activities are occasionally in line with the objectives of one or more political parties.
We do not think that the Government have adequately made the case against the amendment. I regret very much that they have taken a line which bodes ill for the regulations that the Secretary of State will impose. In the circumstances, it is best that I take the view of the Committee.
6.37 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 8) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 64; Not-Contents, 90.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Airedale, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Amherst, E.

Listowel, E.

Aylestone, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Blackstone, B.

Longford, E.

Blease, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Bottomley, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

McNair, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Mais, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Ogmore, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

O'Neill of the Main, L.

David, B.

Phillips, B.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Dean of Beswick, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Raglan, L.

Ennals, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Rochester, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Ross of Newport, L.

Foot, L.

Scanlon, L.

Gallacher, L.

Seear, B.

Gladwyn, L.

Serota, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Stedman, B.

Hampton, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Hanworth, V.

Tordoff, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Underhill, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Jay, L.

Walston, L.

Jeger, B.

Whaddon, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Willis, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Winstanley, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Colwyn, L.

Arran, E.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Ashbourne, L.

Craigavon, V.

Bauer, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Belstead, L.

Crathorne, L.

Blatch, B.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Borthwick, L.

Dundee, E.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Ferrers, E.

Butterworth, L.

Fortescue, E.

Caithness, E.

Gray of Contin, L.

Carnarvon, E.

Gridley, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Henley, L.

Coleraine, L.

Hesketh, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Hives, L.

837

Holderness, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Pender, L.

Hooper, B.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Prior, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Reay, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Joseph, L.

Rochdale, V.

Keyes, L.

Saint Albans, D.

Killearn, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly

Kinloss, Ly.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Seebohm, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Layton, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Stockton, E.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Strange, B.

Lothian, M.

Strathclyde, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Sudeley, L.

Lytton, E.

Swinfen, L.

Margadale, L.

Teynham, L.

Marley, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Thurlow, L.

Merrivale, L.

Trafford, L.

Mersey, V.

Trefgarne, L.

Milverton, L.

Trumpington, B.

Morris, L.

Tryon, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Ullswater, V.

Orkney, E.

Young of Graffham, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.44 p.m.
[Amendment No. 9 not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 2, line 40, at end insert —
("(5A) The Secretary of State shall, in framing any regulations under subsection (5) above, have regard to the contents of any Code of Practice covering matters relevant to political activities by civil servants.").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, it may be for the convenience of the Committee, if the noble Lord, Lord Ross, agrees, if I also speak to Amendment No. 21, which has a very similar effect.
The purpose of these amendments, and Amendment No. 10 in particular, is to challenge the Government to confirm—and confirm effectively—statements which have been made twice this evening by the Minister to the effect that the Government are following very closely the Civil Service pattern in seeking to impose these restrictions on sensitive posts. I am bound to say that that is not the way in which it appears to us. We think that the Civil Service code of practice which has been worked out over a considerable period of time with the collaboration of both the management of the Civil Service and the trade unions of the Civil Service is very different in significant ways from what is proposed in this Bill.
On 14th February the Secretary of State said (it is recorded in Hansard at col. 165) that:
"Civil servants do not take part in political activity".
A little later he added (at col. 167) that:
"we are mirroring as far as possible, the very rules that apply for the Civil Service".
It is simply not true to say that civil servants do not take part in political activity. Many civil servants take part in political activity fully in accord with the Civil Service code of practice. Let me expand briefly on the ways in which we believe that the Civil Service
838
code of practice is different from the Government's proposals and the ways in which we think it is better.
First, when it comes to the cut-off point between politically sensitive posts and those which are not politically sensitive, instead of having a simple salary bar, as is proposed in the Bill, the Civil Service has a sliding scale which is applied by grade rather than by level of salary.
Secondly, the Civil Service code of practice provides the possibility of blanket exemptions for whole departments of the Civil Service. They can be excluded from the restrictions on political activity if it is felt that the entire department is so removed from the mainstream of politics (and after all many Civil Service departments are so removed) that it would be onerous and unnecessary to include them in the codes of practice.
There are many local authority departments which fall into exactly that category. Ministers keep talking about the advice given to local authority members by senior civil servants—and by the way, the Minister cannot know much about local government if he thinks that committee clerks give advice to members because it is not committee clerks but the chief officers who give advice to members—but whole chunks of local government service are completely non-political. They do not have connections with members. They may well have connections with the public as, civil servants do. They are caught both because they have links with members of the public and because a number of them are over the £13,500 limit. So the blanket exemption for particular Civil Service departments would be a very great improvement on the proposed restrictions under this Bill.
The third way in which the Civil Service code of practice is different is in relation to appeals, with which no doubt we shall be dealing far too late this evening. The principle of the Civil Service code of practice is that the appeals procedure is open to all whereas the appeals procedure—inadequate as it is even in terms of drafting—is only available (and is also inadequate here in that sense) for those appealing about the salary levels rather than about the sensitivity of the particular post.
Indeed, the Civil Service code of practice, in addition to having appeals open to all, has a tripartite system of appeal whereby the management and the trade unions are involved in the appeal and if the head of department is not satisfied with the judgment of the appeal tribunal, the matter can be resolved by the Minister.
None of those protections which exist for civil servants is proposed for local government staff. Indeed, the Civil Service proviso that if a post is deemed to be politically restrictive there can be an offer of an alternative post is also missing from the Government's proposals. However, the most fundamental difference is that the Civil Service recognises different levels of political sensitivity and therefore sets three different levels of restriction, whereas, although the Bill's proposals are extremely crude, they are also complicated. They provide only "in" or "out" and the same draconian level of restriction either applies in toto, if an officer is "in", or does not apply if the officer is "out".
The Minister's claim that the Government are following closely the Civil Service model is very wide of the mark. The basis of the Civil Service code is that the public should have confidence that civil servants' personal views do not cut across the discharge of their duties. If that were what is proposed here, then we could argue sensibly about the details of the way the restrictions would apply. The plain fact is that the Bill proposes severe restrictions on very large numbers of ordinary local government officers whose posts are such that political activity could in no way cut across the discharge of their duties. I hope that the Minister will not make the claim again, which has been made by himself and his colleagues, that the Bill follows closely the Civil Service code of practice. I beg to move.
Lord Jay: I should like to reinforce briefly the points made by my noble friend Lord McIntosh. In answer to my question earlier today about the relationship between these proposals and the situation in the national Civil Service, the Minister appeared to say that all the Bill is doing is applying to local government rules which are already in force in the national Civil Service. I should be extremely surprised to find it true that in the national Civil Service every officer earning over £13,500 a year was placed on a restricted list of this kind. Can the Minister therefore tell us what is the situation in the national Civil Service and whether there is any limit as low as £13,500?
Lord Ross of Newport: I shall be brief because the amendment covers the whole scene. As the Minister will know, the amendment in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Winstanley applies to Clause 2 and not Clause 1; otherwise, they are effectively the same. All we are asking the Minister to do is to have due regard to the Civil Service regulations. When he replied to the last debate he mentioned that. I hope that he will accept the amendment; if not in this form, certainly in some other guise.
Baroness Stedman: Can the Minister tell us whether the codes of practice applying to civil servants here apply also to civil servants in Europe? If we are going into a single market in 1992, there will be freedom to move around from one country to another. Will the Government take any note of what happens to civil servants in other countries and in the European Commission?
Lord Hesketh: The effect of Amendment No. 10 is to require the Secretary of State, in framing the regulations under Clause 1(5), to have regard to the contents of any code of practice covering matters relevant to political activities by civil servants.
Amendment No. 21 would remove the definitions of politically restricted posts from the Bill and leave them to be defined in regulations. In drawing up any regulations, the Secretary of State would be required to have due regard to the Civil Service regulations.
It may be helpful if I briefly remind noble Lords of the rules limiting the political activity of officers in the Civil Service. Civil servants are either
840
"politically free", "intermediate" or "politically restricted" according to grade. Staff in the first group are free to engage in any political activity. Those in the second may apply for permission to take part in national or local political activity, apart from adoption as a parliamentary candidate.
Those in the third group are debarred from national political activities, but may apply for permission to take part in local political activities. At that point I should correct the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and inform him that my right honourable friend was referring to the third group when referring to civil servants not engaging in political activity.
The staff rules which apply to individual civil servants are derived from provisions of the Civil Service pay and conditions of service code. The paragraphs in question are Nos. 9923 to 9957 and departments, such as my own, will have incorporated those provisions from the code into the departmental staff rules.
The reason for resisting the amendment is that there are significant differences between the situation of the civil servant in the "politically restricted" or the "intermediate" group from that of a local government officer within the scope of the restrictions of the Bill. It would be wrong to require the Secretary of State to have regard to guidance which is not appropriate to local government. Each case needs to be dealt with in relation to the particular working environment. The regulations we have in mind will address restrictions of local government officers in politically sensitive posts.
To illustrate my point that you cannot directly transplant into the conditions of service of senior local government officers the conditions of service of civil servants, I will give two examples where the Civil Service model needs amendment to suit local government conditions.
The first is that the distinction between political restrictions at national and local level, which is made in the Civil Service, is not appropriate in local government as there can be no question of activities prohibited at national level being permitted at the local level. Secondly, the restriction on writing or speaking in public on matters of political controversy, which applies in the Civil Service, needs relaxation in relation to local government where chief officers, as part of their job, commonly express local government views on such matters.
The Committee will appreciate that while we have looked to the Civil Service code as a precedent, it would be wrong to place a legal requirement to have regard to it in the way suggested by the amendments. The final comment I make concerns Amendment No. 21. We believe that the definitions of politically restricted posts should remain in the Bill. It is not necessary for them to be dealt with by regulations.
Finally, I have said twice this afternoon, as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, reminded me, that there is a close—to use that awful phrase, but I cannot think of a better one—twin-tracking on the basis of the proposals that we have alongside those of the Civil Service. There are many reasons why we cannot have them in parallel the whole time. A simple example is that in the Civil Service we have but one

841
employer, whereas in local authorities we have a profusion. We shall never be able to copy it in its entirety; otherwise we should have done so. That is why we resist the amendments.
Lord Dean of Beswick: Why does the Minister persistently keep referring to the Civil Service as an example of what ought to be done? He must be aware of the frequent reports that have foundation, that the present Government have been indulging in the practice for some years of promoting Civil Service officers out of turn, based solely in some cases on their total sympathy with the Government's policy. Why does the Minister keep persisting? Is he telling us that the Civil Service is now holier than thou, when it is not?
Lord Hesketh: I am completely unaware in my experience in Government of the last suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick. We are discussing the Civil Service because that is the object of the amendment that we are discussing.
Lord Dean of Beswick: All through the debates on these amendments so far, the Minister has kept on referring to the fact that the Government are trying to base this on the Civil Service practice. If the Minister is not aware that the charge that I have made can be sustained, and that it has been made on more than one occasion by responsible people —the charge being that there have been promotions within the Civil Service based mainly on the sympathy of those officers with Government policy—all I can say is that he has not been in politics long enough.
Lord Hesketh: I hope that I shall not take up too much of the Committee's time. I am well aware of the suggestion. I refute it most strongly.
7 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: It would be dignifying the Minister's reply to my amendment to say that it was disappointing. It was almost wholly irrelevant. He repeated the claim that there is an affinity between the proposals for the local government service and those for the Civil Service code of practice. Yet he did not answer one single detailed and major point of difference that I made. He did not answer the point that the Civil Service makes a distinction by grade rather than by an arbitrary salary level.
He did not answer the point about blanket exemptions for non-political departments. He did not answer any of the points about the appeals procedure; its availability to all staff, its nature, the involvement of trade unions and management and the ultimate appeal to the Minister if necessary. Above all, although he referred to the matter, he did not indicate any understanding that the black or white proposals putting government officers either inside or outside the restrictions are inferior to the graded system in the Civil Service.
I do not claim for one moment that the rules for the local government service should be exactly the same as those for the Civil Service. Of course there are differences, some of which the Minister pointed out. In some cases, the proposals for the local
842
government service could be more liberal than those for the Civil Service. However, that is not what the amendment states. It states only that:
"The Secretary of State shall, in framing any regulations … have regard to the contents of any Code of Practice covering matters relevant to political activities by civil servants".
Where there are inevitable differences the Secretary of State could, under the amendment, make and recognise differences in his regulations. He ought to be dealing with the important ways that I have pointed out in which the proposed regulations are inferior to the Civil Service code of practice but to which no reference has been made.
However, it is clear that we shall not deal with those specific issues by seeking to obtain a better comparison with the Civil Service. We must pursue the matter by means of individual amendments regarding the level of exemption, the appeals procedure and so forth. On the basis that we shall return to the substantive issues, I beg to leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Arran: Members of the Committee may find this a suitable moment at which to break for dinner. I suggest that we return to the Committee stage of the Bill at 8 p.m. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Human Organ Transplants Bill
7.3 p.m.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The Human Organ Transplants Bill did not feature in the Government's legislative programme this Session but was introduced as a consequence of certain incidents in January this year which the Government considered to be repugnant. The Bill has been drafted in order to deal specifically with problems which could arise following allegations that kidneys from paid donors from another country had been transplanted at a London hospital, and to combat the threat of a foreign national setting up an agency in the United Kingdom to recruit live donors for payment.
It is the Government's view that trading in human organs or any other human material is abhorrent in a civilised society and is to be condemned. I am pleased to inform the House that this view is shared by many of those in another place who have taken no side in supporting the principles underlying the Bill which, in my view, transcend party lines. The main purpose of this Bill, therefore, is to prohibit commercial dealings from taking place in Great Britain involving human organs intended for transplant.
The Bill deals with a particular problem which demands urgent action and it is the Government's hope that Parliament will enact the Bill at the earliest possible opportunity. It is also our intention upon enactment that the accompanying regulations will

843
be ready for presentation to Parliament as soon as possible thereafter.
The Human Organ Transplants Bill is short—containing just seven clauses—but its brevity belies its importance. The Bill is intended to make a clear, unambiguous distinction between what is and what is not acceptable concerning a particular aspect of health care provision; to protect the vulnerable from becoming subjects of economic, social or emotional pressures; to demonstrate the Government's determination to deal quickly and effectively with a particularly abhorrent practice; and to safeguard the present voluntary organ donor system.
The main features of the Bill lie in its first three clauses. Clause 1 would make it a criminal offence for anyone in Great Britain to participate in dealings involving payment for the supply of human organs intended for transplanting. That applies whether the organ is obtained from a dead or living person, even if the removal of the organ, or its transplantation, were to take place in a foreign country. It would also be a criminal offence under this clause to publish or distribute in Great Britain advertisements relating to commercial trade in human organs. This would include for example advertising by telephone, unsolicited mail, or cable TV.
The Bill is quite clear about payment in regard to supplying or procuring organs, and defines payment as "payment in money or money's worth". However, the Bill would not prevent the reimbursement of legitimate and reasonable expenses incurred in removing, transplanting or preserving the organ to be supplied for a voluntary donation falling with the law. It would also be unreasonable to expect a live donor to incur loss of earnings, or to meet the cost of medical care and other expenses, which were directly attributable to his supplying an organ from his own body and the Bill would allow these expenses to be paid or met.
The maximum penalties specified in the Bill are consistent with penalties prescribed in other legislation for comparable offences; for example, those provided under the Surrogacy Arrangements Act 1985. It may be argued that these penalties are not in themselves a sufficient deterrent. I maintain, however, that in the case of the professions, particularly doctors, the risk to their careers if found guilty of an offence could be devastating.
Clause 2 would prohibit transplants taking place between persons who are not genetically related. This clause is, however, subject to certain exemptions. We have in mind here, for example, the possibility of donations between spouses and between parents and their adopted children. Clause 2 would enable the Secretary of State to make regulations which would provide exemptions to the prohibition in cases where an authority, which would be specified in regulations, is satisfied that conditions, again set out in the regulations, had been complied with before such transplants are carried out. The regulations will provide that in every case the authority must be satisfied that no payment prohibited by the Bill has been made. The Bill provides for these regulations to be subject to affirmative order procedure.
844
The Bill has been drafted to permit organ transplants between close relatives which at present form the great majority of transplants in this country. The existence of a close genetic relationship—as opposed to other forms of relationship—can be supported by laboratory testing. Also, the motives of a donor who is a relative are likely to be altruistic. Genetic relationship are to be determined through tests to be specified in regulations rather than included in the body of the Bill. This is a sensible measure because regulations are more flexible and will enable specific changes to be made in the light of any future developments in the technology of the tests.
Preparation of the regulations under the Bill will be undertaken following consultation with the medical professions and other bodies. Conditions would be specified in regulations, which the authority will have to satisfy itself have been complied with, concerning proposed transplants from live donors into non-related recipients. The work will include reviewing existing guidance and codes of practice prepared by bodies such as the British Transplantation Society (whose guidelines are followed by most surgeons carrying out live donor transplants) the BMA and the International Transplantation Society.
These conditions may also need to be reviewed at intervals so that account may be taken of developing technology and changes in operating the conditions. Once established, the tasks of considering the need for amending the regulations would fall to the authority. We envisage that the authority, which we propose to call the Unrelated Live Transplant Regulatory Authority (ULTRA), would be an independent body which would consider information provided by clinicians where transplantation between non-related live donors and recipients is proposed.
Clause 3 enables the Secretary of State to make regulations requiring a specified person to supply information about live and cadaveric transplants to an authority specified in regulations and for the same authority to maintain records of such transplants. The authority specified in the regulations related to this clause is expected to be the health authority. It has still to be decided whether this task should be for the regional or district health authority. These activities will be quite distinct from those carried out by ULTRA. Failure to comply with the regulations or knowingly to supply false or misleading information would attract monetary penalties.
These statutory measures were included in the Bill following representation by leading members of the medical profession that a complete record of all organs donated to the NHS should be mandatory.
Clause 4 provides for circumstances in which, if a corporate body is found guilty of an offence under the Bill, individual officers may also be guilty. The effect of this clause is that directors, managers and senior officers of a hospital, for example, must ensure that its staff are aware of the prohibitions under the Bill and take steps to see that the facilities of the hospital are not used for purposes contrary to the Bill.

845
Clause 5 provides that proceedings for an offence under Clauses 1 or 2 of the Bill may not be instituted in England or Wales except by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions. This is aimed at preventing frivolous private prosecutions.
Clause 6 will enable the provisions of the Bill to be extended to Northern Ireland by an Order in Council subject to negative procedures.
Clause 7 includes the definition of an organ, for the purposes of the Bill, as,
"any part of a human body consisting of a structured arrangement of tissues which, if wholly removed, cannot be replicated by the body."
This definition is limited to reflect the specific purpose of the Bill. The limitation should not be taken to imply that the Government condone commercial dealing in any other human material.
Finally, I should like to say a few brief words about voluntary organ donation. It is the department's aim to increase the number of organ donor card holders and thus the number of organs so that the need for long term dialysis regimens, for example, will become less and less and eventually dialysis machines will be used to stabilise most patients for only a short time before proceeding to transplant.
The department is active in seeking ways to increase public awareness of the voluntary donor card system and, in particular, to encourage those with a card to discuss their wishes with relatives and encourage people generally to talk about donation and the idea of helping others after death. It takes time, however, before the benefits of these initiatives begin to bear fruit. But allowing trade in human organs to develop, as a means of reducing waiting lists, is an expedient which the Government could never support. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. —(Lord Henley.)
7.14 p.m.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, first, I thank the noble Lord for his clear explanation of the Bill. Secondly, I make it clear that on these Benches we support the measures and do not intend to table any amendments. That is to ensure a rapid completion of the parliamentary stages of the Bill in order that it may become law at the earliest possible moment.
When the Bill came through another place there were no objections from Members of Parliament of Labour persuasion. In fact, the only objection came from the Conservative Benches. Without doubt, the case for this Bill has been clearly made both in another place and in the speech which we have just heard from the noble Lord.
I believe that from all points of view there is something deeply objectionable about selling one's organs for profit. Of course, I take a totally different view in terms of donating organs to assist a relative or anyone else in need. Also, the idea of selling blood is something which I find as objectionable as selling organs. In the United Kingdom the system of blood donation has always been voluntary. In the United States where the private sector is paramount, there is not the same objection to the selling of blood.
This Bill is largely in line with European practice and opinion. It is in general accord with any relevant
846
legislation, agreements or regulations currently operating within Europe. The United Kingdom is party to the Council of Europe's resolution which commends member states to prohibit the supply of human organs for reward. The UK was also party to the agreement at the Council of Europe's conference of European health ministers in November 1987 that commercialisation of organ procurement, exchange and transplantation activities are to be avoided.
My only criticism of the Government—I gave notice to the Minister that I would be mentioning this—is that they have been so slow to take action in spite of calls from the Labour Benches in another place. The Labour health spokesman in another place, Mrs. Harriet Harman, has done a great deal of research into this situation and has drawn attention to the scandal which came to light, not a few months ago, but in 1985.
The 1985 scandal caused public shock and horror. I should like to paraphrase what my honourable friend said about it on Second Reading. A Pakistani man was flown into London from Lahore and was paid £2,000 for his kidney. It was transplanted to a private patient in the private Devonshire Hospital. At the beginning of this year reports emerged of private patients receiving kidneys from Turks who had been brought to this country to be operated on having agreed to sell a kidney. The National Kidney Centre, a private agency under the medical directorship of Dr. Raymond Crockett, provided a Turkish gentleman with a letter to smooth his way through immigration saying that he was visiting a relative in London who was undergoing a kidney operation. In fact, he was coming to sell his kidney so that it could be transplanted at the Humana Wellington Hospital into an Israeli doctor.
An advertisement then appeared in an Egyptian newspaper offering £10,000 to live kidney donors. The advertisement included Dr. Crockett's name and telephone number. Reports then appeared saying that a kidney taken from a British NHS donor had gone not to one of the thousands of British patients on the waiting list for a life-saving transplant but to a Greek patient who had gone to the Humana Wellington Hospital for a transplant.
In view of the fact that kidneys for sale were back in the news following the scandal of 1985, the Government were under pressure to commission reports. The Bloomsbury District Health Authority was asked to investigate the Humana Wellington Hospital. The Department of Health's letter said that Turkish peasants were duped into donating kidneys. The Barnet District Health Authority was to investigate the National Kidney Centre and the Camberwell District Health Authority was to look into the misuse of a kidney destined for someone on the National Health Service waiting List. However, the Government refused to disclose even in general terms the finding of those investigations.
It will not have escaped notice that all these secret goings on were not, I am proud to say, in National Health Service hospitals but in private hospitals. That is not good enough. It is a reflection on the standards observed. I shall not go into the details of the reports which I have briefly touched upon. They have never been published. The contents never appeared until they came into the hands of my

847
honourable friend in another place. It is very unsatisfactory that reports properly commissioned by health authorities on issues which eventually lead to legislation should still be kept secret.
I should like to ask the Minister several questions of which I have given him notice. First, why were these three reports not published? Secondly, why did the Government wait until 1989 to introduce legislation and why were they not worried about this situation, which they knew about some years ago? Thirdly, were there other recommendations in these reports on which action could have been taken and had any of those recommendations already been implemented? Fourthly, will the department now publish these reports as, in my view, they already ought to have been published?
The actions of the two consultants, Mr. Bewick and Mr. Crockett, and the private hospitals involved are now under investigation by the GMC. Can the Minister inform the House of the state of those investigations? Have any charges been brought? Are the investigations continuing? Will a public statement be made about the investigations?
I have one more question. Does the Minister believe that these scandalous cash-for-organs events could have taken place in the National Health Service as opposed to the private sector? Is there not a natural link between a market in health care and a market in human organs? The purpose of the Bill is to see that in future there is no market for human organs, but I should like to have the Minister's view on whether this scandalous situation could have occurred in the National Health Service.
Certainly, like the noble Lord, I warmly support the kidney transplantation programme and I applaud the work over the years of the National Federation of Kidney Patients Associations. Only yesterday, by the invitation of the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, I met many of those who are under treatment. The problems they face are enormous. Those of us who know people who are being subject to dialysis are aware of the misery through which they must go for long periods of time. The facility of transplanting kidneys has given a new lease of life to thousands of people. In so far as we know the suffering of those under dialysis, we also know the joy of those who have benefited from a transplant and who now lead a marvellously open life.
I remember giving a party some years ago—I think when I was Secretary of State—for a number of young women who brought their babies with them to indicate their state of health. It was a situation which could never have occurred without the benefit of transplants. It is a marvellous development. There is also a marvellous development in drug therapy which I believe, eventually, will lead to a much better situation. At present, about 1,500 transplants a year are carried out—which I believe is marginally more than was the case 10 years ago—but about 3,500 people are now waiting for a kidney transplant and there is a serious shortage of donor organs. Dialysis is both costly and unpleasant for patients. It costs the NHS about £15,000 a year. The NHS spends about £60 million a year treating kidney patients.
Like the noble Lords, I warmly support the donor card system. Of course, it requires positive
848
affirmation. I understand that about 14 million cards were distributed in 1988. At Second Reading in another place, on 8th June, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Mr. Freeman, hinted at the possibility of legislation in the field of voluntary kidney donation. For myself, I would support legislation which changed the present practice of kidney donation to an opt-out procedure, rather than a opt-in procedure. Therefore, when people die in road accidents, unless they have clearly indicated that they do not wish their organs to be used for the life-saving benefit of other patients, it will be assumed that they are willing to donate their kidneys. That would overnight transform the situation and not for long would there be a waiting list.
I would support such legislation, and we know from opinion polls that many people have indicated support for such a procedure. I would rather be welcoming that legislation than this Bill, necessary though it is. It would produce a massive easing of the plight of those suffering from kidney failure. There would also be a saving of NHS resources and that is an objective in which we are all interested.
There is another legislative approach that would increase the availability of organs for donation, without going as far as I have just suggested. This comes from a memorandum prepared by the British Medical Association on revised ethical guidelines on the transplant of tissues and organs. I refer to two paragraphs. I quote:
"There have been suggestions that the UK should institute a system of 'required request', that is, that doctors should be required by law to ask for the consent of relatives of all suitable potential donors for permission to remove organs. This would not allow the doctor to observe any sensitivity relating to his knowledge of the patient's specific objections, or religious beliefs. We believe that this will cause additional pain and distress to a number of the recently bereaved and should be avoided".
That is one route to be avoided.
"The Association accepts that organs are not obtained from the maximum number of potential donors."
I think we all accept that.
"This is almost certainly due to the difficulty which some doctors experience in discussing the issue of organ donation with relatives."
That is a subject on which the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, may touch.
The BMA continues:
"We believe that doctors have an ethical obligation to seek such permission where there is a potential donor and where they know of no reason to suppose that their approach will cause further pain and distress to the relatives. Where the doctor has not the personal knowledge and skill to approach the relatives in person, he/she must ensure that the approach is made by a doctor with those skills."
I have quoted those two paragraphs partly to indicate that there are problems, and partly to indicate that I believe we should not just carry out a closing of the door operation. We have a responsibility, in closing one door, to open another. The department should be considering a range of proposals, including the kind of Bill that I said I would support. I hope the department will look at all proposals, because if we can do something positive then, as I said earlier, we might bring about a massive easing of the plight of those who suffer from kidney failure. That is a responsibility that we should accept in this House. However, I willingly support this Bill, as late and as inadequate as it is.
7.27 p.m.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, I join the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Henley, for introducing this Bill and explaining its provisions with such brevity and clarity. The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, may indeed be right in suggesting that there was some regrettable delay before the Government finally decided to take action on the deplorable and scandalous events which came to light and which were described by the noble Lord.
However, this admirable little Bill, the way it has proceeded through Parliament hitherto and the way in which I believe it will continue to proceed on its way to the statute book henceforth, provides an example of the fact that, when necessity so dictates, our political machinery in this country is perfectly capable of acting effectively and extremely rapidly. One sometimes wishes that certain other complicated matters could be finalised with the same rapidity.
On the general matter of transplants and human organs for transplantation purposes, I genuinely believe that the shortage of human organs for transplant purposes is a tragic and unnecessary human problem. It necessarily follows that I would do anything possible to encourage, and make more available, organs for transplantation purposes. The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, rightly said that one need only speak to a patient who has been on regular dialysis because of renal failure, to realise all that that involves for the patient, the patient's family, the hospital staff, the vast expense that it involves, and in particular the extremely unpleasant life in being tied to a machine day in, day out, for month after month.
Yesterday many of us had the remarkable experience of talking to some of these patients, as the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, has said, after the patients had been relieved of a burden by a successful renal transplant. It is enormously encouraging to see a human being full restored to health, vigour and happiness and to recognise that a burden has been lifted from human shoulders in that remarkable way. One regrets very deeply that human organs are not more readily available.
It necessarily follows that I shall support proposals that will possibly lead to them becoming more readily available. However, I am not sure that this is the appropriate time at which to ventilate that subject. I have no wish to raise any controversial matters that could in any way imperil the passage of this Bill, which I believe should reach the statute book as quickly as possible. I do not wish to encourage people to try to amend or alter the Bill in other ways so that it deals with other functions. So far as I am concerned the Bill as it stands is entirely satisfactory.
I have no doubt that if I tried hard I could find some defects in it and possibly suggest some improvements, but I am not going to try to. I am very glad that, in deciding how to deal with this matter, the Government have agreed to deal quite sensibly and liberally with allowable expenses. I am sure that is necessary and proper. Any person who regularly gives blood to the transfusion service would feel deeply upset and outraged if he or she were
850
suddenly deprived of his or her cup of tea, because it is regarded as a proper reward for having turned up. I am very glad that this legislation has been drawn in such a way that it remains perfectly possible to pay necessary out-of-pocket expensers to people who come forward to give this splendid service to their fellow creatures.
Clause 2 deals with genetically-related donors, and I am glad that it is drawn fairly loosely. We are in a situation at the moment in which medical science is advancing so rapidly that had this cluse been drawn extremely tightly with no provision made for exceptions, we should have found that medical advances had overtaken us. It would then have become necessary to make certain changes.
I do not believe that anyone can look other than with horror at the outrageous events which have led to this Bill coming forward. The idea of human organs being purchased in the way that they were is scandalous and macabre. It is something that should not happen in a civilized country. Whether it happens in a private or public hospital or elsewhere I care not. It should not happen. I hope that this Bill will ensure that it does not happen. In addition, I hope that, while we are speeding this Bill on its way, we shall do what we can in parallel to make sure that human organs become more readily available for transplantation purposes. I believe that the impediments to that provision at the moment are much less real than imaginary. I believe that many of them can be overcome. I hope that this small Bill reaches the statute book very quickly indeed.
7.33 p.m.
Lord Trafford: My Lords, I welcome this Bill. I must declare an interest, because this is a field in which I exercise my professional activities. I deprecate and deplore the circumstances that give rise to this Bill. I share the hope of the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, that the Bill will help to prevent similar recurrences in the future. I believe it is extremely unlikely that such things could happen in the National Health Service, which is one of the questions that the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, asked. I shall not press my noble friend the Minister today on the subject of the reports, because disciplinary proceedings or inquiries are taking place and it would therefore be improper to inquire further into the nature of reports which, if made public, might prejudice those proceedings. It will be a totally different matter if the proceedings are completed shortly, as they probably will be, then to request their publication.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I am sure that he will accept that I would not expect the Minister to give any information that could in any way be in breach of the inquiries now being conducted. I simply wish to know the state of the art at the moment. I shall not be pressing the Minister to go beyond what he has already said.
Lord Trafford: My Lords, I am very glad to hear that because I agree with the noble Lord on that point. I join the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, in welcoming the Bill unreservedly. I wish, like him, that I could say that on many other occasions as

851
regards many other Bills that come before us. It would make life easier all round. But many of them are more complicated.
I do not believe that the brevity of this Bill should allow us to underrate the difficulty of obtaining professional agreement in all fields in producing such a Bill. It is not easy. I know the noble Lord made a point about the time factor. To get everything right on this kind of occasion is terribly important. Working in this field I know that a great deal of discussion has gone into getting the wording and agreement on the basic principles right in order to stop a repetition of recent events and to look to the future as regards the management of transplantation.
I welcome this Bill unreservedly. I wish to raise a couple of points. As regards Clause 2, I believe that the question of genetically-related persons is a very interesting one. It raises as many moral as medical questions. In many respects a doctor is no better qualified to come to conclusions than any other person. These questions concern relationships between people; the rectitude of live donor transplant patients; whether people should or should not be donors and how one operates the mechanism of achieving a live donor transplantation.
I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, was a little more cautious than the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, in making his comments about live donors. Perhaps as a doctor he is aware that, for all kinds of reasons, it is not always easy to effect a live donor transplantation arrangement. Not the least of those reasons is the fact that one has to leave an escape clause for a donor who changes his or her mind. That can and sometimes does happen. At the same time one does not wish to destroy the relationship which may previously have existed.
There are a number of social, moral and medical considerations that make matters difficult. I believe that my noble friend Lord Henley dealt with the three questions that I wanted answered. I assume that at the present moment the genetically related will be tested by HLA testing or something similar as well as by blood group. I assume that the Clause is phrased in such a way that future technological changes will allow any other form of genetic matching (whether it is fingerprinting or anything else) to establish the relationship.
I was very glad to see that the clause allows exemptions. There are two particular circumstances not mentioned in the Bill but mentioned by my noble friend. The first is spouses and the second the extended family. The latter is a term that is open to various interpretations. In the changing society that we have, particularly in some of our bigger cities, we shall have to give consideration to this kind of situation in relation to transplants and the acceptability of live donor transplantation.
I welcome Clause 3 and the registration of all NHS activities in this field being made mandatory. On previous occasions I have expressed my total support for the National Health Service. Having worked in this area for so many years I should be horrified if there were any irregularities of the kind that have given rise to this type of legislation.
852
I welcome very much what my noble friend said concerning the programmes and plans that he may have to promote organ donation. Again probably because he is a doctor the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, was slightly more cautious than the noble Lord, Lord Ennals. This is not a simple matter. Personally, I am not in any way totally sold on this opt-in type of legislation. I can see many difficulties and hazards. The noble Lord read from the BMA handout an example of the anxiety and distress that may be caused by so-called "required requests". Equally, there are problems with opting in and opting out. However great one's sympathy may be for people in renal failure who need transplants, one must also consider a whole range of other people —their rights, the rights of their families, and so on. There are considerable difficulties.
Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, that there are also problems when one is faced with a patient in an intensive care unit who is a potential donor, or a patient who a doctor may have reason to believe would wish to be a donor but whose relatives cannot be contacted. The patient may have appeared out of the blue. It is a terrible dilemma. Those are the problems that arise on the ground, and, just like the live donor example which I gave just now, those are difficulties which occasionally occur.
I should add for those who are interested that required request—if that is not a contradiction in terms—has been operated with some success on a voluntary basis in various areas. We know from experience in other countries that required request produces an increase in donor kidneys. In certain states in the United States where required request has been introduced the number of donor kidneys increased, although the number may have increased for other reasons. In my view we should look carefully at required request because it is a very much better line to pursue than any of the opt-in proposals. However, we would have to consider exemptions on religious grounds, and so on.
Like everybody else, I should like to see more donors, more transplants and more relief given to the renal services system. One of the largest blocks in this field is the shortage of donors. I therefore support guardedly—perhaps I may be somewhat arrogant and say "with some experience"—statutory intervention in this area. Nonetheless, I would encourage my noble friend to pursue his known interest and support for these programmes.
To return to the Bill, I support it unreservedly and congratulate my noble friend on the clarity with which he introduced it.
7.43 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, when I expressed an intention to speak on this Bill I thought that I might have to provide some Byzantine way of introducing the single point that I wanted to make. However, the noble Lord, Lord Henley, spared me that in the latter part of his speech. He repeated and paraphrased what his honourable friend the Under-Secretary of State Mr. Freeman, said in Standing Committee A in another place. It is worthwhile quoting what Mr. Freeman said in

853
connection with the point that I want to make. He said (at cols. 16–17 of the Official Report of Standing Committee A on 8th June 1989):
"When the Committee and the House make progress and the legislation is enacted, I shall turn the attention of the Department of Health to a conference in the autumn on the voluntary donation of cadaveric organs to improve supply".
He went on to say:
"I should like to chair a conference later this year in which all parties involved in voluntary donation of organs can discuss what steps need to be taken to improve supply".
All noble Lords who have spoken in this debate have agreed that an increase in the number of donors is needed. My noble friend Lord Ennals quoted figures which were also given by Mr. Freeman. Between 3,000 and 3,500 people are on the waiting list for kidneys even though there are 1,500 transplant operations a year. Mr. Freeman continued:
"Further improvements in the quality and quantity of voluntary donations are my top priority. I shall take all possible administrative steps and, if necessary, make representations to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State on the practical and statutory steps that may have to be taken".
I welcome the Bill and hope to speed it on its way. Nevertheless, an important issue seems to have been covered up. Every speaker referred to the need for more donors and more donations. What is in the way? What is the obstacle? I gave the Minister an idea of what I would say on the Bill, and I raised it with his predecessor, the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, some 18 months to two years ago. Is it not the case that of the donations made only a small proportion come from those who wish to give them? Is it not the case that donations from those holding donor cards is not very high when compared with the number of people holding donor cards? What is the obstacle?
We are all agreed that we need an increase in the supply of donations. We are also agreed that we need an increase in the number of donors. This could be achieved and I believe that the Government want it to be achieved, They have certain measures in mind which I do not think are adequate for increasing that supply.
When one becomes a donor one does not automatically know that one's card will be honoured. The card simply requests that a person's organs be donated. I discovered from the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, that, although the card is a legal document, the practice of the medical profession is to consult relatives. I strongly object to that on two grounds. I object, first, because this reduces the number of donations from those who have expressed their wishes about what should happen to their bodies. Secondly, I object to the whole concept that anyone other than the donor has a right to determine what should happen to his body after death. If we want more donations it should be law that, irrespective of what anybody else thinks, an individual has the right to make those donations. If one believes, as I do as a matter of principle, that one's body belongs to oneself and that what happens to it after death is solely one's responsibility, this reference to relatives should be removed.
I hope that it will be removed either by the Government or by a Private Member's Bill. As the
854
Minister will know, there has been much discussion about this in the United States. My noble friend Lord Ennals put forward a suggestion for an increase in the number of donors and in donations; that is, the opting-out system instead of the opting-in. I support him totally on that suggestion.
However, in my view, one needs to do more. I say that because, if the practice continues that the donation of organs cannot be confirmed without some reference to the relatives, then you are really doing two things. First —and I am sure that all doctors here present would support me on this—in the case of many donations time is of the essence. Unless those donations are made immediately, or very shortly after death, they are of no use. That is especially true as regards certain organs. The reference to relatives delays the availability of that donation.
It is also well-known that we carry donor cards in our wallets. But, in the case of accidents, how many people are examined to see whether they have a donor card? I suggest, in addition to the suggestion of my noble friend as regards the opting-out system, that the Government look seriously at the matter and that they consult with the relevant organisations involved to see whether there is a better way than simply holding a donor card, which would indicate quickly, immediately, that the person killed in an accident had expressed the desire that his or her organs be donated.
For instance, I suggest that one could consider a small tattoo mark on the wrist. That would be permanent and a visible indication in the case of an accident. However, that is only one suggestion and, of course, there may be many others. But, the central issue, to which I should like the noble Lord to address himself when he comes to wind-up the debate, is whether the Government stand by the right of the individual to donate his or her organs, irrespective of the wishes of anyone else; or, whether they will continue with what I understand is the general medical practice of allowing relatives to put a veto on the donation which has already been determined by the individual concerned.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for allowing me to intervene briefly. I think that he should be aware of the real situation rather than an unreal one. He referred to the right of the individual to determine what happens to his organs. The individual has no such right.
The noble Lord, Lord Hatch said that his body belonged to him. It does at the moment, but as soon as he dies it does not. The instructions which he leaves regarding the disposal of his body have no validity whatever under the present law. The decision is taken by his next of kin. One would, of course, expect them to take note of any wish which had been expressed. However, in order for the kind of thing to happen which the noble Lord requests —and I have no doubt it would be immensely helpful—there would have to be fundamental changes in the current law. I merely wished to emphasise the fact that, at present, the law is not as the noble Lord would wish it to be.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, for what he said. If he is right—and I do not know whether he is—then he is simply reinforcing my case for new legislation. But, as I understood the answer I received from the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale—although the conversation took place some time ago now—it suggested that in law the individual had the right to donate organs and that relatives did not have the right to intervene; but that that was, however, the general practice. I hope that the noble Lord can clear up the matter when he comes to reply.
Lord Trafford: My Lords, one of the noble Lord's problems, as regards why donors do not end up donating their kidneys, is this. If the noble Lord wishes to donate, he must die in the right place, at the right time, in the right conditions, of the right diseases, in the right hands and in suitable circumstances. That is the difficulty with regard to the wishes of the donor and donor cards. Forty million cards are carried. One million people may die, but only a few end up donating their kidneys. It is the sheer complication of the situation. It has nothing to do with the relatives' permission, or otherwise. On that latter point, he may think he stands alone. But my view of a man is that he stands in relationship to his family and he should not forget that fact, even in death.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I accept what the noble Lord said. However, I am not just talking about the donation of kidneys. In fact, I went into the matter legally and discovered that the only way in which one can donate one's body for medical research is to put that request in one's will. Again, this is a legal matter and I wish to give the Minister the chance to wind up the debate. Nevertheless, I hope that he will be able to answer some of those questions.
7.55 p.m.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for what he said. It is indeed gracious of him to give me time to wind up the debate. We had a most interesting Second Reading debate. I welcome the support we have received from all sides of the House for what I call, and what others have called, a small but useful measure. I should probably make the best use of my time—although I think we are likely to continue beyond eight o'clock—if I tried to answer as many as possible of the questions which have been put to me by noble Lords in the course of the debate. Perhaps I may say, in passing, that I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ennals. I must thank him for giving me notice of various questions he wished to raise.
The noble Lord asked first why we have not published the reports from Bloomsbury, Barnet and Camberwell health authorities. Those reports were passed to us in strict confidence. The matters they deal with are the responsibility of the health authorities. Moreover, we are satisfied that inquiries have been properly conducted.
The noble Lord then asked why there had been this delay between 1985 and 1989 before we introduced legislation. The 1985 allegations concerned people
856
who, as the noble Lord said, came from the Indian sub-continent, bringing live donors with them who were allegedly paid for their organs. It was decided that legislation was not an appropriate course of action as any payment would almost certainly have been made outside the United Kingdom. It would therefore have been impossible to obtain proof of any financial transaction. Alternative action, which was warning the private hospitals by letter that they could lose their registration if they were found to have been involved in such practices, was therefore taken.
The current allegations, which emerged earlier this year, were different as the alleged donors and recipients were not from the same countries and appeared to have been brought together here. It therefore seems probable that at least some financial transactions would have taken place in this country. There is also the concern about the threat by a German national to set up an agency to buy and sell organs in this country. Legislation in that case therefore seemed to be an effective way of dealing with such matters. The Bill was introduced to stamp out such practices.
The noble Lord then asked whether there were other recommendations contained in the reports upon which action could be taken. As I said, the reports are confidential and we cannot reveal their contents. He also asked whether we would now publish the reports. Again, that is a matter for the health authorities because the reports belong to them.
The noble Lord also asked about the state of investigations into the case of Dr. Crockett and Mr. Bewick. As my noble friend Lord Trafford has already pointed out, it is known that inquiries are under way. However, they are a matter for the General Medical Council and the timetable is in its hands.
Finally, the noble Lord asked whether we believed that cash-for-organs events could have taken place in the National Health Service. It is obviously impossible to be certain that no one has benefited financially from donating an organ within the National Health Service. However, we think that is most unlikely, as indeed did my noble friend Lord Trafford.
It must be remembered that the vast majority of transplants are from dead donors. In the National Health Service, all such organs are obtained via the United Kingdom Transplantation Service. The great majority of live organ transplants carried out in the National Health Service are between genetically-related people whose relationship will generally have been established in the course of verifying their compatibility for the purpose of transplantation. The patient and his family will be known to hospital staff. We believe it unlikely that a relative would be involved in a commercial transaction for the organ.
The noble Lords, Lord Ennals and Lord Hatch, made various suggestions how to increase the supply of organs. The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, dealt with what I think we can call opting out. Our position remains that the gift of an organ is an altruistic gift. It is a positive statement of intent. Without a positive

857
statement of intent to donate by patients, an assumption that they are willing for their organs to be removed, because there is no record of them opting out, would be wrong and would add unreasonably and unnecessarily to the distress of their relatives.
The noble Lord also mentioned required requests which were discussed in another place. The Hoffenberg working party advised us that there was a better approach than required-request legislation. We have put the measures that it suggests into action. We intend to give them time to work before we consider other proposals. Several American states have enacted required-request legislation in recent years; there is no clear evidence that such legislation has a sustained impact on donation which cannot be achieved by alternative means.
The noble Lord, Lord Hatch, went on to the question of the enforceability of donor cards. The problem is that doctors would not insist that organs should be removed from a donor if the relatives objected. Relatives' views should be respected even though, in law, the donor's wishes, as he has made them known by signing a donor card, could be enforced. A further problem arises in that adverse publicity could result from any such enforcement against the relatives' wishes.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I should have thought that the noble Lord was right, but there seemed to be evidence from his noble friends and my noble friends that once the body is dead the donor's views are no longer relevant. It would be helpful to have a clarification of the law.
Lord Henley: My Lords, my advice is that the donor's wishes could be enforced. My understanding always was that on the death of the individual, his wishes had no further effect. Whatever the position, doctors would rather not start removing organs against the wishes of the donor's relatives, because of the danger of adverse publicity which might in the long term do much greater harm to the whole principle of voluntary organ donation.
I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, could find a way round his problem by putting clauses into his will, suggesting to his relations that they might benefit only if they perform certain actions.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, that would be selling them. That is what the Bill is against.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I leave that to him and the advice that he obtains from his solicitors. My noble friend Lord Trafford asked about tests to establish relationship. We are consulting the medical profession about details of the tests that will be used. Those details will be set out in the regulations. We expect them to be a combination of blood tests and DNA tests. As I said in my opening remarks, due to technological changes we feel that they are best put into regulations and not enacted.
I should say a few words about donor cards which were mentioned by several noble Lords. They are obviously important in terms of increased supply, which every noble Lord has mentioned. It is the
858
department's aim so to increase the number of organ donor cards—thus the number of organs—that the need for long-term dialysis, for example, will decrease and that eventually, as I said in my opening remarks, dialysis machines will be used for fairly short periods only.
We are already actively introducing measures to achieve that aim, following the report of the Royal Medical Colleges and the working party under the chairmanship of Sir Raymond Hoffenberg in December 1987. In December 1988, we issued a health circular (HC88/63) asking health authorities to report by the end of June 1989 confirming that their procedures for identifying potential organ donors have been drawn up. The circular also requests that authorities record all deaths in intensive care and submit completed forms for analysis centrally of the potential availability of organs, as well as giving reasons why suitable organs were not used for transplants.
The first results of that two-year audit period will not become known before the end or the year. We have also increased the department's publicity expenditure to £200,000 to increase public awareness of organ donation. In 1988, some 14 million donor cards were distributed, which is 9 million more than the previous year and in collaboration with the Healthcare Foundation we began an initiative to make donor cards available to High Street stores.
We shall shortly be releasing a video and new publicity displays for use by transplant co-ordinators who perform valuable education and publicity work. Some new leaflets are already available.
As I said, this is a small but important measure. I welcome the support that it has received from all sides of the House. I commend it to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Local Government and Housing Bill
8.6 p.m.
House again in Committee on Clause 1.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 2, line 40, at end insert—
("(5A) No requirements prescribed under subsection (5) above shall be taken to apply to participation in or support for any campaign or activities not organised by a political party, notwithstanding that the matter to which any such campaign or activities may relate may be politically controversial.").
The noble Lord said: The Minister has previously alluded correctly to the fact that we are engaged in discussing a series of amendments dealing with aspects of the search for truth about those activities and individuals who will be caught by the Government's decision in respect of the Bill. We are trying to coin from the Government something that will satisfy us that it is right and proper to be punitive. We are talking about officers who involve themselves in:
"participation in or support for any campaign or activities not organised by a political party".
On an earlier amendment, I alluded briefly to some of the activities involved. We want the Government to say that they share our view that the activities I intend to list to the Committee are not henious when they are being performed by a local government officer of some seniority and standing. They include the involvement in resident groups concerned with local traffic schemes and planning issues, which may turn political. I do not believe that anyone can object to them. Someone might join the trust to save the Rose Theatre. The activity could well be topical. A local government officer could take part. One can immediately see that, because decisions by the Secretary of State and the local authority will be involved, the local government officer may well be assumed to be poking his nose in where he should not.
One of the distasteful aspects of the Bill is the intimidation, the threat, "You'd better do what you are told. You'd better stop doing what you'd like to do, because we don't think it is right". An example is joining one of the groups currently petitioning Parliament in relation to the Channel Tunnel legislation. I can well imagine some local government officer in Kent who feels passionately about the line of the tunnel, or even the fact that there is a tunnel. We want the Government to tell us that these activities are not of the kind that will be caught by the Bill.
Expressing a view—whether pro-or anti—about some of the issues contained in legislation before Parliament is another aspect. For instance, as concerns tenant groups in relation to the Housing Act 1988, a local government officer could very well live in an area where he is employed by an authority, yet he is a council tenant. He wishes to exercise his rights as a resident on a council estate. We do not think that that should be involved.
There are animal welfare groups currently pressing for the implementation of dog registration. I can see the puzzlement on the Minister's face, akin to suggesting that it would be ridiculous for someone who is a local government officer, and who participates in the agitation for or against dog registration, possibly to be held to be involved in political activity. Yet the outcome of the dog registration issue will not be resolved by politicians in Parliament.
What about involvement in the pro-or anti-abortion campaigns? Although we in Parliament—I think honourably—have striven to make this an issue of conscience and not a political issue, nevertheless many people, of whom I am not one, who are for or against the issue believe that it ranks very high. Therefore an officer ought to be entitled to take part in the arguments passionately, without suffering any hurt.
What about an officer who decides to become a member of the Campaign for Real Ale, against the background of the recent controversy over the sale of monopoly holdings in public houses? Some people would argue that a person might be a member of a campaign such as the Campaign for Real Ale and want to take a prominent part in it. If he takes up a stance for or against the Secretary of State's decision
860
in respect of forcing large monopoly landlords to unload their holdings, that person has, in effect, taken part in some political activity. That is ludicrous, but it is possible.
What about people who are members of a local authority officers' team who decide to become involved in the issue for or against Sunday trading? They are passionately connected with the church and are devoutly and devotedly involved in its activities. Their church might take up a certain stance which could be contrary to the views of the local council. I hope that the Minister shares our view that activities of this kind, which involve campaigning ought to be outwith any net which the Government are likely to cast.
I believe that these are sensible and reasonable questions. I hope the Minister can assure me that, whatever emerges in respect of codes of practice, guidance, conduct or any other proposal on what is or is not included, the kinds of activities I have listed may be enjoyed by an officer in the course of his duty as a local government officer, without infringing his right to be employed. I beg to move.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: First, perhaps I may assure the noble Lord, Lord Graham, that I never take lightly any matter which involves dogs, having suffered at the jaws of a dog in a previous role a year ago. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Graham, that my facial grimace had nothing to do with irrelevance, it had more to do with —
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Remembrance!
Lord Hesketh: Remembrance. The noble Lord is entirely correct. This amendment, like Amendments Nos. 8 and 9, would exempt anything done in a whole area of activity from the political restrictions, even if it were directly aimed at an obviously party-political purpose. This one would exempt anything done in the course of a campaign or activities which are not organised by a political party.
My comments on the previous amendments are very relevant here: we cannot simply take a whole area of activity and say "No matter what the officer does, if it is part of a campaign not organised by a political party, it doesn't matter". I ask noble Lords to consider this not very fanciful case. In a particular town the route of a proposed by-pass is a current political topic. There is a campaign against one of those proposed routes. If that campaign starts canvassing for the candidates of one particular party on the grounds that that party shares their views, and if a local government officer who supports the campaign joins in that canvassing, is that not just as difficult as if he were canvassing because he supported the party in question more generally? In my view, it is. All the objections that come into play about officers who are supposed to be impartial going around soliciting votes for a particular party seem to apply with equal force.
I therefore come back to my refrain on this group of amendments: it does not matter in what context something is done. If what is done is a public political

861
activity of a kind that the clauses would control, then it is reasonable that it should be controlled. If it does not have the characteristics of that public political activity, then the clauses will not apply to it and there will be no problem.
That brings me to where the noble Lord, Lord Graham, listed the example of an officer joining a broad spectrum of schemes which ranged —if I may précis it slightly —from the Rose Theatre to the Channel Tunnel, to tenants' groups on housing legislation, to animal welfare groups and dog legislation, as well as to the Campaign for Real Ale. On all these the answer is that they will be permitted as long as they do not become a matter of promoting or opposing a specific political party. The whole emphasis is on what is party political; not what is political itself. It is a party political activity which is unacceptable; it is not the activity itself. I wish to make that very clear. That is why we resist the amendment.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: The Minister has been enormously helpful. He gave the illustration of an officer joining an organisation which was campaigning on an issue. If a political party also decided to join that organisation, ipso facto the officer would be involved in an organisation that was using assistance from a political party as part of its muscle. It could be held that, with guilt by association, he was involved in a political activity.
I was going to take issue with the Minister, but I am happy to rest on the premise of his last few words. They suggest that in this context it is the officer's involvement in party political activity. Activity in any of the organisations on the list here is not party political activity. It could very well be political activity and we should all understand that in the non-party sense that is the organisation of people, the use of people, in the sense of demonstrating their will.
When we read what the Minister has said, we shall find that he has been helpful in defining the tiny little area about which we are worried. I shall read his remarks and perhaps come back later if need be. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 2, line 40, at end insert—
("(5A) No requirements prescribed in regulations under subsection (5) above shall be taken to apply to activities undertaken for or on behalf of any professional organisation, whether or not such activities relate to any matter of political controversy.").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move this amendment standing in the name of my noble friend Lord McIntosh. Again, this is part of the list on which we seek to clarify what the Government have in mind. We wish to exclude from the list of potential activities that can be held to be political such activities as working,
"on behalf of any professional organisation, whether or not such activities relate to any matter of political controversy".
862
I move the amendment in the context of the Minister's recent redefining of party political activity. That is what we are talking about. The kind of activity which I have in mind here cannot remotely be called party political activity. I am talking about professional organisations which often form important consultees in the early stages of framing legislation as well as consulting other organisations. Furthermore, such organisations are often involved in lobbying or briefing MPs and Peers as regards legislation or in commenting directly or indirectly to civil servants on the practical implications of primary and secondary legislation.
The kind of membership I am talking about here applies, for instance, to a council officer of whatever rank who escapes all other bars. However, we want to ensure that he is not caught by the political activities bar. Such a council officer may, for example, be a member of the Society for Education Officers, the Institute of Waste Management, the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives, CIPFA, the Institute of Traffic Engineers, the Town and Country Planning Association or the Royal Institute of British Architects. All of those memberships are exclusively professional. Yet, at some stage, in acting as a member of those organisations, a local government officer could very well be drawn into taking up a stance or advocating a reaction against an action by a government, either national or local. I merely want the Minister to say, as he said so helpfully with regard to voluntary organisations which undertake campaigns, that membership of a professional body of this kind would not be caught by the legislation. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Graham, will not be surprised that my answer to this amendment is very similar to the one I gave to the previous amendment. Once again, with fear of repetition, I must remind the Committee of what I have already pointed out. It is not the context in which something is done but what is done that we regard as relevant for deciding whether the restrictions under these clauses should apply. I readily agree that it is difficult to think that anything done for or on behalf of a reputable professional association would be likely to be relevant to these prohibitions. But it is not beyond the bounds of possibility.
I suggest that the basic policy should be as in other fields. If the activity is directed to affecting public support for a political party, then it is objectionable if undertaken by the holder of a politically sensitive post under a local authority. If the activity for or on behalf of a professional association is not of that kind, then it would not be affected in the least by the proposals within these three clauses.
We must look at the context of what is done. We believe the amendment does not do that. I resist it for the same reasons as I resisted the previous amendment, but I remind the noble Lord, Lord Graham, of what I then pointed out. We are not talking about political activity but party political activity.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Again the Minister has been helpful. He says that it is all right if what is

863
done is not party political. However, in taking a stand on an issue by advocating against the policies of a government, whether it be local or national, the person concerned is not taking a political stance or arguing that the Conservatives are bad or that a Labour council is bad, but that the policy that is being carried out is bad. In other words, he is making no valued judgment on whether the people of his community are well or ill-served by a Labour council as compared to a Conservative council; he is arguing that the people of the area are disadvantaged by the policies that are being carried out. When issues are not directed against politicians, but against the decisions and activities of politicians, is that in order?
Lord Hesketh: I can only repeat what I said in connection with the previous amendment.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: In which case, I shall save the time of the Minister. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 13 to 15 not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 3, line 13, at end insert —
("(8A) Subsection (1) above shall have effect after the making of an order by the Secretary of State in accordance with section 164(2A) below.").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 16, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 180, 181 and 189. The purpose of all these amendments is the same. They seek to ensure that the Secretary of State seeks an affirmative resolution in Parliament before making orders under this part of the Bill.
It is relatively rare for us to seek an affirmative resolution. We constantly seek that regulations be laid-before Parliament but usually by the negative resolution procedure. However, on this occasion we are dealing with a fundamental change in employment law. The Secretary of State is being empowered by this part of the Bill to impose an absolute disqualification on people holding politically restricted posts. It empowers him to change the terms of appointment or conditions of employment of every person holding a politically restricted post. This is in effect almost retrospective because it applies even if they hold the post before the Bill becomes law; in other words, their existing terms and conditions of employment are to be changed by regulation made by the Secretary of State.
We take the view that terms and conditions of employment set down in employment contracts are a significant part of the civil liberties and the protections which are due to ordinary citizens and employees in this country and that they should not be changed by regulation made by the Secretary of State and imposed both on the employee and the employer.
It is argued sometimes that affirmative resolution procedures are more appropriate when we are dealing with financial considerations. However,
864
there is a precedent in this Bill for an affirmative resolution procedure where there are no financial considerations. Clause 30 of the Bill which is concerned with the national code of local government conduct, is subject to an affirmative resolution procedure, although there are no financial implications and although the national code of local government conduct already exists. However, the revision of the code is to be submitted to Parliament. I am not underestimating the importance of Clause 30, but I am saying that if the affirmative resolution procedure is appropriate for that clause, how much more appropriate it is for this part of Clause 1 where, as I say, there has been a fundamental change in the employment law which affects the civil rights of ordinary citizens in the part that they can play in politics. I hope the Committee will agree that this is one of those occasions, perhaps relatively rare, when parliamentary time should be devoted to the consideration of the regulations which the Secretary of State proposed to make. I beg to move.
The Earl of Arran: The effect of these amendments would be to make the introduction of the ban on twin-tracking conditional upon a draft order having been approved by an affirmative resolution by both Houses of Parliament, as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has said. The prohibition concerning twin-tracking in Clause 1(1) is stated clearly on the face of the Bill. These amendments seek to delay the introduction of Clause 1(1) and (5) and bring them back for consideration by both Houses at a later date. Now is the occasion for the Chamber to discuss the issues concerned.
It does not seem sensible to the Government to legislate in this way: to adopt a measure and then put off its implementation until a further vote. I am reminded of the prayer in his youth of that notable doctor of the church, St. Augustine who said, O God make me virtuous, but not yet. Unlike St. Augustine, the Government wish to opt for virtue now. For those reasons I ask the Committee not to accept the amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: That was a peculiarly specious argument, quite apart from the fact that St. Augustine of Hippo said: Make me chaste, but not yet.
The point about the affirmative resolution procedure is that the regulations would be before this Chamber in order for it to make a decision. We have no regulations before the Committee. We do not even have draft regulations. We are not in any position effectively to argue about the content of the regulations. I find it extraordinary that the noble Earl can stand up and say that we can hold a proper debate here without having seen draft regulations and without knowing what is in the Government's mind. We have to rely on scraps which fall from the lips of Government Ministers. We are not treated with the respect that this Chamber and this Committee deserve. We are not given a proper opportunity to learn what is in the government's mind.
This is clearly not a matter for a Division at this time of night, but it is something to which we shall

865
have to refer at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 17 to 19 not moved.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
8.30 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 20:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
("Remuneration of councilors
. (1) Section 1 above shall have effect subject to the provisions of this section.
(2) The Secretary of State shall issue regulations for the purposes of establishing a comprehensive scheme for the remuneration of councillors, having regard to consultations with the local authority associations and any other body representative of elected councillors.
(3) The Scheme referred to in subsection (2) above shall be established for the following purposes —

(a) to maintain and improve the opportunities available to citizens to serve the local community as an elected councillor;

(b) to avoid undue financial hardship to persons elected as councillors; and

(c) to reflect the importance to the community of the provision of local services.

(4) Any scheme made under subsection (2) above shall include provision for the annual adjustment of remuneration levels in line with the Retail Prices Index and for such periodic review of remuneration by such independent person or persons as the Secretary of State may determine.
(5) The power to make regulations conferred by this section shall be exercisable by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
(6) Except in respect of any person falling within any description in sections 2(1) (a) to (e) above, no person shall be regarded as holding a politically restricted post before a date specified by the Secretary of State, and no such date shall be specified which is less than one year after the coming into force of this section.").
The noble Lord said: This may appear to be a complicated amendment in the sense that it proposes the insertion after Clause 1 of a new clause, which is of necessity somewhat complicated. However, there is a very important gap in the Bill which makes necessary further elucidation of the Government's intentions. Of necessity this must be only a probing amendment. I do not suggest that it represents the final word which can be reached on the remuneration of councillors. I am perfectly aware that the local authority associations are at the moment involved in negotiations with the department about the remuneration of councillors. The purpose of the amendment and the reason for putting it down now, is to draw out the Government's intentions more clearly than they at present appear and to state the views which I think I can safely say are those of all the local authority associations, whether under Labour or Conservative control.
The background to the amendment involves a certain amount of statistics about the money required for the remuneration of councillors. The Widdicombe Report of 1986 was based on research which indicated that the total expenditure on councillors' remuneration would be of the order of £27 million. There are two ways of calculating the
866
resulting amount to date. The actual take-up, taking account of inflation, would be £33 million; the potential take-up if all councillors who performed duties actually made claims for those duties would be of the order of £37 million. In relation to the total amount of local authority expenditure we are clearly not talking about a very large sum.
The Widdicombe Committee survey looked in some detail at the number of hours which councillors spend on their duties. It is clear that although there has been an increase since 1964 there has not been a significant increase since 1976, I remind the Committee that, despite all the controls placed on local authorities by government, the responsibilities placed on local authorities to act as agents for central government are nevertheless increasing very rapidly at the same time. Indeed, they have increased further this week with the community care obligations which are being placed on local authorities. So the average figure of 74 hours a month spent on council business is not extraordinary. The amounts claimed are not extraordinary in relation to that amount of work.
The amounts claimed by councillors, even in large authorities and with substantial levels of special responsibility, are minute in comparison with the payments to part-time members of government-appointed quangos, such as, for example, the regional water authorities. An individual might receive £7,000 to £10,000 a year for working one day or one and half days a week as an ordinary member of a regional water authority, whereas a person working full time as a committee chairman in a major council would almost certainly receive less than that for a full year's work.
I do not want to go in detail into the components of councillors' remuneration. I think that everyone is aware of the balance between loss of earnings and attendance allowances. The Government propose that there should be only a flat rate and a special responsibility allowance. That might be fair for committee chairmen or those with special responsibility in large authorities, but it is certainly unfair on the considerable number of local councillors who put in an enormous amount of time doing what might be thought to be humdrum jobs. They serve on local licensing panels or on the kind of committee which requires them to visit the establishments of the social services. It is not glamorous or political work but it is required of local authorities by government. We think that there ought to be some continuing attendance allowance.
We recognise that in a very small number of authorities there has been abuse of the attendance allowances. We recognise that it is necessary to have proper control of what are and are not approved duties. Perhaps the approved duties ought to be redefined. We should not object if there were to be a maximum attendance allowance for any one councillor so that a councillor could not pile up attendances many times a day and many days a year. Subject to those precautions, we believe that there ought to be some form of continued attendance allowance, separate from the special responsibility allowances and regularly updated.
I remind the Committee that, when the allowances were first established in 1972 at £10, they were set

867
at a level which would now be of the order of £40, instead of which the amount is more like £16. They certainly have not risen in line with inflation. We think that there ought to be some provision for automatic uprating, as there is for allowances for secretarial expenditure, etc., for Members of your Lordships' House. What is fair for us ought to be fair for councillors in local authorities, who in most cases do a great deal more work for their country and work that is probably of a greater value than most of what we do.
Lord Hesketh: The amendment would require and enable the Secretary of State to set up a new system of remuneration for councillors by regulation, subject to three main criteria. These are that it maintains and improves the opportunities for people to become councillors; that it prevents undue financial hardship for councillors; and finally that it reflects the importance to the community of the provision of local services. The levels would be required to be uprated each year in line with inflation.
I am glad to be able to agree with the noble Lord on one point —that a new system of councillors' remuneration is needed. I am also able to agree with the noble Lord on two of the criteria he would set for the new system. Indeed they are set out in paragraph 3.5 of the White Paper responding to the Widdicombe Report, which sets out the basic principles that should underlie any system of remuneration. It concludes that:
"the purpose of paying allowances to councillors is principally to ensure that they do not suffer financial hardship, and to ensure that a wide range of different types of person is able to stand for membership".
I am not clear about the meaning of the noble Lord's third criterion for the new system —namely, that it should reflect the importance to the community of the provision of local services.
Does he mean that the more the community values its local government services, the more councillors should be paid —a sort of performance bonus scheme? It is an intriguing idea, but not, I feel, a practical one, nor one I think the noble Lord's "community" would endorse.
The amendment also has another interesting feature. It would make the provisions of Clause 1, restricting political activity by council officers, conditional upon setting up this new system of remuneration. The aim seems to be to ensure that councillors who are currently able to finance their full-time activities as a member of one authority from the ratepayers of another continue to be so funded by their own authority. This is the sort of abuse we are trying to prevent.
The amendment also seems to imply that the levels of remuneration under the new scheme should be significantly higher than under the present system. The Government take a different view on the basis of two important criteria which the noble Lord has omitted to include in his amendment; namely, that council membership is based on the principle of voluntary service to the community and that councillors should not expect to be financially better off as a result of carrying out their duties.
868
As noble Lords will be aware, the Government have already proposed an alternative system of remuneration for councillors based on a flat rate allowance which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, drew to the Committee's attention. My right honourable friend the Minister for Local Government has met leaders of the local authority associations twice to consider the general principles of such a scheme.
A working group of officials has been investigating the level of allowances received and working out illustrative schemes for a flat rate allowance and an enhanced special responsibility allowance. It has taken some time for local authority associations to come forward with concrete proposals, probably because there seems to be a considerable variety of views not only between the associations but also within them. We all agree that it is a sensitive subject about which many councillors feel strongly.
I had hoped that as result of these discussions we would have been able to bring forward appropriate amendments for your Lordships to consider in Committee, but my right honourable friend the Minister for Local Government was anxious to give the local authority associations an opportunity to make alternative proposals which would be acceptable to at least a majority of them and which would meet the basic principles which we have outlined.
On Monday this week we received from the main English and Welsh local authority associations —the AMA, and ADC and the ACC —the outline of a joint proposal based on a basic flat rate allowance combined with a substantial element of attendance allowance. The associations' letter suggested that the potential for abuse which is inherent in any attendance-based allowance could be limited by restricting the range of approved duties or by placing a limit on the total payable by each council and/or to each councillor. In the Government's view, this represents a constructive approach and, subject to further consideration of details, we believe that it could form the basis of a scheme that would deal with the problems of a pure attendance allowance scheme which led the Widdicombe Committee to propose the flat rate alternative.
I should also mention that the Government have not yet received the views of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities representing local authorities in Scotland but have received further elaboration of the scheme suggested by the main English and Welsh associations from the Association of District Councils.
These are important and helpful developments. The Government need to look at them carefully and to discuss the details further with the local authority associations, perhaps initially at official level. We hope it will be possible that the outcome of that further consideration and any further discussions is that the Government will be able to bring forward proposals to reform the present system in a way that is broadly acceptable to local government in Great Britain, although it would be foolish to pretend that on such a sensitive subject there could ever be 100 per cent. unanimity

869
I should also say a word about the level of allowances. The White Paper gives the Government's view that the total available under any new scheme should not represent an overall increase on what is presently being paid. The local authority associations have just completed a new survey of the expenditure involved in councillors' allowances and have concluded that it is running at a level of £33 million per annum with a potential expenditure of £37 million if non-claiming councillors claimed on a similar basis to the majority who do claim. There is no question of increasing the overall amount available for distribution in any new scheme to the figure of £75 million, which represents what the Widdicombe Committee recommended, updated to current prices. However, the Government will examine carefully the results of the survey that is being carried out and will respond to the views put forward by the local authority associations as soon as is practicable.
I hope that that goes some way towards answering a number of the questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, in his amendment which he described as essentially a probing amendment at this stage.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Monkswell: I rise to question why we need even think about restricting local councillors' allowances, which is effectively what we are talking about in the Bill.
I have worked out some rough figures. I should tell the Committee that I have recently been elected a local councillor and I am trying to sort out how to claim my allowances. It seems to me that, if I were to work an eight hour day on local authority business, I could claim just under £20 per day. I am talking in terms of an attendance allowance rather than claims for out-of-pocket expenses. If one compares that figure with the allowances available to Members of this House—I admit that it is difficult to make an exact comparison because of the element of expenses included in our allowance—the rough equivalent figure is £40. If one compares that figure with the figure that a Member of the other place may claim on the basis of a day's labour, one is probably talking in excess of £100. So local councillors who are engaged in the business of overseeing enormous sums of expenditure of a political nature are being remunerated, roughly speaking, in the proportion of less than half of our remuneration or less than a quarter or a fifth of the remuneration of Members of the other place.
I wonder whether discussion on the subject is warranted in view of the minimal amount of money that we pay as a nation for the maintenance of our democratic institutions and procedures. I must object to the emphasis that the Government place on this. If the Government care to challenge my figures, I shall be happy to listen to them, but I do not think that they can do so in a realistic way.
Perhaps I have a vested interest in raising this point, although I try to think not. I believe that we are asked to consider in far too much depth a restrictive element in the mechanisms of democracy that operate in our country. It is just another example
870
of the denial of our democracy. The Government seem to be nibbling away at that democracy year after year and it does no credit to this House, our parliamentary institutions or this country.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am grateful for the intervention of my noble friend Lord Monkswell who is a serving councillor. If my noble friend Lord Irving of Dartford were here, he would no doubt echo what my noble friend said. I know that the Minister's mother is a serving councillor and I have no doubt that he is well informed about members' allowances.
However, the Minister's reply was only partly encouraging. It is good to know that the Government's immediate response to the local authority associations' letter is that their approach is constructive. It is far less encouraging to know that, although it is constructive in terms of the structure of the allowances, the Government are already determined that there is no chance of updating the Widdicombe recommendations and producing the £75 million which would then be required.
Thus, although the basis of the approach of the local authority associations—a completely non-party approach—is accepted by the Government, it is clear that there will not be enough money to meet what I am sure they would consider to be necessary, and certainly what Widdicombe considered to be necessary, to do what my noble friend Lord Monkswell rightly describes as proper justice for hard working councillors.
We shall have to await negotiations between the local authority associations and the Government. If we have any confirmation of either good news or bad news, we can return to the matter at Report stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 [Politically restricted posts]:
[Amendments Nos. 21 to 26 not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 3, line 26, leave out ("subsection (2) below or with").
The noble Lord said: With Amendment No. 27, by a judicious piece of filleting we have solved any problem about interlocking amendments. With this amendment we come to the heart of the issue with which we started to deal earlier today when talking about the basis of the restriction.
In addition to Amendment No. 27 I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 28, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34 and 35. Amendments Nos. 27 and 28 are perhaps the most wide-ranging in the group. They would remove the salary bar altogether. Amendment No. 29, and Amendment No. 30 which carries the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Newport, have a similar effect. I have no doubt that the noble Lord will wish to speak to those amendments in due course. Amendments Nos. 33 and 35 tabled in my name and the name of the noble Earl, Lord Carnarvon, arise from a suggestion from Hampshire County Council, of which the noble Earl is a

871
distinguished member and to which he has already referred in debate today. The proposal is that instead of taking a figure of £13,500, which is not linked to any point on the local authority scale, there should be a level approximating to spine point 44 on the APTEC scale, which, as I understand it, is of the order of £18,000. That is the advice we have from Hampshire County Council.
Amendments Nos. 32 and 34 in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, would have a very similar effect linked to the Civil Service grades and to the grade of Principal in the Civil Service rather than to a local authority grading. On reflection, of the two I prefer the Hampshire proposal to my own amendments. Therefore, when we come to that point, if the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, agrees, I shall not be moving my amendments.
I have dealt with all the amendments apart from those in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Ross and Lord Winstanley. Behind all the amendments lies a series of essential issues. I referred earlier to the difficulty in which local authorities and the local government service would find themselves if there were restrictions linked to a salary level. There are technical difficulties. It would be difficult to know what to do about the proportion on part-time posts. There would be problems dealing with overtime, bonus payments and London weighting. All those issues would cause enormous practical difficulties when imposing a scale of £13,500 or such higher figure as the Secretary of State may determine.
There are also human resource development difficulties, if I may put it that way. People who reach a certain level as a result of moving up on increments on an existing scale without changing their jobs would suddenly find themselves with the political restrictions biting. That would be through no decision of their own but simply because that is the way in which local authority pay structures work. Even worse off, I think, would be those who are politically active in various ways and who very often, indeed in most cases, are doing jobs which do not involve any other connection with the public, the press or policy-making than did the job that they were doing before but whose next natural step on the career ladder would be to go for a promotion which would bring them over the limit. That seems wildly unreasonable.
It is very damaging to the career structure in local authorities and to the ability of such people to seek the advancement they deserve. For those reasons we do not think that the £13,500 rule is in any way acceptable. In Amendments Nos. 27 and 28 we should prefer to remove it altogether. If the Government were to indicate support for Amendments Nos. 33 and 35 in particular, to which the name of the noble Earl, Lord Carnarvon, has been added, I think that we should be content with that. However, I hope that we can make some significant progress. This matter has been aired previously but it needs resolution now. It is for the Government to make significant concessions if the Committee is to be satisfied. I beg to move.
Lord Ross of Newport: Amendments Nos. 30 and 31 standing in my name and the name of the noble
872
Lord, Lord Winstanley, basically were linked with the earlier amendment, Amendment No. 21. Therefore I do not propose to speak to them and will not be pursuing them at the appropriate time because Amendment No. 21 was withdrawn earlier. I should like to speak in favour of Amendments Nos. 33 and 35 which seem to make some progress on what is quite obviously the totally unworkable and arbitrary figure of £13,500. The noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, and the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, have indicated those we are excluding if that figure is written into the Bill. There was some argument about the matter in Widdicombe and the Government seem to have changed their mind along the way. I am sure that they ought to change their mind again.
We have always had very close relations with Hampshire. We have always felt that Hampshire was one of the counties that got it right. I think that it has got it right on this occasion. I hope that the Government will look very hard at these amendments and give the Committee some favourable response tonight. The situation is absolutely daft; it cannot work as at present proposed. There have already been comments from both sides of the Chamber on that issue.
I recall from my time in the other place the annual ritual of debating Members' salaries. It arose year after year. It was always very embarrassing: eventually, however, salaries were tied to a Civil Service scale. It may be argued that they are now too high. Personally, I do not think so, and I am not getting the benefit. Nor do other colleagues in this Chamber who were formerly in the other place. I am quite envious of what we achieved for those who followed us. It must be right that we do not have to discuss that situation. These matters ought to be fixed before and not after elections. Now every member of the general public knows exactly the salaries that are paid to Members of Parliament.
In the same way let us make absolutely sure that there is a scale about which we do not have to argue and debate time and again or put down Motions to get the minimum raised if the Government do not tie it to the cost of living index. And we do not yet know whether they will even do that. I therefore very much support Amendments Nos. 33 and 35 and hope that the Government will take them on board.
The Earl of Carnarvon: The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, referred to Hampshire County Council. It is really an association of county councils which is recommending this point on the principal officer scale. I believe that it would be a much simpler handling of the issue if it were dealt with in that way. I strongly recommend the Government to consider putting it on to a point of the salary scale and although 44 may be the wrong point it should be in that range.
I hope that the Government will give serious consideration to the amendment. It would save many people many problems on what is a very sensitive subject. I support Amendments Nos. 33 and 35.
9.p.m.
Baroness Blatch: I have some sympathy with the point at issue —the naming of a sum of money of

873
£13,500. It will not take many years before that sum will cover very large numbers of people whom we would not want to include in the category of restricted posts. Therefore I support the principle of not having a sum of money named in the Bill. I believe that spine point 44 on the national scale is too high. In the past few weeks, I have only just left local government. I take issue a little with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, in that I think one receives advice from a number of people who may be at point 44 and above. One also receives information and advice from people below 44 on the active scale. Therefore there is a debate concerning where the level should be.
I believe it will be better to tie this proposal into a level on the scale so that the same people are taken along into the future, as opposed to having constantly to update a sum of money. I have some sympathy with this, but I hope that the amendment will be withdrawn so that the local authority associations and the Government can think again about substituting another scheme for the £13,500.
Lord Hesketh: Amendment No. 27 would end the inclusion in the list of politically restricted posts of those who were listed by the authority as meeting the criteria in subsection (3). Amendment No. 28 then removes consequentially the duty to prepare a list of the posts which meet the criteria in subsection (3). Amendment No. 30 is consequential upon Amendment No. 31, which would retain the duty to prepare a list but remove the descriptions of posts to be included in it. In effect, it would leave the descriptions to be specified in regulations.
I should like to try to persuade your Lordships that it is not sensible to omit any of the posts which are covered by the lists maintained by the local authority. I should like to take the Committee through the criteria to be applied.
First, there are those who regularly advise members. This is perhaps the simplest case. If an officer is regularly advising members, how can he simultaneously be an active politician, local or elsewhere, and preserve a claim to be regarded as an impartial adviser: Many people have asserted that they know paragons of virtue who manage to act schizophrenically and keep both capacities completely separate. I believe that there will always be doubts about their success, and in any event I do not think that we should legislate for the few who can achieve such miracles, but for the many more ordinary mortals who are not likely to be able to persuade us all that they can.
Secondly, there are those who regularly deal with the media on behalf of the authority. It is obviously important that those who speak for the authority in such a high profile way should be seen to be politically impartial. We could not accept a situation where such an officer was publicly identified with one political party or a known point of view on politically controversial matters.
Thirdly, there are those who regularly deal with the public in circumstances which might lead them to believe that the officer is in a position to influence the decisions of the authority. Again, it is important
874
that such an officer should not be identified with a particular political view.
The tradition of the impartial local government officer is one which took us a long time to establish. It has given us excellent local government. It is fundamental to our system. We should take steps to retain it. That is what the clause does, and that is what these amendments would undermine.
Amendments No. 32 suggests replacing the salary level of £13,500, above which posts are subject to the restrictions on public political activity, with the salary level of a Civil Service principal or an equivalent or higher grade. Since the salary of Civil Service principals is a little higher than £13,500, this would reduce the number of posts covered by the provisions. Amendment No. 34 would make an equivalent amendment in relation to part-time posts. Amendment No. 33 would replace the salary level of £13,500 with a reference to spine point 44 on the national scale for administrative professional, technical, executive and clerical staff, for an equivalent or higher grade. This is a point two-thirds of the way up the principal officer grade in local government. Spine point 44, as has already been pointed out to the Committee, is presently £18,078. This amendment would also reduce the number of posts covered by the provisions. Amendment No. 35 would make an equivalent amendment in relation to part-time posts.
Amendments Nos. 32 and 34 seem to misunderstand the parallel that they seek to draw with the Civil Service. The band of posts which is covered by the full restrictions on public political activity in the Civil Service runs much lower than principal, as the Widdicombe Committee recognised.
The grade of principal officer in local government is not the same as that of principal in the Civil Service. It was the grade of principal officer in local government that the Widdicombe Committee chose as the basis for their recommendation that all staff at or above that level should be subject to political restrictions. We have thought it right to adopt as the cut-off point that proposed by the independent Widdicombe Committee.
This evening I have listened with interest to the arguments that have been deployed, particularly by the noble Earl, Lord Carnarvon. At this hour of the night I cannot make a commitment, but I am happy to take away his two amendments to consider them again if he feels fit to withdraw them. I hope that that may, in part, satisfy noble Earl's quest for improving the Bill.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I have listened very carefully to the Minister's reply. What he has said to the noble Earl, Lord Carnarvon, is not totally hopeless, but he has not really addressed the fundamental difficulty on which I was concentrating when I moved the amendment. He has not addressed the issues raised by the two linked amendments, Amendments No. 27 and 28. The fundamental point is that the Government are seeking two different but overlapping criteria for imposing restrictions on local government officials. One is a series of criteria about the nature of the work and the other, which

875
operates in addition to the criteria about the nature of the work, is based on salary.
That is fundamentally inconsistent and fundamentally unacceptable. It is Amendments Nos. 27 and 28 which recognise the unacceptability of the salary bar. It was not proposed by Widdicombe, which talked in terms of grading. It is not a feature of the Civil Service code of practice, which also works on the basis of grading. All the evils which I see in the sum of £13,500 would apply even if the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, were pacified by being told that the £13,500 were to be up-graded in line with inflation or with pay awards, as I am sure she would be told if she asked that question.
I do not believe that, in the very modest move he has made towards the noble Earl, Lord Carnarvon, and the Association of County Councils, the Minister has effectively addressed the issue. On Amendment No. 27 I feel that I must seek the opinion of the Committee.
The Earl of Caithness: Before the noble Lord seeks the opinion of the Committee, I ask him to consider the fact that my noble friend has offered to reconsider. I have listened to the arguments and I, too, should like to reconsider all the amendments. I hope that, in view of the fact that we have reconsidered many things in the past, and that we have now offered to reconsider the matter, the noble Lord does not wish to seek the opinion of the Committee at this hour.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The offer of reconsideration was strictly limited to two amendments which propose a change to a different salary level. I have heard nothing from either Minister to indicate the fact that the Government recognise the fundamental unacceptability of having both the criteria in terms of job and salary.
If the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, will stand at the Dispatch Box and tell me that the Government recognise the justice of the case for limiting these restrictions to the type of job rather than to the salary, then I might reconsider my position.
The Earl of Caithness: I cannot give the noble Lord that assurance. However, I can assure him that I should like to look again at the whole matter, including his Amendments Nos. 27 and 28, in the light of the circumstances and in view of the arguments which Members have put before us.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The Minister must do so in the light of the opinion of the Committee on the fundamental issue.
9.9 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 27) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 77; Not-Contents, 43.

DIVISION NO. 3

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Blackstone, B.

Airedale, L.

Blease, L.

Ardwick, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

876

Briginshaw, L.

Molloy, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Monkswell, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Mulley, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Carter, L.

Ogmore, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Peston, L.

David, B.

Phillips, B.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Dean of Beswick, L. [Teller.]

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Donoughue, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Rea, L.

Ennals, L.

Rochester, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Ross of Newport, L.

Falkender, B.

Russell, E.

Gallacher, L.

Scanlon, L.

Galpern, L.

Seear, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Hampton, L.

Serota, B.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Shackleton, L.

Hirshfield, L.

Stallard, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Stedman, B.

Hughes, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Jay, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Jeger, B.

Tordoff, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

John-Mackie, L.

Underhill, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Kirkhill, L.

White, B.

Longford, E.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Willis, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

McNair, L.

Winstanley, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Young of Dartington, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ampthill, L.

Hives, L.

Arran, E.

Hooper, B.

Blatch, B.

Joseph, L.

Borthwick, L.

Kenilworth, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Kimball, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Long, V.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Butterworth, L.

Milverton, L.

Caithness, E.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Carnarvon, E.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Renton, L.

Craigavon, V.

Rochdale, V.

Craigmyle, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Skelmersdale, L.

Dundee, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Trafford, L.

Ferrers, E.

Trefgarne, L.

Fortescue, E.

Trumpington, B.

Gridley, L.

Ullswater, V.

Henley, L. [Teller.]

Young of Graffham, L.

Hesketh, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
9.17 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 3, line 30, leave out subsection (2).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 29 to 34 not moved.]
Clause 2 [Politically restricted posts]:
[Amendment Nos. 35 to 38 not moved.]
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 4, line leave out paragraph (a).
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment remove the provision whereby an officer of any de giving any type of advice to his authority, its committees or sub-committees falls to be designated as holding a restricted post. The provisions of Clause 2(3) are drafted in such broad terms as to be both unhelpful and unworkable. Local authorities will want to act within the law but the provisions of this part of the Bill will not assist them to do so.
Elsewhere, the Government have rejected amendments which would have restricted this clause to those giving policy, as opposed to technical, advice. Another amendment would have restricted the application of Clause 2(3)(a) to the officer mainly responsible for such advice. Neither of the amendments was accepted and the Government were not particularly enlightening as to how this clause should be applied.
The Government White Paper refers to advising members rather than giving advice on a regular basis to the authority, any committee or sub-committee of the authority, or to any joint committee on which the authority is represented. Widdicombe also referred to advising councillors but the Bill takes a broad brush approach in suggesting that officers giving advice at any level on a regular basis would be caught. Again, the Bill has tried to blur the distinction which Widdicombe sought to make whereby political restrictions applied only to those senior local government officers part of whose job it is to advise councillors and to adjudicate on matters of propriety.
While not accepting the point at which Widdicombe strikes this balance, the underlying principle is more sound than the principle on which this clause is based. There are sufficient constraints elsewhere in Part I to render this restriction superfluous. If the Bill is allowed to stand unamended, junior officers will be reluctant to gain experience of committee procedure by, for example, giving an update on progress on a particular construction project. Councillors will lose contact with officers dealing with matters on a day to day basis.
Widdicombe suggested a,
"simple rule with no exemptions but applying to fewer staff",
than in the Civil Service. The Government have effectively adopted Widdicombe's bar, which had been dropped from the White Paper, including the proposal to designate sensitive posts, which was the White Paper's alternative. There is also a ban on political special assistants and the ban is extended beyond the local town hall. This amendment goes a small way towards rectifying the balance and preserving the rights of junior members of staff who would otherwise be effected. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: This amendment would leave out the first of the criteria against which councils and the adjudicator are to judge whether a post is politically sensitive. This criterion is whether the holder of the post regularly advises councillors. We find it quite extraordinary to propose excluding this category.
878
There seems to us no doubt whatever that officers who are regularly advising members are those with conflicts between their duties as an impartial officer and as an active political figure. They are most likely to be seen by the public and to be in potential conflict. I do not believe that any person with experience of local government will have any real difficulty in applying the criterion.
I repeat that those who regularly advise councillors seem to us to provide one of the clearest cases for applying the political restrictions. That is why we do not believe that this amendment is justified.
Lord Dean of Beswick: I am sorry that the Minister was not more convincing in his reasons for rejecting this amendment. I believe that the case has been made out and the Minister has not answered the points that were made. I believe that, on the basis of the case that has been made for the exclusion of the persons concerned, the amendment was worthy of consideration. However, in view of what the Minister has said and bearing in mind the way in which some of the other amendments are interlocked, I have no doubt that we shall come back to the matter at a later stage. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick moved Amendment No. 40:
Page 4, line 8, after ("broadcasters") insert ("where the postholder concerned carries management responsibility for the presentation or dissemination of the views of the authority, and gives advice on such matters on a regular basis to the authority themselves, to any committee of sub-committee of the authority or to any joint committee on which the authority are represented.").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is to qualify the very wide inclusion of press officers and those working with journalists or broadcasters within the scope of political restriction by virtue of Clause 2(3)(b). The clause states that any person,
"acting on behalf of the authority on a regular basis for communicating with journalists or broadcasters",
will be a person included within the politically restricted category without appeal. That is a very wide provision which Ministers have implicitly accepted would cover the most junior press officers, whose duties involved the sending of press releases to journalists or dealing with routine press inquiries. In another place Ministers sought to make a virtue of this wide coverage by arguing that this provision would protect junior press officers from any hint of partiality in dealing with elected politicians.
The inclusion of press officers formed no part of the Widdicombe recommendations. Widdicombe recommended that senior officers (defined as those above the level of PO1) should be subject to political restriction. The inclusion of press officers arose at the stage of the White Paper, and was put forward as part of the Government's explicit rejection of the scope of the Widdicombe proposals. I refer to paragraphs 5.2a to 5.22 of the proposals.
Here it was argued that defining the relevant group as principal officers went too wide. Therefore the Government proposed to move for a blanket ban only in relation to more senior posts. They proposed

879
to elect for a selective ban in relation to certain categories of officer below the most senior level, including press officers. What has now happened is that both categories of restriction have appeared in the Bill; namely, restriction by salary or grade and restriction of particular types of post such as press officer.
The first thing that Ministers should do in this debate is to explain why both the blanket and selective approaches are included within the same set of proposals. It almost appears that in their approach the Government want the best of two worlds. The second point that Ministers should be asked to explain is why this provision is so apparently wide and to what activities the Government expect it to relate. The wording is extremely wide. In his or her daily work, no officer does other than act on behalf of the authority. The Bill does not define "regular basis", although it may be assumed to mean something that is a standard and recurrent feature of a person's or officer's job. The word "communicating" is also undefined in the Bill and can clearly cover routine dissemination of information—for
example, faxing press releases or even ringing round to arrange press conferences on behalf of the authority.
Confronted with wording of this breadth, a local authority might easily and properly conclude that even the clerical staff in its press section should be covered. Furthermore, junior staff involved in events organised by local authorities which involve the press —for example, entertainment events, mayoral functions, the work of committees and sub-committees or social events —may easily be the people who deal on a routine basis with local journalists to notify them of the events and make this information available to the public. The wording is presumably not intended to cover the very junior committee clerk who mails agenda to local newspapers on a week by week basis. Yet there is nothing in the wording which actually states that such a person might not be covered.
Thirdly, the Minister should state why this provision is included when no equivalent provision is contained within the Civil Service code of practice, of which the Committee has heard so much this evening from the Government. The code includes a sophisticated set of definitions of what are called "sensitive posts"—for example, those which are normally banned from engaging in national or local political activity—although there is an appeal in all such cases. There is no ban on staff dealing with journalists and broadcasters. They are not mentioned in the code of practice.
The nearest equivalent provision is the inclusion within "sensitive posts" of staff who regularly speak for the Government or a department in dealing with outside bodies which may appear to these organisations to have influence in the application of government policy affecting them. This is clearly a far tighter definition than that contained in the Bill. It is not geared directly to press and public relations, but seeks to locate the degree of responsibility exercised by the official concerned. This is clearly a
880
more responsible approach than a blanket ban whose scope is left undefined.
The disparity between the Civil Service code of practice and the provisions of Clause 2(3) is thrown into sharp relief by figures. These figures, first published in the Observer on 26th February 1989, show that in the financial year 1988–89 government spending on advertising was estimated to amount to about £100 million. This includes spending on the Enterprise Initiative and 1992, Open for Business, both substantial government publicity campaigns. The way local authorities have been treated and are to be treated in the publicity they disseminate to, and on behalf of, their ratepayers is in stark contrast to the enormous sums of money which the water authorities appear to be spending on promoting the privatisation scheme; money which belongs, as they are public bodies, to the water users and not to the providers. As it suited the Government's politics and schemes, they have allowed it to continue.
Whatever view is taken of the political content of such campaigns, or of the role of officials involved in promoting them, the fact remains that officials involved in substantial national publicity may escape restriction, whereas the most junior local authority press officer, or committee clerk, may well be placed in the politically restricted categories. That is treatment which we consider to be grossly unfair. It simply does not make sense and it directly contradicts statements previously made by Ministers.
For example, Mr. Gummer, speaking in another place on 14th February on Second Reading (at col. 245 of Hansard), described the regulations as imposing,
"a rather lighter regime on local government officers than there is on civil servants".
Could anything be more of a mis-statement of what will really happen than what the Minister said on that occasion? In the same debate the Secretary of State, Mr. Ridley, who I understand is very near the point where he will depart from that office, said at col. 167 that,
"we are mirroring, as far as possible, the very rules that apply for the Civil Service".
The facts, of course, completely belie those particular statements: no such thing is happening in this particular Bill.
The disparity is further underlined by the Government's own legislation in the Local Government Acts of 1986 and 1988. Those measures, as Members of the Committee are aware, have substantially curtailed local government's publicity powers. Section 3 of the 1986 Act limits those powers to the provision of local government information on local government functions and services, as opposed to matters relating to local government, or local government matters affecting the particular area, under the original Section 142 of the Local Government Act 1972.
Having narrowed local government's powers in that way, Section 2 of the 1986 Act provides that even this publicity must not,
"appear to be designed to affect the support for a political party".
Section 27 of the 1988 Act then tightened the test of prohibition even more. The Government have

881
already, by their own account, legislated to prevent party political publicity. No such constraints exist in relation to central government publicity. Yet it is local authority officers, potentially at a very much more junior level than their Civil Service counterparts, who will be subject to political restrictions and their basic freedoms in this particular case denied them.
The amendment seeks to tie a restriction to those press and publicity officers who carry "management responsibility" for the presentation or dissemination of the views of the authority. An officer who is restricted should advise members on a regular basis on such matters. The formulation for the giving of advice on this particular basis is adopted from paragraph (a) of the same subsection. The purport is to propose that senior press officers or other officials who are responsible for devising and presenting a particular aspect of policy or of the council's activities should be those to be brought within the ambit of political restriction.
While speaking to this particular amendment, I have attempted to indicate where I think some of the unfairnesses lie and the very large numbers of junior staff who could well be caught up under the provisions of this Bill, and, as I said, denied what really is a basic freedom to which we submit they are entitled in the name of justice. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: The amendment seeks to restrict the number of officers who will fall into the politically restricted category by virtue of the criterion which includes those who speak to the media for the authority. It would restrict the criterion to those who carry management responsibility for such communication and give advice on representation matters.
The second limb of this restriction would reduce the criterion to a sub-category of the criterion about those who regularly advise the authority. It would therefore make the paragraph pointless. Leaving aside that defect, however, I would suggest to the Committee that it is wrong to restrict the criterion in that way.
As drafted, the criterion refers to those who communciate regularly on behalf of the authority to the media. Such officers prepare press releases and speak on behalf of the authority to the media and the press. They are like other local authority staff appointed to serve the council as a whole. It is important that when they are making their public utterances on behalf of the authority they should be, and be seen to be, politically impartial. It is important that councillors, the public and the press should have confidence that the views they are receiving are the views of the council that the officer represents and not his personal political views.
We all know how easy it is, even when reading a prepared text, to give some added emphasis, without
882
adding anything so formal as a gloss. We think that all those who actually do the communicating should be regarded as holding sensitive posts. That does not mean the typist who types, or faxes, as the noble Lord, Lord Dean, said, a press release, or a machine operator who produces a glossy hand out. The crucial words are,
"on behalf of the authority for communicating".
The person concerned must therefore be in a position to represent the authority's views, and must be doing it on behalf of the authority. That is not a blanket ban. It is a specific ban. That is why we will resist the amendment.
Lord Dean of Beswick: I naturally expected the Government to resist the amendment, but the way in which it was resisted and the reasons given indicate clearly that there are two sets of rules. The Minister will have to leave the brief which he has been given by his civil servants, on instructions from Ministers in another place, and tell us the reasons, because there is no comparison between the way local authority officers and civil servants are being dealt with.
Highly paid civil servants make press releases, inspired releases and leakages, even from No. 10, when it suits them. No one places a restriction on them. I wonder what much of the argument is about, having spent a considerable amount of time in local government. One of our senior officers happened to be a Conservative councillor with a local authority outside Manchester. We never had any difficulty. We never tried to bulldoze him or put the thumbscrews on him. He knew where he stood and he carried out his job.
There are contradictory cases. There was a man who managed a direct works department in the "red republic" of South Yorkshire. He was a strong supporter of the Conservative Party. I must admit there were not many of them as it was South Yorkshire. Nevertheless, he was allowed to carry on so long as it did not impede his judgment and his job. He was seen to help his political party at elections occasionally.
The premise contained in this part of the Bill is taking us down a dangerous road. I received a similar answer to that given earlier to my noble friend Lord McIntosh. I do not intend to delay the Committee, but I should like to see what the Minister has said. I have no doubt that this is one of the points that we shall wish to raise at a later stage. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 41 not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill): I should remind the Committee that if Amendment No. 42 is agreed to, I shall not be able to call Amendment No. 43.
9.45 p.m.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 42:
Page 5, line 4, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert ("any post as teacher or lecturer, excluding Headteachers, Deputy Headteachers, Principals and Vice Principals, of a school, college or other educational institution or establishment which in England and Wales is maintained or assisted by a local education authority or, in Scotland, is under the management of or is assisted by an education authority").
The noble Baroness said: It is a personal view of mine that I should have been much more radical and bold with my amendment, in that I believe it is inappropriate and not right for any teachers to become involved in local politics. From my contact with local parents, which is considerable, I believe that view is shared by many. Involvement in local politics or party politics is incompatible with the professional job of a teacher.
Many of the arguments that were deployed earlier today by my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding on previous amendments, referring to the professionalism of local government officers, apply also to my amendment. I believe that it protects the professionalism of teachers. After all, they have a great influence on our young children. They are in the front line of moulding young people. Therefore the highest degree of objectivity and impartiality is important when dealing with them.
The National Association of Head Teachers has written to me. That is the only letter I have received objecting to the amendment, as set against the hundreds of approaches which I have had in support of it. That association has asked for a list of abuses, but that is not the point. I shall not catalogue abuses, because I do not think this is about professionals abusing their position.
While it is legal for teachers, head teachers and deputy head teachers to become involved in politics, I believe that while it is not an abuse of their position they create a perception of themselves which is damaging to their professionalism.
I shall give two examples of perfectly legitimate situations where I believe the perception of the people concerned was damaging to their professionalism. These are real examples, but for obvious reasons I shall not name the people. The first example is that a deputy head was a leading member of a political group on a neighbouring authority which took up about half of her teaching time. The other half was, of course, spent as a deputy head in the authority. Half of her time was spent being overtly political. It was not unnatural that the parents had a perception of that deputy head teacher and about her ability to be objective. I am not accusing her of not being objective in her role as deputy head at that school, but I believe that she put her own reputation at risk.
The second example is of a head teacher who was in the habit of writing to the press. He wrote a highly political letter to the press inviting people to think in a particular political way, signing himself as the headmaster of a particular school rather than Joe Bloggs of 55, Acacia Avenue. Therefore he brought his own professional status into the political arena.
884
Again, I believe that that affects people's perception of that person carrying out his duties as a head teacher.
As was said earlier about local government officers, when people enter the police, the armed forces, the Civil Service and—one hopes in the future—local government and teaching, choices are made. I believe that in the choice of the vocation of teaching, the requirement for professionalism, objectivity and impartiality discounts travelling into the world of party politics. Choices need to be made and I should like to think that people entering teaching will make a choice to pursue an apolitical career.
My amendment is on the side of teachers. A large number of people who have approached me have been teachers and work alongside colleagues who are very active in the political field. I believe that they would be pleased to see the amendment succeed in this Committee. It goes a long way to enhance the professional status of teachers which has been damaged in recent years. I would be the first to say that I wish to do anything possible that I believe will enhance the professional status of a teacher. It is in that vein that I beg to move the amendment.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Will the noble Baroness help me immediately? The purport of her amendment is to move within the area of proscription two categories of people who are currently excluded—heads and deputy heads. However, other teachers are not touched. I see the noble Baroness nods her head.
Baroness Blatch: I think I confused the noble Lord in saying what my personal preference would be. My personal preference would be to include all teachers in the provision. However, I have deliberately restricted the provision because I think it would disenfranchise a very large number of people in the country as a whole, and I am not sure that it would succeed in obtaining the support of the Committee. I also believe that one needs to start with the two posts that set the tone for an institution; that is the head teacher and the deputy head teacher.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that explanation. I believe that her case is outrageous. She has made a vicious, underhand attack on a group of public servants who do not deserve the apparent good will of the noble Baroness.
The noble Baroness stated at one point that she was on the side of teachers. She has certainly fooled me. I should like very much to examine the evidence on which the noble Baroness says that her case is based. I understood her to say that hundreds of people had written to her in support of the amendment, and that only one person had written to her to oppose it. I am intrigued to know how those people knew about the amendment. Apparently, thousands of people were told of the amendment and 101 people wrote to the noble Baroness. Of

885
those 101 people who wrote, 100 said, "Three cheers for the amendment" and only one said "Boo". I am absolutely intrigued by that process. Quite frankly, that process is very farfetched.
The noble Baroness talked in terms of protecting the professional integrity of heads and deputy heads. Other than the noble Baroness, no one has challenged the professional integrity of heads and deputy heads. The noble Baroness has put up an Aunt Sally and has proceeded in a disgraceful way to challenge the Professional integrity of a lot of people.
The noble Baroness is quite right. She knows of many individuals in posts of responsibility in the teaching profession who hold political views. She gave us two illustrations to support her case. I hope she will tell us which one of those two illustrations referred to a member of the Conservative Party. The noble Baroness gave us two illustrations, and, if she is fair, she will have used one illustration from a member of one political party and one from another. We cannot believe that she has been able to find only two illustrations, both of which concerned members of the Labour Party or of active left-wing parties.
The noble Baroness gave us her preference when she said she would much have preferred to apply the provision to the whole of the teaching profession and not just to heads and deputy heads. However, she felt she may be going a little too far in that. I hope the Minister will defend his Bill. The noble Baroness is seeking to amend paragraphs (a) and (b) of Clause 2(8). I very much hope that in this instance the Minister will not see fit to extend the scope of the proscription which has been laid upon what I consider to be very important individuals.
The noble Baroness says that she wants to see apolitical teachers. There is nothing to stop someone who teaches apolitically from holding political views. I find it absolutely astounding that the noble Baroness, and many of her friends, somehow or other believe that it is impossible for someone who holds political views not to be able to hold firmly to a code of conduct or ethics which states that what he says should be either wholly non-political or should be balanced politically.
My wife was a teacher and I have been a teacher of sorts in various institutions. I know hundreds of people who are involved in teaching, many of whom are of my political persuasion; but I can assure the noble Baroness that there are many who are not. All of them are fine teachers. Perhaps the experience of the noble Baroness in Cambridgeshire is wholly and singularly applicable to her view. But that has not been my experience.
I believe that the Government have been wise to exclude the post of head teacher or principal of a school and any other post of teacher or lecturer from the proscription in respect of holding politically restricted posts. I believe that the noble Baroness, for a reason which I cannot divine, has sought to besmirch the name of hundreds of thousands of teachers who do a first class job, and do it not only to the best of their professional ability but also, I believe, to the satisfaction of the overwhelming number of parents and ratepayers. They are not fools. They know that teachers have political views.
886
I read in the papers from time to time of individuals or groups of individuals in schools who are criticised for having allowed their politics to overcome their professional integrity. However, those cases are very few and far between. We certainly do not want the kind of amendment that the noble Baroness has moved this evening, which I believe will be bitterly resented by the teaching profession and fair-minded people everywhere.
Baroness Seear: I should also like very strongly to oppose the amendment. I speak as an ex-lecturer who fought I forget how many elections while still working as a lecturer. I was not, it is true, a principal or vice-principal, but I take it that the principle is much the same.
Surely people want teachers to be people who have all-round interests and who take an active interest in the community in which they live and therefore, inevitably, have political views. The idea that teachers should go through their lives without holding or expressing political views is absurd. When they express their political views they are open to challenge, and they should be challenged by people who think that there is bias.
I can also say from my own experience that the few people who abused their position politically did not do so openly as political activists. They were not political activists but managed nonetheless to use their position on occasion to impart doctrine which I should have thought the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, would find a great deal more objectionable than the views expressed by people who took an active and open part in political affairs. I very much hope that the amendment will not be accepted.
Lord Hesketh: It is always a pleasure to find the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, defending a Government Bill and helping it to emerge from this Chamber unchanged.
The amendment would have the effect of making head teachers and deputy head teachers, principals and vice-principals of colleges, subject to political restriction while still excluding other teachers and lecturers.
That is an aspect of the Bill which the Government have considered very carefully. The Widdicombe Report considered the possible exclusion of teachers and came down against it, largely on the grounds that so many of them served as councillors that such an exclusion would be a major restriction of democracy. The research associated with the Widdicombe Report showed that 16 per cent. of councillors were local government employees and of those 58 per cent. were school or further education teachers. The consultations which the Government undertook on Widdicombe's recommendations showed an almost universal welcome for not disqualifying teachers. In the light of those consultations the Government's White Paper of July 1988 concurred with Widdicombe's view.
The essence of the matter is that teachers, including head teachers, are doing a quite different sort of job from those local government officials who

887
are concerned with providing political advice to councillors as the essence of their job. Indeed, the effect of recent legislation in the education field is to increase the distance between heads and other teachers on the one hand, and their governing bodies and local authority committees on the other. Heads and other teachers cannot be given jobs for improper twin-tracking purposes; they have to run the schools concerned. Nor will the head of any one school, in relation to his or her governing body, be able to exercise decisive influence over the local education authority's resourcing of schools or policies on staffing matters.
For those reasons the Government do not accept that there is a case for the political restriction either of all the teachers and lecturers or of the heads, principals and their deputies, as envisaged in the amendment. Perhaps I should say to my noble friend Lady Blatch that I do not accept that the purpose of the amendment is to besmirch the reputation of teachers. I understand, although I do not agree with, the reasons for the amendment. Therefore we shall resist it.
10 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: I thank my noble friend for that reply. His reference to the amendment being a restriction of democracy is no greater or lesser a case than that of the local government officers whom we have been discussing for most of today. Perhaps I should say to the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, that I have spoken publicly about the amendment for a long time, including at the local government conference of the Conservative Party in March when the press, including both television and newspapers, were present. I said then that I intended to do something about the matter when the Bill came before the House. Whenever I have been invited to speak in various parts of the country, I have also mentioned my concern about it.
Many people are concerned about politicking in classrooms and schools. I could have gone much further than my amendment goes, but I have not done so. The amendment was not an attack on the integrity of teachers, although I do not know whether I have convinced the noble Lord, Lord Graham, of that. I greatly admire teachers and the job that they must do. I was in two first-class schools yesterday—St. Peter's in Huntingdon in my area; and a small junior school, Brampton Junior School. They are excellent schools doing a marvellous job. The amendment casts no aspersions whatever on the integrity and professionalism of the people working in those and many other schools that I know. I believe that it would go a long way towards protecting them. The illustrations that I gave were just two examples because the NAHT asked for examples. It called them examples of abuse; I called them legal examples, but they are examples which, I believe, create a distortion.
I am grateful for the 1988 Act which for the first time allowed me as a school governor to ask such questions when appointing staff, as my LEA had not
888
allowed it. It is now possible to ask a prospective member of staff, particularly a head teacher, whether he or she intends to become involved in local party politics. It is important for a governing body to know the kind of person whom they are appointing to a school. I am grateful for the freedom that the Act allows.
I have not only received letters on the subject, but have been questioned in person and telephoned. People have approached me at meetings. Some of those who have approached me have been teachers, but most have been parents. The only letter that I have received opposing the amendment was from the NAHT.
I understand from my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour, who is not in the Chamber, that my amendment is technically incorrect regarding Scotland. I understand that in Scotland there is a different terminology for the people who work in Scottish schools. For that reason, I shall withdraw my amendment. That will at least allow us the summer months to think about it and will enable those people with a good case for opposing it to put forward their case. I accept some of the points made by my noble friend—
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Before the noble Baroness sits down, I must say that I am grateful to have the opportunity to accept her assurance that her motives were entirely pure. Although I had the impression that she was attacking the integrity of teachers, I am pleased to hear that that was not part of her argument. I completely accept what she says.
Baroness Blatch: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his generous comments. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 43:
Page 5, line 9, leave out ("as a teacher or lecturer").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of the amendment is to seek clarification which may be helpful to the Committee. Under subsection (8)(b), those posts which escape the ban are:
"any other post as a teacher or lecturer in any such school, college, institution or establishment".
The burden of my amendment is to leave out the phrase,
"as a teacher or lecturer",
so that the subsection would read:
"any other post in any such school, college, institution or establishment".
There are others whom I think ought to be excluded, for instance school secretaries, media resource officers, school and college librarians, caretakers, technical staff and technicians. In our view all those people should be equally entitled to exemption. Therefore I ask the Minister: why are only the teachers and lecturers involved?
I have made my point. I hope that the noble Earl will see it and either accept the amendment or say something helpful about it. I beg to move.
The Earl of Arran: This amendment would extend the exemption of teachers and lecturers from possibly being in the politically restricted category to all those employed in schools and colleges. This again would be to introduce an irrational element into the definition of a politically restricted group.
The Bill's proposals exempt teachers and lecturers because they are doing a job which is different in kind from those of other local authority staff. Provision is already made in the education Acts to cover questions about their using their position to promote particular political views. However, this amendment would extend that exemption to anyone else working in a school or college.
We admit that it is unlikely that those other than teachers are in politically sensitive jobs. However, there may be such cases as a bursar or administrator who regularly advises the local education committee on some matter. We do not think it is right to make the place where an officer happens to work decisive on whether he or she could be in the politically restricted class. An administrator working in a school would be exempt under this amendment whereas someone doing exactly the same job elsewhere would not be exempt.
That seems to us to introduce an element of irrationality into the definition of a politically restricted group; by that we mean the chance that the decisions about the local organisation of the service would determine whether or not someone was liable to be included in the restricted group. We think that the tests should be the kind of work that the officer is doing; not where he or she happens to work. We think that a definition that relies simply on the place of work, like one which relies solely on the level of pay, could well be criticised.
In the light of those comments I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Graham, will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: The Minister has taken the Committee through the inconsistencies and what, in my view, are the stupidities of the application of the Bill. There are some individuals who work in a school, namely, the teachers and others who are doing important jobs. They are not only teaching; they are also having face to face discussions with parents and in many other ways doing important work. And they are able to carry on their political activity should they so wish—which we applaud. But a caretaker is not able to do so. Nor are those who work in the schools meals service.
I know how important the school caretaker is. I have heard it said that the caretaker is even more important than the head teacher. He has so much to do with whether the school is available and the conditions in which it operates. Surely it is ludicrous to include individuals who are very careful and play their full part in the ethos of the school. The Minister used the phrase, "it is in the nature of the job". The nature of a caretaker's job means that he is in a politically sensitive group. But a headmistress or a
890
headmaster is not in a politically sensitive group. My case is not that they should both be included but that they should both be excluded from that group. To put it frankly but politely, it is an anomaly and a nonsense of which I am sure those outside this Chamber will remind the Minister more than once. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
[Amendment No. 44 not moved.]
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 45:
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause:
("Scope of political restrictions.
—(1) Regulations made under section 1(5) may prescribe requirements in relation to the following and no other matter—

(a) candidature for public elected office (other than to a parish or community council);

(b) holding office in a political party;

(c) speaking and writing in public (other than in an official capacity) in a way that might be regarded as engaging in party political debate; and

(d) canvassing at elections.

(2) In particular, no regulation made under section 1(5) shall prescribe any requirement in relation to—

(a) forms of political campaigning and activity other than canvassing or speaking or writing in public; or

(b) speaking or writing in an official capacity.").

The noble Lord said: The amendment deals with the scope of political restrictions. The purpose of the new clause is to insert into the Bill the scope of activities which will fall within those which may be regarded as politically restricted. The list is modelled directly on the recommendations of the Widdicombe inquiry which the Government say they intend to enshrine in the regulations. However, no details have been forthcoming concerning the regulations, let alone any draft regulations.
My noble friend Lord McIntosh, more than once this evening, has bitterly referred to that aspect of the Bill. The new clause is an attempt to deal with two important issues. First, it prevents the restrictions on political campaigning and activities from extending further than canvassing, writing or speaking in public. Secondly, it attempts to preserve the rights of officers to write or speak in public in an official capacity, notwithstanding that the issue concerned may be controversial.
The list of activities in the new clause which will be subject to restrictions is modelled directly on the recommendations of Widdicombe in paragraph 6.217 of the report. The Government have already said in their White Paper at 5.24 that they wish to give effect to the recommendations.
It will be recalled that the politically restricted grades of civil servants, which broadly speaking are higher executive officers and upwards, are disbarred from national political activity defined in the code. Staff in the intermediate group may participate in such activities with the permission of their departments. It will be seen that the Civil Service code operates a more sophisticated and flexible system by avoiding a simple blanket ban applicable to a wide range of grades, including junior staff.
The evening is late. This is a genuine attempt to assist the Government in including in the Bill matters which we genuinely believe will be helpful in the interpretation of these issues. When we are talking about holding office in a political party, we must remember that by analogy to local politics it might be thought that the area of greatest concern would be the holding of office within a political party, which relates directly to its public campaigning in the local area. Thus the constituency press officer might be thought to have a public profile. But it is more difficult to see how a branch treasurer, a constituency social secretary or the premises officer for a political party are likely to be individuals of whom the public will be remotely aware.
There are a number of other illustrations which, if the night had been younger, I should have been pleased to tell the Committee about. But I am sure the Minister and his advisers have their brief ready and I look forward to hearing it. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: This new clause would limit the scope of the regulations defining the political restrictions which are to form part of the conditions of employment of officers in the politically restricted group to certain aspects. These aspects are exactly for what the Government intend to use the power. I am happy to give an undertaking that we shall not be proposing any use of the regulation-making power outside the four corners of these items.
By the time that we reach Report stage we shall have put to the local authority associations our firm proposals for the use of these powers. Everyone will be able to see that this is what we intend. If any noble Lords have any doubt about what is proposed, we can return to the question at that stage. I hope that with that undertaking the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I am grateful to hear that we shall be confined to the subheads, as the Minister said—the four corners, as I understand the illustration to mean. I understand also that we shall be in possession of a lot more flesh on the bones by the time we reach the Report stage in the overspill period. I am happy to wait until then to see it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.15 p.m.
Clause 3 [Exemptions from political restriction]:
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 46:
Page 5, line 19, leave out ("person") and insert ("panel").
The noble Lord said: I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 48, 54, 58, 60, 63 and 65 to 71. The burden of all those amendments deals with the appeals procedure. The purpose is to make the procedure for determining appeals by local authority staff more analagous to the procedures of the Civil Service.
In pleading support for his case, more than once the Minister rested his case on the good evidence that exists for the various procedures, including appeals, with the Civil Service. Throughout the Bill, the Government have taken the line that the provisions proposed for local government employees are far less onerous than those imposed on civil servants. During the Second Reading in another place, the Secretary of State said that the Government were mirroring as far as possible the very rules which apply to the Civil Service. The Minister described the Bill as imposing a lighter regime on local government officers than exists on civil servants.
The Government chose not to raise those arguments during the Lords Second Reading. Nonetheless, it is important to challenge those misconceptions. A key example of the difference between the way in which civil servants are treated and that to be accorded to local government officers is the procedure for appealing against political restriction.
The Civil Service appeals board comprises a chairman or deputy, one person drawn from a panel nominated by the official side and one person drawn from a trade union panel. In addition, the Civil Service code of practice specifies the procedure and time-table for appeals.
This amendment, and those grouped with it, seek to ensure that local government officers can similarly appeal to a panel. It also proposes a more practical system whereby the burden of thousands of appeals will not fall on two sole individuals; one for England and Wales and one for Scotland.
That is the burden of the amendments. They mirror precisely the arrangements which apply to the Civil Service when the issue of political restriction cannot be resolved at a departmental level. No matter how competent, one single adjudicator can embody only so much experience. That person will be undertaking a completely new role. This amendment proposes a sensible alternative which I commend to the Committee. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: The effect of these amendments is to substitute a panel of persons for the person appointed under Clause 3(1) to consider applications for exemption from political restriction. The panel is to consist of three members—an independent person who shall be the chairman, a representative of local authorities, and a person representative of trade unions with members affected or potentially affected by the political restrictions proposed under Clause 1(5).
Our purpose in the Bill is to set out certain clearly defined categories of senior local government staff who should be prevented from taking part in public political activity. One of these categories included in Clause 2(1)(g) is different from the others, because it is defined according to officers' salary level rather than the nature of their duties. Because of that we believe it is right that a further mechanism should be provided, enabling the independent person to be able to grant exemptions for persons in that group.

893
It would be the Secretary of State's intention to appoint someone with suitable experience as the independent person. The issues which the independent person would have to consider are, we believe, fairly clear-cut and we feel that it is unnecessary to establish a full-scale panel as suggested.
One of the main advantages an independent person would bring, as compared to a panel, is that he would be truly independent and not a representative of interest groups. We do not think it appropriate that trade union representatives should sit in judgment on this question. We are talking of the implementation of a clear set of criteria determined by Parliament. It is for that reason that we feel that the answer proposed in the Bill is the most satisfactory solution, and we resist the noble Lord's amendment.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Why is it that the Minister picks and chooses between Civil Service practice, which he tells us is good, sound and pure; and yet when we say that what is good enough for the Civil Service should be good enough for local government, he says that we should forget about that? He says that what the Government propose is better. If that is so, why does he put up with an inferior system for the Civil Service? What is different?
The Minister says that it would be wrong to introduce an element of selective pleading and bargaining. However, what happens in the Civil Service arrangement? That exists now. The basic question which the Minister must ask is: is Widdicombe fair? I do not believe that it is. If the Minister wants to convince people outside the Committee that he is serious, then he must explain why the practice and procedures which apply for appeals in political matters in the Civil Service should not apply to local government.
Lord Hesketh: We come back to an argument which we have covered several times today. The noble Lord, Lord Graham, likes to insinuate that the Government's position is that these proposals are in every way similar to those of the Civil Service. Quite clearly, this is a matter of horses for courses, and we are talking about two different situations.
We have tried to mirror the fine example to be found in the Civil Service. However, there will always be occasions, as I pointed out this afternoon, where it will be different because the Civil Service is a single employer. The situation is quite different when one is talking of local authorities. Therefore, there will always be areas of difference, and that is the Government's position. I explained that before and I am happy to do so again.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 47:
Page 5, line 20, after ("made") insert ("on appeal").
The noble Lord said: With Amendment No. 47, I should also like to speak to Amendments Nos. 49, 52, 53 and 64. Before doing so, I should observe to both the Minister and my noble friend Lord Graham that the debate on the last series of amendments was conducted on the basis that there will be an appeals procedure. If one looks at subsection (2)(a) of Clause 3, one sees that the basis for the appeals procedure is where:
"a local authority have specified or are proposing to specify any post under the authority in a list maintained under subsection (2) of section (2) above".
There is now no subsection (2) of Section 2 above as the Committee in its wisdom has removed that from the Bill. Therefore, the question seriously arises as to whether the appeals procedure has any meaning.
The remaining qualifications in Clause 3(2) are additional and not alternative. Before taking up too much time of the Committee on appeals procedure, I should like to seek the Minister's opinion, as a result of the passage of Amendment No. 28, as to whether the appeals procedure set out in Clause 3 has any meaning at all.
On the supposition that the appeals procedure has meaning without Clause 2(2), then the amendments to which I am referring are relevant and have some significance. At paragraph 5.22, the White Paper stated that the restricted posts were to be:
"nominated locally on the basis of statutory criteria".
That implies that there is an element of local decision-making although the Secretary of State has overriding power. If that is to be the case, surely local authorities should have to establish, as our major amendment states, a procedure for initial applications so that they can notify the staff affected of those applications and curtail what would otherwise be a protracted and unnecessary national procedure. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: I have to say to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, that I am skating on thin ice but I believe that he is correct in saying that it is otiose, in which case we would have to look at the position before Report stage. I believe that is the case.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The Minister is right. It is obvious that the acceptance of Amendment No. 28 has made necessary a large number of consequential amendments, not only to Clause 3 but to later parts of the Bill. I accept that it is my responsibility, having moved the amendment, to attempt to put the Bill right before it comes before the House on Report. In the meantime, it would be better if I withdrew this amendment, did not move other amendments, and opposed the Question, That Clause 3 stand part of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 48 not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 49:
Page 5, line 21, at end insert ("after the failure of any initial application for such exception to the local authority concerned").
The noble Lord said: It may assist the Minister if I speak long enough for him to seek advice on this matter. My understanding is that the important part of Clause 3 is subsection (2)(a), which is a fundamental criterion for the appointment of,
"a person for the purposes of this section to consider applications made … for exemption from political restriction".
The reference to Clause 2(2) is an essential part of subsection (2) and the rest of Clause 3 depends on that reference to Clause 2(2) which no longer exists. If my analysis is correct, Clause 3 is either impossible or so badly drafted that it needs to be taken back and reconsidered. Therefore I beg to move Amendment No. 49 in order to give the Minister an opportunity to reflect on that point.
Lord Hesketh: It is my understanding that two points should be made. First, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is correct in his summation of the situation concerning Clause 3. However, I am also advised that I should draw the Committee's attention to the fact that when the noble Lord moved his original amendment which has so affected Clause 3 he did so without informing the Committee of the consequential effect of it. I should put that on record. However, we accept his suggestion for the moment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am grateful for that. I accept the rebuke that it would have been better if, in moving Amendment No. 28, I had indicated that there were further consequential amendments. This is a failing that has happened when the Government have introduced amendments at a later stage consequential on amendments introduced at an earlier stage. There is nothing remarkable or unusual about it. I do not feel guilty that I failed to do what I should have done. However, it is an omission for which I apologise to the Committee. In the circumstances, I give notice that I shall not move any of the amendments standing in my name; namely, Amendments Nos. 50 to 71 inclusive. We can therefore proceed to the Motion that Clause 3 stand part of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 50 to 71 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 3 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I wish to oppose the Motion that Clause 3 shall stand part of the Bill for the reasons already explained.
Clause 3 negatived.
The Earl of Arran: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do adjourn during pleasure until 11.30 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 10.32 to 11.30 p.m.]
Viscount Long: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 12 midnight.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 11.30 to 12 midnight.]
Viscount Long: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 12.30 a.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 12 midnight to 12.30 a.m.]
Viscount Long: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 1 a.m.
Moved, That the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 1 a.m.—(Viscount Long.)
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, before the Question is put, I wonder whether the noble Viscount the acting Whip on the Government Front Bench can indicate on how many more occasions he thinks we may have to go through this procedure. The House will be interested to know whether he has any idea how long it may be or how many more times we may have to adjourn.
Viscount Long: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for reminding me of what is going on tonight. The proceedings in another place will shortly be coming to a conclusion. Therefore, by about 2 a.m. if not before, we shall probably be able to conclude.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, if the noble Viscount says that we shall not finish these proceedings until 2 a.m., would it not be wise to adjourn for a longer period?
The Deputy Speaker (Viscount Davidson): My Lords, the Question is that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 1 a.m. As many as are of that opinion will say, Content?
Noble Lords: Content.
The Deputy Speaker: To the contrary, Not-Content?
Lord Hacking: Not-Content.
The Deputy Speaker: I think the Contents have it. Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 12.30 to 1 a.m.]
1.7 a.m.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, I—
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, I think it is quite in order to raise the question of the Business of the House before the noble Viscount, Lord Long, moves the Motion. I understand that he wishes to make a Business Statement, which I am sure noble Lords will be interested to hear.
Tomorrow we are to consider Commons reasons on the Social Security Bill. It will be an interesting debate.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead): My Lords, the noble Lord the Opposition Chief Whip will, I am sure, wish to continue speaking in a moment, and we should like to continue listening to him. However, I think that the noble Lord ought perhaps to speak to a Motion. Therefore, if my noble friend Lord Long moves a Motion for an adjournment, we can then give way to the noble Lord and he can continue speaking. That is the correct procedure and the noble Lord will then be speaking to a Motion.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, I should hate to quarrel with the Leader of the House at this early hour on Thursday morning but it is my understanding that, if the noble Viscount the duty Government Whip moves a Motion for an adjournment, it will not be possible to receive the Message. The House will then have to resume to receive the Message. If the Message arrives from the Commons before the Motion to adjourn the House is actually moved, we can receive the Message. Once the Motion has been put to the House, we cannot receive the Message at that time. Therefore I was in a sense anticipating the Business Statement which I understood the duty Whip was about to make concerning the progress as he saw it of the matter which we are about to have under consideration. If I am wrong, no doubt the Leader of the House will correct me.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I know that I am going over the same ground, but if my noble friend Lord Long moves the Motion for the adjournment, that Motion can then be spoken to. We shall not conclude until the noble Lord has satisfied himself that he has said what he wishes to say and has received a reasonable answer. It is just a question of having a Motion before the House. Unless a Motion is moved, neither the noble Lord nor any other noble Lord ought to be speaking.
Viscount Long: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 1.20 a.m.
Moved, That the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 1.20 a.m.—(Viscount Long.)
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, I understand that it is possible for this Motion to be withdrawn at a later stage. The noble Viscount may wish to withdraw the Motion if a certain event, which we all anticipate, takes place. It has been
898
confirmed to me through the usual channels that the Motion can be withdrawn so that we may receive the Message which we shall debate during tomorrow's Sitting of Parliament, in some thirteen and a half hours' time. This will no doubt be an interesting debate. My noble friend Lady Jeger has left me a message to say that she has been listening to the debate in another place.
Following that debate tomorrow we shall return to the Committee stage of the Local Government and Housing Bill. We had interesting debates on the Bill today. Indeed there was a government defeat earlier in the evening, though I had not intended to mention that fact. I hope that it does not cause undue embarrassment in any quarters, but it was quite an important amendment. Having considered that Bill tomorrow, we shall then move on to the Third Reading of the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Bill. That Motion is to be moved by the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, from the Northern Ireland Office. A number of interesting matters will arise during consideration of the Bill. It is intended that those proceedings will start at about 8.30 p.m. I have no doubt that a number of Northern Ireland Peers will wish to speak. Certain contentious issues will be raised and I see that arrangements have been made for the House to sit late. However, tomorrow being Thursday, the House will not be able to sit after 11 p.m. I see that arrangements have been made for dinner to be available, which is most suitable when the House is sitting late.
On Friday, 21st July, we shall have the Second Reading and remaining stages of the Continental Shelf Bill. I wonder whether I may be speaking slightly faster than may be necessary. We passed a Motion earlier this week to enable all stages of a Bill to be taken at a single Sitting. The Continental Shelf Bill comes into that category. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, will speak for the Government and that my noble friend Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos will deal with it for the Opposition. Twenty minutes are to be allowed, which is probably about right. The Second Reading of the Self-Governing Schools Etc. (Scotland) Bill will also be taken. That will be a rather more contentious matter. It is to be handled for the Government by the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson of Bowden, and the noble Earl, Lord Dundee. My noble friends Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove and Lord Macaulay of Bragar will handle it for the Official Opposition and the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, will speak for the Social and Liberal Democrats.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, perhaps I may congratulate the noble Lord on having got the name of my party right for once. Many people try to find other ways of describing us. He is indeed quite right that my noble friend Lord Mackie of Benshie will be dealing with this most important proposition from these Benches and I am sure that he is at this present moment busily at work in deepest Angus poring over the pages of the Bill. I am quite certain that we can all look forward to a most excellent debate when it takes place. However, I have to say that many of us regret that Scottish business on important matters of this kind has to be taken on a

899
Friday. The Scottish Members of this House like to get back to their northern fastness and I know that there is some irritation when the Government are forced by pressures of time to bring forward business of this kind on a Friday.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, that is very helpful indeed. I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, for advising me about these matters. It is of course true, too, that the Licensing Amendment (Scotland) Bill Committee stage will also be taken on that day. Surprisingly, that has caused some degree of contention and I understand that a number of amendments have been put down. The Committee will no doubt give due consideration to those amendments and, indeed, I understand that some interesting propositions are to be put forward concerning methods of dealing with the problem of teenage drinkers in Scotland.
Those proceedings will last for some two hours, which will, I hope, take us to approximately 3.30 p.m., when we shall reach the Unstarred Question in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Cox. I see that this matter is to be handled by the noble Lord, Lord Henley, for the Government and by my noble friend Lord Peston for the Opposition. This Question concerns the redeployment of two history teachers who were formerly employed at Lewes Priory Comprehensive School. This again looks like being an interesting debate and I can assure noble Lords that I shall be in attendance at that time.
I see that we are then to wind up with the issue of Royal Assent—something which it is most interesting to deal with on a Friday afternoon.
Finally, I should like to thank the noble Viscount, Lord Long, for having moved the Motion and to suggest that he may perhaps now wish to withdraw it.
Viscount Long: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Social Security Bill
Returned from the Commons with one of the amendments agreed to and with the remaining amendments disagreed to, with reasons for such disagreement; the reasons ordered to be printed.
Tyne and Wear Passenger Transport Bill
Returned from the Unopposed Bill Committee with amendments.

King's Cross Railways Bill
A message was brought from the Commons that they have made the following orders:
That the Promoters of the King's Cross Railways Bill shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament,
900
provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
That on the fifth day on which the House sits in the next Session the Bill shall be presented to the House;
That there shall be deposited with the Bill a declaration signed by the Agents for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the present Session;
That the Bill shall be laid upon the Table of the House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill has been presented and, when so laid, shall be read the first and second time and committed (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read and committed);
That all Petitions relating to the Bill presented in the present Session which stand referred to the Committee on the Bill, together with any minutes of evidence taken before the Committee on the Bill, shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the next Session;
That no Petitioners shall be heard before the Committee on the Bill, unless their Petition has been presented within the time limited within the present Session or deposited pursuant to paragraph (b) of Standing Order 126 relating to Private Business;
That in relation to the Bill, Standing Order 127 relating to Private Business shall have effect as if the word 'under Standing Order 126 (Reference to committee of petitions against Bill)' were omitted;
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.

Opticians Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Joint Committee with amendments and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House; the Bill ordered to be printed.
House adjourned at sixteen minutes past one o'clock.