Lords Sitting of 5 December 1991

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Salisbury.): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

Proportional Representation
Lord Holme of Cheltenham Lord Holme of Cheltenham asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, now that they seek greater powers for the European Parliament, they also accept the need for a uniform electoral system based on proportional representation.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): No, my Lords.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for the brief but deep down satisfactory nature of his reply. Is he aware that the United Kingdom is now in a minority of one in the European Community in not using proportional representation for European elections? Is he further aware that that results in grave misrepresentation both of the wishes of the British electorate and in the balance of the European Parliament? Finally, is he aware that the European Parliament itself has already produced a preliminary report recommending the adoption of a uniform system of proportional representation for the next European election? In the light of that, does he agree that it is time that the Government adopted a more open-minded and democratic attitude to this important matter?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I do not believe that a democratic attitude comes into the matter. The United Kingdom may be in a minority of one but the first-past-the-post system is the one that we use in this country. We have found it to be satisfactory. It is simple, familiar and easily understood. I do not know why noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches think that funny. The great attraction of the first-past-the-post system is that it is easy to understand. The whole point about proportional representation is that it is not a system; it comprises about 20 different systems, all of which produce different results.
With regard to the position of the European Community, the member countries, first, have to agree on a uniform procedure. There is no agreement yet on which system should be used and if there is an agreement on the system, we are committed only to considering it for elections to the European Parliament.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that this House debated a Bill last year on this very subject?
Earl Ferrers: I dare say that it did, my Lords. So what?
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, would my noble friend agree that proportional representation is in truth proportional confusion?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I quite agree. I can assure noble Lords that trying to understand the different methods of proportional representation is quite an exhaustive task. I remind my noble friend that the result obtained depends upon the system that is chosen.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, in view of the comments made about the difficulties of dealing with proportional representation, is the noble Earl aware that the Labour Party is at present involved in what must be the widest consultation—I repeat the widest consultation—on electoral reform that has been conducted by any political party? That is evidenced by its interim report, the Plant Report. The Government ought to examine this matter and give it very serious consideration. Does he agree that it is far better to undertake the closest deliberations and have a decision taken when the matter is discussed with the Commission rather than to make a hasty decision or adhere to piecemeal action?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am glad to know that the Labour Party is having a lot of consultation about this matter. Obviously it cannot make up its mind about it. We have made up our mind about it. We prefer to stay with the system which we know.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, in view of the Minister's reply, I should point out to him and to the House that the question under consideration by the Labour Party is very wide-reaching. Obviously at this stage we are not trying to determine exactly what the system should be. We are examining the problems involved. Is the Minister aware that we are dealing with all the problems associated with possible change, which is something that the Government have not done?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I wish the noble Lord the best of British luck.
Lord Monson: My Lords, does the noble Earl agree that to tinker with the existing system of election to the European Parliament is useless so long as the undemocratic state of affairs prevails whereby the Republic of Ireland has three times as many MEPs per capita in Strasbourg as has the United Kingdom, while Luxembourg has 12.5 times as many MEPs per capita as has Germany? Does he further agree that it is exactly as though Scotland, instead of being merely 26 per cent. over-represented in the House of Commons with 72 Members of Parliament, had been allocated 210 Members of Parliament, at the expense mainly of the English? Is he aware that, although the Liberal Democrats may believe that this is a fair situation, and desirable from their point of view, I do not think that anyone else does so?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord's figures must be right. If so, I am sure that I concur with them, but I cannot tell him that I know that the figures he gave are correct.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, would the noble Earl care to remind the House of Her Majesty's justification for having a proportional representation system in Northern Ireland but not in the rest of the United Kingdom, bearing in mind that it is not a local issue but one which affects the whole balance of the European Parliament? Will he be a little less flippant than he has been in some of his earlier answers?
Earl Ferrers: If I was flippant and upset the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, of course I regret upsetting him. I shall give him a very serious answer to his question. The single transferable vote system was started in Northern Ireland in the 1920s. It was used for the election to the Stormont Parliament in 1921 and 1925. It was then abolished but reintroduced in the 1970s because of the sectarian nature of Northern Ireland society and political life. The divided community each voting on separate religious and political lines makes a simple majority system unsuitable there. It does not follow that the single transferable vote system would be suitable for the rest of the United Kingdom.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, may I remind the noble Lord that I asked for justification and not for history?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I gave the noble Lord the justification. It was that the sectarian nature of Northern Ireland society and political life required that system.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, would my noble friend care to take note of the recent results of the general election in Belgium in which, by proportional representation, there seem to be a multiplicity of parties, some from the extreme Left and extreme Right? Does he agree that that illustrates the danger not only in that country but other European countries of allowing proportional representation to represent very small minorities in the community and very often minorities at the extreme ends of the political spectrum?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right. I understand why the Liberal Democrat Party wants it, because that is the only opportunity it will get to have a slice of the action. It really ought to be prepared to understand that if the people do not vote for such a system, in a first-past-the-post system, they do not want it.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, will the noble Earl bear in mind that almost any system would be better than the system by which your Lordships arrive in this House?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that is a totally different matter.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, does the Minister accept that it is yet another instance where it is 11:1 in the European Community, with us proudly claiming that everyone is out of step except us?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, no, I do not agree with that. We may be the only ones to have a first-past-the-post system. However, all the others
324
have different and differing systems of proportional I representation. With respect, to blanket all those systems as one system is not right.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, will the noble Earl bear in mind that before the people can make up their mind whether or not they want proportional representation, they must have it proposed to them by a party which is capable of attaining a majority under the present system?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am afraid there was so much noise behind me that I did not understand the point of the noble Lord's question.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the question again and hope for more tolerance from the noble Earl's supporters. Will he bear in mind that before the people can declare their wish on whether or not they should have proportional representation, it must be proposed to them by a party capable of finding a majority under the present system?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am sure that that must be so.

London-Zurich Air Route: Pricing
3.11 p.m.
Lord Orr-Ewing Lord Orr-Ewing asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will conduct an inquiry into pricing on the London to Zurich air route.
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, there is no provision under our bilateral arrangements with Switzerland to hold such an inquiry. We have approached the Swiss authorities to liberalise arrangements between us, but they are not prepared to move in advance of any agreements on a multilateral basis.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that many of us who were trying to book early in October for a flight in January discovered that the price of the flight from London to Zurich had increased since last year from £112 return APEX to £179. Is that not a disproportionate rise? Lady Burton of Coventry, who sadly died in October, applied herself to this problem with great vigour and dedication in both Houses for 40 years. I hope that my noble friend will do as much to try to improve the matter. Fifty million people travel to Europe from this country every year. The situation will affect large numbers of people.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, my noble friend is quite right about the part that the late Baroness Burton of Coventry played in trying to make some sense of our air fares. I can only agree with him.
As I said in my original Answer, we have been attempting to negotiate with the Swiss for more liberal arrangements. I wish my noble friend well in the inter-parliamentary ski races. If in the course of his visit to Switzerland he has the opportunity between ski races to make such points to his Swiss colleagues, that would be welcome.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, I accept that there is an opportunity for individuals to contribute to the issue. However, the activity of my late friend Lady Burton was so valuable that I should have thought that the Government now realise that they have a responsibility in the matter. The noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, has raised a matter of public interest to many people. Will the Minister consider making further approaches?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, if I gave the impression that we were doing nothing, that was entirely wrong. We have approached the Swiss on several occasions to ask for more liberal arrangements which would allow for lower fares. On two separate occasions British Airways brought forward proposals to introduce low level promotional fares on the route from Switzerland. Sadly, they were vetoed by the Swiss.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that it is not just a problem between Britain and Switzerland; it is a problem throughout Europe? We seem to have been negotiating for years with our "partners" in the EC. Will my noble friend say what role the commissioner with responsibility for competition in the EC plays in the matter?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, we are still actively negotiating. Indeed, the third EC liberalisation package is now before the Council of Ministers. They have in principle agreed to it. We hope that by the end of next year it will be fully in place.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, is it right that the European Commission has concluded that out of 88 European fares that have come under their consideration, 40 are deemed to be excessive including 25 fares relating to British Airways flying out of 17 airports? Does the Minister believe that it is right for the Commission to seek to intervene in order to protect the interests of the consumers, or does he believe, along with British Airways,
"that the market place should be allowed to set its own prices"?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, that is a different question. We are speaking of fares to Switzerland, which is not yet in the EC. Therefore, the role of the Commission does not come into play on that.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, with respect, other questioners have widened the issue quite properly to fares generally, as the Minister will have heard. Will the Minister indicate as a matter of principle whether he agrees with the conclusion reached by British Airways,
"that the market place should be allowed to set its own prices",
or does he agree with the Commission on the matter?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, it was our own Civil Aviation Authority which referred those prices to the Commission.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, does my noble friend's first Answer also apply to regional airports, in particular Manchester?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, if we manage to achieve more liberal arrangements, they will apply to all airports.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, I cited one example; I was not narrowing the issue. The whole of Western Europe is involved. A publication that I received today states:
"The airfares charged bear no relation to the market whatsoever with a cartel operating on each route. What can possibly justify such extravagant protectionism, which dictates that it costs more to fly between neighbouring European countries than it does to fly transatlantic?"
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, my noble friend is right. That is why this Government have been at the forefront of promoting more liberal arrangements both within the EC and with other European countries and we shall continue to do so.

Kurds: Assistance Programme
3.17 p.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs Baroness Ewart-Biggs asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they are taking through the United Nations, and in conjunction with their European partners, to relieve the plight of the Kurdish people within Iraq.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, since April the Government have spent £44 million on aid for the Iraqi people including the Kurds. Of that some £11 million was spent through the United Nations and £12.5 million through the European Community. We are giving substantial support to the United Nations' winterisation programme through a joint project with the European Community.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Will he give some information regarding the situation of the Kurds in northern Iraq? Will he tell us the death rate from disease and hunger among the refugees? Will he tell us the total level of UN and EC aid?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, we continue to be extremely anxious for the Iraqi refugees and vulnerable groups throughout Iraq including the Kurds in the north and the Shia's in the south. I do not have with me any information about the death rate. However, I know that there are grounds for deep concern.
As regards expenditure, I have given the figure in respect of Britain. We provided £10 million to the Simple Truth Programme which totalled £57 million internationally.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that earlier this year our Prime Minister made the excellent suggestion that there should be a safe haven for Kurdish people? Is that still United Nations policy?

327
Bearing in mind that the matter has become urgent with the arrival of winter, is it accepted that the need for helping those people is now very much greater than it has been for some time?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, our anxiety is just as great with regard to safe havens. We recognise that the threat of winter has added to the problems of the Kurds. We are concentrating our help on food, shelter, health care and in averting tragedy in the mountains. We are helping bilaterally with food, shelter, health and water sanitation and with clothing through Kurdish humanitarian groups and UK non-government organisations. We are also supporting the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees on his winterisation programme to provide shelter for up to 350,000 people. There have been delivered to this area of northern Iraq 1,600 truck loads of timber, corrugated iron and building tools.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, is the Minister aware that some of us believed, apparently wrongly, that we had won the war against Saddam Hussein? Now we hear a story of untold millions of pounds being paid to protect the Kurds, which is understandable, while Saddam Hussein appears to be getting away with it. Can the Minister explain why and what the Government intend to do about that?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, the Gulf war was concerned with removing Saddam Hussein from Kuwait. Sanctions are still in place against Iraq in areas where it has not complied with United Nations resolutions.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, can the Minister confirm or deny suggestions that three-quarters of a million Kurds are still semi-homeless within Iraq; that 350,000 are refugees in Iran; that the food situation is very poor; and that the Iraqi Government continue to maintain a blockade of northern Iraq even though the blockade is not totally complete?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I do not know that anyone has accurate figures as figures are difficult to obtain. The picture the noble Lord paints is bleak. It gives an indication of the kind of conditions that prevail in that unhappy country.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, further to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, can the Minister confirm that the Kurds are being subjected to a crippling economic blockade and to military aggression by Saddam Hussein's regime? Can he confirm the extent of the blockade and military aggression and say what steps the Government are taking in concert with our allies to try to bring them to an end?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, in the context of this Question I cannot give a detailed analysis as requested by the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition. The Government are giving considerable aid, as I have described, and that will continue. The United Nations Security Council's third review of sanctions on 2nd October concluded that there was no
328
case for relaxing sanctions. We expect the fourth review, which will be undertaken this month, to reach the same conclusions. The Iraqis have failed on a number of counts to comply with UN Security Council resolutions. That non-compliance includes obstruction of United Nations inspectors, the continuing retention of Kuwaiti detainees and other human rights violations.
Lord Bottomley: My Lords, in view of what has been said can the Minister say when the Kurdish/Iraqi problem will be discussed by the United Nations Security Council and the European Community?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I understand that discussions with our European partners continue. I am not aware of when the United Nations will next discuss the matter but I shall find out and write to the noble Lord.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the Minister aware that following the Prime Minister's most encouraging speech some months ago the Kurds naturally turned to this country for guidance and help? They have established an unofficial high commission or embassy in the London borough of Ealing and I visit them regularly. Some of the Kurdish leaders know precisely what the score is, as outlined by my noble friend Lady Ewart-Biggs, and the situation is getting worse by the day. Their representatives are only about 17 miles from this Chamber. Would it not be possible for members of our Government to see some of them in order to examine precisely what is involved?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, we believe that we are doing as much as we can to help the plight of the Kurds. However, I am grateful for any suggestion and I shall be pleased to look into it.

Teddington Hall
3.24 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee asked Her Majesty's Government:
How the state of Teddington Hall, a Grade II listed building, and of other historic buildings revealed in the National Audit Office report Upkeep of Historic Buildings on the Civil Estate (No. 37), relates to the claims in paragraphs 9.11 and 9.12 of This Common Inheritance (Cm. 1200) on the example set by the Government in aiming for the highest standards of conservation.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, the Government welcome the report, which demonstrates that the majority of such buildings are properly cared for and a high standard of repair is achieved. The report criticises the poor condition of only two buildings; Teddington Hall and 7–9 Babmaes Street. We have already taken steps to protect these buildings. I can assure your Lordships that the Government recognise their obligations towards our heritage and are committed to achieving the highest standards in caring for its historic buildings.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Does she agree that putting a tarpaulin roof over the building is not a means of protecting, preserving and conserving it? Does she further agree that in paragraph 9.11 of This Common Inheritance the Government are stated to have:
"the opportunity to demonstrate by example"?
The report of the National Audit Office describes Teddington Hall as being in a deplorable state with serious structural defects and extensive dry rot. The stairs are too dangerous to be used and fireplaces have been stolen. The cost of renovation is estimated to be in excess of £1 million. Does the Minister agree that if the Government—
Noble Lords: Reading!
Baroness Hamwee: Does the Minister agree that if the Government do not take their responsibilities seriously other owners will not be setting an example and, not surprisingly, will not look after their buildings? Does he agree that with regard to Teddington Hall the Government are setting a bad example?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Baroness is absolutely right. No one can be proud of the history of Teddington Hall; neither this Government nor any previous government. However, it is important to get the situation into perspective. Only two out of 583 historic buildings on the Civil Estate were found by the National Audit Office to be in poor condition. I hope that the noble Baroness will welcome the fact that, as a result of our commitment stated in the paragraphs to which she referred, we are putting in place an action plan which will ensure that all departments care for historic buildings in a systematic way.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the chequered history of Teddington Hall? Unfortunately that applies to many other buildings in this country. The hall was acquired by the Government as long ago as 1946 and was listed in 1981. In 1982 the PSA recommended that it should be sold or that alternative use should be found for it. In 1983 the cost of carrying out the fundamental repairs was estimated to be £130,000. Today the estimated cost is in excess of £1 million. Can we be sure that the recommendations will be taken up in these times of financial restraint? The amount of money spent on buildings such as this lags behind need and meanwhile costs rise. We are not happy about the situation.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I take the points made by the noble Baroness. However, she skipped over the period of time when her party was in government. I said at the outset that I am not ducking the fact that this is an extremely sad saga and that the hall has been the subject of neglect by all governments since its acquisition in 1946. We have now put in place a systematic method for all departments to look after historic buildings. However, it is important to keep the matter in perspective; only two out of 583 buildings were the subject of criticism in the report. That is a good record.
Lord Ross of Newport: My Lords, will the Minister tell the House what is happening about Heveningham Hall in Suffolk? It appears also to be on the danger list, although I understand that the Arab gentleman who now owns it is supposed to be carrying out repairs.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the property is far from being on the danger list, but it is not the subject of this Question.

Business
3.28 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lord Cavendish will, with the leave of the House, repeat in the form of a Statement an Answer to a Private Notice Question in another place on lost diplomatic bags in Wandsworth Prison.
It may be for the convenience of the House to know that the Committee stage of the Local Government Bill will be adjourned at about 7 p.m. for about one hour and that during this adjournment the Waltham Forest Housing Action Trust (Area and Constitution) Order 1991 and the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Designated Countries and Territories) Order 1991 will be taken.
It may also be for the convenience of the House to know that, subject to the progress of business, the House will rise for the Christmas Recess on Thursday 19th December and return on Thursday 9th January. The House will sit at 11 a.m. on Thursday 19th December before retiring to celebrate the Christmas period.

Deputy Chairmen of Committees
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That as proposed by the Committee of Selection the following Lords be appointed as the panel of Lords to act as Deputy Chairmen of Committees for this Session—

L. Airedale,

L. Alport,

L. Ampthill,

L. Aylestone,

L. Boston of Faversham,

L. Cocks of Hartcliffe,

B. Cox,

V. Davidson,

L. Elliott of Morpeth,

L. Graham of Edmonton,

L. Grantchester,

L. Hayter,

L. Hesketh,

E. Listowel,

B. Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe,

B. Lockwood,

L. Murton of Lindisfarne,

331

V. Oxfuird,

L. Skelmersdale,

L. Strabolgi.—(The Chairman of Committees.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Deputy Chairmen of Committees

  Personal Bills: Select Committee
  The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
  Moved, That a Select Committee be appointed to consider personal Bills and that as proposed by the Committee of Selection the following Lords together with the Chairman of Committees be named of the Committee—

  L. Airedale,

  B. David,

  V. Oxfuird,

  L. Templeman,

  L. Thomas of Gwydir,

  L. Wilberforce.—(The Chairman of Committees.)

  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  Standing Orders (Private Bills): Select Committee
  The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move the third Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
  Moved, That a Select Committee on the Standing Orders relating to private Bills be appointed and that as proposed by the Committee of Selection the following Lords together with the Chairman of Committees be named of the Committee—

  E. Grey,

  L. Jacques,

  L. Mowbray and Stourton,

  L. Renton,

  L. Strabolgi,

  L. Thurlow,

  L. Wade of Chorlton.—(The Chairman of Committees.)

  On Question, Motion agreed to.

Hybrid Instruments: Select Committee
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move the fourth Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That a Select Committee be appointed to consider hybrid instruments and that as proposed by the Committee of Selection the following Lords together with the Chairman of Committees be named of the Committee—

V. Dilhorne,

L. Murton of Lindisfarne,

L. Prys-Davies,

L. Thurlow,

L. Wade of Chorlton.—(The Chairman of Committees.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Local Government Bill [H.L.]
3.32 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Blatch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The Chairman of Committees in the Chair.]
Clause 13 [Duty to conduct reviews and make recommendations]:
[Amendment No. 141 not moved.]
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 142:
Page 11, line 18, leave out ("and").
The noble Baroness said: In speaking to this amendment, I shall speak also to the other amendments grouped with it. They are intended to allow the Local Government Commission to examine the whole of the country and not just non-metropolitan areas.
For the work of the commission to be fully valid, its work should not be partial. I use that term with regard to the extent of the work and not its attitude towards it. When we debated earlier clauses, we discussed questions of community and historic identity. Those matters should be regarded throughout the country. I am not dictating a recipe for change but I believe that we should not exclude the people of our great cities from participating in that process.
The greatest city is London. I am a councillor of a London borough. I chair a London-wide body and I have been a member of other London-wide bodies. For the purposes of this discussion what is most important to me is that I live in London.
I shall not go over the mistakes of the past. I hope that we can all avoid the knee-jerk reactions which some of us have to the question of London government. I hope that we shall not take with us our baggage of prejudices and our anxiety about what London would be if it were governed by a party of a particular political complexion. Today I ask the Committee to look forward to see how best we can serve our capital and why.
In 1988 the London-wide committee which I chair—the London Planning Advisory Committee—agreed on what it termed a fourfold vision for the future of London. It regarded it as a civilised city offering a high quality of environment for all Londoners; or that should be our aim. We should aim for London to be a world centre of international trade and business, a city of opportunities for all and a city of stable and secure residential neighbourhoods capable of sustained community development. I give that list in no particular order because all those matters are interdependent on one another. That committee comprised representatives from all the London boroughs. It had no inbuilt political majority but had a balanced committee. That vision of London was agreed on a consensual basis by all parties.
The issue of London has risen up the public agenda faster than almost any other issue. For that reason the

333
London Planning Advisory Committee commissioned the World City Project whose brief was to discover what is needed to sustain London's future status as a world city and what can be learned from comparisons with its rivals; for example, New York, Tokyo, Paris, Frankfurt and possibly Berlin, because of its situation where it may be able to take advantage of the greater movement and communication between East and West.
The co-sponsors—and this is important because it shows the importance which all those organisations attach to the project—were the Corporation of London, the City of Westminster, the London Arts Board, the London Docklands Development Corporation and London Transport.
The Committee may be interested to know of some of the comments given by people interviewed on other world cities. New York was described as:
"emerging as a central brain of the global system".
Paris, Ile-de-France, was described as:
"maintaining a position at the forefront of the new world".
Tokyo was described as:
"contribution to peace and development in the world",
and of Frankfurt it was said:
"the hub of Europe … Europe's 'most American' City".
The conclusions of that report were considered at a conference only last week of what may be described loosely as movers and shakers on the London scene. They widely endorsed the conclusions of the consultants engaged by the London committee. Briefly, its conclusions were that London's key priority is easier and safer movement around London. That will come as no surprise to anyone who has to move around and within London. There is a need for improvements to public transport and, in particular, secure funding. An environmental audit is needed and innovation and enterprise to help with regeneration.
London has special potential and special problems. One of the major keys to unlocking potential is to improve education and training to enable its residents to contribute more to the workings of London.
London has a particular potential in the cultural sector. That is interesting. Arts, culture and the whole entertainment industry are the soul of London and an area which is growing in innovation leading to increased employment. It is the industry which has created the greatest increase in employment over the past decade or so. However, we should not lose sight of the fact that our arts and cultural heritage are part of the whole heritage of London and the country.
Again, the Committee will not be surprised that there is an urgent need to find an answer to providing affordable housing for essential workers and homeless people in the capital.
To do all that, London must project and promote itself, not just to rekindle the belief of Londoners in our capital city but to sell itself to the rest of the world. That is what needs to be done. The consultants, many of whom have great expertise in London problems, concluded that London is a world city and can remain a pre-eminent world city, but its status is at risk. That is not because of any inherent or irredeemable disadvantage but it arises simply by default.
How are we to put that right? There is a wide consensus that something needs to be done. At present
334
we have the boroughs—a plethora of joint arrangements which have no agreed context, no agreed priorities and no common objectives, let alone a vision of where they should be going.
Amendment No. 178, which is grouped with this amendment, refers—and I was careful to refer to it—to strategic functions for a London-wide government. Those functions should be functions which may be performed now by central government. We on these Benches believe, and I know that others believe it too, that government should be delivered at the most local level possible.
London has a government; it has central government. But it is not serving the capital well. To give one example which I know is dear to the hearts of many Members of the Committee, the London-wide arrangements for grants to voluntary organisations, to the arts, affecting many people in need, have simply fallen apart.
London needs its own government. It needs more than just a voice; it needs a democratically elected representative and accountable government. Of course there are other models for a voice for London. A Minister could be appointed as part of the Westminster/Whitehall machine, although I doubt that he would win any battles with the Treasury on behalf of London and would probably only be a target for brickbats—an unenviable position with no resources to do the job.
London could have a group selected by the Government—a group of experts whose expertise could be harnessed. But would the decisions of a quango have real validity? We could have an elected mayor with an executive office. But I believe that a mayor would be elected primarily as an expression of confidence or otherwise in the government of the day. A mayor would be concerned to build his image and status; there would be an executive office; the work of the boroughs would be duplicated and that would be wasteful. Above all, the model of a mayor running the capital city is entirely alien to the culture of this country.
I ask the Committee to seriously consider the amendments in this group which calls for the commission to consider the question of government for London. I do not advocate any previous model. I feel that from these Benches I am able to say that we come without prejudice to the question. However, I conclude with the words of Lord Latham, who was the chairman of the London County Council in the dark days of 1943. He said,
"The fate of London, one of the greatest cities the world has ever known, will be one of the signs by which posterity will judge us. There is a long road to travel before London can become the city she ought to be. Therefore let us start now".
Lord Morris: There is clearly a misunderstanding in regard to Amendment No. 142. Although the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, may have read the long title of the Bill with care, she did not read the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum. That states that this part of the Bill is specifically designed for the Local Government Commission to take on the work of the Local Government Boundary Commission for England and to make orders changing the structure of

335
local government in the non-metropolitan counties of the United Kingdom. The amendment would appear to be an attempt to look at the idea of recreating another GLC, God help us!
Baroness Hamwee: Perhaps I can deal with that point. I hoped to make it entirely clear that what I was not proposing was another GLC. The amendments were considered by the Public Bill Office before they came here. I am advised that they are within the scope of the Bill. The word "and" is the word which allows a further subsection to be attached to a specific section which is necessary to introduce the subject of a government for metropolitan areas including London. I was speaking not only to Amendment No. 142 but also to Amendment No. 178.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: The noble Baroness tried to duck the question put by my noble friend as to whether the real purpose of the amendment is to suggest the reconstitution of the GLC or something like it. In any event, the argument that a central authority is required for London seems to imply the creation of another GLC or of something similar. More important, it appears to accept that there is something unsatisfactory in the present situation. Frankly, I do not agree.
The present system under which the London boroughs have been freed of top-tier administration is working perfectly adequately and results in considerably less public expenditure than the continuation of a two-tier set up. The question of whether we have single-tier or two-tier systems for local government runs right through the Bill.
I do not propose to weary the Committee by going into the merits of that in general, though it is a subject on which I hold fairly strong views. However, what the noble Baroness should do—which she has manifestly not done—if she wants her amendment to succeed, is to suggest that there is something wrong with the present system. That may demonstrate that it is necessary to impose on the ratepayers of London—local tax payers, community charge payers or whatever one likes to call them—all the additional costs of a new authority with a new and massive bureaucracy. That would certainly result in increasing the cost of local government in London. That being so, I suggest that the onus is on those who seek to support the proposal to demonstrate that it is needed.
I heard nothing in the speech of the noble Baroness which to my mind carried any conviction on that point. Even the ceremonial aspect of London is already so superbly dealt with by the City of London and the Lord Mayor that there seems to be no reason to set up another counter authority for the purpose of providing a focus of opinion. The City of London and the Lord Mayor function satisfactorily and at minimum cost to the residents. Therefore to put on the commission, as is proposed, the duty of trying to evolve a new form of central authority for London, depriving London of the advantage of what seems to
336
be a unitary system of local government, is a misconceived idea. I hope that when the Committee considers the point, it will be rejected.
There was a moment when the noble Baroness seemed to be near to saying, "Something must be done. This is something, so let us do it". I suggest that it is a nonsense and that we should leave it alone.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: As usual the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, is irresistible. He makes so many misstatements and mis-interpretations of fact that, however much I wished to wait until the Minister replied before speaking, it is impossible not to intervene.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, has tabled a Motion for debate next Wednesday in which he seeks to review the legislative performance of the Government in the last Parliament. I imagine that a considerable part of the thrust of that will be "The Grand Old Duke of York" performance of the poll tax and the council tax. If he were to extend the scope of the Motion a little, we may be able to deal with what inevitably will be the same "Grand Old Duke of York" performance—the abolition of the Greater London Council and its replacement by any government of any political complexion; a proper city government for London. Indeed, the present chairman of the Conservative Party unwisely trailed that possibility even as Conservative Party policy. He was slapped down fairly rapidly.
The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, suggests that there is no reason to suppose that there is a need for city government in London. I was not much of a supporter of many aspects of the Greater London Council. Indeed, when I served on it it had 20,000 employees, of whom 10,000 were firemen. It was difficult to see what services were provided by most of the others. I certainly do not advocate a return to the Greater London Council as it was then constituted. But even I did not realise how rapidly London would decline in the absence of a central authority.
Let us look at the facts. Our public transport is the most expensive in Europe. Our average traffic speeds are 10 miles an hour, which is the same as they were at the beginning of the century. Traffic congestion in London is costing the London economy billions of pounds every year. These are not Labour Party estimates; these are the estimates of the CBI, the business community, the London Chamber of Commerce and industry. The decline in house building is such that at the present rate it would take 90 years to meet the present housing needs of London, and that is regardless of the other houses which would reach the end of their useful life during that period. At the same time as we have a desperate housing shortage we have 20 million square feet of office space vacant in London. We have an unemployment rate in London which has increased by 50 per cent. during the past year and a crime rate which has increased by 15 per cent. over the same period.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has made effective reference to many other aspects in which London is falling behind other cities both in Europe and in the world generally. I entirely agree with her, but in particular about the crisis which exists for the

337
arts in London as the result of the abolition of the city authority. I part company from her to some extent when she speaks about a strategic authority. It is always very difficult to divorce strategy from tactics just as it is difficult in business to divorce policy from administration. I am not sure that a strategic authority would not in fact result in a duplication of effort. I am certain, however, that there are major city-wide executive functions which are now being carried out by central government or by nobody. They should be carried out by a city government for London. That is the reason why I support and have also tabled many amendments to which the noble Baroness has spoken.
Lord Mancroft: The arguments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, are very persuasive. He has great knowledge of local government with which to back them up. As he said when he began to speak, the arguments of my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter are equally persuasive—to me they are more persuasive.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I did not say that the noble Lord's arguments were persuasive. I said that the temptation to rise after the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, had spoken was irresistible. There is a difference.
Lord Mancroft: I stand corrected. That is slightly different. My temptation to rise to speak after the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, was equally strong. The noble Lord has produced very interesting but expected arguments for a new tier of local government. He has put forward reasons for it which are similar or the same as those of the noble Baroness. He referred to the deterioration of London in various areas. I do not believe that any noble Lord or anyone who lives in London would disagree that in certain areas city life is bound to deteriorate. I hope that in other areas it may have improved, and those are areas at which we can look.
We must bear in mind that all things are relative. The noble Baroness quoted New York, Tokyo and Paris. Heaven forbid that London should ever get anywhere near the situation which New York has reached now. New York may be the centre of the western world, and I love it dearly as a city, but it is a concrete shambles. The streets of fashionable New York are potted; the traffic does not move; the crime rate is such that in the worst part of the worst city in Britain we cannot even dream about such a crime rate. New York is run by a mayor with a massive bureaucracy.
The noble Baroness discarded mayors and she was right to do so. I wish that she had discarded New York as an example. She spoke about Tokyo. It is true that it does not have the same housing problems as London. It does not have so many old houses. Regardless of their wealth, the population of Tokyo lives in shoe-boxes such as Londoners would not live in. Tokyo traffic is stationary; the long-distance trains may be very remarkable when they move but they do not move very often. The inhabitants of Tokyo loathe the city and spend a great deal of time telling everyone how much they loathe it.
338
Paris is also a wonderful city, but even with the advantage of Baron Haussmann's marvellous boulevards, the traffic there does not move very fast. The likelihood of being stabbed on the Paris Metro is goodness knows much greater than is the possibility of being mugged or threatened on the London Underground. I do not believe that London is perfect, but I would not like it ever to become like the cities which the noble Baroness gave as examples of well run cities. All cities have their problems now. It is true that today we are looking for ways of possibly solving the problems.
One of the possible solutions is to have a mayor. I do not believe that that method works; there is no evidence that it works particularly well. I believe that it was the noble Baroness who said that that system was alien to our way of life. I do not believe that the mayoral system would work here. I suppose that there is a case for considering bringing back another tier of government, another bunch of expensive bureaucrats. They will be another lot to be elected and another group of people to fill our newspaper columns and television screens with what they are going to do.
We have had that kind of system twice before but it did not make very much difference. We have very good elected local government in London. Its members may not always work together as well as they might, but nobody in this world ever does. Local government may not be perfect, but nothing ever is. The question that must be asked is whether we can make local government better or do we need to change it. There is no evidence to suggest that we cannot make it better whereas there is a considerable amount of evidence to suggest that we should not seek to change it in particular to go backwards. Although I respect the motives behind the noble Baroness's amendments and the way in which the noble Lord, McIntosh, put forward his argument, I do not believe for one second that he made them strong enough. There is no real reason at all for an extra tier of government. Therefore, I hope that the Committee will reject the amendments.
Lord Ross of Newport: Before the noble Baroness replies, I hope that she will not return to the Secretary of State and report to him that there is total alienation to the idea of a directly elected mayor for London or a directly elected chief executive system of authority throughout Britain. I happen to be in favour of it. At one stage not very long ago the Secretary of State was reputed to be rather in favour of the idea himself.
My children live in London and I very often stay with them. I believe that London is going the way of New York. The kind of situation which, I am sorry to say, is now developing in our capital city is where people break into your house at half past nine at night, and where your children look out of the window the next morning and wonder whether the car will still be there or elsewhere or whether it will have wheels on it. I am not blaming the police because when my daughter saw a leg coming through a ground-floor window two days ago the police were there in three minutes flat. That is very good indeed and much to be commended. That kind of activity is taking place in our suburbs.

339
No one can be satisfied with the Underground system as it is at present. It is a disgrace. I was brought up in North London. The Northern Line trains used to run every two or three minutes but these days they run about every quarter of an hour and one is lucky to get on them. The downside escalator at Euston Station has been out of use for over six months and no one seems to be doing anything about it. When the mayor of Paris was reinstated about 10 years ago (I believe that the previous one lost his head) things looked up in Paris. When anyone complained about the dirty streets the mayor immediately took on about 700 cleaners and cleaned up the city. There has been a remarkable improvement in Paris since it has had a directly elected mayor.
I am simply asking that the suggestions made are not simply thrown out of court. It is interesting because Dame Shirley Porter, who until recently led Westminster City Council and who is now the mayor, has been saying similar things herself. She certainly believes that there should be some kind of overall authority for London. I believe that many people in local government believe the same. Bridges across the Thames are shut without any co-ordination whatever. Previously there was at least some reasoning for that. Everyone knew roughly what was going to happen because of advance warning, but now we do not know. I do not want to set up a great bureaucratic machine, but I do not believe that rationalising London Transport, which was done by Mr. Ridley, has resulted in any success at all. There are institutions like the arts, transport and planning which require an overall look. Please do not throw these provisions out of court.
4 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: I have to deal with the amendments which appear on the Marshalled List and not with people's interpretations of what they believe is on the Marshalled List. I have listened very carefully to the introduction to this amendment and I am left in no doubt that what the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, was suggesting was government. The difference between us on this matter arises from the solutions to the problems—there has been much analysis of what they are on the part of noble Lords opposite—being more money and more government. We believe that there are other solutions to the problems. Simply more government in London will do nothing about improving culture or improving transport. When we had London government we had unacceptably low fares and an unacceptably high level of subsidy which fell on people to pay. Congestion will not change if there is London government, and housing will not be improved if there is more London government.
I did not understand the reference to law and order because there is a London-wide police authority. Where London is dirty has a great deal to do with London boroughs not doing their jobs properly. As for references to Tokyo, air pollution there is quite dreadful; and with regard to Paris, I say to the noble
340
Lord, Lord Ross, that traffic is still just as bad in Paris and often does not move. I can testify to that from my own recent experience.
London government should be closer to the people. We have made it clear that we have no intention of imposing an additional layer of bureaucracy on Londoners, or elsewhere, because we believe that this would create and not solve problems. I am very grateful for the interventions of my noble friends Lord Boyd-Carpenter, Lord Morris and Lord Mancroft.
The unitary system of local government in London, as said by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, and the system in metropolitan areas has proved to be a great improvement on the previous two-tier system. The benefits of improved accountability and streamlined bureaucracy are considerable. Recent research by the London Boroughs Association showed a £1.3 billion saving so far for Londoners—and for taxpayers too—as a result of the abolition of the GLC. There is no reason to believe that anyone wants to pick up that price tag again.
Where a strategic overview is needed suitable arrangements are in place. There is a distinction between a voice for London and government for London. Perhaps more thought should be given to a voice for London. We are committed to a move to unitary authorities in those areas which do not already enjoy the benefits of increased accountability and streamlined bureaucracy for local people which a single tier of local government will bring.
With regard to the voice for London, perhaps I may say in passing that we have two splendid Lord Mayors of London—the Lord Mayor of Westminster and the Lord Mayor of the City. It is my view that they are doing a magnificent job. I should also like to say—and perhaps this is a point that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, will take on board—that it would help if the London boroughs could co-operate more fully than they do now. Certainly one association would be preferable to two.
I do not intend to go into all the other detail about the functions for London. I believe the arrangements and mechanisms are in place to deliver good government for London as it is at the moment. I hope that these amendments will be withdrawn.
Baroness Hamwee: I thank noble Lords for contributing to what I think is one of the most important debates that we shall have this afternoon.
Several noble Lords have commented that London is working perfectly well and that there is nothing the matter with the system. I say to that: go out and respectfully ask the people on the streets and look at any newspaper. At least once a week national newspapers appear to have articles about the problems in London, and it certainly features high on the list of subject matter of any of the London press.
We are told that more government means more bureaucracy. We on these Benches believe that government is about service, not about bureaucracy, and I would not waste one sentence on advocating more bureaucracy. I advocate better service.
The Minister has asked me about the co-operation of the London boroughs. I take that point on board entirely, but however well they co-operate as different

341
entities it is not the same as forming one strategic authority sorting out its own priorities and working together. The boroughs can co-operate. But for each of those boroughs that co-operation is perhaps the second or third thing on its list of tasks. Their first priorities are, quite rightly, to their own areas.
We are told that we have two splendid Lord Mayors. I do not dispute that. I shared a platform with them on Friday and I felt that what I had around my neck was quite inadequate in the circumstances! But I do not think that they are the solution to the problem.
I end by appealing to the Committee's loyalty to our capital city and to the intellectual rather than emotional argument that the health of London is vital to the economic health of the country. We should take good care of the health of London. In looking at its health, we should seriously consider allowing the new commission to look at the possibilities and the options for proper government for London. I feel that this is so important an issue that I wish to divide the Committee.
4.5 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 142) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 86; Not-Contents, 145.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Hunt, L.

Alport, L.

Jeger, B.

Aylestone, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Birk, B.

John-Mackie, L.

Blackstone, B.

Judd, L.

Blease, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Kirkwood, L.

Bottomley, L.

Leatherland, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Listowel, E.

Buckmaster, V.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Longford, E.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Mallalieu, B.

David, B.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Desai, L.

Mayhew, L.

Diamond, L.

Mishcon, L.

Donoughue, L.

Molloy, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Falkender, B.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Falkland, V.

Mulley, L.

Feversham, L.

Nicol, B.

Fitt, L.

Ogmore, L.

Foot, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Gallacher, L.

Richard, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Ross of Newport, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Russell, E.

Sainsbury, L.

Hampton, L.

Seear, B.

Hamwee, B.

Serota, B.

Hanworth, V.

Shackleton, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Soper, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Stallard, L.

Hirshfield, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hooson, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

342

Tordoff, L. [Teller.]

Williams of Elvel, L.

Underhill, L.

Willis, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

White, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Aldington, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Long, V.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Lyell, L.

Ampthill, L.

Lytton, E.

Arran, E.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Astor, V.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Balfour, E.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Bathurst, E.

Mancroft, L.

Bauer, L.

Melville, V.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Merrivale, L.

Beloff, L.

Mersey, V.

Bessborough, E.

Monk Bretton, L.

Birdwood, L.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Blatch, B.

Morris, L.

Blyth, L.

Mottistone, L.

Boardman, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Borthwick, L.

Moyne, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Munster, E.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Braybrooke, L.

Nelson, E.

Bridgeman, V.

Newall, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Norfolk, D.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Norrie, L.

Butterworth, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Caldecote, V.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Orkney, E.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Carnarvon, E.

Oxfuird, V.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Carnock, L.

Pender, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Cheshire of Woodhall, L.

Plumb, L.

Cockfield, L.

Porritt, L.

Coleraine, L.

Prior, L.

Congleton, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Reay, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Renton, L.

Craigavon, V.

Ryder of Warsaw, B.

Cross, V.

St. Davids, V.

Cumberlege, B.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Sandford, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Selsdon, L.

Denham, L.

Shannon, E.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Shaughnessy, L.

Dormer, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Downshire, M.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Dudley, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Ferrers, E.

Strange, B.

Flather, B.

Strathcarron, L.

Fortescue, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Swansea, L.

Gainford, L.

Terrington, L.

Gainsborough, E.

Teviot, L.

Geddes, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Gridley, L.

Thurlow, L.

Grimthorpe, L.

Trumpington, B.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Tryon, L.

Harmsworth, L.

Ullswater, V.

Henley, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

Vivian, L.

Hives, L.

Waddington, L.

Howe, E.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Walpole, L.

Jeffreys, L.

Wharton, B.

Kimball, L.

Wilberforce, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Wise, L.

Knollys, V.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.14 p.m.
Earl Howe: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Diplomatic Bags Incident: Investigation
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat in the form of a Statement the Answer which has been given by my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State to a Private Notice Question in another place on diplomatic bags. The Answer is as follows:
"We learnt some days ago that bags containing Canadian diplomatic mail had been discovered by staff at Wandsworth Prison. Diplomatic bags are routinely sent to Wandsworth Prison for laundering. On this occasion the bags in question had been inadvertently included in such a consignment sent to Wandsworth. Steps were immediately taken to recover the diplomatic mail and to investigate the incident".
My Lords, that concludes the Answer.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the House will be extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cavendish, for repeating the Answer to a Private Notice Question in another place. I must say that it is the most extraordinary Statement that I have heard in this House, having dealt with many in my time.
Can the noble Lord tell the House whether the bags in question belong to the Foreign Office or to the Canadian High Commission? If they belong to the Foreign Office, is it common practice to send these diplomatic bags for laundering, to use the noble Lord's expression, at Wandsworth Prison? What other Foreign Office dirty linen is sent to Wandsworth Prison for laundering? How long was the matter undetected? What representations have been made by the Canadian High Commission to the Foreign Office? Was any of the confidential material copied; and if so, by whom and with what motive? What is the state of the investigation which I understand is taking place? Will further Statements be issued? Finally, will the noble Lord kindly tell the House whether it is sensible that Foreign Office material, whether bags, dirty linen or anything else, should be sent to Wandsworth Prison for dry cleaning?
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I associate myself with the gratitude expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, for this very interesting Statement. Can the noble Lord confirm that these documents were sent to Wandsworth Prison with the full collaboration of the North Staffordshire Police and the Home Secretary?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, for his acknowledgement of what he described as an extraordinary Statement. I thank, too, the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter. I can confirm that the bags
344
belonged to Canada and not to the Foreign Office. We handle them on Canada's behalf. I believe that the incident occurred about 10 days ago. It was only revealed as material came to light, because the bags were opened in Wandsworth. We have no knowledge of the information being copied. An investigation has taken place but no report has been published as yet. I cannot tell the noble Lord whether it is the kind of report that is normally published.
We regularly handle diplomatic bags on behalf of the Canadians and others. The bags were delivered from the Canadian High Commission inside a larger white bag which also contained bags for laundering. This consignment was added to other bags awaiting delivery to Wandsworth for laundering. Steps have been taken to prevent repetition of this incident. For instance, bags in the outward bag office are now turned inside out. In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, so far as I know there was no involvement by the local constabulary.
4.19 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, can my noble friend say what on earth people put into diplomatic bags that requires their regular laundering?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I do not think mail of any kind—and certainly not diplomatic mail—has any immunity from dirtying the vessel that carries it. Therefore, I imagine that it is good practice to keep diplomatic bags clean, as it is with other items.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, can the Minister say who opened the bag at Wandsworth? Further, is there a security precaution that is normally taken? It does not take too much imagination to realise that all kinds of things could have been going there for a long time in diplomatic bags. Is security so lax? Although it may seem very funny, there is a serious side to the matter if there is a security problem at Wandsworth. I repeat, who opens the bags and who is in control of the operation?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, this was a matter of human error. The responsibility for seeing that the bags do not contain any material rests with the Foreign Office. We believe that prison officers open the bags at Wandsworth. I agree with the noble Lord that it is a serious matter. I should also say, in reply to the question put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, that we have been in touch with the Canadians throughout this episode and indeed have apologised to them.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, can the Minister explain who was in charge of this laundered bag? Further, what is the noble Lord's definition of "laundering"? What does laundering articles in diplomatic bags mean?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, the object of the exercise is not to launder the contents of the diplomatic bag; it is to render clean the bag.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, if the Government wish to publicise the diplomatic mail of other countries, might they not do better in future to leave such bags in an open prison?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I note the suggession made by the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew.

Local Government Bill [H.L.]
4.22 p.m.
House again in Committee on Clause 13.
Baroness Young Baroness Young moved Amendment No. 143:
Page 11, line 19, leave out ("as respects each of those areas either") and insert ("by 31 December 1994").
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment I shall, for the convenience of the Committee, speak also to Amendment No. 210. The purpose; of the amendment is clear: it is to ensure that the Local Government Commission makes recommendations about the whole of England by the end of 1994. I warmly welcome the Bill and believe that Part II, providing for the establishment of the Local Government Commission, is particularly important. I am sure that, in a very complex and difficult situation, it is highly desirable that authorities should be able to put their views to the commission and that all points of view should be heard before a decision is reached.
However, it means that while the commission is undertaking its work there will be a considerable period of uncertainty when no one will know what is going to happen. That is particularly serious for the staff. My attention was drawn only last week to a chief executive who is contemplating early retirement if there is to be another change in his authority. I do not have the slightest doubt that that kind of situation is replicated throughout the country. Whatever else we may or nay not agree about, I believe that everyone accepts that a prolonged period of uncertainty is bad for any organisation. It is an unhappy situation for the individuals involved, and it certainly does not create good local government.
It is possible that 1994 is too soon or that it is the wrong date. This is a probing amendment. It would be most helpful to the Committee if my noble friend was able to give some kind of indication of what the Government think the timetable will be and how they propose to manage the intervening period. I am bound to say to my noble friend that we do not want a longer length of time than is absolutely necessary for the reasons that I have already given.
Perhaps I may speak briefly to Amendment No. 210 which, in a sense, is linked to the amendment before the Committee. Amendment No. 143 proposes that the Local Government Commission should report by 1994 and Amendment No. 210 gives the Secretary of State a maximum of a further two years to decide on implementation. I shall not repeat all the arguments that I put forward in relation to Amendment No. 143 because the same applies to the implementation. It is really setting a timetable. The amendment is modest; it is nevertheless important. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will consider the proposal seriously.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (The Viscount of Oxfuird): Before proposing this amendment, I must advise Members of the Committee that if Amendment No. 143 is agreed to I shall not be able to call Amendment No. 144 due to pre-emption.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I should very much like to second the remarks so effectively made by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, in regard to Amendments Nos. 143 and 210. I do not think that there is very much between us on the matter. I believe that we all agree that the Local Government Commission has a large task to carry out and that it is essential that it should complete it as quickly as it can, consistent with the need to take careful account of local community views.
We are concerned that an elongated timetable may produce the fear of incremental change. The fact that some parts of the country are not included in the review, the possibility of becoming entangled in boundary problems and concern that there may not be sufficient members of the commission are all factors that could generate uncertainty and leave local people, voluntary organisations and, above all, as the noble Baroness, Lady Young, rightly said, staff, unclear and unsure of where their future lies.
Nationally, there will be serious problems in forecasting grant settlement and budget planning as well as the fact that staff will be unable to plan their futures. It will also be more difficult—this may sound a little ironic coming from this side of the Committee—for private contractors who have CCT contracts with local authorities. Their future will similarly be somewhat uncertain. That point was brought home most forcefully in the Audit Commission's response, at paragraphs 4 and 5, to the consultation paper this summer. It said:
"Further costs will be incurred as a result of the particular character of the recommendations in the consultative paper. These costs will apply at least in part, even if no re-adjustment in structure is forthcoming. Principally, they are the costs of uncertainty. In 1974 legislation clearly determined the parameters of reorganisation, eliminating many alternative structures. In 1991 no particular model is specified, and all current units of local government can (and probably will) lay claim to continuity, and an extended role under the new regime. Current councils must compete for their legitimacy and future … the Commission therefore welcomes the Secretary of State's statement to the effect that the Commission should complete its work quickly".
It is for those reasons that I am happy to support the amendment. I hope that we shall have a speedy, though realistic, timetable. I was reassured to hear that the chairman-elect, Mr. John Banham, hopes to complete it within five years. Even that may be too extensive. The amendment would ensure that all parties know and share a common timetable. We should like it to be three years but, as the noble Baroness, Lady Young, said, the Minister may indicate that that is unreasonable and impracticable.
However, it would help if we had some indication on the matter which would help the report to come through. There is also the proposal for the additional two years for the Secretary of State. It would be most helpful if the Minister could suggest whether she is minded to encourage the Local Government

347
Commission to publish its proposed timetable of work. That would alleviate uncertainty. With those comments, I repeat that I support the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: I support the amendment. I do not wish to detain the Committee by repeating what has been said. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, reminded us most effectively that we are not dealing with some abstract arrangement but with something that affects people's lives. Therefore, it is clearly essential that we have not just a realistic timetable but one in which people have faith and one which will be stuck to and worked to on a reasonable basis.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I share the view expressed by the three noble Baronesses from the different parties, that the more quickly the commission can start operations and produce its results, the better. I am bound to say that I feel that they were a little optimistic in believing that the job could be done by 31st December 1994. After all, the Bill will not become an Act until we are into 1992. It has to go through another place, and another place may wish to discuss it in some detail, as the Committee does. So it will not be law until well into 1992.
Given the enormous area of work which the commission will have to cover, it would he imposing upon it a difficult task to expect it to finish by 31st December 1994. Although one wants it to proceed as quickly as possible, it would be a mistake to hustle it. We hope that it will produce new constitutional arrangements for a large part of our local government system, and a system which will last because no one wants to be continually amending our system. We want it to be a worthy system which will operate for a good many years. I express a doubt—I shall be interested to hear what my noble friend the Minister says—as to whether the task can be done reasonably within the time proposed. That is an important point.
In considering the matter, it would help me if my noble friend would say, given the proposed strength of the commission, how many areas at a time it is expected that the commission will be tackling. As I understand it, it will tackle a number of areas simultaneously, especially on the great question of unitary or two-tier local government. That will obviously have a considerable bearing on when the whole job will be completed.
Baroness Faithfull: I support what my noble friends Lady Young and Lord Boyd-Carpenter have said. It is also important that there should be consultation at all levels with as many people as possible. There was not enough consultation with the people involved with local authorities, especially those under scrutiny, before the last reorganisation. That consultation takes time. If the reorganisation is to be successful, it must be successful for those who will work with and under local government. While I agree that we do not want to take too long over this, I hope that enough time will be given for consultation.
Baroness Blatch: The amendments would fundamentally alter the approach to reviewing the structure of local government for England for which the Bill provides.
I can appreciate that Members of the Committee wish the Local Government Commission to complete its reviews of local government structure as quickly as possible. I agree that a prolonged period of uncertainty is not desirable and we share the aim of arriving at the right answers and putting them into effect as quickly as possible.
We have made it clear that we believe that by reviewing the shire counties area by area, the commission will be able to find the best local solutions and we shall be able to move quickly in those areas where the need for change is established.
There is no question of setting a deadline in the Bill for the commission to carry out all its work or for my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to give effect to its recommendations by order. That would be unreasonable given the scale of the task. Even when its initial review of structure is complete, the commission will have a continuing role in relation to boundary and electoral changes. I cannot accept the amendments.
Perhaps I can respond to some of the points that have been made. On the programme, many of the responses to our consultation paper The Structure of Local Government in England commented upon our priorities for review. We are still considering what would be the most balanced and manageable programme for the commission.
My noble friends Lord Boyd-Carpenter and Lady Faithfull said that we must allow time for the job to be done properly. That point has been taken account of. From the Second Reading debate and what has been said today, I am seized of the fact that the more quickly this is done the better, but the balance has to be struck between that and having the job done correctly. I cannot say how long the commission will need to do its work. We do not wish to inhibit it from moving quickly where issues and resulting solutions are relatively straightforward, or from taking more time when it is appropriate.
I take the point about proper consultation made by my noble friend Lady Faithfull. We have set up the mechanisms for there to be proper consultation. We must give the Local Government Commission time to do that.
I was asked the direct question by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, about whether the Local Government Commission would publish a timetable. It will be the Secretary of State who will determine the programmes of work. So far as I am aware, although it is subject to the guidance which is out for consultation, the Secretary of State will not be time-limiting the exercise. It will be for the Local Government Commission to take the time appropriate to complete the programme.
From all we know of Mr. Banham, I believe that he will expedite where it is appropriate to do so, although we hope that he will not cut corners merely to meet what might turn out to be an artificial deadline.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I thank the Minister for giving way. Will she enlarge on that point? Is she

349
saying that the Secretary of State will publish the programme of work—the areas in due order—to which the Local Government Commission will turn its attention, so that areas which are not due to be considered for three or four years can carry on with their local government duties?
Baroness Blatch: I cannot give a specific answer to that question now. It will he the Secretary of State who will prescribe the programme of work. At the moment I cannot say whether the whole programme will be established at the outset or whether it will be just the first one or two tranches of work. I am afraid that the noble Baroness must await that decision. Consultation resulting from the draft guidance may well give some indication and may influence the Secretary of State in those matters.
My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter was also interested in whether one, two or even three areas would be dealt with at a time. I am afraid that I have to leave that question on the Table with the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis. The noble Baroness was also rightly interested in the transitional arrangements for matters such as budgets and contracts that had been entered into by local authorities. If one reads the guidance, one will see that the transitional arrangements will have to be properly addressed when the recommendation comes to the Secretary of State and, indeed, before Parliament. The recommendation will have to be comprehensive. It must not merely say that the authority can be a unitary authority. It must address a whole range of issues, including strategic matters, the proper functions of a local authority and the effective delivery of services. It will of course include the practical transitional arrangements necessary to achieve that.
I promise to take back all the messages that I have received as a result of discussing the amendment, and I hope that my noble friend will not press it.
Baroness Young: I thank all those Members of the Committee who have taken part in this short debate, especially the noble Baronesses, Lady Hollis and Lady Hamwee. My noble friend the Minister will recognise that there is great practical interest in all parts of the Committee as to how this matter will work out. We are all agreed that it is proper, and a good plan, to have a boundary commission.
I very much take the point of my noble friend Lady Faithful] about consultation. As I said to the Minister at the beginning, this is not a matter that I wish to press; it is a probing amendment. I was particularly pleased to hear her say that she would take back these points.
A number of detailed questions have arisen which need to be examined. To give one example, my noble friend spoke about the transitional arrangements and the point was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis. The uncertainty begins from now and that is the point. We shall have the period while the Bill goes through Parliament, the period before it becomes law; we shall then have the period of the boundary commission and then the period after the decision has been taken, before the new authority comes into
350
being. Throughout that time, there will be uncertainty not only for individuals but in respect of the work and all the other arrangements that have to be made.
It may well be that the point of my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter about dealing with more than one area at a time should be examined. Also, perhaps we ought to consider whether to have more commissioners so that the matter can proceed more quickly. There are a number of alternatives. I hope that my noble friend will take back these points and consider them. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Young Baroness Young had given notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 144:
Page 11, line 20, after ("areas") insert ("or classes of local authorities").
The noble Baroness said: I understand that this amendment has already been spoken to, therefore I shall not move it.
[Amendment No. 144 not moved.]
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 145:
Page 11, line 21, after ("boundary") insert ("(with the consent of the authorities affected by the changes)").
The noble Baroness said: I wish to speak to Amendment No. 145 and, with the consent of the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, also to Amendment No. 147. Both amendments relate to boundary questions and therefore this may be for the convenience of the Minister. The amendments seek to support the sensible and straightforward draft guidance in the consultative document.
Baroness Blatch: If the noble Baroness will permit me to intervene, this is the first that I have heard that these amendments are linked. They are not linked on the Marshalled List, nor in the groupings. My information was that Amendment No. 145 was to be taken separately.
4.45 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I am happy to take my amendment separately if that is what the Minister prefers. I was simply trying, in response to her concern, to group the amendments in order to proceed more swiftly. Very well, I shall just deal with Amendment No. 145.
It is clear that the commission will need to consider boundaries in the broadest sense. Some of us hope to argue later that it may wish on the one hand to reflect regional considerations and, on the other, not to create new authorities which may transgress boundaries which have clear historical identities. In moving the amendment, I wish to make three points. First, unless there is clear local support for boundary change, it is a long, acrimonious, wrangling disputatious process because it affects not only the character and identity of an authority but also more prosaic considerations like standard spending assessments, UBR and the tax base. Because it is acrimonious and wrangling, in that situation, the work of the Local Government Commission might be bogged down.

351
A second, perhaps obvious point but nonetheless worth making is that work with boundaries at this stage not only creates unnecessary uncertainty and upheaval, but clearly has an almost domino effect on all the adjacent authorities. This, too, will multiply the confusion and complexity which will face local government during a difficult period for voluntary groups as well as staff.
Thirdly, with the concept of enabling authorities, there is no need in any case to adjust boundaries simply to make larger authorities. Putting two sparsely populated district councils together, for example, may double the width but it does not necessarily double the quality. That argument has long gone.
The amendment seeks to suggest that where there is local support for an obvious, sensible change, the Local Government Commission has flexibility to support it during the course of its work. But without that consent we hope that any such boundary changes—the more difficult and contentious ones—will be deferred until after the Local Government Commission has completed its first tranche of work so that we do not delay its recommendations. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: I wish to speak against the amendment. While I understand the concern voiced by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, I wish to put two points to the Committee. First, to suggest that the primary requirement is the consent of the authorities affected by the changes goes somewhat against the discussions that we have had over the past few hours. I do not suggest that the majority of authorities wish to go against their own communities, but on the other hand it must be accepted that there will be a certain amount of status that is felt to be at risk. There will be people who feel that they are likely to be knocked off their own local perches. To leave a veto in the hands of the authorities is not the way in which members on all sides of the Committee have been tending to approach the issue.
Secondly, it seems to me that if the question of boundary changes is left until the second stage, it may never take place. Having gone through the agonies of the review—admitting that there are provisions for the rolling review which will continue in the later phases—it must be likely that people will find it difficult to face up to the question of boundaries, having gone through the whole issue of structure as an initial exercise.
Thus, while I understand some of the concerns that underlie the amendment, I feel that we, from these Benches, could not support the amendment.
Earl Howe: The amendment would require the commission to obtain the consent of those local authorities affected by its recommendations for boundary changes. I cannot help feeling that as regards the principle of the amendment at least we have been over this course in an earlier debate. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has reminded us of
352
our conclusions when the word "veto" was mentioned. It effectively gives local authorities a veto on any proposals which the commission may choose to make.
Clause 15 sets out the procedures which the commission must follow when conducting its reviews, and allows ample opportunity for those with an interest in the review to make representations to it. Under this clause, all authorities affected by proposals to alter their boundaries will have ample opportunities to put their views to the commission, which is, of course, under a duty to take such views into account when drawing up its recommendations. The commission's priority is to ensure that its recommendations for change reflect the interests and identities of local communities and secure effective and convenient local government. To do this it must rely on its own discretion in taking account of local interests.
Were all those authorities affected by the proposals to change a local government boundary required to give their consent to such an alteration it could be very difficult to implement any boundary changes. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, mentioned that there had to be local support or else it was likely to be a long and acrimonious process. However, the process could be acrimonious and run ad infinitum if consent were required at the end of it.
There is another point here. In seeking the consent of the local authorities involved, one is inevitably preferring the views of those local authorities over and above the views of the wider public. We all agreed in this Committee the day before yesterday that it is very much the people's views that will weigh in the commission's recommendations. With that, I hope very much that the noble Baroness will be able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Perhaps it was my fault arising from the way in which I moved the amendment, but there may be a misunderstanding about its nature. The amendment does not seek to say that there may never be any boundary changes without the full consent of all parties concerned. It says that while the Local Government Commission is carrying out its tranche of work, in that process there will be no boundary changes unless there is the consent of all parties concerned. It seems to me that that expands, enlarges and reflects the spirit of paragraph 15 of the guidance to the Local Government Commission which states:
"Although some boundary changes may need to be considered during the course of the review, detailed boundary changes will normally be considered in due course after structural change has taken place".
That is the view of this side of the Chamber. However, if in the course of that process there are some boundary changes which appear to be desirable and are welcomed on all sides, it would be appropriate to introduce such changes during the course of the Local Government Commission's work. That process should not necessarily be deferred until the commission's work has been completed.
It is invidious to give an example as it may not be a popular one. However, I know two urban district councils in East Anglia—I prefer not to name them—that may wish to put forward a proposal in the

353
future to merge. It is obviously useful for the Local Government Commission to take that point on board during the course of its work and its considerations, but only if that is done with the consent of all parties concerned. If such a course of action is contentious, it is clearly right—Amendment No. 147 argues this—that it should be deferred rather than be allowed to delay the work of the Local Government Commission still further. That is the point of the amendment. It is a much more modest amendment than either the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, or the Minister seemed to suggest. Nonetheless under the circumstances I am willing to withdraw the amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 146 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Baroness Cumberlege Baroness Cumberlege moved Amendment No. 147:
Page 11, line 23, at end insert ("or
(iii) that he should defer any boundary or electoral changes until after a structural review has been completed.").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment is designed to speed up a process of bringing about change—it is rather similar to the previous amendment that we discussed—especially when that change is considered desirable. However, this amendment is not as prescriptive as the amendment moved by my noble friend Lady Young.
Clause 13(1) (b) of the Bill gives the Local Government Commission two options to recommend to the Secretary of State: first, that he can make structural, boundary or electoral changes or, secondly, that he can make no changes at all. This amendment seeks to give the Secretary of State a third option of greater flexibility; namely, that he should defer any boundary or electoral changes in any area until after a structural review has been completed.
On Second Reading I urged that the newly-formed Local Government Commission should work at a spanking, pace. I am heartened by the Minister's words in response to the amendment moved by my noble friend Lady Young. Uncertainty is no one's friend and if changes are to be made, they should be carried through with speed and decision. That view seemed to receive some support from all sides of the Chamber. In the meantime I have been able to discuss the question of speed Of change with local government officers and the majority seem to agree that uncertainty has disadvantages. As has already been mentioned, there is the difficulty of retaining but also of recruiting quality staff. However, other local government officers see sufficient scope in this Bill for delaying decisions on the Future structure of their patches almost indefinitely. That would be a recipe for confusion and uncertainty and would be a poor basis for negotiations between local authorities and health authorities as we are about to launch into making the community care legislation a reality.
In some areas I know that there will be no reason for altering the status quo, but that decision, too, needs to be taken. Just as no housewife makes a long-term commitment to a piece of fish without first looking at the sell-by date, so no health authority will
354
waste its time in negotiating a complicated community care package with a local authority that is about to be disbanded.
This amendment is designed to ensure that where a case is made for structural change, boundary squabbles should not be used as a justification for doing nothing. The Secretary of State would be advised to proceed at once with the change to a unitary authority if that is the local wish, and subsequent boundary changes would follow. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham, has already commented on this matter, I do not need to remind the Committee how contentious boundaries can be, both in determining the political complexion of an authority and in determining the salary of its chief officers.
I am pleased to have support from the noble Baronesses, Lady Hollis and Lady Stedman, in determining the ground rules. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will use her considerable influence in persuading the Secretary of State and the commission that speed is of the essence. I also hope that the Secretary of State, on the advice of the commission, will not be deflected from making changes by albeit hard fought but minor boundary disputes. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: I wish to start by again giving my noble friend an absolute assurance that all the messages that emanate from these debates will be reported to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. The point about speed and uncertainty is well taken. However, that point does not relate to this specific amendment.
There is nothing in the Bill to prevent the Local Government Commission making recommendations about the pace of implementation. Therefore there is flexibility in the Bill to cover my noble friend's concerns. In the draft of our guidance to the Local Government Commission, which we issued for consultation to the local authority associations and others on 25th November, we set out our views about the relationship between reviews of boundaries and structure.
The draft guidance states that in undertaking its reviews of local government structure, the commission will obviously need to consider the boundaries of local government areas in broad terms. Although some boundary changes may need to be considered during the course of a review of structure, detailed boundary changes will normally be considered in due course after structural changes. I believe that is what my noble friend is asking for.
In some cases reviews of structure may take place and reviews of electoral arrangements may not be necessary immediately. In other cases electoral arrangements may need to be reviewed at the same time as structure. I believe that my noble friend fears particularly that a perfectly acceptable— and one hopes sensible—recommendation must not be held up by what may well be a minor boundary or electoral change. I must reassure her that the Bill has sufficient flexibility to avoid that situation.
Baroness Cumberlege: I am grateful to my noble friend for those assurances and for re-emphasising the guidance that has been sent out. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 148 not moved.]
5 p.m.
The Earl of Lytton The Earl of Lytton moved Amendment No. 149:
Page 11, line 23, at end insert:
("( ) make recommendations in respect of changes ancillary to or consequential upon its other recommendations.").
The noble Earl said: This amendment is intended to clarify the remit of the Local Government Commission, and more particularly to clarify the Government's view on that matter and certain allied matters. I am paddling my own canoe on this amendment. That probably explains why no other Member of the Committee has added his name to it. The amendment certainly does not concern the government of the Greater London area. I shall put the Minister's mind at rest on that matter straightaway.
Part I of the Bill concerns the proper delivery of services. That matter has been referred to throughout the debates in Committee. In Part I the delivery of services is concerned primarily with financial performance, the provision of statistical information and the efficiency of delivery. The latter is principally brought about through compulsory competitive tendering.
Within the parameters of structural boundary or electoral changes, some wide powers are conferred on the commission in paragraph 4 of Schedule 2 and under the provisions of Clause 13(5) (b). Indeed, it appears that the commission has the power to do almost anything in that regard. However, the same wide powers do not seem to be applied to those matters that the commission can consider within its remit. The total absence in Part II of specific references to regulators in the context of new local government structures is, I believe, a fairly serious omission.
Throughout the debate reference has consistently been made to local government functions. I therefore make no apology for raising the question of functions in detail. I consider it to be an intrinsic part of the consideration of any new measures that may result from this Bill or the commission's work. I am greatly reinforced in my view by the comments of other Members of the Committee. I find it remarkable that the word "function" is not even mentioned as a consideration for the Local Government Commission under Part II of the Bill although it is a subject referred to in the draft guidance. I question how one can consider structure without giving consideration to the functions that have to be performed and, together with those functions, the efficiency and standards of local government administration. As we have heard, the end product is standards of delivery. Everything else flows from that.
The amendment is not the one that I should have liked to have tabled. It had been my intention to seek an amendment to Clause 13(1) (b) by referring to,
356
among other things, functional and other changes, including those relating to efficient administration, standards of conduct and the protection of the public interest in the discharge of local government functions. Unfortunately, I felt that it was unwise to table such an amendment having been advised that it was outside the scope of the Bill. I felt the need to heed that advice although my own conviction and what seems to me a commonsense approach to the legislation dictate otherwise.
My main concern is that the Bill should result in workable legislation, that the operation of the Local Government Commission should not be unduly fettered and that this Committee should be free to discuss all matters of relevance to the Bill, including the extent of the commission's operational parameters. It is imperative that, however narrow the commission's brief in terms of its main recommendations to the Secretary of State, it should have the widest remit in terms of its investigation and reasoning. It should also be able to identify associated matters of relevance and issue recommendations in relation to them.
As the draft guidelines in relation to the commission refer at page 3 to functions and as the entire Bill is about the delivery of services, it is not unreasonable to invite the Minister to say why standards of conduct, avoidance of conflict of interest, the protection of the public interest and the promotion of best practice in local government affairs are considered outside the scope of the Bill. I feel that such considerations are highly relevant in the context of the new, enhanced, all-purpose and possibly unitary authority. I have in my mind's eye the prospect of consolidating in one authority all planning, land acquisition, housing, highways, police and other roles. The extent to which those are amalgamated under one body or are separate remains to be determined. However, it seems to me that we are looking at a different unit for the delivery of those various services. It is vitally important that high standards of conduct, quite apart from financial probity and economic efficiency, are considered. I believe that the Local Government Commission is the right body to do so and that the Bill is the right context in which to raise such issues.
If, however relevant those matters may be, they are considered outside the scope of the Bill I should like to invite the Minister to say what the Government propose to do about them. I respectfully venture to suggest that their absence means that the Bill lacks an important component. I wish particularly to know whether I am to take it that in regard to local government functions the commission will rely solely on central government guidelines and will have little discretion of its own in the matter. That is a question I invite the Minister to answer.
I do not believe that there is any fundamental disagreement between me and anyone else, and certainly not between me and the Minister, on the objectives of good local administration. However, I am not happy that the Local Government

357
Commission is being given a fair chance to produce an optimum solution as opposed to one created within the ring fence established by ministerial guidelines.
If accepted, the amendment would be a very small step in improving the scope of the Local Government Commission in terms of the recommendations which it would be able to produce. It does not bind the Minister any more than the Minister is bound by the Bill unamended. However, if we are to procure full investigation and comprehensive recommendations which will lead to the improved delivery of local government services about which we have heard so much in its very widest sense, an amendment such as this is necessary.
I should like to see regulators similar to those in privatised industries set up for local government, but that is probably a matter which I cannot take further at this juncture. I should like that to be considered by the commission. It may well be that it is not appropriate for the commission's role to be extended that far. However, it is important that the commission should be free to consider all matters relevant to its main recommendations and to be able to make further recommendations to the Secretary of State on those particular points which, in the view of the commission, are of particular relevance to its core recommendations.
The amendment is probably badly drafted and no doubt can be criticised on that ground. My purpose in moving it is to elicit the Minister's considered response. I beg to move.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: In his amendment and in his speech the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, has raised a matter of some importance. The Committee is indebted to him for raising it. My only doubt—and no doubt the Minister can deal with the point—is whether the amendment is necessary. Can the Minister tell the Committee whether, without the amendment, the commission would be able to take those matters into account?
Lord Morris: I rise not only to support the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, but also to congratulate him on the clear and logical way in which he developed his argument. He stated that he had been advised that alternative amendments were outside the scope of the Bill. On a narrow interpretation, that is correct because the second part of the Long Title clearly states that the Purpose of the Bill is,
"to make new provision in relation to local government in England for effecting structural, boundary and electoral changes".
There is no mention of functions. The means by which the Bill puts that purpose into effect is solely through the creation of a Local Government Commission to look into those matters.
The fundamental point which the noble Earl has raised is clearly illustrated by a simple question, which I ask my noble friend to be good enough to answer. Does function flow from structure, or does structure flow from function? If function flows from structure—and I should be astonished if he believed that—that is the end of the matter. However, if structure flows
358
from function there is no question about it; it would be impossible for the commission to look intelligently into structure.
That answers the question of my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter regarding necessity. In my view it is necessary. That is why I strongly support the noble Earl, Lord Lytton. The commission must be given power to look at function because it cannot consider structure without looking at the function of local government.
Lord Feversham: I will possibly get into the canoe with the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, at the end of the debate on this amendment. No doubt he will he comforted to know that even the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, is at this stage half-in and half-out of that canoe. A whole raft of amendments to be discussed later will also deal with the question of functions. It has been raised both at Second Reading and in the present amendment, and it will come up again. I think it is almost certain that at some stage during today's proceedings we will need to have a vote about functions. I am not entirely sure at this stage whether or not I will support the amendment. I do not know how far the noble Earl is prepared to go. But I shall be very interested indeed to hear what the noble Earl the Minister has to say in reply to the amendment.
Earl Howe: I listened very carefully to the remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Lytton. I am sure that noble Lords on all sides of the Committee share his very real concerns. He has made some extremely important points, and I thank him for that. His main worry is that the remit of the Local Government Commission will not be wide enough to take into account his concerns. I hope that what I say will to some extent reassure him at least on that point.
The Committee will be aware of the consultation paper on internal management which we discussed on Monday. I think that is relevant to the issues raised by the noble Earl. We have said in the document that we would wish to consider carefully the impact of any changes in order to ensure there were adequate safeguards against the possibility of abuse. I have already given an undertaking that the Government will come forward as soon as possible with the conclusions of the review of internal management.
There are some councils who, while acting within the law, nevertheless fail in the duty to provide adequate cost-effective services. Your Lordships will no doubt have seen copies of the draft guidance for the commission which we have issued for consultation. In paragraph 14 it is said that the commission should assume that, apart from specific statutory duties laid upon it, an authority will operate in the most cost-effective way. That does not mean that the Local Government Commission will not look at the functions of authorities in the areas under review. That is an integral part of its consideration of structure.
Clause 13(5) will require the commission to have regard to effective and convenient local government. However, I should make clear that that is only in the sense that the structural changes they recommend

359
must be with that factor in mind. The two are linked. It would not be right for the commission to reach a judgment about who are the efficient councils. That is a political judgment which I suggest needs to be exercised by the electorate through the ballot box.
Your Lordships have already considered Clauses 1 to 7 of the Bill. They introduce important changes in the information available to the electorate about the performance of their councils. Voters will be in a much better position to make judgments about the standards achieved by their councils.
I have to say I think the measures to safeguard the public interest need to be looked at on a national and not local basis. The Government will take whatever steps are necessary to ensure a continuation of the high standards we expect of our councils. Those issues are not appropriate for the local government commission. I particularly have in mind the noble Earl's remarks about financial probity. I hope that what I have said has gone some way to reassure him and other noble Lords. I hope he will agree that the amendment can be withdrawn.
The Earl of Lytton: I should like to thank the noble Earl for his reply, and also to thank other noble Lords who have spoken so eloquently and far more compellingly than I have in support of the amendment.
I pick up a couple of points made by the Minister. First, the discussion documents dealing with local authority internal matters seem to me to be the product of Part I of the Bill but not to have a mirror image in Part II. The commission's view of the way in which the functions will be discharged in the light of its recommendations is at the heart of my point; in other words, it is not just about financial reporting back but about checks and balances in the broadest sense of local government administration.
Secondly, the noble Earl made a number of points about the standards of conduct not being a matter for the commission. I have to accept that in the context of the Bill that is probably so. I am sorry to have to admit it, and I am even more sorry that the Minister has not made any suggestion as to when that area, about which I feel very strongly, may be dealt with in due course. I do not believe that it is being dealt with in legislation currently before Parliament, let alone in this House.
In moving the amendment, it was not my intention to do more than elicit a response from the Minister. I am not entirely happy about it, and I should like to reserve the right to come back to it at a later stage of the Bill. For the time being, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 149A to 151 not moved.]
5.15 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon Lord Stoddart of Swindon moved Amendment No. 152:
Page 12, line 5, at end insert:
360
("( ) to establish local authorities which are of a sufficient size to provide a secure basis to administer the full range of services at present provided by county and district councils.").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 152 it may be for the convenience of the Committee if I also discuss Amendment No. 153. I think I should remind the Committee that I advise NALGO although I am not at all sure they would approve of what I am about to say. I say straight away that I do not in any way depart from my view that local government units should be of a size compatible with the need to ensure that they are as close as possible to those who are being governed. The electorate must know who is governing them and from where they are being governed. Preferably, that should occur locally so they can get at their governors when they do not like what their governors are doing to them. It is most important that we have units which are recognised by the electorate as convenient to themselves, not to local government administrators. Indeed, I believe they must be small enough to be susceptible to the views of local people yet large enough to be able to administer the widest possible range of services. Generally speaking, that can be achieved by basing the new authorities on any existing districts.
Clearly, the present two-tier system is generally unsatisfactory; but in my view it must not be replaced by a mass of small local authorities, many of which will be unable to administer the whole range of services that are at present run by district and county councils. It is essential that the new local government units are all-purpose authorities and that they do not have to set up a multiplicity of joint authority arrangements—although, in my experience, in many areas joint authority arrangements have operated very satisfactorily indeed. Nevertheless, joint authorities tend to reduce rather than increase democratic accountability.
I had the honour to serve on the Association of Municipal Corporations (when it existed) as a member of the Reorganisation of Local Government Sub-Committee. It proposed a form of local government which would have been ideal had it been put into place in 1974 rather than that reorganisation which was in fact carried out. Its proposals were for all-purpose authorities of a size convenient for the area to be administered. They did not all have to be of a standard size. There was not a minimum or maximum size. The units were to be convenient for the people who were being governed. Also, although this is not suggested in this Bill, it proposed that there should be provincial councils responsible for some of the great services but which nevertheless could, in many small most-purpose authorities, administer some of the services for the smaller local authorities, albeit perhaps on a temporary basis. That would have been an excellent arrangement and I am sorry that it was not put into operation.
Clearly, that kind of arrangement does not figure in the Government's thinking at the present time. It seems to me that if the commission is given no guidance, we could end up with another hotch-potch reorganisation which would further erode the reputation and importance of local government.
Bearing in mind especially the further education Bill which is before the Chamber at the present time, there is in fact a real fear that the Government's hidden agenda is to remove all the large and important services from the control of local government. For example, many people believe that the control of primary and secondary education will be removed from local government and put under a national schools council, or that trunk roads might be removed from local government and given to a trunk roads authority. It may very well be considered that even the social services may be better administered directly by the Department of Social Security or indirectly through a social services commission.
The noble Baroness will say that that is nonsense, but bearing in mind the Government's record so far, people have fears about the removal of those services. I hope that I shall receive an assurance from her that the Government do not have that in mind. I am sure she will say that those fears are far-fetched, but the fact is that since 1979 a succession of Conservative Governments have shown that they are bureaucratic centralists, by removing large tranches of power, including power over money raising policies, from the local authorities. We must be sure that any reforms do not fail and give central government the further excuse to remove services from democratic local control and pass them to faceless bureaucrats who are not answerable in any way to the electorate.
I turn briefly to Amendment No. 153. In my view the new local authorities must be financially strong and have a taxing base which is sound, progressive, sustainable and under the control of the local authorities themselves. I have already spoken about fears that the Government intend to remove from local government the great services such as education, roads and social services. One of the excuses could be that at present central government finance 85 per cent. of local government expenditure. That has occurred because the Government removed that form of finance from local government through the combined business rate. That removal undermined to a large extent its independent financial base.
For that reason, I believe that it is right to demand the return of the business rate to local authorities for them to administer and have as their own form of finance. After all, it always was theirs. The Government have removed it and, by heaven, particularly in the south of England local businesses are sorry that it has been removed. It is quite true that local businesses pressed for the combined business rate to be taken away from local authorities. They did not realise the mistake they were making. They certainly recognise it now. Many of them are saying, "For heaven's sake, let us return the business rate once again to local government".
In my view—I speak for myself and not for my colleagues on the Front Bench—there are other new areas of local government finance which should be considered. For example, there is nothing wrong with a sales tax and it is possible to introduce it. Frankly, the arguments against a sales tax can be overcome. Or, for example, why should not local government have a share of VAT and Excise revenues from the sale of
362
petrol and diesel oil in its area. Those would give local government a strong financial base of its own. Since I believe very much in local government, I support these arrangements.
When we return after the Christmas Recess, the Chamber will consider the Local Government Finance Bill. The Bill restricts local government finance raising powers to a narrow undynamic base which will make new and small units of local government difficult to sustain. I should find that reprehensible since, although on the one hand it is the Government's declared aim to create smaller and more accountable units of local government, on the other hand their policy is to refuse a proper basis of independent finance which will make that possible and at the same time give local government the independence which is so vital to a truly vibrant local government system.
I hope that I may receive some views on what I have just said. I shall welcome very much the Minister's comments. I beg to move.
5.30 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I certainly do not wish to oppose these amendments, particularly Amendment No. 152. I am certainly heartened and entirely support the remarks made by my noble friend Lord Stoddart about his wish to see unitary government based on the existing districts with a sound, strong independent basis of finance. However, I should like to register a slight unease about the repeated phrase "of sufficient size". The issue of size threads through both the amendments, and I hope that my noble friend can reassure us when he comes to wind up.
I want to make a couple of points about size. It is partly one of those concerns which will arise in many other amendments, whether we discuss joint authorities or lead authorities and the like. It may be appropriate to say something at this point.
First, I wish to emphasise yet again—as some of us tried to do at Second Reading—that there is no evidence that efficiency and cost-effectiveness increase with size. The Audit Commission has made that entirely clear. I am delighted to have the support of the Minister.
I am sure that the Minister is aware of the response of the Audit Commission to the consultation paper. Paragraph 3 states:
"It is worth noting … that Commission studies have rarely found economies of scale to be the systematic or decisive influence on relative performance levels".
Qualities of effectiveness and value for money are found in small and large authorities—Labour, Conservative, Liberal, balanced and hung authorities. I tried to do some research on education in the 1970s. I found that effectiveness related to the political will and competence of members and officers to provide a quality effective service. That political will was often found in cities, not because of their size but because of the commitment to and interest in the education service.
Secondly, as we tried to argue at Second Reading, size does not necessarily produce increased effectiveness or increased economy. It may do the reverse. It may produce diseconomies of distance and of scale.

363
The travelling, co-ordinating and liaising that is needed in more sparsely populated, rural areas involve a very real cost. By definition it costs more to produce fewer services. The larger the rural area, the more it costs to provide less as the landscape stretches. To bring in additional populations means that one has to provide more expensive services without the population base to sustain them. The response to that is clearly rectification through rate support grant, local committees and—perhaps I may depart from the views of my noble friend Lord Stoddart—joint and lead arrangements. Those are flexible and constructive ways forward.
The Association of County Councils funded the Coopers & Lybrand report on the enabling authority. That report, funded for the ACC, conceded that case entirely. Only in purchasing was there any clear evidence of the virtues of size and numbers. Purchasing is indeed one area through which one can respond to economy by consortia arrangements.
Perhaps I may quote from the report. It states:
"Within larger unitary authorities, it will be necessary specifically to secure effective local input to ensure that local needs and preferences were identified".
The Coopers & Lybrand report for the ACC refers to parallel, political, decision-making structures and area committees. In other words, in larger unitary authorities the report concedes that one has to re-invent a lower second tier but that the second tier would relate to district administration and not to district accountability.
Thirdly—I hope that this is a view shared by the Minister —the concept of the enabling authority should take the issue of size off the political agenda. Discussion on size was the language of the late 1960s and early 1970s. The concept of an enabling authority allows us to dispense with such phrases as "of sufficient size". That issue is less salient. We do not advocate 500 or 700 small authorities. However, I suggest that the best way to improve value for money services is to ensure active scrutiny by the local taxpayer. That is best done when the authorities are "get-attable". My fear is that such phrases as "of sufficient size" may lead to larger authorities, with no guarantee of improved or effective services. On the contrary, there may be diseconomies of distance and scale. They may become remote. There may be a lack of the control that local electors should have over the representatives.
While many of us wish to support the noble Lord in his anxiety about a strong and independent base for local government finance, and a strong, independent local government as a source of services, we should not relate that desire simply to size.
Lord Skelmersdale: It will come as no surprise to those noble Lords who followed the Second Reading debate that I support the general thrust of the noble Lord's amendment. However, I do not agree with all the examples of potential chaos with which he followed up his original arguments. For example, I should not have thought that opted out schools or
364
self-governing hospitals were the result of policy of a government who believe in attracting more power into their hands.
Having said that, we all know that all change is unsettling while it occurs. The noble Lord and the noble Baroness have given examples of the fears of existing local authorities during this period of uncertainty. I hope that my noble friend Lady Blatch will take this opportunity to assure us that services will not be touched by the Bill. In other words, any service that local authorities already provide will be kept until or unless there is another Bill to change them. We all know that local authority services have grown piecemeal over the years.
It is a constant complaint from the Benches opposite that this Government have loaded more on to local authorities without providing the finance. Whether or not that is true, all governments put more work on to the usually very capable shoulders of local authorities. However, they do so usually through a Bill for that specific purpose, whether the service involves waste management, police, fire or whatever. I hope my noble friend will tell us that that will continue.
In the authorities' role as enabling authorities, will they be able to buy in services? They can buy in services, as in social services, for example, from the private sector, from waste management firms and so on. But will the authorities be able to buy in services from each other? With the situation such as pertains in Rutland and Leicester, it might be sensible for the smaller county council to provide the social services for Rutland. I believe that many people will be interested to know whether that will be permitted under the regime that the Government anticipate.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I agree with almost every word spoken by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis. I should like to go a little further. I do not like the amendment. I do not find acceptable the idea of introducing such a phrase as "of sufficient size". The Government have been wise—I do not always say that —in adopting a listening posture by setting up the commission. I hope that they will put as few fetters as possible on the commission in the exercise of the discretion that it is being given.
It is somewhat embarrassing for me to recall it, but an earlier Conservative Government made a mess of affairs in Somerset and Avon. What can be done to put that right is not for me to say. However, it is an added reason behind my plea that the Government should give the commission absolute freedom with the minimum of fetters. There should simply be a requirement for the commission to listen before it makes up its mind. I hope that my noble friend will advise the Committee to reject the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: On what I had considered a relatively simple amendment, the discussion has ranged far and wide. Perhaps I may rise to the bait of the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart. He is about two months ahead in his discussions about finance. I am pleased to record in this debate some of the things that he said. In advocating no limits on local government spending—which of course is the party policy—the

365
noble Lord referred to a licence to raise funds from petrol or any other local commodity. Perhaps I may suggest that licence to raise funds with absolutely no limits would also he licence to spend.
The noble Lord spoke about transferring business rates from national to local level. I believe that he confused valuation with the system that now exists. The business community can now rest assured that increases year on year which are not related to valuation will not be greater than the rate of inflation. That provision is positively enshrined in law.
If business communities are to be revalued from time to time —I have no doubt that that intention will he contained in the Opposition's Manifesto—the noble Lord is advocating the return of business rates to the mercy and vagaries of local authorities. When that was the case we recorded horrendous increases in rates to business and commerce. If it is not coupled with a licence on the spending limit the proposition for business is not good.
I suggest that the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, was rather fanciful in his imagination about what we were likely to do with social services, education and other services. His imagination worked overtime and he appeared to go over the top in his assumption. The noble Lord specifically mentioned primary and secondary schools. The one thing that we have done is to push down the control of those schools to where it properly belongs; that is to parents, teachers and governors. I was a member of a county council and vice-chairman of an education authority. As a councillor I attended many meetings, read my papers and was on top of all the agenda items. I believe and shall continue to say that schools are better schools if they are staffed well, have good head teachers, responsive parents and children who are prepared to learn. That is what makes a good school and not the local education authority. I say that only as a counter to what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart. I make no suggestion as regards the structure of local government because education will remain a responsibility for local authorities.
The commission's terms of reference in the clause are brief. The issues are dealt with in the guidance to the commission which is intended to expand them. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, was right in saying that if there is not detailed guidance there will he real problems. I promise him that there will be guidance and that it will address many of the points of anxiety raised by Members of the Committee in the debate. The guidance states that the commission should seek to recommend the structure of local government which enables individual unitary authorities to have responsibility for all local government functions unless there are clear reasons for different arrangements. The significance of establishing local authorities which match communities will be lost if those authorities do not have such direct responsibility. Similarly, the guidance also states that the commission should take into account the need for authorities to have an adequate tax and grant base, such that they have financial stability.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Peyton about minimum size. The Government have made clear the
366
fact that it would not be appropriate to proscribe size limits for unitary authorities as that would limit the commission's ability to recommend the best local government structure for each area. The move to enabling authorities calls into question the idea that there is a right size of authority for effective service delivery. I agreed with all the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis.
I must point out to my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale that the Bill has nothing to do with taking functions away from local government. That issue was raised by several Members of the Committee. I assure my noble friend that, as is now the case, unitary authorities will be able to draw on each other for services on an agency basis.
The Bill sets up a Local Government Commission which has some detailed guidance referring to all the issues that worry noble Lords. For instance, it ensures that strategic functions arc not lost and that individual services are not lost in terms of determining structure for delivering efficient and effective services. The last thing that we wish to do is to tie the hands of the Local Government Commission before it even sets out on that task. It is important to get local government as close to people as possible and to ensure that the unit of authority makes sense as set out in the guidance. I hope that the noble Lord will not press the amendment.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I am obliged to all Members of the Committee who have taken part in the debate. The Minister said that the debate had run wider than she had expected. That was exactly my intention in tabling the amendments. They were framed in such a way as to obtain the best possible reaction to their proposals. Indeed, I have received that reaction. The debate has been most useful not only to me but to others.
I agree with my noble friend Lady Hollis that efficiency does not necessarily depend on size. We need effectiveness which can be better achieved by smaller rather than larger units. It is achieved also by good political direction and excellent administration. After all, the authority which I had the honour to serve for 18 years and to lead for seven of those years was 125,000 strong. I thought that was a most convenient size and we ran an excellent education service. Later the Department of Education wrongly said that councils such as Reading could not possibly run a decent education authority because it did not have a population of 500,000. I thought that was absurd. Unfortunately, it led to the 1974 reorganisation which we all know was a failure.
Throughout time local authorities, large or small, have been the real experimenters. Central government have not brought new ideas into education and other services; the local authorities have done so. Therefore, I am happy to agree with my noble friend that large is not necessarily beautiful. I hope that at Maastricht next week the Prime Minister will take the same view. I got that in, did I not?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Yes, skilfully!
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I am also glad that my noble friend Lady Hollis is not advocating 500 small local authorities because that would be just as bad. I am pleased to have her assurance that that is Labour Party policy. I was also glad to have the support of the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, for the retention of existing services, because that is important. The noble Lord, Lord Peyton, did not like the amendment because it referred to "a sufficient size". I hope that I have reassured the noble Lord that we are not that far apart, irrespective of the wording of the amendment.
The Minister gave some valuable reassurances, in particular about services. I was encouraged by her assurance that the structure will not only reflect the need for authorities to administer and reflect the people in the local area and the local area itself but will also have a satisfactory financial base. The Institute of Directors is in favour of returning the combined business rate to the administration of local authorities. I am sorry that the Minister considered that most local authorities up and down the country did not always discharge their duty in a responsible and proper manner. In my view, they did. If local government is to be responsible, if it is to be treated as responsible, there is no reason—
Baroness Blatch: Does the noble Lord believe that the business community would like to go back to being rated by local authorities and forfeit the protection in law that it should not receive a rate increase greater than the rate of inflation? Would it forfeit that protection?
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I do not know. I only tell the Minister what has been said. Many employers' institutions would prefer to return to the system of local authority rating. I believe that they are right in that. Obviously there must be regular revaluations. There always have been and there will be in future. They have no greater guarantee that central government will not change their policy. It may be enshrined in law at present but our constitution is such that one Parliament cannot bind its successors. Therefore, there is no greater guarantee of protection under central government control than there is under the control of local government, which would administer the local rates in accordance with the needs of that area, including the needs of business. That is one of the problems of the combined business rate: it cannot allow a local authority to take into account the needs of businesses in local authority areas.
However, I have no doubt that we can have a much longer argument on this subject at some future date. I am grateful for the discussion which has taken place on the amendments. Having heard from my noble friends, other Members of the Committee and the Minister, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 153 not moved.]
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 154:
Page 12, line 5, at end insert:
("(c) to promote accountable, responsive and accessible local government;").
The noble Baroness said: In this amendment I shall refer to the other amendments grouped with it. I hope
368
that Members of the Committee will believe that Amendment No. 154 encompasses the spirit as well as some of the words of Amendments Nos. 156 and 161.
The amendment aims to provide that in recommending changes, the commission should have regard to the need to promote accountable, responsive and accessible local government.
I considered the words "effective and convenient" in paragraph (b) for some time before deciding that they do not go far enough. They suggest a top-down approach whereas many Members of the Committee have effectively described the bottom-up approach of good local government, reflecting its responsiveness to its own local community.
It is important that people believe that they have access to their representatives and above all that they understand the structure, the methods and arrangements in place locally. It is only if they understand that they can begin to be a part of the process. I should like to refer to a recent study commissioned by the Joseph Rowntree Trust on attitudes to local government—a report of a survey of electors. It said that there was general support for the role of local councils and local democracy. People support the idea of local government running most services and are opposed to central government control of local councils. Most people continue to believe in the benefits of local elections and feel more able to influence local affairs than those at central government level.
That is important because it is saying that local councils are able to speak more intelligibly and comprehensively to local electors than is sometimes achieved by others.
The report continues in its conclusions that there has been something of a polarisation of opinion over the past five years suggesting that attitudes to local autonomy may have been affected by increasing party politicisation of issues affecting local government. That also spells out a message that the course which local government is taking is rather worrying. I do not suggest that local government should not have regard to party political affiliations, but for many of us those are not the primary considerations: our own local loyalties, and not party loyalties, come first.
The report states that the other worry for local government is that people have become more cynical about local elections over the past 25 years. While most people still believe in their value, they are more inclined to believe that councillors forget their election promises or that local elections do not affect the way people live.
We should take very much to heart the conclusions of that report when considering what the commission should have in mind.
Perhaps I may report a short anecdote which I have already discussed with the Minister. I know that she shared my attitude to what happened. I was working at home one morning last week with my word processor and fax switched on, looking at the amendments to the Bill. My telephone rang. It was the bank manager of the bank with which my firm banks. I say that because he is not a person who has a great deal of time on his hands but obviously he thought it important to make the 'phone call. He lives in my

369
ward. He said, "Sally, can you help me? Who should I contact? There are a couple of very important street lights which are not working". That brought me right down to earth and gave me the right context for what we are considering today.
I am sure that other Members of the Committee also believe that we should keep our feet on the ground. We should be doing what matters to the people who are being served.
While I am speaking to this amendment, mention briefly Amendment No. 164 which refers to reflecting the overall objective of replacing two principal tiers with a single tier. I am rather sorry that that amendment is grouped with the other amendments because I am not sure that it is on the same subject. That amendment makes me wonder about consultation and hearing what we are told rather than making assumptions as to where we should start. It also raises the question referred to already by the noble Lord, Lord Morris, as to the place of functions in the process. However, I should not wish the commission to begin its work with any kind of notional blueprint.
I am sure that I have not covered all the ground which will be covered by the movers of Amendments Nos. 156 and 161. However, we are moving in very much the same direction. I hope that having heard comments on the group of amendments, the Minister will be able to assure us that the words in the Bill mean what vie want them to mean. We must spell them out clearly. I beg to move.
Baroness Young: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak to Amendments Nos. 156 and 161. Amendment No. 156 is in the name of my noble friend Lady Oppenheim-Barnes who cannot be here this evening. I listened with great interest to what the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said. I agree with almost everything that she said. Amendments Nos. 156 and 201 almost cover the same point. I do not wish to take up the time of the Committee by repeating the many arguments. However, I wish to make two points.
In the Citizen's Charter, which we shall no doubt debate on various occasions, the Government have rightly stressed the need to make local government more accountable both to citizens and consumers. The principle of accountability is one of the utmost importance.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, mentioned the Joseph Rowntree Report. Research carried out recently by MORI showed that there is now considerable confusion in the mind of the public regarding which tier of local government is responsible for which service. For example, an average of 55 per cent. of residents believe that refuse collections are a county council responsibility and 52 per cent. believe that education is carried out by district councils. That illustrates the point.
The Government appear to show interest in the matter. Paragraph 5 of the guidance to the Local Government Commission states:
"Unitary authorities are not only most able to reflect community interests, but also offer the benefit of clarifying accountability and responsibility".
370
My second point is that the London boroughs have clearly demonstrated that the link between a local authority and, in this case, the community charge—although it will apply just as much to a council tax or rating system—is much clearer when a single authority is accountable for all services. Therefore, the amendments which draw attention to the significance of accountability are important not only to avoid confusion of functions but also to make clear the link between costs and services. It may be that my noble friend feels that enough has been said in the guidelines. I shall listen with interest to her reply.
As regards Amendment No. 64, I share the doubts expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. It may be correct that the two principal tiers of local government in any non-metropolitan area can be replaced by a single tier. However, that is a matter for the Local Government Commission and not a Committee of this House. Therefore I do not support it. My amendments are probing amendments, and I look forward to hearing my noble friend's response.
6 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I support Amendments Nos. 154, 156 and 161 and speak also to Amendment No. 164 that stands in my name. I hope I may be forgiven for first posing the question of what the purpose of local government is. There can surely be little disagreement between us that it is partly about extending democratic rights and the pluralism of power and partly about building citizenship and participation in the exercise of power and making that power accountable and transparent. It is therefore about democratic rights. It is also about services—the fiscal infrastructure, the social wage, or the generation of wealth. And it is also about communities. At the heart of local government is the assumption that, for example, a southern historic cathedral city is different from a declining manufacturing town, a rural sea coast district or an inner London borough. Local government is about that difference and the need to respond to diversity of needs.
I hope to persuade the Committee that all three of those functions of local government—the building up of democratic rights and citizenship and the sharing of power, the provision of value for money services and the definition of a community in its distinctive needs and aspirations—are best met in unitary authorities and can only be met by local authorities; that is, district councils which are closer to the people they serve. That is why Amendment No. 164 is within the spirit of the preceding amendments.
Why should that be? Let us ask the people. Both the noble Baronesses, Lady Hamwee and Lady Young, quoted the Rowntree Report which found that 80 per cent. of the people who lived in single tier authority areas knew what the local government did while barely 40 per cent. of those in two tier structures had similar knowledge. The Rowntree Report argued that without that knowledge, democratic local government was not in a healthy state.
As between districts and counties, people identified district councils as their natural local authorities. From that the Rowntree Report—an independent

371
report—drew the conclusion that the local tier of local government should be the basis of a unitary local government system.
Portsmouth, until recently Conservative controlled, now hung but always well led, asked MORI to run a similar poll two months ago and found the same response. Nearly 80 per cent. of the population wanted a single tier authority; and 83 per cent. wanted it to be Portsmouth rather than Hampshire. The reasons were that it delivered better services, offered greater financial effectiveness and, crucially, was "get-at-able". Indeed, after 15 years, large numbers of Portsmouth people still thought the city council was running social and library services even though in 1974 they passed to Hampshire.
More people vote in district rather than council elections; more than three times as many know the names of district councillors rather than county councillors; many find their county councils remote; and most want services delivered by a town hall. That is why, if one follows the thrust of the guidance to the Local Government Commission, which I support, the presumption should be in favour of unitary authorities. Only if there are positive reasons for not going along that line should one depart. The issue should be linked, I suggest, to accessibility, accountability and responsiveness. All the research evidence illustrates that a new structure of local government must be single tier if it is to be efficient and effective, and local if it is to be accountable, accessible and responsive.
The research findings and the fact that all the county councils of which I am aware have had to develop sub-county structures to deliver local services illustrate that such councils are too large for personal services and too small for strategic planning services. If that is the case, if we want local government to be accessible and responsive to local people, and if we believe in single tier authorities, then the presumption must be in favour of district councils being the main body of local government authorities that result from the Local Government Commission.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Some experience of legislation has left me profoundly cynical as to whether putting high-minded and well-intentioned amendments into statutes has any practical effect. There are a number of examples which bear out the desirability of treating that thought with reserve.
Having said that, I find the intentions, particularly those of Amendments Nos. 161 and 164, on the whole sensible. One of the great improvements one hopes will arise out of the Bill is the abolition of two-tiered local government wherever it can possibly be abolished and its replacement by a unitary system.
On Second Reading I mentioned an experience from my home in Hampshire. We are in a remote country district and pay substantial local taxes to the borough of Basingstoke, a considerable number of miles away. The borough of Basingstoke levies those taxes upon us with the classic statement that five-sixths of the amount is not for its services but is demanded on behalf of Hampshire County Council located at Winchester at the other end of the county.
372
That kind of system makes local government seem remote from the ordinary citizen. It has the further disadvantage that those councillors who decide local authority expenditure do so in the happy knowledge that they will not have to answer personally and directly for levying the necessary funds.
Therefore, there is almost every argument in favour of going, wherever it is physically possible, into a unitary system. My understanding of what was said at Second Reading and what has been said by Ministers since, is that it is the intention that one of the major effects of this measure will be the abolition very widely of the two-tier system and its replacement by a unitary one. Therefore, although I will be very happy to see those well-intentioned observations to that effect and which are embodied in the amendments, put into the Bill, I do not know whether there is very much practical importance to be attached to that. At any rate, I believe that abolition will happen, but I should be grateful if the Minister would tell me so.
Baroness Blatch: I will not be drawn, and I do not want to be drawn, down the road of pre-empting the work of the Local Government Commission. I would be sad if the Committee did that by tying the hands of the commission. We have made it very clear that throughout this exercise there is a presumption in favour of unitary authorities. The noble Baroness pressed me to confirm that if two-tier authorities are to remain anywhere the country it must be for positive reasons and not simply to leave well alone. All kinds of things have to be considered in the balance: the cost of transition, the cost benefits of setting up the new structure and matters of that kind.
These amendments are really about effective and accountable local government. I can say with some confidence that almost everything that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has asked of the amendments and also my noble friend Lady Young is already either somewhere on the face of the Bill or in guidance to which the Local Government Commission will be directed to have regard. All these matters are there in different forms.
My noble friend Lady Young referred to the appropriate passage in the guidance which I believe addresses some of the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. I am absolutely convinced that if the Local Government Commission follows the guidance both procedurally, which it will have to do, and in the way in which it works, we shall get effective local government. Local government will he closer to the people and it will make sense to them.
We believe that the commission's term of reference will achieve the objectives which the amendments have in mind. Clause 13 of the Bill requires the Local Government Commission to have regard to the need to reflect the identities and interests of local communities as well as the need to secure effective and convenient local government in carrying out its reviews. A unitary structure of local government will certainly be more easily understood than the present two-tier structure where many local people do not know which council is responsible for particular services. That has been well illustrated by a number of speakers.

373
The recent survey Attitudes to Local Government published by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and referred to by a number of noble Lords, indicated that people living in single-tier local authorities knew more about their local authority's responsibilities than those living in areas with two tiers. Other surveys have confirmed and strengthened that message. Unitary authorities based on local communities will be stronger local authorities, more accountable to their electorates, better able to respond to local needs and more accessible to local people. All those factors were requested by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. I urge the Committee to accept my assurance that the commission will certainly be looking for accountable, responsible and accessible local government, and these amendments are therefore not necessary.
The purpose of Amendment No. 164 seems to be to test out the Government's commitment to the idea of unitary authorities and it may be helpful if once more I set this on the record. As our draft guidance to the Local Government Commission sets out clearly, we believe that local authorities should be based on communities. Clause 13 requires the Local Government Commission to have regard to the need to reflect the identities and interests of local communities. We believe that the Local Government Commission's assessment of communities will suggest that unitary authorities could be the most beneficial structure for local government in most areas. Unitary author ties are not only most able to reflect community interests, but also offer the benefit of clarifying accountability and responsibility. The draft guidance therefore specifies that the commission should look for structures consisting of unitary authorities, unless, as I said before, there are clear reasons for different arrangements.
The guidance adds, however, that in some areas the commission may wish to recommend the retention of the existing two-tier structure. We are anxious above all that the local government structure should reflect local communities. We do not believe it would be right to rule out, as the amendment suggests, that in some cases a two-tier structure may be appropriate. With those assurances I hope that all noble Lords will withdraw their amendments.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Wade of Chorlton: Perhaps I may add something to the debate. I am concerned that everyone seems to accept that county councils do not play any role in these matters at all and that it is time that they went. I am concerned with the implication that we shall end up with a great many small local authorities to deal with the specific issues which are part of the daily concerns of the people involved and that the next level is either central or regional government. It seems that we shall end up with many of the very important decisions and strategic matters which concern local people being decided by people a long way from the problem.
I do not accept the amendments that suggest that we should go speedily for unitary authorities which, even listening to the noble Baroness opposite, should not be very large. There will be many instances
374
throughout the rural areas where we shall end up with a two-tier system, or where if there is a unitary system it will be quite a large one and not a small local authority. I can see very considerable difficulties with local communities which are run very much in their own local interests. The wider decisions will he taken by people a long way away; regional government would include the views of the party opposite and the national government. Both those situations frighten me.
At present there are plenty of examples which indicate that the Government cannot make proper decisions on a regional basis because they are out of touch. They invariably make wrong decisions. Similarly, we do not want wider decisions made by very local people who are not influenced by what is best for the area because they are concerned about their own particular views which can be against the mass of interest. It is important that if we go for unitary authorities they should be of such a size and balance to enable them to take proper views within that context. We do not want to end up with a great many little councils involved with very local issues, but leaving to a national government the main issues which will affect so many people.
Baroness Blatch: Perhaps I may quickly respond. My noble friend illustrates very well that we should not be pre-empting or prescribing the work of the commission. Those cases are properly put to the commission as and when it is appropriate. We have not prescribed size or referred to sufficient size. It will be important that any recommendation that comes forward from the Local Government Commission is made in such a way that it is capable of effective delivery of services with a good tax and financial base and that it makes sense to local people. We shall have to put our cases to the Local Government Commission when it does its work.
Lord Burton: After many years on local government I have found that there seems to be a general deterioration in the standard of councillor. I believe that a great deal of the cause is attributable to the enormous amount of time-wasting which now takes place on councils. There is playing to the media and far too much party politics. I was delighted to hear those sentiments coming from the Liberal Benches. On my council we have a non-aligned group in order to try to deal with the socialist group which seems to spend a great deal of our time playing politics instead of getting on with our local government.
One hears about decisions made by democratically elected representatives. All too often the electorate does not get much choice of candidate. I believe the reason for that is that unless one is retired there can be very few working people who can find the time to sit through hours of discussion. I am finding exactly the same situation myself after many years. I am getting very bored with sitting on our council. Anyone who is prepared to serve the community should not have to sit through hours of unnecessary talk. It is also a terrible waste of the officials' time. Any legislation, particularly about the size of the authorities, must

375
take account of how much voluntary time can be expected of the administrators of the authorities and, as the amendment says,
"promote accountable, responsive and accessible local government"
such as ensuring that the street lights are working.
Baroness Hamwee: I thank noble Lords for their comments on this amendment and the other amendments grouped with it. In the first instance I shall take up the point which has just been made about the place of politics in local government. I do not suggest that politics has no place. Perhaps the reputation that has been created is because of the antics of a few, rather than the good work of many.
I believe that my words "accountable, responsive" —and I believe the Minister used the word "responsible" which I think was a slip of the tongue, it should have been "responsive"—and "accessible" are no different in type from "effective" and "convenient". I thought about them long and hard. I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. I would not suggest that extra words should be written in just for the sake of it. I think they are words that have a meaning in this context.
I shall pick up a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Wade, and the dilemma between strategic considerations and local considerations. That is a dilemma which exercises me and other noble Lords very much. It is something to which we shall be returning later this evening. In agreeing that it is a matter for the Local Government Commission to consider the end result of this work, this place is probably the most remote and least appropriate to prescribe what that result should be.
I have listened with great interest to the words of all noble Lords and particularly those of the Minister. I do not wish to press the amendment at this time. I should like to consider what she has said. It may be something to which we shall return. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Norrie Lord Norrie moved Amendment No. 155:
Page 12, line 5, at end insert:
("(c) to secure consistent arrangements in and between National Parks.").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 236. I speak as a recently appointed vice-president of the Council for National Parks, so I do declare an interest in achieving a satisfactory outcome on their behalf.
It goes without saying that our national parks encompass expanses of the most beautiful countryside in England and Wales and are enjoyed by about 100 million visitors each year. They are also places where people live and work, and both nationally and internationally they have become important as test beds for sustainable development in which priority is given to caring for the environment.
Of conservation assets, Ministers have frequently referred to national parks as the jewels in our crown. The proposal to reform local government risks inadvertently damaging those jewels, and that is a very deep worry.
The future of local government is inextricably linked with the future of national parks. Yet this Bill makes no provision for dealing with them. It is important to remember that the structure of national parks administration is set out in the Local Government Act 1972. That is an Act for which this Bill has major implications.
Our national parks are administered by national park authorities whose responsibilities include planning functions. Two-thirds of the membership of a national park committee, or board, are drawn from the membership of those county councils and district councils whose boundaries extend into or fall within a park. Over the past 40 years the park authorities have been severely disadvantaged by reluctance to delegate to them adequate local government functions. Arrangements have varied enormously from authority to authority resulting in confusion and inefficiency.
Recently there has been great progress. The Government have made clear their commitment to national parks in their support for the general thrust of the Report of the National Parks Review. This was undertaken by a highly respected panel set up under the aegis of the Countryside Commission.
The announcement in September that the Government intend that each national park should be administered by an independent authority is particularly welcome. Currently only the Peak District and the Lake District are administered in this way. As my right honourable friend the Minister for the Environment and Countryside said in a press release issued by the Department of the Environment on 20th September:
"This Government's acceptance of the Countryside Commission's and Countryside Council for Wales's recommendations for independent status for all the parks is a strong public indication of our commitment to their protection and the importance with which we regard them".
The many voluntary organisations which are involved in the Council for National Parks consider the establishment of independent authorities to be the most important change that can be introduced to make the parks more effective in meeting the expectations that society places upon them. That is why my Amendment No. 155 is so important, because it would ensure that the parks are not adversely affected by changes to local government structure, and that the Government's intention to establish independent authorities can be fulfilled.
I am very much afraid that as the Bill stands it risks, unintentionally, causing the national parks to be caught up in the area by area deliberations of the Local Government Commission. My noble friend is well aware that this is why I believe that the Government should introduce legislation in this Bill giving effect to their intention that each national park should have board rather than committee status. Much uncertainty and disruption could be avoided if this were done before the Local Government Commission sets about its business.
I hope that in responding to these amendments, my noble friend can reassure me of the Government's good intentions for national parks. In particular, I

377
hope the Minister will give very serious consideration to the merits of providing for independent authorities in national parks in this Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Hunt: I am very happy to say a few words, having put my name down in support of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, by way of emphasising and putting a slightly different slant on what he so clearly said.
I too am most anxious that the opportunity provided by this Bill should not be missed to remove an anomaly, and in terms of the amendment, an inconsistency, which has persisted ever since the national parks or the Broads were created at different times during the 1950s by which two of the parks —the Lake District and the Peak District—are run and administered by boards having full planning powers and being independent of the local authorities in whose territory they lie on the one hand, and on the other the remaining eight parks being run by committees of the county council.
During my six years as the first president of the Council for National Parks—I may say that I am so delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, is now the vice-president—I was constantly struck by the contrast between the powers and effectiveness of the two boards on the one hand, and the committees on the other. I received a letter from a former chief officer of one of those boards—the Peak Board—who was in post for 16½ years which bears on this point and makes it very well. I shall read a brief extract from what that former chief officer said:
"It became very clear in my time there that the achievements of the hoard were only made possible … because of [its i independent status] … in particular in pioneering new ways to reconcile conservation, recreation and a concern for local livelihood".
He went on to say:
"The county committees … had much greater difficulties with remote county [councils] which often did not seem to understand the National Park task or to give it sufficient support".
In that connection it is quite interesting that the Countryside Commission, in a submission to the Department of the Environment and to the Welsh Secretary about reform of local government in England and Wales, which resulted in the 1972 Act way back in 1971, concluded that for all-round performance the Peak District is in a class by itself with the other national board, the Lake District, closely behind. That comes close to saying that, as a result of those contrasting management systems, there are two classes of national park; a first class park in two cases, the remainder being second class parks. That was far from the intention of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949. All were supposed to be equal in value, and indeed they should be.
I have two points to make about the Bill. As it stands, it would appear to require the Local Government Commission for England to review structural and boundary arrangements and make recommendations for changes without taking account of' the existing boundaries and the existing management systems of the national parks. As it stands, the commission is enjoined in Clause 13(5),
"to reflect the identities and interests of local communities",
378
without regard to the national identities and national interests, which are such a fundamental feature of the national parks, as defined by the 1949 Act. I therefore hope that the Minister will either accept the amendment or, as I understand this to be really a probing amendment, to agree to consider bringing forward a government amendment at Report Stage to upgrade the status and secure the boundaries of the national parks.
6.30 p.m.
Baroness Nicol: We too support the purpose of the amendment. The Labour Party strongly supports the concept of national parks, which were established, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said, under our National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949, though at that time the full potential of their ideal was not realised because of the change of government in 1951. Since then, however, there have been great changes in the national parks.
There has been a greater realisation of the need to protect the diversity of our eco—systems. There have been enormous changes in agriculture, particularly its intensification. The postwar growth in prosperity made mass car ownership possible, fuelled demand for second homes and put new pressures on the countryside. We are concerned that much unnecessary damage has been done to conservation over the past decade and we are determined to put it right where possible. We are committed to putting into effect the proposals of the Common Land Forum and to increasing protection for national parks. We wish to consult on the creation of new parks, which we hope will include the New Forest. However, I re-emphasise the view we put forward in our environmental policy statement An Earthly Chance that although some sites such as national parks and areas of natural beauty are special and deserve extra protection, this can never be a substitute for careful management and conservation of the whole countryside. But having said that, we give broad support to the call of the National Parks Review Panel for independent park authorities. We accept that each park should have its own authority whose sole purpose is the protection of the park. The illustrations given by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, show clearly the difference of achievement when the authority is independent and is concentrating solely on the park.
However, we would wish to ensure that a good proportion of the members of the new authority have some form of electoral legitimacy. At the moment there is strong local authority representation. We think something of that kind must continue. We should also like to see the users of national parks represented on the authority as well as the various types of expertise which will of course be needed. We are convinced that to establish a suitable membership for the new authorities consultation will be needed. The new authorities will need to embrace regional as well as local interests since the parks are, as others have said, a regional resource. It will require careful and thorough examination to get it right and to see that potential clashes with strategic management are avoided.

379
The amendment is necessary because piecemeal changes to the present system could cause chaos in those parks which at present do not enjoy an independent authority. The noble Lord, Lord Norrie, mentioned the Peaks and the Lakes, but we also have the Broads, which has its own special independent authority. I am sure that my noble friend Lady Hollis can vouch for that as she has been closely involved with the Broads and is aware of the great success that has come from that arrangement. Without the amendment the remaining eight parks would face a period of administrative muddle which could be very damaging. We were unable to find out earlier today how long the noble Baroness envisages this whole process taking. But if it were stretched over a long period, one does not need very much imagination to see what a disastrous effect it could have on those parks that are presently an amalgamation of various authorities.
In their 1987 manifesto the Conservatives promised to implement the proposals of the Common Land Forum and to legislate to protect national parks. Neither of those promises has so far been fulfilled. This amendment offers a last ditch chance to redeem at least one of them. I hope that the Government will seize it.
Lord Moran: I was glad to put my name to the amendment. It is an open and shut case. It would be illogical and silly for the Local Government Commission to come up with different arrangements for national parks in different parts of England and Wales. That is why the first amendment calls for consistency. If we have consistency we should obviously follow the best practice.
This has been looked at carefully by the National Parks Review Panel under the chairmanship of Professor Ron Edwards. The case for and against independent status for national parks is discussed fully at pages 97 to 100 of its report. The review panel came down firmly in favour of independent status for national parks, a status enjoyed already, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, pointed out, by the Peak District and Lake District national parks and also by the Broads Authority. If that is the best practice, it is sensible to carry it out.
We were greatly encouraged that Ministers announced on 20th September that they favour the appointment of independent authorities in national parks. It would seem sensible therefore to include a clause in the Bill to give effect to that proposal and so prevent national parks being damaged in a long and messy process of reorganisation. I hope very much that the Minister will be able to say whether the Government agree.
Baroness White: I strongly support the proposals put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, and those who have spoken. I do so particularly because of my Welsh connections. Three of the national parks in the United Kingdom—or, at least, in England and Wales, as Scotland does not have them—are in the
380
Principality. We are undergoing a quite different exercise in local government reorganisation, to which I may refer later on in regard to another amendment.
It would be most undesirable if there were not consistency between the administrative arrangements for the three parks in Wales and the others in England —the eight parks, the Broads, and the New Forest, should that come about. It would be extremely confusing for all concerned and it would be highly undesirable in itself. The conclusions of the review body were clear and logical in the matter. I hope that we shall receive an assurance from the Minister that not only the recommendations of the review body but also the pledges given by Ministers of the Department of the Environment and of the Welsh Office, that such arrangements will be made and will be honoured for the national parks both in England and in Wales, have been taken on hoard by those who are organising the English local government pattern under the Bill.
I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Norrie—on this occasion at least, he is a noble friend—and my other noble friends on both sides of the Committee are all at one on this issue. It would be perfectly absurd if we did not receive an assurance today that the pledges given by the Department of the Environment and the Welsh Office will be honoured in the procedure which the Minister is advocating to the Committee.
Baroness Blatch: Perhaps I may say, first, that I am sure the Committee recognises the work carried out by my noble friend Lord Norrie; that is, not just his work in countryside matters generally but especially his work for national parks. I agree with all speakers in the debate thus far that they are indeed very special areas of land which require special status. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, was right to remind the Committee of the two parks run by the boards independently and the eight that are committees of the county council as a result of the 1949 Act. I can tell the noble Lord, and repeat the assurance and commitment which has already been given, that they shall have independent status and shall be separate authorities. However, that commitment was made in advance of the full review and all the impact of the review being considered in its detail. When these parks are established, it is important to set them up in a comprehensive way so that the detail can be properly addressed at the time.
I can also tell my noble friend Lord Norrie, the noble Lords, Lord Hunt and Lord Moran and the noble Baronesses, Lady Nicol and Lady White, that the work of the Local Government Commission will not do anything other than recognise the independent status of the parks; in other words, the department has said straight off that the parks shall be independent. Therefore, in any review which takes place in an area where there is a national park, it will have to be taken as read by the commission—and this is one area where prescription will apply—that that particular area of the national park will indeed be an independent authority as and when the Government put the legislation before Parliament.
I understand the wish for the early establishment of such independent authorities. Following the submission of the National Parks Review Panel Report, we have already announced our intention to establish

381
independent authorities for all the national parks in England and Wales. I hope that Members of the Committee will agree that it would be desirable to look at the establishment of independent authorities in conjunction with the rest of the review report. It is my appeal to all Members of the Committee who have spoken in the debate to accept that to put something quick in here which is not properly thought out as regards the detail of the review, would not be the most sensible way forward. But the guarantee of independence is indeed made.
The Government hope to publish their full response by the end of this year which, as we all know, is looming very shortly. Members of the Committee will appreciate that there are likely to be other matters which may require legislation. We would prefer a comprehensive approach to securing the future of the parks.
I hope that in the light of what I have said my noble friend will accept the assurances and that he will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
6.45 p.m.
Baroness White: Can the Minister turn her mind to the possible difference in time-scale between arrangements in England and Wales? It would be most unfortunate if we did not have consistency in the park arrangements. I say that because Wales is on a different time-scale altogether with its local government reorganisation, compared with what I understand is likely to be the English time-scale. I very much hope that the Government will recognise that, if they a re going to have these very desirable arrangements in the national parks, the two sets of parks should, so to speak, keep in step.
Baroness Blatch: I take note of the point made by the noble Baroness. However, a criticism frequently levelled at the Government is that they do not think legislation through. In this situation, I have to stress that I have given an assurance that the Government's response will be published shortly. It will be important for people to read that response. I am also conscious of the point that the noble Baroness made about timing, with the emphasis that the parks should be treated the same. Independence will be independence for all of them.
Lord Norrie: I should like to thank my noble friend the Minister for her full and helpful reply. As both she and I know, the Government's response to the National Parks Review Panel Report is eagerly awaited. I am sure that she will still understand my belief that this Bill is the ideal vehicle for establishing once-and-for-all independent national parks authorities. Once the Government's response is published, which my noble friend said will be at the end of the year, we can return to this question for further debate, be it in this Chamber or in another place. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 156 not moved.]
Lord Norrie Lord Norrie moved Amendment No. 157:
Page 12, line 5, at end insert:
382
("(c) to safeguard the special requirements of the planning system in accordance with Part II of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, including the preparation of separate Structure and Local Plans.").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I shall, with the leave of the Committee, speak also to Amendment No. 158. These amendments seek to ensure that the Local Government Commission will be required to pay special attention to certain local government functions when considering structural changes. I welcome the importance attached to the interests of local communities in Clause 13. but I believe that there is a danger of underplaying the importance of local government functions.
Amendment No. 157 concerns land use planning. That is arguably the most important environmental function performed by local authorities. During the Second Reading debate I described what I saw as the vital role of the two-tier planning system. The two-tier system is able to reconcile effective and accountable strategic planning at county level, with detailed local planning and development control by the districts. I was delighted when the Government recently confirmed their support for two-tier planning in the Planning and Compensation Act 1991.
I was particularly heartened by the comments made by my noble friend Lady Blatch towards the end of our consideration of that Act. She said:
"The planning system and the measures in the [Planning and Compensation] Bill will remain central in the Government's thinking as they work towards local government reform".
On Second Reading I asked my noble friend how the Government would ensure that the two-tier planning system was safeguarded during the reform of local government. These amendments seek to probe further on that crucial question. Therefore, Amendment No. 157 would require the Local Government Commission to have regard to the special requirements of the planning system.
Amendment No. 158 is related to the former but is more general. Its purpose is to draw attention to all the strategic services carried out by local authorities. I was very encouraged by the support expressed during Second Reading for the strategic role performed by local government, especially at county level.
For me, these amendments highlight an area where the Bill is seriously lacking. I fear the effect of local government reform which results in the creation of small unitary authorities. Small unitary authorities, based on existing districts, will be incapable of performing strategic planning and other strategic services. I do not believe that we can expect these functions to be performed effectively under joint arrangements. The comments made during Second Reading by my noble friend Lady Cumberlege and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, which I understand are based on considerable experience, confirmed my fears in this regard. I shall return to the inadequacies of joint authorities when we consider Clause 21.
My honourable friend the Minister for Housing and Planning, in a recent speech to the Association of County Councils, said:
"We are committed to local government. But we are committed to efficient and effective local government. And to achieve that there must be more strategic thinking".
He went on to say:
"Before any unitary authorities are established, it will have to be shown that issues of strategic planning, as well as local planning and development control, are satisfactorily covered".
But there is nothing on the face of the Bill to ensure that that is the case. Unless the commission is required to have regard to strategic concerns, there is a real danger that the review of local government will underplay those important considerations. The amendments seek to ensure that strategic concerns, especially strategic planning, are properly addressed by the commission. I hope that the Government will respond positively to the amendments. I beg to move.
Baroness Cumberlege: I second Amendment No. 158 moved by my noble friend Lord Norrie. In doing so, I should like to stress a view that was put forward on Second Reading and again during the course of today's debate. There is a consistent worry that in the Bill there is a lack of clear guidelines for making strategic plans and for implementing strategic decisions. The CPRE, the Association of County Councils, the Institute of Trading Standards Administration, the RSPB and others have expressed to me their real and valid concerns. The ACC cites 20 different services which have a strategic dimension. The RSPB cites the problem of competing neighbouring authorities, all wishing to develop their section of waterfront, thus destroying the habitat and altering the character of the whole estuary, with no one looking after the wider interest and holding the ring.
I could give many other examples, but I shall resist the temptation. I shall give just one. I know that no one wins elections by voting for a municipal tip. Local emotions run high, but in the wider public interest a tip has to be sited somewhere. To break the impasse there needs to be a wider strategic view distanced from the hurly-burly of the local areas involved.
It is important that clear guidelines should he incorporated in the Bill. During the debate, many Members of the Committee have stressed that there is an issue regarding the intimacy of local government; that it should be local and reflect local communities. Some of us fear that by ignoring the strategic dimension more and more will be done in Whitehall, and that local dimension will be eroded.
My noble friend the Minister has already stressed that the purpose of the Bill is not to diminish the role of local government, and many of us will rejoice in that. Of course I accept her assurance, but I fear that as more and more power devolves to Brussels there is a temptation for the Civil Service to do more, when our intention should be to decentralise to where people understand local needs and issues and are accountable to their electorate.
The amendment is designed to concentrate the mind of the Secretary of State to devise a sensible scheme for making strategic decisions on issues larger than can be covered by the proposed unitary authorities. I strongly support my noble friend on this amendment.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I shall speak to Amendment No. 157. No one in the Chamber can
384
doubt the need for a strategic framework for local decision making, especially, as the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, said, in terms of major land use policy, transportation and toxic waste. The difference between us may be the appropriate framework in which that strategic planning and decision making can occur. There is nothing strategic about county councils. They are not relevant to many environmental issues. For example, the Broads were cited by my noble friend Lady Nicol just now. They straddle Norfolk and Suffolk.
The region is a far more rational basis—this point will be explored on a later amendment—for true strategic guidance. It is within that context that we should be thinking—I hope with regional assemblies in due course—about the discussion of strategic decisions. I am sure that it is a more appropriate forum for co-ordinating the work of local government with English Nature, English Heritage, the national parks, and the water authorities which have a major implication for recreational facilities. They are all more comfortably calibrated with local government at regional level than they would be with county councils.
Below regions, it is of course unitary districts that matter for development plans and development control. The 1991 Act which occupied this place recently, accepted the primacy of district local plans. I believe that I am right in saying that the Government's original planning policy guidance proposed that county structure plans should become non-statutory guidance, and retained the separate identity of statutory guidance partly because we were aware that local government reform was on the agenda. The Government, wisely, did not want to pre-empt the final recommendations.
It is district local plans, not county structure plans, which contain the detailed landscape policies which are site-specific. Above districts, there are clusters of districts in joint arrangements which are now producing effective local co-ordinating policies, whether they be green belt policies, managing the bids of superstores in out-of-town developments, or countryside management projects along river valleys and the like. In other words, the bases of planning now are the building blocks of districts. Two or three districts may unite over certain green issues; four of them may come together for a tourism strategy; a dozen of them may be involved in a major transportation development; but in all those, the county councils as such are marginal—too large for detailed planning; too small for strategic planning.
If we were to accept Amendment No. 157, my understanding is that it would unacceptably narrow the scope of the Local Government Commission because it would mean that we would have to keep county councils for one function only—structure plans—or alternatively we would have to go for statutory joint arrangements, in which case a county council is not necessarily an appropriate body. Neither of those options provide a particularly fruitful way forward. I hope that the Committee will reject the formality of the amendment; that is, that we look to

385
the counties for strategic planning. We should think instead to where the strategic issue should now truly be explored, which is at regional level.
Lord Wade of Chorlton: I support those who say that the commission should have a responsibility to be aware of the strategic implications of the structures it creates,. I do not accept that strategic matters need to be looked at at a higher level—by a regional authority or at national level. It is national level which worries me the most. Even if decisions were made at regional level, and I do not agree with them being made there, at least the local authorities, whether they be unitary or any other size, should be aware of the strategic plans of which they are part.
I am worried that if the authorities are set up merely to look at a range of local issues, which are their main responsibility, and it is left to some other outside authority to decide on strategic issues with which they are involved, the local people will not consider the strategic issues and the wider issues in which they will all he involved. What is important is that even if there is a system whereby government have to be involved in strategic decisions, at least the local people should have a view of them and have a forum in which they can express that view. The final strategic authority that makes the decision should know their views.
I agree with my noble friend Lady Cumberlege that there is great anxiety that if nothing is included about the strategic responsibilities of the structures that the commission creates, it will be left to national government to take the important decisions, and they are the last people to decide what any local area or community wants. The commission's responsibilities should include a need for them to be aware of and create structures that have that strategic responsibility.
Baroness Hamwee: I have considerable sympathy with the anxieties expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, and the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, but this is not the place to express them. Subsection (5) deals with specific considerations of a different kind to which the Local Government Commission is to have regard. I have already expressed my wish to extend those in a different way and I do not believe that it would be right to be as prescriptive as the amendment suggests The wording in subsection (5),
"having regard to the need … to secure effective and convenient local government",
covers and puts firmly into the arena of the Local Government Commission the considerations of the strategic services referred to in the amendment. I do not by any measure underestimate the importance of strategic services, but this is not the right place to provide for them.
7 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: The Government fully appreciate the importance of the planning system and the role which local government plays on environmental issues. We have made it clear that before any unitary authorities are established, it will have to be shown
386
that the issues of strategic and local planning, and of other services, including those which protect the environment, are satisfactorily covered.
I am sure that the noble Lord has been reassured by the draft guidance to the Local Government Commission, which we have issued to the local authority associations and others for consultation. The guidance says that the commission should have regard to the need to establish authorities which cover areas such that they can carry out all their functions effectively, and do so in ways which reflect community interests. The guidance goes on to say that the commission should look for a structure to achieve the most effective exercise of functions and delivery of services consistent with community interests.
As has just been mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, it should consider convenience to local people and, in the case of strategic functions, the wider public interest. I know that that is an issue which concerns my noble friends Lord Wade and Lady Cumberlege.
The draft guidance also sets out more detailed advice specific to land use planning and environmental issues. We must keep repeating the status of guidance. It will be for the Secretary of State to instruct the commission to have regard to the guidance. In other words, it will be no good coming forward to Parliament with a recommendation for some structural change which has not addressed the whole issue of strategic and planning issues.
The importance of the planning system as a framework for ensuring that decisions about development take full account of the impact on the environment is emphasised. The guidance says that the commission should consider the need for better environmental protection in looking at proposals for change to local government structure.
Our commitment to ensuring proper arrangements for these important local government functions which are the subject of these amendments is clear. We have also made it clear that it would be inappropriate to prescribe arrangements for particular functions in advance of the commission's work. This would inevitably limit the commission's ability to recommend the best local government structure for each area.
The first of the noble Lord's amendments is therefore not acceptable on these grounds, and I hope he will not press it.
However, we do not wish to weaken the provision of strategic functions. We have made it clear that before any unitary authorities are established, it will have to be shown that strategic functions are satisfactorily covered. The draft guidance to the Local Government Commission states that the commission should be satisfied that functions for which a transfer of responsibility would take place can be performed in a way which is cost effective, more responsive to consumer needs and conforms with the statute and national policy requirements. It should consider convenience to local people; and, in the case of strategic functions, the wider public interest.
On the second amendment, I have spoken about the need to avoid prescribing arrangements for particular

387
functions in advance of the commission's work. Equally, we do not want particular arrangements to be ruled out. In some areas, it may be appropriate for planning responsibilities to be exercised by unitary authorities through the preparation of unitary development plans, like those currently prepared by London boroughs and the metropolitan district council. We are considering the drafting of Part II of the Bill in light of this need to keep options open.
Finally, I must repeat that in order to allay fears, strategic functions—for example, land-use planning, environmental considerations, environmental obligations, community care arrangements and the like—will not be lost or in any way diminished as a result of the Bill. I hope these amendments can be withdrawn.
Lord Norrie: I am grateful to the Minister for giving me such a full explanation. As a result, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 158 not moved.]
Viscount Astor: I beg to move that the House be now resumed. In moving this Motion, I suggest that the Committee stage begin again at five minutes past eight.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Waltham Forest Housing Action Trust (Area and Constitution) Order 1991
7.5 p.m.
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor rose to move that the draft order laid before the House on 21st October be approved [1st Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this is the second order designating a housing action trust. The House approved the order for the North Hull housing action trust in July. At that time, the ballot for the proposed housing action trust in Waltham Forest was about to start. The proposal was overwhelmingly approved and I am therefore delighted to be able to commend this order to the House.
The draft order relates to four estates in the London Borough of Waltham Forest: Boundary Road, Cathall Road, Chingford Hall and Oliver Close. All four illustrate the problems of the system-built housing constructed in the 1960s and 1970s. There are major design and structural problems with the buildings themselves, which consist of tower blocks, with extensive podium areas on two of the estates, and all are large panel concrete constructions. There are also major social and economic problems: high rates of unemployment, substantial numbers of tenants on housing benefit and/or income support and problems of crime and fear of crime. There is certainly also scope to improve the housing management.
A great deal of work has already been done to consider the best way of tackling the physical problems of the estates. The London Borough of Waltham Forest has studied alternative options to
388
refurbish the estates or to demolish and rebuild them with low rise housing on a traditional street pattern. It is quite clear there is no "do nothing" option. In a major consultation exercise in 1988, the council succeeded in contacting more than 80 per cent. of the tenants, over 90 per cent. of whom supported complete redevelopment.
Following discussions with the then Minister with responsibility for housing, the council and the tenants agreed to consider the possibility of a housing action trust. The necessary feasibility studies were undertaken in 1990, together with extensive consultation with representatives of the tenants.
When I commended the Hull order to the House, I said:
"The essence of the HAT is a good working relationship between all interested parties". [Official Report, 10/7/91; col. 1461.]
I emphasised the key role of the tenants, who have to be willing to vote for the HAT to enable it to go ahead. That depends on a full process of consultation before the ballot and of participation afterwards in the work of the HAT.
I am pleased to be able to report to the House that all this has been fully reflected in Waltham Forest both before and since the ballot. My department and the chairman of the shadow HAT, John Chumrow, have worked closely with the tenants' steering groups for each estate and the joint steering group at which tenants from all four estates come together. This partnership led to production of a tenants' expectations document, setting out what tenants would wish to see a HAT do and how they would wish it to work. This document, happily christened TED, was signed by my honourable friend the Minister, Sir George Young, the shadow chairman and the tenants in April.
This was the basis for the ballot, which took place in July. On a 75 per cent. turnout on the four estates, there was an 81 per cent. vote overall in favour of the HAT, ranging from 69 per cent. in favour on Boundary Road to 84 per cent. on Cathall Road.
I know that the chairman of the HAT is keen to maintain this close working relationship with the steering groups as well as with individual tenants. Since the ballot, constructive discussions have continued and tenants have attended shadow board meetings.
A shadow board of six members has been appointed, with John Chumrow as chairman, and five other members with experience of housing, management and consultancy. The Minister announced yesterday in another place his intention to appoint Councillor David Shepherd, the council's nominee, in the near future.
The Government have also agreed that the remaining four members should be residents, one from each estate. Ballots are currently taking place to select nominees for my right honourable friend, the Secretary of State to consider. I hope the full hoard will be appointed before Christmas with the all important inclusion of the four residents.
This is a major investment by the Government in redeveloping rundown estates. We will be spending £170 million over eight years in the Waltham Forest

389
HAT. The Government's HAT programme is fast gathering speed. We already have Hull and Waltham Forest will be the second HAT. Discussions are in hand with Liverpool, Tower Hamlets and Brent. My honourable friend the Minister will soon make a statement in another place on the programme as a whole. The designation of the Waltham Forest HAT is a key step in that programme, and I commend the draft order to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 21st October be approved [1st Report from the Joint Committee].—(Viscount Astor.)
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I do not for one moment intend to oppose the order that is before us. I am grateful for the Minister's detailed explanation of the events that have occurred so far. However, the tenants that are now having to opt for HATs are rather like a person who enters a restaurant and finds there i; only one item on the menu. Therefore he is obliged to choose that item; there is no alternative.
The Minister referred to system-built houses. I believe I was the first Member in another place to initiate a debate on system-built houses and the disasters they had turned out to be. For my sins I was the person who coined the term "forts" in relation to the system-built dwellings in Manchester. Successive governments, both Labour and Conservative, had caused those dwellings to be built. Those developments were purely concrete jungles.
It would be easy for me just to say that I accept this order and then sit down. However, I believe I should comment further on these appalling developments. A long time ago local authorities should have been given the financial means to tackle these developments. It is not insignificant that the first time a local authority was allocated funds to tackle these developments occurred not as a result of my debate in the House of Commons but after a plea was made by a Conservative Member of another place. Unfortunately he is no longer with us. Certain financial arrangements were made by the Government on that occasion as a result of that plea.
During the debate on system-built dwellings in another place, I obtained the full support of a Member who was then on the Back-Benches. I obtained the support of Mr. Christopher Patten who is the present chairman of the Conservative Party. Mr. Patten pleaded for another kind of system-built dwelling to be incluied in any grants that were to be allocated.
At that time tenants had already started to buy some of the system-built dwellings. Some of my then constituents in the Leeds West constituency had bought those dwellings but found at a later stage they could not sell them. One block of dwellings was known as the Smith houses and another block was known as the area houses. I do not have the entire list with me at the moment. The Government introduced a system under which a maximum grant of about £9,000 was allowed to any tenant who had bought a particular type of system-built dwelling, to enable him to carry out the extensive remedial treatment that such a dwelling required.
In another place I referred to the unfairness of that system. I believe this matter has also been mentioned
390
in your Lordships' House. I said it was unfair that council house tenants who remained tenants in system-built houses did not have access to the grant. Local authorities such as Leeds or Manchester that wished to improve the system-built dwellings still under their control had to bear the full cost of that through the housing revenue account. That meant such local authorities would have to use the rents paid by council house tenants to pursue such a course of action.
The Minister said this is the second HAT and that the programme is fast gathering speed. That is like saying I can run as fast as an Olympic sprinter. The Waltham Forest HAT is only the second HAT to be established over a long period. There is no indication of a rush of HAT programmes. Some people are deciding to choose that option because it is the only option on the table. The Minister said that over £100 million will be spent over a given period on this measure. Dare I suggest that if local authorities with system-built housing developments had been allowed access to finance on that scale, we would not have needed HATs in the first place?
I have tried to trace a little of the history of system-built dwellings. When I go to the station in Manchester I pass a development that is known as Fort Ardwick. There is also a development known as Fort Beswick. Those two developments between them constitute 2,000 units of accommodation, but they are totally empty. Nevertheless, they are still a burden on the other council house tenants in Manchester who have not received a penny from this Government to recompense them for the blunders that successive governments have made with the housing subsidy structure.
The right honourable Member for Morley and South Leeds, Mr. Merlyn Rees, had a system-built development known as Hunslet Grange in his constituency. That has now been demolished, but I understand it is still a burden on the housing revenue account in Leeds. It is a burden to the tune of over three-quarters of a million pounds per year. That sum will have to be paid until the 60 year loan period has passed. I do not have exact figures but I believe that Manchester is presently having to find £3 to £4 million a year—funded by its present council house tenants—to cover expenses on its system-built dwellings. Every city has these developments. Sheffield, Liverpool and every other major city has this type of dwelling which should never have been built. These developments are empty and in some cases have been demolished.
The Government have once again produced a programme that I would term an acceptable gimmick. People are grabbing at that gimmick because there is nothing else on the menu. I have spoken for a little longer than Lexpected to do. However, I was involved in this matter from its beginning. From the very beginning I was opposed to system-built dwellings. I have been proved right. All we in Manchester asked for was the finance to refurbish these dwellings. The Government have taken this action rather late in the day.

391
I welcome the fact that some people are opting for HATs because it is obvious from the Autumn Statement on finance and the Secretary of State for Scotland's Statement in the other place yesterday that there will be no extra money for housing in Scotland. I believe that the same problem must to some extent exist in Scotland.
Having put on the record why I believe that this situation could have been avoided, I accept the proposals which the Government have put forward today because there is nothing else on the table. If the Government wanted people in local authority housing to be treated properly, instead of going through all the nonsense of HATs, they could have solved the problem more quickly by allowing authorities which have run-down accommodation with poor facilities the finance to get on with the job of bringing that accommodation up to acceptable standards. If they had done that this exercise involving HATs would have been unnecessary.
Having said that I have no desire to oppose the order the Minister has placed before the House.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I welcome the noble Lord's support for the order. I fully understand his anxieties about housing. In no way do the Government disagree with much of what he has said. That is why we are taking this action.
It was a little unfair of the noble Lord, Lord Dean, to say that housing action trusts are a gimmick. Spending £170 million over eight years is not a gimmick. It is the result of genuine concern.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, my point is not that that is a gimmick; denying local authorities access to money to deal with the problem before HATs became necessary is what I regard as a gimmick.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I apologise if I misunderstood the noble Lord. It is important to note that housing action trusts are not concerned solely with the expenditure of public money. They represent a fresh approach to the development and management of very difficult estates, which involves partnership with tenants and all those concerned.
We invited local authorities to put proposals to the department on HATs at the end of September and we are considering other proposals. It is important to note that our policy towards these very difficult estates is not just a question of money; it is a question of a fresh approach. That is what we intend with the HATs.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Designated Countries and Territories) Order 1991
7.23 p.m.
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor rose to move that the draft order laid before the House on 25th November be approved [4th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this order is brought forward in the furtherance of an objective
392
which I believe has the support of us all. I shall not therefore detain your Lordships with lengthy explanations. In short, the order enables us to advance into a new area of international judicial co-operation against serious crime. It does so by enabling us for the first time to comply with requests from other countries to freeze or confiscate the proceeds of offences other than drug trafficking.
Thus we shall be able to immobilise funds which are suspected to be the proceeds of, for example, international fraud or of extortion while their origins are investigated. Once a confiscation order has been issued by a court of a designated country we shall be able to act on behalf of that country to remove those funds from circulation and to prevent their reinvestment into crime.
The order is closely modelled upon a number of Orders in Council which were approved by this House earlier this year, the last, under the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986, concerning the enforcement of confiscation orders in respect of drug trafficking proceeds. By those earlier Orders in Council we have already designated a number of countries with which we have negotiated a drug asset confiscation agreement. The present Order in Council performs a similar function in relation to three countries—Italy, Nigeria and Sweden—with which we have concluded broader confiscation agreements in relation to the proceeds of all serious crime. As such it will enable us to implement our agreements with those countries.
In addition the order is one of the pieces of subsidiary legislation which must be put in place before we are able to ratify the 1990 Council of Europe Convention on Laundering, Search, Seizure and Confiscation of the Proceeds from Crime.
The order has been considered by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. I therefore beg to move that it be approved.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 25th November be approved [4th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Viscount Astor.)
Lord Richard: My Lords, perhaps I may start with a mild complaint. I understand that the order was considered only this morning by the Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments in another place. It seems a little rushed to have it considered in one House in the morning and in the other House in the evening. Having said that, it is a mild complaint which the noble Viscount, Lord Long, with his customary enthusiasm for the procedures of the House, will no doubt wish to take on board and register with the Government.
As I understand it, Part VI of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 enables the courts to order the confiscation of the proceeds of certain offences of which a defendant has been convicted and from which the defendant has gained at least £10,000 from his activities. The offences concerned are indictable offences, and some others, but, as the noble Viscount said, not drug trafficking offences which are dealt with under legislation. Section 96 of the 1988 Act is concerned with arrangements which may be made to

393
allow confiscation orders made in countries outside the United Kingdom to be enforced here. The order is made under that Act.
The draft order is concerned with setting up arrangements for the enforcement in the United Kingdom of confiscation orders made by courts in certain designated countries. As the noble Viscount said, the three which are listed in Schedule 1 to the draft order are Italy, Nigeria and Sweden. That is a development of which we approve. It is important that such arrangements are made so that where defendants have been convicted in foreign jurisdictions there is a chance of confiscating property in others. I support the Motion.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Richard, for his support for the order. Perhaps I may answer his first point. The order was originally put down last month and then withdrawn because there was discovered to be a very minor technical defect in the drafting. I imagine that that is why the rather strange timetable was adopted.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Viscount Long: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.5 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.28 to 8.5 p.m.]

Local Government Bill [H.L.]
House again in Committee on Clause 13.
Lord Teviot Lord Teviot moved Amendment No. 159:
Page 12, line 5, at end insert:
("(c) to ensure the cost-effective exercise of local authority functions and planning and delivery of local authority services.").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 159, I wish to discuss also Amendment No. 166 which is ancillary to it.
Baroness Blatch: Perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to intervene. I understood that Amendment No. 159 was grouped with Amendments Nos. 174 and 193.
Lord Teviot: My noble friend is quite right. I apologise. Amendment No. 174 is in the names of my noble friends Lord Norrie and Lady Cumberlege. Amendment No. 193 is in the name of my noble friend Lord Wade. I am delighted to take those amendments. We have talked to each other, and the summing up will be brief.
As I made clear at Second Reading, my interest in the Bill centres on two specific categories of service to the public: public transport and record offices. In her reply at the conclusion of that debate, my noble friend the Minister acknowledged the importance of strategic planning and the value and expertise of specialist local government services. However, I know that other noble Lords believe as I do that Clause 13 as drafted does not adequately reflect that importance. Other noble Lords have expressed concerns similar to mine in the context of local authorities as a whole
394
other specific services. The provisions are all right as far as they go but that is not very far. Subsection (5) (a) is designed,
"to reflect the identities and interests of local communities"
and is clearly essential. Likewise, subsection (5) (b) is designed,
"to secure effective and convenient local government".
It would be hard to object to that. However, the wording is extremely vague and general and needs to be made stronger and more explicit so as to point clearly to the need for authorities to do vital things: first, to think strategically; and secondly, to secure the cost-effective delivery of specialist services.
My first concern is transport. There is now consensus—almost all shades of opinion, political and otherwise are agreed—that a new approach to transport policy is needed. It is generally accepted that we cannot provide enough road space for everyone who would like to travel by car. Wherever practical, we have to encourage people to change back to other forms of locomotion such as walking, bicycling and especially travelling by bus. That encouragement has to he provided by a whole range of measures, some at the disposal of central government but others essentially of a local character to do with traffic and parking management, land use planning and the promotion and co-ordination of public transport services. A piecemeal approach will be doomed to failure. Local measures will have to be carried out as part of a single coherent plan for the entire area in which people live, work, shop and find their recreation. To prepare such a plan there must be an authority which covers the whole of that area.
My other concern is about the archive service which in the shire areas is at present provided almost exclusively by county record offices. As I said at Second Reading, the service is used by more than 300,000 people each year for purposes of academic research, leisure interests and legal and administrative inquiries. To provide that specialised service one needs teams of highly skilled specialists which cannot be divided into smaller units without threatening their viability.
Clause 14(5) and Clause 21 provide for the creation of joint authorities and I propose to return to that subject later in the context of my Amendment No. 223. However, experience and common sense suggest that joint authorities should only be used as a last resort. As regards transport planning, coherent strategies of the kind that we now need will not be produced by disparate gatherings of representatives, each having his or her loyalty not to the whole but to the narrow advantage of his or her local unitary patch. Let us suppose that a town achieved unitary status separate from its hinterland. Such rivalries between the town and the adjoining authorities would defeat any attempt at co-ordinated policy making.
I return to the question of archives. In the archive services the experience of metropolitan areas in the wake of the abolition of the metropolitan county councils in 1985 gives a clear warning that joint authorities do not automatically give sufficient safeguards. There is little positive evidence overall to suggest that the difficulties of maintaining a

395
comprehensive service, held together only by the voluntary involvement of districts, have been balanced by positive advance and achievement.
That all points clearly to the conclusion that wherever possible unitary authorities should be large enough to discharge on their own the two functions that I mentioned. These two amendments would therefore add two new paragraphs to the provisions of Clause 13. The first one would insert a third paragraph (c) in subsection (5) requiring the Local Government Commission to have regard additionally to a third characteristic of any new local government structure; namely, that it would:
"ensure the cost-effective exercise of local authority functions and planning and delivery of local authority services".
The second insertion would be a new subsection (7) expressly requiring the Secretary of State to take account of the criteria set out in Clause 13(5) when preparing directions and guidance for the commission under subsection (6). I beg to move.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Norrie: Amendment No. 159 has the same purpose as my Amendment No. 174. My amendment seeks to ensure that recommendations for local government reform are accompanied by supporting evidence. I find it disturbing that the Bill as currently drafted does not provide for the commission to demonstrate its case when making recommendations for structural reform. If the review of local government is to enjoy widespread public acceptance, I believe that the Bill should contain clear requirements for the objective and careful examination and presentation of evidence. That will be vital if the process is to be open and seen to be open to public scrutiny and influence.
There appears to be widespread agreement that any changes to local government structure should be fully justified in terms of cost effectiveness. I believe that it will not always be possible to justify the upheaval and costs involved in structural reform. That is why I support Clause 13 of the Bill which allows for the commission to recommend no change.
The comments of my noble friend the Minister during Second Reading led me to believe that the Government would support my view. Perhaps I may remind the Committee that she said:
"There must be proper justification for the inevitable upheaval and costs involved in reorganisation. Any change to structure should be both worthwhile and cost-effective".—[Official Report, 18/11/91: co1.714.]
However, I was disturbed by the statement made by my noble friend the Minister during the debate on Tuesday evening which suggested that the Government were approaching this matter in a different way. She said that there was now a presumption in favour of change and that the onus lay on the existing two-tier structure to provide clear reasons why reform was not necessary.
I believe that that exposes some confusion in the Government's approach. I wonder whether the Minister could clarify exactly the Government's position and say why it appears now to be biased in
396
favour of change despite the costs? I still believe that it should be the other way round. The commission should be required to demonstrate the case for change where appropriate and provide evidence to support it.
I note that in the draft Guidance to the Local Government Commission, recently issued by the Government for consultation, it is stated that:
"Change to the structure of local government should be worthwhile and cost-effective".
I also note that the Government intend to issue specific guidance on how to assess costs and benefits.
However, this issue is so significant that I believe it would be wrong if the Local Government Commission were not under a statutory obligation to demonstrate the case for change. Certainly I should welcome detailed advice in the form of special guidance on how a proper assessment of costs and benefits might be achieved. But I do not think that it will be enough to assist the Local Government Commission and ensure that it approaches its task in a thorough and consistent manner.
I have another concern in relation to measuring the costs of change. The financial implications for local government reform are clearly important; but there are other kinds of costs which are not easily assessed in terms of monetary measures and I would include environmental costs in that category. I fear there is a risk that by concentrating on financial considerations we may ignore less quantifiable costs such as costs to the environment or in terms of quality of life. For that reason I have chosen in my amendment to refer to disbenefits rather than costs.
It would be unacceptable if, in making proposals for local government reform, questions of environmental quality and the wise use of our land resources were not taken into account by the commission. I should not like to see these matters treated less seriously by the commission just because they are more difficult to assess. My amendment would place a statutory duty on the commission to demonstrate the case for change, taking into account all relevant considerations including environmental protection. I believe that the amendment points up a serious shortcoming of the Bill as it is drafted at the moment. I urge my noble friend to consider it very carefully.
Lord Wade of Chorlton: I should like to support my two noble friends in their two amendments and to draw the Committee's attention to my amendment, Amendment No. 193, which is grouped with them. My amendment seeks to draw attention to the fact that the Local Government Commission cannot put forward any recommendations for structural change unless it has considered the transitional long-term financial implications of that change, and ensured that it has been calculated effectively. The commission must also be of the opinion that any additional cost is fully justified.
My noble friend Lord Norrie referred to the comments made to my noble friend the Minister during the Second Reading of the Bill. At the last reorganisation in 1974, at present day prices some £280 million was the cost of extra payments to staff, new buildings and so on. The total cost of local government just before reorganisation in 1973 stood

397
at about £9 billion and two years later it ran at £15 billion. So there is the cost to the people who pay the bills—they are not those in this Chamber or in government but the people out there; they are the people who have to pay for it all. They were confronted with extra costs of at least £3 billion as a result of the last reorganisation. The cost of local government now runs at some £40 billion per annum. Again, it is the people out there who have to pay for it all. I do not speak on behalf of the people in local government or in government or of Members of the Chamber or the other place; I speak on behalf of the people who ultimately have to pay the bill. I do not propose that no extra costs should be involved; I propose that the commission considers carefully the costs of any changes that it puts forward and justifies any increased costs that may be incurred as a result of its recommendations.
The Government have previously indicated their great worry about the ultimate costs of legislation and the changes that they propose. However, it surprises me that in this Bill they have not referred to the costs that may be involved. I believe that it is a very serious issue. We have a responsibility to all those who ultimately have to pay the bills to keep the cost to an absolute minimum. We have a responsibility to show independently that any costs to those persons are fully justified and that they receive full benefits.
It is an important issue. I expect the Minister to indicate clearly that it is the Government's intention to draw to the commission's attention that it must take those serious matters into account. If it is not possible for the Minister to do so, we may have to refer strangly to the matter at Report stage or other stages of the Bill. I hope that the Minister will give us the reassurance that we seek: that the requirement to consider costs will clearly be written into the Bill.
Earl Howe: Perhaps I may turn first to Amendment No. 159 and address my noble friend's anxieties about cost effectiveness and the strategic issues that he raised on transport and archives. The statutory terms of reference of the commission already include a requirement to have regard to the need to secure effective and convenient local government. The terms of reference of the commission are briefly stated in the Bill. But we have set out in more detail the policy which we propose that the commission should follow in the paper on our draft guidance to the commission which we have issued to the local authority associations and other organisations for comment.
In the draft guidance we have made very clear the importance which the commission should attach to cost-effectiveness in the delivery of functions and planning and delivery of local authority services. The guidance states that the commission should have regard to the need to establish local authority areas such that the authorities can carry out their functions effectively. The guidance also says that the commission should look for a structure to achieve the most cost-effective exercise of functions and delivery of services consistent with community identities. It should consider convenience to local people, and, in the case of strategic functions, the wider public interest.
398
The guidance adds that in making its recommendations, the commission should be satisfied that functions for which a transfer of responsibility would take place can be performed in a way which is cost effective, more responsive to consumer needs and conforms with statute and national policy requirements. I do not think that one can be clearer than that.
However, it may be helpful to my noble friend if I read a short extract from the draft guidance under the section headed "Highways". It states:
"Planning for building and improvement of major roads needs to be coordinated for an area large enough to enable a proper balance to be struck between the interests of those in the immediate locality and wider interests. An authority which is large enough to deliver most local services may not be large enough to take this broader view, and the option of joint arrangements for some or all of highway functions may need to be carefully considered".
On the question of archives, where county councils remain, the existing arrangements for archives can most certainly continue. Where they cease to exist, a number of options for archives can be considered. It is unusual, but not without precedent, for archive powers to be given to district councils under present arrangements. Therefore one option would be to extend archive powers to all unitary authorities.
I recognise that it may well be unsatisfactory for the archives to be split but it would be possible for the successor authorities to come to an agreement about voluntary joint arrangements. In the absence of an agreement, it would also be possible for the Secretary of State to impose statutory joint arrangements. A further option would be to designate one authority in an area as solely responsible for archives.
I assure noble Lords that those who are interested in the archives service will have ample opportunity to make representations both to the Local Government Commission and to the Secretary of State before decisions are taken about the restructuring of local government in any area. When considering recommendations of the Local Government Commission which might involve county councils ceasing to exist, the Secretary of State will naturally have regard to the future of the archive service among other things.
The other two amendments that we are considering seek to prevent the Local Government Commission from recommending changes to local government structure unless it can prove that the benefits of any proposed changes outweigh the disadvantages. We have always made it clear that the costs as well as the benefits of change will be a key factor in decisions about changing local government structure. I can reassure the Committee that the commission will certainly not recommend change to local government structure without a proper justification for the costs and upheaval involved. By costs, I refer not only to the transitional costs but the recurring costs of change. There is a presumption in favour of change to unitary authorities. However, that change must be justified by the commission. It must not be change for change's sake.
It may be helpful to Members of the Committee to know that the department has commissioned a firm of consultants, CSL Group Limited, to advise on this issue. It has been asked to advise on two questions: first, it was asked to advise on the appropriate costs

399
and benefits to be taken into account in assessing a structural change; and, secondly, it was asked to recommend a methodology for assessing those costs and benefits. It is expected to produce its report shortly. It is intended that the report should be used as a basis for providing guidance to the commission on those issues. We intend to consult the local authority associations on such guidance in due course.
I believe that in the end we must trust the Local Government Commission to be an effective guardian of local government. If I detect a hesitation in that regard on the part of my noble friends, I hope that what I have said will reassure them sufficiently to enable them to withdraw the amendments.
Lord Desai: I am interested to know that the Government have asked a group of consultants to advise on the issue. A formidable problem is posed by the amendments. The spirit of the amendments is entirely correct: that as we propose changes we must be careful that they are cost effective. That is a good general principle. However, I worry about the requirements of the amendment referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Wade of Chorlton, and other noble Lords, on the transitional and long-term financial implications of the change. I speak as an academic. It may be impossible to know the long-term financial implications of a change until long after that change has been made. Let us take our minds away from local government. Let us consider the costs and benefits of having joined the European Community. Twenty years later we still do not know whether or not the long-term costs and benefits of that change justify it.
I understand a demand for prudence. One ought not to undertake vast changes which are costly and which cause many problems. I refer to the reforms of the 1970s.
Lord Wade of Chorlton: I appreciate what the noble Lord says. However, it is not unusual in business for people to make long-term plans. The implications of their decisions may run for 10 years. Many people in various aspects of business have to make those long-term decisions. The implications of those decisions may be affected not only by the actions of governments but also, as the noble Lord so rightly says, by the European Commission. I do not think that it would be unreasonable to ask an organisation with the resources of the commission which will be considering the long-term impact of local government to look well ahead.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Desai: I can see the desire for prudence and forethought behind this clutch of amendments. However, being somewhat new to the game I am not sure how much they bind the commission to do things that it cannot be expected to do, even with the best of knowledge. I still am not sure whether we should saddle the commission with such provisions, or perhaps at a later stage review what it has done. The nature of the problem makes it difficult to predict the changes. The changes in local government structure in the 1970s were, with the best of intentions,
400
enormously expensive. No one could have foreseen that inflation would double within two years of the proposed changes.
The commission should be allowed to do certain things, bearing in mind those considerations, but it should not be compelled to provide, as is set out in the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Norrie:
"clear and demonstrable evidence that the benefits of such change outweigh the disbenefits".
I am not sure of any economics that can comply with that proposal. We pretend that they do but we could not send the matter to a court of law as proof.
Lord Teviot: This has been an interesting debate. The noble Lord, Lord Desai, made academic and erudite points, although I do not say that I absolutely agree with him. My noble friend Lord Howe referred to highway services. I was talking about public transport services but I shall read carefully what he said. His comments about the archives sound more encouraging. Again I shall consider what he said.
My noble friend Lord Wade said that this group of amendments relates to costs. He raised the valid point that in 1974 the costs to the Labour Government rose from £9 billion to £14 billion. I was a member of this Chamber at that time and I remember that it sat for hours discussing the Bill relating to reorganisation. The intention of that reorganisation was to slash costs by putting the small authorities together. It is appalling but costs rise when there is reorganisation. It also happened in 1971 as a result of decimalisation because every shopkeeper put up his prices. The whole thing was frightful! Because of the late hour I shall thank Members of the Committee who have taken part in the debate and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 160 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendments Nos. 161 and 162 not moved.]
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 163:
Page 12, line 5, at end insert:
("(c) to provide for the consideration of strategic issues at regional level.").
The noble Baroness said: The amendment is tabled not to create regional assemblies but to ensure that when those regional assemblies are created the work done by the Local Government Commission will not have to be unpicked because no consideration was given to the regional and strategic dimension. The Audit Commission notes precisely that. Perhaps I may go back a stage and ask, what do we mean by a region? I remember listening to a debate on the arts in this House. A Peer from London who was well informed about the arts talked about the need to maintain the great metropolitan flagships, such as the opera houses, in contrast with those in the provinces. That sounded as though the rest of England was a hinterland of home counties to Greater London and that there was an undifferentiated twilight world out there. The suggestion rather appalled me. Obviously, regions are where the natural features of geography interlock with patterns of culture, identity and settlement in order to create a regional distinctiveness. Obviously, some

401
areas are more marked than others; for instance, the South West, East Anglia, the North, Scotland and Wales. However, regional identity exists in most parts of the country. I firmly believe that within the next decade or so we shall see regional assemblies.
Why is that, and why should the Local Government Commission bear that in mind in terms of its structural review? There are four broad reasons. The first is to reverse the unhealthy centralisation of the past 13 years. A regional tier of government would allow us to bring down functions from central government; that is, DTI functions, regional grants, employment training, many transport functions and regional development. Those functions are already run at government level. We are not here to invent regional government but to democratise the regional government that already exists.
Secondly, such a body would take sideways the functions of many quangos. The last count I made in East Anglia showed that there were 26 such quangos spending public money but accountable to no one. They dealt with tourism, sports, the arts, water and the aspects of health. I wish to emphasise that we are not talking about inventing regional government—we have it at DoE level and at quango level—but we are looking for a devolved tier of central government.
Thirdly, I suggest that a few functions would appropriately come up from the county councils. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, is not in the Chamber. That refers back to an earlier debate about the need to maintain a strategic dimension in, for instance, planning and transportation. They are the kind of functions that the old economic planning councils carried out until they were abolished in the name of economy. However, they had promptly to be re-invented by local government and as we all gave ourselves attendance allowances the costs rose immediately. As a result we have SCEALA in East Anglia, SERPLAN in the South East, the Northern Region Councils Association, the Yorkshire and Humberside Regional Association and so forth.
Why are such bodies necessary? One has only to look at some of the issues that have been concerning planning. DoE and your Lordships' House during the past year. We have considered issues such as the impact of the M.25, the planning of the Channel Tunnel, the east Thames corridor proposals of the Secretary of State, the effects of the East Coast Motorway, and the management of national parks and green belts. English Nature, English Heritage and the national parks would more effectively be co-ordinated with a regional structure of government than they can be at the moment.
In addition, another function might relate to the police. Already 21 shire counties are in joint regional bodies. We may wish to integrate employment training initiatives with further and higher education on a regional basis. I repeat, regions are not meant to be super county councils; they are meant to be a decentralised tier of local government democratising central government and the quangos that we already have at regional level. It is the case that for strategic purposes county councils are too small. I hope that the
402
examples I have given of strategic planning and economic development will persuade Members of the Committee.
There is a fourth reason. Why attach it now to this report when we are asking the Local Government Commission to take on board a range of considerations in developing the future of local government structure? It is because we are moving into Europe and into a Europe of regions. In the past decade almost every European country has devolved powers from the centre down to regional governments and regional structures; for instance, in Scandinavia, Italy, Portugal, Spain and even France. Those regions are the building blocks of the new Europe. Much EC money is going not to national or to federal governments but direct to regional governments. Without such regional bodies Britain is disadvantaged. The Audit Commission stated at paragraph 8 of its response to the Government's consultation paper:
"There are signs that the absence of fora in which local authorities can come together to represent the interests of their broader regions is beginning to disadvantage United Kingdom local government in its representations to the European Commission in the use of structural funds. It is argued by many in Brussels that the EC will increasingly deal directly with regional authorities and member states on regional policy in particular. In most member states regional governments are growing in importance and seeking to strengthen their own links with European institutions".
The Audit Commission also states that it notes the absence of any discussion of the regional or European dimension and that is an absence that it regrets.
It is worth reminding ourselves that 40 per cent. of Europe's declining regions are in Britain and that one-third of our population lives there. Only in the South East is the European average for GDP exceeded and even then only on a par with West Germany's lowest performing region.
Without regional assemblies and, therefore, without a Local Government Commission considering the regional strategic issue, we cannot properly influence European regional policies. Instead, Britain is funding the regional development initiatives of other countries because we do not have effective regions of our own. That is a redistribution of wealth for which I do not care.
This amendment does not propose regional assemblies. It asks that the regional dimension be considered by the Local Government Commission so that future regional structures are not precluded or alternatively that the work of the Local Government Commission is not, in future, unpicked. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: I support the amendment. Members of the Committee will expect me to support it since it has been the policy of my party to support regional government—it is what people in the regions seem to want—for as long as I have been a member of it.
We shall certainly wish to see powers brought down from Whitehall to the regions. There is no suggestion in the report that powers should be taken up from local authorities. Again, it is a question of government at the most local level possible but with a consideration for regional issues.
8.45 p.m.
Baroness White: I had hoped that I should be listening to my noble friend Lord Brooks of Tremorfa, who has had considerable experience of local government in the Principality and has been a leading member of the South Glamorgan County Council for many years. Unfortunately a few hours ago I was informed that he is not able to be here this evening so I feel that I must say something about the situation in Wales.
I am fully conscious that the Bill before us refers only to England. However, it is important that Members on all sides of the Committee should recognise that in Wales we are currently undergoing a process which may lead to a drastic revision of local government. That is being done without the benefit of statute; in other words, we have no Bill to discuss. Therefore, it appears to me not improper to ask Members of the Committee to consider some of the problems in Wales.
There has been considerable anxiety that while England is to have a Local Government Commission, there is no such arrangement for the Principality. I have here a lengthy list with which I shall not weary the Committee of public bodies of one sort or another, voluntary or statutory, in Wales which are on record as either regretting that there is no Local Government Commission or demanding that there should be one. I suppose that NALGO might have been expected to make such a demand but I have here quotations from the County Surveyors Society, the Chief Fire Officers' Association, the Institution of Civil Engineers, the National Trust, the Association of Chief Officers of Probation, the Town and Country Planning Association—I refer to branches in the Principality—the County Planning Officers Association, the Assistant Masters and Mistresses Association, the National Association of School Masters/Union of Women Teachers, the Society of Education Officers and so on. They are all concerned that while there is a considerable opportunity for putting in written representations to the Secretary of State for Wales, there is no comparable independent body to examine matters and to assist the Welsh Office to reach conclusions.
Having listened to the debate today and having either listened to or read the debates earlier in the week, I am not sure that the initial indignation in the Principality is entirely justified. I am not convinced that we should wish to be associated with the sort of travelling circus which has been described by the Minister. Nor should we wish to endure between three and five years of uncertainty before knowing what is to be the definitive pattern. I am less enthusiastic about having a separate commission for Wales having listened to what is proposed for our big neighbour.
However, the fact remains that many of us are anxious about the pattern of single tier authorities. A good deal of argument is taking place between the districts on the one hand and the counties on the other. I do not wish to enter into that. It would not be germane to our discussions this evening. However, many of us are seriously anxious about the matter touched upon in my noble friend's amendment. As far
404
as I am aware, there have been only the most casual references by the Welsh Office to the strategic issues which should not necessarily be the sole responsibility of whatever is the final pattern of subsidiary authorities, county or district, single tier or two tier. There are strategic issues and it is important that we should know how it is proposed to handle them.
At present, so far as I have been able to discover, there is no substantive suggestion as to what body or in what manner strategic issues should be handled. My own view is that it will not be satisfactory if the Welsh Office is the only strategic planning instrument in the Principality. We need something more public. The Welsh Office may believe that it can deal with all the strategic issues. It follows that to some extent those matters will be dealt with behind closed doors. The Minister is now shaking her head. If she knows more about it than most of us do, we should be delighted if she would enlighten us as to what the Welsh Office is thinking at the strategic level, which has been the subject of discussion on various amendments this evening. That should not just be the purview of the Welsh Office in Cardiff. It should be open to more open discussion, information and consideration.
I do not wish to weary the Committee further with our Welsh problems. However, it is only right that Wales should be discussed when considering the new pattern. After all, we have a fairly close neighbour with whom we have shared a pattern of local government for quite a long time. If our local government is to be dealt with on a different basis from the pattern in England, then there should be more than a collection of individual or corporate opinions. As we are not having any legislation of our own, it is only right that we should use this opportunity to find out anything we can from informed government circles.
Lord Skelmersdale: I find it difficult to listen to arguments from the same people on the one hand for unitary authorities and on the other for a new local government tier in terms of the regions. That may not be what the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, is seeking, but I know that it is the policy of her neighbours to her right.
Baroness Hamwee: I am not sure if the noble Lord is suggesting that it is the policy of the Liberal Democrats that there should be unitary authorities and nothing but unitary authorities. I hope that I made it clear earlier that we believe that the solutions should come from the local communities. That may mean unitary authorities, but it may mean not only unitary authorities.
Lord Skelmersdale: I take the point, but that does not alter the fact that one of the interesting points to come out of the earlier discussion in the debate was that the new authorities, whatever they should be, will take on the existing functions of local government. As I understand it, the proposed new tier will be for new functions devolved from Whitehall. If so, this is not the Bill to deal with that.
Earl Howe: Amendment No. 163 extends the commission's terms of reference to require it to have

405
regard to the need to provide for the consideration of strategic issues at regional level. To a considerable extent I covered the wider point of principle when I replied to my noble friend Lord Teviot.
The Local Government Commission's role is to make recommendations for changes to local government structure, boundaries and electoral arrangements. The Government's position on regional local government is clear. We have no plans to establish a regional tier of local government. Nor do we believe that there is any evidence that people want it. That applies also to Wales. We want to simplify and streamline the arrangements; we do not want to create an extra layer of bureaucracy which would be a waste of taxpayers' money.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, spoke of devolved central government. Arrangements already exist for considering strategic issues at regional level. Many central government functions are administered regionally through government departments' regional offices. In the South-East and East Anglia my right honourable friend the Secretary of State issues regional planning guidance prepared in consultation with local authorities. That provides the regional context for land use and development planning. Progress is now being made towards establishing regional planning guidance in all regions.
Turning to the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady White, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales prepared a blueprint for Wales—as she rightly said —which contains a range of options for local government in Wales. That was prepared after the widest possible consultation. Although that range of options does not include regional government, it provides for no loss of existing functions and in particular for the strategic functions of local government. At this stage it would be inappropriate for me to go any further on that matter.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, mentioned SCEALA and SERPLAN. I know that my noble friend the Minister served on SCEALA for some time, as did the noble Baroness. Those are regional informal bodies which come together to discuss strategic matters. SCEALA is the Standing Conference for East Anglian Local Authorities and SERPLAN covers London and the South-East. Others exist which cover regional areas and they work extremely well. There is no reason for those informal co-operative arrangements not to continue. The difference between us is that the noble Baroness would give those bodies statutory status whereas we believe that informal arrangements work just as well if not better.
I should like to repeat what my noble friend the Minister said a little earlier in the debate. We do not want to weaken the provision of strategic functions. We made it clear that before any unitary authorities are established it will have to be shown that strategic functions are satisfactorily covered. Draft guidance to the Local Government Commission says that,
"The Commission should be satisfied that functions for which a transfer of responsibility would take place can be performed in a way which is cost-effective, more responsive to consumer needs and conforms with statute and national policy requirements".
406
It should consider convenience to local people and in the case of strategic functions, the wider public interest. The commission will be directed to have regard to the guidance and there is therefore no possibility that strategic functions will not be properly provided for.
That means that the commission will concern itself with effective delivery of all local government functions including the strategic functions. It may be worthwhile for me to read out a sample of the draft guidance on the subject of land use planning. It says:
"In exercising their development plan and development control functions, local authorities are acting in the interests not solely of the community they serve directly, but of the wider public. Development plans … need to be prepared for an area large enough to enable the authority or authorities concerned to take a broad and objective view on the distribution and location of development and areas of restraint".
That is clear and I hope reassuring. It is not appropriate for the Local Government Commission to have a role in considering regional arrangements for strategic issues. I hope that the noble Baroness will understand why we feel that that is so and not press her amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: Perhaps the noble Earl will give way. I speak as someone who serves on SERPLAN and was chairman of the members' policy group for a short while. In my view and that of many of my colleagues—I intend no disrespect to the noble Earl, Lord Caernarvon, who serves as chairman—SERPLAN is not a satisfactory means of regional planning. The Minister explained that we have regional planning by central government through the regional offices of the Department of the Environment. It is precisely that to which we are objecting. I hope that the noble Baroness, if she feels that she cannot take the matter further tonight, will feel that it is something to which we can return at a later stage.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I thank all the Members of the Committee and especially the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for their contributions. At this stage Amendment No. 163 was meant to be a probing amendment. However, we must recognise that it concerns a major issue identified as such by the Audit Commission. It should be considered and has not been considered in the consultative paper.
The gap of understanding between us was reflected in the Minister's response when he said that he did not support and did not believe that there was public support for what he described as, "regional local government". I obviously failed to clarify the points that I tried to make when introducing the amendment. On this side we were at pains to emphasise that it is not meant to be regional local government—a super county council. There perhaps may and should be a few issues such as strategic planning that will need to come up from county councils or be dealt with by county councils coming together to form informal regional bodies. For example, the debate on the link from the Channel Tunnel into the heart of London is one such issue where a regional forum is needed. I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, is right

407
that such informal bodies trying to work to regional strategic guidance do not give us effective democratic leverage over regional planning decisions.
The major functions that we are seeking are decentralised functions from central government and the sideways functions of quangos. There is no doubt that at the moment we are being marginalised, centralised and impoverished in this country at regional level all at the same time. We are badly ill-equipped and singularly unpoised to enter a Europe of regions. For all those reasons—to decentralise power from Westminster, to bring power from quangos into democratic accountability and to produce a forum with accountability in order to debate strategic issues (green issues, transportation, planning and the like)—we will need regions. Above all we will need them because we are entering Europe.
As I said, this is a probing amendment and I shall withdraw it. But we must return to it. If the Local Government Commission so narrows its perspective in its terms of reference that it fails to take such considerations on board, then in good faith I fear that many of us in the future, in some body or another, will be seeking to unpick its work and reconstruct some of the principles of local government and central government.
I beg leave to withdraw the amendment but with the Committee's permission I shall return to it at a later stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 164 to 167 not moved.]
Clause 13 agreed to.
Clause 14 [Changes that may be recommended]:
[Amendments Nos. 168 to 170 not moved.]
9 p.m.
Lord Norrie Lord Norrie moved Amendment No. 171:
Page 12, line 14, at end insert ("or the reallocation of functions between the two principal tiers of local government.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment seeks to widen the definition of structural change provided by the Bill. At present Clause 14 only allows for the abolition of one tier or the other. I believe that that is too inflexible. My amendment would make it possible for the Local Government Commission to consider the range of functions of local authorities and, if it can be shown to be in the interests of more effective local government, recommend that responsibility for certain of these functions be transferred from one tier to the other, while retaining two tiers.
As I said at Second Reading, I am not convinced that the case for wholesale reform of local government has been made across the country. I therefore welcome the fact that the commission can recommend no change to local government structure if existing arrangements are found to be working well. Despite that, I accept that there may be instances where a degree of structural change may be right. However, I do not believe that that will necessarily always involve the replacement of two tiers of local government with a single tier.
There are superficial attractions in going for a simple unitary structure, but I believe that that may overlook some of the more subtle changes that could be made. My amendment provides for this more subtle approach. It allows for the retention of a two-tier structure where it has been shown to have advantages in relation to certain services, but would allow for the redistribution of responsibility for the other services between the tiers. For example, some of our historic cities may be large enough to carry responsibility for more local services than is currently the case. As county boroughs before reorganisation in 1974, many were responsible for a wide range of services. Today the case for integrating housing and social services into one authority at the level of the cities may be particularly strong. But I do not believe that strategic services, particularly strategic planning for development, transport and protection of the environment, can be effectively carried out by the cities alone.
Indeed, before the 1974 reorganisation the inability of any one authority to take an overview for the purposes of strategic planning was identified as one of the major faults of the old county councils and the county borough system. As a result, if some of the cities were to regain a status similar to the old county boroughs, I believe that it would generally be right for strategic planning services to remain the responsibility of the county councils. I believe that that possibility is still being explored in some areas.
My amendment would make it possible for the commission to consider the redistribution of functions along these lines as a form of structural change. This might well be the most appropriate and beneficial change where the current two-tier system appears to be working well for strategic services. I would not like the Local Government Commission to be precluded from recommending more subtle changes such as this simply because the Bill does not provide for it. I urge my noble friend to consider the possibility that I have outlined very carefully. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: I support the thrust of the noble Lord's amendment and speak in particular to Amendment No. 173 which is grouped with it. I tabled that amendment because I felt that it was important to address at this stage, though not at huge length, how far functions should underpin structure. That was a point which was touched on earlier this afternoon by the noble Lord, Lord Morris, who indicated that he felt that it was something that we had to get our brains around.
I am aware of the view that functions should be disregarded and that decisions should be based on the community as it is defined and analysed by the commission and that we should first look at what the community is and not at what are the functions that are to be carried out. I believe that both community and functions need to be considered. I believe that the community is probably paramount. As local government becomes more of an enabler and less of a direct provider, in a way it is easier to disregard functions. For example things like economies of scale and arrangements for buying-in of services can be

409
dealt with fairly conveniently by authorities grouping themselves together through voluntary joint arrangements—and I stress "voluntary".
I recognise that with developments such as the local management of schools and new ways in which old people's homes are dealt with—I am not attempting to embark on a debate as to the merits or demerits of some of these services—some of them can be contracted out. On these Benches we do not have a philosophical refusal to contract out; we just object to it being compulsory. We would not want to see contracting out dictating the structure of local government.
The underlying question is how the service is best delivered. Inevitably we return to points made earlier today. Some services are undoubtedly strategic: they are large-scale. I refer to planning, transportation, the police and fire services and waste disposal. I do not believe that at this time of night it is appropriate to explain why those are strategic services. One either understands that they are or one does not. Perhaps we can have a word afterwards. It would take a very long time to start from the beginning.
We also have to face up to the difficulties of sometimes having to take decisions at a very local level. The noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, referred to that. Her example was a municipal tip. The example that I intended to give concerned who would take a decision about a gypsy site, which is the same kind of problem. Those are important matters on which decisions have to be taken. However, they are decisions from which local councillors tend to run away because they cannot look to the broader horizon. In this amendment I am not making an argument for an overloaded top tier. I am not necessarily making an argument for the counties, because I believe—though it appears that others do not—that regional government may fulfil the functions. Equally, functions may be best discharged at parish level. By asking that the commission addresses itself to functions, I am not putting forward a particular design, I am simply asking that question—to look at functions along with community interests and identities.
I come back to asking that the commission looks at what is appropriately done and at which level. I support this raft of amendments.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: We on this side of the House support these amendments. We are firmly committed to the view that unitary authorities, based wherever possible on existing district councils, are the right way forward. However, where that may not prove to be the right way forward, we think that the Local Government Commission should have the ability to recommend a revision of the allocation of functions. Social services and housing is one, but there may also be others. Youth and community work is another natural pairing. It would be useful to be able to employ the reserve power. For the reason that this would give us extra flexibility and the capacity to deal with individual circumstances of particular areas on a local basis, we support the amendments.
Lord Feversham: I see that in this group of amendments we have Amendment No. 216, which is in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, which broadly shares the thrust of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, to try and enable the commission to deal with functions and reallocate functions. I agree with almost everything he and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said.
I do not want to spend a great deal of time talking about Amendment No. 216 with this grouping. The amendment is in support of Amendment No. 192 to which I shall be drawing the Committee's attention later when I may go to town a little more. That is also concerned with the question of functions. The business of functions was raised earlier by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and I suspect we shall all get the same answer to this raft of amendments in the grouping; they will be dealt with, and it is the best way to deal with them under the guidance of the Local Government Commission for England which the Minister's department has produced.
Baroness Blatch: Amendments Nos. 171, 173 and 185 provide a useful opportunity for me to clarify the powers of the commission. Noble Lords have made it clear that they want to see the new commission able to make recommendations about changes to the functions of local government.
I can reassure the noble Lords that such recommendations are a key part of the role which we shall be asking the commission to play, It will be central to the commission's work to look at the functions carried out by local authorities in the areas which it reviews, and to make recommendations about how they should be discharged where it recommends unitary authorities.
That again very specifically answers a question which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Morris, about whether it is function-led or structure-led. It is important to look at functions and then determine which is the best shape of authority; and if we are going for unitary authorities, how they can best be met by a particular authority.
It is very interesting how many district councils and county councils across the country, possibly for the first time for a very long time, are now looking at their parish councils with a rather different eye. There is some very healthy debate going on now between tiers of local government.
In the draft guidance to the commission which we issued for consultation last week, we set out the broad policy considerations to which the commission should have regard in looking at the structure of local government in each area it reviews. The draft also contains some advice on the general issues to be taken into account when the commission is considering effective, efficient and convenient performance of specific functions.
However, the amendment tabled by the noble Lords would also have the effect of making it possible for the commission to recommend that there should be changes to the functions of local authorities as between the tiers. We do not wish to see the commission recommending piecemeal changes to the

411
functions of local government. This would blur accountability and create confusion in the public awareness of each tier's responsibilities.
In speaking to her amendments, the noble Baroness said—I think I am quoting her correctly—that as local authorities become enablers, they will possibly lose sight of functions. I do not agree with her. Instead of concentrating on—
Baroness Hamwee: Perhaps I can shorten this by saying that as the local authorities become enablers, they are able to take advantage of voluntary joint arrangements with economies of scale in the buying-in of services. I am going in the direction that the Minister would want me to go at this point.
Baroness Blatch: That is a relief! I was saying that I think it actually frees energies. Instead of concentrating energies on being direct providers, they can actually use that energy in identifying client groups, assessing need, determining priorities and then securing provision in a range of ways—making contracts with voluntary sector, private sector and occasionally providing it themselves.
Amendments Nos. 185 and 186 taken together seek to give the commission the power to recommend the establishment of new authorities for any counties or districts, not just new areas created by boundary changes recommended by the commission. Amendment No. 214 would extend the definition of the areas for which the Secretary of State may establish new authorities to include any area, not just counties or districts. This would allow the establishment of a local authority for a region or Greater London, on which we have already had an interesting debate and on which the Committee knows the views of the Government.
We are committed to a move to unitary authorities in those areas which do not already enjoy the benefits of clearer accountability and streamlined bureaucracy which a single tier of local government brings.
We do not want to create further confusion as to which council does what. I urge the Committee to reject the amendment.
Lord Norrie: I am grateful to the Minister for her lengthy reply. So far as concerns Amendment No. 171, I would not want the Local Government Commission to be prevented by a lack of flexibility in the Bill from recommending what is in the best interests of local government. I shall consider how best to pursue the matter and may well wish to return to it at a later date.
I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 172 to 179 not moved.]
9.15 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 179A:
Page 12, line 42, at beginning insert ("above or").
The noble Baroness said: The effect of this amendment, so I am assured by the Public Bill Office which altered my words and I am sure has improved them, is to enable the Local Government Commission
412
in its consideration of potential boundary changes to recommend the extension of boundaries beyond the current seaward limit.
I am asking the Committee to spend a moment on this amendment because of environmental and ecological considerations which I am sure will find favour with many Members of the Committee. The Local Government Act 1972 specifies that boundaries end at the low-water mark. In most cases local authority functions end at the median low-water mark. That means that there is an artificial split in some functions between the sea and the land—physical planning and land use planning. I understand that there are at least 33 different agencies with responsibilities and powers relating to the coastal zone.
One specific problem area which this matter has shown up is coastal marine nature conservation. The Nature Conservancy Council and its successor bodies have a duty to identify and designate sites of special scientific interest, but these can be designated only within local government areas—that is usually the median low-water mark. Coastal areas of scientific and environmental importance which lie outside local authority boundaries remain unprotected. Currently, the Government, by practice, require areas to be designated as SSSIs before they can be declared special protection areas. That is for the purpose of protecting sensitive species of birds. SSSI designation can only take place up to the seaward boundary of local authorities. Birds remain unprotected as a result of this confusion. I hope that I am not confusing the Committee further by the way I have explained the problem. Under the current arrangements there is a risk that as a country we shall fail to meet international conservation obligations quite apart from meeting moral, ethical and environmental ones.
I appreciate that this is a somewhat technical matter and I should be very happy after the debate to pass my notes to the Minister. I would not expect a detailed reply off-the-cuff on something of this kind, though having heard how she has dealt with other technical matters perhaps it would not entirely surprise me. I ask the Committee seriously to consider the environmental considerations that apply when we are considering just where a local authority boundary ends when it is at the coast. I beg to move.
Lord Mancroft: On the detail of the environmental point, am I not right in supposing that any birds, wildlife or plantlife are protected by the wildlife legislation regardless of whether they are within or without local government boundaries? I do not understand quite how that would make a difference.
Baroness Hamwee: It also surprised me. However, it appears that before SSSIs can be designated one has to refer to what the local authority boundaries are. It is a problem within that area. It seems that the definitions are not quite in synchronisation.
Baroness Blatch: If I am lucky enough to convince the noble Baroness, I promise Members of the Committee that it will not be because of my prowess in these matters. Clause 14 specifically mentions the

413
area below the high-water mark to avoid doubt. I believe the very fact that it is there to avoid doubt has probably caused the confusion. The area of a local authority already covers the area above the high-water mark. The clause specifies that the local authority area extends below the high-water mark for the avoidance of doubt.
Clause 14 provides for the Local Government Commission to recommend changes to the boundaries of local government areas. Subsection (3) makes it clear that the commission may recommend changes to areas, including the area which lies below the high-water mark of medium tides which, as the noble Baroness said, is an average over the year.
It is common law tradition that counties extend to the high-water mark, but boundary orders and local Acts may provide for them to extend beyond that point. I am also advised that the seashore between high-water mark and low-water mark prima facie belongs to the Crown.
The amendment seeks to specify that a local authority's area includes the area above the high-water mark. We believe that that is unnecessary as there can be no doubt that the area of a local authority includes the area above the high-water mark. In the light of that unbelievably clear explanation, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness White: Before the noble Baroness does so, can we have an assurance from the Minister that, as regards Clause 14(3) (a), we are prohibited in Wales from extending any of our local government areas into England?
Baroness Blatch: Game, set and match on that one. I have taken note of the noble Baroness's question and shall write to her on the matter.
Baroness Hamwee: I thank the Minister for her reply. In expressing my gratitude, I must also say that I am sure her words will be read with interest by those who know far more about the subject than I do. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 180:
Page 13, line 15, leave out ("or without").
The noble Baroness said: The amendment now before the Committee is the first of a number which refer to parishes. It would allow the redistribution of a parish area among other parishes but would preclude the loss of parish functions. That is, I believe, the best way of expressing its intent. I hope that the Minister will be able to explain why a parish should be abolished without it being distributed among other parishes.
I know that other Members of the Committee wish to speak tonight about the value of parishes, as was the case on Second Reading. Therefore, it would perhaps be appropriate for me to allow them to speak for themselves. I do not wish to pre-empt what they have to say. However, I wish to associate my noble friends on these Benches with my expression of gratitude and admiration for the work carried out by our parish councillors. I should also like to endorse
414
the wish for more parishes, more parish councils and more work done at the very lowest level with the best contact among councillors, residents and other interested people. I beg to move.
Lord Feversham: I thought for a moment that it was my great good fortune that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, had lost her notes, and I was going to be able to spring up and do the whole thing with my Amendment No. 181; hut, no, alas! she found her notes and was soon into her stride, and so I am left with not a great deal to say.
Amendment No. 181 seeks to deal with what we believe is an omission from the Bill. Amendment No.180 seeks to ensure that where parishes are abolished the areas must be distributed among other parishes. I am happy to support that amendment, especially after dinner and out of gallantry because the noble Baroness lost her notes, and for a variety of other reasons. However, I suspect that that amendment may be wishful thinking and it may be difficult to achieve the results for which she hopes, whereas I hope that the Minister will feel that Amendment No. 181 is workable and should be incorporated into the Bill.
The amendment does not seek to alter the existing thrust of the Bill or in any way to challenge the intentions which are enshrined in it. Amendment No.181 relates to a possibility for which the Bill should cater and does not at present. Clause 14(3) (g) provides for an abolished parish to have its area distributed among other parishes or for there to be no such distribution, which means that the area becomes unparished. There is a third possible permutation for which Amendment No. 181 provides: that some areas of the parish are distributed among other parishes and some become unparished. I hope that the Committee is still following me at this late hour. That might be appropriate where the parish had included an area contiguous to an existing unparished area and areas fit to be attached to neighbouring parishes. I commend the amendment to the Committee in the belief that it removes from the Bill any element of doubt as to how the matter could be most usefully dealt with by the commission.
I see that the amendment is grouped with other amendments, to which the movers will probably want to speak. Two of them are in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and are to do with neighbourhoods. While I am on my feet I will, as it were, offer him my support in advance, because I feel sure that we should have parish councils wherever we possibly can have them. I am less clear about whether they should be called neighbourhood councils. We have parishes, local councils, and various bodies with all kinds of confusing nomenclature. They are basically what we used to think of as parish councils. I am not sure whether we should also have neighbourhood councils. The general principle that we should have neighbourhood councils, local councils, parish councils or what we will, wherever we can have them, is a good one.
I see that the amendment is also grouped with an amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, which I do not think she mentioned, and which is to do with charter trustees. At this late hour,

415
with the grey matter getting greyer as it does after eight or nine hours under the Chamber's lighting system, I have difficulty understanding that amendment. The noble Baroness might like to explain it to us at some point.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: It might be helpful if I spoke briefly to Amendments Nos. 182 and 191 which are in my name. First, I give my support to the amendments which have already been spoken to. I also welcome the provision under subsection (3) (f) of the clause which provides for
"the constitution of a new parish by—
(i) the establishment as a parish of any area which is not a parish or part of one".
We in the Association for Neighbourhood Councils have for many years been arguing that the lack of the possibility of attaining parish status, uniquely in the cities of England, was an injustice that should be remedied. The earlier local government legislation provided for the possibility of a parish review directed by the boundary commission but it has been notoriously unsuccessful. Few parishes have been created by that means which was long drawn out and liable to he misinterpreted by the district councils which had to approve before an application was made to the boundary commission. So we have always urged that the right which rural areas in England have through parish councils and which Scotland and Wales have through community councils, should be extended to the cities of England.
Some years ago I introduced a Bill called the Urban Parishes Bill. It passed its stages in this House and it would have achieved that objective. At the outset it attracted ferocious opposition from the Government, but as the argument proceeded the opposition somewhat diminished. I am pleased to see that the Bill as drafted now includes provision for new areas to be parished.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Feversham, that the difference between parishes and neighbourhoods is not all that important, but it seems more natural in cities and towns to talk of neighbourhoods. That is the word people use. I used the word "parish" in the Urban Parishes Bill because that is what was open to me. That is what the Government have done and I suppose we can live with it. It is a little unrealistic in inner city areas to talk of parishes—I will give way to the noble Lord in a moment—just as I have always thought it strange that the Church of England had rural deans operating in the centres of our cities.
Lord Feversham: I hope the noble Lord will not drag the Church of England into this debate or we shall he here all night. It does not matter whether we call them "neighbourhoods" or "parishes". I am happy to call them all "neighbourhoods". It is a little American, perhaps, but they should all eventually be called by the same name.
9.30 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I think that in the end we are in agreement. I was not going to move Amendments Nos. 182 and 191. I am confirmed by the agreement between us and with the drafting of the Bill in my intention not to move those amendments.
Baroness Blatch: Under Clause 14 the new commission will have the power to recommend the abolition of a parish with or without its area being distributed among other parishes. This mirrors a power which the Local Government Boundary Commission has at present.
The Bill as drafted gives the commission flexibility to look at the arrangements for parishes and make recommendations that parishes should be abolished with or without their areas being distributed among other parishes. There may be cases, following a review of parishes, where it is sensible for a parish to be abolished without part of its area being redistributed among other parishes. The commission could only recommend this after a review during which local people and other interested parties would have the opportunity to put forward their views. There is nothing sinister about this provision; it is merely intended to give the commission flexibility.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Perhaps the Minister will excuse me, but what she has just said is in conflict with what the Bill says. She said that it was possible to imagine a situation where a parish was abolished without the redistribution of "part of its area". That is exactly what is missing from the Bill and why these two amendments have been moved.
Baroness Blatch: I am going back over what I said to the noble Lord so that I can confirm what I am advised by those who know about these matters. There may be cases, following a review of parishes, where it is sensible for a parish to be abolished without part of its area being redistributed.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: That is the critical point: "part of its area". That is the phrase missing from the Bill and it is why the Minister's speech is in conflict with the wording of the Bill.
Baroness Blatch: If there is a technical hitch in my response to the noble Lord, then of course I shall put it right at Report stage.
Amendment No. 218 would mean that the Secretary of State would be required to confer parish status on any area for which charter trustees had previously been constituted. No one has specifically mentioned charter trustees, but I take "neighbourhood councils", "charter trustees" and "parishes" in the same group of amendments. Under the provisions of Clause 17, where charter trustees have been constituted under the Local Government Act 1972 for an area which is altered under this clause, the Secretary of State may make such provisions as to charter trustees as he thinks appropriate.
The charter trustees for a town are the bodies that are the guardians of the charter and civic regalia for the town. This amendment would remove the discretion of the Secretary of State under Clause 17 to

417
make provision as he sees appropriate for charter trustees. His discretion under the Bill as drafted is wide enough to cover the creation of parishes for these areas. At this stage we cannot anticipate the views of local people living in areas which have charter trustees. There will he plenty of opportunity for local people to make their views known when the commission carries out the reviews.
In some areas local people may want to tell the commission that they would like a parish council. In other areas people may favour different arrangements. We should expect the commission to take account of those views in its recommendations to the Secretary of State about what should happen in each area it reviews. We do not want to rule out options at this stage. Having said that, I wish to reassure the Committee—as in debate on earlier amendments—that we recognise the importance that people attach to parishes. I join with the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, in paying tribute to the work done by parish councils.
Our consultation paper on local government structure earlier this year generated a good deal of interest in the role of parish councils. We have received the results of the survey carried out by the University of Aston on the role of local councils. Aston University is preparing a final report which we shall publish in the new year. We believe that parishes merit further consideration—I have said this a number of times—in their own right. We shall consider whether to produce a further consultation paper on their role and functions.
I understand that both district and county councils are looking carefully at the role that parishes might play in a new world of unitary authorities. Any proposals that we may have for the future role of parish councils will need to be discussed with local goverment representatives. Our discussions will be informed by the results of the hive of activity that is taking place at the moment in that field.
Amendments Nos. 182 and 191 concern neighbourhood councils. "Neighbourhood" is a vague term and is not defined in statute. We are aware that many local authorities have taken steps to decentralise the management of services and to provide for local community input into their work. In some areas this has involved the formal division of their areas into neighbourhoods. In other areas authorities have created area offices for local service delivery. The Government welcome moves towards breaking up centralised distant bureaucracies and making services more accessible and more responsive to local people. However, arrangements of this kind are not statutory and are a matter for local consideration.
It is important to emphasise that it is often the informality of such neighbourhood support groups that makes them so effective as they are unfettered by rules, regulations and officialdom. In my capacity as a Minister responsible for inner city issues, I meet these informal groups. They work exceedingly well. However, I believe that if they were made into formal bodies, they would lose their special qualities.
418
On the matter of split parishes, some areas are allocated by enlarging neighbourhood or neighbouring parishes so that one part of an area is left out and the other part becomes an element of another neighbouring area. I apologise that that explanation was not quite as clear as my wonderful speech on water. I hope, however, that noble Lords will feel able to withdraw their amendments.
Baroness Hamwee: I thank the Minister for that reply. Although I cannot claim to have followed all the detail of the reply, it appeared that the thrust of the argument was that the commission will take proper account of the wishes of local people. I was particularly grateful for the Minister's comments on charter trustees. I was concerned that charter trustees, while fulfilling an interesting and important historical function, do not have powers. I am interested in the overlap, or the non-overlap, between the roles of charter trustees and parish councils. All of us who are concerned about this matter will study the Minister's comments with some care.
I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, did not pursue the question of neighbourhood councils. He said some kind and extremely well deserved words the other day about the work done in the Liberal Democrat-run borough of Tower Hamlets. It is very well run. I have said before and am glad to take the opportunity to say again that the innovative work of the borough deserves recognition. I appreciate that following the vote this afternoon London is likely to remain without neighbourhoods elsewhere unless others among us are able to be as innovative.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I hope that the noble Baroness will forgive me. In praising Tower Hamlets I distinguish between the devolution to neighbourhood, which has occurred in Tower Hamlets, and the establishment of neighbourhood councils, which, despite the Minister's words, I support. The reason I do not propose to move Amendments Nos. 182 and 191 is not because of any lack of conviction in neighbourhood councils but because, on re-reading the Bill, I am satisfied that paragraph (f) provides for the establishment of parishes where they do not exist. So far as I understand it there is no restriction as to where they can be established. They can also be established in urban areas of England. I should be glad to have that confirmed in Hansard.
Baroness Blatch: That is right.
Baroness Hamwee: That is extremely helpful. With some difficulty we have all got back on to the same track and are seeking the same objective. I thank the Minister and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Feversham Lord Feversham had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 181:
Page 13, line 16, after ("area") insert ("or part or parts of its area").
The noble Lord said: The amendment follows on from the previous amendment. I should like to say that in view of what the Minister said I shall not move the amendment, although I do not believe that she answered the question.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The Minister said that she would return to the matter at Report stage.
Lord Feversham: The noble Baroness did not answer the question today. If she looks at the matter before Report stage she may find that Amendment No. 181 would improve the Bill and insert something that should be there.
[Amendment No. 181 not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 182 to 186 not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill): If Amendment No. 187 is agreed to I cannot call Amendments Nos. 188 and 189.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 187:
Page 14, line 1, leave out paragraph (c).
The noble Baroness said: In moving amendment No. 187 I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 221 and 222. The amendments are all concerned with joint authorities. In the debate on Second Reading I spoke about the difficulties experienced with joint authorities. I do not wish to detain the Committee, but that does not mean that the anxiety which I voiced at that stage is any the less now.
Perhaps I may refer briefly to the anxieties which many of us feel about statutory joint authorities and in doing so say that I am aware that voluntary joint arrangements can work well. I welcome the reference in paragraph 11 of the draft guidance for the commission that joint authorities will be very much the exception. Nevertheless, it is appropriate to spend a moment explaining why they should be so much the exception in the hope of reinforcing the intention that such exceptions will be very rare indeed.
Joint arrangements are unaccountable. Representatives are indirectly elected. The authorities are not well understood by the public, nor by councillors unless they serve on them. They are complex, frequently creating an additional layer of bureaucracy in a more unsatisfactory way than that term normally indicates. They involve work put in by officers of other authorities who are members of the joint authority, often self-selected, with the time or inclination to fulfil a particular job. It is very much an ad hoc affair.
Despite the rather amorphous description I may have given, the arrangements are inflexible. They are generally difficult to construct and require a good deal of negotiation unless the Secretary of State simply imposes them without there being an opportunity for authorities to talk to one another. They are also difficult to change. We have experienced this in London. We have had tedious discussions about how research arrangements should be dealt with and what should and should not go into the Section 188 scheme. That is not a satisfactory way to provide a service which, after all, is what we should all be talking about.
My greatest criticism of joint authorities is that the indirectly elected members quite naturally do not regard the job as their first priority. They attend the joint authority because they happen to be the people who have the time to go there at the time meetings are held. There is little consistency in the membership. There are difficulties creating relations between
420
members, and it is upon good relations that so much of life functions. Unless the members can create group dynamics which are conducive to the business moving forward, all that happens is that they will talk at one another across a council chamber or wherever without reaching a conclusion. Members look to their own areas and regard their own patches as their first interest and priority. They tend to express very local views and find it difficult to look at what is strategic. I am afraid that here we come back to the question of how to deal with strategic matters. It is understandable that members in that situation should have such a problem. They are probably dealing with one service and have not worked through the exercise of prioritising where spending should take place—all those issues which help members of a council to work out just what their objectives are. They turn up to do a job, may not do it very well and then go home again. That is the sum total of the contact until the next meeting.
In describing that rather unhappy situation—which I have to say is my personal experience—I hope the Committee will agree that the scope for joint authorities should be so strictly limited as to be non-existent or, if we are to be left with it, that the Government can take on board the concerns I have expressed. I beg to move.
9.45 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 187 and 188 and also to Amendment No. 189 standing in my name. As a result, I will to some extent move between joint arrangements and the issue of lead authorities because they are not very distinct. From my experience, joint arrangements can be a sensible and straightforward way of organising those fused functions where the natural constituency for services is not a district, a county or region. Lead authorities would permit the same sort of flexibility. I give some examples. In the case of tourism, sport and the arts, it may involve several districts working together. Nottingham has joint arrangements with the county for major concert series. Plymouth has joint arrangements with the county for the country park of Mount Edgcumbe.
On my own patch Norwich works with Norfolk for its museum services and for its theatre and the like. Equally, this may apply to tourism. There are examples of Brighton working in a joint arrangement with Hove, or Hull with Beverley and Holderness for tourism promotion authorities. It works with sports and the arts. Also at a different level it works with police forces where some 21 shire counties currently form joint arrangements. It may also work at a regional or sub-regional level: for example, on issues of airports.
From all our experience and from all those examples, we have taken a very positive note. Similarly with lead authorities. By definition, most of our experience with lead authorities now dates back to pre-1974. However, before 1974 either the county or a county borough could be the lead authority in preparing a structure plan. It worked very well. Before 1974 there were joint arrangements with lead

421
authorities for transport undertakings and many of them survived for some years thereafter. Before 1974 virtually every county borough had an FE college into which the adjacent county council or accepted educational districts bought places. It worked very well. Many authorities had joint arrangements or lead authority arrangements for water undertakings, computer facilities or purchasing. In other words, there is a lot of experience drawn both from before 1974 when there were lead authorities and since 1974 when there have been joint arrangements including social services, housing and like—I shall not tire the Committee with listing them—to show that they work satisfactorily.
I take issue to some degree with the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, in that I do not believe that there is much evidence that they seriously impede accountability or increase cost. The real challenge to accountability in local government at the moment does not come from the scattered array of joint arrangements which are a flexible and convenient way of bringing authorities together in a common cause; it comes very much more from the fact that local authorities have very limited control over their own expenditure, for reasons that the Committee will not wish me to go into tonight.
The second source of confusion over accountability comes from the two-tier structure itself and very seldom from joint arrangements. If we are not to have joint arrangements, I suggest that we end up locked into the issue of size; that is to say, the authority has to be able to provide all services, which involves becoming larger and larger in size. There was quite a lot of research done by INLOGOV in the late 1980s which identified those threads of concern which generate problems with joint authorities.
Difficulties arise with joint arrangements first where they are between senior and junior partners, for example between counties and districts, and where the senior authority expects to determine the agenda. Those arrangements tend to be less satisfactory. Secondly, they are less satisfactory where they are compulsorily imposed by central government, as with some inner city partnerships. Those too have a fairly chequered history. Neither do they work well where they are essentially competitive. For example, over the location of manufacturing industry or shopping developments and the like; or alternatively where there are conflicting views about the level of service to be provided.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that when; joint arrangements or lead authority arrangements are negotiated from the bottom up between willing partners of equal commitment and standing, they are mutually advantageous and offer a flexible and useful response to issues and problems where the geographical base does not fit neatly districts, counties or regions. For that reason, I support voluntary joint arrangements.
As I speak to Amendment No. 189, and I know that I have the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, I also support the proposal for lead authorities, which again before 1974 for the most part
422
had a very successful track history and which seem to me again to embody the concept of an enabling authority.
Lord Norrie: I shall speak to Amendment No. 190 although Amendment No. 221 is also in my name. Amendment No. 190 seeks to redress an imbalance in the Bill and to increase its flexibility in relation to structural changes. I detect a slight but significant bias in the Bill as currently drafted. The Bill, unacceptably I believe, favours the creation of small unitary authorities. Both Clauses 14 and 21 make provision for joint arrangements as a possible outcome of local government reform. Joint arrangements will only be necessary where structural reform results in the creation of small unitary authorities which are capable of effectively performing the strategic functions.
My amendment seeks to make special provision for the delegation downwards of responsibility for certain functions. That may be necessary if, as a result of the review, the commission recommends that unitary authorities are created which are large enough to carry out strategic functions effectively. In such circumstances the need for joint arrangements will be avoided but special measures may be necessary to assure the continuing responsiveness of the unitary authorities to local concerns.
I have in mind, for example, responsibility for development control. That involves day to day decisions on individual planning applications which are currently largely the responsibility of districts. Delegation downwards could result in the creation of area committees to perform local planning functions so that the best features of existing planning arrangements can be protected. I recognise that many local authorities delegate powers under existing legislation. I do not believe that that detracts from the force of my argument.
My amendment is based on an understanding that special provision may be necessary over and above that which is contained in existing legislation to ensure appropriate delegation. I do not believe that that is best left entirely to the discretion of the newly established unitary authorities. As currently drafted, I believe that the Bill unduly prejudices the deliberations of the Local Government Commission in favour of small unitary authorities by making special provision for joint arrangements. Those authorities will be incapable of performing strategic functions.
The Bill contains no provision for the converse situation; that is, strong unitary authorities large enough for strategic purposes but with a need for delegation to maintain local responsiveness. That is why I believe that the Bill is unbalanced. My amendment aims to rectify that. I urge my noble friend carefully to consider the anxieties that I have outlined.
Before I turn to Amendment No. 221, perhaps I may ask the noble Lords, Lord Feversham and Lord McIntosh, whether they wish first to speak to Amendment No. 192.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Amendment No. 192 will not be moved.
Lord Norrie: Amendment No. 221 enables the Secretary of State to exclude certain local government functions from the Bill's provisions for joint authorities. Clause 21 is one of the least satisfactory clauses in the Bill. It might almost be taken as an admission by the Government that local government reform might ultimately be unsuccessful in that it would create bodies incapable of coping adequately with the full range of local government services without recourse to joint arrangements.
During the Second Reading debate we heard from a number of noble Lords experienced in the workings of joint authorities. The overwhelming message that I received was that joint authorities were bad news. I share that view. Joint authorities pose problems on a number of fronts. All the evidence suggests that joint authorities dilute accountability. They hinder public understanding. A survey carried out in 1987 by MORI showed that people were more confused by the new joint arrangements after the abolition of the metropolitan counties than they had been before about the previous two-tier system.
There is also a serious question mark over the effectiveness and efficiency of the joint arrangements. They do not appear to be effective as decision-making bodies, in particular on strategic and regulatory matters such as land use planning. I am anxious lest with regard to such functions as strategic planning they are likely to be even more ineffectual.
Rather than questioning whether the clause shall stand part of the Bill—an option to which I gave considerable thought—my amendment is modest and seeks simply to exclude those functions where I believe that it is clear that joint arrangements are likely to fail. I do not believe that joint authorities for strategic planning are likely to work. I do not believe that it would be possible for them to enforce the degree of control over the decisions of individual participating authorities which is necessary to ensure effective strategic planning for development and the protection of the environment. Nor do I consider that the ability of the Secretary of State to intervene to impose joint arrangements, for which the clause provides, will help.
I see the provision as a recognition of the serious difficulties there are in making joint arrangements work properly. I believe that it indicates ambivalence in the Government's own attitude towards joint authorities. It appears that the Government recognise the inadequacies of the joint authorities. For instance, the draft guidance for the Local Government Commission notes that statutory joint authorities detract from accountability and the Government intend them to be the exception.
I also suggest that if the Government ultimately expect there to be a predominantly unitary system of local government, joint authorities should not be a feature of it. Joint authorities destroy the argument for unitary local government by introducing two-tier local government in a different and I believe vastly inferior form. If change can be justified, the objective should be to establish unitary authorities which are large enough to carry out strategic functions effectively. That removes the need for joint arrangements. I believe that in the Bill there are a
424
number of inconsistencies in the Government's approach to these questions. They must be ironed out if the review of local government is to get off to a promising start.
The clause and its implications deserve serious consideration. My amendment seeks to probe the Government further on the question of joint authorities. I should like to know, under the circumstances, for which functions the Government believe that joint authorities will work. Will the Minister provide me with an example of the kind of exception referred to in the draft guidance? Will she also tell me how the Bill will otherwise prevent strategic planning being undertaken by joint authorities? I urge my noble friend to consider the amendment seriously. I believe that it highlights a part of the Government's approach to local government reform which needs further thought. I beg to move.
10 p.m.
Baroness Cumberlege: I support my noble friend's Amendment No. 221. Earlier in the Committee's debate the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, argued with skill and waxed lyrically about joint boards, joint committees, agency arrangements and these authorities. That was a world that I did not recognise. However, during the current debate the noble Baroness introduced some reservations which I did recognise. We are now back to the real world.
I have connections with three county councils and their numerous districts and with several London boroughs. I have to say that it is not all sweetness and light. I do not agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, that all police forces in the shires are efficiently and effectively run. I believe that good management requires clear lines of accountability. Where they do not exist officials have an easy opportunity to fill a vacuum left by those councillors who, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, eloquently said, have no real responsibility for those organisations.
I was interested to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, mention the work produced by the Institute of Local Government Studies published last year. I have read the study and I believe that the authors who researched carefully and closely argued the case and came to the unequivocal conclusion that joint boards are not accountable—
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I thank the noble Baroness for giving way. I wish to make it clear that at no stage was I defending joint boards. Throughout I was talking about voluntary joint arrangements; that was the distinction that I was making. I hoped that I had made it clear that where they were compulsory and they were boards they had a track record of being less successful. The examples that I gave were nothing to do with planning, nor were they boards, nor were they compulsory. They were voluntary and district-based for the most part.
Baroness Cumberlege: Will the noble Baroness tell me whether she mentioned the police force? I understood that she had.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: In respect of the debate on the regions, I said that there were 21 shire counties which currently had joint police forces. I believe that that is an argument for going for a regional tier of government.
Baroness Cumberlege: I now understand the point. However, I had understood the noble Baroness to say that joint police forces worked well. I am saying that there are questions about that.
In my experience, which I share with the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, joint arrangements lack direction and clarity. They add to bureaucratic complexity, provide the potential for deadlock and are a potential arena for conflict. In my view they have very little to recommend them and they suffer from some severe disadvantages.
I am worried in particular that in the Government's guidance to the commission there is a suggestion that an essential service such as the fire brigade should be managed, financed and run by joint boards. In particular I ask the Minister to reconsider and clarify that guidance because I believe that, as it stands, it could put the public in jeopardy when they are at their most vulnerable. I support the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: I believe it will be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak to Amendment No. 222. It aims to delete the provision which would allow a joint authority to be instituted as a body corporate and requires that it should be fully representative of the authorities of the areas which comprise it.
I was rather surprised to see that a joint authority may be turned into some kind of quango. To have only an indirectly elected joint authority is bad enough, but to create a corporate body seems to be the worst of every world: one loses all contact with local people; there is no democratic accountability. It is perhaps rather late in the evening to indulge in flights of fancy about bodies corporate making a mess of what they are doing and going into liquidation. However, that seems to be a possibility, at least in view of what is on the face of the Bill. One hopes that that will never occur because provisions for their creation will preclude that, although those who were involved with some strategic functions like the organisation of the Channel Tunnel rail link might have been glad of that kind of option.
My Amendment No. 222 is serious. In my view it is essential that joint authorities are fully representative so that they speak for their own communities and councils. They cover the whole area both geographically and in a community sense. They cover the area comprehensively. I believe that it is quite distasteful for a Bill dealing with the future of local government to contain a suggestion that a body representing local government shall not be representative of it.
Lord Feversham: Amendment No. 192 supports and is similar to Amendment No. 190 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Norrie. It focuses rather more on local councils. Due to the lateness of the hour I do not intend to make a speech about that. I believe that we shall be happy to withdraw the amendment in view
426
of what the noble Baroness has already said with regard to functions and all that being dealt with in the guidance notes.
Once again we are dealing with a whole raft of amendments concerned with functions. Members on all sides of the Committee are unhappy that that is not dealt with in the Bill. The Minister keeps saying that she would rather deal with that matter in the guidance. However, it seems to me that Members of the Committee on all sides are rather unhappy about that. They are all being extremely obliging and withdrawing their amendments. However, I believe at some point —perhaps at a later stage of the Bill—there must be a Division on this matter. People are not happy with the idea that it should be dealt with in the notes of guidance. They believe that the word "functions" must appear more forcefully in the Bill.
Baroness Blatch: I take the last point first. The Secretary of State will instruct the commission to heed and have regard to the guidance. It cannot be clearer than that. It is not enough to single out one aspect. It is important to address all functions of local authorities which includes strategic functions. Very often, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, the definition of "strategic functions" is not clear cut. Often something can be made strategic because it cuts across one boundary or another. In the strict sense of the word "strategic" that is not strategic.
The Committee can be assured—I have said it so many times that I shall be called to account when the recommendations come before Parliament—that the strategic functions of local authorities will not be ignored by the commission. Indeed, it dare not do so after all that has been said.
This is a large group of amendments and they are all different. Amendment No. 188 seeks to alter the commission's duty under Clause 13(5) (c) so that it may make recommendations about the extent to which a structural or boundary change may require (rather than requires) that joint arrangements between authorities should be made. The amendment would have no practical effect, as it would be open to the commission to recommend that no joint arrangements should be made under the Bill as drafted.
The noble Baroness may welcome some clarification of the Government's views on the role of unitary authorities. In our draft guidance to the Local Government Commission we made it clear that the commission should seek to recommend a local government structure which enables individual authorities to be responsible for all local government functions. That is because the significance of establishing local authorities which match communities will be lost if those authorities do not have such direct responsibility. We recognise that law and order services are a special case for which there should be a presumption in favour of combining areas.
That is not to say that we can rule out joint arrangements for all other local government functions whatever the circumstances. The Bill as drafted leaves it to the commission to make recommendations about whether such arrangements are required or not. I am sure the Committee will agree that the commission will

427
be in an excellent position to make such recommendations and it would be unwise to remove its duty to do so, as is sought by Amendment No. 187.
A single-tier structure does not preclude voluntary arrangements between authorities to share expertise or resources if that is sensible and efficient in practice. Two authorities may each retain statutory responsibility for a service in their area, but one may draw on the other on an agency basis to achieve the most flexible and cost-effective results. We are well aware that statutory joint arrangements detract from accountability and have said that we intend them to be very much the exception.
The guidance gives the strongest possible lead to the Local Government Commission to presume in favour of unitary authorities but not in every circumstance to rule out joint authorities. It is right to say that we believe that that should not be a first resort. The Government are not ambivalent about the matter.
With regard to Amendment No. 189, under Clause 14 recommendations from the Local Government Commission may cover the extent to which a structural or boundary change requires that joint arrangements should be made in relation to functions affected by the change. The term "joint arrangements" in the clause covers any sort of joint arrangements and certainly could include arrangements for a function to be discharged through a lead authority. I know the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, felt some anxiety on that point.
I do not believe that Amendments Nos. 190 and 192 are necessary. The Bill as drafted carries no implications about the size of authorities. Our draft guidance to the Local Government Commission covers the need for the commission to look for a structure to achieve the most effective exercise of functions and delivery of services consistent with community identities. We are aware that many local authorities make use of Section 101 of the Local Government Act 1972 to delegate their functions to other authorities. Section 101 covers delegation to any local authority including parish councils—a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Feversham. We also know that several local authorities are already looking at possibilities for delegating functions below the level of unitary authorities, and we welcome that approach if it means bringing local government closer to the people. There is already plenty of scope for delegation by local authorities to any other local authority. Such delegation arrangements may be matters on which the commission may comment, but we feel that they are best left to local discretion and decision by the authorities concerned.
With regard to Amendment No. 221 we cannot rule out joint arrangements for local government functions, whatever the circumstances. The power in Clause 21 to establish by order joint authorities to carry out specific functions will be available to the Secretary of State only in strictly defined circumstances. Those are when the Secretary of State considers, in the light of the Local Government Commission's recommendations, that functions should be carried
428
out jointly by more than one local authority and where voluntary joint arrangements by the authorities concerned are not put in place or are unsatisfactory.
Any joint authority established under this clause will continue to exercise the function for which it was responsible only until the authorities concerned have made satisfactory joint arrangements for themselves. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said that she was disappointed that joint authorities are corporate bodies. I suggest to her that all local authorities are corporate bodies. That is simply their legal status and has no effect on their membership.
Amendment No. 222 seeks to require any joint authority established by order under this clause to be fully representative of the authorities for whose areas it is established and to rule out the option of any joint authority having the status of a corporate body. I can assure the noble Baroness that whether or not a joint authority was a body corporate would have no effect on its membership which, by definition, would be fully representative of the authorities for whose areas it was established.
I believe that my noble friend Lord Norrie posed a question about the circumstance when a joint board is a preferable option. I suggest to him that the benefits and disbenefits for an area are weighed up after the review has taken place. It may well be that a unitary authority with joint arrangements with another or even other local authorities has the advantage over a much larger local authority. That must be an option left open for the Local Government Commission.
There was a direct question from my noble friend Lady Cumberlege concerning fire authorities about which she was worried. Most fire authorities are single county council area fire authorities. It is conceivable that where the units of local government are smaller than the county councils, it makes sense to leave the fire authority intact at county council level. That will become a joint statutory authority. I do not believe that that would put any community in danger because there are well established and well practised arrangements at this moment. I hope that these amendments can be withdrawn.
10.15 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: I thank the Minister for that very helpful reply. I am most assured about a body corporate. I had wondered whether it may be one that was somehow unusual. I have no quarrel with voluntary joint arrangements. It is perfectly right that they should be allowed for. I am sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, is not here, so perhaps I may discuss it with her afterwards. I have some doubts as to whether it would be right to provide in detail for lead authority arrangements. If joint authorities are to have any chance of working well then the members themselves must sort out how they are led and whether they should be a lead authority.
I shall remind myself again by reading what the Minister has said on all these matters. I retain my anxieties and I suggest that it is natural that I should do so because of the background knowledge that I have of such arrangements not working well. I take heart from the noble Baroness's confirmation—we

429
have already seen the draft guidance—that these authorities will be very much the exception. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 188 to 192 not moved.]
Clause 14 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 193 not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Amendment No. 194 was spoken to with Amendment No. 165.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: No. We did not move Amendment No. 165—bad luck!
Clause 15 [Procedure on a review]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 194
Page 14, line 25, leave out from ("shall") to the end of line 32 and insert ("ensure—

(a) (hat adequate publicity is given to the direction requiring the review to be conducted and to any other directions under this Part which are relevant to the review;

(b) that all persons who may be expected to wish to make representations in relation to the review are made aware that they are entitled to do so;

(c) that all such persons are given an adequate opportunity for making such representations and are in Formed of the period within which such representations may be made."').

The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 194, I should like to speak also, with the permission of the movers of these amendments, to Amendments Nos. 200, 202, 205, 206, 211, 212 and 213. The thrust of all these amendments is the same. It is that we should improve the conditions under which the Local Government Commission consults and gives publicity to its proceedings and its decisions.
As Clause 15 stands—and I refer to Amendment No. 194—the Local Government Commission is required to take such steps as it considers sufficient to secure that persons who may be interested in the review are informed of the direction, informed of any other directions which are relevant—in other words, just informed of the fact that the Secretary of State has told the Local Government Commission to do something—and informed of the period within which representations may be made. That is a very limited view of consultation and publicity.
Amendment No. 194 starts by making it clear that there should be adequate publicity given to the direction and other directions (and that is already covered by the Bill) that persons who may be expected to wish to make representations are made aware that they are entitled to do so (that is not provided in the Bill), and that all such persons are given an adequate opportunity for making representations and are informed of the period. So it is not just telling them about the period, but making sure that the period is long enough.
Amendment No. 200 refers to the need for the draft recommendations of the Local Government Commission to be advertised and the conditions under which they should be made available for inspection. Amendment No. 202, which is in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Feversham, and myself, provides that the commission should supply a copy of the document if they are asked to do so.
Amendment No. 205 is in Clause 16. It is in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and others. Clause 16 is about the need for consultation between the Local Government Commission and the Audit Commission. The amendment provides that the commission shall consult relevant bodies and other persons before giving opinions about bodies likely to be affected by changes and shall notify those bodies of intention to give those opinions. So it is extending open government to the role of the Audit Commission in the Local Government Commission review procedure.
Amendment No. 206 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and myself, provides in effect that the Local Government Commission shall publish its opinions, because that is not provided for in the Bill as drafted. It may seem draconian to say that it should publish within seven days, but it is no different from the publication of a judicial opinion. Judges are expected, when they produce an opinion, to explain it straightaway, except in very exceptional circumstances. There is no reason why, when they produce an opinion they should not publish it pretty well straightaway—that is, within seven days.
In turning to Clause 17, which is about the implementation of the review, Amendment No. 211, in the name of myself and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, provides that there should be an opportunity for comment after the recommendations have been published. At the moment, it looks as if the consultation period ends before the recommendations are made public with the result that there is no interchange, no communication, between the public and the Local Government Commission on its recommendations. That seems to us to be unduly restrictive.
Amendment No. 212, in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Hollis, provides that where there are modifications proposed by the Secretary of State to the recommendations of the Local Government Commission that that should also be subject to publicity.
Finally, Amendment No. 213, if the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, will allow me to refer to it with approval, provides that there should be 12 weeks before the order is actually made. I am sorry to have taken so long in introducing these amendments. They all have the same thrust: that the publicity and consultation arrangements for the work of the Local Government Commission are quite inadequate, and need to be extended in the ways proposed in these amendments. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: My apologies to the noble Lord for my failure to understand. I did not have the pleasure of hearing him say that Amendment No. 165 was not to be moved. I should remind the Committee that if Amendment No. 194 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 195.
Lord Norrie: I shall speak briefly to Amendment No. 213, which stands in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon. The amendment seeks to extend the period of time before the Secretary of State can issue an order after receiving

431
the recommendations of the Local Government Commission. It extends the period from six to 12 weeks. It is a straightforward amendment but one of considerable importance.
I cannot see how a period of six weeks can be considered sufficient time to allow interested parties to make effective representations to the Secretary of State on the final recommendations of the Local Government Commission, or for the Secretary of State properly to consider them. Six weeks is even less time than local authorities are allowed to take in deciding most minor planning applications. It is important that interested parties have an opportunity to make representations to the Secretary of State on such an important matter and for their views to be taken seriously.
Clearly, in the first instance it is necessary that the Local Government Commission's recommendations are published for all to consider. Interested parties should be entitled to comment on the recommendations to the Secretary of State. I take that to be the intention of the part of Clause 17 which allows the Secretary of State to make modifications to the commission's recommendations. If that is not the intention, I should like to know on what basis the Secretary of State will be able to make such modifications. I would also expect there to be further consultation on modifications if they are proposed. I therefore support Amendment No. 212, to which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, spoke in moving Amendment No. 164.
If reform of local government is to endure, it will need to command widespread public support. One way to secure that support is to make sure that all have an ability to comment on and influence the final recommendations. In many instances that should also result in better and more durable decisions.
I see no merit in skimping on opportunities for consultation, especially if it is a matter of a few weeks. Measured against the fundamental and long-term implications of local government reform, I believe that a few extra weeks is a worthwhile price to pay if the result is to be a more successful outcome.
Baroness Hamwee: I support these amendments. I think I am right in saying that the reason that the Deputy Chairman did not hear the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, say that Amendment No. 165 was not moved was that the noble Lord was not here.
I should like to speak briefly to Amendment No. 206 regarding the publication of an Audit Commission opinion which is provided to the commission. Such an opinion will be an important piece of information on which the Secretary of State, in turn, will make his eventual decision and as such should be firmly on the public record. In a way, and perhaps even more importantly, publication of the opinion will allow interested parties to react to it. The publication itself will allow for further debate and for cross-fertilisation of ideas. With that particularly in mind I urge the Committee to take account of the thinking behind the amendment. I support this whole raft of amendments.
Lord Feversham: I rise to support the general thrust of the amendments if only to ensure that all quarters of the Committee are seen to support the thrust of the amendments. Now we have someone from the Cross Benches doing it as well.
Baroness Blatch: I am all for even-handedness—at this hour of the night anyway. Clause 15(1) requires the commission to take such steps as it considers sufficient to inform interested parties of the direction to carry out the review; of any other directions under this part which are relevant; and of the period within which representations about the review may be made to the commission.
As to Amendment No. 194, we certainly intend that the Local Government Commission should publicise its reviews widely. Under Clause 15, the commission will have the duty to take all the steps it considers necessary to ensure that those with an interest in a review—local people and organisations—are aware of it and have the opportunity to make representations. There are many different ways in which the commission should be able to make information about its activities and procedures available, including local newspapers, radio and television. It would not, however, be practical to lay a statutory duty on the commission to require it to ensure that each individual person and organisation who may wish to make representations about a review are aware of the opportunity to do so. That would be an impossible task.
I therefore urge any noble Lord who supports that view, and the noble Baroness, to accept my assurance that we certainly intend that the commission should do its utmost to publicise its reviews widely. I hope that the amendment will be withdrawn. From a personal point of view, I believe that it is inconceivable that, when the Local Government Commission gets going, people in an area will not be aware of its activities.
I turn now to Amendment No. 205. Such measures seem to us unnecessary and time consuming. The Audit Commission is an independent body, in possession of much relevant expertise and experience to enable it to provide the Local Government Commission with an objective opinion on the economy, efficiency and effectiveness of the commission's proposed arrangements for service delivery. Our aim is to ensure that, whenever the commission requires it, it should have access to such objective advice. But we see no need to subject the Audit Commission to these requirements which would undoubtedly slow down its work.
The Local Government Commission's reviews will look at the country area by area and all local authorities affected will have plenty of opportunities to put forward their views. We therefore do not see a need for the measures in the amendment. I urge that this amendment be withdrawn.
The Audit Commission will not be the only organisation from whom the Local Government Commission seeks an opinion, advice or information about its proposals for structural change. To place a requirement on the commission, as under Amendment No. 206, to publish the opinion it receives from the

433
Audit Commission would take that opinion out of the context of all the other considerations which the Local Government Commission must take into account when drawing up recommendations. The new commission must have discretion to consider all the information it receives, and by doing so arrive at its final recommendations for restructuring local government in an area. An opinion from the Audit Commission is only one component in the process. Under Clause 15, the commission will be required to make available for inspection its recommendations to the Secretary of State. There is no need for it to publish the opinion of the Audit Commission separately. I therefore urge the noble Lord and the noble Baroness not to press this amendment.
Under the procedures set out in this clause, copies of the commission's recommendations are to be made available for inspection in the offices of all district and county councils in the area affected by the review. Clause 15 requires the commission to take steps to ensure that interested parties are aware of the availability of its recommendations. The commission will certainly want to make good use of publicity for that purpose.
The intended effect of Amendment No. 202 is unclear to me, even after listening to its presentation. I am not sure whether the noble Lord intends that principal authorities, or the commission itself, will make copies of the draft recommendations available to those local authorities which ask for them in writing. Principal authorities in an area under review will already have copies of the draft recommendations which they will keep available for public inspection. So I assume that the reference to local authorities is a reference to parish councils.
10.30 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The Minister is quite right in that respect.
Baroness Blatch: In that case, it seems to me that it would be extremely sensible for the commission to make copies of its draft regulations available on request to any interested person. Of course, that would include any parish council which was likely to be affected. We shall cover that point in the draft guidance on the procedures which the commission should follow in carrying out its reviews. My right honourable friend intends to direct the commission to have regard to this guidance under Clause 15(7). We shall invite views on the contents of that guidance.
I shall deal now with Amendments Nos. 211 and 212. We have taken great care to build substantial opportunities for public comment into the commission's procedure for carrying out reviews. The commission will be required to make copies of its final recommendations available for public inspection and will be required to take such steps as it considers sufficient to secure that persons who may be interested in the recommendations are informed of them and the period within which they may be inspected. Further, the Secretary of State will be required to wait for six
434
weeks after receiving the commission's final recommendations before making an order implementing them, to allow time for further representations to be made.
Any modifications to the commission's recommendations would take account of views expressed about the recommendations. If the Secretary of State considered the commission's recommendations needed to be modified substantially, he could direct the commission to conduct a further review, and to make revised recommendations. The commission would of course be required to publish those revised recommendations and make them available for public comment following the procedures set out in Clause 15.
On Amendment No. 213, we believe that a six-week period between submission of the commission's report and recommendations and their implementation by order of the Secretary of State is an adequate time for people to put forward further views, given that they have had ample opportunity during the course of the review.
Those with an interest in a review carried out by the commission will be aware of the recommendations that it submits to the Secretary of State, as Clause 15 requires the commission to publish its recommendations for change, and to publicise where they may be inspected. Interested parties will therefore already be familiar with the issues raised by the commission's recommendations.
There is much to be said for the implementation of the commission's recommendations to follow as quickly as possible. Once a recommendation has been made, it seems to us that it be would be best for all concerned to make any changes recommended by the commission as swiftly as possible.
I must emphasise to my noble friend Lord Norrie that six weeks is the minimum period. The Secretary of State cannot act within six weeks. He can take much longer, but he must wait for at least six weeks. Therefore I ask my noble friend not to press his amendment.
The procedures set out in Clause 15 which the Local Government Commission will be required to follow are more than adequate to ensure a high level of public awareness of each stage of the commission's reviews and ample opportunity for public comment upon the recommendations. I believe that I have addressed the points made by all Members of the Committee, and I hope that with the assurances I have given they will not press the amendments.
Baroness Hamwee: Perhaps I may ask the Minister one further question about the publication of the Audit Commission's opinion. Why is it necessary to refer in Clause 16 to the Audit Commission being under an obligation to provide an opinion? If the Minister cannot answer that question now, perhaps we may have a word about it later. If there were no statutory obligation would the Audit Commission have no duty to provide an opinion? That seems to be an interesting position.
Baroness Blatch: There is no mystery about it. If the Local Government Commission is doing its work it

435
will from time to time require information, advice or an opinion from the Audit Commission. Rather than pass the legislation and then have a period of time during which, for one reason or another, the Audit Commission decides that it will not co-operate, first, it is important to ensure that co-operation is secured within the Bill, so that we do not have to rush back to Parliament with modifying legislation; and, secondly, the opinion might be a minor matter. The work of the Local Government Commission will be based on advice it takes from wherever, including the Audit Commission. The most important thing is that that information and the results of the advice are in the public arena, and of course they will be.
Baroness Hamwee: I am obliged to the Minister.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: That is the only bit of the Minister's reply with which I am totally dissatisfied. I remind her that under the Act establishing the Audit Commission, the Secretary of State may issue such directions on the conduct of its functions as he thinks fit. The Audit Commission shall give effect to those directions; and so, if the Secretary of State wants to direct the Audit Commission to respond to the requests of the Local Government Commission, he can do so. That does not need to be on the face of this Bill.
There is a difference between the Audit Commission's position and all the other people who will be consulted. The Audit Commission is a statutory body. Under the terms of the Bill it can and will be required to respond. I should have thought that its professional opinion on how workable the Local Government Commission's proposals are is a central part of public debate on that issue. There is a distinction to be drawn between the Audit Commission and all the other consultees. I am not suggesting that the noble Baroness would wish to press her amendment to a Division, but she would be entitled to do so having regard to the quality of the answer given.
The other answers were very meaty and they deserve further consideration. Some appear to me to be quite hopeful. I shall certainly wish to consider them between now and another stage. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 194.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Feversham Lord Feversham moved Amendment No. 195:
Page 14, line 26, after ("that") insert ("bodies which may be affected by, or").
The noble Lord said: This amendment concerns consultation, as does the second group of amendments, with the exception of Amendment No. 219 which does not concern it. In introducing this amendment, I should say that, as Members of the Committee may know, I am President of the National Association of Local Councils. Perhaps I should have declared that interest before. I shall be continually pressing for the Local Government Commission and for any legislation which comes forward as a result of the commission's recommendations, to enhance the basic parish role of articulating views of parishes and
436
towns and, if the chance arises, of neighbourhoods on which other public bodies can take decisions affecting the parish.
Experience has demonstrated that without some statutory backing, as exists in the case of development control, parish councils are not always able to articulate at the right time the views of their area. This is usually because there is no settled, regular procedure for supplying them with information and receiving their views.
Therefore we are forced to move into what I can only describe as the funeral parlour of legislation in that most of these amendments are concerned with introducing the word "bodies" into the Bill. It is a situation where persons may not wander about in the Bill unless they are accompanied by bodies! The amendments seek to create this proper funereal atmosphere.
It is to ensure that at each stage of its procedures for review the commission is required to take appropriate steps to inform both the local authorities and the public of the area. What is necessary to inform, for example, every parish council—which many people recognise as the body—will be different from what is appropriate to inform the public—which is the persons. The commission should be under a specific duty, we feel, to consider what it should do in both categories of notification.
Amendment No. 219 is somewhat different, as it is not concerned with duties to be performed but with making arrangements, to prevent any doubt that suitable arrangements can be agreed, not only by existing bodies changed by orders, but by any new bodies. Experience has shown that it is often the new bodies, after they have begun to operate, which need to make agreements of this type. I am not quite sure why it has been included in this grouping of amendments. That is a mystery known only to the gremlins who draw up such things. However, I am happy to speak to it now, with the rest, in a spirit of goodwill and to give the Minister the opportunity to respond to it.
On the other hand, Amendment No. 235, which also stands in the name of myself and the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has a similar target with regard to consultation. What I have already said attaches to it, but it is not in the funereal mode of the other amendments. It is more specifically to deal with the need to consult parishes. It gives the Secretary of State greater control over the matter.
I have not dealt with Amendment No. 196. The group must have been put together because my name was on all the amendments and in the last attack of the gremlins Amendment No. 196 was slipped in. As ever, it brings in the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, manages to get in on it also. I shall leave either of those to talk to Amendment No. 196. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I support the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: As indeed do I.
Baroness Blatch: The purpose of Amendments Nos. 195, 195 and 235 is to ensure that bodies (including parish councils) which may be affected by the commission's review of an area and its recommendations have access to the same information as,
"persons who may be interested".
I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Feversham, that the term,
"persons who may be interested",
in the Bill already covers any corporate or unincorporated bodies or organisations which may be affected by a review by the Local Government Commission. The Interpretation Act defines "person" as including a body of persons corporate or incorporate. I hope that, in the light of that clarification, the noble Lord will not press this amendment.
As regards Amendment No. 201, I assure the Committee that the commission is already required to take such steps as it considers sufficient to ensure that persons who may be interested in its recommendations are informed of them, and the period within which they may be inspected. The term "persons" in the Bill already covers any corporate or incorporate bodies or organisations which may be affected by a review by the Local Government Commission. As I have already said, the Interpretation Act defines "person" as including a body of persons corporate or incorporate.
Amendment No. 235 is unnecessary, as parish councils within the area which the commission was reviewing would be included in the persons the commission is required to consult under the procedures set out in Clause 15. Parish councils are persons interested in the review. We have already set out in previous debates the procedures which the commission would have to go through under Clause 15. I hope that, in the light of the assurance that it is unnecessary, the noble Lords will agree to withdraw the amendment.
I understand that the next amendment has been withdrawn. I may be being presumptuous in expecting it to be withdrawn.
10.45 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: We cannot withdraw amendments until we reach them.
Baroness Blatch: I think someone has suggested to me the amendment may well be withdrawn.
Lord Feversham: In view of the Minister's full explanation of the definition of "persons", I shall be happy to withdraw the amendment. However, I am sad that that may signal the death knell of these delightful funereal wordings, in that in future Bills bodies will have to be accompanied by persons. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 196 to 202 not moved.]
Clause 15 agreed to.
Clause 16 [Consultation with the Audit Commission]:
Lord Shelmersdale Lord Shelmersdale moved Amendment No. 203:
Page 15, line 39, leave out from ("shall") to ("with") in line 40 and insert ("provide the Local Government Commission").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 203, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 204, 207 and 208. I believe that grouping has now been requested by the Committee. On Second Reading several noble Lords referred to the cost of change. That there will be such cost has been amply proved by the situation pertaining in and after 1974—the previous occasion there was a major re-organisation of local government. My noble friend Lord Teviot referred to this matter on an earlier amendment. This cost implication has been recognised by the Government, in part at least. That recognition is revealed at the beginning of Clause 16 which starts:
"The Audit Commission shall if so required by the Local Government Commission, provide it with a written opinion as to the … economy, efficiency and effectiveness "
of its proposals.
Since I tabled this amendment two things have happened. First, the Government have selected the first controller of the Audit Commission, John Banham, as presumptive chairman of the Local Government Commission. I believe it was he who gave the Audit Commission its strong start and gave it the respect it holds to this day. His appointment gives me considerable hope. My noble friend Lady Blatch said in winding up the Second Reading debate that one of the requirements of the Local Government Commission is that it must have regard to the cost effectiveness of any changes. However, I believe that will only happen in part. The problem is that Clause 16(1)—to which my Amendment No. 203 refers— states that only if the Audit Commission is approached by the Local Government Commission must it provide a written opinion as to the likely impact of any proposed structural changes on the economy and efficiency of a proposal. This is too important a matter to leave to chance.
In answer to the last but one group of amendments my noble friend said that in some cases the opinions of the Audit Commission would be of a "minor nature". Perhaps in her response she will be able to spell that out.
Be that as it may, the Audit Commission is the expert in this field where public bodies are concerned and I believe that it must always be consulted. I greatly fear that otherwise in some parts of the country the inherent costs will rise exorbitantly, to the detriment of both the taxpayer and the charge payer. That happened in 1974 and is bound to happen again.
The Audit Commission is not, and never has been, expert in environmental matters. Therefore, I shall be very interested to hear what my noble friend Lord Norrie has to say on Amendment No. 204.
I am not alone in my view of the automatic involvement of the Audit Commission. Since putting down the amendment the Association of County Councils has lent its support. I shall await the Government's response with interest. If they think on the same lines as the association and myself then I believe that Amendment No. 208 should come into play.
In my self-imposed role of the watcher of expenditure, I cannot see the point of one commission invoicing another for a service which the former has to perform. Two sets of accountants, and possibly lawyers, would have to be involved in transferring money from one public body to another. It would, I suggest, be far better and cheaper for the Government to increase the grant in aid of the Audit Commission so that it can afford its new role.
The gremlins have also been at this grouping, and so I shall reserve judgment on Amendment No. 207 until it is explained. In the meantime, I beg to move.
Lord Norrie: In support of my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale's amendment, Amendment No. 203, it concerns me that we do not know how the Local Government Commission will decide whether to require the services of the Audit Commission. Would that be on the basis of the degree of opposition to its proposals or would it be limited by budgetary constraints? Those are serious questions to which I hope the Government will respond.
Turning now to my own amendment, Amendment No. 204, which concerns the scope of the Audit Commission's assessment, in view of the important environmental functions performed by local authorities, I believe that the commission's assessment should cover the environmental implications of the proposed changes as well as the implications for economy and efficiency. That will not be easy.
In speaking to Amendment No. 174 I mentioned the difficult matter of measuring environmental costs. Those are less quantifiable than financial considerations and cannot satisfactorily be measured on a monetary scale. The Audit Commission is undoubtedly expert in the consideration of financial matters and questions of efficiency. It is important that it shares its experience and knowledge in respect of environmental assessment. Without a requirement for the Audit Commission specifically to examine environmental implications, I cannot see how a comprehensive assessment of proposed changes can be achieved.
The Government are proud of their environmental record and I am sure that the prospect of local government reform tarnishing their achievements in that respect will not be one that they will wish to risk. I therefore hope that the Minister can assure me that the commission will be required to assess the environmental implications of proposals for structural change.
Earl Howe: Amendments Nos. 203 and 208 both deal with the role of the Audit Commission in the reviews undertaken by the Local Government Commission.
Amendment No. 203 would make it mandatory for the Audit Commission to provide the Local Government Commission with advice on the likely impact of changes to local government structure on economy, efficiency and effectiveness in the provision of service arrangements. The Bill places a requirement on the Audit Commission to provide such advice only if the Local Government Commission requests it. We believe that to be the right approach.
440
It will be for the Local Government Commission to consider the most effective and convenient structure of local government for an area, and it will be assisted in that task by the guidance which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will issue to it. That guidance makes it clear that the commission should be satisfied that functions for which a transfer of responsibility would take place can be performed in a way which is cost effective.
The Local Government Commission will have to look carefully at the cost-effectiveness of service arrangements in drawing up its recommendations for structural change and it will obviously wish to draw on the valuable experience and expertise of the Audit Commission in doing so. My noble friend Lord Skelmersdale remarked that it was too important a matter to leave to chance. I do not think chance comes into it. If the Secretary of State thinks that the Local Government Commission has not arrived at its conclusions on the basis of the fullest possible balance of information it may be deemed to be in breach of its obligations. That is why I believe the discretion to seek advice should remain in the hands of the Local Government Commission.
Amendment No. 208 seeks to remove the provision under which the Audit Commission is required to charge the Local Government Commission the full cost of providing this advice. The Audit Commission charges the full cost of the advice it provides to all the public bodies who seek it. Subsection (3) of the clause is needed to ensure that the Audit Commission is able to recover its costs from the Local Government Commission. The Audit Commission has a statutory duty under the Local Government Finance Act 1982 to balance its books. If the power in subsection (3) of the clause were removed the Audit Commission would need to increase the fees it charged other bodies to cover the loss of income incurred in providing the Local Government Commission with the information it requested. That would be unfair. We prefer the Local Government Commission's relationship with the Audit Commission to be on a basis similar to its relationships with other public bodies.
Turning to Amendment No. 204 in the name of my noble friend Lord Norrie, I hope that it will not be thought from our debates so far that the Local Government Commission will have no access to advice on environmental issues. We shall be issuing guidance to the Local Government Commission about organisations it should consult in conducting its reviews. I can say that that will include suitable environmental organisations. It is worth repeating one additional point. The Bill does not in any way invalidate or weaken the impact of any previous legislation requiring local authorities to perform their statutory environmental functions. Those obligations do not disappear with the Bill, and it is not a bad idea to keep that thought at the back of our minds throughout these debates.
Technical advice on environmental issues is outside the scope of the Audit Commission's current functions laid down by legislation which relate essentially to the audit process and the promotion of value for money. Under the Bill the Audit Commission will lay down

441
the way in which performance standards are reported and published. We do not believe it would be an appropriate body to offer views on environmental performance as its undoubted expertise is not relevant to that concern.
I hope I have made clear that the arrangements we have made for the Audit Commission to give advice to the Local Government Commission and for it to obtain advice on environmental issues are appropriate and that my noble friend will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Skelmersdale: I am grateful to my noble friend for that answer. I have to say that without reading carefully what he has said I am unsure whether my noble friend Lord Norrie has had an answer to his question as to what will motivate the Local Government Commission to ask for advice in the first place. Subject to discovering that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 204 to 208 not moved.]
Clause 16 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 209 not moved.]
Clause 17 [Implementation of recommendations by order]:
[Amendments Nos. 210 to 214 not moved.]
Lord Desai Lord Desai moved Amendment No. 215:
Page 16, line 40, at end insert:
("( ) the power of the staff commission established under section 23 to issue advice and guidance to the relevant authorities with respect to all matters within its remit including the transfer of officers, their continuity of employment, compensation for loss of office, and provisions for early retirement.").
The noble Lord said: I apologise for the absence of my noble friend Lord Stoddart of Swindon, and on his behalf would like to move this amendment and speak to Amendments Nos. 224 and 225, which are all about the same kind of question. At this late hour I do not wish to detain the Committee for too long.
The purpose of the amendment is more or less to revive the practice adopted in the Local Government Act 1972 whereby the staff commission as then appointed facilitated in as peaceful and secure a manner as possible the transfer of staff of local authorities affected by structural reform. The simple purpose of these amendments is to make quite sure that the morale in local authorities stays high, that we retain such skills as have been built up at one level and that when that level has been abolished, staff can have time to be redeployed at other levels. I do not wish to speak any further, but if anybody wishes to raise any questions. I should be happy to answer them.
Baroness Blatch: I am in a difficulty in that, uncharacteristically, this amendment was not spoken to very fully. If the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, had been in the Chamber, no doubt he would have done so. However, in order to put on the record our response to these very important amendments, I shall give a full answer.
The duties of any such commissions would be threefold. First, they would be required to consider the arrangements for the recruitment or transfer of staff by relevant authorities affected by orders under
442
Part II of the Bill. Secondly, they must consider any staffing issues referred to them by the Secretary of State. Thirdly, they should advise the Secretary of State on the steps necessary to safeguard the interests of the staff. The clause also provides for the Secretary of State to be able to issue directions to any relevant authority affected by an order under this part of the Bill about the implementation of any advice given by a staff commission.
Amendment No. 215 would add a new item to the list of matters that a Clause 17 order may cover. But it does not seem to add anything of significance to what the Bill already contains. Where staff commissions are established, they will have the power to issue advice and guidance to relevant authorities about all staffing matters, including those listed in the proposed amendment. Therefore there is no need for the Clause 17 orders to refer to these matters.
I turn now to Amendment No. 224. Subsection (2) of this proposed new clause would require all the staff in a local authority which ceases to exist as a result of any structural changes to be found jobs in other local authorities. It will not surprise the Committee to hear that this would be completely unacceptable to the Government. One of the reasons for examining the structure of local government is to consider the case for removing the costly duplication that exists in some areas.
The Committee is well aware of the considerable savings that accrued to the people of London and the metropolitan counties as a result of the removal of an unnecessary and, I believe, wasteful tier of government. The savings that were achieved have convinced the Government that the case for moving to unitary authorities in other areas should also be considered. I have already said in relation to an earlier amendment that the case for change must be properly assessed. But if there were to be no staff savings, because staff had to be transferred to another local authority whether or not there was a job for them to do, a substantial part of the potential savings would be lost and almost certainly the case for change with it.
With regard to the matters covered in subsections (1) and (3) of the proposed new clause, the Committee will be aware that there is already provision in Clause 26(5) for the Secretary of State to make orders or regulations for the transfer of staff, compensation for loss of office, pensions and other staffing matters. It would not be right for me to make any categoric statements about the way in which staffing matters will be dealt with in relation to any structural changes that occur.
The Committee will appreciate that there is a wide range of changes that could take place. Nevertheless, it would not be right to go as far as the proposed new clause in requiring that the staffs terms and conditions of employment are no less favourable after the transfer. That would be impractical. Although no doubt many staff will transfer from an authority which ceases to exist to another authority, it would not be possible to guarantee that their jobs will be precisely the same or that the same terms and conditions of employment should apply. To give such a guarantee might also jeopardise the potential savings to be

443
obtained from the changes. Many staff will be recruited by newly established authorities, but in my view it will be essential for those authorities to be free to determine the salary and conditions of service of staff recruited by them, as are local authorities at present.
The final amendment in this group would require the establishment of one or more staff commissions not more than one month after this Bill receives Royal Assent. I am in no doubt that staff commissions have been useful in past reorganisations of local government. However, the practice in the past has been for major reorganisations to be put into effect on a single day. This has inevitably caused considerable upheaval, and the task of the staff commission has been to try to lessen the impact so far as concerns the interests of the staff.
The reorganisation of local government that is being undertaken on this occasion is rather different. The proposed Local Government Commission will be asked to undertake a review of local government in England area by area. We do not of course know what the commission's recommendations will be or how extensive a reorganisation of local government will eventually result from this review. Where the Secretary of State decides to make orders following recommendations from the commission, these changes will be implemented in stages.
I recognise that, had the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, been in his place, he would have said that he is concerned about the possible uncertainty that this procedure might involve for the staff of local authorities. But I believe that the procedure that the Government are proposing will actually reduce the amount of uncertainty that the staff will have to put up with. One of the objectives of the Government's approach is to enable changes to be implemented more quickly in each area after the commission has completed its review. Any uncertainty will thus be confined to the period from the time the commission begins a review to the time that any proposed changes are implemented. If all changes were to be implemented in one go, the period between the commencement of the review and the implementation of all changes throughout the country would, of course, be much longer.
The need for a staff commission will, in the Government's view, depend on the scale of the changes proposed in any one area. In some areas, the changes proposed may be quite minor and I believe that it would be quite wrong to set up a staff commission to deal with relatively minor problems that can quite easily be sorted out by the local authorities involved in the reorganisation. Where, however, more major structural changes are proposed, the Government accept that there may well be a need for one or more staff commissions to be established. I can certainly assure the Committee that where a case for the establishment of staff commissions is made we shall not hesitate to use the powers in the Bill. What we argue against is automatic establishment of staff commissions simply for their own sake.
Lord Desai: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her detailed answer. I apologise for not having been detailed in my presentation.
Two points must be made. In the local government reforms of 1963 and 1972 arrangements for staff transfer and redeployment seem to have been much more helpful and reassuring to the local authority staff than in the 1983 local government reforms. I believe that the Minister defines savings in a narrow way. There is no doubt that if many people are made redundant and not rehired there are savings. However, in the long run there is loss of significant skills which have been built up over a number of years. It is a waste for someone skilled in one area to work where those skills are not used properly. I have no doubt that if reforms were to take place in a staggered fashion between local authorities, uncertainty would be reduced. However, once a Local Government Commission is announced, many local authorities would believe that change was upon them. They would like the reassurance that the transfer would be as smooth as possible.
Baroness Blatch: One point must go on the record. Whatever view I take about savings, is it not a simplistic view to believe that we keep every single member of local authorities on the pay roll for all time, with full protection when there are no jobs for them? That must be bad economics by anyone's judgment.
Lord Desai: I thank the noble Baroness for her answer. I believe that if jobs were found for those people somewhere in the local authorities we might conserve skills rather than waste them. However, I take her point. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 216 not moved.]
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee had given notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 217:
Page 16, line 40, at end insert:
("( ) In elections held pursuant to an order under this section each vote shall be a single transferable vote pursuant to the method prescribed by Schedule 1 to the European Assembly Elections Act 1978 as applying to Northern Ireland.").
The noble Baroness said: I shall not move the amendment, but I must put on record the fact that Members on these Benches firmly believe that local government cannot be effective or properly accountable without a system of fair votes. Earlier today we debated the question of proportional representation, if in the circumstances that is the right term. Given that Members of the Committee on all sides have staked out their positions it might be fruitless to pursue the matter very far on the same day. I am sure that all Members of the Committee will agree that a system which produces in one authority—that is mine—48 councillors out of 52 who are Liberal Democrats and only four Conservatives, and to which no Labour councillor has been elected since 1974, cannot be a fair system.
[Amendment No. 217 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 218 not moved.]
Clause 17 agreed to.
Clauses 18 and 19 agreed to.
Clause 20 [Agreements as to incidental matters]:
[Amendment No. 219 not moved.]
Clause 20 agreed to.
Clause 21[Joint authorities]:
[Amendment No. 220 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendments Nos. 221 and 222 not moved.]
Clause 21 agreed to.
Clause 22 [Residuary bodies]:
Lord Teviot Lord Teviot moved Amendment No. 223:
Page 20, line 38. at end insert:
("( ) Notwithstanding subsection (1) above, where an order under section 17 above creates an authority smaller than the predecessor authority the Secretary of State shall appoint a residuary body to take over the functions, property, rights and liabilities of the predecessor authority's archive service.").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is to safeguard the provision of archive services at their present efficient size; that is mainly at county level. It seeks to ensure that where a unitary authority is created which is smaller than its predecessor authority a residuary body as provided for in Clause 22 of the Bill be appointed by the Secretary of State to take over the functions, property, rights and liabilities of the predecessor authority archive service.
There are a number of issues which are of particular importance in this context. First, and most importantly, the costs of the service need to be considered. Excellent archive services run by county councils have safeguarded the future of an important part of our heritage and provided an important range of services to their community charge payers at very low cost; that is a cost of 50 pence per head of the population. If such services are broken down into a number of smaller units it is almost inevitable that expenditure will have to rise steeply to provide a comparable quality of service. This would fail the Secretary of State's own criteria that any change must be cost effective.
As I also mentioned earlier this evening, the experience of the abolition of the metropolitan counties in 1985 has shown that it is difficult to provide cost-effective archive services in small units. It is so difficult that in some areas there is still virtually no provision made for the rescue and preservation of archives. In others, where voluntary joint services have been arranged, the archivist is forced to spend much of his or her time persuading participating councils to sustain their contributions to voluntary arrangements, rather than getting on with the effective management of the record service. In the light of that experience I support a residual body.
Secondly, the nature of the archive collections themselves dictates that record offices need to be retained at a county level. This Local Government Bill looks forward to the future, and so it should. But one cannot, in one's enthusiasm for a better future, overcome the fact that archives, by their very nature, relate to the past. Many collections were created by the ancient county administrations themselves. They cannot and should not be arbitrarily split up in the
446
interests of future neatness. We must respect their integrity. Indeed, whatever the outcome of the peregrinations of the Local Government Commission for England, provision must be made for the preservation and management of archives and records of the authorities or they will become extinct.
Archive services operate effectively and efficiently at county level to rescue and preserve our local, written heritage. Archives do not just appear. They are important records of anything that anyone ever created. If people do not produce records, things become sloppy. Therefore I ask the Committee to support the amendment which seeks to protect that important part of our common heritage. I beg to move.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I thought that we discussed earlier the substance of this issue. I was rather surprised to hear the noble Lord move his amendment. The Minister replied that in some cases it may continue to be a county responsibility, where counties exist; nevertheless, it is a feasible service for joint or lead authority arrangements. As a historian, I find that entirely satisfactory.
11.15 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: I was going to say much the same. In speaking to Amendment No. 159 my noble friend referred in detail to archives. I assure my noble friend that those interested in the archive service will have ample opportunity to make representations both to the Local Government Commission and the Secretary of State before decisions are taken about the restructuring of local government in an area. When considering the recommendations of the Local Government Commission, which may involve county councils ceasing to exist, the Secretary of State will have regard to the future of the archive service, among other things. I have no doubt that it will be possible for satisfactory arrangements to be made for archives to fit in with any reorganisation which flows from the forthcoming review. Archives are an important service and I assure my noble friend that his comments are well noted. I hope that he will not press the amendment.
Lord Teviot: I have no intention of pressing the amendment. I have referred again to this subject in the light of a previous bad experience and I wish the matter to be on the record. I wish to look at it carefully. We must examine the whole concept of archives management. It has not been dealt with by legislation since 1962. However, I do not apologise for moving the amendment. I am grateful for all the comments made and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.|
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 22 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 224 not moved.]
Clause 23 [Staff commissions]:
[Amendment No. 225 not moved.]
Clause 23 agreed to.
Clause 24 [Abolition of the Local Government Boundary Commission for England]:
[Amendments Nos. 226 and 227 not moved.]
Clause 24 agreed to.
Clause 25 agreed to.
Clause 26 [Orders, regulations and directions under Part II]:
[Amendment No. 228 not moved.]
Lord Simon of Glaisdale Lord Simon of Glaisdale moved Amendment No. 229:
Page 22, line 26, leave out first ("only") and insert ("any").
The noble and learned Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to all the amendments up to Amendment No. 234. This clause concerns the important matter of parliamentary control of regulations. As I read the clause, it produces a result so startling that I am prepared to hear that I have misread it.
Subsection (1) provides, with three exceptions, that all the regulations shall be subject only to the negative resolution procedure. It is not in question at the moment whether that is adequate in all the circumstances. In recent years there have been persistent attempts to downgrade the degree of parliamentary control of regulations, and in disregard of the recommendations of the Joint Select Committee of 1972–73. As I say, that is not in question at the moment.
What is in question is how the three exceptions are dealt with. Paragraph (a), "structural change" and paragraph (b), "joint authority" are dealt with in subsection (2) and made the subject of the affirmative resolution procedure. But paragraph (c) is not dealt with at all in subsection (2). In other words, what has happened is that it has been taken out of subsection (1) and not dealt with in subsection (2) so there is no parliamentary control about such important matters as electoral changes and parishes.
So far as I know the only exception to any form of parliamentary control is where the regulation is purely procedural and allows a Minister to bring certain provisions of an Act into law because he can be trusted to do that at the earliest opportunity convenient to him. It cannot be right that those kinds of provision are subject to no parliamentary control at all.
In effect my amendment makes paragraph (c), as well as paragraphs (a) and (b), subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. From what the noble Baroness said to me, I gather that she is not altogether satisfied about the earlier part of my amendment, and it may well require examination by parliamentary counsel. However, I should like her assurance either that I have misread the provision or that paragraph (c) will be brought under parliamentary control, as I favour, by the affirmative resolution procedure. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: The noble and learned Lord has been very patient and I hope that I shall be able to allay his fears. The Bill proposes that the new Local Government Commission would, as well as having powers to recommend structural change, take over the functions of the existing Local Government Boundary Commission to review local government boundaries, parishes and electoral arrangements. The Bill proposes no change to the role of Parliament in relation to those reviews.
448
We have found that the system in place under the 1972 Act has worked well. Under that Act, orders which make boundary changes affecting principal authorities are subject to negative resolution in both Houses. Orders relating solely to parish or electoral arrangements are not subject to parliamentary approval. The volume of work on those issues and the minor and local nature of most of them make them inappropriate for parliamentary consideration. My right honourable friends the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Home Secretary consult widely before making orders.
In addition, the Bill provides that where parish and electoral changes arise in the context of structural changes, the full set of issues will come before Parliament for affirmative resolution. The order which sets up the new structure will include any parish and electoral changes which are part of the new structural arrangements and Parliament will have an opportunity to give its opinion on all the proposals in the order.
The second effect of the amendments would be to cause confusion about whether the orders were to be subject to the hybrid instruments procedures. The last part of subsection (2)—
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I hope that the noble Baroness will forgive me. I have not yet moved the amendment dealing with the hybrid procedure.
Baroness Blatch: I hope that the noble and learned Lord will forgive me. I shall save my remarks for the next amendment. I am not sure whether the noble and learned Lord is satisfied with my explanation as regards the first part of his amendments.
Lord Mclntosh of Haringey: Before the noble and learned Lord replies I wonder whether the Minister can tell me what is meant by electoral changes? Can she also tell me what is the difference between an order, as she described it, under the 1972 Act and a statutory instrument as is required here?
Baroness Blatch: As I understand it the Secretaries of State have powers to make very minor changes to boundaries, for example, which can be done by order.
Lord Mclntosh of Haringey: Does the Minister mean ward boundaries which do not affect the boundaries of authorities?
Baroness Blatch: In considering warding arrangements, councillor numbers and timing of elections, the commission should take into account the views expressed locally, the practice hitherto and the authorities concerned. If the changes are not concerned with structural changes—the work of the commission—they will be subject to order. If they result from any work done by the Local Government Commission and are real structural changes, they will come before the House under the affirmative resolution procedure.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I yield to none of your Lordships in my admiration for the way in which the noble Baroness has conducted this Bill. However, since she asked me straight whether I was satisfied with her answer so far, I am bound to say no. There

449
has been no convincing reason given as to why such important matters as those set out in paragraph (c) should be taken away from the cognizance of Parliament. It would be absurd to divide the Committee on the matter at this hour although it is of constitutional importance. I do not doubt that the noble Lord the Government Chief Whip has his majority under his belt. Disraeli said that a majority is the best repartee. Similarly, I doubt very much whether the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, has any troops collected on the reverse slope.
In withdrawing the amendment I should not be thought to be satisfied with the answer that has been given. I shall return to the matter at a later stage. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 230 to 233 not moved.]
Lord Simon of Glaisdale Lord Simon of Glaisdale moved Amendment No. 234:
Page 22, line 30, leave out from ("Parliament") to end of line 34.
The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment removes the last three words in line 30 to the end of the subsection. Those words oust the hybrid Bill and regulation procedure from parliamentary procedure so far as this clause relates. We are all familiar with the difference between public and private Bills and there is no need to go into that now. There is the hybrid Bill and the hybrid regulation. That is a Bill or regulation which is in the public Bill area but nevertheless affects private rights. Whether it is hybrid, in other words affecting private rights, is decided by the independent examiners. If they rule that it is hybrid, it then goes to the Hybrid Bills Committee, which your Lordships appointed earlier today. Then the Minister in charge of the Bill has to justify the invasion of private rights just in the same way as the promoter of a Private Bill has to justify it. It seems quite extraordinary, I must say, even in this era of the surge of bureaucracy, to find this age-old procedure of Parliament, devised to protect private rights and interests, ousted in this way. These provisions should be removed. I beg to move.
Baroness Seear: I very strongly support the noble and learned Lord. We on these Benches are extremely grateful to him for watching these matters with such keen interest. The Government are constantly eroding the control of Parliament and we on these Benches join with the noble and learned Lord to oppose the Government's action in this regard on every possible occasion.
11.30 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: The noble and learned Lord has some doughty support from the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, and I shall have to be on my mettle when I respond to this particular amendment. Perhaps I may say that it is my judgment that the second effect of this group of amendments tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, would be to cause confusion about whether the orders were to be subject to the hybrid instrument procedures. The last part of subsection (2) is for the avoidance of doubt; but by removing these words, uncertainty would be created
450
about whether or not these procedures were to apply. The Government believe that there is no need for the hybrid instruments procedures to apply to orders made under this Bill. Where the new commission recommends structural changes, it will only be after extensive consultation with interested parties as required by Clause 15. Interested parties will be able to make representations to the commission at the start of a review and after the commission has published draft recommendations.
We have already had a debate on Clause 17 (2) which would require the Secretary of State to wait for a minimum of six weeks after receiving a report from the commission and before making an order to implement recommendations in the report. There will be ample time for interested parties to make representations both to the commission and to the Secretary of State before an order is made. Therefore we see no need for the hybrid instruments procedure to be used to enable yet further representations to be made.
There is one other point I should like to emphasise, and that is a point I made to my noble friend Lord Norrie when he sought to extend the six weeks' period. Six weeks is a minimum. The Secretary of State could take longer than six weeks before putting the orders before Parliament. If that reply is not satisfactory we could spend some useful time between now and Report stage talking about both this part of the amendment and the previous amendments, too.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for that last observation. I should very happily discuss all this group of amendments. I only need to say at this stage that confusion is avoided if an age-old parliamentary practice, which was designed to protect private rights, is swept away. There is no possibility of confusion, if the hybrid Bill regulations procedure stands, for the Examiners to rule categorically whether it is hybrid. If it is hybrid, it goes to the Hybrid Bills Committee. There is no possibility of confusion. However, it would be wrong at the start to pursue the matter in view of what the noble Baroness has said, which I gladly accept.
I hope I may be excused if I add these remarks from the Cross-Benches as this is the last amendment to be considered. We have very much appreciated the way the Bill has been debated, particularly by the noble Lords on whom the main burden of scrutiny has fallen and most of all by the noble Baroness in charge of the Bill. We have much appreciated the noble Earl's interventions, but a quite extraordinary burden has fallen on the noble Baroness. No doubt later we shall have a more ample opportunity to express our gratitude but in the interim perhaps we may be allowed to say something tonight.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 26 agreed to.
Clause 27 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 235 not moved.]
Schedule 3 agreed to.
Clause 28 [Interpretation]:
[Amendment No. 236 not moved.]
Clause 28 agreed to.
Clause 29 agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Repeals]:
[Amendment No. 237 not moved.]
Schedule 4 agreed to.
Clause 30 agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with an amendment.
House adjourned at twenty-two minutes before midnight.