Lords Sitting of 20 July 1989

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Bradford): The LORD CHANCELLOR On the Woolsack.
Lord Petre Lord Petre—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

Air Transport: EC Liberalisation Proposals
Baroness Burton of Coventry Baroness Burton of Coventry asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the Commission has tabled its proposals on the further liberalisation of air transport in the European Community and what measures do they wish to see included.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, I am pleased to learn that the Commission finalised its proposals yesterday for submission to the Council of Ministers. We shall need to study the details, but early reports indicate that the Commission has taken up many of our suggestions. These include much greater freedom for airlines to set their own fares; the opening up of all routes between member states; relaxation of capacity constraints and limits on mulitiple designation and further liberalisation of fifth freedom services; and action on national route licensing to give all airlines the opportunity to compete in the market.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, I am glad that the Answer to the first part of the Question is yes, even though it happened only yesterday. I am sure that the whole House will have noted with pleasure what the Minister said. However, may I ask him about two matters concerned with the second part of the Question which were not dealt with in the statement that he gave? Do the Government accept that the problem of air traffic congestion must be dealt with urgently and enthusiastically if airlines and passengers alike are to have a better deal? After last weekend I should think that the answer is yes. Secondly, does he agree that along with the problem of congestion must go that of providing adequate runway and terminal capacity? If so, what can the Government do to hasten along the solution to those two matters?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, of course adequate runway and terminal capacity at points of departure and arrival are central to the efficiency of air travel. That is why, in response to a commission from my right honourable friend, the CAA is at present preparing advice on the adequacy of UK airport capacity in the long term. We expect its advice by next summer. As regards the problems of air traffic control, last weekend's unfortunate experiences were largely the result of industrial action in France. It is difficult to know what we can
908
do to help in that respect. We take the problem of air traffic control extremely seriously. That is why we have been pushing forward with initiatives in Europe.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, will my noble friend accept congratulations for the good news which he conveyed about yesterday's decision? Does he not agree that congratulations are also owing to the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, for her indefatigable efforts in this direction?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I agree entirely with the latter part of my noble friend's question. I should like to qualify slightly what I said. This is not so much a decision but Commission proposals which are being put forward to the Council of Ministers. I suspect that we shall have somewhat of a battle to get them through the Council of Ministers. Some countries in Europe have not yet seen the benefits which arise from a liberalisation so we must explain that their doubts are unfounded.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, although I admire the noble Baroness's tenacity in continually pressing the matter, is it not a fact that the second part of her Question is important? The British Airports Authority and the Civil Aviation Authority are in complete agreement that there is an urgent requirement to deal with the problem of air space and air flow movement on a European basis. I fully support the noble Baroness's comments, but does the Minister agree that, despite his efforts in Europe, there is still a lack of urgency by a number of countries in the development of proper Eurocontrol? Does he further agree that unless that matter is dealt with we shall not overcome the problem of delays of aircraft from this country?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, if there has been a lack of urgency in the development of Eurocontrol, I hope that our actions, among others, taken during the past 12 months have done a great deal to speed things up. We had a fairly momentous decision a fortnight ago when approval was given for the new central flow management unit. Eurocontrol is to be congratulated on doing the preparatory work and putting forward firm proposals in only six months. That is a short time span. Things are moving in the right direction but there is still much to be done.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, the noble Lord rightly refers to the French air traffic controllers' strike last weekend which caused chaos. Is he aware of reports that immigration officers at Gatwick Airport are now causing difficulties on this side of the Channel, and has he any comments to make?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I have heard reports of those difficulties but I have no comment to make at the moment.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, I appreciate the kindness and generosity of the remarks made. However, does the Minister realise that we shall have many opportunities of returning

909
to the problem of BAA and the problem of runway capacity at a future date? Can he tell the House when the Transport Ministers will be discussing the proposals from the European Commission? Does he realise that the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, require underlining? Is the Minister aware that it is not enough to leave these matters to the Community because there has been far too little sense of urgency in dealing with them and we cannot wait another year until we begin to decide what to do?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, we shall not have to wait another year because we have already made the decision. We should see signs of progress on the first stages by the beginning of next year. We shall have no less than two opportunities at Question Time next week to discuss airport capacity, so I for one know that the issue will not go away.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, can the Minister say when the Ministers hope to discuss these matters? Am I right in assuming that it will be in October, and can he give definite dates?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I apologise for not answering that part of the noble Baroness's question. The French presidency proposes to hold an informal transport council which I hope will be able to discuss the matters. The last date I had in my diary was 6th October, but already the date has changed twice.

Listed Building Consent: Mappin & Webb Site
3.9 p.m.
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, in the light of the decision to allow the redevelopment of the Mappin & Webb site in the City of London, they will reaffirm the principles applying to applications for consent to demolish listed buildings set out in Circular 8/87; and, in particular, the exceptional nature of the decision to depart from these principles.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Hesketh): My Lords, there has been no change in the principles applying to such applications. As the Department of the Environment circular states, there is a general presumption in favour of preserving listed buildings. But the fact that a building is listed does not inevitably mean that it will be preserved. In this case, for reasons set out very fully in the decision letter, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State was satisfied that it was right in the special circumstances to grant listed building consent for demolition.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, while thanking the Minister for that Answer, is he aware that the decision to destroy the best surviving collection of Victorian commercial buildings in the City based on
910
a mediaeval street pattern overturns the Secretary of State's own direction that listed buildings should not be demolished if use can be found for them? Is he also aware that replacement, even by an alleged "masterpiece", is not one of the criteria set out in the historic buildings and conservation areas circular? Therefore, do the Government intend to give supplementary advice and clarification to deal with the uncertainty arising from that decision?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, with regard to the latter part of the noble Baroness's question, I refer her to the second part of my original Answer. Each listed building consent decided by my right honourable friend is, always has been and will continue to be determined on its individual merits. The requirements of listed building consent legislation remain unchanged.
Lord St. John of Fawsley: My Lords, would my noble friend agree that, while it is extremely important to preserve our past heritage, it is equally important to ensure that our own generation adds worthily to it? Is not Mr. Peter Palumbo to be congratulated on commissioning a first-rate building from a major British architect? Is he not also to be congratulated on his persistence, determination and tenacity, which make Bruce and the spider seem pusillanimous?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am not too sure about my noble friend's spiders. However, he is correct that we must strive constantly to achieve the right balance between preserving the past and allowing new development for the future to go ahead. We must look forward as well as back. That inevitably involves making judgments which will not be universally shared.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, is it not the case that that particular site has been one of the most discussed and widely canvassed planning applications of the decade? Is it not also the case that as a result of the earlier refusal, as recommended by the inspector, of the original Mies Van Der Rohe building, a very much better building is now to be erected? It has always been recognised, as my noble friend on the Front Bench said, that this is a matter of balancing the desire to preserve the heritage of the past with the need to provide for the requirements of the present and the future. If we are to have a dynamic city, it cannot be ossified.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Jenkin. I suppose that in less than a century someone else will have to stand at this Dispatch Box in order to explain why a further possible change may be taking place in Poultry.
Lord Monson: My Lords, notwithstanding the last two supplementary questions, will the Minister concede that the Mappin & Webb building is far more pleasing to the eye than will be the building scheduled to replace it and, for that matter, far more pleasing to the eye than are the remains of the Rose Theatre? With that in mind, will not Her Majesty's Government have second thoughts bearing in mind

911
that attractive buildings in London are already far too thin on the ground?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, my brief does not go as far as taste.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the remains of the Rose Theatre are not so much pleasing to the eye as important for what they represent?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am sure that my noble friend is aware that she has tabled a Question on that subject which will be dealt with on Monday. I hope that I shall be able to answer it satisfactorily.
Lord Sandys: My Lords, returning to the Mappin & Webb site, does my noble friend agree that the ingenuity displayed by architects in the demolition of part of the Nash terraces, and the reconstruction of a building behind the facade, would be a solution which would commend itself to many of those who appreciate the facades of fine buildings and who also recognise the urgent need to be able to occupy the space behind for commercial purposes?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, this matter was discussed at length at the inquiry. I draw my noble friend's attention to the inspector's report, which goes into the matter at greater length and in greater technical detail than I am able to do this afternoon.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: My Lords, in welcoming the Minister's statement, is he not aware of the confusion caused in planning circles by this decision? Will he do whatever he can to ensure that the statement he made today will be communicated to local authorities?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, of course the department will always try to avoid creating a state of confusion. However, I believe that English Heritage has sent a circular to local authorities indicating its position on this matter.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, in replying to what the noble Lords, Lord St. John of Fawsley, and Lord Jenkin of Roding said, is it not true—and it was the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, who, when he was Secretary of State, gave a green light to a further development after the original planning application was turned down—that there are plenty of places where a replacement of some rather mediocre modern or not-so-old buildings would be very welcome? Are we not here discussing whether in this paticular part of the City listed buildings should be destroyed in order to make way for a new building?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Baroness would not expect me to become the Minister for suggested demolition, even though I have an office in Marsham Street! However, I listened with care and attention to what she said and will draw it to the attention of my right honourable friend.

European Community Fraud
3.16 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington Lord Bruce of Donington asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will provide details of the "wide range of proposals for combating fraud" against European Community funds and particulars of "the Commission's 45 point work programme" referred to by Lord Brabazon of Tara on 23rd June (H.L. Deb. cols. 418–419); and to report what progress has been made.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, a copy of the Commission's 45 point work programme has been deposited in the Library of the House. The Commission has already presented new or revised proposals in the two key areas of export refunds and intervention storage.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I am grateful for that reply. Can the noble Lord inform the House whether his noble friend Lord Young of Graffham, who answered a Question on this subject on 13th July, his department, and the Treasury, have been able to identify the conference on international commercial crime to which I referred in my Question of 13th July and about which the noble Lord admitted he knew nothing? When questioned he said that his department could not send along representatives to every conference of that sort. Can the noble Lord inform me whether he is now aware of that conference and of its significance, bearing in mind that it was attended by 33 countries and specifically discussed fraud within the European Community?
Can the noble Lord also inform the House whether his department has yet seen the communication sent by the European Commission to the Ministry of Agriculture on the subject of fraud, upon which the Commission issued an explanatory memorandum some 14 days ago?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, as to the conference to which the noble Lord referred I have nothing to add to what my noble friend Lord Young said on 13th July. As regards the paper to which the noble Lord referred which has apparently been sent to the Ministry of Agriculture, I am sure that my colleagues in the Treasury will have seen that by now.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, on the question of combating Community fraud would my noble friend agree that as the prosecuting authorities in the member states may not take proceedings for fraud where the offence has been committed in another member state, and as the respective laws of each of the member states, to which this whole idea of Community fraud is wholly subservient, are dissimilar, there are really no effective steps which can ever be taken to combat fraud until a convention is established at the Council of Ministers level. Will my noble friend give earnest consideration to that proposal?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I shall of course pass on my noble friend's remarks. As he said, decisions to prosecute are matters for national authorities. To confer that right across the Community would require legislation in all member states. The United Kingdom has played a constructive role in work on the proposed Community Crimes Convention, although we have been concerned to ensure that the provisions of any such treaty are properly targeted and take account of our system of criminal law.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, as virtually all the fraud in the Community arises from the common agricultural policy, and as the common agricultural policy is against all the Government believe in relation to free and open trade, will they not redouble their efforts to get rid of this absurd, wasteful and expensive system?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the Government want to take a practical, not a utopian, approach. We have pressed both for improvements in the way the Community fights fraud, where I have been able to report solid progress to the House, and, as the noble Lord will be aware, in the way the CAP operates; and not unsuccessfully there, either.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, does that mean that the Government now believe that the free market is utopian?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: No, my Lords, that is not what I said. I said that we want to take a practical approach in tackling fraud, and not the utopian one of abolishing the CAP altogether which the noble Lord suggested.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, the fundamental questions submitted by my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington are of great interest to everyone concerned with these issues. Would it not assist us if the Minister and his noble friend Lord Young could gather documents and place them in the Library?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am not quite sure which documents the noble Lord wants to have placed in the Library in addition to the one referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, in his original Question, which I said has been placed in the Library. The noble Lord will be able to refer to it there.
Lord Carter: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the lowest estimate of EC fraud is equal to twice the total income of the whole of British farming and the highest estimate to six times the total income of British farming? Does this not indicate the scale and severity of the problem?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I shall not comment on the noble Lord's estimates. We take this problem extremely seriously, and we have been at the forefront among member states in trying to do something about it.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that his answers this afternoon have been thoroughly unsatisfactory? Is he further aware that, on the lowest estimates, these frauds involve the British taxpayer in a net loss of some £400 million a year? Will the Government please give some concrete evidence, as distinct from evasion, that they take these problems seriously and will do something about them?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the answer to the first part of the noble Lord's question is, no; and to the second part, yes.

EC Social Charter Proposal
3.23 p.m.
Lord Rochester Lord Rochester asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their attitude to the European Commission's draft social charter.
The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Lord Young of Graffham): My Lords, the Government firmly believe that the creation of the internal market will create new jobs, will reduce unemployment and will improve real standards of living. The Government do not see how the charter proposed by the Commission could contribute to achieving those goals.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, I find that Answer depressingly negative. Would it not be more productive if, instead of denouncing, the charter as socialist and even Marxist, the Prime Minister in particular were to give a positive lead in seeking to adapt it to conditions in this country? Is it not a fact that, in the matter of employee involvement, so far from insisting that workers should sit on company boards, the key sentence in paragraph 22 of the charter states:
"Information, consultation and participation of workers must be developed along appropriate lines and in such a way as to take account of the laws, contractual agreements and practices in the member states".
Is that not precisely what is already being done by our more progressive companies, and why should it not apply throughout British industry?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, the Madrid summit noted that job creation should be given top priority in the achievement of the internal market and that the role to be played by Community standards, by national legislation and by contractual relationships should be clearly established. That is the right approach, but it may well be that the noble Lord has forgotten what conditions were like 10 or 12 years ago when government tried to impose these things. What we have seen in the past few years is an enormous explosion in the creation of jobs and wealth—something which the Government's present policies have brought about.
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: My Lords, may we not hope that the Government will cooly and in consultation with our friends and colleagues in the rest of the Community examine the practical

915
advantages both to Britain and to Europe of adopting such a social charter? May we have an assurance that, whatever may be the Government's objections to other parts of the charter, they will have no objection to the provision in paragraph 17 for,
"the right to collective action in cases of conflicts of interest, including the right to strike",
as this reproduces practically word for word Article 6(4) of the European social charter to which the United Kingdom is a party and which the noble Lord's colleague the Prime Minister has widely praised in commenting on current proposals for the charter?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, as I look round the United Kingdom today, I find no absence of the right to strike.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, how do the Government expect the single European market to function effectively without some degree of harmonisation on the social front, particularly in relation to labour law? How will a level playing field be established from the standpoint of freedom of movement between countries of the Community?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, freedom of movement is one thing. Freedom of movement is already established. I very much believe in diverse systems. The system in the United Kingdom which has seen the creation of 3.5 million new jobs over the past five years is one which we should uphold. The system across the water, which has seen an increase in the rate of unemployment and where statutory work protection applies to all kinds of jobs, is not one which I think it would profit the United Kingdom to adopt.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, are we not faced with a major crisis of confidence as a result of the emergence of wholesale corruption in the European Community? In dealing with such crime, can anything be less appropriate than another social inquiry?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I fail to recognise that wholesale corruption exists in the European Community. However, that is another question.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, is it not clear that, whereas level playing fields are all very well, nobody wants to see a level obstacle course? That is what the social charter offers in the way that it is currently being put forward.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am very grateful indeed to my noble friend.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, as in his original Answer the noble Lord referred to the generally constructive approach of the Government towards Europe, can he tell us how officials are getting on with the somewhat intractable task which they were set after the Madrid summit of preparing an alternative British plan for monetary union which
916
has nothing to do either with union or with a single currency?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, as I am sure the noble Lord will recognise, that question is a rather long way from a draft social charter. However, if he cares to put down a Question I shall be delighted to answer it.
Lord Peston: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the draft social charter is a typical and classic example of the doctrines of European Christian Democrats? Until recently we thought that they were also the doctrines of the noble Lord's party. What puzzles us—and we ask him to explain it—is why the Government are so antipathetic to a point of view which we thought was typically their own.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, of course there are elements in the social charter which we not only approve of but have led Europe in practising. There are other elements which we have practised and which we know have failed. We have no wish to return to those. Our position is very simple—to each his own. We know what makes the United Kingdom economy work and we should not like to change it.
Viscount Eccles: My Lords, is it not impossible to conceive of a social charter which is not based on political and economic principles? Is it not a fact that the economic and political principles of the governments of Europe differ very much: some are socialist, some are not socialist? Surely, therefore it is impossible to reform a charter. We ought to pursue our own ideas on how to treat our own people in industry and not try to borrow ideas from people whose basic views are different to ours.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I very much agree with my noble friend. What we are doing is to suggest that the social charter that works in the United Kingdom could be copied well by other countries in Europe. What we would never wish to do is to impose it upon other countries.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, in his rather surly reply to my noble friend Lord Murray of Epping Forest, the noble Lord appeared to speak with approval of the right to strike which he says still exists. Does that mean, and will he give an assurance, that in the Queen's Speech there will be no further measures to restrict the right to strike in this country?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I do not recognise the description "surly" of my reply to the noble Lord, Lord Murray, whom I have known for many years. All I pointed out to the noble Lord was that there appeared to be no shortage of the right to strike in the United Kingdom at this time.
Viscount Caldecote: My Lords, is it not much more important to stimulate the growth of UK manufacturing industry than it is to adopt irrelevant social charters from Europe?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I would rather we stimulated the entire wealth creation process of the economy including manufacturing. But as my noble friend knows, that is a matter on which we have already agreed to differ many times in the past.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, will the noble Lord answer—
Noble Lords: Order!

Business
3.34 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of your Lordships to know that the Committee stage of the Local Government and Housing Bill will be adjourned at about 8.30 p.m. to allow the Third Reading of the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Bill to be taken. The House will adjourn at the conclusion of that debate which will, of course, be taken on the motion that the Bill do now pass.

New Southgate Cemetery and Crematorium Limited Bill
3.35 p.m.
Read a third time, and passed and returned to the Commons with amendments.

King's Cross Railways Bill
3.36 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. This message concerns the normal carry-over Motion in another place to allow this Bill to continue its progress in the next Session. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do concur with the orders made by the Commons set out in their message of yesterday.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Social Security Bill
3.37 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Skelmersdale): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons reasons be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons reasons be now considered.—(Lord Skelmersdale.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS REASONS FOR DISAGREEING TO CERTAIN LORDS AMENDMENTS
[References are to HL Bill 44 as first printed by the Lords. The Commons reasons are printed in italics.]

LORDS AMENDMENT
1 After Clause 4, insert the following new clause:
"Increase for child benefit
.In section 63(2) of the Social Security Act 1986, after paragraph (a) there shall be inserted the following paragraph—
"(aa) which increases the sum specified by virtue of section 5(1) of the Child Benefit Act 1975 by a percentage not less than the percentage by which the sum prescribed for the purposes of section 2I(6)(a) above in respect of a child aged less than 11 years is increased by the up-rating order; and"."
The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason:
2 Because this amendment might involve charges on public funds, and the Commons do not offer any further reason trusting that this reason may be deemed, sufficient.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 1 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 2.
The amendment passed by your Lordships during the Committee stage of the Bill inserted a new clause which provided for child benefit to be uprated by at least the same percentage as the child credit rate of family credit. The House of Commons has now considered that amendment and has disagreed to it. I ask your Lordships therefore not to insist on the amendment.
The reason for the other place disagreeing is a privilege reason. As Erskine May puts it:
"This hint of privilege is generally accepted by the Lords, and the amendment is not insisted upon".
In view of this, I do not believe it would be right for me to go further and to rehearse once again the Government's arguments for retaining flexibility in the uprating of child benefit. I say that with no disrespect either to my noble friend Lady Faithfull, who originally moved the amendment, or to any Member of your Lordships' House who supported the amendment.
It is however for another place to decide, in considering an amendment received from your Lordships' House, whether the amendment touches on financial privilege. In this case the Commons has so decided. At this stage we have to consider our response to the decision of another place. I do not suggest for a moment that it would be wrong if your Lordships wished once again to press in debate your views of the merits. On the contrary it is fully within the powers of your Lordships' House. But what I suggest is that the debate should in the end be decided on the single point of the financial privilege asserted by another place. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 1 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 2.—(Lord Belstead.)
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, many people in all parts of the House will have received these messages with deep regret—and in some cases, I know, with genuine anger. We must stress that the only reason given in the messages is that the amendment might involve charges on public funds. The Commons does not offer any further reason. We might as well be talking of a Finance Bill.

919
All through our debates on the Social Security Bill we have heard nothing from government representatives except talk about money, figures, statistics and costs. The fact that the Commons sends this message to us saying that there is no further reason indicates the attitude of the Government towards social policy. They give no reason of justice, no reason of fairness, no reason of concern for the people we are trying to help—only finance.
We are all aware of the limitations on our powers imposed by the Parliament Act. We were not trying to start a revolution. In fact it would have been difficult for us, considering the all-party nature of the support for the amendments, to have gone down that road. All we were trying to do, well within our powers as a revising Chamber, was to send a message to another place asking it in these two respects to look again at clauses which we feel redound so unkindly to many people in this country.
Your Lordships have been given only the mercenary argument. One wonders what kind of philosophy underlies the Government's thinking on these important matters. Many experienced noble Lords supported the amendments, mostly out of their knowledge and concern. I shall not name anyone in particular, but looking through the Division lists it is clear that there was a great deal of wisdom, understanding and experience in the support which the amendments received here.
The brevity of the reply from the Commons is an insult to this House. It indicates that no genuine consideration was given by the Government to noble Lords of all parties when the Bill reached the other place. I do not want to go over all the arguments again because I am sure the House is familiar with them, but I must say that I resist the argument that what we suggested has to be thrown away because of a charge on public funds. One would think that the other place makes no charges on public funds, although that of course is its job.
I have been looking at some of the charges on public funds that the Government seem happy about. Following the Finance Bill of 1977 there is a statutory indexing of personal allowances, and that was accepted. I notice from the figures that tax allowances for a wife, however rich she is, have risen by 22 per cent. in real terms. Child benefit has gone down 13 per cent. in real terms. There is a charge on public funds for mortgage tax relief, however rich the house buyer might be. Now we are to have income tax allowances for private health care for the elderly, however rich they are.
This Government appear to have the most extraordinary lack of understanding and concern for children. A family with children clearly has higher expenses than a family without children or a single person without children. But, no, for two years running the Government have insisted on no uprating for child benefit and that there should be no concern for people who are endeavouring to bring up their families. As I said, I do not intend to go into arguments of detail. I do not intend to attack the other government proposals for helping low income families. That is not the business of the House today, though when I was in the other place last night it
920
seemed to take up a lot of time. I only say that there is a great deal of talk in some quarters about this place, the reforms that are necessary and how things should be altered here. However, when we deal with matters of human welfare I hope that we have a meeting of minds. In fact, we had a meeting of the majority of minds in these two cases.
I know—and I can say so having been a constituency Member for many years—that in this House we do not exactly have constituencies but we have our concerns for the people we want to help. In having these two amendments accepted with, as I said, support from all sides of the House, our constituents were the children, the blind, the deaf, the crippled and the disabled. By turning their back on these suggestions the Government have shown the ugly face of Toryism, and the people of this country will take note of that and they will pay for it.
3.45 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, Edward Gibbon was once commanded by his father to desist from a courtship on which he had set his heart. He sighed as a lover and obeyed as a son. It is a story which comes regularly to my mind when one of our amendments comes back from the Commons with a privilege reason attached.
This will cause a great deal of grief, as the noble Baroness said, not only in this House but throughout the country among families with children. I accept what the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, said on the Motion that the Bill do now pass; that our debates have been characterised by noble Lords wishing to push the Government in directions where they do not wish to go. He added the qualification, "Not now". And for that crumb of comfort I thank him.
However, there is a name for that process. It is called politics. I accept that those who bear sway in another place have the power. The common point of course of the story of Edward Gibbon and what has happened today is that it is true that he who pays the piper calls the tune, but those who have power are normally prudent if in the exercise of it they take some account of strong feelings which are held in other places and in other parts of the country.
The noble Lord, Lord Denham, speaking on 8th December last, said of this House that it is a revising Chamber and for that it is uniquely fitted. That is a view with which many of us would very much like to agree. However, when I think of it I cannot recall any amendment carried on a Division in this place which has been fully accepted in another place since he spoke. I accept that we may be wrong a lot of the time, but it would cause me considerable surprise if we had been wrong all the time.
In the current issue of The House Magazine Sheila Gunn says of the Prime Minister:
"She and her Cabinet colleagues reverse defeats inflicted in the Lords more readily without giving concessions—and they can no longer hide their irritation when the peers take a stand. In recent years the Lords have become, if not her poodle, at least Mrs. Thatcher's ageing labrador".
It would be unwise of the House to allow that view to spread too far.

921
I now turn to the matter of the amendment. I must confess to some disappointment. I read the Secretary of State's answers to Oral Questions on 3rd July last He praised what he described as a judicious mix of child benefit and family credit which, he argued, this Government have achieved. He said:
"The Government would not maintain that commitment as strongly as we do unless we believed that that mix was right."—[Official Report, Commons, 3/7/89; col. 13.]
Of course it was precisely the purpose of our amendment to keep that mix as it is now. If the Secretary of State believes that it is right to do so, I am a little surprised that he did not accept the amendment. The fact that he did not do so raises certain questions.
This is the second year in succession that child benefit has not been uprated. Tax allowances o course have been uprated. This raises the question which the Secretary of State refused to answer in another place last night: are the Government prepared to accept that child benefit can be uprated at some time in the future? I know that we will receive the answer that the Secretary of State has discretion to review benefits. I accept that. However, that is like saying, "How's that?" and getting the reply, "The umpire's decision is final". We know that it is final but we want to know what the answer is. We want to know whether child benefit will be uprated in future.
We want to know, if there is to be no uprating of child benefit, whether the Government intend to reintroduce the child tax allowance, which of course would be a great deal worse targeted in their terms than child benefit—for in equity I cannot see how the Government can fail to do one or the other.
I also repeat the question that I heard asked from the Government's own Front Bench below the Gangway last night. Has it now become the policy of Her Majesty's Government to discourage people from having children? If that is so, since this is a change in policy of some importance, are we to receive an announcement and an explanation of the reasons why such a decision might have been taken? It would be a matter of legitimate concern in this House.
I also wonder why it is that there is so much concern on the Government Benches about the notion that if this amendment were accepted the money might well go to the well-off. I say that because I did not know that that was contrary to government policy—that is, for money to go to the well-off. But, if it is on this occasion contrary to government policy, and it is not when they are passing a Budget, that seems to suggest rather too rigorous a distinction between what is labelled "taxation" on the one hand, and what is labelled "welfare" on the other. We seem, again, to be moving into a category of "wrong boxes". After all, it is all money and if the money can be more efficiently used in this way than in any other, I do not see why it should not be.
I accept the authority of those who hold the purse strings, but I think they have exercised it with a very great lack of wisdom.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I think that the debate this afternoon disqualifies Parliament from having anything useful to say to industry, commerce or our institutions about modernising their methods and procedures, economising on manpower and finding more modern methods of discharging business. It is no good rehearsing the merits behind these two amendments this afternoon, because they are of no consequence in another place; they do not care what the merits are. Those in another place are concerned about whether it is a breach of their privilege on matters of public expenditure.
We receive this brush-off every time and we take no notice of it. We go about helpless with a futile look on our faces. It is incredible that we put up with this in 1989. It has been going on since 1911. It is a historical inheritance from the Parliament Act 1911, when taxation was dealt with and when a ban was put on the powers of this House to tamper with either taxation or public expenditure.
Of course, in 1911 the national insurance scheme was in its infancy; indeed, it had hardly been born. It had not become the second biggest taxation system in our economic affairs. But, now has grown to be just that. I have drawn attention before to the anomalous position in which we find ourselves where we cannot amend the personal release for taxation in this House; but we can bankrupt the National Insurance Fund, if our amendments are given effect in another place. Can we not find a better way? Do we have to put up with this brush-off every time? Where is the ingenuity" Where is the will-power to do something more sensible than go through this rehearsal at the end of a Session every year?
I suggest that there are reasons behind these amendments which would qualify for a request to be made to another place asking it to think again. One of the points about our role in the parliamentary system is that although we acknowledge the sovereignty of the elected Chamber, if it insists upon what it wishes to do we can at least offer a check, or a pause, during which we can ask it to think again about what it proposes to do. But when we touch finance Members of another place do not think again; they do not need to think again. They can tell us to mind our own business—and that is what we put up with.
Then, as a means of coping with the situation, we have a rehearsal of all the reasons for passing the amendments in the first place. It is fatuous. Why does it fall to one of the oldest Members of your Lordships' House to pontificate about the modernity which is required of Britain to find its way in the world? We are obsolescent in the way we are going on now. The day will come when we shall be brushed aside and other forces of public administration will take our place. They deserve to do so.
I ask that those who are responsible for the leadership of the House these days should pay attention to some of the historical legacies of past years. Seventy-nine years ago was the origin of what we have today. The preamble to the Parliament Bill said that there would be major reform of the House

923
of Lords but that, in the meantime, it was necessary to do something ad interim; and they did something ad interim in 1911 and it is still ad interim today, according to the statute of 1911. I am indignant, I really am. I am becoming rather tired of being in a House of Parliament which is so behind the times.
Lord Elton: My Lords, the origins of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, were a little more than 79 years ago, but that is no reason why he should be swept aside. I intervene only to put right two misapprehensions, as I see them. First, it was suggested that the amendments put forward by this House are never accepted by another place. I have myself been at the Dispatch Box reporting the acceptance of an amendment from another place. Secondly, many amendments come back to us in another form, either as a compromise honourably worked between the two Chambers—and there is nothing wrong with that—or made to fit better into a scheme which is already in the statute. Again, there is nothing wrong in that procedure.
It is an accepted fact in our constitution that matters of finance are not the business of this House. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, that it is not an insult if the other place tells us so and then does not proceed to argue about the merits of the case expressed in this House, when they are not the business of this place. I do not think that we need a long constitutional debate about the future of the House of Lords, but I hope that I have said enough to show that this is an effective Chamber and that it has not been insulted by another place.
Baroness Faithful: My Lords, as the person privileged to move the amendment in the first place in your Lordships' House, it is natural that I should say that I am sad and disappointed that it has not been accepted by another place. But, having said that, perhaps the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, will remember that many years ago—it may well have been more years ago than we would care to count—when she was in the House of Commons she implanted in me the understanding, and told me in no uncertain terms that we were a democracy and that the House of Commons took precedence over the House of Lords. I do not know whether the noble Baroness can recall the occasion; I think that we were in fact sitting on an island in Malawi at the time. I have always remembered the occasion.
I should prefer to look to the future as regards this amendment. I do not believe that it would be right for your Lordships' House not to accept the reasons put forward by the House of Commons in this matter. I take heart from the fact that many Conservatives voted against the Government in another place. Therefore, as I said, I look to the future hoping that perhaps in the years to come there may be a change of attitude and that we shall have contributed, perhaps, in our way to that change. But, from the point of view of the present time, I support the Government in accepting the House of Commons' reply to the House of Lords' amendment, Sorrowful though I am, I am sure that it would not be right for this House to contest the matter with the other place.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, in case it should be thought that my noble friend Lord Houghton was alone in the views he expressed about this particular matter, I must tell him that he has considerable support. In spite of what the noble Lord, Lord Elton, said in defence of the system, it is a fact that when anything fundamental needs to be decided this House is overruled. Of course, it may be proper that it should be overruled; but, nevertheless, that is the situation.
Here, once again, we have a social measure which has wide support throughout the country and certainly wide support in this House, as an amendment was carried against the Government, and also in another place, where 19 Members of the Government voted against them and in favour of our amendment.
Here once again the House of Lords is being told, "Despite what you say, despite the remarkably good arguments you adduced in support of your amendment, despite the fact that it is a social measure that is supported in that way, and because we believe as the House of Commons, that we have financial privilege, we want you to undo what you did in good faith and after good argument". That does not smack of a responsible Chamber which is held in respect by the Government and another place. That is what we are complaining about.
What on earth is the use of good-hearted people, with a conscience about and a feeling for their country, coming along here day by day to thrash out the Bills that come before us and to give their considered opinion to the Government and to the country if they are to be overruled at a stroke with no reasons properly given?
We have become nothing more than a curiosity, and an expensive curiosity at that. If we are not to be considered seriously, if we are not to have our views taken into account after much argument, much debate and much voting—
4 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way?
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, the noble Baroness has stopped me in mid-flight but I shall certainly give way.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, if the noble Lord's argument is right, why does his party wish to get rid of the House of Lords?
Lord Elwyn-Jones: It does not.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I have said nothing yet about getting rid of the House of Lords; but by accepting this sort of diktat from the House of Commons, the House of Lords is getting rid of itself. That is the point that I am trying to make. If it once becomes obvious to the electorate that it is wasting £,12 million or £15 million a year on this Chamber, they will demand that it be closed and be used merely as a tourist attraction for foreign visitors.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I was one of those who spoke against the amendment when it was in your Lordships' House. Despite, or perhaps because of, my opposition it was duly carried. That does not prevent me from understanding the strong feelings of those who supported it and who feel strongly about the matter when they find that it has come up against the barrier of Commons privilege. It is only human, when one has been keen on a proposal and when one believes, as many noble Lords on both sides do, that it would have been an improvement in our social security system had it been carried into law, to feel strongly about the matter. But we are up against one of the major features of our constitution.
The noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, was, if he will allow me to say so, wrong when he attributed the difficulty to the Parliament Act 1911. In fact if he will consult Erskine May, he will see that long years before the Parliament Act it had been accepted that this House would not insist upon measures which imposed substantial charges on the public. It was largely for, it seems to me, foolish reasons when in 1909 the Opposition tried to challenge that position that the Parliament Act was enacted. It is a mistake to believe that the financial privilege of the Commons is as recent as 1911.
One can understand the basis of that privilege. If your Lordships' House were free to carry amendments which would impose substantial additional charges on the taxpayer, one would in fact compel another place to do what we cannot do and impose adequate taxation to pay for it. If we are not to be concerned directly with taxation, surely it makes nonsense of the whole limitation if we can carry measures, however expensive, which inevitably involve another place having to impose additional taxation.
One or two rather harsh and unfair things have been said about the attitude of another place generally. As my noble friend pointed out, many of your Lordships' amendments, including those imposing some expenditure, have been accepted by another place; equally, others have been varied a little and sent back to us, perhaps somewhat improved as a result of the variation.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will give way. We have heard this argument from the noble Lord, Lord Elton. We are now hearing it again. Will the noble Lord, who has a good memory, outline the matters upon which he is now basing his argument? I cannot recall instances of our amendments being accepted when they involved finance.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, they have accepted so many. I do not propose to weary your Lordships by reciting the work of the past few years. It would be a waste of everyone's time, because the fact that another place has accepted our amendments is surely not an argument against it because in this case it has decided to reject them. It is fully entitled, by long-standing constitutional practice, to reverse our decisions where they involve substantial expenditure. That has been indisputably the position for a great many years. It serves little purpose, and
926
perhaps does not help relations between the two Houses, if we become too excited about it.
I suggest that the dignified thing for the House to do is, where the Commons exercises its undoubted privilege, to accept the decision with dignity and not appear to be too immensely hurt. I would venture to differ from noble Lords and the noble Baroness who said that because of that constitutional position, the House is useless and ineffective. That is not true. Even in these matters we have the right, which we exercised in this case, to ask another place to have a look at the proposal and consider it. That involves accepting, when it has had another look and decided to reject it, that that rejection stands. There is also so much work that does not involve the imposition of charges. I do not want to weary your Lordships with it, but there is the consideration of the mass of legislation with which we have to deal—in the view of some of us, we have to deal with too much legislation. The careful analysis and examination given to it by your Lordships' House is of immense value, as of course are the general debates which your Lordships' House undertakes in respect of major matters; and there is the work of its Select Committees.
It is a mistake, because for a very long time the House has not had the power to impose public expenditure against the wishes of another place, to say that this House is useless or ineffective. The House performs considerable functions, and we do not help their performance by taking too hardly—as I said I understand the feelings—the case where, within its undoubted rights, another place rejects them.
I shall quote again if I may, although I believe that my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal quoted it:
"This hint of privilege is generally accepted by the Lords, and the amendment is not insisted upon".
That is what our Bible, Erskine May, says, and that is the course which I suggest to your Lordships that we should take, with dignity, this afternoon.
Lord Coleraine: My Lords, this is I believe the fifth time that we in Parliament have discussed child benefit this year. One thing that the debates have made clear, especially the debate in the other place last night, is that the question of uprating will not go away. It will certainly not go away while the Government leave unanswered the question of whether child benefit may be uprated to take account of inflation one day. This is the question to which the noble Earl, Lord Russell, referred and which was put to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State by my right honourable and honourable friends in the other place last night.
The other place has spoken. So far as I am concerned I do not propose, any more than my noble friend Lady Faithfull, to look back at the amendment. I shall certainly not do so with the anger to which the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, referred, nor do I propose to associate myself in any way with the sniping at the constitution which has come from the Benches opposite today. I propose to look forward to the uprating review which will be in three or four weeks of this House sitting in Ocotober.

927
I have been puzzled by the last two reviews. As a simple Back-Bencher, I cannot help wondering whether my right honourable friend is receiving the best advice and whether he is directing himself to the questions to which he ought to direct himself when he undertakes what is not a discretion, as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, says, but a duty.
In October 1988 he said in his uprating Statement:
"I have never made any secret of my belief that this benefit is not the most effective use of social security resources."—[Official Report, 27/10/88; Col. 1714.]
The Secretary of State has always correctly described child benefit as a hybrid, combining social security benefits with the tax allowance. He also says—and we have heard this again and again from one source or another—that child benefit is a deduction, pound for pound, from social security means-tested benefits. When the Government tell us that an extra bit on the child benefit will not help those poor people on means-tested benefits, surely what that means is that by the Government's reckoning, child benefit is now little more than a replacement of the child allowance. So why does it have to be treated as having to come from social security resources?
Do not the Government accept that there should be horizontal equity between taxpayers with children and those without? This was a question which my right honourable and honourable friends put last night to the Government and to which there was no reply. I do not for a moment suppose that the Secretary of State is against child benefit. The trouble is that he appears to subscribe to the theory that the child benefit up-rating provisions are nearly meaningless or that if they have any meaning at all, it is merely that so long as someone somewhere is in a state of poverty then the money which would otherwise go to child benefit must go to uprate the means-tested benefits.
That is a theory to which I do not subscribe. In my view it was best expressed in another place during Committee by the late Mr. Penhaligon. On 7th July 1975, during the debate on the Child Benefit Bill, the then Secretary of State, the noble Baroness, Lady Castle, moved the amendment from which the present uprating provision is derived. It has to be said that she did so in order to defuse the united opposition demands that child benefit should be index-linked. Mr. Penhaligon said that he would lead his party into the Lobby against the amendment because importing the paper on which to print the provision in the Act would be a plain waste of money.
The Secretary of State seems to me to share that view. He sees himself trapped in a box with the Treasury outside. What he is saying is quite simply this: that one—and indeed the most important—of the relevant matters which he must consider is that the Treasury will not give him the money with which to uprate child benefit. I must reject that view of the matter. I submit that the Government should not split themselves into two in this way in order to defy the will of Parliament, as expressed in the statute.
My right honourable friend should review the benefit and he should not allow the Treasury to do it for him. The Government should see that the
928
money is available. I await with very keen interest the uprating Statement in October and I accept the amendments of the other place today.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, once or twice over the last 20 years I have agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. I just want to say that I agree with him today.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, was perhaps uncharacteristically less than fair when, at the beginning of her remarks, she referred to the Government's attitude to debates which took place on the Bill. Of course the noble Baroness took a leading part in those debates from the Opposition Front Bench. Before I leave the point I would just say to the House that my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale arranged meetings with noble Lords to discuss issues arising from clauses relating to equal treatment for men and women and the recovery from damages of sums equivalent to benefit. I know that appreciation was expressed of that as the Bill reached its last stages.
Then, in addition, during the passage of the Bill, the Government announced agreement on two matters which were of concern to your Lordships: reviewing the six months' qualifying period for attendance allowances for the terminally ill; and doubling the statutory disregard in housing benefit for war pensioners.
I think that my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter was justified in saying that the House does good work and has been doing good work on this Bill. I would go further and say that in fulfilling our revising role, your Lordships' House obviously has the right to ask another place to think again. My noble friend, Lord Elton, reminded us that we often do so successfully. When I heard that being questioned by some noble Lords on the Opposition Benches, I could only reflect that perhaps noble Lords opposite had not been following the Water Bill quite as carefully as some of us have been over the last months. Many, many amendments were made to it by this House and accepted by another place.
The revising role is an important right. I do not believe that it should be unduly restricted. But that said, I believe that where the other place has given as the Reason for disagreeing that:
"…this Amendment might involve charges on public funds, and the Commons do not offer any further Reason trusting that this Reason may be deemed sufficient",
we should have very much in mind that Erskine May says:
"This hint of privilege is generally accepted by the Lords, and the amendment is not insisted upon".
So I believe that on this occasion that is the sense in which the amendment should be decided. I therefore ask that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 1, for the reason given in Amendment No. 2.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, before the noble Lord resumes his seat, I wonder whether he could clarify one matter which has caused concern to a number of us. Before I come to the point, I wish

929
to make it plain to the House—and I am sure that those in all parts of the House would agree—that we have been meticulous in our observation of the 1911 Act. I am not aware that at any point we have ever sought to breach it. We should not wish to do that today.
Nevertheless there is a feeling on this side that the Government have used the sledge hammer of that Act to smash a matter of high principle. This is causing acute concern. But the basic point on which I would value the noble Lord's comments is the wording, namely:
"Because this Amendment might involve charges on public funds".
There is an ambiguity there which I and others have not observed before. The wording on previous occasions, as I recall, is:
"Because this Amendment would involve charges on public funds".
Before we proceed, I wonder whether the noble Lord the Leader of the House could explain that to us.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, if I may say so to the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition, I do not believe that it would be appropriate for me to attempt to look behind the wording of the Reason. But I am advised that exactly these words about which the noble Lord is questioning me have been used in the past in such a way as to give the "hint of privilege" referred to by Erskine May. There is therefore no question of another place attempting in some way to expand the bounds of financial privilege, if that is the particular concern in the mind of the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn. Equally, however, there can be no doubt that by using those words the other place has invoked its financial privilege in this matter.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, if the noble Lord assures the House that there is ample precedent for this wording, then I must accept what he says. However, I must repeat the point I made previously. There is a good deal of uncertainty on this side of the House about the use of those words on previous occasions.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, that is an uncertainty which I hope I have now dispelled.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
3 Clause 8, page 8, line 42, at beginning insert—
"( ) In section 37A of the principal Act (mobility allowance) at the end of subsection (1) insert "or is deaf and blind or is suffering from severe mental handicap such that he is either unable to walk or virtually unable to do so without physical control by another person".
( ) In subsection (2) of that section leave out "physical".
The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason—
4 Because this amendment might involve charges on public funds, and the Commons do not offer any further reason trusting that this reason may be deemed sufficient.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 3 to
930
which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 4.
Your Lordships will appreciate that much of what I have said on Amendment No. 1 applies equally in this case. Again, another place has elected to exercise its financial privilege in this matter and I do not believe that it would be right for this House to look beyond that, even though I appreciate that your Lordships may wish to debate this matter once more. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 3 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 4.—(Lord Belstead.)
Lord Carter: My Lords, I entirely understand and accept what the noble Lord the Leader of the House has just said, which is that we are entitled to debate the amendment again, but I shall not do that. I think it will surprise the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, that I intend to agree with him. The noble Lord may well look surprised because I think this will be the first and the last occasion. The noble Lord used the phrase "substantial charges on public funds" a number of times.
I wish to take up a few moments of the time of the House to show why I think that the Government are wrong in assuming that this amendment would have involved substantial charges on public funds. However, in passing, I must say that those of us who supported the amendment and who won the acceptance of the House find this a very sad day for the deaf blind and the severely mentally handicapped. The rejection of the amendment says a great deal about the Government's social policy generally with its combination of a steamroller majority and bogus statistics.
The general argument behind the amendment that the House accepted is the fact that a small group of severely handicapped people—it involves fewer than 8,000 people—should be receiving the mobility allowance but are not getting it. The amendment was well researched and was very carefully worded to ensure that it caught only this very small and carefully defined group. When we' discussed the problem on Second Reading, in Committee and on Report, I and others gave the House the numbers involved. As I have said, the figure was fewer than 8,000. Only on Report did the Government suddenly come up with the figure of 100,000 people who might benefit.
Those of us who supported the amendment gave the history of the attempts of the all-party disablement group and the disability organisations over the years to get the department to deal with this problem. The campaign started in 1981 and the all-party disablement group saw successive Ministers for the Disabled in 1985, 1987, and again this year. Each time there was a different Minister. Each Minister expressed considerable sympathy, but each found a different reason for inaction and delay. Indeed, the departmental ducking, weaving and procrastination over this matter make the Prime Minister's attitude towards joining the EMS look like a mad, headlong gallop.

931
The rejection of this amendment by the Government is based on completely bogus statistics. I shall not attempt to weary the House with statistical detail. However, after the debate on Report last week I was so concerned about the extraordinary figure of 100,000 people that I tried to find out how it had been calculated. It seems that the department has used the OPCS survey of disabilities and the data tapes which provided the raw material for the survey to cobble together a number of groups of disabled people to reach the figure of 100,000. I should make it clear that the OPCS survey of disability does not identify conditions or reveal the numbers of the deaf blind, the severely mentally handicapped, the autistic, the schizophrenic or whatever. It identifies symptoms such as problems of locomotion, behaviour or intellectual functioning based on a series of medical models. It certainly does not identify those who need continuous physical control by another person or, as I have said, the number of deaf blind or severely mentally handicapped people.
The department's figure of 100,000 people has nothing to do with the people affected by this amendment. For a start, the department has made no distinction, as the amendment does, between the mentally handicapped and the mentally ill. The department has added together various symptoms of disability, each of them varying in their severity. The department has made no allowance for episodic disability. Finally, it has had to make a wild guess at the number who, in the words of the department to me over the telephone, need to be accompanied by another person. The need to be accompanied is by no means the same as the need for continuous physical control by another person.
Noble Lords may remember that on Report the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, pointed out that the figure of 100,000 meant that one in 560 of the population would be affected. I agreed with the noble Baroness. However, I wish to apologise to the House as we were both wrong. The allowance is not available to those under five and people cannot apply for it if they are over 65. The departmental figure actually represents one in 444 of the population. According to the department, every 445th person is either deaf blind or so severely mentally handicapped that they need continuous physical control. This does not just defy common sense and insult the intelligence of Parliament, it is also just plain daft.
Noble Lords with a Biblical turn of mind may recall the parable of the wedding feast when the servants were sent out into the highways and byways to make up the numbers for the wedding. In their desperate trawl through the highways and byways of the OPCS study, the officials of the Department of Social Security make the servants in the parable look like new beginners.
Incidentally, there is no argument about the numbers of the deaf blind. I think we all agree that the figure is about 3,000. The figure of 4,400 people with severe mental handicap which was produced by MENCAP and used as the basis for the amendment which we moved and carried, was based on a government survey of the incidence of mental
932
handicap, unlike the OPCS study. That figure has an authority and an accuracy which is completely lacking in the department's figures.
I am aware of and respect the constitutional convention which means that this House does not divide against the rejection of an amendment in another place, if that rejection is based on financial privilege. However, I should say in conclusion that we have a situation where a few thousand —it is a few thousand—of the most severely handicapped people in our society, and those who care for them day and night, have been deprived of about £1,200 a year by the combination of a steamroller majority, bogus statistics and an argument so weak that the Government have had to hide behind financial privilege.
Let us consider the 1 million disabled people who are actually worse off as a result of various recent changes in benefits. Incidentally, the OPCS study showed that people with disabilities are some of the poorest in our society. That figure of 1 million includes the large number of people with disabilities who have received increases in benefits which are less than the rate of inflation, the disabled people in Scotland who have lost their rate rebates and are now having to pay the full amount of the poll tax, and the people with disabilities whose incomes are frozen because of transitional protection; and now there is this mean-spirited attitude towards the mobility allowance. If there is one group in our society which is longing and praying for the return of a Labour government, it is people with disabilities. For them the return of a Labour government cannot come a day too soon.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I wish briefly to associate these Benches with the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Carter. Once again, we accept the power of those who bear sway in another place to do what they have done. They have decided that they cannot help the deaf, the blind and the autistic, and those suffering from Downe's syndrome—in other words, some of the poorest and weakest groups in our society—at a very small cost, because the integrity of public funds will not permit it. I did not know that we were that poor a country and I am very sorry to hear it.
I am reminded of the younger Pitt who spoke in another place in 1799. He said that he would do nothing to relieve the famine for fear of infringing the sacred laws of supply and demand. I am very sorry indeed.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, I wish to follow up what my noble friend and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, have just said. I do not wish to rehearse the arguments. However, if one debates any proposition, one is entitled to a sensible reply as to why it cannot be accepted.
The arrogance of this statement is absolutely incredible. The amendment may involve charges on public funds. The Commons do not offer any further reason against it. If ever there was an argument for having a second Chamber this has to be it. In the small hours of the morning, a few Members of Parliament, dragooned by their Whips, voted on the

933
amendment. There are over 600 Members but on most occasions only 400 vote. Where are the other 200?
The Government probably do not want a warning from me, but if they are going to lose votes—and they are certainly going to lose them on the poll tax, so I do not need to worry on that score—this is the type of issue that will lose them votes.
My argument concerns the arrogance with which the other Chamber confronts this Chamber. We are told that we are entitled to look at and pass a Bill, which has to go through both Houses of Parliament. But if we dare to suggest that one aspect of that Bill could be improved our suggestion is rejected, not because there is anything wrong with the arguments but because it will involve charges on public funds.
I challenge the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, on this issue. I taught history. I do not believe that there are Acts of Parliament which state that this House cannot challenge Bills that involve finance. We have standing orders, and we have the sacrosanct Erskine May, but we do not have a British constitution. That fact is constantly reiterated. We obey the conventions because we are orderly people, but that does not mean that we are obeying a law. What would happen to us if we dared to vote against the other place? Would we immediately be taken to the Tower? What a marvellous argument that would be for the retention of the House of Lords.
We are the last bastion defending the people's rights. This is one issue which shows that the Government do not really care for the people but that they care for money. That is what they feel strongly about—the cost. We are now to be confronted with a situation in which people will be told that they might be able to have an operation or they might not depending on whether it will cost the National Health Service too much. This is another example of that attitude.
I reject that as an answer to our reasoned amendments. I know that we shall not do anything about it, but that will not stop me from making my plea. My God, if we cannot do something for the deaf and the blind what kind of a civilised society do we live in?
4.30 p.m.
Viscount Caldecote: My Lords, we have spent a considerable amount of time discussing the constitutional issues on this point. I believe that there are other issues of equal or perhaps greater importance. I do not believe that we should insist on our amendment.
I have had the privilege of being a Member of your Lordships' House for more than 40 years, albeit a bad attender in the past. From time to time I have heard arguments that we must insist on our opinion and on other occasions there have been critical cries of "Peers against the people". I do not believe that that is the issue today.
I believe that the issue is whether the Government were wise to advise another place to vote in the way that it did. I believe that they were not. First, it is a flagrant case of spoiling the ship of state for a hap'orth of tar. Secondly, it is damaging to the
934
unity of society. My party—to which I am proud to belong—makes the proud claim that it governs in the interests of society as a whole. I do not believe that this decision supports that claim.
I implore my noble friend the Leader of the House to ask his right honourable friends in future, as they consider their response to amendments which we pass in this House in good faith after full debate, seriously to consider the points that I have made taking account of the reputation of the party, and the reputation of the Government as one which governs the whole country as a united nation and in the interests of all sections of society
Baroness Seear: My Lords, am I to understand that the privileged objection is based primarily on finance? Will the noble Lord the Leader of the House examine again the point which has just been made by the noble Lord, Lord Carter? We were told by the Government Front Bench that we were talking about 100,000 people. Plainly the cost of dealing with 100,000 people is very different from the cost of dealing with 8,000. That is surely a matter of fact.
I do not know whether the not le Lord, Lord Carter, is right or wrong, but surely the Government can find out whether he is right or wrong and whether we are talking about 100,000 people or 8,000 people. If the issue turns on finance, the difference between those figures must be very considerable indeed. If it emerges that the decision has been based—quite sincerely and genuinely—on mistaken figures, is it not possible for the Government to think again?
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, in this debate very little has been said about the constitutional position because in the debate on the previous amendment there was general acceptance—whether noble Lords liked it or not—that the Commons was clearly within its rights. Therefore, on this occasion I shall not say anything on that point.
However, I was one of those who was very interested in this matter on its merits. I can well understand why the Government were unwilling to accept the amendment since there seems to be—as the noble Baroness has just said—an extraordinary disparity of view as to the numbers involved and therefore as to the cost involved. It may be that there will have to be further research before that point can be cleared up.
I rise simply to ask my noble friend the Leader of the House whether, assuming that your Lordships accept—as I am sure that we should—the Commons' rejection of our amendment, the Government will look at the issue involved. In particular, will they try to clarify the rather exasperating question as to how many people we are talking about? Would my noble friend also make it clear whether I am right in thinking that if the Government were to decide that a reasonably small number of people was affected—and there is no dispute that they are all tragic cases—it would be possible to proceed by way of regulation to provide some help for them? I appreciate that it may be some time before we have another Social Security Bill. Indeed, the Government's experiences with this Bill may contribute to that delay. However, I have the

935
impression that if the Government wanted to do something about the worst cases in this category it might be possible to proceed by regulation. That would mean that if the Government were convinced that it was possible and they wanted to do it they could do so quite quickly.
I am not sure whether it is fair to ask my noble friend the Leader of the House to say something on that aspect when he winds up the debate. If he could do so he would reassure a great many noble Lords who, like myself, take a totally different view of the merits of this amendment compared with the earlier amendment.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, perhaps I may begin by saying that I am no lawyer but I am quite confident that this could not be done by regulation. We went into that possibility with some care before proposing the rather restricted amendment.
I accept that we cannot quarrel with the decision of the other place taken on the grounds of privilege and that that is something that we must accept with good grace. Perhaps I may also say that I think that some of the speeches have been slightly less than fair to the Government in that the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, made it quite clear that this was something that the Government eventually wanted to achieve and that they accepted that there were merits in what was being proposed. However, I hope that the Government realise that the way in which, in the end, they have treated these two small groups will not do them very much good not only with those concerned and their families, but also with a lot of other people in the country, including many of their own supporters.
I go along entirely with what the noble Lord, Lord Carter, has said about the figures. He has discussed them with me. I remind your Lordships that as regards the mentally handicapped group we are talking about those who are severely mentally handicapped—the criterion which qualifies one for exemption from the poll tax—who in addition have behavioural problems requiring constant supervision. To say that that total comes out at 100,000 is so ludicrous that, if the statement had not come from a government Minister, one would simple have dismissed it as absolutely time-wasting.
The noble Lord, Lord Elton, referred to possible compromises in the handling of amendments made in this House with which another place disagreed. That prompts me to say that even the Minister did not quarrel with the calculation that there might be about 3,000 people who are both deaf and blind who do not at present receive the allowance. Nothing is being done for them either.
I can only say with some regret that I am glad that I am not a member of a party that is content to put off for years—the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, did not deny that it could be years—the possibility of the allowance being paid to, at any rate, that small group of most grievously disabled people.
Lord Renton: My Lords, it is, I think, obvious to all of us that the strength of your Lordships' House lies in its capacity as a revising Chamber and its
936
constitutional power to ask another place to think again. It would seem that our strength as a revising Chamber has, if anything, increased in recent years. But although we have the right to ask Members of another place to think again, I am sure that your Lordships would agree that we cannot ask them to think again and again, however important the matter may be and however wrong we may think they are.
On the Third Reading of the Social Security Bill, I was one of those who, along with 14 of my noble friends, voted for the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Carter. I did so because I thought that the other place—and that means the Government as well—should think again for two main reasons. First, there was such a strong case for the granting of mobility allowance that it should not be delayed too long. I had feared from the speech that I heard from the Front Bench on that occasion that we would be a long, long time awaiting before our dream came true. I should like to hear from my noble friend the Leader of the House, following the suggestion of my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, that—without committing the Government more than he is constitutionally able to do—the matter will be dealt with before long.
My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter said that he did not know whether we would ever have another social security Act. But there has been one in each of the last seven years, just as there has been a regular Finance Bill. In some years there has been more than one. I hope and believe that this could be done quite soon one way or another. I support what the noble Lord, Lord Carter, said, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, whose support of MENCAP we share. I support them in the view that talk of 100,000 is just unreal. It is nowhere near the truth. I hope that we shall hear nothing more of that today.
It would be quite wrong of us to resist the Commons further on this matter of privilege. However, in view of what has been said, I hope that this necessary improvement in our social service arrangements will not be long delayed.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I do not wish to detract from anything that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, said in the latter part of his speech and I hope that the Government Front Bench listened most carefully. However, I wish to pick up something that he said early in his speech; namely, that this House does not have the right to ask the Commons to think again and again.
It may well be that, in matters such as this, where financial privilege is involved, we should not ask the Commons to take them back again. We have the right, but it is not a right that we should exercise. However, on other matters that do not involve financial privilege we have the right to return things again and again to the Commons, and that is not a right that we should lightly set down. It is an important constitutional provision for Parliament in its exercise of scrutiny of the Executive. It is the fact that the Executive imposes its will in this way through a huge whipped majority in the Commons which bears no relation whatsoever to the voting power in this country that is at the root of the matter.

937
People have said that this House has been insulted by the Commons. That is a grave mistake. The people who have been insulted by the Executive are the deaf, the blind and the seriously handicapped.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Auckland: My Lords, there are many Members of your Lordships' House and another place who have worked with the deaf, the blind and the severely handicapped over many years, both on hospital committees, as I have done, and therapeutically. I do not propose to go into the constitutional argument here except to say in fairness that the other place has accepted at least in part, although perhaps not to the extent that many of us would like, a considerable number of amendments from your Lordships' House. I speak with 30 years' of experience in this House.
I believe that we must now accept what the other place has done. However, this is a matter to which the Government should give further thought. As my noble friend Lord Renton, with his enormous experience, has said, there are well over 100,000 people involved here—
Noble Lords: No!
Lord Renton: My Lords, I said that the figure of 100,000 given to us from the Front Bench during the Third Reading debate, is quite unreal and that I hoped we would not hear that figure mentioned again from the Front Bench.
Lord Auckland: My Lords, I apologise to my noble friend and to the House for that Freudian slip.
Many people have been blinded in the service of this country. Many people have become mentally handicapped and deaf in the service of this country. That is an aspect that the Government should consider, whether in regulations or elsewhere. I hope that my noble friend the Leader of the House and my right honourable friend the Minister, who is a very fair minded and caring man, will take those points on board.
Lord Rippon of Hexham: My Lords, I do not want to enter into the constitutional argument, but I should like to endorse entirely what my noble friend Lord Caldecote said about this issue.
I have worked for the Conservative Party all my adult life. I am totally appalled that a party that claims to follow in the traditions of Disraeli, Shaftesbury and Churchill should have committed what I believe to be—whatever the French translation may be—an act of social cruelty. That is the only way in which I can describe the way we treat the blind and the deaf. I have always believed that we should have a minimum standard of life and labour below which no one should be allowed to fall and, after that, competition upwards. We are not providing a minimum standard of life for people who are totally blind and dumb.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I too should like to associate myself with what the noble Lord, Lord
938
Carter, said, particularly as my name was down to the amendment approved by your Lordships, although I was unable to be present at that time due to a long-standing engagement.
Like other noble Lords, I hope that my noble friends on the Front Bench will take a careful and close look at the numbers of people involved. Some noble Lords have talked about people who are blind and some have talked about people who are deaf. The amendment refers to people who are both blind and deaf. If one is blind, one can hear traffic. If one is deaf, one can see traffic. But if one is both blind and deaf, one is in a totally enclosed world and one can only feel traffic. That may be the moment when the motor car hits you. This is why those who had their names to this amendment, as well as myself, feel very strongly that those people should have the mobility allowance so that they can be escorted in the streets. It is also very important for people who cannot control themselves because of mental disabilities and need to be escorted at the same time.
I hope that my noble friends on the Front Bench will take a very careful look at this matter. I hope that the Leader of the House when he comes to reply will be able to give some indication of when they will consider this matter and when they propose to take some action. I have a feeling that this is doing a great deal of damage to the Conservative Party and, no matter what party is in power, to the whole parliamentary system.
There was another point that I wished to raise but I cannot bring it immediately to mind. I shall therefore leave the matter there so that we can move on.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, in the past three-quarters of an hour a good deal has been said about the Government's attitude to the mobility allowance. Before replying very briefly to this debate, perhaps I may say that over the past 10 years expenditure on the mobility allowance has increased to cover not 95,000 people as it covered 10 years ago, but 580,000 people as it does today. The allowance is nearly two and a half times greater than it was 10 years ago and of course it was taken out of taxation in 1982. I believe that all those things are good.
What is difficult for the Government with regard to this amendment—and this is ground that we covered at Report stage when my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale replied and there was a vote—is that there is a disagreement about what statistically would be the effects of the amendment. Indeed, there was the question of the desirability of waiting—and now it will only be a very short tame before it appears—for the OPCS report and in the light of that report to decide on the best way forward for the future.
Many noble Lords, including many of my noble friends, have pressed me today to say a word about the future. In the light of all the interest in this House on this issue I should first say that of course the Government wish to resolve this matter as quickly as possible. However, there is a need to strike a balance between the wish for a speedy resolution, the need to listen carefully to the organisations concerned with disability and the need to arrive at

939
a resolution of this problem which is not at odds with any wider changes needed in disability benefits. This afternoon that is as far as I can go.
I believe that noble Lords, whatever their attitude to the reply from another place, have recognised in this debate that the other place has involved financial privilege. To advance the Government's view on the merits of the amendment would, I think, from me be to suggest to your Lordships that an alternative decision is possible.
As I sought to make clear when I spoke at the beginning of this debate, I do not believe that that is the case. I therefore urge the House not to insist on their Amendment No. 3 for the reason numbered 4.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Local Government and Housing Bill
4.54 p.m.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Arran.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD AYLESTONE in the Chair.]
Clause 4 [Designation and reports of head of paid service]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 72:
Page 6, line 14, leave out ("in his opinion").
The noble Lord said: When I first saw Clause 4 of this Bill I was puzzled to understand why the Government should wish to impose such detailed controls on local authorities vis-à-vis the role of what is now to be called "the head of their paid service" and what has always in the past been called their "chief executive".
I thought it was extraordinary that anyone could think it necessary for a local authority to designate one of its officers as "head of their paid service" and provide him with:
"such staff, accommodation and other resources as are, in his opinion, sufficient to allow his duties … to be performed";
or for anybody to think that it was necessary for the head of a paid service to have the right to report to the authority on the way in which its functions are co-ordinated or:
"the number and grades of staff required … the organisation of the authority's staff; and … the appointment and proper management of the authority's staff'.
I could continue; it is a substantial clause. But it seems to imply a lack of trust between a local authority and its chief executive which I did not expect to find in the mind of the Government and which I have not generally found in the local authority world as I know it.
However, as of last night I know the explanation. Those Members of the Committee who saw the
940
"Panorama" film—and I think rather more Members from the Government Benches than these Benches were available at that time to see the film—will have learnt about what happens in the City of Westminster. According to that film and the hearing which is now being conducted by the district auditor into the affairs of the City of Westminster, the leader of the Westminster City Council, Lady Porter, as I think is well known, for £1 has given away three cemeteries. It is now seeking to buy them back and will have to pay £5.5 million. That is a financial matter with which we may well be concerned in the course of our later considerations of this Bill.
The leader of the council clearly treated her then chief executive, Mr. Rodney Brooke, in a manner which in many ways justifies the Government's concern in bringing forward this amendment. A number of chief officers of the Westminster City Council have testified about the impossibility of working with Lady Porter. Mrs. Patricia Kirwan, a former colleague of mine on the GLC, who was Westminster's housing chairman said that she once saw a senior officer in the council who was upset and not particularly well being bullied by Lady Porter. She said:
"He did dissolve in tears and he was a decent man. He was trying his best. He was trying to explain something which she did not want to hear. I find that very upsetting because the officers are human beings and I don't like treating human beings badly".
A former chief press officer said that it was interesting and sometimes exciting working with Lady Porter but added that she could also be a tyrant and difficult to work for.
"Once you did not remain 'flavour of the month', as we used to say, she could drop you and demoralise you and make your working life very, very difficult".
More to the point, the senior officer who handled the controversial sale of the cemeteries told an internal inquiry:
"I've never had to work in a climate like I worked in here, and I've dealt with some pretty difficult socialist councils. If you put any opposition up, you were either 'not one of them' you were opposed to them politically, or you were 'negative' ".
Lady Porter has put forward the best arguments that I could have thought of for having Clause 4 in the Bill. I have modified my views about large parts of Clause 4 as a result of Lady Porter's activities. It is quite clear that any accusation that such bullying could take place in a Labour council has not been attempted. The Government have not at any stage during which this Bill has been before Parliament attempted to show that any Labour Council has behaved in that way toward its chief officers.
It appeared to be a matter of ideological spite to put forward this clause. We now see that it is a very clever and well timed proposal to restrain the activities of one of their least restrained colleagues who certainly is not only under fire from the media—and many people are—but is under fire in what appear to be well founded complaints to the district auditor.
In the circumstances I wish to concentrate in Amendment No. 72 on only one very specific point in Clause 4, which even with the justification that has now been given for much of the clause seems

941
to go not only too far but very much so. In Clause 4(1)(b) the Bill states that the authority shall,
"provide that officer with such staff, accommodation and other resources as are, in his opinion, sufficient to allow his duties under this section to be performed".
Mr. Rodney Brooke was treated very badly by the Westminster City Council but I do not think that he would ever have claimed that he did not have the staff, accommodation or other resources to perform his functions. What happened was that all his warnings were ignored by the Conservative leader of the council.
It is proposed that a significant part of the expenditure of the council—that is, the expenditure on the staff, accommodation and other resources of the head of the paid service—should be outwith the control of the elected members. It should be the responsibility only of a paid official rather than of the elected members, who have in turn to respond to the electorate.
I wish to suggest to the Committee that, however justified some of the other provisions may be, it is such a consitutional outrage—it is not constitutional because it is all delegated authority anyway—and such a departure from all the principles of responsibility of local authorities to their electors, their fiduciary duty to their electors, as the judges have termed it, that it cannot and ought not to be accepted by this Committee. The fiduciary duty has become a principle of the way in which the courts consider local authority expenditure. The principle would completely collapse if local authorities criticised for breach of fiduciary duty were able to say, "I am sorry, my Lord, I had no opportunity to control the expenditure of my council because the head of my paid service had the responsibility which we, the councillors, could not control to provide himself with such staff, accommodation and other resources as are in his opinion sufficient to allow his duties under this section to be performed".
If the elected councillors are to be responsible to their electorate, and if they are to carry out the task for which they are to be held responsible, they must be responsible for all of the expenditure of their authority. It must not be possible for an appointed paid officer to override the decisions of the finance committee and of the council as to what the expenditure should be. In this clause, with all its virtues on the control of the outrageous behaviour of Conservative authorities, these three words are an excrescence and they ought to be removed. I beg to move.
5 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: When I was very small my elders and betters always told me that I should be very careful about what I watched on television. Last night I was unable to have the benefit or the privilege of observing the "Panorama" programme. Not having seen it, I shall not comment apart from to say that this Bill governs the whole of Great Britain rather than just Westminster.
This amendment would remove the right of the head of the local authority's paid service to claim
942
the resources which he thinks that he needs for his functions under Clause 4 and leave him dependent on what the local authority thinks is sufficient. Let me say at the outset that in the vast majority of cases we can see no reason why there should be any difference in the assessment that a chief executive will make of what he needs and what his local authority thinks he will need. However, in legislating we cannot rule out the possibility that there will be differences of opinion. The Government have taken the view that in this one small area it is necessary to allow the officer's views to prevail.
The purpose of Clause 4 is to strengthen the management within local authorities by making sure that there is a focus—the head of the paid service—for all questions about management, and that proper professional advice is given to the authority about the steps that are necessary to ensure proper management.
I should mention the reason why we have used the term "head of the authority's paid service" rather than say, "chief executive". Most local authorities have a chief executive or chief executive officer. However, some have not chosen to use such a title. Basildon District Council, for example, has a town manager, while Harlow District Council has a general manager. We do not want to overrule such local usages. We therefore chose a term which, while clearly descriptive of the position, did not pre-empt the actual title of the post.
To achieve the purpose of strengthening the management, to which I have referred, Clause 4 therefore imposes a duty directly on the chief executive. If we impose a duty on an officer directly, then we have to take steps to ensure that he has the wherewithal to carry out that duty. We have therefore given him the right to claim such resources as he thinks are necessary. I should emphasise that this claim is only for his duties under Clause 4—reporting on management arrangements. The right does not extend to any other duties he may have as chief executive.
This follows the pattern set last year in the Local Government Finance Act 1988, when the chief finance officer was given a similar claim for the resources that he needs for preparing any reports under Section 114: his duty to call the council's attention to any unlawful expenditure or any budget deficit.
This in turn follows a pattern set elsewhere when officers have directly been given duties. For example, if a superintendent registrar is not provided with a suitable register office, he can hire one at the local authority's expense, because he personally is responsible for providing the service. The same principle has been followed in Clause 5 in relation to the monitoring officer in respect of his duties.
We do not expect that local authorities are likely to have a different opinion to their chief executives about what is needed. But if there is a difference of opinion, it is important that the views of the council's professional adviser on the management of that authority should be presented to the authority and that the resources for this to be done should be forthcoming.

943
It is for this reason that we resist the amendment of the noble Lord.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: The Minister begins by saying that we can dismiss or forget what happens at Westminster City Council, and that those of us who did not see the "Panorama" programme last night or read about the matter in every newspaper this morning can forget that it happened. In discussing local government and political interference or political judgments, how on earth can we forget such lessons? There is no doubt that Members opposite believe that they are on a winner when they talk of political interference. They talk of political interference from the Left. Yet we have the very good illustration that will run and run not only of how Westminster City Council has been so very badly interfered with politically but also of many others.
The Minister chooses to forget such lessons. I can assure him that on this side of the Chamber we shall not. We shall come back to the matter time and again. It is a good example of the disreputable way in which local government has been brought into disrepute.
Will the Minister take on board this aspect of what he has said? He believes that on very rare occasions there will be a dispute between the members and the chief officer as to the extent to which the chief officer requires resources. This clause provides that, when the chief officer does not get his way, when there is no agreement with the elected members, he has the right in limited circumstances to incur expense over the heads of the elected members. Who is responsible to the electorate for that expenditure? Who will have to stand up and justify that expenditure from election time to election time? Who will have to justify the community charge? Who will have to explain that this expenditure is preferable to other expenditure, for instance, on old people's homes, the disabled, the blind or the crippled? Can the Minister say how the Government will help a council which believes that the expenditure should not be incurred but is overruled. In future will there be a special element in what we know as the "rate support grant"? I believe that my noble friend Lord McIntosh fairly understood the genesis of the clause and gave good illustrations. However, many questions need to be answered.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Noble Lords opposite have made a perfectly legitimate political point about a programme shown on television last night which I did not see. However, I believe that they are arguing against themselves. The subsection protects a chief officer being disregarded, maltreated and not trusted by his authority. If the chief officer cannot have what in his opinion is essential to do his professional job according to the law he would be in trouble. He would be in a difficult position.
I have never been in that situation but I can picture circumstances in which councillors tried to get at the chief officer by failing to provide him with the resources he legitimately required. The Government appear to be justified in saying that he should have the resources which, in his opinion, are correct. It is
944
the only circumstance in which I can envisage it being correct. It would be a pity to remove the provision particularly in the light of the evidence that noble Lords have cited. They appear to be arguing against themselves. That was unconvincing; we should not support the amendment.
Lord Sefton of Garston: I am rather mystified although I admit that I did not read the clause before I entered the Chamber. I have had experience in local government because for five years I was the leader of Merseyside County Council; I was also chairman and leader of Liverpool City Council. We had a policy of always establishing a close liaison between the officers and the membership in those bodies.
I understand that the clause refers to the head of the paid service of a local authority. In Liverpool we never had one head. On the recommendation of a so-called expert management consultant we had complete autonomy in certain departments. Therefore, there was more than one head. I understand that even today plenty of councils like to operate that way. Who will decide the expenditure for the resources necessary for those officers to do their job?
I had an unpleasant experience when I was in Liverpool. The chief officer and the chief housing officer whom we placed in two separate compartments did not get on too well. Ultimately the elected members had to decide the differences between them. That, I believe, is the only way it can be done. However, the clause puts the matter firmly in the hands of one officer: I do not believe that to be practicable.
I am interested to note the number of people who did not see the programme last night. Evidently they have not read today's serious newspapers because they contain good résumés of a serious issue. Leaving that aside, what does the Minister mean by the head officer of the "paid service"? How will that officer decide the following issues? First, where a local authority has appointed two separate officers to look after their own area, who will take the decision? Secondly, who will decide resources to be made available to officers and members in one building and operated through one administration? This appears to be a recipe for complete chaos between the elected members and paid employees.
Lord Hesketh: The noble Lord will see that Clause 4(1)(a) provides that it is the duty of every local authority,
"to designate one of their officers as the head of their paid service"—
Lord Sefton of Garston: Will the Minister give way? Does that mean that the Bill is intended to order local authorities to organise their administration as the Government want?
Lord Hesketh: No, but obviously it is more sensible to have one person in charge than a number. The noble Lord, Lord Graham, asked how the councillors will justify the expenditure. We anticipate such expenditure to be a rare occurrence

945
but the behaviour of the councillors will have brought about the circumstances in which the officer must exercise the powers that he has been given. It is for their behaviour that they will have to answer.
Lord Sefton of Garston: The Minister did not reply to the other point that I raised. However, it is now clear that the Government intend to tell local authorities how to organise their affairs. One of the reasons Liverpool organised its affairs in the way I described was to reduce conflict between chief officers and members and chief officers. If the Government intend to tell a council such as Liverpool, "No, you must now designate one head", they really are heading for trouble.
Lord Hesketh: We are not in any way trying to tell local authorities how they should be run. We are merely trying to provide the tools to improve the management.
5.15 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The Minister could have fooled me. My noble friend Lord Sefton does less than justice to the Government, and the motivation behind Clause 4. After all, he comes from well-run authorities such as Liverpool and Merseyside where there would be no justification for the kind of detailed intervention proposed in Clause 4.
Clearly, the Government are concerned about the kind of abuse to which I referred and the issue goes much further. Westminster City Council—and it was only legal opinions obtained by the BBC and not opinions obtained by the council—proposed a homes sales policy which, according to the chairman of the Housing Committee, was deliberately intended to increase the Conservative vote in marginal wards. It was a deliberate attempt to gerrymander the electorate of Westminster in order to suit the Conservative Party. How will this clause and the Bill remedy that abuse?
The leader of Westminster City Council commissioned a pamphlet of profiles designed to discredit the Westminster Labour Party. In a paper called Keeping Westminster Conservative Lady Porter suggested employing five activists to work in the eight marginal wards and find out the background of Labour candidates so that skeletons in the cupboard could be exposed. How will this clause and the Bill remedy those abuses?
I suggest that the Government have been blindfolded and have so much tunnel vision. They have an impression of wicked Left wing councils behaving in a wicked way towards their electors and officers. Therefore they are missing the abuses which take place in a local part of local government—the part of local government in which we are now standing. If the Minister is to defend this part of the Bill, as well as this clause and the provision he must show what will be done to stop Lady Porter and others from behaving in such a way. It is unacceptable that such events should continue and that interference should be based on politically-
946
motivated grounds rather than de fence of the ratepayers.
The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, appears to have misunderstood the purpose of our amendment. I return to the issue. It is simple and concerns only the provision of staff accommodation and other resources. We say that even in the worst-run local authority in the country—that is Westminster City Council in whose area we are now standing—it was never a complaint of Mr. Rodney Brooke, the chief executive forced out and given a large golden handshake, that he was not given the staff, resources or accommodation. That was not the complaint. This clause would not deal with his problems. The complaint was that his warnings were ignored and that the council, and particularly the leader of the council, did nothing to protect the ratepayers from blatant gerrymandering and political manipulation of the powers of the council.
If the Minister were to tell us that the Government have positive plans to deal with those abuses, we might be more sympathetic. However, at present this provision in Clause 4 is irrelevant to the problem which faces the worst-run councils of this country and it is in conflict with the more fundamental principle of accountability of councillors to their ratepayers for their expenditure. It is on that basis that I believe it is necessary to seek the opinion of the Committee on the amendment.
5.21 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 72) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 78; Not-Contents, 121.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Grey, E.

Airedale, L.

Hampton, L.

Amherst, E.

Hanworth, V.

Attlee, E.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Aylestone, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Birk, B.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Blackstone, B.

Jeger, B.

Blease, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Bottomley, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Lawrence, L

Leatherland, L.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Listowel, E.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Longford, E.

David, B.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Ennals, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Mountevans, L.

Falkender, B.

Mulley, L.

Falkland, V.

Nathan, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Peston, L.

Gallacher, L.

Phillips, B.

Galpern, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L [Teller.]

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Gregson, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

947

Rea, L.

Stedman, B.

Ross of Newport, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Rugby, L.

Tordoff, L.

Russell, E.

Turner of Camden, B.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Underhill, L.

Serota, B.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Shackleton, L.

White, B.

Stallard, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Layton, L.

Aldington, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Alexander of Weedon, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Long, V.

Arran, E.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Auckland, L.

Luke, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Lyell, L.

Belstead, L.

McAlpine of West Green, L

Blatch, B.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Blyth, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Borthwick, L.

Margadale, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Marley, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Merrivale, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Mersey, V.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Butterworth, L.

Munster, E.

Caithness, E.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Caldecote, V.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Nelson, E.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Nelson of Stafford, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Newall, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Cowley, E.

Orkney, E.

Craigavon, V.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Pender, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Platt of Writtle, B.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Quinton, L.

Donegall, M.

Rankeillour, L.

Dundee, E.

Renton, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Renwick, L.

Elibank, L.

Rochdale, V.

Elles, B.

Romney, E.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Elton, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Ferrers, E.

Seebohm, L.

Fisher, L.

Shannon, E.

Forbes, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Fortescue, E.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Strange, B.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Strathclyde, L.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Suffield, L.

Greenway, L.

Swinfen, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Teviot, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Henley, L.

Torphichen, L.

Hesketh, L.

Trafford, L.

Hives, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Trumpington, B.

Hood, V.

Ullswater, V.

Hooper, B.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Waldegrave, E.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Weir, V.

Joseph, L.

Westbury, L.

Killearn, L.

Wise, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Wolfson, L.

Kitchener, E.

Young, B.

Lauderdale, E.

Young of Graffham, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.28 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick moved Amendment No. 73:
Page 6, line 22, at end insert—
("(aa) the quality of the authority's services and their appropriateness in relation to the needs of the area concerned").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is to broaden the role of the head of paid service to enable him or her to report on the quality of the authority's services.
In setting out the specific areas on which the head of service can report, the Bill makes a glaring omission. It makes no provision for assessment of the quality of services provided, the end product of local authority administration and the benefits which local people receive. The post holder addresses himself or herself to the mechanics of service provision, co-ordination of functions and the levels, grades and organisation of staff.
However, the result of all that co-ordination—namely, local services for local people—does not enter into the equation. For example, how can the head of paid service look at the numbers and grades of staff required by the authority for the discharge of those functions and yet not look at the quality of those functions? Most local authorities have indicated that the duties of this post would fall to their chief executive or his equivalent, who is sometimes known as the town clerk. The White Paper says that this function would almost certainly fall to the chief executive if there was one. How can the quality of service delivery be divorced from management co-ordination? If, as Ministers tell us, the Government are genuinely concerned about the effectiveness and efficiency of local government, they should accept this amendment which links resources with results.
Assessment of service quality is particularly important when services are increasingly being provided out of house due to government legislation imposing compulsory competitive tendering. The Government's maxim of "private sector, good; public service, bad" is not always borne out, as the experience of Wandsworth ratepayers and taxpayers demonstrates. Wandsworth, in the forefront of privatising services, sacked the ARA catering because the quality of private sector service to old people's homes was so low.
Surely, the head of the paid service who is reponsible for co-ordinating the discharge of the authority's functions and the agreed staffing levels in house, needs to look at the services being delivered.
There may be reasons why the Government are not worried about the quality of services provided. Perhaps Ministers have been reading a survey which was published in the March edition of Which? Scotland was excluded because of the imminent introduction of poll tax. The survey showed that 78 per cent. of the people interviewed were satisfied with local authority services generally; 75 per cent. were satisfied with the services given by their local council on the most recent occasions; 82 per cent. were satisfied with social services such as home helps and social workers; and 90 per cent. were satisfied with education services. Only 18 per cent. of people interviewed thought that central government would offer better value for money in providing services currently run by local authorities.
However, local authorities are not content to rest on their laurels. They want to ensure that services are reaching the people who need them and that the

949
quality of service meets public needs. The elected member needs to know the practical effects of policy decisions as they affect service delivery. After all, the elected members can be voted out of office and are accountable to their community.
The Bill requires the head of paid service to report, as appropriate, under the structure of the local authority. There should also be a requirement to report, as necessary, on the services which that structure has been put in place to achieve. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: This amendment would add a new item to the list of matters on which the head of the paid service is under a duty to report to the council where he considers it appropriate; that is, on the quality of the local authority's services and their appropriateness in relation to the needs of the area concerned.
In order to explain why we think it inappropriate to add this new requirement, I must take the Committee back to the underlying purpose of Clause 4. It has long been recognised that there is a problem in managing a local authority in that it is an organisation with a wide remit, covering many services, with many different interest groups to serve and many conflicting priorities. This problem is, if anything, made more difficult by the tradition of very strong functional departments which have sometimes almost become warring principalities for the committee chairmen or chief officers concerned. This point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Sefton, during discussion on an earlier amendment.
There has been a concern for many years to strengthen the overall management of local authorities. The Bains Report, which led to the emergence of the policy and resources committees and the posts of chief executives was one aspect of this.
After the 1974 reorganisation, nearly all local authorities appointed chief executives. More recently, however, there has been a drift away from this emphasis on central management leadership. A number of local authorities have given up the post of chief executive. We think that it is timely to re-emphasise the need for central leadership and to take an overall look at the way in which the authority organises itself. Our proposals in this field were almost simultaneous with the Audit Commission report on the role of the chief executive, and obviously many people compared them. The most noticeable difference was the emphasis which the Audit Commission placed on the role of the chief executive in carrying out a performance review, which does not feature in Clause 4.
It is therefore not surprising to find that the noble Lord is proposing that one of the duties of the head of the paid service—indeed, the first duty—is to carry out a review which might well be described as a policy review. The reason that we decided not to include such a review is apparent from the words that the noble Lord has had to use to describe his proposed new duty:
"The quality of the authority's services and their appropriateness to the needs of the area concerned".
950
This is set out in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey. I emphasise the words, "and their appropriateness to the area concerned." I have no doubt that any good local authority will want to ensure that such a review is carried out. But, in our opinion, it is for the elected members to decide what the needs of their area are, and what services are appropriate to them. Without, therefore, the willing co-operation of the members in a review of the kind proposed by the noble Lord, we doubt that the exercise would be worthwhile. We cannot legislate for that willing co-operation.
All that we can sensibly legislate for is the nuts and bolts of administration that are covered by the duties imposed by Clause 4. These are the details that any official leading an organisation should be expected to bring to the attention of the governing body as appropriate, and that the governing body should consider. The reason, therefore, that we have made no provision for a performance review of the kind advocated by the noble Lord is that it needs the willing interest and co-operation of the elected members. Only when they take up these questions will the authority properly address the purposes for which it is there. Only when they take an interest in the questions of what services are appropriate in their area—and I am sure that they will—and define standards to be achieved, can a proper review of this kind be carried out.
Our clause has no such high aspirations: it is aimed at the day-to-day details of the operation which are sometimes overlooked. We would in no way want to stop an authority commissioning the kind of review described. Indeed, we would want to encourage them to do so. But we do not think that we can do it by legislation, rather by example. For those reasons we resist the amendment.
Lord Dean of Beswick: I am sorry to hear the tenor of the Minister's reply because I think that the Government have got this completely wrong. It is nonsense to say that a chief officer, charged with a specific duty of being in charge of a particular service or area, can only report on the dimension of a problem and how to deal with it when requested by the local authority.
In my days on the Manchester City Council the five leading officers in all large authorities were known as the big five. I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, will concur with me on that point. They were the town clerk, the medical officer of health, the city engineer, the city architect and the chief public health inspector. Strangely enough that officer had wide statutory powers that could be invoked without reference to his political masters.
These officers had certain statutory duties which were not merely related to working for the council but were conferred on them as officers of a local authority. They could report direct to the council without the permission of the chairman of the committees because a statutory duty was vested in them historically by Royal seals and the granting of a Royal charter. I have to say that they did so quite fearlessly.
In Manchester we asked the medical officer of health just after the war to conduct a total survey of

951
the houses in Manchester. He asked how total we wanted it to be. He said, "It is going to be pretty disastrous if I report as I ought to do, and it is going to take a tremendous amount of time and money". Nevertheless, we said, "Get on with it". He wanted to do that in any case and he came up with a result similar to that in Birmingham and other big cities—namely, that there were about 100,000 slum houses that ought to be got rid of.
I make another comparison. The Government say that a chief officer—that is who we are talking about—can only act with the cognisance of his political masters. However, in Manchester from 1960 onwards we decided to organise a direct works department to do our building. We think that we did it particularly well, to the point where we had over 4,000 people working in that department building houses, schools and carrying out maintenance in the way that the other big cities were doing.
In 1967—a particularly bad year in local government for the Labour Party—we lost control of Manchester overnight. The first action taken by the Conservative controlled group was to ask the city treasurer, who was one of the big five, to report on the direct labour department's performance in Manchester.
It took the city treasurer some time. He was a very distinguished man in local government and within his national organisation. His report overwhelmingly found that, on balance, the direct works department in Manchester had performed well on behalf of the ratepayers. However, when he delivered his report to the city council the first charge made to him was from one of the leading members of the Conservative group—a former Lord Mayor who eventually had to leave Manchester under rather dubious circumstances. He accused this officer of great distinction and integrity of making a political report, because it was not the report that the Conservative group wanted. Shortly afterwards that officer and some other officers left the council.
I am not at all satisfied with what the Minister said. He needs to convince me that the Government have it right in this instance. One aspect that is apparent in far too many local authorities—and I think my noble friend and colleague Lord McIntosh indicated this—is that political masters can behave in very peculiar ways, such as the present leader of Westminster City Council is doing. I do not suggest that it is all on one side because there are similar cases across the board.
With my long experience in local government I would always want to see senior officers with a great deal of independence and able to speak as individuals and as professionals of character who have the right training, without always having to genuflect and bend the knee to their political masters before they can make public statements on the need for services, the level of services and their cost. They have a public duty to do so. It is then up to their political masters to decide on whether or not to act.
It is regrettable that the Minister's arguments adduced so far have not convinced me that the Government have got this right. If the Minister
952
wants to say something more on the issue I should be glad to hear from him.
Lord Hesketh: I was not for one moment expecting to convince the noble Lord. However, I believe we have reached the interesting position where on the previous amendment a great deal of discussion took place concerning the rights of elected members of an authority but the moment the Government propose to provide rights for an elected authority to make decisions it is immediately considered unacceptable.
Lord Dean of Beswick: Perhaps I may deal with this point. I am not arguing the case that the officer should make the decision. The officer has no right at all to make the decision. What an officer should do, and is charged with doing otherwise he should not be in post, is to tell his political masters about the situation and how to deal with it or how not to deal with it. It is for the political masters to make the decision. The Minister should not confuse the two issues. I am saying that the officers should be fearless and independent in reporting, but the decision on what to do about a report is obviously taken by the political masters. It cannot be taken by anyone else.
5.45 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: The noble Lord was right in one respect. He said that this was not necessarily a matter of public services being bad or public services being good. I could not agree more with that. I believe that we have some very fine local authorities who, managerially and in every other sense, are serving their local communities extremely well. Equally, there are some fairly awful private companies with poor management and poor delivery of service. I suppose that the difference is that if a public company is poor it usually finds itself going out of business. Sadly, if local government management is poor the ratepayers—or community charge payers next year—pick up the bill and the authority continues to exist. The tab is always picked up and that is the difference.
One of the real difficulties about public authorities in terms of management is the distinction between the role of the members of the body that should determine policies and strategy and the officers who get on with the operation and implementation of those policies. So often within local authorities that distinction is blurred because too many local authority members involve themselves in the operational day-to-day management of the authority.
There is nothing in this clause, as I read it, that precludes members from their primary function; that is, to determine policy. Local authority members quite rightly must do that. There is also nothing to preclude local authority members from having an obligation to hold a view about the quality of services. I believe it is possible for local authority members to determine how they are to measure output—something which we are not particularly good at in local government but which increasingly is being done and has to be done.

953
There is one point on which I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Sefton. He said earlier that it is not necessary to have one person running an authority and that there can be lots of chiefs. I believe that that has been a great failing in local authorities. There has to be somebody nominally in control of the authority—a head of management. That person should be co-ordinating and organising the authority to ensure effective implementation of the policies of the members of the authority. Quality of service, therefore, must be the preoccupation of the officers. The quality of service and the organisation of the authority must be his responsibility. The performance of the people who work within the authority is also a function of the chief officer, or chief executive, whatever one may call him. Therefore, it is a matter of separating the determination of policy and the function of operational management. Most of what I read in Clause 4 concerns the most effective delivery of services. Underlining all of that is making sure that it happens in a way that does not compromise an officer.
I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Sefton, is not present. I can remember being privy to a discussion on Widdicombe and the functions of local authorities. A leading member of an authority said that she was not interested in what was legal and constitutional and what was not legal and constitutional. If the members determined on action then it was the officer's job to carry that out. What we now have in the Bill is a framework where no local authority member can compromise a professional officer in that way. I see this as a protection clause for the officers and for the members. It gives a framework which separates the distinct functions for the better efficiency and provision of services.
Lord Ross of Newport: I agree with everything said by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, and I therefore do not understand why she does not want to add this provision to the clause.
I wanted to intervene earlier because I think the amendment would prevent the terrible political in-fighting that occurs when certain statistics are published. My former constituency contains a large number of elderly people and was always being attacked for not having enough home helps. In fact we had a whole range of services—tucking in services—which were highly satisfactory. The great difficulty was to convince political opponents that the social services within the Isle of Wight were run rather well; by a very good Geordie from Sunderland, as it happens. I believe he is still running them extremely well. However, it would be helpful if the chief executive was obliged to make annual reports on the quality of services and the needs of the various areas concerned because areas vary considerably.
I go very much along the same path as the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. This is a good clause and it strengthens the arm of the chief executive. It is right that it should do so. In a well run authority that is his position, as there are always a few renegades who will challenge his considered opinions, but they are
954
nearly always wrong and it is up to the other members to make sure that they are kept in line.
I still believe that in due course we shall have to reorganise local government so that chief executives are elected by the public. I am in favour of a directly elected mayoral system. I think that that will have to happen so that at the end of the day somebody at the top of the tree is responsible, can take back the can and get the policy through. The public can decide to sack him after his term is up or re-elect him. If T. Dan Smith had been elected it might have been a much better story in Newcastle. I cannot say that this is party policy, but I have been trying to sell it to my party for some time. Everything that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, said points in that direction.
Lord Underhill: I follow briefly the noble Lord, Lord Ross and the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. I ask the Minister to consider the four points on which the officer has to report. The first is:
"the manner in which the discharge by the authority of their different functions is co-ordinated".
How can he do that unless he knows what the quality of the services are and the needs which have been laid down? The second is:
"the number and grades of staff required by the authority for the discharge of their functions".
The same point arises, as it does with:
"the organisation of the authority's staff".
And the fourth:
"the appointment and proper management of the authority's staff".
How can he report on those unless he can look at the quality of the services in relation to the needs? As my noble friend pointed out when he introduced the amendment, no power is being taken away from the elected authorities. The Minister should read subsection (5):
"It shall be the duty of a relevant authority to consider any report under this … head".
Therefore it still rests with the relevant authority to consider the report. The problem with many of these debates is that the Minister has a brief to reject, irrespective of the common sense of our arguments, and that is his answer. I ask the Minister to consider these four points carefully in relation to the amendment which my noble friend has moved.
Lord Hesketh:In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, the officer in question should, if he is competent, already be aware of the facts concerning those four points in subsection (3). The difficulty is a straight difference of opinion concerning whether this should appear in the Bill, as the noble Lord, Lord Dean, feels, or whether such a review should be commissioned or requested by the elected members, which is the Government's view. It is a straightforward difference of opinion and I fear that it will not be resolved this afternoon.
Lord Dean of Beswick: I hope the Committee will allow me to give two quick examples of what I am talking about. I am thinking about the halcyon days of local government when local government was highly regarded in this country. The medical officer of health of Manchester used to publish an annual

955
report. It was not issued by the Labour group or the Conservative group, but it was his own report as the officer with the statutory duty to protect the general health of the City of Manchester. In those reports sadly he always had to say—I think it is still true—that Manchester had a far higher number of deaths from heart attack, still-born babies and deaths before the age of 12 months than the national average. Someone in Manchester then had to decide what resources could be made available to deal with the situation based on the health officer's report, which was produced without pressure from anybody else and based on his total professional expertise.
I can illustrate the difference between the officer making the decision and the local authority making the decision in this way. Manchester, which is a small city in terms of area, needed very quickly some additional sites to continue a building programme of 3,000 housing units a year. The city is only about a seventh the area of Leeds for example. The town clerk and his team of officers produced a report for the elected members concerned which showed that by 1967 Manchester would be in surplus for housing. He advised the then leader of the council, Sir Robert Thomas, that Manchester ought to stop building. That was the advice given by the town clerk as the chief executive officer of the city.
I remember my predecessor telling the town clerk that that was not the policy of the council. The town clerk had indicated what should be done but council policy was to keep building traditional style houses to get rid of walk-up flats. The town clerk had forgotten the walk-up flats in his equation. I shall never forget the town clerk saying that he had offered the best advice that he could, but that if he had to search for extra sites, at least he had put his views on record despite the fact that the elected members wished to go on. However, he accepted his place as the servant of the elected members. I hope the Minister understands the difference between what I am talking about and what is in the Bill. He obviously will not shift on this. We shall have to come back to it and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: Before the noble Lord withdraws his amendment can he show me the words in the clause that prevent the chief executive, the chief officer or any officer of the council giving advice to a member or members and the members being allowed to hear the advice but not heed it? There is nothing in the clause that prevents that from happening.
Lord Dean of Beswick: A short time ago I raised questions in your Lordships' House relating to the departure of the chief executive from the City of Westminster and the golden handshake he was to receive when he left. It was apparently over 1.5 million. He was under instruction that the deal would be carried out only on the basis that he would make no public statement about why he was leaving. That is the kind of thing that ought to eliminated, not what I have been talking about.
Baroness Blatch: I still do not see what there is in this clause that prevents that from happening.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: Before my noble friend answers again, we are in a different ball game, since the Government have been asking for compulsory competitive tenders. That means that the chief officer, whoever he is, has the greatest difficulty in seeing that tenders are being carried out to the specifications, once they have been accepted. Nobody is travelling around to see if the lawns have been cut every week, as should have been done according to the tender. That is an important aspect, as the Government have insisted on compulsory tendering. Somebody from the local authority must see that the money is being well spent, otherwise the elected local members can be accused of wasting ratepayers' money when it might not be their fault because the tender has gone out. For example, there is the recent example of the tender across the road in St. James' Park where, the deckchair tender having been given out, now with all the hot sunny weather only one-third of the deckchairs are available because the man who was given the tender has disappeared. How does the chief executive know that the people who have the tender are still doing the work? That is another problem to be solved.
My other point is that many local authorities are trying to co-ordinate their services in a given area. In an inner city area it is no good trying to provide better child care facilities if housing conditions, health provision and schools are not being taken together overall. The chief executive needs to have before him the opinions of the council to ensure that what it needs is a complete co-ordination of the services in the area. Local elected members have to ensure that the chief executive is monitoring these services.
Lord Dean of Beswick: I have little further to say. In one authority 11 officers left because, as professionals, they bitterly objected to their political masters overriding all their advice and treating them like office boys.
I have nothing further to add. We shall have to come back to this matter at a later stage. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 agreed to.
6 p.m.
Clause 5 [Designation and reports of monitoring officer]:
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick moved Amendment No. 74:
Page 7, line 30, after second ("to") insert ("the Chairman of the authority and the Chairman of any committee of the authority which he considers to be concerned, and it shall be the duty of the Chairman of any such Committee so far as practicable to take steps within 21 days of receipt of the report to correct any defect and prevent its reassurance.
(4A) Where in the opinion of the head of the paid service no such action as is referred to in subsection (4) above is taken, or it is inadequate, he shall arrange for a copy of his report to be sent to").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is to inject a little common sense and practicality into Clause 5. It attempts to provide a cooling off period of 21 days before a monitoring

957
officer has formally to report to the authority under the provisions of the clause. During that time he or she can offer advice to the authority, committee, sub-committee or officer. The authority, committee, sub-committee or officer then has 21 days to comply with that advice.
Subsection (2) sets out the duties of the monitoring officer in relation to what he or she has to monitor. It is worth analysing the subsection. The officer has to watch for,
"any proposal, decision or omission by the authority, by any committee, sub-committee or officer of the authority or by any joint committee on which the authority are represented".
I shall give an example. In Greater Manchester, 10 monitoring officers—one from each of Greater Manchester's constituent districts—would have to monitor the Greater Manchester Fire Brigade and Civil Defence Authority, the Greater Manchester Police Authority and the Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Authority. There would perhaps be a little duplication. They would have to monitor these in respect of any contravention of law or code of practice, which in law might be only a code of practice to which regard must be had, and anything leading to maladministration or injustice.
The breadth of issues covered by these criteria is staggering. The number of times in a large authority that deeds are done, decisions are taken or proposals are made which could come within the remit of the clause must run into thousands. Ministers must have an idea of the scale of monitoring operation implied by the clause. Every time such a transgression comes to the notice of a monitoring officer, he or she must prepare a report to the authority. In most cases the authority means the full council, which may meet only every four or six weeks. This amendment recognises that transgressions or potential transgressions are better dealt with quickly and by giving the transgressor or potential transgressor a chance to reconsider his actions or proposals.
Similar arrangements exist with the local ombudsman by which wrongs can be righted before the ombudsman's powers are fully involved. I cannot see why that arrangement cannot be built into this provision. I am sure that everyone would benefit from it. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: As this is the first time I have ventured to intervene in discussions on this Bill, perhaps I may say how surprised I am that Parts I and II contain so much purely administrative direction to local authorities. That is especially true of Clauses 4 and 5. With all the experience that local authorities have gained over the years I should have thought that it was unnecessary for Parliament to take up its time with so much purely administrative detail. I have looked through the later parts of the Bill to see where enforcement of these provisions is set out. I cannot find it. Perhaps we can be told how these provisions will be enforced.
The amendment will increase unnecessarily the amount of purely administrative instruction, direction, persuasion and advice—call it what you will. In a well run body—whether central or local government, a business organisation, a quango or a
958
nationalised industry—those things ought to take place in the normal course of dealing; between the officers of an authority and the elected members and between the elected members themselves. For the chairman of the authority to be given this further instruction—as to, for example, copies to be sent internally—does not seem to be a matter with which we should be concerned.
The fifth line of the amendment reads:
"the report to correct any defect and prevent its reassurance".
In that context, what can "reassurance" mean? It puzzles me.
Baroness David: Surely the word should be "recurrence". There is a mistake in the amendment.
Lord Hesketh: My noble friend Lord Renton has spotted an obvious flaw in the amendment, and the noble Baroness, Lady David, has discovered the cure. The Committee will agree that what she says makes sense.
The aim of the amendment is to require the monitoring officer to report to the committee chairman rather than the council. If what is wrong is an illegality or an impropriety it would be for the council to consider it. I do not believe that there will be as many cases as the noble Lord suggested. The monitoring officer will first try to set the matter right unofficially and will report only if he cannot solve the matter unofficially. However, we oppose the amendment because it operates on a completely different basis from the intentions of the clause.
I would also criticise it on some matters of detail. Chairmen of committees obviously guide their committees in their work, but they cannot on their own have any function to take action. The High Court has made it clear that the power to delegate functions which all local authorities enjoy does not extend to giving individual elected members a power of decision on behalf of the local authority. Although the Widdicombe Committee recommended the legitimisation of the powers of chairmen to take action in an emergency, the Government believed that other devices were workable which were consistent with the fundamental rule that members do not act on their own. The amendment comes near to breaching that fundamental rule.
Secondly, we do not think that it is appropriate, even if one accepts the idea that the chairman should on his own take action, for an officer to be put in the position of deciding whether to appeal over the head of a councillor to the full council about a decision by that councillor. The duties which we have given to the monitoring officer and the chief finance officer are to draw to the attention of all members of the council the cases where the authority is about to do something illegal or improper, judged against objective standards and not where they disagree with a matter of judgment. For that reason the amendment therefore seems to give officers greater power to stand in judgment over the performance of members than we, or I suspect the officers themselves, would judge to be appropriate or suitable. It is in the light of those considerations that we resist the amendment.
Lord Dean of Beswick: Once again I am not very happy with the Minister's reply. I should like to press him on one point. Very often when another specific duty is laid upon an authority—I am not talking here about officers—it is often decided, in order to expedite the business, to form a sub-committee and to give that committee powers of delegation to deal with a particular situation or a particular function. What would be the Government's view of an authority if it decided to do just that?
I must say to the Minister that it is quite a new idea that the locally elected members of local authorities will decide who has transgressed the law. Traditionally, if a member of the council is breaking the law, local authority officers do not report that fact back to the council. There is a statutory duty, if it is a financial matter, to send the papers direct to the DPP, without recourse to anyone. The local authorities do not decide in any respect who among their members can be prosecuted in issues which concern the council. That is done quite separately for obvious reasons. Therefore I do not know why it should be any different in this situation.
I think that if a particular officer is endowed with those powers, and if he has to report back, he should be in a position to act in the capacity of an official officer. We seek to stop matters at an early stage when they could possibly be stopped to everyone's benefit, instead of going through the whole rigmarole and producing thousands of cases some of which—or, I have no doubt, the majority of them—may well be thrown out. It may well be that if someone decides to put the matter right within the 21 days specified, it can be done. That would be on the basis, naturally, that the officer would report back to the local authority periodically as often as is deemed necessary. But for the Minister to stand back and say that it should be the local authority which decides for the locally elected members is a nonsense. That has never happened in local government before.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: Can the noble Lord explain the duties of the "monitoring officer". It is a new nomenclature in local government. However, if I am incorrect in that, I apologise to Members of the Committee. This monitoring officer reminds me very much of the Housing Corporation and its monitoring officers. It is a title which the corporation uses. In that case the idea of a monitoring officer is that he visits each of the housing associations once a year (twice a year, if he is not a very capable officer); a report is made; and a rating of A, B, C or D is given. If many D-ratings are received, another monitoring must be carried out.
Is this the thin end of the wedge that local authorities will come under the same kind of monitoring? Will the monitoring officer bring forward his report and give some indication of whether a department is in the A class, the B class and so on? I am not sure that I understand why we must have someone monitoring something if the information is not being gathered for statistics. If this is being done merely to pass on good advice, I should have thought that we do not need to nominate someone for that title. I may be entirely wrong in what I say, but I should be glad if the Minister could
960
tell me what the monitoring officer will do with the statistics when he has collected them.
6.15 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: There seems to be some misunderstanding about the purpose of the clause. My noble friend Lord Renton was surprised, and I think probably also saddened, that the early clauses in the Bill were necessary. However, perhaps we should take the country as a whole and look across local authorities. Let us take, for instance, the example I gave to the Committee earlier. I heard a leading local authority member say that a member's job was to determine policy, and whether it was legal or constitutional, or illegal or unconstitutional, it was the officer's job to implement that policy.
Therefore, I think that it is very important for there to be some form of protection for the officer, who will from time to time be required, in an atmosphere of intimidation, to give advice. He may have to warn a single member, a small sub-committee or the council as a whole that they may well be heading for a situation which is unconstitutional or illegal. For that reason I think that all authorities should have someone nominated within the authority to ensure that all that the authority is doing in carrying out its functions is being done within a constitutional and legal framework.
Lord Dean of Beswick: Can the noble Baroness enlighten me on what she really meant by her remarks? Was she talking about my remarks as regards the City of Westminster, or did she misunderstand something I said as regards the officer? Did she think I said that the officer would have to carry out something which was legal or illegal? I never attempted to convey that fact. But, if she was referring to the City of Westminster, I did not use the word "illegal"; I said that in my view the severance pay was given on the basis that no statements were made. I would not want to breach the sub judice rule, because I understand that at present an investigation is taking place in regard to a large area of the council's activities and also in regard to the types of policy which the leader of the council has adopted. That is as far as I went. I did not accuse anyone of acting illegally because I have no evidence to that effect at this point.
Baroness Blatch: I must make it clear that I was not referring to the City of Westminster; I was referring to any local authority anywhere contemplating either wittingly, or unwittingly, a particular proposal which may well turn out to be illegal or unconstitutional. It seems to me to be appropriate that someone within the authority should have the responsibility to advise and try to prevent such a situation from occurring. Further, where a particular member or members insist upon a particular proposal, then it is absolutely necessary to invoke this clause and to present a report. Moreover, I believe that it is right that that should go to the whole council.
There have been situations where officers have been compromised and there have certainly been

961
situations where such has been the intimidation that an officer has been reticent about publicly giving advice to an authority. I think that this Clause provides the kind of protection which at least strengthens the arm of the "proper officer", as we would call him in my authority of Cambridgeshire, where he is backed by law and has not only the authority but also the duty to tell a member, members or the authority itself where they may be going wrong.
I make my remarks simply in answer to the two points which I think were raised by the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher of Rednal. The noble Lord appeared to interpret this clause as being the only avenue for the monitoring officer to pursue. I believe that if the monitoring officer is doing his job he will try everything short of having to produce that report; in other words, he will try holding meetings, private meetings, talking to members off the record and using all the avenues which are open to him to prevent such a situation. Therefore early intervention is certainly not precluded by the clause.
The noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, asked why we needed such an officer. I have probably answered that by saying that the monitoring officer is needed as a longstop for those isolated occasions when someone is, as I said, wittingly or unwittingly unconstitutional. It is appropriate that there should be someone in the authority who has the duty to ensure that that does not happen.
Lord Dean of Beswick: Such an officer already exists. It is the chief officer or the town clerk of the authority. I have known cases where some members have tried to pressurise junior officers in regard to planning permissions. Junior officers in the planning department have gone to their chief, who has then gone to the town clerk/chief executive, who has sent for the leader of the group involved. He warns the councillor involved to behave himself or else.
The monitor would not be able to decide whether the matter goes to court when it is a question of the law being broken. I do not see that that is his function. If someone breaks the law it is the town clerk's responsibility to invoke the necessary proceedings without asking his political masters. That point should be made clear.
Lord Hesketh: The noble Lord, Lord Dean, is of course correct, because, with regard to enforcement, the monitoring officer is only part of the process. When something has happened, it is up to the party who feels aggrieved to take the matter to the courts. After that, the matter has nothing to do with the monitoring officer.
The noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, referred to the descriptive term at the top of Clause 5 and asked whether the monitoring officer would just be providing friendly advice. As I said earlier, we want to reduce the number of cases. We hope that we shall be able to settle matters by giving advice rather than going to due process. That is obviously far more satisfactory in any walk of life.
962
The noble Lord, Lord Dean, asked about the forming of a sub-committee. That is legal. What is not legal is to give a single elected member the powers of the council. That is my answer to his point on the sub-committee.
Lord Dean of Beswick: Before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may put to him one further point. For the purposes of an election the chief officer of the local authority, be it the parish clerk, the district clerk, or the county clerk, is also the returning officer, in whom statutory duties are resposed. I am not sure that we are not wasting too much time on this point about laying down guidelines under which the town clerk can say, "You do not qualify, because you do not have a residential qualification." We may have to return to this point. If the Minister is not going to rise again, we shall have to debate a t a later stage what the amendment is trying to do. On that basis I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 5 stand part of the Bill?
Lord Renton: Perhaps I may ask my noble friend if he will be so kind—I hope that I am not being unfair—as to deal with the point I made when we dealt with the amendment that has just been withdrawn. We have here a great many administrative instructions, but, as I said, I cannot find where in the Bill there is a reference to what is to happen if, as my noble friend Lady Blatch said, something which is illegal or unconstitutional is done or not done. Fortunately, we always have the process of judicial review. The jurisdiction is always dependent upon the exact wording of the statute. Judicial review can sometimes be used and sometimes it cannot. Apart from judicial review, is there anything to which my noble friend on the Front Bench can point which will assure us that the provisions in Clause 5 can be enforced?
Lord Hesketh: The Government propose that the monitoring officer will draw the council's attention to any illegality. If the council persists, it is for those concerned to pursue the matter before the courts.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 [All staff to be appointed on merit]:
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 75:
Page 10, line 37, at end insert—
("(aa) section 15 of the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944 and section 3 of the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1958 (Provision of Sheltered Employment by Local Authorities)").
The noble Lord said: I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 76 and 77. The group of amendments is intended to ensure that nothing in Clause 7, dealing as it does with appointment on merit, will cut across such things as sheltered placement schemes or positive employment policies geared to those with physical or mental disabilities.
Amendment No. 75 refers to Section 15 of the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944 and Section 3 of the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1958, which deal with the provision of employment facilities for people with disabilities. In some cases that involves the local authority acting as the employer of disabled people. Under the sheltered placement schemes, businesses provide work for disabled persons, but the sponsor is often the local authority, which is the legal employer of the disabled person.
Clause 7 as it stands means that jobs will be given to those who are best able to do them. That is clearly inconsistent with the aims and objects of the various placement schemes for disabled people, whose whole purpose is to provide employment for those who are unable to do jobs as well as others.
A similar situation occurs with mentally handicapped people, who are mentioned in Amendment No. 76. There is a growing understanding that genuine employment is the best way to help people with mental handicaps. The problem seems to arise in Clause 7(1), which refers to "employment under" a local authority. Clause 7(2)(a) refers to Sections 9 and 12 of the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944. That applies only to the registered disabled and to a maximum of 3 per cent. of the employed workforce. We are sure that it is not the Government's intention to create a discriminatory situation in the employment of disabled people by local authorities, either in the normal way or under the sheltered placement scheme. The disability organisation—I know that the Minister is aware of this—are concerned. They have helped in the drafting of the amendments which are intended to clear up the confusion.
Amendment No. 77 is a rounding-up amendment to ensure that there is no misunderstanding of the policy towards the employment of disabled people. As I said, I am sure that the Government do not intend that confusion, so I hope that the Minister can explain the situation for us. I beg to move.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I rise with great pleasure to support the case made by my noble friend Lord Carter. Nothing more needs to be said about the substance of the amendments. On Second Reading, the Minister said that a placement under a sheltered placement scheme is not an appointment to the service of a local authority. My noble friend Lord Carter has pointed out the difficulties. I hope that the Minister recognises that disabled people already bear an enormous burden because of their physical incapacity. If in addition they are of an age where they would normally expect to find work and be gainfully employed there might be problems—I shall not say difficulties or disbarments.
I hope that the Minister will listen to the voices of those who seek to persuade us that the legislation, however well drawn for general purposes and general situations, bears unfairly and punitively upon those who are disabled. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, is a worthy advocate and so is the noble Lord, Lord Renton, who wants to make sure that those who have an incapacity, whether physical or mental,
964
are given fair treatment. We would also ask the Minister—and here I include the noble Lords, Lord Renton, and Lord Carter—that it be not just fair treatment but that it be more than fair treatment.
I shall listen very carefully to what the Minister has to say as to why the amendments cannot be accepted. They seek to make sure that the protections which already exist will not be superseded by the words on the face of the Bill. I think that is very important; perhaps the Minister will give a helpful answer.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: Before the Minister answers, perhaps he can tell me whether or not Sections 9 and 12 of the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944 include those people with a sensory handicap—that is, people who might be blind or partially sighted or who are suffering from deafness.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: I hope very much that by the time I sit down I shall be able to answer the point on sensory handicaps raised by the noble Baroness.
These amendments would add various provisions relating to the provision of employment facilities for the disabled to the list of enactments which are not to be overridden by the requirement that local authorities make all appointments to paid office or employment on merit.
Let me say at the outset that there is nothing between the Government and the proposers of this amendment as to the policy which should be adopted. We have no intention whatever that the requirement that local authorities should make appointments on merit should cut across the admirable work that they do in providing employment facilities for the disabled. The only difference between us is one of legislative technique in achieving this common aim.
The proposers of the amendments are concerned that, unless there is a specific disregard for these provisions, there would be a conflict between the requirement to appoint on merit and the provisions on the provision of sheltered employment when it came to offering disabled people employment in the various sheltered facilities that are provided.
We have carefully considered the point. As the Committee will see we have provided a specific disregard where a provision for the benefit of the disabled could come into conflict with the requirement to appoint on merit. These are the provisions of Sections 9 and 12 of the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944. Here the requirements about quotas and employment specifically reserved for the disabled could conflict with a requirement to appoint on merit. We have accordingly provided that the provisions for the benefit of the disabled shall prevail.
The provisions of Section 15 of the 1944 Act, as applied by Section 3 of the 1958 Act, and of Section 11(1) of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984, however, are not capable of giving rise to that conflict. Section 15 is not concerned with who should be employed to do a particular job; it is about

965
providing facilities to enable the disabled to obtain employment. Likewise Section 11 is concerned with the provision of training for persons who are mentally handicapped.
The activities undertaken by local authorities for the purposes of these provisions are only capable of benefiting the disabled. There is therefore, we believe, no need to disapply the requirement to appoint on merit, since it can have no application in this field. To include the disregard of these provisions might indeed cause confusion, since it would raise the question of whether the requirement to appoint on merit could have applications in other areas where one might not think that it did.
I have no doubt that your Lordships would not welcome a lesson on statutory interpretation from me.
Lord Renton: Why not?
Lord Hesketh: The point is that if we include a provision saying that something does not apply when at first sight there could be no question of it applying, then we raise the question of why it was necessary to say that. And the answer will sometimes be that by a side-wind effect one has extended the scope of the original provision further than one intended. That, I believe, could happen here.
As I have said, we have no doubt that there is no clash between the requirement to appoint on merit and the provisions mentioned in the amendments. We entirely share the aims of the promoters in ensuring that the requirement to appoint on merit should not cut across the valuable work of these facilities. We do not think that it could do. We therefore believe that the amendment is possibly superfluous. It could give rise to confusion in other contexts where one would not at first think that a conflict existed. However, as always, I shall pay the greatest attention to what the noble Lord, Lord Carter, has to say on this matter, on which he is an accredited expert.
Lord Renton: I am sure we should all be grateful to my noble friend for that reply, including what he called his lecture on interpretation. I must say that I greatly welcomed it.
The clause is a very generous one. We must remember that it applies to every person in paid office or in the employment of a local auhority. That means not only the top executives, the accountants and the specialists of various kinds; it also applies to the office cleaners and the road sweepers. Even they must be appointed on merit, which is a fine conception.
The Government, wisely and in a caring way, have made the merit test subject to these various other provisions, especially the provisions of the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act, or at any rate Sections 9 and 12 of that Act.
In that connection, I hope that I am right in pointing out—as I believe I am—that the word "disabled" includes the mentally handicapped. Indeed, the largest single group of disabled people
966
in this country is the mentally handicapped. To an extent, that answers the point which the noble Lord, Lord Carter, was making.
So for those reasons and for the other reasons which my noble friend has given, I think that it would be better and also in the interests of those whom we are trying to help, to keep the clause as it is. For the interpretation reasons which my noble friend gave, if we accepted either Amendment No. 75 or Amendment No. 76, the clause could give rise to some confusion and lead to an unextended extension of previous statutory provisions.
I have to confess—and I am sorry to do so at this relatively late stage in the discussion on these amendments—that I am puzzled by the wording of Amendment No. 77. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, did not invite us to consider it in detail.
Lord Carter: I am extremely grateful to the Minister. This is one of those situations where, as the noble Lord said, all we want is the technique in order to achieve the answer on which we are all agreed. I take the point that the noble Lord made about the first two amendments. However, the third amendment, Amendment No. 77, is a rounding up amendment to make sure that the intention is clearly understood—that nothing earlier in the clause should affect the selection of any person who is disabled.
I am not sure whether the Minister would like to answer this point. If that first amendment were included, would it help to prevent the confusion? Obviously I shall not press the matter to a Division and perhaps later we could write to each other about it. But he might like to consider whether the inclusion of the third amendment in the Bill might help to prevent any confusion. Having heard his answer we are a little concerned about that, but we are reasonably happy and I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: Can the Minister reply to my question?
Lord Hesketh: I apologise to the noble Baroness. I am not sure that I have the entire answer to her question. However, my understanding as regards Sections 9 and 12 is that they are concerned with the registered disabled. Thus all those who are registered disabled are covered. However, I am not sure whether that satisfactorily covers her sensory point. I should be grateful if the noble Baroness will allow me to write to her on the sensory point.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn
[Amendments Nos. 76 and 77 not moved.]
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clause 8 [Duty to adopt standing orders with respect to staff]:
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 78:
Page 11, line 6, leave out ("provision") and insert ("core provisions").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 78, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 79, 80,

967
81, 105, 106, 107, 108 and 109, as they all have a bearing upon the amendments that I wish to move. Clause 8 lays down a duty to adopt standing orders with respect to staff. The purpose of the amendments is to limit standing orders to be imposed by regulation to specific core standing orders, while maintaining the maximum degree of local discretion.
I think most people recognise the value of a code of practice, a set of standing orders, or regulations which are flexible, in that they can be guidelines or they can be measures which need to be taken into account. Certainly they are always measures which can be referred to. However, that which is laid down more or less as the rule or guidance needs to be the subject of maximum consultation before it is laid down. Any provision that is laid down needs to be relevant to the job in hand.
The current model standing orders, which were prepared for guidance only and which do not have the force of law, were drafted in 1963. Local authorities generally have agreed that further guidance, more suited to the current scene, would be helpful. It is important to note that a local authority's own adopted standing orders are legally binding and that courts will require a local authority to comply with its own standing orders. Decisions taken in breach of these may be declared invalid.
The new standing orders to be prepared as regulations in accordance with the provisions of Clause 8 of the Bill will have the force of law. This principle further shifts the balance from establishing satisfactory local arrangements, with the reserve legal power to be invoked when such arrangements are clearly improper, to ensuring that local government is run as central government wish. That is the first jib. Those of us on both sides of the Committee who have experience of local government will, I hope, support the general premise that I am taking in these amendments, which is that we should be careful before we shifted every single aspect of town hall power and direction. We should be careful before we establish leads coming from the centre rather than leaving them in local hands.
The White Paper, in addressing such issues as standing orders, members' allowances, pecuniary interests and the national code of local government conduct, proposes that discussions should be held with local authority representatives to explore the extent to which local government is prepared to introduce changes on a voluntary basis or to agree a basis for legislation at a later date. The underlying presumption as regards both the draft legislation and discussions between the local authority associations and the Department of the Environment has been that the most serious issues will be addressed through legislation. There is little reserve about the powers in the Bill.
I make the general case that, rather than plunging into legislation, the Government should stand back and see how local authorities respond to a new set of standing orders prepared for guidance. In many areas a consensus has been reached within the locality, if not on details at least on principles. I believe that the Minister, and certainly his advisers, will understand that we are sensitive about, first, the
968
purpose of this clause and, secondly, the extent to which standing orders relating to staff will be enshrined in their totality in this clause. I shall be interested to hear the Minister's response to the amendments. I beg to move.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Renton: It may be that with increasing longevity I failed to take on board the ever, increasing richness of our language. But I must confess that I am unable to tell what is the difference in the statute between a provision and a core provision. It may be that I have missed something out. I ask this question rhetorically to see whether any Member of the Committee can give an answer; we are after all only at the Committee stage. Has this become a term of art in our statutory language, or is it just an attempt by the noble Lord, who is always trying to help, to add a new concept to local government law? What is the difference in statutory effect between a provision and a core provision? That is my first comment on these amendments. Quite frankly I doubt—I shall not go into detail at the moment—whether Amendment No. 80 is necessary, bearing in mind the provisions we already have in Clause 8(1), and elsewhere in the Bill, where we find the power on the part of the Secretary of State to make regulations. I would very much doubt whether it is necessary to add this further power.
As for leaving out subsection (3) of Clause 8, which is very long and detailed, I must say that I find that the most attractive of the amendments which the noble Lord is to move. If it were possible to do without this mass of detail in subsection (3), I should say very good luck to him.
Baroness Blatch: I hesitate to rise because I thought we were going to have a definition of the word "core". I have the same difficulty as my noble friend Lord Renton.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I shall try to help the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. Both the noble Lord, Lord Renton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, will be very familiar with the word "core" because they supported the concept of the core curriculum. Members of the Committee remember that term immediately, now that I have reminded them of it. While this may well be a modern manner in which to be precise, I should say that the idea of a core curriculum, as opposed to referring to matters within a curriculum, and were, the idea of core provisions, is to give strength to a basic group of provisions which can be added to if, in the light of experience, one needs to expand on them. That is the concept here. The provisions here could very well be limited, more precisely defined and then agreed upon.
Lord Renton: I am sure that we are very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Graham, for giving us the reason for his ingenuity. But I do not think, with great respect, that his analogy is quite correct, because there are so many different kinds of provisions. If we start saying that some are of greater weight than others and some are more central than others, I should have thought we would be getting into very fine and artificial distinctions, whereas, on

969
the curriculum, we are not dealing with such a wide spectrum. We are dealing with a number of subjects which can be the subject of education. I should have thought that in that case the use of the word "core" in relation to curriculum was justifiable, as everyone felt when the Education Bill went through, although noble Lords opposite did not agree with the concept of picking out those particular subjects. But I think that in the context of this Bill to use the expression "core provision" could be confusing.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am rather taken aback by the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, who is so expert on legislation. He says that it would be wrong to give some elements more weight than others. All legislation gives some elements more weight than others; it puts some on the face of the Bill and some in schedules and it allocates some to regulations. Legislation by this Government is almost entirely by regulation, presumably on the basis that it is given less weight than provisions which appear on the face of the Bill.
The Government propose that every single item of standing orders for a local authority shall be laid down by government. We do not really like it, but we shall have to agree to provision for the Government to lay down core standing orders—those which they consider to be essential for every local authority. However, local authorities may have separate or local needs. They may need to add other items which should not be in conflict with the core standing orders, and local authorities ought to have the right to do so. I do not think that in moving the amendment my noble friend has said anything out of keeping with existing legislative procedures or the way in which local authorities operate.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I shall set aside that point and the definition of "core". I think that we could go round in circles discussing whether it has a proper place in the amendment.
I wish to address a different point. One of the most important tasks of any local authority is to employ good staff to provide the services that have been determined by the membership of the local authority. Again we come back to the distinction between the roles of members of the council and the roles of officers. As someone who has worked in and been a member of a local authority, I have to admit that there is a temptation to involve oneself in the appointment of officers. It is a natural temptation. Some members do so for the wrong reasons: they believe that appointing someone friendly to their political views is the way forward. Some of us believe that appointment on merit is the way forward, subject to the criteria which we discussed earlier in relation to the disabled and racial and sexual discrimination. But we have to resist the temptation to become involved if we want our authority to run efficiently.
Despite the length of this clause—and my noble friend Lord Renton constantly chides us on the length and size of Bills—I believe that to have a specific and precise framework within which to
970
appoint staff in local authorities is helpful to both members and officers.
If members carry out their proper functions—namely, determining policy and priorities—their only other occupation is to see that those policies are properly carried out. If staff are appointed on merit, subject to the caveat of the previous clause, the chances are that the authority's performance will be sound. The mechanism by which members ensure that the right staff are imposed involves measuring the quality of services and output of the authority. It is important that systems of accountability are put in place so that the officers making the appointments are accountable to the membership of the authority for the performance of their various departments and of the council as a whole.
The duty of the officers is to carry out the will of the council. The quality of the service to the customer is the concern of the membership. Members should resist the temptation to become too involved in the day-to-day management of the authority. With the kind of framework set out in the Bill it is much easier for such a system of accountability to operate and for the distinction between officers and members and their particular roles to be made very clear. For that reason I hope that the amendments will be resisted. I shall certainly support the clause.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the amendments conveniently form a package, since they would make very similar alterations to Clause 8, which deals with requirements for standing orders affecting staff, and to Clause 19, which deals with requirements for other standing orders.
The first twin pairs of amendments—Amendments Nos. 78 and 79, and 105 and 106—would replace the present references to "provisions" with a reference to "core provisions". I am reluctant to debate matters of style with the noble Lord. My view is that we should be guided by the expert parliamentary draftsmen and not put unnecessary words into the Bill. However, I suspect that I shall have to fall back on the support of my noble friend Lord Renton, who has his doubts about the use of the word "core" in these circumstances.
It is quite clear that these provisions are intended to be a core to which local authorities would be free to add such other items as they think fit. There is, for example, no suggestion that the provisions will impair the ability of local authorities to make standing orders under their other powers in so far as those other standing orders do not conflict with those required under these two clauses. Indeed, one of the tasks of the joint working group of local authority and departmental representatives is to revise the set of model standing orders last revised over a quarter of a century ago and to offer guidance on how matters not dealt with under these clauses may best be drafted. I therefore suggest that this aspect of the Bill should be left as it is.
The next pair of amendments—Amendments Nos. 80 and 107—would, in almost identical words, limit the power under the clauses. Instead of allowing local authorities generally to be required to make standing orders on certain lines dealing with staff

971
matters and other procedural questions, they would permit action to be taken only in the case of specific authorities where it could be shown that such action was necessary to preserve the probity of the authority's operations.
In relation to staff matters this seems to us to be the wrong approach. We do not say that there is widespread concern about the probity of personal operations of local authorities. We do say that there is increasing politicisation of local authorities. In those circumstances, the Government believe that it is prudent to introduce controls generally to reinforce traditional standards so that the spread of politicisation does not lead to any drop in the high standards which local authorities have established over many years. The government proposal is intended to prevent problems developing rather than to cure them after they have arisen, which seems to be the intention of the noble Lord's amendment.
In the past we have been able to rely on the innate tradition and good sense of local authority councillors and officers. When the whole environment becomes more sharply politicised, such virtues are put under strain. The basic thrust of the Widdicombe Report was that such strains should be resisted by making more formal the rules under which local authorities have operated.
The appointment of staff is one area where this is important. We have built up a great tradition in local government. We want to maintain that tradition. If the natural pressures of increased politicisation may undermine it, we think that action generally is needed, rather than waiting until the signs are manifest that the horse has bolted and then trying to shut the stable door.
The scope of Clause 8 as drafted is wider than matters of probity alone. Clause 8 proposes limited but necessary rules on the appointment, discipline and dismissal of staff. So far as concerns appointments, the matters to be covered would include, for example, the posts which may be reserved for appointment procedures involving councillors and a requirement that the councillors involved in interviewing and taking decisions on appointments should reflect the composition of the council.
Clause 8 also provides that standing orders may require councillors to consider an independent report before taking a decision and that no disciplinary action can be taken which is more severe than that recommended in the independent report. I urge the Committee to resist the amendment.
Turning to Clause 19, the new provision would again limit action under the the clause to individual cases where it was needed to ensure probity. I do not think that that would be right here either. The clause concerns standing orders. The purpose of standing orders is, among other things, to hold the balance between the dispatch of business and the rights of minorities. We believe that there is an advantage in ensuring that certain minimum standards of protection of the rights of minorities should be built into all local authority standing orders. This is another case where the pressures of politicisation have led to the disappearance of
972
traditions of even-handedness. There are cases where the rules have been manipulated, denying minorities the right to put their case. I am prepared to accept that that is not the prerogative of any one party, but wherever it has happened it should stop. In many councils such arrangements are not necessary, at least yet.
We believe that there may well be a case for allowing any such otherwise mandatory arrangements to be set aside by general agreement. I understand that the working group to which I referred earlier has made good progess towards devising such a system.
I therefore do not believe that intervention by the Secretary of State on a case-by-case basis would be right; nor do I think that probity is the right description for what we are aiming at. That has the overtones of preventing corruption and, while noble Lords used that word yesterday in an extended or antique sense to describe situations to which they objected, I do not think that it properly covers the aim of the proposed core provisions; namely, that of holding a balance between the dispatch of business and the rights of minorities.
I turn next to the amendments that would delete the existing proposals—Amendment No. 81, which would remove subsection (3) of Clause 8, and Amendment No. 108, which would delete subsection (2) of Clause 19. Amendment No. 81 is consequential on the new subsection, but it also has the unfortunate consequence that it removes the list in Clause 8(3) of specific topics with respect to staff which the Secretary of State can by regulations require local authorities to adopt. By removing the list, it introduces doubt as to whether the regulations covering the matters referred to in Clause 8(3) would be within the scope of the power which the amendment does not otherwise alter.
On the other hand, Amendment No. 108 would remove certain improvements to the statutory provisions on council procedure. What these amendments would delete is rather different in kind to the provisions that the similar amendment to Clause 8 would delete. Subsection (2) would enable three changes to be made to the provisions in Schedule 12 of the Local Government Act 1972 which would govern the proceedings of local authorities. These have come out of the deliberations of the joint local authority working group on standing orders which has been meeting throughout this year. The Government are therefore responding to requests from the local authorities rather than trying to impose something that is not wanted.
Finally, Amendment No. 109 would return to the old scheme of consultations. I hope that what I have been saying has shown that, on both these clauses, real consultation is already taking place. The working party has been meeting and has made good progress. I very much hope that there will be a high degree of agreement on the detail that is proposed by and emerges from that working party. For those reasons, I urge the Committee to reject the amendments.
7 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I am grateful to the Minister for the care and time that he has taken to

973
make his case and demolish mine. However, it is quite breathtaking to say, on the one hand, that the working party, which was created without the force of law in 1963, has been looking at the guidance for standing orders—the noble Lord paid tribute more than once to the collaboration and good progress that has been made—and, on the other hand, that, "In the meantime, we have decided that, with the force of law, we shall include in the Bill matters that may well be to the liking of the working party". I can assure the Committee that some of those matters are not to the liking of certain elements in the working party.
I believe that that attitude displays a certain arrogance on the part of the Government. They are so concerned to put across their own point of view and to exercise their own political nostrums in this field that they are not prepared to wait and do the decent thing; namely, to satisfy either by legislation or in some other way, the wishes of the people at the sharp end.
The Minister tells us that this issue stems from the increased politicisation in local government which he and his colleagues have noted and disliked. Perhaps he will tell us what kind of regulations will be promulgated to deal with the disgraceful situation at Westminster Council about which we now know. Will he tell us what he and his colleagues had in mind to deal with that and similar situations? I hope that that situation is unique. It is certainly disgraceful. If it is unique and perhaps unforeseen by the Minister, that could well be an excuse, but it is not the kind of situation that is being revealed. As the Minister knows, there is more to come. When that has been revealed, how does he intend to explain matters?
The purpose of the debate is to try to encourage the Minister to tell us what he has in mind. What regulations and standing orders will be brought forward? In opening the debate, I said that the principles enshrined in Clause 8 shift the burden which has hitherto been held locally on to the Minister and his colleagues, so it will now be held centrally. That is another illustration of the Government's refusal to allow local government of whatever persuasion the right and ability to be flexible. That is why we referred to the core provisions, although that may be a clumsy phrase, which are central, basic and could be added to rather than having to enshrine every item in statute.
The Minister said that that was not the case. He said that there would be two sets of standing orders. There would be standing orders that comply with the Bill and, if a local authority wishes, there will also be local by-laws or local standing orders. If that is the case, the provisions prescribed by the Minister and his colleagues will be the core provisions which can be added to by a local ordinance.
All that the Minister has demonstrated to the Committee and to people in local government is that what they experience at the sharp end, in practice, will not prevail. We hope that there will, at least initially, be something whose relationship to reality it is possible to assess. If that turned out to be
974
accurate, there would be no disturbance, but, if practice showed that there was a need for addition—that would be done by consultation—that would be possible.
We have other evidence that the practice of Conservative politicians at the sharp end of power varies greatly from the aspirations of the Minister and his colleagues at the Dispatch Box as regards what they want to see happening in local government. There is a long course to run in the Bill. There will be many opportunities for us to remind noble Lords and the Minister that he has some difficulty in bridging what he tells us he wants to see in local government and what we know certain elements of local government under the control of the Conservatives are doing.
Perhaps the Minister will deal with one question: what kind of regulations will be laid down under the clause to deal with the situation at Westminster?
Lord Hesketh: I have had to cover a familiar piece of ground again today. Noble Lords opposite constantly refer to a television programme that was broadcast last night while I was here in the House. I arrived at the department this morning and, surprising though it may seem, I have not had a chance to read a newspaper today. The noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, then asked me a hypothetical question about what we shall do about allegations in a newspaper. It is with the greatest sorrow and respect that I must tell him that it is physically and mentally quite impossible for me to provide an answer to his question, much as I should like to do so.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I appreciate the difficulty. Perhaps I may draw the Minister's attention to an article in one of today's newspapers which does not concern allegations, In a debate yesterday evening, the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, was concerned about the manner in which certain headmistresses and deputies exercised political influence that was outwith what she considered to be the bounds of propriety in respect of their duties. The newspaper article to which I referred states:
"Conservative Central Office is planning a campaign this autumn to put pressure on heads and teachers to make a `Conservative educational agenda effective in their day-to-day work' in schools. Mr. Peter Morrison, deputy chairman of the Conservative Party, has set up a special unit inside Central Office to increase party political influence in schools, contrary to the official stance of the Government to keep politics out of education. The Conservatives' initiative has been disclosed in a letter leaked from Central Office to Tory MPs seeking help to launch the campaign".
Further on in the report there is evidence from a Mr. John Spiers:
"who Central Office confirmed last night was working for the Better Schools Unit set up in April. Mr. Spiers says that Mr. Morrison has invited him to edit a new termly Conservative publication for school governors, to be launched in September. Central Office confirmed yesterday that this was going ahead".
I realise that that is just one remove from an allegation. I appreciate that the Minister said that he was not familiar with it. However, against that background we on these Benches are puzzled, on the one hand to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, and the Minister say that they are determined to

975
keep politics out of local government and schools; yet on the other hand to have evidence that by another underhand way they are attempting to introduce politics.
Lord Hesketh: It is my recollection, and I hope that I am not wrong, that the noble Lord, Lord Graham, supported the Government's position when I responded last night to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. I find the noble Lord's remarks rather confusing. He is now taking a new line and presenting evidence in a different light.
Lord Harris of Geenwich: I have just one thing to say to the noble Lord. I recognise the heavy pressure that he must be under in dealing with this Bill and that he did not have quite as much time as he would have liked to read this morning's newspapers and the quite extraordinary set of allegations that have been made against the leadership of Westminster City Council.
I should like to put one point to him. Let us assume for a moment that the programme in question had been about a Left-wing Labour council which behaved in anything approaching the same degree of gross impropriety as was involved in Westminster Council. Does the Minister agree that in that case one of his officials would have drawn his attention to the matter before he came to this debate today in order to strengthen his arguments? I find it very surprising that not a single official from his department drew his attention to that matter. Is that what he is saying to the Committee?
Lord Hesketh: If the Committee had been lucky enough to have had the attendance of the noble Lord, Lord Harris, during its other sittings, he would know that I have gone to a great deal of trouble from the very start of this Bill in order not to reduce the debate to a low level slanging match about who said what or did what. I have gone to a great deal of trouble to do that. I had hoped that in a way we might have avoided going on to an area which I feel will be completely unproductive to the Committee. I should like to think that the noble Lords, Lord Graham and Lord McIntosh, are conscious of the effort that I have made in that direction and possibly appreciate it.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I should appreciate it more if the Minister had made any attempt to answer the question that I put to him. It is not a matter of a low level debate. We are discussing an extraordinary set of allegations made against the leadership of the Westminster City Council. The Minister was asked a question by the noble Lord, Lord Graham, and he has not answered it. I put to him that I find it quite incredible that on an important matter of this character, which is highly relevant to the issues that we have been debating on this Bill, the noble Lord has nothing whatever to say; whereas, in fact we all know perfectly well that if that programme had concerned either Liverpool City Council or Islington Borough Council the noble Lord would have an immense amount to tell the Committee.
Baroness Blatch: I, too, am blissfully ignorant of the programme that was screened last night; neither have I read the press this morning which apparently catalogues the happenings at Westminster Council. I understand that the situation in Westminster is sub judice anyway. There is an inquiry taking place at the moment and until there is some proof of what has happened I should prefer to reserve my judgment. However, if any impropriety has occurred, I should like to think that these parts of the Bill apply as much to Westminster City Council as to any other council.
With regard to my amendment last night which referred to head teachers and their deputies, I believe that I probably upset as many Conservatives across the country as I did Labour and Liberal colleagues, who are concerned about what they see as a restriction of the freedom of teachers to become involved in local politics.
I happen to hold a very strong personal view that being involved in local politics is something in which teachers should not engage, whether they are Conservative, Liberal or Socialist. I believe it is imcompatible with the professional work of a teacher. I said that I was not in the business of cataloguing abuses because as long as it is legal to do so anybody who becomes involved in local politics is not in fact abusing his or her position. I think it is important to get the record straight. I was not accusing anybody of abuse. I was simply saying that dabbling in local politics is in compatible with the professional job of a teacher.
I should like to think that, whatever the complexion of the authority—be it Conservative Liberal, Labour or any other party—wherever impropriety takes place or unconstitutional or illegal behaviour—it will covered by this Bill.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I should like to respond to the specific point made by the Minister when he challenged me to agree with him that he had not been taking specific cases and had not been making particular allegations about individual councils. That is certainly correct and I can confirm that. That applies also to the noble Earl, Lord Caithness.
On the other hand, a number of his colleagues on his Back Benches have been making such allegations. It is difficult to believe that some of these comments have not been orchestrated and that the Conservative Party as a whole, if not the Government, has not been attempting, as it has been over a number of years, to blacken the names of a very large number of Labour councils by exaggerating the faults of a very few.
I think it is necessary to say that in this Bill the Government are proposing very drastic restrictions on the freedom of action of local authorities. We do not feel that it would be wrong for the Government to give examples of the abuses that they are seeking to correct with this Bill. Our complaint is the opposite of that which the Minister seems to think we are making. We do not say that he is blackening the name of individual local authorities; we say that he is not giving evidence—other than the evidence

977
that we have given about Conservative councils and Westminster City Council in particular—that such abuses exist or that they exist on a scale to justify the provisions of this Bill.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I shall certainly be withdrawing the amendment in due course. I share the view of my noble friend regarding the tenor of the Minister's remarks and conduct in these matters. These Benches did not ask for this Bill. The Minister's arguments on a Second Reading did not persuade us at all, nor has the manner in which this issue has been debated. The Bill has been brought forward by the Conservative Party with the clear intention to deal with what it believes is the rottenness in the conduct of local government, especially in Labour-controlled areas.
Certainly we expect evidence to be produced. Then we should have the job of evaluating it, perhaps agreeing with much of it and defending it. I do not believe that anyone in this Chamber ought to be upset (certainly these Benches are not) at the robustness of a debate which names names and cites places. Otherwise the Committee would be composed of charlatans.
We are dealing with a situation in which we literally have the power of life and death over councils, councillors and council officers. The ability to earn a living can be a matter of life or death. We therefore take the Bill very seriously indeed.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, told the Committee last night—and I challenged her for evidence to support her point of view—that substantially this Bill was endorsed by a very large number of people who had attended the Conservative educational conference earlier this year. I simply say that that was evidence of support. I certainly hope that it is not the view of the majority. She is entitled to persist in her personal view, but I hope that she sees the evidence that I have read into the record from one of the local papers. If it is correct, or if she wants to confirm it, I hope that she will get in touch with Central Office and say, "If this is true, I deplore it and intend to stand up in the House of Lords and denounce it at every opportunity".
If she were to do that there would certainly not be rejoicing on this side of the Committee but there would be agreement. We have had a good debate. It has not been a very satisfactory one and we reserve the right to come back at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 79 to 81 not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 82:
Page 11, line 32, leave out ("proposed").
The noble Lord said: With Amendment No. 82 I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 83, 84 and 85. We made substantial changes yesterday to the definition of politically restricted posts. To that extent the rather extreme powers and duties that are given to the monitoring officers under Clause 8
978
of the Bill are not as serious as they would have been had the Committee not taken the decision that it did about the salary bar on politically restricted posts. However, it still seems to us that the provision that the monitoring officer should be required to prepare a report to the authority in respect of every proposed appointment of a person to a politically restricted post goes much too far. Our amendments attempt to simplify and reduce this intervention by the monitoring officer both to a level which is administratively feasible rather than bureaucratically impossible and to a level which is politically meaningful and which would produce effective results.
Amendment No. 82 leaves out the word "proposed" and restricts the intervention of the monitoring officer to a person selected for appointment. If the monitoring officer is to involve himself with every candidate for a politically restricted post presumably it will not be enough for him just to add some inquisitive questions about politicial activities to the candidate's application form. He will have to go further. If he is to be satisfied, he will have to verify that the candidate's claims are true and that the candidate has not been involved in political activity that he is not admitting. Other parts of a candidate's application are verified by the use of referees. What will the monitoring officer do to satisfy himself that these candidates, these proposed appointments, do not offend against the standing orders regarding staff?
Amendment No. 83 seeks to restrict the category of politically restricted posts to chief officers deputy chief officers or third tier management posts in respect of any matters which may be relevant to the political restriction applying to that post. We talked about the black and white nature of the political restriction provisions in the Bill and how much worse it is than the Civil Service code of practice. As the Bill is drafted at the moment, the monitoring officer has a quite impossible task. In respect of all candidates for restricted posts he has the task of applying the full range of limitations of political activity; whereas if the Civil Service example were used, those restrictions could be used selectively. They could be used more severely when appropriate, and less severely when appropriate.
Amendment No. 84 would restrict his intervention to where there are one or more elected members on the panel. If the appointment is to be made by officers, presumably they are senior officers to whom the restrictions on political activity already apply. To accuse them—which appears to be implied in the clause at the moment—of political bias in making the appointments seems to us quite unjust and excessive in the light of any evidence that has been produced about any level of abuse.
Finally, Amendment No. 85 brings the matter together by suggesting that the words,
"when it appears to him that any contravention of standing orders may have occurred",
should be added. That means that it will not be necessary for the monitoring officer in a well run authority—and it has been agreed on all sides of the Chamber that virtually all are well run authorities with the exception, of course, of Westminster City

979
Council—to intervene in every single case of an appointment. The amendment will give him the discretion only to intervene and to make a report to the authority when it appears to him that any contravention of standing orders may have occurred.
These are rational limitations on what would otherwise be not only an excessive bureaucratic power but an excessive intervention in the normal process of appointment of staff in the local authority service. I beg to move.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: Amendment No. 82 proposes the deletion of the word "proposed" before the word "appointment" in Clause 8(3)(c). The effect of the amendment would be that the monitoring officer would be required to submit a report only on an appointment to a politically restricted post after the appointment had been made. There would be no time limit by which the report was required.
The amendment raises the question of the best way of making sure that, where councillors are involved in making appointments, everything is done properly. We believe that it is desirable that the monitoring officer should apply his mind to every case and say positively that everything is satisfactory before the appointment is made. To do so afterwards would simply be too late.
We feel that it is enough for the monitoring officer to sign a clearance report without having to submit it before the appointment is confirmed. This should ensure that, except where an appointment has not been properly made, appointments are not delayed.
Amendment No. 83 would limit the scope of the standing orders that the Secretary of State can require local authorities to adopt. Clause 8 would authorise the Secretary of State to make regulations requiring relevant authorities to make standing orders requiring, among other matters, their monitoring officer to prepare a report to the authority in respect of every proposed appointment of a person to a politically restricted post. The amendment proposes that such standing orders could apply only to proposed appointments down to third tier management posts within a local authority. The monitoring officer would have to report only on matters considered relevant to the restriction applying to that post.
The Government's intention is that this power to require a report by the monitoring officer should be used only in respect of posts where councillors are involved in the appointment process. We believe that the public should in those circumstances be entitled to confirmation that no unlawful actions have been taken.
To understand the importance of this safeguard, we have to look at the underlying rationale for the whole clause. The Widdicombe Report confirmed the generally acceptable view that party politics are playing an ever more important role in local authorities. The increasing politicisation imposes strains on the long-standing traditions of local government. One of the areas into which these pressures are very likely to spill over is the appointment of staff. We think that it is desirable to
980
strengthen the safeguards to ensure that the tradition of an impartial local government service supporting the whole council is maintained.
The arrangements whereby the monitoring officer has to check and report that all is well seems a useful element in this strengthening. We do not think that it imposes too great a burden on the monitoring officer. He will not personally have to attend every meeting to appoint staff. He will need to ensure that there is a place in the system that is designed to bring to his attention any questionable cases. But with such a system in place he will be able to rely on it. In line with our general approach there is no question of giving a monitoring officer power to override the council. If he cannot give a clean bill of health there will be a report and it will then be for the authority itself to decide what to do. If it wishes to press ahead despite the report it will be free to do so. There is therefore no question of giving the monitoring officer a veto.
The joint government/local authority working party has already been considering the details of these proposals for some months. I understand that it has reached general agreement on the details of the scheme. In due course this will be reported to Ministers and the local authority associations. There will then be an opportunity for further consideration before the details are converted into regulations.
I believe that this shows that the scheme is workable and should be acceptable to the vast majority of those concerned. In short, we think that this positive report that all is well has an important part to play in strengthening the tradition whereby local government staff serve a council of any political complexion impartially. We think that the duty to report should be positive so that in every case someone has the answer to the question, "Is all well?" We think that the duty should cover not only questions of whether standing orders have been complied with but also whether other statutory provisions have been observed and whether any relevant considerations have been taken into account. I therefore resist the amendment.
Amendment No. 84 would appear to be aimed at restricting the power under Clause 8 to require the monitoring officer to report on appointments to cases where the interviewing panel would include elected members.
The Government's proposals extend only to requiring such a report in cases where members have been included in the appointment process. That is not quite the same as saying that it would be restricted to cases where members have formed part of the interviewing panel. There is no requirement that the interviewing panel should necessarily be the organ of the local authority that actually makes the appointment. And there are other earlier stages in the process where members might be involved, such as selecting the short list or settling the terms of the advertisement.
I do not think that there is any particular mystery about the Government's proposals under this clause. A joint working party between government and the local authority associations has been working at this

981
for some months now. Drafts have received wide circulation and comment.
An amendment such as the one proposed would not restrict necessarily the introduction under this clause of measures other than it specified since the whole of subsection (3) is illustrative and without prejudice to the general provision of subsection (1). I do not therefore think that as a legislative technique it is very sensible to try to restrict an illustrative example of a use that might be made of a wider power. Therefore the amendment would go too far in resricting both the posts which might be covered and the nature of the matters to be considered.
Amendment No. 85 would add to the provision that the monitoring officer may be required to report on appointments the restriction that this was only to be done where he considers that there has been a contravention of standing orders. This amendment shows some misunderstanding of the relationship between paragraphs (c) and (d) of subsection (3) of this clause.
Paragraph (c) introduces the idea of the monitoring officer making a report on appointments to politically restricted posts. Paragraph (d) goes on to spell out the content of those reports. The first subparagraph identifies as a matter to be covered whether the appointment can be made without contravention of any provision made by or under Part I of the Bill. These provisions will include the standing orders relating to the appointment of staff for which this clause provides. The Bill therefore already provides for reports by the monitoring officer to address the question of whether standing orders have been contravened.
The purpose of the amendment therefore seems to be to rule out any need for the monitoring officer to make a report if the standing orders have not been contravened. I can see that there is an argument for having a report only if there is something to which attention needs to be called. However, I think that there are two reasons why we should not adopt that approach.
First, paragraph (d) requires the monitoring officer to address a wider range of questions than simply whether standing orders have been breached. In the first place he is directed to consider other provisions in Part I. Principal among these will be the requirement in Clause 7 that all appointments shall be made on merit. Secondly, he is directed to consider whether any irrelevant considerations appear to have been taken into account.
The amendment would restrict him to reporting only where there is a breach of standing orders. These other points, which are of equal concern, will not necessarily arise in the context of a breach of standing orders. I therefore suggest that the amendment will impair the aim of ensuring that there is a check that all is well in the appointment of senior staff.
Secondly, we think that there is merit in having a positive check that all is well. This is the practice in the Civil Service: appointments are certified by the independent Civil Service Commission. The monitoring officer would in any event have a duty
982
to report under Clause 5 if he was of the opinion that the council were proposing to act in an illegal way. What this provision adds s the positive safeguard of a check. The monitoring officer will be required to address his mind in every case to the question of whether everything has been done properly.
We do not have any proposals to use the power to introduce reports on monitoring officers on appointments and cases where it has not already been discussed in a joint working party. It may be that when we come to discuss the outcome of the working party with the local authority associations other ideas will surface. Subject to that caveat, which must go with all proper consultations, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I have two difficulties with that response. First, it reminds me of nothing so much as the Left wing GLC and the Islington, Haringey and Camden borough councils having their women's and race relations committees. In every report it was their job to say that there was no race relations or sex discrimination. It mattered not whether it was the provision of a sliding pole for a fire station or any other non-controversial business.
The Government are introducing a provision which will inevitably become a nonsense. Even if no positive report is made, in the vast majority of councils which are well run the monitoring officer will find himself repetitiously, expensively and frequently doing totally unnecessary work.
Secondly, the Minister is throwing us titbits from the process of joint consultation with the local authorities. He is asking us to be satisfied not only that the final regulations will meet our objections—a point which he did not effectively answer—but that they will also be satisfactory to the local authority associations. We have no assurance on either of these points. We are being asked to take on trust a process of negotiation which ought to have been completed before the Bill was introduced. By introducing the Bill and giving the Secretary of State virtually unlimited powers to make such regulations as he thinks fit the department is interfering in the consultation process which, as the Minister rightly said, is already taking place and which I am glad to hear is proceeding well.
There were scraps of comfort in the Minister's reply—for example, the involvement of elected members in the appointment process. I must read his reply carefully before deciding whether to bring back the matter at a later stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 83 to 86 not moved.]
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clause 9 [Assistants for political groups]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 87:
Page 12, line 39, at end insert—
("(1A) The following provisions of this section shall apply to any authority which has not, with the concurrence of any

983
minority party or parties (as the case may be) agreed or confirmed having obtained the advice of officers such local arrangements for the provision of political assistants to elected members as it may consider appropriate.").
The noble Lord said. This is another example of heavy-handed intervention by the Government in the affairs of local authorities particularly those affairs which really concern them and no one else. The clause lays down that assistants for political groups shall be restricted to not more than three on any council. There is also a restriction on salary which we shall deal with in the next amendment.
The purpose of tabling the amendment is to demonstrate the fact that there are a large number of councils—I have been given examples, particularly from Scotland—where the provision of only three political assistants would mean that nearly half the Scottish local authorities would be unable to allocate political assistants to all the representative groups. Therefore, a large number of councillors organised in political groupings would be deprived of political assistants.
I appreciate that some Members of the Committee believe that there should be no political assistants. I had anticipated amendments from Government Back-Benchers prohibiting all political assistants. On behalf of the Minister I am relieved that that is not the case. However, it is a nonsense to have political assistants under these restrictions which mean that they are not available on a fair and equal basis to political groups of all types.
The amendment is not put forward in the interests of the Labour Party. It has a large number of councils either in majority or as the largest opposition party and therefore inevitably receives political assistance. It is tabled on behalf of those benighted parties such as the Social Democratic Party which is now down to about 12 councillors in England. I should not like to see them deprived of political assistants although I am sure that the calibre of their councillors is such that they can do without them.
However, the restriction is unfair. With adequate precautions we propose that where there is a decision of a full council acting on the advice of officers—in other words, reflecting the position of political groups in the council, agreed or confirmed on the advice of officers—there should be different provisions for political assistants and local councils should have the ability to appoint them. After all, if they kick over the traces and appoint too many political assistants there is no doubt that they will be criticised publicly and that they run a severe risk of that being used against them at a subsequent election. There is always the democratic process to be borne in mind as the ultimate deterrent to abuse. However, surely a full council acting on the advice of officers could hardly be accused of abuse. The present provisions are much too restrictive and in our view should be modified in the way proposed by this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Trafford: I hate to disappoint the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. I am one of those who in general does not like the idea of political assistants. I accept that they have a part to play and I accept that since the late 1960s or possibly early 1970s they have
984
been accepted in central government—brought in by Ministers as advisers. However, when we are talking of political assistants we should distinguish between two types. The first type is those who are paid by party organisations or other organisations and are not in any sense a charge on the authority concerned, and in this case we are talking about a local authority. I believe that it would be very difficult to deal with a situation like that. That would be unfair to the small or smaller parties. In terms of their general national organisation or finances, there would be difficulty in providing remuneration for those people. However we are not talking about those people but about paid employees.
I think I am right in saying that, although this came from the Widdicombe Committee, in the White Paper the Government rejected the idea of political advisers. However, after due consideration with local authorities, they came round to accept this modified form of only three. Therefore, it was almost predictable that the noble Lord would move an amendment which suggests that we should have more than three for two reasons.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Nothing in my amendment says that there should be more than three. There could be fewer than three if that seems appropriate.
Lord Trafford: Perhaps I should have said that it would have been predictable for the noble Lord to try to change the numbers or make them flexible in the sense that a local authority should decide how many it wished to appoint.
To my mind, the objection to this is that the local authority could then, by various manoeuvrings, if it so wished employ a very large number of such people. The noble Lord puts in the amendment the protection—and I see the point—of the agreement of officers which adds some weight to the amendment. I am now speaking as one of those who the noble Lord suspected was sitting on these Benches. I do not like the idea of publicly paid political advisers to party political groups on local councils. I believe that that allows or could allow—and I do not say that it would—a creeping number of this particular type of person in publicly paid employment for the purpose of promoting party political activities.
I must confess that I much prefer the original White Paper suggestion that none of those people should be employed to the Government's present agreement after consultation that three such people should be allowed. Therefore on the grounds of personal prejudice and the practicality of the likely consequences, I hope that the Government will resist this amendment.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: The effect of Amendment No. 87 would be that a local authority, with the agreement of all parties and after having obtained officer advice, could opt out of the restrictions on the appointment of assistants to political groups and adopt such alternative local arrangements as they wish. We believe that such matters as the number, remuneration and allocation of such posts need to

985
be regulated. This was the view of the Widdicombe Committee. We believe the amendment would lead to a proliferation of such posts, which could in individual authorities lead to the creation of alternative administrations within the council, not responsible to the council as a whole but to a particular political party group.
This would be an inappropriate use of public funds and could seriously undermine the position of the permanent staff of the council. We believe that it was proper to follow the pattern for special advisers in central government who are subject to careful limits on numbers, pay, functions and length of appointment.
Furthermore, on this amendment it is true that I like to think I am the voice of moderation between the appeals of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and the views held by my noble friend Lord Trafford. It may be that the number of three is about right. Therefore, I hope that the Committee will resist the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: If the Minister is going to be moderate, he should accept that the Government's position is rather extreme, that the noble Lord, Lord Trafford, is really extreme and that I am the moderate in this matter, as is so often the case.
The Minister has not really answered my point that there are a large number of councils—and I can give some Scottish examples—where the number of political groups is quite large and where the restriction of three would mean that a significant number of councillors in political groups would be deprived. I only give the number for groups in the regional councils in Scotland without going on to the district councils: Borders, four; Central, five; Dumfries and Galloway, four: Fife, six; Grampian, five; Highlands, four; Lothian, four; Strathclyde, five; Tayside, four. In all those cases significant political groups on the council would be deprived of political assistants. That cannot be right and is simply loading it in favour of the larger and better established parties. I do not believe that the Conservative or Labour parties should do that.
I believe that we should have rather more democratic concern for the minority parties. Let us beat them at the polls and not beat them by depriving them of the privileges which we have. I am very disappointed with the Minister's response. I shall think again about what to do. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 88:
Page 13, line 6, leave out from ("secure") to ("that") in line 8.
The noble Lord said: In some ways the stuffing has been knocked out of Clause 9(4) because the Committee decided yesterday that the £13,500 limit for politically restricted posts was not appropriate. I concede at once that there is not a direct analogy between a level above which a post is presumed to
986
be politically restricted and a maximum sum allowed to be paid to a political asssistant. I can see that in one sense they are different issues.
However, many of the detailed problems to which I referred when moving Amendments Nos. 27 and 28 also apply to Clause 9(4) because the £13,500 grade is very arbitrary and would cause great difficulty in different parts of the country. For example, in Scotland it would indicate 32 on the scale which is in the lower half of grade APV; in the rest of the country that would indicate 35 on the scale, which is well up into the principal officer grades. Therefore, it works differently in different parts of the country and all the difficulties referred to about London Weighting, any overtime payments which there might be or any of the other difficulties could well apply to the posts of political assistants. The result would be a provision which, because it claims to be simple, would in fact work differently in different parts of the country and unfairly in some parts of the country.
I hope that the Government will recognise that the general concern that the Minister and the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, acknowledged at the close of the debate on Clause 2 also applies to the £13,500 limit here. I shall not press this amendment because it provides no alternative ceiling and I accept that the Government may feel so strongly that they wish to impose a ceiling.
Having regard to the spirit of the responses which the Minister made to the Clause 2 amendments yesterday, can he indicate that the £13,500 ceiling, simple and crude though it is, is perhaps not the most appropriate way of dealing with this matter? It should be dealt with on a grade basis rather than a salary basis, and preferably on a higher grade basis for the larger local authorities. The political assistants in those cases will have very substantial tasks, bearing in mind the responsibilities of those local authorities. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: I find some difficulty with regard to this amendment because I do not approve of political advisers at any price. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, ran a local authority. I am not sure whether or not he ran it with paid political advisers.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I have not run a local authority.
Baroness Blatch: Perhaps I ascribe greater things to the noble Lord than I ought to. I thought that the noble Lord was leader of his authority. I wonder if the leader of the authority ran it with paid political help. Many local authorities throughout the United Kingdom function extremely well without the help of paid political advisers. It is possible to obtain political advice if it is required, but I do not think it right to use ratepayers' or community chargepayers' money to pay for political advisers. It is not just that one is employing an individual; one has to provide office space, office equipment and very often clerical assistance, etc.
I find it almost impossible to support the idea. I said at Second Reading that I opposed the idea of political advisers. We are trying very hard in this

987
Bill to depoliticise the running of local authorities. This amendment would put a very real political dimension back into local authorities.
When I was leader of Cambridgeshire, I found that there were facilities available to me—for example library facilities, data from the various departments and a research department within the authority. I had all the information that I required to help me perform my task as leader of the authority. I found that to be adequate. I would not have wanted to have had a political adviser superimposed on that.
With regard to the removal of Section 4, there is a difficulty about the ceiling of £13,500 for all the reasons that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has given. Some of the arguments were deployed in relation to parts of Clause 2 yesterday.
I hope that my noble friends on the Front Bench will heed the point—that there should be a ceiling at around £13,500. That figure may be too high. In some parts of the country it would be excessive and in other parts it would be about right. I believe that there should be a method of determining the ceiling, perhaps inflation-proofing it so that it moves with the times. I think that it would be open to abuse if the ceiling were removed. If a ceiling were to be found, it might have to be different for different parts of the country. I think that it is absolutely right that there should be a limit, but I should like to see the whole clause removed from the Bill.
Lord Hesketh: I feel that once again I am rising somewhere in the middle as the voice of moderation.
The effect of these amendments would be to remove the salary limit of £13,500 proposed for the assistants of political groups. There is obviously room for debate on this matter. We are anxious to underline that these political assistants are not intended to be a source of policy advice and competition with council chief officers, who we believe should be available to assist all political groups.
This, it seems to us, argues for the maximum pay being set at a sufficiently low level that such a post would not be seen as an alternative career for the ambitious. The aim would be to attract good staff. We doubt that it would be appropriate for such posts to be a lifetime career.
The Widdicombe Committee suggested that such posts would be graded as senior officers. We think that a point within the senior officer range, which is also the bottom of the principal officer range—namely the £13,500—is about right as a maximum. We therefore think that the figure in the Bill is correct and urge the Committee to retain it. We recognise that there will be variations in different parts of the country, as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, pointed out. However, the £13,500 figure is a ceiling, not a recommended pay level. For those reasons we urge the Committee to reject the amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: When the Minister said that he was in the middle, my noble friend Lord Graham and I barely resisted the temptation to think "pig in the middle". However, I must remind the
988
noble Lord that those who stay in the middle of the road often get run over. It is a serious risk.
In reply to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, I have served as a committee chairman on two local authorities, one of which had political assistants, and one of which did not. The one which did not was a London borough council with very much more limited responsibilities than the one which did. I managed on the borough council. I do not think that I could have managed without political assistants on the larger council. I am certainly not convinced that, although there may on occasion be abuses, the political assistants are not a valuable addition to the power of local authorities in enabling them to do an effective job.
The fundamental problem is the same as that which arose on the previous amendment. It is easy for the large parties, and particularly easy for a large and rich party like the Conservative Party, to provide political assistants for its councillors out of central party funds. My noble friend gave the example of Conservative Central Office deliberately setting out to intervene to introduce politics into our schools. That is not just a disgrace in terms of intervention in our educational establishments, but it is an indication that the Conservative Party has the funds to do that kind of thing. The Labour Party could not do that even if it wanted to, and I doubt whether the smaller parties could either.
Political assistants are a way of ensuring that the smaller parties have the same kind of help that the Labour and Conservative parties are more likely to get from their own resources. This amendment is not an attempt to promote the position of the Labour Party.
I had hoped that the Minister would acknowledge the difficulty of the £13,500 limit. He acknowledged that it would operate differently in different parts of the country. If we are not going to make any greater progress, maybe we ought to concentrate on that matter at a later stage. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 89 not moved.]
Lord Ross of Newport Lord Ross of Newport moved Amendment No. 90:
Page 14, line 23, at end insert—
("( ) Any group shall have a right of appeal to the Secretary of State if it believes that it has been the subject of unfair treatment due to (a) the regulations in (5), (6) or (7) above or (b) the actions of other political groupings on the authority.").
The noble Lord said: I deliberately kept my trap shut because I gathered that we wanted to make progress with this Bill tonight. However, I feel able to say something about political assistants. I am, I am afraid, a hawk. I am not in the middle of the road. I have always been accused of being in the middle of the road as a Liberal, but I am a hawk too. I do not like political assistants in local government.
It is true to say that Widdicombe recommended (5). The Government, it is perfectly correct—the noble Lord, Lord Trafford is right—wanted to cut it out altogether.
I admit that I have never served on such an authority as a regional authority in Scotland. They

989
are very much larger than a county council like the Isle of Wight and no doubt some of the city councils in London. Basically I am against the idea and I regret their introduction.
I am also against the idea of monitoring officers. The clauses in the Bill which deal with monitoring officers and political assistants will lead to all kinds of problems and quarrels. That will not achieve anything. The answer is for the public to finance the political parties—but I will not go into that. It would get the Labour Party off the hook with the trade unions, it would give us a chance and it would be to the advantage of the Tories as well.
At a time when we had high unemployment of over 18 per cent. I appointed Mr. Alan Curtis as a consultant. He was chairman of Lotus Cars. He was a good paid-up Tory. I did not know that at the time, but never mind. However, I recognised that he did a very good job for us and I am still a friend of his. I suppose that, without political assistants and as leader of the council for three years, I cannot have done too badly because we were re-elected and re-elected again this time. Everybody thought that we were not going to hold on, but we did.
However, I come back to the amendment. If we are to have political assistants, and there are all kinds of things in the clause about that, and if we are to have regulations yet again on this whole issue, we suggest that there will probably be problems in some councils for the smaller political parties and that therefore there should be a right of appeal to the Secretary of State. It appears elsewhere in the Bill so can we have it here?
Perhaps the right of appeal will appear in regulations and if the Minister confirms that then I shall quickly withdraw the amendment. The system may work well in 80 per cent. of cases but there are bound to be squabbles and, therefore, if we must have these people—and again I say that I wish that were not so—then perhaps there should be appeal to the Secretary of State where there is disagreement on a local authority. I beg to move.
8 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: This amendment would give political groups in local councils a right of appeal to the Secretary of State if they think that they have been treated unfairly over the arrangements for political advisers. I think that I may fairly say that I was surprised when I saw that the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Newport, on the Liberal Bench had put down this amendment. It would give the Secretary of State wide and undefined powers to intervene in the internal affairs of a local authority if a political group believes that it is being treated unfairly.
This seems to me the wrong way to go about matters. Local authorities are elected to discharge their own functions. There will be cases in which it is desirable to lay down rules about how they shall conduct their affairs, but within those rules our tradition is that they should take their own decisions. The amendment considers two cases: one where the unfairness arises from the regulations; the other
990
where the complaint arises from the actions of other political groups on the authority.
If the regulations work unfairly I am sure that any reasonable Secretary of State—and all Secretaries of State are required to be reasonable in the discharge of their statutory functions—would want to consider the regulations to see if they can be improved. To that extent, therefore, the amendment is unnecessary.
The second case considered is where the other political groups have ganged up on the one which complains to do something unfair. If what the other groups have done is unlawful, then the remedy is clear; it is for the courts to decide what is unlawful. If it is not unlawful then it is a matter of discretion and I think that it would be unwise to introduce the precedent of giving the Secretary of State a general power to intervene in the internal workings of a local authority to overrule a lawful discretionary decision of that authority.
To sum up, in part this amendment is unnecessary because if the regulations are wrong any sensible Secretary of State will want to correct them, not to have an undefined power to intervene. If what is complained about is a lawful discretionary decision of the authority about its internal affairs, then it is an unsound principle to give the Secretary of State power to intervene. I hope that in the light of these comments the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Ross of Newport: I have to say to the Minister that that is a pretty ripe reply. The Secretary of State is interfering all over the place with local government. To say as an answer that it is to be left to local discretion, after all the regulations that he has laid down, is beyond belief.
There is a situation that fortunately has never occurred in my part of the world, though it did in one of the boroughs for a short while. The opposition party, which happened to be my party and which had a large number of councillors, was denied any place whatever on the policy and resources committee. That has now been put right. However, it is happening in other parts of the country. Minority parties are deliberately being omitted from certain committees on which they have a right to sit.
This Bill may put that right but there will be arguments over political assistants and whether or not a minority group should have one. An overwhelming Labour or Conservative majority may want to claim two and leave one to the opposition with nothing for the third party. That is why the appeal procedure was suggested. I am willing to withdraw the amendment but I ask the Minister not to reply that the Government are leaving this to the local level because everything has been taken away from local government.
Baroness Blatch: Perhaps I may be allowed to ask a question on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Ross. We may both be interested in the answer. Given the prescriptive mechanism for setting up political advisers and allocating them to particular groups, and the mathematical calculations that will have to be done, if a minority group was unfairly treated

991
would it not have recourse in the first instance to the monitoring officer within the authority? Would that not be a breach of the provisions of the Bill?
Lord Hesketh: My noble friend is entirely correct. I did not mention it because the next stage after that, if there is still dissatisfaction, is to go to law.
Baroness Blatch: But the fact that it is on the face of the Bill would give protection to the minority groups. They would not need something as dramatic as recourse to the Secretary of State.
Lord Hesketh: If something illegal had occurred, yes.
Lord Ross of Newport: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that intervention. It had occurred to me that the monitoring officer might be the person to turn to, but having already criticised the role of the monitoring officer I thought it better not to mention that possibility. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 9 agreed to.
Clause 10 [Limit on paid leave for local authority duties]:
[Amendments Nos. 91 to 95 not moved.]
Clause 10 agreed to.
Clause 11 [Confidentiality of staff records]:
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 96:
Page 16, line 18, leave out ("Subject to subsection (3) below").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I speak also to Amendment No. 97. These amendments are designed to ensure that the public sector has the same degree of accountability as the private sector in terms of the information that it is required to disclose regarding the numbers and salaries of its employees. The new Clause 11 of the Bill allows ratepayers to identify the salaries of named individuals.
The intention of this amendment is to place employees of local authorities on the same footing as private sector employees regarding information publicly available about their salaries. The Government claim that Clause 11 of the amended Bill will restore law to the position the Government understood it to be prior to the Northampton case; that is, individual ratepayers—and from 1st April 1990, poll tax payers—will be able to see the gross salaries of named local authority employees.
One argument against this clause is that it creates a "snooper's charter". Given proposals in Part I of the Bill to link political restriction to salary, gross earnings are now sensitive information. But it is more important to address the increasing imbalance between disclosure required in the private sector and disclosure in the public sector, particularly in the light of the Companies Bill now in another place.
The 1985 Companies Act required disclosure of the number of employees "remunerated at higher
992
rates"—that is, earning over £30,000 per annum—set out in salary bands. The Act describes how those bands are to be calculated, and it is to those provisions which paragraph (a) of this amendment refers. Paragraph (b) provides for disclosure of the numbers of staff employed within different categories as determined by the head of the paid service; that is, caretakers, home helps and so on. That again is in line with the provisions of the 1985 Act.
At the same time as deciding that named local authority employees must have their gross salaries open to inspection, the Government are proposing to drop the provisions of the 1985 Act for private sector employees. In the Committee debate on an Opposition amendment to retain the current disclosure provisions, Mr. Eric Forth said:
"I do not believe that simply knowing what highly paid employees earn is vital for public accountability. … It could become increasingly burdensome to provide such information".
He later continued:
"It would be burdensome and would allow people's pay to be revealed, albeit inadvertently".—[Official Report, Commons, Standing Committee D, 6/6/89; cols 173–177.]
This argument emanates from the same Government who are quite happy for all local authority employees, however little they may be paid, to have their individual salaries disclosed. In the interests of public accountability, the provisions of the 1985 Act should be retained in the new Companies Bill.
The Government do not know what they mean by "public accountability". It would be charitable to say that they take a flexible approach to the term, to the detriment of shareholders' rights on the one hand and to the privacy of local authority employees on the other. In the private sector, top level salaries have increased well above inflation, with a further bonus by way of the tax cuts this year. Yet this information is now to be kept secret from shareholders. In the public sector, where a salary of £13,500 is sufficient for an employee's civil rights to be abrogated, that employee's name and salary falls within the public domain. There is clearly a double standard, based on feeble arguments. Shareholders and ratepayers (poll tax payers) equally should be able to see how money is being used. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: Clause 11 restricts the information which is available to the public when exercising their rights at the time of audit to inspect the accounts of local authorities and certain other bodies. Only information about payments gross of any deductions made by an authority to each of its employees would remain open to inspection. The clause provides that the information which is purely personal, such as tax and national insurance deductions would not be open to inspection.
These amendments aim further to restrict the information which is available so that it would include nothing about individual members of staff. The amendments would limit the information to numbers of staff employed, identified only by salary band and by categories of employee. I should say that we do not consider that these amendments will work. But, as my right honourable friend said in

993
another place, we have a great deal of sympathy with what the noble Lord opposite is aiming to achieve. Indeed, we are of the view that it may now be possible to go some way to meet the real concerns that have been expressed here and in another place. And while it is important to keep the right balance between personal privacy and public accountability, I am hopeful that it may even be possible to provide the kind of protection for individual employees that these amendments seek.
We shall consider these proposals and the points the noble Lord has made before deciding what should now be done.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I am not likely to get a fairer offer than that between now and half past eight when the proceedings on the Bill will terminate. I am grateful to the Minister. I can sense a genuine desire to seek agreement in a very sensitive area. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 97 not moved.]
Clause 11 agreed to.
Clause 12 agreed to.
Clause 13 [Voting rights of members of certain committees: England and Wales]:
[Amendments Nos. 98 and 99 not moved.]
Clause 13 agreed to.
Clause 14 [Voting rights of members of certain committees: Scotland.]
[Amendment No. 100 not moved.]
Clause 14 agreed to.
Clause 15 [Duty to allocate seats to political groups]:
8.15 p.m.
Lord Ross of Newport Lord Ross of Newport moved Amendment No. 101:
Page 23, line 27, at end insert—
("(e) that no body consisting of 5 or more members shall exclude a political group comprising 20 per cent. or more of the nominating authority or authorities, and no body consisting of 10 or more members shall exclude a political group comprising of 10 per cent. or more of the nominating authority or authorities.").
The noble Lord said: I have tried to make sense of Clause 15. It is fairly complicated. The amendment attempts to clarify the subject of proportionality. I hope that the Government will consider it in that light. It is fairly straightforward and the amendment seems to me to be less complicated than what is proposed in Clause 15. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: The intention of the amendment is to guarantee that any political group which constitutes at least 20 per cent. of the authority is represented on any body comprised of five members or more, and any political group which constitutes at least 10 per cent. of the authority is represented on any body comprised of 10 members or more. I
994
appreciate what the noble Lord is seeking to achieve and I feel gratified that his proposal is very much in the spirit of the principle of the pro rata representation which we have embodied in the Bill. However, although we have tried to keep the rules for determining the allocation of seats to political groups as simple as possible, they are nevertheless fairly complicated.
We believe that the amendment would make the rules even more complicated and to that extent it is undesirable. The amendment also seeks to deal with a situation which is likely to arise only very rarely. The current rules normally provide for a political group representing 10 per cent. of the members to be allocated a seat on a 10-member committee. The only circumstances in which such a group might not be entitled to a seat would be if the majority group, having only a small majority, were entitled to six out of the 10 places. If there were several such committees, a political group with only 10 members may not be entitled to one of the four minority group places on some of the committees. A similar situation could occur if there were several five-member committees. Noble Lords will appreciate how unlikely these circumstances are to occur when I add that a 10 per cent. group would always be entitled to a seat on committees consisting of 11 or more members and a 20 per cent. group on committees with seven or more members.
I hope that the Committee will agree that it would be wrong further to complicate the rules to deal with an arithmetical possibility which, practically speaking, is rarely likely to occur. Instead we should concentrate on the enormous good that the rules do to restore true local democracy and to allow minority parties to play a meaningful and effective role in local government after being overlooked for so long in some authorities.
Our measures will ensure that at least one minority party is represented while quite properly allowing the majority party a majority on all committees and sub-committees. I should point out, however, that the provisions of the Bill do not prohibit local authorities from allocating seats in line with the amendment or in any other way, provided that there is unanimous agreement to do so.
I trust that the Committee will therefore recognise that the measures we have provided in the Bill are sufficient to secure the principles of pro rata representation for all political groups. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Ross, will feel that he is able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: I have sympathy with the amendment because I believe the Bill goes further than any other framework we have had in the past to protect the rights of minority groups. That is right. But there are practical difficulties and I see two. One is where the 10 per cent. in numbers turns out to be, such as in my local authority, 7·7 members. The idea that they could be represented on every single committee that is greater than five would be a physical task beyond the ability of just seven members. There is another practical difficulty, which I do not think would be excluded under the Bill. My own local authority allows each individual group the

995
right to form a policy planning committee. In other words, it allows it officially within the rules of the council to receive advice from officers to plan, to think and work out its own policies and priorities. The protection and confidentiality of each group meeting is protected. If it were any group consisting of five or more members that reflects the political makeup of an authority, that would exclude or preclude that kind of gathering. It is important for all groups, even minority groups, to have thinking time on an authority and to be able to work out priorities and policy planning without necessarily being out in the cold because the group is not the majority group. Therefore there is sufficient protection within the Bill for minority groups and I believe the amendment would present practical difficulties.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I am genuinely interested in what the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, has been saying. I have served on a local authority where in my time—which perhaps dates me—there was a clear understanding that council officers did not attend what the noble Baroness has described as group meetings; that is, meetings which are restricted to members of one political group. I appreciate the integrity of council officers who would be there to assist. But can the noble Baroness tell me whether the same officer attends the same groups or whether an officer could attend different groups in the same cycle, for example, and therefore could be privy to the political intelligence and the political opportunities which are created by each of the separate groups inside the Council? When I was a councillor a council officer would come to our group from time to time to explain the broad strategy of a development plan. Perhaps the noble Baroness can help us further.
Baroness Blatch: I can speak only of how it happened in Cambridgeshire. It was thought that for the officers to be available to give advice and information to the ruling group alone was not appropriate. The rules are very specific. The meetings must be recorded and they must take place within Shire Hall. We discovered that one group on the council was having meetings in the private homes of councillors. Party members attended those groups and officers advised. We felt that that was unhealthy; so we came to an all-party agreement that individual groups could have access to information and advice from officers but that information and advice from the same officers would be available to the whole council.
We have a strict code of confidentiality. For example, at budget time, in addition to the ruling group working out its strategy it should be possible for other groups—the main opposition group and minority groups—also to have information and advice to help them to determine their strategy. The officers do not advise on how to behave politically. They give advice and information. That has worked very well. The meetings are exposed and are recorded as having taken place. So far we believe that it has worked to the benefit of all councillors. We have found that our officers are loyal to each of the groups.
996
We as Conservatives would never be told what went on between an officer and another group. As long as it is open and above board and the rules are written down we have found that it works.
Lord Ross of Newport: That example is absolutely correct and I support it. I received a fair reply from the Minister. I realise that a slight problem could arise with my amendment. I should put it on the record that we recognise the steps the Government are taking with the Bill to give rights to minorities. We welcome it very much. With those words, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 15 agreed to.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Clauses 16 and 17 agreed to.
Clause 18 [Members' interests]:
Lord Ross of Newport Lord Ross of Newport moved Amendment No. 102:
Page 25, line 7, after ("member") insert ("and officers who attend committees or are involved in any tendering process").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 2 seeks to extend the declaration of interests to officers. Many officers have powers devolved to them by local authorities. It probably happens less now but when I was first elected to the Isle of Wight county council in 1967 many of the older members would come in opening their envelopes. They had not studied the business. They left almost everything to the officers. Officers have to deal with tenders and negotiations with potential contractors. Should they not also declare their interests? There is something in this. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: This amendment seeks to extend the provisions of Clause 18 to enable the Secretary of State to require officers who attend committees or are involved in any tendering process to provide information about their own pecuniary interests.
The noble Lord is right to be concerned about the pecuniary interests of officers. They may make important decisions on behalf of councils, and it is vital to ensure that they are not influenced by personal pecuniary considerations. Section 117 of the Local Government Act 1972 already requires officers to give notice of any pecuniary interest they have in contracts with the council. This does of course cover only a limited range of interests and requires disclosure only when a conflict of interest actually arises. We accept that some further safeguards are needed but propose taking a different approach from that which the noble Lord has put forward in his amendment.
The reason for this different approach is that, unlike members, officers are employed by the council, and it is the council's responsibility to assure itself as to the proper conduct of its staff. In doing so, the council is able to impose requirements on its employees and back these up with disciplinary measures in a way that it cannot do with members. Some councils have already used this to require officers to complete a register of interests.

997
We believe it is important to build on this, and we are therefore considering using the provisions of Clause 19 of the Bill to require councils to make provisions in their standing orders for officers to declare their pecuniary interests. This will leave responsibility for ensuring, and enforcing, the proper conduct of officers where it belongs—with the council—while at the same time making provision to ensure that councils carry out that responsibility uniformly.
We are discussing details of the proposed model standing order with the local authority associations in the context of the joint working group which we have set up to review the model standing orders. I hope that, in the circumstances, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Before the noble Lord decides whether to withdraw his amendment, I have some sympathy with what he is trying to achieve although I am more attracted by the Government's approach to it. What really worries me is the combination of this amendment and the next amendment which would extend the declaration to non-pecuniary interests. That really worries me.
Lord Ross of Newport: I thank the Minister for that detailed and helpful reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Ross of Newport Lord Ross of Newport moved Amendment No. 103:
Page 25, line 10, leave out ("pecuniary").
The noble Lord said: I now stand in fear and trepidation of moving this amendment; I shall do so very quickly. Clause 18(1)(a) requires that members should declare direct and indirect pecuniary interests. Should that not go rather wider? We suggest that the word "pecuniary" should be taken out of the Bill altogether. I think that we should widen the need for members to declare interests. I refer not only to pecuniary interests. There are other interests which may not necessarily involve finance. I have in mind people making planning decisions of one kind or another. They may be involved in running properties and so on. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: This amendment would extend powers and enable the Secretary of State to require members to disclose their non-pecuniary interests. We considered very carefully, in the context of the Widdicombe Report, whether members should be required to register non-pecuniary interests. Such interests can be as important as pecuniary ones in influencing a member's behaviour. There is no question that where such an interest arises members should not vote or take part in proceedings. However, the existing criminal sanctions which apply in relation to disclosure of pecuniary interests at meetings do not apply to non-pecuniary interests. That is because non-pecuniary interests are, by their very nature, difficult to define and it would be wrong, in these circumstances, to make disclosure subject to criminal sanctions.
998
The proper way of dealing with non-pecuniary interests is, as now, through the national code of local government conduct. The code is quite clear that non-pecuniary interests can be just as important as pecuniary ones and should be treated in the same way. The code will be strengthened by the provisions contained in Clauses 29, 30 and 31 of the Bill which provide for the code to be statutorily prescribed and for councillors to be required to declare on taking office that they will be guided by the code. The local ombudsman will also be required in his reports to name councillors who have breached the code where this has resulted in maladministration by the authority.
I hope that your Lordships will agree that the clause, together with the provisions for the national code of local government conduct, provide sufficient safeguards in relation to non-pecuniary interests. I ask your Lordships to resist the amendment.
Lord Ross of Newport: I am grateful to the noble Lord. It is worthwhile having that on the record. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Strathclyde: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Bill
8.30 p.m.
Read a third time.
Clause 6 [Complaints involving matters within the jurisdiction of industrial tribunal]:
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Lyell)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Lyell) moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 5, line 25, after ("President") insert ("or Vice-President").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment which stands in my name on the Marshalled List this evening follows on from a series of amendments which I moved at an earlier stage of the proceedings on the Bill. Your Lordships may remember that this large series of amendments—I think it is called, "the Lyell Package"—provided for the creation of the office of vice-president of the industrial tribunals and the Fair Employment Tribunal. The proposed new amendment is purely technical and consequential upon the group which I moved at an earlier stage.
At present in Clause 6(1) we make reference only to "the President". The amendment which I propose will substitute a reference to "the President or Vice-President". It will empower the vice-president to act in place of the president when the latter is not available and a matter arises concerning a complaint involving matters within the jurisdiction of industrial tribunals. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 54 [Redundancy]:
Lord Prys-Davies Lord Prys-Davies moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 46, line 29, leave out from ("employer") to ("and") in line 31.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment relates to the Bill's redundancy clause. Noble Lords who were present at the Second Reading debate will recall that the Minister told the House that the Government would be bringing forward an amendment in the area of redundancy, and here I quote the words of the Minister,
"to avoid any erosion of gains towards fair participation in the workforce of individual firms through existing redundancy practices".—[Official Report, 28/6/89; col. 798.]
We did not see the amendment until last Thursday. It is now incorporated as Clause 54 of the Bill. I believe that it is fair to say that we all found this amendment to be baffling. Moreover, I am not sure whether I understand it even today.
An employer's redundancy policy can affect the structure of the workforce just as much as the promotion policy. For example, if an employer uses affirmative action programmes to rectify imbalance in the workforce but is then forced two or three years later, because of difficulties facing the company, to make employees redundant and bases his redundancy policy on the traditional practice of last in, first out, then the attempts made over the preceding years to secure equality of opportunity would be eroded and, possibly, negated.
When on Report the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, asked the Minister a simple question—that is, whether this amendment would adequately cover the last in, first out point—it seemed to the House that the Minister was unable to give a specific and clear answer to the question. I have since had an opportunity to read the words of the Minister but they are no clearer; indeed, they are woolly. That will not help employers when they have to implement the provisions of this Act.
In our view the confusion is probably—although, I am cautious in my comments—caused by the last limb of Clause 54(1)(a). The aim of the amendment is to remove those words. Therefore if our amendment is accepted, an employer can ignore the practice of last in, first out without having to construct an affirmative programme and without his policy being in accordance, and here I quote, "with an agreed procedure"—whatever those words may mean.
We urge the Government to accept this amendment. By doing so, the employer will know that he can ignore the old practice of last in, first out without having to call in aid an affirmative action programme and the agreed procedure. I beg to move.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, will forgive me—and I am sure that your Lordships will be happy—if I reiterate briefly how we see Clause 54. We have constructed this clause very carefully and with great sensitivity because of the way in which—and I explained this at an earlier stage—we are dealing with redundancy.
1000
First, unlike recruitment, training and promotion issues, which are constructive issues with which we have been dealing most of the way through the passage of this Bill and which relate to entry into, or movement within, employment, as your Lordships will be aware, redundancy is something emotionally different. It involves exit from employment. That difference and that aspect of the matter is fully recognised by the Government.
Secondly, Clause 54 as drafted strikes the right balance between providing protection for employers who wish to preserve gains in the percentage of an under-represented group in their workforce. That is the core of the argument and of the discussion which has prevailed through the proceedings on this Bill from 31st January of this year, when it started its journey in another place, right through until this evening. It provides protection for those employers who wish to preserve such gains. But, on the other hand, the clause avoids instrusive interference in very delicate industrial relations matters.
Thirdly, like Clauses 53 and 55, Clause 54—as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, will appreciate—is basically an enabling clause. It gives employers the necessary flexibility to look at and to address redundancy schemes when they wish to preserve the gains made by an under-represented group.
Fourthly, I should like to stress to the noble Lord the fact that Clause 54 is consistent with the definition of affirmative action, which, as he will be aware, involves two kinds of action to secure fair participation; namely, the adoption of practices to secure fair participation and the modification or abandonment of practices that have or may have the effect of restricting or discouraging such participation.
Further, Clause 54 respects the consensus which we believe should underlie all industrial relations matters and the need for a sensitive approach to redundancy. The clause gives employers security of protection from both direct and indirect discrimination when they are negotiating—this is important—an agreed redundancy procedure with the unions or workforce representatives. I shall clarify that point briefly later.
Finally, Clause 54 is at the heart of this part of the Bill which is designed to avoid selection for redundancy on the basis of religious belief or political opinion.
The noble Lord, and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, at an earlier stage, referred to the question of last in, first out, which is one possible method of selection for redundancy. I have stressed that the purpose of Clause 54 is to protect those gains. It is a matter for negotiation between employers and the unions or workforce representatives. That is why there is no specific reference to last in, first out. Any gains in representation of an under-represented minority are likely to result from those most recently recruited. If an employer and a union were, off their own bat, to conclude a last in, first out agreement those gains might be dissipated. The amendment allows employers and unions collectively to address that difficulty, and, as part of an affirmative action

1001
programme, negotiate a method of redundancy other than last in, first out.
Employers and employees, or their representatives, could decide to base a redundancy scheme on criteria other than last in, first out; such as the skills of the individuals, the need to retain certain skills, the possibility of releasing those workers with skills for which the demand may be disappearing, or other factors such as qualifications or disciplinary records. If such a redundancy scheme is negotiated in preference to a scheme of last in, first out, or replaces one of that nature, the effect of the amendment is that the employer is protected against direct and indirect discrimination even though the object of the scheme is to preserve affirmative action and even though the scheme will have a disproportionate effect on the over-represented community in that particular workforce.
I hope that the noble Lord will see that we believe that Clause 54 as drafted should continue at the core of the Bill that we have pursued consistently for more than six months now. The noble Lord felt that there was no definition of "agreed procedure". We believe that "agreed procedure" has a meaning in the Bill. As we understand it, it means a formal agreement between the employer and his trade union or his workforce representatives. The inclusion of the term is fully consistent with the basic principle and practice of consent which I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Blease, will accept should underlie all industrial relations matters. The agreed procedure gives full respect to trade union negotiating rights in respect of redundancy by making the adoption of any scheme, conducted as part of affirmative action, conditional upon trade union support or that of the workforce representatives.
I am sorry if I disappoint your Lordships, but we believe that Clause 54, as drafted, provided flexibility for employers. Flexibility and good practice are the best method to deal with the sensitive issue of redundancy. To put explicitly into the Bill one scheme which may or may not be agreed or may or may not be used by that workforce or in that area would be giving false guidance and would remove the flexibility that we believe to be essential. For that reason, I am afraid that we cannot agree with the noble Lord and accept his amendment.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the noble Lord a question before he sits down. I am not disappointed. I am totally bewildered. I cannot understand what we are being asked to accept. What happens if there is not an agreed procedure? It is as simple as that. Why should there be an agreed procedure? To take the first in, last out as an example, why should the unions abandon that principle? If they do not abandon it, what then happens? That is what I should like to know. That is what I cannot as yet understand.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I stress that we want flexibility. I did not raise the question of last in, first out. It was the noble Lord's
1002
noble friend who raised it at an earlier stage. I gave the same answer. The principle of last in, first out has preoccupied the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, and the noble Baroness. I gave an answer. We believe that we need flexibility.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his lengthy explanation of Clause 54. The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, asked the simple question: how will the clause affect the principle of last in, first out? That is a practice deeply rooted in custom and history. As I understand it, a substantial part of the difficulty in Northern Ireland is how to overcome such practices. The Minister failed to answer that simple question. The clause fails to do so.
The Minister says that we have to show that the redundancy policy is in pursuance of an affirmative action programme, and we have to be satisfied that it is in accordance with an agreed procedure. Have there been any discussions with the trade unions in Northern Ireland as to whether the proposal is acceptable? Whatever his answer to that question, the critical question which the Government must answer is: how do we overcome those deep-rooted practices and customs?
We have been told more than once that the problem is not that of direct discrimination; it is of indirect discrimination, which is deeply rooted in practice, custom and history. If the Government attach importance to affirmative action and to enhancing equality of opportunity, it would assist the employer considerably if the last limb of Clause 37(1)(a) were deleted.
I do not propose to take this matter any further tonight. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, for raising the key questions that he did. The Minister expanded the explanation he gave last time. It will now be up to our colleagues in another place to reflect upon his explanation. Having listened to him, my view is that the clause provides hostages to fortune. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Bonham-Carter Lord Bonham-Carter moved Amendment No. 3:
After Clause 58, insert the following new clause:
("Repeal of certain provisions of Fair Employment (Northern Ireland Act) 1976
Subsections (2) and (3) of section 42 of the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1976 (certificate that act done for the purpose of safeguarding national security, or of protecting public safety or public order to be conclusive evidence of that fact) should cease to have effect.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the amendment standing in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies. I do not apologise for raising this matter yet again. It was raised on Second Reading, in Committee and on Report and we raise it now at Third Reading. I do so simply because the arguments which were deployed by the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, did not seem to me to answer the case which was put by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, and by me for removing Section 42(2) and (3) of the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1976. Subsection (2) reads, and I ask noble Lords to listen to this:

1003
"A certificate signed by or on behalf of the Secretary of State and certifying that an act specified in the certificate was done for a purpose mentioned in subsection (1) shall be"—
and this is the heart of the matter—
"conclusive evidence that it was done for that purpose".
Those are the terms of the subsection which I regard as unacceptable.
I do not want to hear the noble Lord tell me that it is essential that the Secretary of State should have the right to issue Section 42 certificates. The point is that if the use of that power is not to be a source of suspicion and controversy, there must be some independent element, there must be some kind of appeal.
At Second Reading, in Committee and on Report the noble Lord argued, first, that for reasons of security the Secretary of State needs this power. If he wants confirmation of that he will find it in cols. 204, 678 and 824 of Hansard. Let me remind the noble Lord that none of us denies that. No one is saying that the Secretary of State should not have that power. No one is trying to take it away from him; no one is trying, in the words of the noble Lord himself, "to dismantle it".
Secondly, he argued that since the passage of the 1976 Act, the power under Section 42 had only been used on 17 occasions. Let me remind the Minister once more that that is not the issue about which we are arguing. The point is that if the power had been used on only one of those occasions, if on only one of those occasions a certificate had been issued wrongly or based on false information, an individual would have been the victim of an injustice, an injustice for which he had absolutely no redress. The amendment is directed at that.
It is a very serious situation in this country that a person can be the victim of an injustice based on secret information and he has no redress—there is nothing he can do. He does not merely not get the job but he is marked for life on the basis of evidence which he believes to be false. I find that absolutely unacceptable and I cannot but believe that it is contrary to the European Convention on Human Rights.
Thirdly, the noble Lord argued that to provide a wider scrutiny of matters such as this would jeopardise sensitive information. Perhaps noble Lords will look at col. 204 of Hansard in this regard. I must ask the Minister this question. If that is so, why under the sex discrimination order is a certificate subject to judicial review? Why is wider scrutiny of women of a different order from wider scrutiny of people on grounds of their religion or political persuasion? The Minister will have an opportunity to explain that.
Fourthly, he argued that applications for Section 42 certificates were not treated lightly. I am sure that is true; I am sure that his right honourable friend takes the utmost trouble and most conscientiously examines what is put before him. No one supposes that he does that lightly, but once more it is not the point that I am driving at. What we are talking about is human fallibility. People can make mistakes. What we want to do is to protect the noble Lord's right
1004
honourable friend from his own fallibility. We want to provide redress for victims of human fallibility. That fallibility is not confined to the Secretary of State; there is the human fallibility of the security services who provide the Secretary of State with the sensitive information on which he has to base his judgment.
These are the questions which the noble Lord must answer. After his years of experience in Northern Ireland, he must be conscious of the suspicious scrutiny with which any action taken by the Secretary of State is examined. He must also be aware that the reputation of the security services who supply this information in Northern Ireland is not totally beyond reproach. Whatever one may think of it, after Stalker, Kincora, Colin Wallace, Peter Wright, etc., it is more than ever necessary to be scrupulously careful in dealing with matters such as those which we are discussing.
I plead with the noble Lord on this occasion to address himself to these serious arguments which we have now put to him on no fewer than four occasions. Moreover, he admits it. He says that ever since 31st January he and his colleagues have been examining administrative procedures. I do not think those procedures are all that difficult. We have proposed one here. He has a precedent in the sex discrimination legislation. But we have to ask him for how much longer he will be examining these administrative procedures. We further have to ask him whether it is an administrative matter that is at the heart of this issue. It is my view that it is not an administrative matter but a judicial matter providing the individual who is caught under this clause with redress if he thinks that he has been wrongly or unjustly treated. I hope that the noble Lord will address himself to that and that he will also inform us of the progress he has made since 31st January in dealing with the problem which prompts this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, from these Benches I wish to support the amendment which has been so ably moved by the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter. I wish to emphasise that it is the duty of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, when issuing a national security certificate, to act fairly and to be seen to act fairly.
That is not a novel principle. It is the concept which governs administrative procedures in this country. We therefore assert with as much conviction as we can command that the person who is affected by the Secretary of State's certificate has the moral right to know that the Secretary of State had acted fairly in issuing the certificate. The best way to give him that assurance is to give him the right to lodge an application for judicial review. Yet, as the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, has pointed out, as it stands, the law of this country denies him that moral right. He has been denied it for 14 years. It is surely irrelevant and inconsequential whether the number of certificates which have been issued is 17 or one. However, we are entitled to ask the Government for how much longer such a person is to be denied the right to judicial review.

1005
We obviously accept that we have to seek a just balance between the legitimate interests of the state and national security on the one hand and the legitimate interests of the individual on the other hand. However, to the best of my recollection, the Minister has not dwelt on the need to strike that just balance. We say that the department must grasp the need to seek that balance and therefore that the Secretary of State's exercise of this power to issue a certificate must in all cases be accompanied by effective legal scrutiny of the decision. We ask for the fourth time that the Government respond favourably to this amendment which, as I said earlier, has been so ably moved by the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter.
9 p.m.
Lord Blease: My Lords, the essence of this amendment was dealt with on Report and in earlier parts of the debate on this Bill. It has been very ably moved by the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, and supported by my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies. There is little I would wish to add to the arguments that have been presented, other than to stress what has already been mentioned. Living in Northern Ireland, I know only too well the difficulties of implementing this provision. In so far as it is humanly possible with my capabilities, I have tried to put myself in the position of a Secretary of State. I would welcome this provision because I think the Secretary of State and his ministerial colleagues are under a constant siege. I believe this provision adds protection to the decisions of the Secretary of State.
Further, I believe the provision reinforces public confidence in that the facts of the matter under review will not be made public, so the danger of potential leaks regarding security matters is not a risk. However, it would certainly give added confidence to the public that what is being done is being done in their name and in the name of justice as regards those concerned. I merely wished to add those points from a Northern Ireland point of view.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, at the outset I wish to apologise for not having taken part in the debates on this legislation to the extent that I wished. I had a family illness and I was not available to speak on the legislation. However, I have read the report of the debates with a great deal of interest and concern. I was one who took part in the Committee stage of the original fair employment legislation when the two clauses which have been referred to this evening were drafted. I remember very well, particularly in Committee, that we were all imbued with the belief that, some way or other, the legislation which we were then proposing would have the effect that we so desired of taking into consideration the awful problem of discrimination that had existed in Northern Ireland for so long. Sadly, in 1989, we find that that legislation will not be as effective as we wish it to be. This evening the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, in moving his amendment, brings back vivid memories of the way in which we view legislation concerning Northern Ireland. That legislation is always caught up with problem of security.
1006
The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, and my noble friends on these Benches will not be unaware of the serious discussions and concerns which were expressed here on the passage of the prevention of terrorism legislation. One of the big concerns that we expressed concerned exclusion orders. We were told that the Home Secretary was privy to some information which would allow him to take decisions in which the victim of the decisions would have absolutely no say. The victim's elected representative and his legal representatives could make whatever inquiries they thought necessary, but they would be faced with the fact that the Home Secretary had made the decision because it involved security.
We are faced with exactly the same problem in this legislation. Throughout the many years I was an elected representative in Northern Ireland, people used to come to me who had a very enviable record in Her Majesty's Services, or in His Majesty's Services during the last war. They had given their all in the Army, Navy and Air Force, but they had the awful impediment of being Catholics. That impediment existed even though they had given service during the war. After the war ended, as they were ex-servicemen, they were given some slight priority in the terrible contest that was taking place for jobs not only in Northern Ireland but indeed in other parts of the United Kingdom. I have vivid recollections of their visits to my advice centre. I was an elected representative, but not limited by the constituency. An elected representative in Northern Ireland does not restrict his representation to the constituency.
I remember a painter who had 22 years' service in the Royal Navy. He told me that he was working in Palace Barracks, which was an Army establishment in Holywood, County Down. One Sunday afternoon, completely out of the blue, his superior officer told him, "You have been dismissed". When he asked why, he was told that it was for security reasons. He pointed out that he had 22 years' service in the forces of the Crown. I took the case as far as I could—to the Minister of Defence, to the Home Secretary, and to all the other agencies which appeared at that time to be in a position to give some redress. They could give absolutely none.
That is why I share the concerns which have been expressed about the Bill and support the amendment moved so ably by the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter. Security can be an excuse for discrimination. In Northern Ireland security can be the be-all and end-all in relation to the maintenance of the status quo.
I believe the Bill to be sincerely motivated. I believe that this Government, albeit a Tory Government, are motivated by the same concerns which motivated the government in 1976. I also believe that the American influence had no mean part to play in the promulgation of this legislation. I do not believe that this legislation is perfect. I do not believe that any legislation in this field could ever be perfect. However, as I see it, if it does not do any good at least it will not do a great deal of harm. But the amendment would ensure that where there was the slightest hint of injustice the victim of that injustice would have the right to have his case

1007
looked into. Justice would have to be seen to be done in every aspect of the legislation.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, this ground has already been covered at various stages of the Bill. The speeches of noble Lords have had a common strand of great sincerity and commitment, and if I may so so to the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, no little eloquence. In his opening remarks—I hope that I paraphrase what he said correctly—the noble Lord said that no one was trying to dismantle the certificates. There has been no dissension in relation to the other common theme which runs through this subject, namely security.
The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, need make no apology when he speaks on Northern Irish matters in your Lordships' House. He tempted me into some dangerous areas on the last occasion. My name was splashed over the newpapers, not always in the most flattering light. It was said that some of my comments were not far from the truth. I thank the noble Lord for taking me down that particular avenue.
The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, and the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, have drawn attention to two aspects of problems in relation to Section 42 certificates. In his closing remarks, when we last discussed the matter, the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, emphasised that justice must be seen to be done, particularly in this context. I shall come to that point in a minute.
The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, mentioned one aspect which I took to heart. I have had the honour of serving in Northern Ireland for five and a half years. Every day that I serve in Northern Ireland the more I realise I have to learn. When dealing with the particularly difficult area of security and when signing the certificates we are discussing, I consider and balance the arguments that have been put so persuasively by your Lordships. I am occasionally convinced by those arguments. Then one must look at other aspects and, little by little, come to a decision on the balance of all the factors that are drawn in together.
I have stressed the vital security interests that surround these Section 42 certificates. I beg the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, to accept that at no time do any of us who have to deal with these matters use security as a mere blanket. The noble Lords, Lord Prys-Davies and Lord Bonham-Carter, have perhaps taken to heart what I said at an earlier stage, that the fairly fierce power available to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has been used 17 times in 13 years. It may be thought that that is 17 times too many without the safeguards that the noble Lords seek.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords—
9.15 p.m.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, perhaps I may finish. We are in danger of getting out of order. If the noble Lord raises another point we shall be out of order. I shall conclude my remarks in a moment so perhaps he can contain his patience until then. I have listened to his views on the matter and perhaps he will now
1008
do me the courtesy of listening to mine. He may wish to correct me at the end.
That is an overriding factor that we must take into account. It is a question of people's lives being at stake when matters of this delicacy are discussed. One needs no further graphic illustration than that of the gentleman who was kidnapped and found murdered yesterday. No one yet knows why that happened, but the reasons for it are not apparently a matter that would necessarily concern the Government. However, the noble Lord and all noble Lords who know Northern Ireland will understand that the issue of security is particularly relevant to the lives and safety of people in Northern Ireland.
The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, said that he felt that scrupulous consideration of the certificates and the factors was necessary. I do not recall him stressing that that was what he was after. It seems to me that the thrust of the amendment is concerned with judicial scrutiny.
I do not think that I can go further tonight than I have gone at earlier stages, but the noble Lord raised one point about sex discrimination and Section 42 certificates. There may be an apparent anomaly between Section 42 of the 1976 Act and Article 53 of the Sex Discrimination (Northern Ireland) Order of 1976. That was amended by a 1988 order regarding sex discrimination. So far as the 1988 order concerns Northern Ireland, it removed from sex discrimination legislation in Northern Ireland the certification procedure which still exists under Section 42 of the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1976. That amendment order was a consequence of what was known as the Johnston case in the European Court. That case was concerned solely with equality of opportunity between the sexes. It was not concerned with equality of opportunity between people of different religious beliefs or—and here we come into murky waters—political opinion. We believe that the case is not of direct relevance to the legislation before us tonight.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, stressed once again tonight that the certificates must be seen to be fair. I find it particularly difficult to know how, or how far, one can satisfy the noble Lord on the security aspect. We have tried to do so. I have with me the words, chapter and verse, of the erstwhile noble friend of the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, speaking from this position in December 1975. He quoted almost the same words as I am quoting this evening. I do not believe that the factors regarding security in Northern Ireland have changed that much in those 13 years. The issue is bi-partisan.
However, there is one aspect that may concern the noble Lords, Lord Prys-Davies and Lord Bonham-Carter, who have put their names to the amendment. They seem to believe that it preserves the certificate and the procedure. But in fact it may allow judicial review, having preserved the certificate. However the amendment that is before us this evening as drafted repeals the provision under which the certificate can be issued. If that was the intention, I am sure that it will be made clear but it seems to me that there has been a slight lack of clarity in the understanding of the noble Lords who have moved and spoken to this amendment.

1009
I was very grateful for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Blease, in this area. I am sure he will accept that we take very seriously the issue of the certificates.
In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, I stress that we are not now dealing with exclusion but with a fairly narrow aspect of fair employment and equality of opportunity in employment for people of different religious faiths and possibly of political opinion. That is the area with which we are dealing tonight. I apologise to the noble Lord and all noble Lords who have spoken but our position has not changed over the consideration of this particular Bill since the first time I spoke. I cannot recommend that your Lordships accept the amendment in the names of the two noble Lords who have spoken.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, replies to the Minister, perhaps I may point out that the amendment moved by the noble Lord and supported by me leaves intact the power of the Secretary of State to do any act, and that includes issuing a certificate:
"for the purpose of safeguarding national security, or of protecting public safety or public order".
Subsection (1) of Section 42 remains untouched by our amendment. What are affected by our amendment are subsections (2) and (3) which provide that the certificate shall be conclusive evidence.
I believe that the Minister's comments on the amendment are out of order.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, with the leave of the House I think I should give the Minister an opportunity to assess and take into account the impact of what he said during the course of his reply. He referred to a murder that had taken place in Northern Ireland yesterday in rather strange circumstances. He said—and Hansard will confirm it or otherwise —that the reason for that murder was something about which the Government should not be terribly concerned or take into account.
I know exactly what the noble Lord meant; namely, that it was not a case of terrorism or the person who was killed being a member of the IRA but that certain doubts had been expressed that he might have been involved in other illegal activities. However, I suggest to the noble Lord that every death that occurs in Northern Ireland which has been brought about by terrorism is the concern of the Government.
I rise only to give the noble Lord the opportunity to speak again. I know that he did not mean his words to sound as they will sound in Northern Ireland had not I risen to my feet to give him the opportunity to express an otherwise opinion.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I have listened with great care to the words of the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, in reply to the amendment which I and the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, tabled. I am disappointed that in point of fact he did not move from the arguments that we heard at Second
1010
Reading, in Committee and on Report. He goes on reiterating that the overriding factor is security.
No one denies that security is essential. No one wants to remove the right of the Secretary of State to issue Section 42 orders. All we are saying is that in view of the situation in Northern Ireland, it is more than ever important that security measures should be seen not to override justice to individuals. I do not believe that it is impossible to provide—by means of the proposal that we have put forward—precisely that security to the individual without affecting the security of the state.
The Minister agrees with this in his reiterated statements that the Government are considering administrative measures to deal with this problem. It has been going on since 31st January. I do not propose to press this amendment but I can tell the noble Lord that I shall be asking a Question once every three months to see whether he has made any progress in dealing with the problem which I regard as of the highest importance not merely to Northern Ireland but to this country in general. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 2 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
Lord Prys-Davies Lord Prys-Davies moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 54, line 31, at end insert—
("(4) Paragraph 2 does not apply unless the President or Vice President has directed that the complaint under this Order shall be heard and determined by the Fair Employment Tribunal under section 6(2) of the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1989.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is an amendment to an amendment introduced by the Government at Report stage. The Government's amendment is to be seen between lines 20 and 30 on page 54. This part of Schedule 2 addresses the situation where, on the same facts, there can be a complaint of unlawful discrimination under the sex discrimination order and under this Bill. If we correctly understand the government amendment, the effect of this schedule as it stands is that the hearing of the case under the sex discrimination order will be delayed until the proceedings under the fair employment legislation have been disposed of.
At Report stage we said that this solution raises grave problems. We believe that it may well be in violation of Community law, because the relevant part of the sex discrimination order is derived from Community law. We believe that people will be drawn to challenge its legality under Community law.
I asked at Report stage whether the Government had obtained advice from counsel experienced in Community law. I am not sure that we received a positive answer to that question. That is one part of our concern about the schedule as it stands. However, we believe that the schedule is inconsistent with Clause 6(2) of the Bill. Our amendment draws attention to that clause. Under Clause 6(2) the president of the Industrial Tribunal (which is the tribunal that will consider a case under the sex discrimination order) has a discretion—I emphasise

1011
that it is no more than a discretion—as to whether or not a matter may be heard by the Fair Employment Tribunal.
In reply to a question that I asked on Report, the Minister interpreted paragraph 29 of Schedule 2 to mean:
"That tribunal"—
that is the Fair Employment Tribunal,
"would hear both sex and religious discrimination cases simultaneously."—[Official Report, 17/7/89; col. 682.]
Surely that cannot be correct. In our view there is nothing in Schedule 2 to warrant that interpretation.
As the Bill stands, and having particular regard to Clause 6(2), it is in the discretion of the president of the tribunal to decide whether it would be appropriate for an action proceeding under the sex discrimination order to be transferred to the Fair Employment Tribunal. If the Government's amendment to Schedule 2 is valid, we submit that Clause 6(2) should be amended in line with our amendment in order to regularise the position.
That is a technical point. The point of substance is that we believe, as we believed at Report, that in this respect the Government's amendment to Schedule 2 is in violation of Community law.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, noble Lords will have grasped that we are dealing with a special situation when a case of sex discrimination is under way before an industrial tribunal, and a complaint of religious discrimination is or can be made in addition to the complaint under the sex discrimination order. Under the Bill as drafted, there would be an opportunity for the president of the Fair Employment Tribunal to consider whether or not to give such a direction that the sex discrimination proceedings should be heard by the Fair Employment Tribunal. The amendment would leave the president no reasonable opportunity to consider the giving of a direction. The amendment would have the effect that proceedings before the industrial tribunal would continue, and could reach a conclusion, before the president gave a direction. That would nullify the existing provision in Schedule 2 which is there for the precise purpose of permitting the president to draw breath, as it were. It would be quite unworkable to require the president to take his decision while an industrial tribunal continues its deliberations.
Furthermore, the amendment would seriously diminish the advantages of Clause 6. Clause 6 is there to ensure, as far as possible, that there is no need for facts to be heard twice by both an industrial tribunal and the Fair Employment Tribunal. But the amendment before your Lordships ignores that consideration. The amendment would seek to have the industrial tribunal proceed with its deliberations even though there was a threat and a very strong possibility that those deliberations would not be brought to fruition. I wonder whether the noble Lord has considered how he or any of us could justify that considerable waste of time and effort by the
1012
industrial tribunal, the complainant, the respondent and any representatives and witnesses.
We believe that the amendment should be rejected because it would not help good management, personnel relations or, more importantly, the judgment process. We believe that Clause 6 gives all the discretion and the flexibility required by the president or vice-president in this sphere. We believe that that flexibility is needed by all parties: the complainant, the respondent and all the representatives and witnesses. I do not think that the noble Lord means to put such a grave obstacle in the way of very good personnel relations. All the powers of flexibility which may be needed by the president and vice-president are contained in Clause 6.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I have listened carefully to the Minister's response. The argument is highly technical and we shall have to reflect upon his words.
However, my immediate reaction is that he does disservice to our amendment. We say that, as the second schedule and Clause 6(2) stand, there can be a conflict. There is nothing in the Bill to resolve that conflict. Our amendment in no way takes away the discretion from the president of the tribunal. We say that in the event of a conflict the decision of the president will prevail and, in arriving at his decision, the president will have regard to all the evidence before him. However, if he determines that the case is to be transferred to the tribunal, that decision will prevail.
I ask the Minister and the department to consider the relationship between the schedule and Clause 6(2) and to consider the point which we have made that there could be a conflict. Our amendment would resolve that conflict. However, I shall not press the matter further this evening and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass. At this stage it is my happy and pleasant duty to sum up what we have discussed and considered during our deliberations on all stages of the Bill.
Your Lordships will agree that this legislation will shape the practice of the equality of opportunity and employment in Northern Ireland in the years ahead. I hope that that may be even longer than the period since the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, was in this position. I hope that this legislation will be a benchmark in this matter of equality of opportunity in the employment field in Northern Ireland.
In order to achieve that, the legislation must provide clear guidance on duties and obligations in the workplace. It must also set in place suitable and equitable arrangements to ensure the development of sound, defensible and, above all, practical employment practices. It is for that reason that my right honourable and honourable friends very much welcome the careful attention and immense effort and scrutiny which all your Lordships have given to the Bill. I am very grateful to all noble Lords who

1013
have contributed so eloquently, lucidly and in such detailed way to consideration of the Bill.
At Second Reading I indicated that we believed that firmness and fairness were two qualities of the Bill. Discussion in your Lordships' House has emphasised both of those qualities. It has also shown the importance of establishing a point of balance between them. On the one hand the Bill must be tough and effective; on the other hand it must be even-handed and flexible. Our views may differ on how we reach that point of balance and that objective.
However, in sending the Bill to another place for consideration of the work that we have done upon it, I should like to stress the very wide degree of support that exists throughout your Lordships' House for the principal provisions in the Bill and the very significant and substantive points on which we all agree.
At the outset we agreed that a new Bill was necessary. The 1976 Act and the very great achievements which flowed from it were considerable. We have taken them into account and we have admired them. However, it will not have escaped your Lordships' notice that here and elsewhere it has been thought that new and tougher legislation is required. We took the initiative in proposing new legislation.
We have consulted very widely. Some of your Lordships may say that we have consulted too widely and for too long. However, we have listened very carefully to the views and concerns that were put to us both before and after the first drafting of the Bill. The provisions in the Bill follow detailed and comprehensive consultation with employers, trade unions and the existing agency, the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights, as well as a range of other special interest groups. We are very grateful for all the comments which have been put forward. In particular, we found that the report on fair employment which was produced by the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights was very helpful and influential.
Your Lordships will all agree that in order to have fair employment there must be employment in the first place. Every single one of us wants to see more jobs for both communities, and indeed for everyone in Northern Ireland. We should also like to see those who profess an interest in fair employment in Northern Ireland putting their efforts and commitment into the promotion of increased investment for the Province. A sincere commitment to fair employment is incompatible with the promotion, let alone the endorsement, of measures which advocate disinvestment. They threaten existing investment and very often make it more difficult to attract new investment into Northern Ireland.
There is a campaign associated with the vague platitudes which are known as the MacBride principles. This campaign has not created one single new job in Northern Ireland for anyone, Catholic or Protestant, let alone attracted one single dollar of investment into the Province. It incorporates very
1014
damaging economic consequences, and that is one reason for our firm and unrelenting opposition to that campaign.
We have agreed on the crucial importance of affirmative action and on the need to ensure that employers can implement affirmative action programmes, particularly in the fields of training and the encouragement of applications, without fear of attracting charges of discrimination, be they direct or indirect. We see the use of goals and timetables in the Bill as well as voluntary and enforceable undertakings between employers and the commission as most significant elements in this area.
We find more common ground between us on the need for effective enforcement measures. The introduction of criminal penalties, the imposition of monetary penalties by the tribunal and the use of economic sanctions for enforcement are all seen as essential elements in giving this important legislation for Northern Ireland effective bite and teeth.
Understandably, there is a different degree of emphasis between the Government and Opposition but both are broadly agreed on the basic design of the engine that drives this Bill forward. The Government have had many points pressed upon them. We have tried to explain our approach in each case. We have taken on board suggestions and brought forward amendments throughout the progress of this Bill both here and in another place to accommodate many of the important points raised. However, if differences remain they are differences of approach to a common and shared objective.
We have spent many productive and, I hope, fascinating hours considering this Bill. I believe that it has been substantially improved during that consideration. Your Lordships have shown generous concern for the cause of fair employment in Northern Ireland. I pay tribute to all noble Lords who have spoken but in particular to the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, who during my career in the Northern Ireland Office has followed all aspects of Northern Irish affairs with courtesy and understanding. On this Bill the noble Lord has performed in a manner he should be proud of. I am grateful for the way he has put forward his arguments. I hope I have managed to meet some of them. Certainly, I have taken on board the points raised, and if I have not been able to meet them all I hope the noble Lord will accept that it is merely that my approach is marginally different to his. We are immensely grateful to him for what he has done.
The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, have been of immense help in their specialist fields. They have brought great knowlege and detailed study particularly to the later stages of the Bill. We are grateful for the courtesy with which they have argued their case.
The noble Lord, Lord Blease, of course has great knowledge of everything that goes on in Northern Ireland in regard to employee participation and discussion. We are grateful for the points that he raised tonight and during the various stages. We believe that we have done a very great deal for the noble Lord as well as for everyone who is involved in employment in Northern Ireland.

1015
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, need never apologise for any comments that he might make or for his attendance. We know that the noble Lord attends on almost all the occasions that we discuss Northern Ireland. We are grateful for his support of this Bill.
The Bill started in another place on 31st January this year. Tonight your Lordships send the Bill to another place for consideration of our improvements to it. I believe that our work on the Bill shows the efforts of your Lordships here tonight and also those who were present at earlier stages. Your Lordships' House has been shown in the very best light and for our part we want to express our gratitude. That gratitude will be shared by everyone who has Northern Irish employment, the economy and the well-being of every person in Northern Ireland at heart. We are extremely grateful for what has been done. I commend the Bill to your Lordships.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Lyell.)
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, as the Minister has said, this is a very important Bill for Northern Ireland. It has provided us with an opportunity, not likely to be repeated for many years to come, to remove a major mischief; namely, unfair practice in employment in Northern Ireland. It is also a complex Bill containing baffling clauses and many interrelated provsions.
I believe that the House will support me when I say that the timetable in your Lordships' House for the consideration of the Bill—unlike the timetable in another place—has been inadequate to enable the House properly to discharge its historical role as a revising chamber. The Second Reading of the Bill was held no more than three weeks ago on 28th June. The Committee stage took place eight days later on 6th July when the Government tabled about 37 amendments to their own Bill. A significant number of those amendments were substantial by any account. The Report stage took place on 17th July when the Government tabled a further 22 amendments. Today, 20th July, three days later, the Bill completes its passage through your Lordships' House.
How can the House deal effectively with such an important Bill within the constrictions of this timetable, bearing also in mind that the duty of scrutinising Northern Ireland Bills, because they are Northern Ireland Bills, is borne by very few Members of the House? The work of scrutinising the Bill has fallen to very few of us. It has been suggested to me by one shrewd observer of this House that this may be some evidence that the Brits are growing tired of Northern Ireland. I should like to place that on the record.
The Bill, notwithstanding the kind words of the Minister, leaves the House with our work unfinished. In a few respects we have been able to improve the Bill. In many other respects the Bill has been weakened by amendments introduced by the Government. One does not normally expect a government to weaken their own Bills. In at least four vital parts, the Bill in our view leaves the House ill-defined and unclear.
1016
I refer in particular to the provisions governing indirect discrimination and to the definition of that term, the Government having decided to ignore recent case law on the definition of "indirect discrimination". The provisions relating to affirmative action to protect training schemes are ill-defined; the protection of those redundancy schemes which depart from the practice of last in, first out are in our view inadequate; and finally, the resolution of the conflict between the sex discrimination order and the Fair Employment Act appears to us to be in conflict with Community legislation.
We have tried to the best of our capacity to protect the Government from their own mistakes, but of course we should be delighted if time were to show that our worries were unfounded. But what if we are right? If experience shows that our concerns are well founded, the people who will suffer are the people of Northern Ireland. I say that because it will be that much more difficult to attract the billions of pounds of inward investment that is necessary to meet the chronic weaknesses of that Province.
I wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, for his unfailing courtesy and for his immense patience and kindness. Whatever criticisms I have levied from time to time at the Bill, they have not been aimed at the Minister or at any of his colleagues in the Northern Ireland Office. I regret to say that they have been aimed at the Department of Economic Development. The history of the Bill in your Lordships' House, with the Government introducing amendments which have the effect of eroding their own Bill and of failing to honour the commitments that have been made by Ministers, suggests to me at least that there may be deep-rooted problems within the Department of Economic Development in Belfast.
Finally, I want to thank the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, for his immense support. It has been a pleasure for me to work in common harness with him. Given his experience, expertise and ability, his support at all stages has been invaluable. I value very much the guidance I have received from my noble friend Lord Blease, who is deeply rooted in the history of industrial relations in Northern Ireland, and from the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, who has not been able to devote as much time as he would have wished to this Bill for the reasons which we well know. I must also place on record my appreciation for the help I have received at every stage of the Bill from the two specialist advisers who have assisted the Official Opposition and to whom I have looked for guidance.
10 p.m.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I associate myself with the words spoken by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, about the Bill and its passage through the House. In particular, I concur with his view that the usual channels misjudged the size of the task which confronted this House in dealing with it.
As the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, pointed out, there have been amendments not only from our Benches and his Benches but also from the

1017
Government Benches. It is a Bill which is of the greatest importance not only to Northern Ireland but also to the United Kingdom. If we cannot deal constructively with the problems in Northern Ireland, it will be a terrible failure on the part of this country for which we shall all pay. This is not something which we can just shove off as being across the sea, as it is rather tempting for some people to do and to which, obliquely, the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, referred.
In a sense it has been a hard fought conflict because in point of fact we all supported the principles which lay behind the Bill. Therefore we were all committed to doing what we could to make it better and more effective. Of course it is when you are working towards a common objective and differ about means that the most acute difficulties often arise between friends.
Therefore we are—or at least, some of us are—inevitably disappointed that we did not get our way on a number of matters such as those mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies. In particular, I was disappointed as regards the amendment which I moved today which was about this very fundamental issue of human fallibility. Unless we in politics take this matter really to heart, we shall go on making very large mistakes which will affect most seriously our fellow human beings.
We were trying to protect the Secretary of State, for whom I at any rate—and I know many others—have the greatest respect, from his own fallibility and the fallibility of his advisers. I think that that is most important and something which we should remember not only on this occasion but also on other occasions.
We have spent a great deal of time on this piece of legislation and I do not propose to detain your Lordships much longer. However, I must join in the tributes which have been paid to those who participated in the proceedings on this Bill, not least those in another place and in particular Mr. McNamara who made a substantial change to the Bill.
I also welcome the willingness of the Government to accept amendments to the Bill, both here and in another place. I should like to join the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, in the tribute he paid to the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, whose industry and conscientiousness in dealing with every single clause in the Bill can only be a source of admiration and of respect to those who work with him. I should also like to thank and pay tribute to the work of the noble Lord, Lord Blease, the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, and my noble colleague Lady Seear. All of them have helped in our common efforts to make this an effective and constructive piece of legislation.
Finally, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, who has had to preside over this extremely difficult measure, which incorporates very complex notions such as that of indirect discrimination, in combination with other legislation on the subject which sometimes leads to what appears to be conflict. I should like to thank him for his courtesy, his patience and his kindness to those of us who must
1018
have appeared at times to be obstinately putting difficulties in his way.
I hope that the reservations which we have suggested in relation to the Bill may prove to be unfounded and that it helps to achieve its object to change the imbalance of opportunity in Northern Ireland which lies at the heart of many of its tragic problems.
Lord Blease: My Lords, when the Minister introduced the Bill on 28th June he claimed that it was the most comprehensive and incisive piece of legislation ever placed before the House. After some 16 hours of debate, I would describe the Bill somewhat differently. I consider it, as others have already said, to be complex, tortuous and unclear on a number of important definitive legal and administrative matters.
When I spoke on Second Reading, I declared myself firmly in support of the Bill's principles and objectives, as did other noble Lords. I have since been disappointed by the Government's unwillingness to accept reasoned and helpful amendments and the principled and pragmatic approaches which have been put forward. However, this evening I wish to confirm my support for the legislation and to join other noble Lords in wishing every success to the declared objectives on the face of the Bill, namely,
"the promotion of equality of opportunity in employments and occupations in Northern Ireland between persons of different religious beliefs".
I declare my support because, while unhappy with some aspects of the Bill, and however difficult it may prove in human terms, I believe ii to be more constructive to light a candle than to curse the darkness.
A number of professionally interested people in Northern Ireland and many representative organisations such as the Irish Council of Trade Unions, the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights, the Confederation of British Industry and the Churches have all meticulously followed the parliamentary progress of the legislation. Some have already publicly expressed their disappointment that the measure falls far below the high expectations raised in the White Paper and the Government's pronouncements about the Bill.
However, I am sure that those interested people will join noble Lords in wishing all those who carry direct responsibilities and duties for the administration and implementation of the measure every success in the achievement of the Bill's objectives. Among those upon whom the Bill places direct responsibilities are officials of the Department of Economic Development, the president, vice-president and members of the tribunal and the Fair Employment Commission and its staff.
Noble Lords will be aware that on 26th April the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the right honourable Tom King, announced the Government's intention to appoint Mr. Bob Cooper as chairman of the new Fair Employment Commission. Mr. Cooper has been chairman of the Fair Employment Agency since its formation in

1019
1976. He has carried out the extremely difficult and controversial task with a sense of great purpose and justice. He has shown distinctive, strong and effective leadership. I am sure that noble Lords will share the Secretary of State's confidence in Mr. Cooper's proven ability to give sound, sensible and fair leadership to the new Fair Employment Commission. We wish Mr. Cooper success in the challenging days ahead in which he has to play a key part in the commission's work.
I wish to join other noble Lords in thanking the Minister for the courteous and kindly way in which he has steered the Bill on its passage through the House. I agree with the sentiments already expressed about the manner in which he has handled this difficult Bill. The Minister dealt gallantly with a difficult brief. I felt at times that his measured tone mellowed the harsh negative ring of the facts that he had to deliver. At the same time, we are pleased with the few major points that he conceded. I hope that it is not presumptuous of me if I seek to thank all noble Lords who have contributed positively to the
1020
debate. I do not wish to mention each one by name. Their interest, efforts and sensitive understanding of the difficult issues confronting the Northern Ireland people are warmly appreciated by all peaceable and community-spirited citizens in the Province—Catholic, Protestant and dissenters.
Finally, I wish to thank my noble friends on the Front Bench and the noble Lords, Lord Prys-Davies and Lord Graham of Edmonton. I especially wish to express my grateful thanks to the noble Lords, Lord Prys-Davies and Lord Bonham-Carter, both of whom devoted more time to this than we can readily appreciate, extending into the small hours of the morning. They sought with care and skill to help to improve the Bill. They have both been acutely sensitive of the critical issues which the Bill seeks to redress. They have presented their arguments in a manner that encourages and promotes confidence in the Northern Ireland parliamentary procedures. They have sought also to develop a sense of trust, confidence, fairness and justice among the people of Northern Ireland and a strong sense of trust and confidence in good government in the Province. With those words, I support the Bill.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, throughout the centuries both Houses of Parliament—the other place and this Chamber—have tried to legislate for the good government of Ireland and, recently, Northern Ireland. Some of their measures have met with success, some of them with devasting failure. Yet as a Member of this House at this time and in regard to this legislation, I fully accept the Government's good intentions. I believe that the Government are motivated through this legislation to try to erase the awful problem of discrimination which has been self-evident in Northern Ireland since the creation of the Northern Ireland state.
Given the circumstances in which Northern Ireland was created and the 50 years of one-party government there, the very fact that there was a 65 per cent. majority against a 35 per cent. minority meant that it was inevitable that discrimination would take place. The majority government and the majority population, like the South African Government of today, felt themselves to be in a siege situation. Therefore no concessions could be made to their political opponents.
I was born and reared in Northern Ireland, a member of the political minority. I saw at first hand the awful effects of discrimination that took place throughout all the years of my political life there. I do not think that any government in Great Britain—with the exception of a few members who involve themselves in Northern Ireland and speak to the people—can realise the frustration, the fears and suspicions that exist.
This evening I listened to my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies say how baffling the clauses were in this Bill. I can tell him that in a peculiarly Irish way the more baffling the clauses in the Bill the more the provisions are understood in the streets of Belfast. There is nothing technical or legalistic about the clauses of the Bill in the minds of the people of Northern Ireland.
In view of all the discrimination that has taken place in the past, will this be effective in trying to create a better society? I do not think that any government can claim that they are better informed, better motivated or more well-intentioned than any other government. I remember very well that in 1975 and 1976 when the Labour Government were in power, they initiated the original fair employment Bill. I know how I felt as a member of the committee on that Bill and I remember the opposition that we met from the Tory Party. We thought that forcing through that legislation would be constructive in bringing to an end some of the most vicious discrimination that existed in Northern Ireland. Obviously it has not succeeded, and in their own way this Government are now attempting to see whether they can better the situation.
We are all aware that a lot of the original motivation for this legislation emanated in the United States—we are quite well aware of that—with the so-called MacBride principles. I do not agree, and never have agreed, with the MacBride principles. I believe those principles were trying to create a situation in which one community would
1022
seem to have superiority over another community. Some of the people who were behind the MacBride principles in America were not motivated by trying to create better social conditions in Northern Ireland. They were motivated by a highly hostile attitude towards any British Government's conduct of affairs in Northern Ireland. So that interest cannot be taken seriously in trying to grapple with the situation as we know it in Northern Ireland.
Day after day we read of the so-called discrimination in Shorts or in the Belfast shipyard, where, in the terminology of avowed nationalism or republicanism, too many Protestants are employed. The IRA does not want to see anyone employed in the shipyard or in Shorts. How can it claim that there are too few Catholics employed in Shorts one week and then the very next week set off a load of bombs to try to disrupt whatever employment there is in that establishment? The IRA cannot have it both ways.
When I first read the Second Reading debate and the Committee stage of the Bill in another place, after all the years that I have lived in Northern Ireland the tremendous complexity of trying to bring about a more just society in Northern Ireland was brought home to me. My noble friend Lord Blease who has lived in Northern Ireland throughout his life will recognise that there is no Act of Parliament, and there is no statute that one can place on the statute book which could cope with this problem. However, the legislation can create the situation whereby in the end people will realise that discrimination does not achieve any objective but creates frustration, bitterness and the ongoing problem that has existed in Northern Ireland for so many years.
I believe that the Government are sincere. I say in conclusion that the same situation exists now as existed in 1976 when the previous fair employment legislation was put on the statute book. I do not believe that there is any room for division between the Labour and Conservative parties on this issue. If any division can be seen between the parties in the final days of debate in another place, and if the Labour Party is not seen to be giving its support to this legislation, that will immediately be jumped on by those people in America who are more motivated by hostility towards the British in Northern Ireland than they are in bringing about a situation which could end discrimination and bring, about fair employment. Any sense of disagreement between the Government and the Opposition in this Chamber will be fiercely exploited by those Republicans in America who do not wish this legislation to have any success, but who want to see an ongoing saga of the troubles in Northern Ireland. They see that as being to their benefit.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I hope that I may be permitted to reply very briefly to all the nice things that have been said about my colleagues, about myself and about the Bill. Perhaps I may return some of the compliments to noble Lords who have spoken in the debate.
In addition to his Celtic eloquence, the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, seems to be a skilled dancer since

1023
he has been attempting to dance on the head of a pin. On the one hand he suggested that too many amendments were being introduced in your Lordships' House. On the other hand he suggested there were further excellent amendments which we might have accepted. I take that in the spirit in which it was intended.
I think that the majority of the amendments to which the noble Lord referred were tabled in reply to commitments that we gave to his honourable friend the Member for Kingston Upon Hull, to whom I should have paid tribute in the course of my earlier remarks. I do so now unreservedly. In his particular arena he has displayed tremendous energy, persistence and tenacity in championing his approach to the Bill. I believe that we have done our bit to reply positively to the points that he raised with amendments moved in this House as well as in another place.
With regard to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, and the noble Lord, Lord Blease, about the timing and programme of the Bill, that is a matter for another place. However, I remind the noble Lord to look at the good book. To paraphrase the same chapter and verse of which I reminded him before—St. John, Chapter 8, Verse 7—"let he that is without sin [in metaphorical terms] cast the first stone". If the noble Lord will look at what was said by his honourable friend on 11th November in a place very far from your Lordships' House about the Government's wish to introduce the Bill in this House, he will see that there were differences of opinion.
The Bill received its Second Reading in another place on 31st January. I am sure that noble Lords will appreciate that that is not perfect timing in order to achieve the objective that we all want—to have the Bill on the statute book. As a result of what we have done tonight, and what we hope another place will do shortly in considering our work, it will be a matter of months before the regulations and code of practice can be printed and in place.
I look forward to the participation of the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, who has warned me that he will be asking questions. We shall always be grateful for his participation in Northern Irish affairs. There is no question of hiving off Northern Irish affairs to oblivion. Certainly not in my career. This is one of the first major Bills that I have had the privilege of taking through your Lordships' House.
The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, raised a particular point with which I very much agree. He said that we all agree on the main thrust of the Bill. It is minor differences of opinion—the noble Lord called them acute differences of opinion—which sometimes create difficulties. I hope that we have gone some way together to resolving those differences.
The noble Lord, Lord Blease, quite rightly referred to the pace of the Bill. I am reading some of the remarks made when the Government, supported by noble Lords opposite, put similar legislation through your Lordships' House. The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, used terms such as a "complex" and "not always easy" Bill. He said that it had been
1024
meticulously presented. On that occasion it took one and a half hours at Second Reading: we took three; three and a half hours on Committee: we took seven and a half; one and a quarter hours on Report: we took four; and we have taken about one and a half hours on Third Reading. I believe that that shows that we have been meticulous. I believe too that it reflects the quality of the work that we have done in your Lordships' House.
The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, used two words—"good intentions". I reply to him, "the road to hell"—that is not in the good book. This Bill is about good personnel practice. The noble Lord raised the question of Shorts. One in five of the apprentices at Shorts in 1988 were Catholics. One in eight of the workforce are Catholics. Thus, that major employer has shown that good personnel practice is alive and well in Northern Ireland. I believe that the Bill will help Northern Ireland and everyone in the Province.
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Transport (Scotland) Bill
Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes past ten o'clock.