Lords Sitting of 16 July 1996

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

The Grenadier Guards: Manpower
Baroness Strange Baroness Strange asked Her Majesty's Government:
Why the 1st Battalion Grenadier Guards, now stationed in Northern Ireland, is currently 91 men under strength.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Earl Howe): My Lords, the 1st Battalion Grenadier Guards is currently 51 under strength although there are also 25 men currently detached outside Northern Ireland for other duties or training who would return to the regiment if that were operationally necessary. That shortfall in personnel is typical of the manpower shortage affecting all the infantry regiments. We have introduced a number of measures to improve recruiting and retention with the aim of restoring the Army to full manning.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for his usual courteous and informative reply. I should perhaps declare an interest in that my son served as a Grenadier, my father served as a Grenadier, my grandfather served as a Grenadier in the 3rd Battalion and my great grandfather also served as a Grenadier. Is my noble friend aware that for one month—four weeks—one company has to be on front-line duty and is brought up to strength by taking men from here and there in the other three companies? Does he agree that that is not a very easy way to run a battalion?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on her family's very proud record in the Grenadier Guards, and I am rather sorry that she herself did not have the opportunity to serve in that gallant regiment. The serious point made by my noble friend is well taken. Clearly, shortages in the Grenadier Guards are never welcome, and that applies across the Army as a whole. In the specific case to which she referred, it would be up to the brigade commander to assess whether the shortfall that he faced was significant in operational terms, and he has not in fact said that that is so.
Lord Grimston of Westbury: My Lords, will my noble friend tell us how many of the 2nd Battalion Grenadier Guards were declared redundant when the battalion was disbanded a short time ago?
Earl Howe: Not without notice, my Lords, but I shall write to my noble friend.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, can the Minister say how many more regiments are under strength? Is it not because of the Government's policy of cut-backs that we have got into that position? Was it not disgraceful that the Ministry of Defence had to ask private soldiers to go out and recruit other soldiers and pay them money to do so?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I do not agree with the emphasis that the noble Lord places on our current incentives to redress the undermanning situation in the Army. I believe that the recruitment and retention bounties that we introduced have been very welcome. Indeed, there are already signs that they are showing results. The noble Lord asked about undermanning elsewhere across the Army. The shortfall is mainly in the Infantry, the Royal Armoured Corps and the Royal Artillery, although all arms are affected to some extent.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree with me and the Defence Committee in another place that it is of the highest importance for potential recruits to meet service staff in the recruitment offices? In the light of that, are the Government now abandoning, as I hope they are, the practice of using jobcentres, where people can look at the job advertised besides, say, a vacancy for a chamber-person?
Earl Howe: My Lords, with regard to the first part of my noble friend's question, I certainly agree with her. But jobcentres have never been seen as the be all and end all of the Army's recruitment difficulties. They provide a useful adjunct to the Army's efforts. Already we are seeing an encouraging level of inquiries coming through to the careers recruitment offices.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, is not the problem a little more simple? When you cannot get people, you pay more.
Earl Howe: My Lords, the noble Lord makes a very good point. That is why we introduced the recruitment and retention incentives. As I said, the results are already looking quite promising.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, like my noble friend Lady Strange, I also declare an interest as the father of a serving officer in the Grenadier Guards. Does my noble friend the Minister agree that the problem of retention has a great deal to do with overstretch, which in turn is significantly influenced by the amount of time that regiments, in particular the Grenadiers, spend overseas—or, to put it another way, the relatively little time that they spend within the United Kingdom?
Earl Howe: My Lords, it cuts both ways. When one talks to most soldiers, they express enthusiasm for working overseas. That is certainly the case with units serving in Bosnia. However, there must be a proper balance between operational duties and training and that is something that we constantly bear in mind.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the noble Earl announced on Friday in our defence debate that on many occasions women were to be given a fully operational role in the front line of the Armed Forces. I hope the noble Earl and the House will agree that it will be a famous day when the noble Baroness, Lady Strange, is allowed to serve in the Grenadier Guards as indeed her ancestors have done with such distinction.
On a more serious note, can the Minister say where the 1,000 troops posted to Northern Ireland came from? From which units are they detached? Are they units? Are those units above strength, below strength or below establishment? What is the case?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am not sure that that supplementary relates to the precise Question on the Order Paper, though I shall try to help the noble Lord in so far as I am able. He touched on the real problem in that if there is undermanning which a brigade commander assesses as significant, other units must be tapped for manpower. That is a regrettable fact of the current situation. I shall write to the noble Lord with the specific details for which he asked.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, can my noble friend say to what extent places are made open to members of the Territorial Army for short periods in order to make up numbers? It would greatly encourage recruitment in the TA if there were opportunities on occasion to do so.
Earl Howe: My Lords, my noble friend makes an extremely important point. It illustrates the truth of the maxim that every cloud has a silver lining. For example, in Bosnia we have been able to call out quite a large number of specialist Territorial Army personnel. They have been delighted to serve in Bosnia and it has meant that we have not had to resort to the kind of measures to which I referred in answering the noble Lord, Lord Williams.

Armed Forces: Recruitment
2.45 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they are taking to improve recruiting to the Armed Forces.
Earl Howe: My Lords, a number of measures are being taken to improve Armed Forces recruitment. Those include targeted recruitment advertising campaigns, payment of a recruiting bounty to marines and soldiers who persuade others to enlist, and the recently launched initiatives with the Employment Service to use the jobcentre network and the careers service to aid recruitment.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that, as was brought out in last week's defence debate, the numbers in all three services have steadily fallen year by year and last year were at their
736
lowest ever? Is he prepared to say what the Government are doing to secure that that trend is drastically reversed?
Earl Howe: My Lords, there are already small signs that the situation is improving. There was a much better level of recruitment in the final quarter of 1995–96. That continued in the current year. In the first quarter of this year there was a 53 per cent. rise in enlistment compared with the same period last year. Therefore there are signs that the measures we are taking are achieving some results.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that the manpower shortage would probably be improved if the Government improved their handling of issues of importance to service families?
Earl Howe: My Lords, we had a long and interesting debate about that issue last week and I made the Government's position clear. We have made considerable efforts to convey to Army families not only the details of our policy, but also the reasons for it. Naturally, it is regrettable that that message has not permeated as far as it should have done. There is no doubt that undermanning is causing difficulties. However, we should not exaggerate the operational effects.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, does the Minister believe that the Government's ridiculous and dangerous decision to sell off Ministry of Defence houses acts as an inducement for increasing numbers of people to join the forces?
Earl Howe: My Lords, yes. Housing will improve in standard as a result of what we plan to do and I should have thought that that would act as an incentive.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, does not the Minister agree that one of the principal reasons for undermanning is the instability and insecurity caused by a series of defence reviews, redundancies and all that goes with that? Can the Minister assure the House that the Government intend to stand by and honour the Prime Minister's pledge that the services should now have a period of peace and stability?
Earl Howe: My Lords, Ministers have repeatedly said that a period of stability is desirable and that is what we aim to achieve. A number of factors have contributed to undermanning, one of the main ones being a false perception among many people that because some servicemen recently faced redundancy the Army no longer offers a worthwhile career. That kind of perception is one that we are trying hard to overcome.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, following from the question of the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, can the Minister say what the career prospects are that are held out to young people joining the Armed Forces? Are they good and

737
positive during their service in the Armed Forces, and are the recruits trained adequately for their return to civilian life?
Earl Howe: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, touches on some important points. We endeavour as far as we can to convey to every new recruit that the Army offers a worthwhile and fulfilling career. We are laying particular emphasis on the encouragement of soldiers in particular to undertake courses of training which will give them transferable qualifications that they can use after leaving the service when they move into civilian life.
Lord Ironside: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, said, recruitment depends on the career opportunities which are offered in the services. Therefore, can my noble friend say now when the Government are going to adopt the recommendations made in Sir Michael Bett's report, which will show what the real opportunities in the services will be?
Earl Howe: My Lords, my noble friend touches on another important issue. The review carried out by Sir Michael Bett has been carefully studied over the past year and more. We hope to make an announcement shortly on our conclusions. My noble friend is quite right in that the areas that Sir Michael looked at are the key to ensuring that we can recruit and retain the right personnel in future.
Viscount Allenby of Megiddo: My Lords, does the Minister agree that some of our finest servicemen have come direct from school into service life? Will the Government consider the reintroduction of the apprentice system and the junior leader system and say what they are doing to right the major deficiency that we have all heard about?
Earl Howe: My Lords, we are considering the possible advantages of reintroducing some form of junior entry, but that would be expensive to set up. For the time being we propose to watch the success of the other measures that we have already implemented before taking a decision about junior leaders. In particular, we want to see whether our initiative, in partnership with the careers service, delivers the kind of results that we hope for.
Lord Wedgwood: My Lords, my noble friend the Minister will be aware that the Army has recently introduced a recruiting drive through the Internet. Does he agree that not only should we strive to recruit junior leaders, but that we should also consider and focus on our cadet forces across the country?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I believe that the increase in the advertising budget will yield results. As I have said, there are signs that it is already doing so. As regards cadets, we have always felt that while it is very useful that the cadet movement yields recruits for the three
738
main branches of the services, it should not by itself be regarded as a recruitment conduit. I believe that that would be retrograde.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the noble Earl will be aware that I asked him a question about the proposed statement on the Bett report a short time ago. Is he further aware that we are all now expecting, as the noble Earl said, a statement to be made shortly? Can we have the noble Earl's assurance that it will be made before the House rises for the Long Recess so that it can be properly considered and debated?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am very much in sympathy with the wish expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel. I can only tell him what I said the other day, which is that we are endeavouring to ensure that that happens, but I am not in a position to promise it.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that all local authorities give free access to the military to recruit in schools and colleges and that they are not influenced by some Left-wing authorities who may not allow the military to recruit at all?
Earl Howe: My Lords, my noble friend makes a very good point. I would like to be able to reassure him that all local authorities have the same constructive attitude towards recruitment into the Armed Services. However, I am unable to do so, but it is something that we keep constantly under review.

Non-food Exports: EU Powers
2.54 p.m.
Lord Monson Lord Monson asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the European Union claims the right to ban member states from exporting non-food products to countries outside the EU on health or safety grounds.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, Community controls on exports are principally governed by the EC's common commercial policy. The Community might seek to ban the export of non-food products from the EU, but we are not aware that it has ever done so on health and safety grounds.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that reply which is somewhat disconcerting because it appears to indicate that there is a theoretical possibility that the Commission could ban the export of motor cars, machine tools or electrical goods if they were thought to be dangerous on health and safety grounds. Does the noble Baroness agree that the right of the Commission to interfere with the external trade of member states—as distinct from intra-Community trade—is nowhere mentioned in the Treaty of Rome, the Single European Act or the Maastricht Treaty, which seems to indicate that the beef ban must have been brought in through the back door in some unexplained

739
way? If, as is theoretically possible, the European Court of Justice eventually rules that the ban has been illegal all along, can the noble Baroness say whether British farmers and taxpayers will be compensated directly or indirectly by the other 14 member states?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, certainly this is an area of great complexity. There is no doubt that under Article 3(o) of the treaty there is reference to the high level of health protection. I can read out the exact words if the noble Lord wishes. It is right that there should be health protection. What is wrong is where the health protection is extended into areas which should be those of national competence. As I believe the noble Lord, Lord Monson, knows, that is where we have objected very strongly. As regards the noble Lord's second question about compensation should the ECJ find the action of the other 14 member states to have been illegal, I do not believe that that is going to be the outcome although the noble Lord will know that at the present time we are awaiting information. There is no procedure that I know of for compensation to be paid. But it is certainly a very interesting legal point. I shall take much interest in looking into it.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that the European Court of Justice is beginning to take on the aspect more of a political court than a court of law as we would understand it in this country?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am well aware that that is the view of many. But the point is that the ECJ has a responsibility which is defined in law. On occasions it has sought to go beyond what we believe to be right. That is why we have made the suggestion that the IGC should look into what should go before the ECJ and what should not.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that many people are extremely worried by what she has just said? Does it mean that the European Union can ban any goods or produce from this country going to another country which is quite prepared to accept them? If that is so, have we not really lost our sovereignty?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, we have not lost our sovereignty. The noble Lord seeks to embroider a situation which is not that unclear, although it is complicated. Article 113 is the main basis on which an export might be banned, but it is possible that powers under other articles of the treaty or in subordinate legislation adopted under those articles might be sought. It all depends on the goods in question or the aim of the prohibition. If goods are unsafe I would have thought that it was not in the interests either of the company producing them or of the industry in this country that they should be freely allowed into the market. So there is some sense in this although the noble Lord may find it hard to accept. We have to make sure that there is balance
740
and common sense applied in this matter. It is in those instances where we believe that scientific evidence is not being fully used to inform decisions that we have protested. That is why I believe that there has to be another look taken at the way in which the ECJ works on these matters.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, when my noble friend comes to examine the second supplementary question of the noble Lord, Lord Monson, will she also consider whether it might be possible for the Luxembourg Court not just to fine the 14 other countries but to fine the Commission itself?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, that is an interesting suggestion. I am not sure that it is one that will bear much fruit, but I shall look at it.
Lord Richard: My Lords, can the Minister confirm the position as I understand it, which is that there may be a theoretical argument which says that such a ban on non-food products might be imposed whereas in fact for the past 40 years the Community has had the common sense not to do that?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, that is absolutely right. If substances are dangerous, such as those which are subject to Regulation 2455/92 which relates to hazardous chemicals, member states must implement the importing country's decisions. However, that does not usually relate to products that are manufactured or used within the Community. It usually applies where those substances pass from a third country, through a Community country, and onward. That is why we need to take some care in making the sort of comments that are often made in relation to legislation to which we can fully sign up because it is in the interests of the protection of the health and safety of our people as well as of those in 14 other member states.

Clydesdale District Council: Proceedings
3.1 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil Lord Peyton of Yeovil asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, following the meeting between the Minister for Agriculture at the Scottish Office and Mr. Errington, they will inform Parliament of the outcome of the proceedings brought against the latter by Clydesdale District Council.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office (The Earl of Lindsay): My Lords, the proceedings between Clydesdale District Council and Mr. Errington were concluded on 28th February 1996. The sheriff found in favour of Mr. Errington and awarded costs to him for the value of his cheese and expenses from 14th February 1995 to be met by Clydesdale District Council. On 1st July 1996 I met Mr. Errington and the new director of public protection services at South Lanarkshire Council, the successor

741
council to Clydesdale District Council. The meeting established the willingness of both parties to forge a new working relationship for the future.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that Answer. Is he aware of how much I personally appreciate the courtesy and attention with which he has listened to representations made on behalf of Mr. Errington and the trouble that he has taken to visit Mr. Errington at his farm to inquire into what happened? That was most unusual and I should like my noble friend to realise that my thanks on this occasion are not merely formal. He has done marvellously well.
However, there is just one little point that I should like to add. I am sure that my noble friend has done all that he can to urge Clydesdale District Council to pay the huge sum of costs awarded against it by the sheriff. Does my noble friend know whether the council has yet paid those costs?
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I am grateful for my noble friend's kind remarks. Given my noble friend's previous track record, I had imagined that there might well be a sting in the tail. Perhaps I may commend the energy with which my noble friend has brought this matter to the attention of Ministers and the House. All who have been involved in the case are agreed that lessons have been learned and that much good will come of that unfortunate episode.
My noble friend asked specifically about costs. Mr. Errington has received payment with regard to the judicial review and the appeal. With regard to legal and witness fees in respect of the sheriff court hearing which commenced on 14th August, the sum involved has yet to be settled, but the hearing date has been settled and the sheriff intends to award Mr. Errington his costs. I remind the House that Mr. Errington makes a very fine product which I commend to all those who like blue cheese.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, perhaps I may associate myself with the grateful thanks which the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, has expressed to the Minister for the trouble that he has taken. Not only were the noble Earl's actions correct, but he went even further on this occasion than he need have done. We are all glad that the matter now seems to have been resolved. I do not think that I have ever read as much background material on any Question as on this.
Will the Minister consider one or two other points? I understand that the original complaint came from the local authority in Edinburgh and that the South Lanarkshire people had to examine it. There was then an investigation by the Scottish Agricultural College which said that the product could be dangerous, but another college, the Analytical Service Centre in Motherwell, gave it the "all clear". What worries me now is how we can reassure the public that our food hygiene practices are safe. Was this episode a one-off or does it indicate that procedures need to be tightened up? I wonder, for instance, whether we should have a government analyst to supervise such matters.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that public health will remain paramount in
742
all such cases. Indeed, Edinburgh District Council and a further two district councils analysed the cheese originally and found it to be in excess of the listeria threshold. However, the science involved in listeria is complex. Clearly, one needs a combination of increased research, which we are providing, and increased education for environmental health officers, which we are currently considering, as well as the further development of a code of best practice, upon which the Scottish Office, MAFF and the Department of Health are working with food authorities and specialist cheesemakers.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, can the noble Earl tell us what this fascinating cheese is called?
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, it is called Lanark Blue and it is regularly available in the Dining Room next door.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, what costs have so far been incurred in the case by the complainant and by the local authority? Can the noble Earl give us some idea of the extent of the liability which will fall to be met by the ratepayers of Strathclyde Regional Council?
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, details of many of the costs arising from the case are not in the public domain. I believe that Mr. Errington has not released information on the costs which he has already been paid for the judicial review and the appeal. I told the House a little earlier that the costs associated with the sheriff court have still to be finalised, but they will be paid to Mr. Errington. Costs have been awarded against Clydesdale District Council, which is now South Lanarkshire Council.

Liaison: Select Committee Report
3.7 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the second report from the Select Committee (HL Paper 96) be agreed to.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
Following is the report referred to:
European Communities Committee
1. In our First Report, Session 1993–94, we recommended that the European Communities Committee should appoint a sixth sub-committee on the 1996 Intergovernmental Conference and indicated that the number of sub-committees to be appointed thereafter would be a matter for further review in the light of other proposals for select committee work.
2. We now recommend that the European Communities Committee should be able to appoint six sub-committees for an experimental period of two years from the start of next session. This is in order to enable the Committee to improve its scrutiny of subjects which have not been satisfactorily accommodated within the existing structure of five sub-committees. We propose to review the position after two years.

743
Science and Technology Committee
3. Our First Report, Session 1993–94, also recommended that the number of sub-committees of the Science and Technology Committee should remain at two, and indicated that this would be further reviewed. We have concluded that the number of sub-committees should continue to be two for the time being.
A Foreign Affairs Committee
4. The Select Committee on the Committee Work of the House (the "Jellicoe Committee") considered the possibility of appointing a sessional select committee on foreign affairs. It concluded, in paragraph 123 of its report (HL Paper 35-I, session 1991–92):
"We acknowledge that there are sound arguments in favour of a foreign affairs committee. There is a wealth of relevant experience in the House and in these rapidly changing times there would be no shortage of suitable subjects for enquiry. Foreign affairs is such a wide policy area that any danger of duplication with the Commons' Committee on Foreign Affairs could be overcome, given prior consultation between the two committees. We acknowledge too that there are areas of foreign policy which receive little or no detailed parliamentary scrutiny. Despite these arguments, however, we share the misgivings, which were expressed by some witnesses (paragraph 38), at the prospect of select committees in the two Houses tackling the same general policy areas; and it has to be said that very few Lords proposed a foreign affairs committee. Finally, we do not accept the argument that, without the benefit of a select committee, debates on foreign affairs in the Chamber can be unfocused or have had little influence. On balance, therefore, we have decided not to recommend the appointment of a foreign affairs committee, though we recommend that the Steering Committee review the proposal from time to time, particularly as foreign and security policies develop within the European Community."
5. This Committee, which performs the functions of the Steering Committee recommended by the Jellicoe Committee, has accordingly reconsidered the matter. We do not at this stage recommend the appointment of a foreign affairs committee, but we would review the matter again if it appeared that there was significant support for it in the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Broadcasting Bill: Commons Amendments
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Inglewood, I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Commons amendments be considered in the following order:

Commons amendments 1–98,

Commons amendments 171–256,

Commons amendments 99–170,

Commons amendments 257–296.—(Baroness Trumpington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Ministerial and other Salaries Order 1996 (No. 2)
3.8 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Viscount Cranborne)The Lord Privy Seal (Viscount Cranborne) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 9th July be approved [26th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, the draft Ministerial and other Salaries Order before your Lordships today is unusual in that it provides two sets of increases which come into effect at different times. This is to implement the recommendations of the independent Senior Salaries Review Body, which were debated in the other place last Wednesday and accepted in full. The order, when made, will provide increases of 3 per cent. for all Ministers and office holders in this House and a modest increase of £500 in the Lord Chancellor's salary lead over the Lord Chief Justice. It also provides further significant salary increases for a selection of Ministers and office holders to take effect after the next election. In this House, those affected are Cabinet Ministers and the Lord Advocate.
I should make it clear that Her Majesty's Government thought the increases recommended by the SSRB were too high. We therefore proposed in another place awards based on the 3 per cent. increases recommended for Lords Ministers. Members of another place chose to reject the Government's advice and voted for the whole package, one element of which is before you today.
In making its recommendations on all parliamentary salary levels the SSRB applied the principle that the main determinate should be the level and range of responsibilities. In the case of Ministers and office holders in this House it also accepted the historical argument that ministerial salaries should remain higher than those of their counterparts in another place. Those principles are reflected in the new rates which the review body has recommended.
Your Lordships will have noted that no post-election increases have been recommended for Ministers of State and Parliamentary Under-Secretaries. The same is true for their counterparts in another place, although they will continue to benefit from the increases in their parliamentary salaries. The reason for this is that in the time available the SSRB was unable to consider in sufficient depth the relativities between Ministers of State and Parliamentary Under-Secretaries in this House and their counterparts in another place. It will therefore consider that aspect further and make its recommendations in due course. If any of your Lordships wish to examine the development recommendation in the SSRB report I recommend a review of paragraph 59.
I should comment also on the three recommendations in the SSRB report on your Lordships' allowances, particularly in the light of the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell. Those allowances are: a consolidated allowance for regular attendance; the entitlement to claim for two return journeys for spouses to attend parliamentary occasions; and the proposal to introduce these allowances from 1st August of this year and uprated in accordance with normal practice.
Her Majesty's Government need to consult the House authorities on the administrative arrangements involved in implementing those recommendations. I submit that they could be fairly complicated. If the House permits, I shall return to your Lordships with more detailed proposals in the light of those investigations as soon as I can.
I have already referred to the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell. I can readily understand that other noble Lords may share his disappointment that the SSRB has not recommended any significant increases in Peers' expenses. The noble Lord, Lord Richard, Leader of the Opposition in your Lordships' House, has already drawn my attention to the concerns of a number of Back Bench Peers on that and other matters. I welcome the noble Lord's interest in this matter. I hope that it will be possible for him, the Convener and the Leader of the Liberal Democrats to confer with me in order to consider how best we should approach this matter in due course. I hope that your Lordships' House will regard it as sensible for that confabulation to take place before I return to your Lordships on this matter.
For that reason, I suggest that it is preferable to treat ministerial salaries and Peers' expenses separately in spite of the understandable concern expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell. Indeed, it is entirely commensurate with the past approach of the House to these matters. I should like to underline one way of looking at this important matter. In the past your Lordships have endorsed the principle that Peers' expenses should be treated as just that. They are not in any way remuneration, but a reflection of the fact that your Lordships' House is, in political terms, although not in terms of the expertise which this House embodies, an amateur House. Therefore, any suggestion that your Lordships' House as at present composed should attract remuneration is at variance with the nature of the House. I suggest that it would be sensible for your Lordships to regard expenses as just that. Therefore, we have a difficult line to maintain. On the one hand, we do not wish your Lordships to feel that you are subsidising attendance at this House in any way. On the other hand, I suggest that it would be wise for the general public to be aware that, in contrast to predilections elsewhere, your Lordships do not—dare I say it?—suffer from greed, and that if there is an opportunity to depart from the narrow path which I have suggested should be followed, your Lordships should err on the side of public economy rather than the reverse. That is something that your Lordships will wish to look at when considering the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell.
For that reason, I hope that your Lordships will feel able to approve the recommendations embodied in my Motion this afternoon. I commend the recommendations to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 9th July be approved [26th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Viscount Cranborne.)
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, we have been told year after year that our remuneration is not a matter for this House but that the decision is made in another place. But when the Minister gave an answer to a question in another place at the time this matter
746
was debated he bounced the ball in here. In another place Mr. D.N. Campbell-Savours, the Member for Workington, asked the Leader of the House:
"Why do the Government refuse to include evidence on the remuneration of peers? Many working peers find it difficult to manage; yet they do as much work as many Members of this House. Are they not being treated disgracefully?".
One could also say that about Ministers and the workload in the House compared with others. Mr. Newton's reply was quite clear:
"The remuneration of working peers is a matter for the other place".
Lord Elton: My Lords, I believe that there is an amendment to this Motion on the Order Paper. It is the custom of this House to take the amendment first and the order afterwards.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Elton, is not yet the Speaker of the House, so I will proceed. Mr. Newton said—
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am, as always, to be guided by your Lordships. If the noble Lord, Lord Dean, is intervening in my remarks I shall be happy to try to conclude my remarks by attempting to answer his point. On the other hand, if he is anticipating what the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, is to say I wonder whether the House would prefer to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Dean, after the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, rather than before.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am grateful to the Leader of the House. However, my remarks have nothing to do with the amendment on the Order Paper; they are related to a completely different subject. When Mr. Campbell-Savours put his pointed question Mr. Newton replied:
"The remuneration of working peers is a matter for the other place".
He was referring to noble Lords. He went on to say,
"There are three recommendations in the report on which I have not touched".—[Official Report, Commons, 10/7/96; col. 491.]
He made it quite clear that we should be the masters of our own remuneration, not sit back like lapdogs waiting for the crumbs to fall off the table when the MPs have had their snouts in the trough. According to Mr. Newton, we have some say in this matter.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I observed the useful and disinterested trades unionist intervention from the honourable Member for Workington, and indeed the reply of my right honourable friend in another place. Noble Lords' expenses are entirely a matter for your Lordships' House. I hope that I can reassure the noble Lord on that matter. Ministerial salaries are a different matter. That is

747
a matter for resolution by both Houses, and it is to that particular resolution that I direct your Lordships' attention this afternoon.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, may I—
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, there is a distinction—
Lord Monkswell: My Lords—
Noble Lords: Order!
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am reminded of my time in another place. I shall, of course, be guided by your Lordships, but in view of the strong feelings that this matter clearly engenders in your Lordships' House, and the fact that we have a great deal of business to get through this afternoon, I wonder whether your Lordships might feel it sensible to listen to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, in support of his amendment, and for other noble Lords to deliver themselves of their opinions afterwards.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords—
Lord Monkswell: My Lords—
Noble Lords: Order!
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Dean. I am not, in any way, Speaker of your Lordships' House and I think it is thoroughly undesirable for this House to have a Speaker. I hope I am right in thinking that my noble friend is perhaps suggesting against the will of the House that he should intervene at the moment. I will listen to what he has to say with the greatest of interest, but I wonder whether it would be possible for the House to listen to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords—
Noble Lords: Order!
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I have to confess that I had hoped we would conduct these proceedings with somewhat greater decorum than we have managed so far. My noble friend is a very experienced parliamentarian. I appeal to his experience and, indeed, his better nature. I assure him that I shall listen to what he has to say in due course.
Lord Monkswell Lord Monkswell rose to move, as an amendment to the above Motion, at end to insert ("after the Leader of the House has consulted all Members of the House to discover how many Lords in receipt of a Writ of Summons are unable to obey their Writs on a daily basis because of inadequate allowances and when he has reported his findings to the House.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I must, first, apologise to the House, because in submitting this amendment I had no idea that it might cause any consternation.
In moving this amendment I should like to review some facts; put forward an argument for more information; and seek the support of noble Lords in the name of the effective involvement of all Members of your Lordships' House. I shall tell your Lordships what this amendment is not about. It might be felt that I am trying to curry favour with the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition in another place who both urged restraint on the increase in ministerial salaries. I am not trying to do that. This amendment is not about stopping or curtailing the salary increases.
Members of your Lordships' House and Members of the House of Commons are all Members of Parliament. Parliament sits for approximately 140 days per year. Members in the Commons will be paid £307 per sitting day. Members in the Lords have an allowance of £33 per sitting day. Members in the Commons have a second homes allowance of £85.50 per sitting day. Members in the Lords have a second homes allowance of £74 per sitting day. Members in the Commons have an office costs allowance of £331 per sitting day plus free postage while Members in your Lordships' House have a secretarial allowance of £31 per day and no free postage.
We need also to be aware that the average daily attendance in your Lordships' House is 374, or 31 per cent. of the total membership. The maximum daily attendance in the past year was 517, or 43 per cent. That was last week when we had a big debate and vote on the sale of married quarters. Our total membership is 1,195 Peers in receipt of a Writ of Summons. So 678 Peers who had received their Writ of Summons did not attend on that day—the highest attendance day in recent memory.
Some of those 678 Members will be old and infirm and therefore, for reasons of health, unable to attend your Lordships' House. But we need to be concerned that some Members of your Lordships' House in receipt of a Writ of Summons may be unable to obey that Writ of Summons because of inadequate allowances.
It is interesting to note that the Senior Salaries Review Body in its investigations into the subject of Peers' allowances interviewed only active Peers. There has been no attempt to glean the responses of those Members of your Lordships' House who may not be active.
We may also be trespassing on the goodwill and private income of our colleagues who do attend. I shall give details of a case study: an elderly Peer—I will not name him—takes a taxi to the House in the morning. He spends £5 and arrives at 10.30 a.m. He buys a cup of coffee: 35p; he has lunch in the Peers' Dining Room: £6; later in the afternoon he has a cup of tea and a muffin: £1.15. We need to recognise that cream cakes cost extra. Dinner in the evening will cost him £21.35. At the rise of the House at 10.30 p.m., he takes a taxi home. That is another £5. His total expenditure during the day for attending your Lordships' House is £39.85. That is before he has paid for a decent suit, shirt cleaning, and other costs which may be incurred. The daily allowance is £33. In that case, for

749
working a 12-hour day in your Lordships' House, the Peer subsidises the House by £6.85, and that is without having a drink.
My amendment requests the Leader of the House to consult all Members of the House to discover how many Lords in receipt of a Writ of Summons are unable to obey that Writ on a daily basis because of inadequate allowances, and to report his findings to the House. That information is important because I am sure that even Ministers would be unhappy about receiving an increase in their pay if they knew that Members of your Lordships' House in receipt of a Writ of Summons from Her Majesty the Queen felt unable to take part in your Lordships' business. I beg to move.
Moved, as an amendment to the above Motion, at end to insert ("after the Leader of the House has consulted all Members of the House to discover how many Lords in receipt of a Writ of Summons are unable to obey their Writs on a daily basis because of inadequate allowances and when he has reported his findings to the House.")—(Lord Monkswell.)
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, there is a distinct difference in both the importance and the presentation of the amendment and the statement made by the Leader of the House. Following the statement by the Leader of the House, I want to ask him a question about the constitutional standing of this House.
I am not interested in Back-Bench arguments on the price of coffee and cream cakes that we have just heard, but I am interested in seeing that our standing as part of the parliamentary system is preserved. I want to ask my noble friend what efforts he has made to avoid the distinction between junior Ministers in the other place and junior Ministers here. Under the constitution, many Members of this Chamber have to be part of the Government. I should like to know whether they are truly Ministers when they are appointed or whether they are some down-graded type of Minister who comes rather lower.
In 1911 everyone agreed to give the other place all the powers relating to finance. However, we preserved our right to have our Ministers as part of the Government. Under the arrangement as I understand it, and as explained by my noble friend, that means that in terms of payment there is a distinction to the disadvantage of Ministers who sit in this House. I believe that that is bad and an acceptance that Ministers in this House have a lower status than those in the other place. One is either a Minister or one is not. One is not a part-time psuedo-Minister if one is a Minister in this House but a proper Minister if you are a Member of the other place.
On the basis of wishing to preserve the constitutional rights of this House, I did not want my point to be entangled with an argument about how much we should pay for our cream cakes.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, I, too, tried to speak on the original Motion. I did not wish to become involved in the amendment. I wish to say to the noble Viscount the Leader of the House—and I hope that he
750
is listening to me—that I find the matter extremely distasteful. I have said so previously, and I shall continue to say it while it remains the procedure that recommendations that come before both Houses of Parliament are moved by Members who will benefit from them. That is most distasteful for the ordinary Members of this House who are obliged to accept the recommendations.
These matters should be dealt with in the same way as the Government have recommended that companies should review their directors' salaries. There should be an independent body within the House, rather than having the Leader of the House moving the Motion, which is promptly seconded by the Leader of the Opposition. Surely it would be more practical for the Chairman of Committees, who is independent, to move the Motion rather than two politically involved Members of the House.
Lord Howell: My Lords, perhaps I may express my appreciation to the noble Viscount the Lord Privy Seal for what he said and the way in which he said it. I am content that he will have these various matters investigated. I do not support the amendment that is being moved.
However, there are real problems and I am grateful to the noble Viscount for acknowledging the role of my noble friend Lord Richard and others. I endorse what was said by the noble Viscount: no one having the honour to serve in this House receives remuneration unless he or she is a Minister. I agree with what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, about Minister's salaries.
The same should be acknowledged in relation to Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen. They work long hours, and under our existing arrangements no adequate research facilities are provided. In view of the changing character of the House and the long hours we now sit there is a need for a proper accommodation allowance. No noble Lord should be expected to subsidise the Government or the work of the House, as distinct from receiving remuneration. It is not possible to rent a flat for 12 months, for example, on the kind of allowances which are provided. Nor is it possible to have proper secretarial assistance.
I hope that the noble Viscount the Lord Privy Seal will take on board the fact that I do not see why spouses of Members of this House should be regarded as less important than spouses of Members of Parliament, who are given assistance for 15 visits. That suggests that those of us who come from up-country should not be allowed the same attendance of our wives or husbands as those in another place. I cannot believe that that is right. We all know that wives of Peers and of Members of Parliament do a great deal of work for the country without recompense. I hope that we can be generous by saying that husbands and wives are entitled to have their spouses with them more often than twice a year.

751
I rest content in leaving these matters in the hands of the noble Viscount and I am sure that he will have them examined.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I rise to take up the noble Viscount on the point of greed. I personally would find the expenses entirely adequate for my needs if it were not for my greed and my thirst.
The noble Lord, Lord Howell, raised the matter of the journeys of Members' wives. If one comes from Scotland that is a little expensive. When the noble Viscount talks about administrative arrangements, does he mean that for 30 attendances in the House you get one wife here? How is that to be arranged?
Lord Richard: My Lords, I may be wrong but I detect a feeling that the House does not want a lengthy debate on this issue today.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Richard: My Lords, perhaps I may make three points. I read the report of the top salaries review body with some disappointment. I thought that in relation to your Lordships' House it had either disregarded the issue or had fudged it. As regards Ministers in your Lordships' House, the committee appeared to have disregarded the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls. Those points should have been regarded.
Secondly, I have considerable sympathy with the position expressed by my noble friends Lord Monkswell, Lord Dean, Lord Taylor of Blackburn and Lord Howell. It is all very well for the Leader of the House to say that this is an amateur House. In one sense it is an amateur House but in another sense it is becoming increasingly less amateur and rather more professional. In those circumstances, there is an issue which needs to be examined.
Thirdly, the noble Viscount the Leader of the House referred to a letter which I wrote to him. I did so expressing my disappointment about the terms of the report. I stated that I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, as Leader of the Liberal Democrats, the Leader of the House, the Convenor of the Cross-Benchers and myself should get together to see how we could advance this matter. By "advance this matter" I do not mean that we can persuade your Lordships to accept the terms of the report. I mean that perhaps we can produce a set of proposals which will be more amenable to your Lordships and fairer to this House than the report. I hope that that meeting will take place reasonably quickly. I also hope that there will be an opportunity to come back to the House before the Summer Recess so that you Lordships will be able properly to assess the whole matter.
I am afraid that I could not advise my noble friends to support the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Monkswell if it were put to a vote. It appeared to me to be somewhat premature and not totally in line with the terms of the statutory instrument which we are
752
addressing. I hope that, having aired the issue in the way that he and other noble Lords have, he will feel it proper to withdraw the amendment.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am grateful for what the noble Lord, Lord Richard, has said. I hope that noble Lords who attempted to intervene before the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, moved his amendment will understand that my perhaps rather arbitrary suggestions were motivated in the interests of good order rather than anything else. I hope that noble Lords who felt that I was perhaps rather high-handed will forgive me.
There is no doubt of the justice of what my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls, said. Perhaps I may refer him to paragraph 59 of the Perry Report, which I am sure he has studied. The report sets out a "development recommendation". Attention is drawn to the relationship between the salaries of Ministers in your Lordships' House and the salaries of Ministers in another place. It is proposed by Sir Michael and his team that they should examine the relationship between those two, and I hope and believe that they will give a very high priority to doing that. Certainly it will be my duty to come back to your Lordships' House to lay before your Lordships any proposals that Sir Michael and his team develop as a result of implementing the recommendations set out in paragraph 59 of their report.
Although, as a result, I cannot give a clear indication to my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls of what will be proposed, I hope that he is satisfied that I am wholly conscious of the importance of this matter. I agree entirely with the sentiments that he has expressed. I hope that Sir Michael will take the feelings of your Lordships' House on board, particularly as support for the sentiments that my noble friends have expressed has come from the Leader of the Opposition.
I am also extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Howell, for what he said. As I think the noble Lord, Lord Richard, knows, I am extremely sympathetic to the plight of members of the Opposition Front Benches who, to the discomfort of the Government Front Bench, manage to turn in a distressingly effective performance in your Lordships' House in spite of having restricted resources open to them. The question of "Short money", as it is known, was outside the scope of Sir Michael's remit, as he makes clear in his report. However, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Richard, will forgive me if I break a confidence and say that he and I have already discussed this question at some length. I hope that it will be possible to make some proposals in due course, although I am not yet in a position to give your Lordships an undertaking to that effect.
I am aware also that your Lordships' House has become increasingly active over the past few years. To say that your Lordships' House is an amateur House perhaps begs a question in the way that the

753
noble Lord, Lord Richard, suggested. Nevertheless, it would be wise if we, as a House, did not move too far towards using expenses as a substitute for a salary. There is a difficult line to toe here and it is one which, in the end, will be a matter of judgment.
I look forward to the conversations which the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, the Convenor, the noble Lord, Lord Richard, and I will hold—I hope this week, diaries permitting. I hope that we shall be able to give some account of our conversations before the Recess. I suspect that an account of substance will not be possible because, after all, one of the merits of referring the matter to the SSRB lies in the point that the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, made; that it is difficult for us to be judge and jury in our own case. It is one of the things that makes the subject that we are discussing difficult and distasteful to all of us.
The fact that the SSRB has been asked to examine these difficult matters goes at least some way towards addressing the point that the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, made, although I accept that it does not go the whole way.
I have already detained your Lordships too long on this matter. However, I hope that your Lordships will nevertheless feel able to support the substantive motion which is about Ministerial salaries. In view of the exchanges which have taken place and, I am sure, the entirely inadequate answers that I have been able to give so far, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, will feel that enough has been said to enable him to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the short debate. It is not my intention to detain the House further. I was glad to hear from the noble Viscount the Lord Privy Seal and my noble friend Lord Richard, that there will be discussions through the usual channels to try and sort out some of the anomalies that have arisen as a result of what, I would suggest, is a somewhat inadequate consideration—no doubt due to time constraints—of our situation here in the House of Lords by the Senior Salaries Review Body. I am sure that something will come out of those deliberations to support the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, and provide resolutions to other problems which will follow further considerations by the Senior Salaries Review Body.
On the basis of the assurances that have been given during the short debate, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, to put the record straight, when I referred to the fact that he was not yet the Speaker of the House, my remarks were not directed at the noble Viscount, they were directed at the intervention by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, who sits behind him.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Deregulation (Building) (Initial Notices and Final Certificates) Order 1996
3.48 p.m.
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 17th June be approved [26th Report from the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I speak on behalf of my noble friend Lord Ferrers. The draft order under the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 will make two amendments to the Building Act 1984 which should ease some of the administrative constraints under which approved inspectors operate. Both amendments relate to the procedures that approved inspectors have to follow when they, rather than local authority officers, are undertaking building control work.
The first change relates to initial notices. These are forms which tell local authorities that the building work described in the notice is to he controlled by the approved inspector rather than by the local authority.
There is at present no formal procedure by which these notices can be amended if there is a change in either the work or the person who is to carry it out. The absence of a formal procedure for amending these notices can lead to a significant increase in the amount of paperwork that is necessary for a relatively trivial change.
The first amendment introduces a new section into the Building Act and provides for the giving of an "amendment notice". This gives a simple mechanism by which an initial notice may be amended where there is a change in the work to be carried out.
Another new section ensures that the amendment notice, when accompanied by the appropriate plans, can also be treated as the deposit of plans. The form of an initial notice is set out in the Building (Approved Inspectors etc) Regulations 1985. It is proposed that the form of the amendment notice will be similarly prescribed, and appropriate amendments to the regulations will be laid before Parliament if your Lordships accept this draft order.
A third new section makes provision for simply giving notice of a change in the person intending to carry out the work.
The second change relates to the giving of final certificates. The amendment removes the requirement for these certificates to be given to the person by whom the work was carried out, whilst retaining the requirement for the final certificate to be given to the local authority.
This draft order has been before all the usual committees and has been approved by them without comment. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 17th June be approved [26th Report from the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee].—(Lord Lucas).
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for moving

755
the Motion introducing this order. As I understand it—and no doubt the noble Lord will correct me if I am wrong—the text of the order was not discussed fully in another place. My researches have detected no debate on this order on the Floor of the House of Commons. Since it is an affirmative order, that comes as something of a surprise. However, I am sure that the noble Lord will be able to explain why that is so.
I notice also that the order does not apply to Scotland nor, indeed, to Northern Ireland. I should be grateful if the noble Lord will explain why it does not apply to Scotland since it appears to be an order for the United Kingdom and not just for England and Wales.
Other than that, this has been the subject of considerable debate in your Lordships' Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, will be aware that the local authority associations—the AMA and the ADC—both registered some objections to the order. It was decided by your Lordships' Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee that their objections had been reasonably met by the Government. But it seems to me that to have six pages of new legislation in a deregulation order involves a certain amount of extra regulation. I wonder whether it is in the spirit of the deregulation procedure to have six pages of extra legislation. Having said that, I have no particular objection to the order but I should be grateful if the Minister would respond to the points which I have raised.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, perhaps I may reply first to the first two points made by the noble Lord, Lord Williams. The applicability of this order to England and Wales is in accordance with that of the underlying Act—the Building Act 1984. That applies only in England and Wales.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am sorry to intervene immediately. Is there not a similar Act which applies to Scotland under which such an order could be laid?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I am sorry to say that I have not addressed myself to that question. Certainly, my colleagues in the Scottish Office have not requested me to do so. So far as I am aware, amendments are required which apply to England and Wales. If there is anything to add to that, I shall write to the noble Lord. However, I am not aware that there is a problem in Scotland which requires to be sorted out.
As regards discussion in another place, the Motion was moved on the Floor of the House on 3rd July and another place chose to follow the procedures that it did. I have no wish to criticise it for that decision. I am well aware that your Lordships' Select Committee on the Scrutiny of Delegated Powers and the Deregulation Committee of another place have considered the matter in some detail. But in the light of the evidence produced jointly by officials from my department and representatives of the local authority associations, they reached the conclusion that the order is acceptable.
756
I understand the noble Lord's anxiety that we are seeking to deregulate by adding to the volume of legislation. I do not think that we mind which route we follow so long as the end effect is worthwhile, as I believe this order will be, not in any dramatic or enormous way; but it will make a useful improvement to the regulations as they now stand. I commend the order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Local Authorities (Contracting Out of Tax Billing, Collection and Enforcement Functions) Order 1996
3.55 p.m.
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 20th June be approved [24th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall also speak to the Local Authorities (Contracting Out of Investment Functions) Order 1996.
Many functions of local government may be carried out only by officers of a local authority. The two orders before your Lordships are intended to give local authorities greater freedom, where they so wish, to use the private sector to provide services which they would normally have to provide themselves.
The Local Authorities (Contracting Out of Tax Billing, Collection and Enforcement Functions) Order is intended to clarify an authority's powers to contract out its billing, collection and enforcement functions on council tax, community charge and national non-domestic rates.
The order will enable local authorities to delegate to a contractor most of their statutory functions and decision-making powers relating to the administration of local taxes—for example, whether a dwelling should be regarded as exempt from council tax or, where payments have not been made, whether to initiate enforcement action against a taxpayer.
Each decision which is taken by a contractor must be based very firmly on the conditions which are set out in statute. There should therefore be no greater risk if a contractor takes those decisions than there is when the decision is made by a local authority officer.
Of course, not all decisions should be in the hands of a contractor. For example, where taxes are unpaid and other enforcement action has proved unsuccessful, an authority can apply for the debtor's commitment to prison. Because of the serious nature of that ultimate penalty, its use should remain exclusively with local authorities. The order therefore does not allow the delegation of these powers to a third party.
Local taxpayers' rights will not be affected by this legislation. They will still have the same rights of appeal, both to the local authority and to the valuation tribunals. And if they are aggrieved at anything which has been done in the council's name, they will still be

757
able to lodge a complaint through the council's own procedures or through the Local Government Ombudsman.
In summary, this is a sensible and worthwhile change which is widely supported by local authorities because it achieves the right balance between allowing an authority to use a contractor for its revenue collection services, while reserving the most difficult decisions for the authority.
I turn now to the Local Authorities (Contracting Out of Investment Functions) Order which does four main things. First, and principally, it allows a local authority to delegate decisions on the investment of its cash to a contractor. Pension funds and trust funds are outside the scope of the order, since these are covered by separate legislation. The contractor may be a bank, building society, or another financial institution such as a specialist fund management company. In practice, many local authorities already use such contractors to invest money for them. This order will now clarify their powers to do so, and establish some rules for contractors.
Secondly, the order specifies who can contract out the function of investment; that is, a local authority as defined in the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994. This includes county and district councils, London borough councils, and county borough councils in Wales, as well as parish councils.
Thirdly, the order sets out the type of investments in which the contractor can invest money. These must be approved investments under the Local Government and Housing Act 1989. Essentially, approved investments cover certificates of deposit, bills of exchange and gilts.
The fourth main element relates to safeguards. As I said a moment ago, the order sets out rules for contractors. Chiefly, these are: that contractors must be suitably qualified and experienced; they must abide by proper investing and accounting practices and must comply with the local authority's instructions; the contractor is also required to provide three-monthly reports to the local authority, setting out the action taken on the authority's behalf, and to supply any information requested by the authority; the contractor cannot pass on the decision-making on investments to anyone else. Other parties can only be involved with the direct approval of the authority.
To summarise, this order is a sensible measure which will be helpful to local authorities in clarifying their powers. It also establishes limits, rules and safeguards for those who are investing money on local authorities' behalf. I commend the order to your Lordships.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 20th June be approved [24th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Lucas.)
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord for moving the first order. I was unaware that we were to take both orders together. I am perfectly happy to do so but I was not informed through the usual channels that the Minister wished to take both orders together. I wanted to make a 40 minute speech on the first and perhaps a 45 minute speech on
758
the second! However, I shall not detain the House and prevent your Lordships dealing with other important matters on the Order Paper.
As we are taking the two orders together, I shall start with the contracting out of tax billing order. First, I am glad to see that there is no question of compulsion. That is an important issue and we would have opposed the order very strongly if there had been an element of compulsion. Secondly, I hope that the Minister can give an assurance that those who undertake to collect tax on behalf of local authorities will have proper confidentiality arrangements in their contracts.
Thirdly, I hope that the noble Lord can elaborate on what he said about enforcement. To say the least, it seems curious that private companies might be in the business of enforcing debts incurred as a result of non-payment of council tax or of any other tax that the local authority might be involved in. That is important because, as the Minister will readily recognise, people who do not pay their council tax are frequently unable to do so for many different reasons; indeed, I am sure that I do not need to go into the whole history of the poll tax to illustrate my point. I hope therefore that the Minister will be able to give me those assurances in his reply.
I turn now to the contracting out of investment functions order. I imagine, although the Minister did not say so in specific terms, that any contractor who is employed by a local authority to put out the cash of a local authority will be properly registered either under the banking Acts, under the building society Acts, or, as the case may be, under the Financial Services Act. If that is not the case, I hope that the noble Lord will tell me. We do not want cowboys putting in bids for local authority cash payments to be placed anywhere they like.
The Minister referred to CDs—that is, certificates of deposit. Are foreign exchange CDs excluded from this order? If the order is agreed to and there is a contract, are contractors allowed to put out a local authority's money into foreign exchange CDs? If so, under what circumstances and how? As local authority liabilities are all in sterling, it would seem to me slightly odd if contractors were able to invest in dollar, deutschmark or yen CDs of which there are plenty. Having said that, I have no particular objection to the orders to which the noble Lord has spoken. However, we need some reassurance on the points that I have raised.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his support. I apologise for the fact that he was not given proper notice that we were to take both orders together. It had not occurred to me that that information might not have been transmitted to the noble Lord. I can only apologise. I can certainly confirm what the noble Lord asked me to confirm on the subject of compulsion. There is no wish that these matters should be a matter of compulsion; indeed they are strictly voluntary.
I shall deal, first, with confidentiality and enforcement as regards the tax billing order. Contractors will be covered by the requirements of the Data Protection Act in exactly the same way as local

759
authorities. Information obtained for a specific purpose, such as the collection of council tax, cannot be used for another purpose without the knowledge of the persons concerned. Many people in the private sector are concerned with private information—for example, banks, solicitors and many others. Given the fact that the regulations are in place, we see no reason why the same standards should not be expected of contractors in this instance.
As regards enforcement, there are, of course, delicate decisions to be made in the recovery process. However, a contractor will be governed in the decisions that he makes by the law and guided by the policies set down for him by the employing council. It will be for the authority to ensure that both are observed. That will be an important residual function for the authority, however much it contracts out.
I turn now to the second order. Article 9(3) of the order makes it clear that contractors need to be authorised under Section 207 of the Financial Services Act 1986. I know that the noble Lord is more familiar with that Act than perhaps I am, but I hope that he finds that response to be satisfactory. Foreign exchange deposits are clearly not approved investments or, indeed, the sort of investments that we would be likely to think of as approved investments. I agree with the noble Lord as to the mismatching that would occur if such investments were allowed. We are not looking at this as being a risky portfolio; we are looking at it as being a reasonable collection of alternative and relatively safe investments. I hope that that gives the noble Lord the comfort that he desires.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Local Authorities (Contracting Out of Investment Functions) Order 1996
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 25th June be approved [25th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Lucas.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Berkshire (Structural Change) Order 1996
4.6 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Earl Ferrers)The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Earl Ferrers) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 18th June be approved [24th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Earl said: My Lords, we have today nine orders to consider, which implement the last tranche of recommendations from the Local Government Review. The orders are similar in nature, but, if your Lordships will permit me, I should like to speak in most detail to the Berkshire order in view of the amendment which my noble friend Lord Peyton has put on the Order Paper.
The order will abolish Berkshire County Council. In its place it will establish on 1st April 1998 six unitary authorities—one for each of the existing districts. It will also provide for certain other matters which follow on from that structural change. In each prospective unitary authority, there will be elections for the whole authority in May 1997. For Newbury, the order redraws the boundaries of electoral wards in order to correct the wide variations in the ratio of councillors to electors in some of the wards. For the same reason, the order provides for an additional councillor in Slough.
The order will make each of the unitary authorities a fire authority. That paves the way for an order under the Fire Services Act 1947 which will establish a combined fire authority for the county, effectively, therefore, preserving the existing Berkshire fire brigade area.
The order will transfer the county council's strategic planning responsibilities to the unitary authorities. They will then be able to work together to maintain a joint structure plan for the county. The order also provides for the continuing application of local legislation.
Unitary local government can bring many benefits including greater efficiency, less confusion and better accountability. It is for those reasons that we asked the independent Local Government Commission to look at the structure of local government in Berkshire, as well as in the other shire counties. There were six district authorities in Berkshire and the Berkshire County Council. In December 1994, the commission recommended that the present two tier structure should be replaced by a structure of five unitary authorities. They were to be based on four of the existing districts, together with a new authority which was to be formed by a merger of the two other districts; namely, Bracknell Forest and Windsor Maidenhead, thereby making five unitary authorities in all.
From some of the things which have been said on the subject outside your Lordships' House, noble Lords might be forgiven for thinking that the Government had gone against the clear advice they had received and were going down a path of their own choosing on Berkshire. That is not the case at all. My right honourable friend has accepted the commission's recommendations almost entirely. The commission recommended unitary local government throughout Berkshire. We have accepted that. The only point on which we disagreed was the proposed merger between Bracknell Forest and Windsor and Maidenhead. We considered that this would be unsettling and that a merger would increase the transitional costs.
The commission recognised in its report that a six-unitary-authority option could be expected to command wide public support. This was clear when the commission undertook its initial research into the views of the community. It was also apparent in the representations we received after the Commission's report was published. On top of that, six of the seven Members of Parliament for Berkshire support six unitary authorities. The seventh Member of Parliament, Mr. Rendel, representing Newbury, supports the abolition of the county council and the proposal for Newbury to become a single tier authority.
All this persuaded us that a separate council for each district would best reflect the community identities as well as providing effective and convenient local government. And Parliament clearly states in the Local Government Act 1992 that local government should be so organised as to provide "effective and convenient local government". It is important to balance all these points.
Yesterday we had a discussion on polls and their value. Polls may be interesting in so far as they provide an answer at one particular time to one particular question. The way in which the question is formulated can easily affect the result, but we should take particular care when the opinions which are being measured may be affected by substantial publicity campaigns. The Government have to look beyond opinion polls and beyond campaigns. We have to consider whether change will reflect local identity, to use a quotable phrase, in all its manifestations and whether it will secure effective local government.
I am only too well aware that many people hate change. That is a perfectly natural human phenomenon, in which I participate regularly. Any change creates feelings of apprehension. Berkshire County Council has orchestrated a very effective and vigorous campaign against its own abolition. One can understand that. It is said that six authorities could not match the county council's scope for economies of scale. The county council also claims that it has already made all the savings which are possible and that the costs of local government will increase greatly. However, this argument is questionable, and it is also one which is not accepted by the district councils.
The six district councils of Berkshire have committed themselves to providing good services at no extra cost to local taxpayers. This is not the Government saying it: this is the local authorities themselves saying it. And it is after all the districts which will be held to account if they fail to keep their promises and live up to their guarantees. Although the county council says that there are economies of scale in being big, one also has to remember that the fashionable phrase nowadays is that being big is not necessarily so successful and that any potential loss of economies of scale needs to be balanced against the significant gains which can arise from bringing services such as housing, which is a district council service, social services, which is a county service, environmental health, which is a district service, and trading standards, which is a county service, all under one roof.
It is said that the voluntary sector is opposed to the abolition of the county council. It is perhaps the case that dealing with just one authority is simpler than dealing with six. On the other hand, smaller authorities with a more local base than that of a county council should be better able to assess the needs of their area and to ensure a close match between those needs and the provision of services. It is the needs of ordinary people which should determine how best the services are to be provided, not administrative convenience.
It is sometimes interesting to see what people who have had experience of unitary authorities say about them. It is easy for people to say unitary authorities will
762
not work, that they will be more expensive, and so on. However, the chief executive of North Somerset Council, a unitary authority which came into existence in April this year, wrote to my right honourable friend the Minister for Local Government, saying:
"Comments made about the strategic disadvantage of smaller unitary authorities have not proved to be well founded".
Smaller unitary authorities, he says, can take advantage of better local knowledge and can find the most effective method of service provision using the public, private or voluntary sectors. Therefore, unitary authorities, certainly in the opinion of those who have experience of running them, can prove to be better, even when it was thought beforehand that that would not be the case.
I turn now, if I may, to my noble friend's amendment. This is not just a Motion; it is not just a critical Motion. It is, if I might say so, a blockbuster of a wrecking amendment. It invites your Lordships, in no uncertain terms, not to approve the order. One of the reasons it gives is that Berkshire is the only county council of an historic county which is being abolished as a result of the Local Government Review. I cannot disagree with that; it is perfectly true. But it is not the Royal County of Berkshire which is being abolished, but the county council.
The Royal County of Berkshire itself is not touched. It existed for 1,000 years before ever the county council was set up. The county council has existed only since the end of the last century. So there is no reason why the Royal County of Berkshire should not last as long after the county council is abolished. What we are doing is replacing the method of local government within the county, and that is a very different matter.
All the attributes of an historic county will remain in place. There will, for example, still be a Lord Lieutenant of Berkshire. I understand that the district councils will ensure that they continue to support the lieutenancy. Also, it is not true that Berkshire County Council has been, in my noble friend's words in his amendment, "singled out" for special treatment. Berkshire County Council actually pressed the case for its own abolition; it was the only county council to do so. Of course the council has now changed its mind, but everyone can do that. The fact is that it supported the abolition case in the first place.
The local authorities in Berkshire, in their submission to the commission in 1994—only two years ago—which was agreed and signed by five out of the six district councils and the Berkshire County Council, said:
"All councils, including the county council, recognise that unitary authorities are the best way of delivering services in Berkshire. The two-tier system has caused confusion since its introduction in 1974, and there is support for change within the community. Unitary authorities will be closer and more accountable to their communities".
So said Berkshire County Council and five of the six district councils. I do not think I could have put it better myself.
What now is the position? The county council was originally in favour of unitary authorities. The Local Government Commission proposed unitary authorities. All the representatives of the people, the elected

763
Members of Parliament for the county, approved the proposals, and another place has approved the order. I suggest that your Lordships would be ill advised to go against that and to go against the longstanding convention that your Lordships do not overturn orders which have been approved by another place. For all those reasons I believe that the order will provide the best local authority administration for Berkshire. I hope that your Lordships will approve the order. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 18th June be approved [24th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Earl Ferrers.)
4.20 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil Lord Peyton of Yeovil rose to move as an amendment to the above Motion to leave out all the words after ("That") and insert ("this House deplores Her Majesty's Government's proposal to abolish Berkshire County Council on the grounds that of the 36 traditional shire county councils subject to the local government review only Berkshire has been singled out for total dismemberment, and calls on Her Majesty's Government to withdraw the order until such time as the people of Berkshire have had the opportunity to indicate support or otherwise for this position.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, while of course I am grateful for the remarks of my noble friend, and I have listened to them with interest, I am sorry to say that I have heard nothing new this afternoon, probably because there was nothing new to be said on his side of the argument. Until a few months ago, when he became seriously ill, it had been the intention of my noble friend Lord Colnbrook to seek to persuade your Lordships that this measure was both ill-conceived and harsh in that it singled out the Royal County of Berkshire to be sliced up into six pieces and its powers and duties transferred to no fewer than six unitary authorities. My noble friend has done his best to explain why it is that the Government have gone even further than the Local Government Commission recommended. I am sure that I shall at least have your Lordships' agreement in sending a message of sympathy to my noble friend Lord Colnbrook, and expressing the hope that he will make a speedy and complete recovery and return to your Lordships' House before very long.
Those who sit on this side of the House will, I am sure, be readier than others to recognise the massive achievements in many fields over 17 years of successive Conservative governments. There will, however, be some—perhaps quite a number—among my noble friends on this side of the House who will feel a good deal less comfortable as regards the field of local government, in which the record, I believe, has been far from happy. They will not find it all that easy—I do not find it easy—to avoid the conclusion that in one instance after another the Government have simply got things wrong. Certainly over the years the loyalties of many of the Government's own supporters in local councils have been greatly strained. Ministers have from time to time—I am sure they did not mean to do so—given the
764
impression of being possessed by an almost ineradicable hostility towards local government, and of aiming to hobble, if not to fillet, its total structure.
The consequences for the Conservative Party have been dire. Whereas it controlled 36 county councils in 1977, and 19 in 1989, it now controls only one. There has been during those years a positive bombardment of legislation. There have been no fewer than 210 Acts of Parliament bearing upon the functions and duties of local authorities. Orders, regulations and circulars have poured out in abundance. There have been few things like it since the time of Noah, only this time there has been no rainbow in the sky, nor any sign of a dove returning with some evidence that the flood may be subsiding.
Considerations of your Lordships' patience and time preclude me from mentioning more than two particularly ill-starred ventures in this field. First, the poll tax proved to be a costly and unmitigated disaster. Secondly, there was visited upon us the Local Government Commission, which at first seemed like an attempt to heal the wounds and to find out exactly what it was that people wanted. However, it soon drifted into a somewhat superficial exercise, the purpose of which seems to have been to persuade people of the merits of unitary authorities.
It is, I think, hard to say whether the commission's preference for unitary authorities arose from its own convictions, or from suggestions received from elsewhere, or whether it was enticed by the siren voices of the districts who claimed to be closer to the people and well able to perform the county councils' duties in addition to their own. By contrast, in the early stages the county councils were slow to see the dangers and came near to letting their side of the argument go by default.
The commission recommended, as a result of its first round of deliberations, the extinction of four county councils and the mutilation of six others. A resounding chorus of protest ensued and persuaded both the Government and the commission to have second thoughts. Those resulted in some welcome reprieves, of which, I am happy to say, my own county of Somerset was one. For the Royal County of Berkshire, however, there was no such happy outcome. It is alone in being shoved rather abruptly into the Government's bacon slicer. Rather oddly, the county council is being taken to task for having at first fallen in with the Government's proposal and accepting its own demise. There are, however, a number of factors which should be borne in mind before too much is made of this argument which the Government are wont to trot out from time to time.
First, I suggest to your Lordships that there is nothing inherently wicked, or even wrong-headed, in having second thoughts. I feel sure that Ministers would be the first to give friendly accommodation to such an idea for they have been known to change their minds themselves from time to time. Secondly—this seems to me to be important—the council's own complexion and leadership have changed. Thirdly, the council has learned from the way in which the protests of others have been received that invitations from the

765
Government to climb aboard their tumbrel can be turned down. Fourthly, the proposal itself has changed, as my noble friend said. Whereas at the beginning there were to be three or four unitary authorities, the number has now grown to six. Last, and most importantly, people have begun to reflect upon the price they may have to pay. Present estimates are that the owner of a house worth £100,000 will have to find a further £90 a year to meet transitional and continuing costs.
My noble friend on the Front Bench invited your Lordships to look at what has happened in other unitary authorities. I have done so. The other day I received a letter—I am sure many noble Lords have received similar letters—from Councillor Bob Pitt of Middlesbrough. He reflected on what had happened in Cleveland. He wrote:
"I cannot emphasise too strongly the disastrous legacy which the Local Government Commission has left for the people of my own area. It is now absolutely clear that the Commission hopelessly under-estimated the costs of making the change to smaller unitary authorities and that the prospect of predicted savings, even in the longer term, is negligible".
He went on to say that whereas the Local Government Commission had estimated its costs to be £18 million, so far approval for reorganisation costs of £32 million has been given by the Government, and the estimated likely cost in the end is £42 million.
Other anxieties have begun to arise as people begin to face the multiplication of boundaries. It will not be easy to carve up the county's arrangements for education or for libraries. Specialist services for the young, old, blind, deaf and mentally handicapped, affordable on a county basis, may be too much of a burden to bear for an authority a fraction of the size. Moreover, the charities which make a huge contribution to such services are organised on a county basis and cannot be parcelled out to match the new set up.
I have had a number of letters from various charitable bodies. In the interests of time I shall cut the extracts very short. The Berkshire Autistic Society states:
"We greatly fear that new authorities will not wish to be involved with children's problems to such an extent".
Reading Deaf Children's Society states:
"We cannot see how the effective provision of special education can be carried out by smaller education authorities without incurring considerable additional financial burden on the local taxpayers".
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I understand that the noble Lord quoted from the Reading Deaf Children's Society. Is he aware that the county borough council of Reading, of which I was a member, pioneered the teaching of the deaf? Indeed, it was alone at one time in having as part of its education programme the teaching of the deaf. Therefore, I do not think that what the noble Lord says, and what his correspondents say, bear any relationship to what is happening.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, the noble Lord persuades me that it is always foolish to give way to someone who will speak later. I shall leave the noble Lord to make his own speech when it comes to his turn.
766
I was about to mention to your Lordships the views of Age Concern which ended its letter with this summary:
"Economies of scale will be lost. Services provided by volunteers will not readily divide into small units and specialist knowledge and expertise will be lost … Providing services to minority users where numbers are small may have to cease. At worst, charities such as ours may not survive".
There will be problems also for planning and for highways. There will be difficulties for Ministers, for industry and for businesses. They will find themselves confronting different authorities. The new authorities themselves will not find it all that easy to get on with their neighbours—their fellow unitary authorities—and even less with those much larger county authorities with which they will be surrounded and by which they will be outgunned.
The fact that this order was swept quickly through the other place on a favourable tide should not unduly trouble your Lordships in considering this amendment. My noble friend described it as a blockbuster. All it calls for is some attention to be paid to the consequences and the need further to explore opinion in Berkshire.
The Government have made much of the fact that the MPs who represent Berkshire constituencies have supported the order. They have had, however, the difficulty that at the beginning, all the councils concerned, including the county council, supported the measure. For reasons with which I have already dealt the county council has now changed its view. Having taken up that position, very reasonably at that stage, I quite understand that it would be very difficult for Members of Parliament, who represent not the county as a whole but slices of it, to change their views. Moreover, they will have been, I am sure, under considerable pressure from those authorities which will be calling the tune in their own constituencies in the future.
I accept, of course, that there is a widespread desire to have done with argument: that almost anything is preferable to continued uncertainty. However, I believe that the proposed change, simple and easy as it can be made to appear, will bring with it expense, confusion and disruption which those who boldly put forward the proposal will find very hard to handle.
I want to end on a more general note. Without roots it seems to me that a political party can become a very odd and unpredictable affair, bidding for popular support, and seeking to fill its sails with any passing breeze in order to give the impression at least that it is on the move. I find it sad that the Conservative Party should now be seen, if not severing, at least picking at its own roots in an unfriendly way in the shire counties. I hope that by your votes today noble Lords will make the Government pause at least before they insist upon a measure which will be damaging both to themselves and to the communities whose interests it is their duty to sustain. I beg to move.
Moved, as an amendment to the above Motion, to leave out all the words after ("That") and insert ("this House deplores Her Majesty's Government's proposal to abolish Berkshire County Council on the grounds that of the 36 traditional shire county councils subject to the local government review only Berkshire has been

767
singled out for total dismemberment, and calls on Her Majesty's Government to withdraw the order until such time as the people of Berkshire have had the opportunity to indicate support or otherwise for this position.")—(Lord Peyton of Yeovil.)
4.37 p.m.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I intervene in the debate as a member of a neighbouring county council—the county council of Surrey. However, I intervene also as someone whose interest in the constitution and the process of good government antedates by a very long time my membership both of the Liberal Party and the Liberal Democrat Party. I wish, therefore, to support everything that the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, said; and if he divides the House, I shall go with him into the Lobby.
From the earliest moment that the review of local government was put forward my concern for and my interest in the nature of good government, and what forms are best suited to it, led me to take a very close interest in it. I believe that it is essential at the local tier—a tier lower than the national level—to provide for two elements of good government: first, the local sensitivity; and, secondly, the strategic overview. Currently in the shire counties we have those two elements represented by the two levels of government.
I believe that if it had seemed likely at the beginning of the review of local government that we might end up with a system of relatively small unitary authorities and a regional authority to take the overall, broadly-based decisions, then I should have supported the Government throughout. But it quickly became clear that that was by no means the purpose of the exercise and that, if the unitary system were introduced throughout the country, there would be no protection for the much smaller authorities against the power of the central state. From an early stage, therefore, I opposed the review.
My concerns now, in relation to the order and the amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, are with two aspects. One aspect is the process; the second is the aspect of results or consequences. I turn to the process and why I think the amendment is well drafted. I fasten upon the main and obvious fact that at no time have the electors of Berkshire been asked whether they are in favour of six unitary authorities in exchange for their county council. Berkshire is one of only two shire counties in which there was no opportunity at any time for people to show their wish to retain the status quo. That was not on the list of options submitted to the electors of Berkshire by the local government review. They were not allowed to vote for the status quo, nor were they invited to vote in favour or show their approval of six unitary authorities in place of the county council.
At a later stage in the proceedings, the local authorities put forward the suggestion of six unitary authorities, but it was in the context that there would be unitary authorities. The people who were consulted were asked to consider this question: if there are to be unitary authorities, upon what do you want them to be based?
768
Their response was that they would prefer them to be based on the existing district and borough councils. So the whole process of getting popular approval for the proposal has been flawed throughout. Therefore, reconsideration of the subject, as proposed by the amendment, is important.
As for the result, I do not believe that it will bring the benefits which the Minister put forward in his opening remarks. First, there is a fallacy abroad about the confusion of different levels of local government and the remoteness of the county council. The county council may be a long way from where people live, but the services are delivered to their doorstep, in their houses, in their schools and right where they live. When people receive those services, it hardly matters who delivers them: they are delivered by an individual, a head teacher, a social services worker, the person who responds to a letter about highways.
Through the county council, there is the scope to reduce costs by having a larger organisation. I draw your Lordships' attention to a letter which many noble Lords may have received from the Library Association. I take it as an individual example of a general truth. According to the letter, Strathclyde University has investigated public library services. It concluded that local unitary authorities with populations of less than 250,000 will be less efficient at delivering library services than larger authorities. All the Berkshire authorities have smaller populations; they are all 150,000 people or fewer.
The reasons the university came forward with that conclusion are twofold. First, it is expensive to divide up resources. That is true of information technology, which was never considered, certainly in the early stages, by the Local Government Commission as a cost. The division, relocation and reconfiguration of extremely complicated information technology, which is now universally applied to a wide range of services, is an additional cost. The second reason Strathclyde University came to that conclusion is that specialist services are provided—in this case by libraries—in many areas by county councils. If we start dividing them, the services become almost too small to stand on their own. I could mention the archaeological service and a whole range of different services provided by county councils which operate with no more than two or three people. Nevertheless, they provide a service to people which will be increasingly difficult to provide when the council is divided into unitary authorities. Countryside management may not be a problem in Berkshire; I do not know. It would certainly be a problem in my county of Surrey, and I speak as a member of the county council.
I do not wish to detain your Lordships, the amendment is well thought out and I hope it will attract your Lordships' support.
4.46 p.m.
Lord Bancroft: My Lords, I have had a lifelong professional interest in local government. The tide of eloquence of the first two speakers has washed away the Government's last sandcastle. By contrast, I must be brief and dull, but good arguments bear repetition and I shall amplify three.

769
First, why did Berkshire County Council volunteer a four-way split and then change its mind? The noble Lord, Lord Peyton, covered that. I shall burrow a little further. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, was hot on the question on 17th June and was warmly embraced by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, apparently to their mutual surprise. The noble Earl said:
"For some funny reason it [the county council] changed its mind … Why … I do not know, and I doubt whether the noble Baroness knows".—[Official Report, 17/6/96; col. 91]
He returned to the subject today. The noble Lord, Lord Peyton, went a long way to enlighten him and I shall help him further. Berkshire changed its mind because under its then leadership it was trusting and perhaps even gullible enough to believe in the Government of the day. The Government repeatedly claimed in 1993 that they wanted a widespread single-tier unitary structure. Mr. Gummer said in terms that the Government expected the two-tier structure to be "the exception". Berkshire made the grave error of assuming that that was serious government policy. The Minister for local government, Mr. David Curry, gave the same message time and again, not only to the House of Commons but to all English MPs. He has absorbed more punishment than any other British flyweight.
However, as late as 18th January 1995, Mr. Curry was still,
"personally committed to seeing unitary authorities throughout England".
That was well after the Government's policy had been stopped abruptly in its tracks by the commissioner. It was spectacularly dead in very little water.
In the face of a reversal in government policy, as the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, said, a prudent organisation exercises its right to change its mind to comply with the new circumstances. That is what Berkshire—voted one of the ten best administered authorities in the country—wisely did. Three unitary boroughs and one remanet unitary council, for example, might be seen as not unattractive as part of a country-wide unitary system. But it would be a grotesquely weak anomaly in a predominately two-tier system, which is what we have. The noble Earl and the noble Baroness might still regard this as "some funny reason"; more rational people do not.
My second reminder is that the Secretary of State's decision for six unitaries, as the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, pointed out, has been the subject of neither public consultation nor public endorsement. With great respect to the noble Earl, the reason for that decision by the Secretary of State remains a touch obscure, apart from providing him with a vehicle for a weak joke from "The Importance of Being Ernest" on 4th July last. In fact, the six-unitary system was analysed and decisively rejected by the Secretary of State's own Mark II, hand-picked Local Government Commission. The commission concluded damningly that it:
"would not meet the requirement for effective local government".
That is a direct quotation.
770
My third reminder is that Berkshire is the only traditional shire county to be singled out for total dismemberment. Even someone like myself, with a decidedly non-cynical cast of mind, might detect a faint connection between its unique dismemberment and the fact that the then Conservative Berkshire was the first county to petition directly the High Court of Parliament over the heads of its MPs about the iniquities of the poll tax. The petition was presented appropriately on 15th March 1990—the Ides of March, my Lords.
4.52 p.m.
Lord Carrington: My Lords, I do not live in Berkshire and I have no interest to declare. But I live in the neighbouring county of Buckinghamshire, where it was tried to introduce exactly the same proposals as those now before us. A number of us in the county, including a number of your Lordships, decided that they should be opposed because we did not believe that they were right, advantageous, sensible or even that they would work. We argued that for four or five reasons.
First, there was no evidence that the people of Buckinghamshire wanted such a change. Indeed, such evidence as there was showed that they did not. There was a poll which showed that three-quarters of the people of Buckinghamshire wanted things left alone. Certainly those with whom I came into contact argued that very strongly. Exactly the same is true in Berkshire.
Secondly, we argued that the change would cost a great deal of money, particularly in capital expenditure, to no particular advantage and indeed probably the reverse. Exactly the same is true in Berkshire.
We argued that the proposed unitary authorities were too small. I believe that that is so. Indeed, some of those in Berkshire with whom I have spoken believe that the unitary authorities proposed are too small to deliver the kind of services which they are asked to deliver.
Fourthly, we said that there would be quite serious knock-on effects on the library service and, for example, the county museum and the county art gallery when it was proposed—I do not know how it would happen—that totally different districts would subscribe to a county which, in effect, whatever the noble Earl says, would no longer exist. I believe that the voluntary organisations would find it much more difficult to operate in the kind of circumstances that are proposed.
Fifthly, we argued, I hope delicately, that nothing antagonises people more than interfering with the fabric of their county and their local loyalties. Those who remember the proposals of Lord Redcliffe-Maud and Lord Walker might do well to think about that. I also speak as an inhabitant of the only county which has a Conservative county council.
We put all those arguments to the Secretary of State and to the Government. I am happy to say that the Secretary of State agreed with us and has left Buckinghamshire as it is, with the exception of Milton Keynes, and I must say that I believe there is a case for Milton Keynes. Buckinghamshire remains and the county council remains. I beg my noble friend to think again, because this order is wrong.
4.55 p.m.
Viscount Tenby: My Lords, I rise to support the Motion in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton. I congratulate him warmly on moving it today. In order that I may rebut any charge of being a Luddite in local government matters, let me say straightaway that the solution so far as concerns my own county of Hampshire was fair. Apart from a momentary madness, when the Government toyed with the idea of a unitary authority for the New Forest, and thankfully rejected it, the changes were reasonable. However, that madness has, alas, now been transferred to Berkshire, which the Government propose to abolish as a unit of government. Instead, we are told that six unitary authorities are envisaged, the largest of which has a population of only some 142,000 souls. We used to say "What a way to run a country!" Some still do so, I dare say. Perhaps I may add a new phrase, "What a way to ruin a county!"
In order to bolster that extremely dubious solution, which even the local government commission did not go so far as to advocate, various propositions have been peddled to the outside world. We are told that the county council originally advocated it. The answer is: only because it thought there was a countrywide presumption towards unitary authorities in the early days of the commission's work. It was perhaps naive of the council not to realise that it would be left high and dry once the tide had turned, as so often happens in these matters. It was perhaps naïve but not two faced.
We are told that the people want it. In 1994 the MORI survey was a survey to gauge public attitudes to options for a unitary system, and the result of 49 per cent. support for district based unitary authorities should be seen in that context. Predicated questions are not, noble Lords may feel, a sure fire way of discovering public attitudes to anything. In any case, a MORI poll in September last year showed 73 per cent. in favour of the status quo.
We are told that all the local MPs support the Government's proposals, save one. Of course they do. They all sit for the equivalent of unitary authorities. If we had an MP for the county of Berkshire, there are no prizes for guessing the form of local government that he or she would support.
We are told that Berkshire is a county of contrasts, ranging from farmland and rural communities to large conurbations, the implication being that only unitary authorities can adequately service such a rich diversity of human endeavour. I have news for those seeking to use that as an argument. Such a description encompasses about 90 per cent. of all counties in England.
However, there is something special about Berkshire. It occupies the most critical stretch of land west of London. It is an area of immense recent, and future, development, including what has been lightheartedly described as "Britain's Silicon Valley". The pressures on its resources from all sides are accordingly huge and constant. If ever there were a geographical area in this country in need of a strategic overview in terms of planning, minerals policy, transport, housing, waste management and 101 other things of importance, that
772
area is Berkshire. And it is there and only there that the Government have decided to wipe out the only body capable of dealing with problems on such a large scale.
Others either have or will talk about various aspects of disaggregation, its effect on the critical services through fragmentation, its costs and so on. I too have received information from the North East. Along the lines that decent tunes are always worth humming over and over again, let me just remind noble Lords of those figures from Cleveland.
The local government commission thought that it would cost £18 million. So far, the Government have approved £32 million in supplementary credit and the people on the spot predict that the final total will be £42 million. I hope that the noble Earl the Minister in his reply will refer to the fallacy of the estimates generally—not just there but generally—and why they are invariably pitched too low. It makes one wonder what the add-on content of the £25 million estimate for Berkshire will be and just how much additional burden the wretched council taxpayers will have to bear.
As a way of illustrating the folly of what is being suggested, perhaps I can take up and run with the thread of what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, about libraries. I accept that some may feel that things like libraries and archives may not be in the front rank of importance. But either we are a civilised country or we are not. They are therefore important matters.
It can be said with confidence that under the proposed arrangements the library service will cost more and provide less. At present there are two central libraries in Slough and Reading, housing, among other things, various specialist collections with 37 per cent. of the stock in circulation. What will happen now? Is the stock to be divided neatly into six equal parts? Or will some districts be more fortunate than others? For example, will Slough get all the Jeffrey Archers and Newbury the complete works of Karl Marx? We should be told, as a famous editor used to say.
What happens to the economies of scale? Bulk buying is advantageous, especially since the abolition of the net book agreement. It is highly unlikely that the new individual unitary authorities will, in the foreseeable future, have sufficient funds available to fill the enormous gaps created by the break-up. As in so many other areas, joint arrangements will have to be made; they will be protracted, cumbersome and inevitably lacking a central vision.
I greatly fear that it will not be possible to provide a service equivalent to the service now provided by the county. I fear too that that goes for nearly every other aspect of local government in the present county of Berkshire, unless this rash proposal is put on hold so that further soundings can be taken. Just for once cannot we let the people who will have to pay more for less decide on what the future for Berkshire should be instead of being subject willy-nilly to the irrational whims of Whitehall? I strongly urge all noble Lords in the Chamber today to support the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil.
5.2 p.m.
Lord Gilmour of Craigmillar: My Lords, I listened with great care to my noble friend the Minister in an attempt to discover from him why Berkshire, alone of all the historic counties, should be treated in this way. Why, for instance, should it be treated differently from Buckinghamshire, which I was lucky enough to represent for 20 years when, as my noble friend Lord Carrington said, there is no difference between the two counties yet Buckinghamshire has been excluded.
The reason why Berkshire is being treated differently cannot be because of public opinion, as the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, so ably said. When, in the debate introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Bancroft, last month, it was pointed out to the Minister that public opinion appeared to be against him in relation to what the Government were proposing on the evidence of the MORI polls, the Minister said that he could cite other polls the other way. Rather wisely today he reneged on that position and did not cite other polls—I suspect because there are none. Instead he took a different position. He said that one could not pay much attention to opinion polls because they are affected by substantial publicity campaigns. One could say exactly the same about a general election. I do not know whether my noble friend would discount a general election result because there had been a lot of publicity. The point is that so far as we know public opinion is against what the Government are proposing.
My noble friend the Minister waxed eloquent on the advantages of unitary authorities and cited in their favour the man who runs North Somerset unitary authority who, to your Lordships' enormous astonishment, is in favour of unitary authorities. If we do not obtain any better evidence than that, I cannot believe that we are being taken very far.
Of course there are good arguments for unitary authorities if they are of a proper size. Lord Redcliffe-Maud put forward ideas for unitary authorities of the proper size. Everybody knows—except perhaps the Government—that one cannot run education with a unitary authority of 150,000 people or less; that is crazy.
I wish to refer to one point that has not been raised. Before I was a Buckinghamshire MP, I was a Norfolk MP. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, will be aware, there was a great deal of trouble in the 1960s between Norwich and Norfolk relating to the boundaries. Norwich was a county borough and wanted to expand. Norfolk was a county. I represented the entire collar around Norwich. The last thing we wanted was to enter Norwich. If unitary authorities are introduced in Berkshire, the same problem will arise with Reading. For the Government therefore to propose a state of civil war, which will arise in a minor way between Reading and the surrounding county, seems to me almost as insane as the rest of what they are proposing. I hope the House will support the amendment so ably moved by my noble friend Lord Peyton.
5.5 p.m.
Lord Goff of Chieveley: My Lords, I speak to your Lordships as one whose home is in Berkshire. I gather
774
that that may be a declaration of interest, but I hope it does not disqualify me from speaking, in particular to support strongly the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Peyton. Since the Minister addressed us—we all listened to what he had to say with great respect—every speaker has opposed what he laid before your Lordships. Because so many noble Lords have put down their names to speak, I propose to speak extremely briefly.
As far as I can see, every local government reorganisation has been attended with an underestimate of the cost. I strongly suspect, having heard the figures and read the literature, that this is no exception. We must expect the attendant costs to be at the higher end of the estimates we have seen in the papers that have been distributed. That will not only mean higher taxes. As we know from the remarkable letter from Councillor Bob Pitt, which was sent to many of us, it will mean cuts in services. They always go hand in hand on occasions of this kind. Judging from what he told us, those cuts will fall on the most vulnerable members of our society.
The specific point I wish to stress, already dwelt upon by many noble Lords, is the extraordinary proposition that the strategic council in the county should be abolished and that those services which it renders at the moment—I believe very well—can effectively and sensibly be performed by six different bodies in the same area. I find that an almost impossible proposition to accept. With great respect to the Minister I heard nothing which fell from him that gives me any reason to believe that it is a sensible proposition. How can minerals, highways, housing and all the rest be dealt with in such a sensitive area as Berkshire by six different authorities scattered throughout the county?
I should like to give one example from my own experience. I live in a parish called Chieveley, in the North Wessex Downs—an area of outstanding natural beauty. There was a proposal warmly supported by our district council to build a gigantic building in our parish which was in breach of all applicable planning guidelines and in particular the county structure plan. We were fortunate to receive strategic objections from the county council, both on the basis of protecting the structure plan and also on grounds of traffic.
I am glad to say that the application was called in by the Secretary of State. It may be, we do not know, that the objections from the county council played a part. It was announced later that the highways authority would appear at the inquiry to oppose the proposed development. The application was then withdrawn—obviously because it was going to be turned down by the inspector and in due course the Minister.
I tremble to think how a parish would cope with that kind of treatment if it did not have the strategic planning authority to assist in cases of need. I tremble to think also of what will happen to the county structure plan. Who will decide what goes into it? Will there be horse-trading between the unitary authorities to work out what it should contain? I do not understand how it can work. I urge earnestly upon your Lordships to bear that consideration in mind as being extremely important

775
in our beleaguered county of Berkshire. I strongly support the amendment that the local community should be consulted. I have little doubt about the answer.
5.10 p.m.
Lord Finsberg: My Lords, in the light of what the noble Lord, Lord Bancroft, said, I had better bring my bucket and spade to the protection of the castles that my noble friend the Minister erected because I do not believe that they have been knocked down yet. My noble friend Lord Peyton, with whom I frequently agree, made a very interesting case, but much of it was built on shifting sand. He said that one of the reasons why the Conservative Party had lost control of almost every local authority was because of its legislation. With the greatest respect, and although I believe he has been in politics longer than I—I started in 1949—he must know that in local elections people vote against a government; they are not really interested in all the good things done by the local authority.
Perhaps I may give two examples in my own case. In 1949 I fought the then staunch Labour county council seat of North Islington. Sir Stafford Cripps produced a Budget two days before polling day and we had a recount in that constituency. In 1952 I fought the marginal London County Council seat of Stoke Newington. Conservative Ministers reduced the cheese ration two days before polling day and turned it into a safe Labour seat. So, I believe that we can discard the argument that it is legislation that causes these problems.
Let us be clear about Berkshire. It did not, as my noble friend said, accept its own demise. It supported it for three years. I am not sure why it changed its mind. I am sure that that was not because there was a change of political control. What is suggested is one more unitary authority. I listened with great interest to my noble friend Lord Carrington. I have to declare an interest. I am chairman of the Milton Keynes liaison committee and deputy chairman of the Commission for the New Towns. That Milton Keynes has become a unitary authority is to be welcomed.
Much of the argument that I have heard here I heard over the abolition of the London County Council and the Greater London Council. "You cannot break up the education authority of London. It is marvellous. It cannot be done by the boroughs". Ill-advisedly, my Conservative friends in the Government created the Inner London Education Authority. When that was broken up it was said, "You cannot do that; it will not work". The London boroughs are running very good education authorities and no one is now asking to have back the former system which antagonised a lot of people.
I had 25 years in local government. The constant complaint was that "them" at County Hall were always interfering with "us" at borough level. That has to be prevented. We heard the arguments about charities. I assure your Lordships that the charities that operated across London are operating perfectly happily now with the new London boroughs. In many cases I believe that they are getting stronger support.
776
I cannot conceal from your Lordships the fact that I have been a lifelong supporter of single-tier authorities in local government. In earlier days it was the county boroughs and today it is the unitary authorities. I probably would not have spoken in this debate had I not seen my noble friend's amendment, which stirred me up. I have had many letters for and against from Berkshire. I have just reread the debate on this matter in the other place. The Commons did not divide on the Berkshire order. In a moment I shall quote from one or two points made by my honourable friend Sir Anthony Durant who spoke on behalf of all the Berkshire Conservative Members of Parliament. Perhaps I may give your Lordships just three quotations. First, talking about Berkshire, he said that it had already lost a lot of the county some time ago when Abingdon went.
"The white horse, which was once the symbol of Berkshire, was also lost in a previous reorganisation".—[Official Report, Commons, 4/7/96; col. 1083.]
So Berkshire has not been the same county for more than 100 years. Secondly, a MORI poll—
Lord Denham: My Lords, my noble friend cannot quote.
Lord Finsberg: My Lords, I am trying to pick out parts without actually quoting.
Lord Denham: My noble friend must not quote from a Member of another place.
Lord Finsberg: My Lords, then I shall quote from a local authority, which I trust I may do. This quotation is from Purley parish council in the county:
"Only an authority that is totally out of touch with the people and unaware of what is going on could make such a statement. The public has been consulted … adequately … The Parish Council has no wish for its 'Local Government' to be run by a body that up until the last minute was saying it did not wish to put itself forward as a Unitary Authority, and was proposing its own dissolution…. This indecisive stance hardly inspires confidence for the future".—[col. 1084.]
Other statements made it perfectly clear that the local authorities were happy and felt competent to run Berkshire when it was no longer a county, but six unitary authorities.
Even after the change of mind by the county, a survey by the county itself showed that some 50 per cent. of people were in favour of unitary authorities or held no fixed opinion. So far I have not heard a case made out against the abolition of Berkshire. It is not a Machiavellian plot by the Government. It comes from a well-researched Local Government Commission report. With the greatest respect to the noble Lord who said it, I resent very much his talk about a hand-picked Local Government Commission. This commission was picked in exactly the same way as is every other local government commission. So if we are attacking this one then we are attacking them all. The people who man them do a very good job. They are people of the highest integrity and they ought not to have their characters impugned in that way.

777
Perhaps I may sum up very quickly. We have already seen that these orders went through the other place without a Division. We know the views of the Berkshire MPs who, I suggest, do know what their electors want. The county itself, until it changed its mind after three years, also wanted this proposal. I believe that the case has been made and I hope that your Lordships will reject the amendment and support my noble friend the Minister.
5.16 p.m.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, I can only say to the noble Lord, Lord Finsberg, as regards his remark about hand-picked local government commissions, that one of our difficulties in this whole range of orders is that the Government did hand-pick one commission, but they did not like the recommendations it made and so they sacked it and hand-picked a second commission. That is the source of a good many of the problems that we face.
This is a very similar debate to the one we had yesterday on the Kent order, during which I made rather a long speech so I shall be very brief indeed today. Listening to the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, and the powerful case that he made, I can hardly believe that the noble Lord, Lord Finsberg, could have been listening very closely if he did not believe that there was any argument at all for retaining Berkshire County Council. There is much in common between what we discussed yesterday and the discussion today. In Berkshire the evidence seems very strong that, as far as one can judge the available methods of measuring opinion, the majority view is for retaining the status quo. If the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, once again casts doubt on public opinion polls, then there should be some delay until there is an opportunity for an election in the county, which will be the best way to test that matter.
As regards costs, the need for a strategic authority and the fragmentation of services, which are all issues that we went through yesterday as regards Kent, they seem to be equally valid in terms of the case for retaining Berkshire County Council.
The main charge made by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, is that of a change of mind by Berkshire County Council. I myself thought that the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, answered it adequately. Having listened to the arguments so far and having read the background material to this matter, I believe that the real charge is not against Berkshire County Council for changing its mind, but against the Government, who are apparently incapable of changing their mind. They have so firmly committed themselves to what they regard as the principle of the unitary authority, to which the noble Lord, Lord Finsberg, declared himself to be so dedicated, that they have really turned that principle into a sort of doctrinaire ideology. It would be much better if these issues were discussed in each area of England on their merits relating to the circumstances of that area rather than against that rather doctrinaire background. As I say, the real charge is against the Government for their rigidity, for defying common sense and for being unwilling to trust the people in this matter.
5.19 p.m.
Lord Palmer: My Lords, we are now about halfway through the list of speakers and the score seems about nine to the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, and two to the noble Earl. It will be interesting to see how we end up.
I must declare an interest. I was born in a Nissen hut in the capital of the Royal county. My father was for years its Lord Lieutenant and most of my family still live in the Royal county, three being deputy lieutenants, one of whom is my mother. Members of my family have represented the Royal county in another place. At the turn of the century our family business was the 42nd largest employer in the United Kingdom and we employed over 7,000 people in the Royal county. I make those declarations just in case anyone thinks it rather odd that a resident of Scotland is speaking in this important debate.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, I much applaud many of the achievements of this Government, but I have to say that their efforts in reforming local government have been nothing short of disastrous, the situation in Scotland being one of the classic examples. As my noble friend Lord Tenby mentioned, the Government's plans for the change of local government in Berkshire are nothing short of madness, sheer madness, and as the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, mentioned, that madness will be expensive and complicated. I should like to hear from the noble Earl why Her Majesty's Government want to introduce something which is going to be expensive and complicated.
My noble friend Lord Tenby also mentioned the MORI poll, which showed that 73 per cent. favour the status quo. It is interesting that the average turnout at general elections is somewhere in the region of 73 per cent. It could therefore be argued that the voting population of Berkshire is in favour of the status quo. I feel sure that if that poll were conducted today, there would be an even higher percentage against the plans.
I beg the Government, even at this late stage, to maintain the status quo and to keep the Royal County of Berkshire as it is. The Government have nothing to lose and everything to gain by agreeing to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton.
5.21 p.m.
Lord Aldington: My Lords, I rise briefly to support my noble friend Lord Peyton, who was good enough to support me yesterday. That is my first reason for supporting him. My second reason is that I agree with everything that he said. The argument about Berkshire is as strong, perhaps stronger, than that which was put to the House late yesterday evening in respect of Kent.
I shall not repeat all the points that were raised then, but our theme today is the same as that of yesterday. Why do the Government disregard the opinions of the people who live in the counties which they wish to deprive of their county councils? Why will they not honour the undertakings given, first, by the Secretary of State who introduced the provisions and who said—in words paraphrased by the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington—that local opinions are paramount;

779
secondly, by my noble friend Lord Arran when he wound up the debate in your Lordships' House on 30th March 1994; and, thirdly, by the Prime Minister in the speech from which I quoted yesterday in which he attached importance to all constitutional change being in accordance with the will of the people? My noble friend Lord Ferrers did not like my quotation from that part of the Prime Minister's speech and went on to quote another part, which happened to be the very next sentence. It supported exactly what I said.
I beseech my noble friend to think again and to accept this opportunity for second thoughts. Many points of extreme importance have been made about the good governance of the county of Berkshire. The noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, supported by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goff, and other noble Lords, reminded us of the difficulties of strategic planning in that area. Those points are very important and they were not contradicted in any way by my noble friend Lord Finsberg who spoke as if Berkshire was like London. Berkshire is a very special place. I should like to hear one single reason—I have not yet heard one—why Berkshire does not need a county council. I support fully my noble friend Lord Peyton.
5.24 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I think that I have some qualifications for speaking in this debate. First, I have been concerned with the Berkshire reorganisation since its inception when a joint submission was made by Berkshire County Council and five districts for the abolition of the county council and its replacement by unitary authorities. I also saw Mr. Curry, the then Minister, to plead for the six unitary authority proposals, so I am not a Johnny-come-lately to this issue. I have been living with it for some long while.
My other qualification is that of residence and of involvement in public life in Berkshire over a long period. I have lived in Reading for 52 years. I still live in Reading. I have not gone to live in Scotland or elsewhere—
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: Shame!
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, it is a very nice place to live, but Reading is very handy.
I have been involved in public life in Berkshire since 1954. I was a member of Reading County Borough Council for 18 years and was leader of that council for a number of years. I was also a member of many joint bodies, including the Thames Valley Water Board, the Thames Valley Police Authority and the Berkshire and Reading Fire Authority. I was a candidate for the Newbury parliamentary constituency in 1959 and 1964. Therefore, I can probably claim a personal interest as well as an overall public interest in what happens in Berkshire. I think that I can also claim some knowledge of what is best for the residents of Berkshire.
The amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, refers to Berkshire as a "traditional" county council, but I should emphasise that Berkshire County
780
Council was doomed in 1974 by the 1974 reorganisation which transferred its northern area, including Abingdon, Wantage, Wallingford and Faringdon to Oxfordshire, and which left Berkshire as a narrow unviable strip, stretching from Lambourn in the west to Slough in the east, bisected throughout its length by the M4 motorway. That is Berkshire at present.
In fact, I was opposed to that reorganisation. I imagine that the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, voted for it when he voted for the Local Government Act 1972 because he was a member of the Government who imposed that Act on the country to the detriment of local government throughout the country. I was not in favour of Berkshire being dismembered at that time.
As I have already said, Berkshire is not a "traditional" county council. In any event, Berkshire did not have a county council until the Local Government Act 1888. It was only then, in 1888, that Berkshire got a county council at all. The fact of the matter is that Berkshire is unviable as an administrative entity, as Berkshire County Council itself has recognised.
Lest noble Lords have been taken in by the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Bancroft, that the county council was naive, I quote (I am afraid extensively) from the supplementary submission of the county council and the five local authorities:
"The present geographic area of Berkshire contains many diverse communities—the major towns of Reading and Slough, the older urban settlements of Maidenhead, Newbury, Windsor and Wokingham, the modern town of Bracknell and suburban areas with a clear individual identity, such as Woodley.
Fifty six per cent. of the land mass of the present County falls to the west of Reading…
These various communities, while sharing in the history of Berkshire which extends back, albeit not on its present boundaries, 1,000 years, now share little common identity. This is borne out by the evidence deduced from the 1991 census data, which was included in the collated pre-submission material. In addition, while Slough in the east is undoubtedly drawn to London, Newbury in the west has more affinity with Oxfordshire, Wiltshire and Hampshire."
That was what Berkshire County Council said in its supplementary submission. With regard to unitary councils, it said the following:
"The County Council resolved in May 1992 that unitary councils offered the best way forward for local government. The Council sees the benefits of such a system as one single point of contact for all the local government services the public needs; a single voice to represent areas; no opportunity for 'passing the buck' between the tiers of local government; the avoidance of duplication of effort and, therefore, opportunities for greater economies and efficiency.
Having reached that conclusion, the Council, in recognition of the diversity of the County area mentioned above, believes that a sub-county pattern of unitary authorities would best serve the residents of Berkshire".
I let Berkshire speak for me and for the order which the noble Earl has tabled today. There is nothing naive about that. It is a considered statement by Berkshire county council. Therefore, it was astounding that in those circumstances the county council completely reversed its position in 1995 and demanded the status quo. It no longer wanted unitary authorities; it wanted Berkshire County Council—which I have shown is completely unviable as an administrative entity—to remain as it was with six district councils and a two-tier authority. Since then Berkshire County Council has

781
conducted a spurious and expensive campaign in order to put over its case. That campaign has cost the ratepayers of Berkshire over £100,000. I fear that it was a dishonest campaign to destroy the unitary concept in Berkshire.
We have heard a great deal about polls. About which polls are we speaking? Referring to some of the independent polls undertaken by the commission, MORI showed that 69 per cent. were in favour of unitary authorities; NOP showed that 72 per cent. were in favour of unitary authorities. When Berkshire County Council undertook its own poll it did not do so on an independent basis. It asked leading questions, and it was criticised by many, including the local press, for doing so. For example, it suggested that if people voted for unitary authorities it would cost them an extra £54 a year. If one asks a question like that one is almost certain of the answer. These polls need to be examined in the context in which they have been conducted. When the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, winds up perhaps he will tell us how he intends the Government will test opinion in Berkshire. Is there to be yet another poll? Will all of the people in Berkshire be consulted through a referendum so that the issue can be argued out properly? I hope that he will provide a reply to that question.
Berkshire County Council has produced figures for transitional and on-going costs which bear no relation to reality. In compiling them it has had no discussions with the proposed unitary authorities. It has refused to discuss these matters with the unitary authorities. How can one take such an authority seriously when it will not discuss matters of great importance with those who have just as great an interest, if not greater, in the matter?
I have already said that I was leader of Reading County Borough Council, whose first charter was granted by Henry III in 1253. I have cause to know how well unitary authorities can work. I know that they work more efficiently and better than two-tier authorities. I shall tell your Lordships about some of my experiences. I interrupted the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, in relation to the teaching of the deaf. Reading, comprising 125,000 people, was a very successful education authority. People used to move from Berkshire into Reading to take advantage of the better educational facilities in Reading. People from all over the country moved to Reading so that their children could be taught in Reading schools. Reading was a pioneer in the teaching of the deaf. If it is said that a unitary authority of 125,000 is not able to cope, I point out that Reading coped very well—and far better than the county council.
There are many other instances. We have heard of the library service. It is suggested by the Library Association that libraries cannot be run successfully with a population of less than 250,000. Reading with a population of 125,000 ran one of the best library services in the country—far better than Berkshire. People from Berkshire used to go to Reading if they wanted a rare book because Reading could get it from anywhere in the world. That was a service which Berkshire County Council was not prepared to provide. Library services can be and are run extremely well by unitary authorities throughout the country.
782
One can also refer to art galleries. The best art gallery and museum in the county was in Reading. Experience shows that services can be carried out efficiently by unitary authorities.
What about democratic accountability? That is important, too. When one is operating a unitary authority in a county borough it is known that there is only one body which is responsible for all services. One knows where to go. There is one point of contact. One takes a greater interest in local government affairs. At the time of local elections in Reading, which was the county borough and the all-purpose authority, the turnout was 55 per cent. In the county council it was 18 per cent. So when we talk about democratic accountability, surely we know the truth. We know that the all-purpose authority wins every time.
I have had a lot of experience of Berkshire County Council. I hate to criticise but I have to say that it is a remote, out of touch, inefficient and officer-driven county council lacking any sort of reasonable democratic accountability, so much so, in fact, that at one period even the local MPs had difficulty arranging meetings with the chief executive.
Another place agreed the order before us today without a Division, not even Mr. Rendel, the Liberal Member of Parliament for Newbury, attempting to force a vote. He was clearly in favour of a unitary authority for Newbury although he would not commit himself about any other unitary authority in the area.
I could continue for a very long time but there are other people who want to speak. I must however say this. It would be intolerable and unprecedented if this House were to set aside an important order which had been agreed by all but one of the districts and unanimously—I emphasise that—by the House of Commons. To do so would cause administrative chaos and confusion in Berkshire and its districts. It is not the Government that will be defeated if this amendment is agreed but the people of Berkshire who have already suffered intolerable delay and expense as a result of the petulant irresponsibility of the Berkshire county councillors who put their own survival above the real and long-term interests of Berkshire ratepayers.
5.42 p.m.
Lord Renwick: My Lords, I do not have the local government experience of the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon. To compensate, I shall speak for a very short time. It was with some conviction that I presented a petition from the Royal County of Berkshire to your Lordships' House on 13th June. It is with the same conviction that I support the amendment of my noble friend Lord Peyton of Yeovil.
My experience of that Royal county is, in fact, less than a year, which is when my wife and I moved there. But my family has lived there since just after the last war. Now that Slough has come into the Royal county, I think there must have been some connection because my father's middle name was Burnham. I believe that came from the Beeches—from my grandfather.
It really is a sadness to me to have to support an amendment against my noble friend the Minister and his order today. I find it inconceivable and incomprehensible

783
that the only reasoned argument he seems to be able to put against the amendment of my noble friend Lord Peyton is that there is a resistance to change.
Change is something upon which I have concentrated for many years. It is difficult to handle change. It is usually pushed by technology. It is usually better to have a good understanding of technology so that one can understand the process of change. In view of what happened to the City in the 1980s, we know that imposed change is very damaging and very destructive. Managed change is, of course, what we like to look for. It has always been my view that to give a successful example of change is a much better way to promote change. But I have heard no example of where unitary authorities have been successful. The costs of implementing the unitary authorities in various places have been enormous and I hope that I shall not have to enjoy the increased costs of living in Berkshire.
5.46 p.m.
Baroness Flather: My Lords, may I first of all say that I do not live in a neighbouring county; neither do I have friends who cannot be present in your Lordships' House; and nor have I entered into a mutual support agreement with other Members of the House.
I speak as someone who has lived in the Royal County of Berkshire for the past 30 years. Fifteen of those I have served as a borough councillor for the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead. My title carries "Windsor and Maidenhead in the Royal County of Berkshire", all of which I am extraordinarily proud.
I have seen many occasions in your Lordships' House when big guns have been brought in to bear on a cause which might not stand up without their presence. I think this is one such occasion. I have never seen such an array of illustrious big guns in support of something which should not be supported at this stage.
There has been a great deal of sentimentality and very little reality. I am sure that if your Lordships read Hansard u very carefully tomorrow you will see that there is very little substance in the arguments that you have heard for retaining the county council. May I reiterate that it is only the county council which is going, not the royal county. I hope to finish my days in the Royal County of Berkshire, whatever shape it is in.
Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, with respect, it is unlikely that he was born in the county town of Berkshire because Reading was not the county town of Berkshire unless he is extremely young and should not be here. Abingdon was the county town. We lost that in 1974. We lost the Vale of the White Horse in 1974. The White Horse was the emblem of the royal county. I do not know where your Lordships were, but judging from the ages of many of your Lordships you should have been here protecting the real Royal County of Berkshire instead of trying to save a county council which has no chairmen at the moment for its committees because it cannot do a deal with the other parties. It appoints ad hoc chairmen to committees for each meeting. If you do not believe me, you can check it for yourselves.
784
That is why we are not in favour of retaining our county council, unlike the people of Buckinghamshire. That is another strange paradox that I have heard in your Lordships' House. We are not the people of Berkshire; there is some other mysterious entity that has not been consulted. All the people of the unitary authorities are not the people of Berkshire because they support the unitary authorities. There is some other large pool of people who have not been consulted, and they are the very people who should be consulted because they will be the ones who will support the county council. Who are those people? I thought that we were the people of Berkshire; the people of six unitary authorities.
Another question that I find interesting is: what will happen to the libraries, the collections and the archives? The archives will be in Reading. The ceremonial aspects of the Royal County will be looked after by the Royal Borough and—dare I say?—it will probably be much better looked after than at present by the county council.
We are not declaring UDI. We are not saying that each unitary authority is to produce a wall around itself and have nothing to do with its neighbours. That is not what will happen. Ever since the unitary authorities were mooted, the six have been working together enthusiastically and successfully, trying to put in place the preparations for providing the services which cannot be duplicated in each one. We are not as stupid as your Lordships may imagine. We do not believe that there can be six separate education authorities and entirely separate social services. No, we are not suggesting that. We are working together. We have had in place over a long time a number of initiatives for working together and now they are being developed.
The noble Lord, Lord Palmer, should not be seduced by the figure of 73 per cent. I doubt whether he knows how many people were consulted. In fact, 1,800 people were consulted and the county council had to admit that the questions were loaded. Out of the 1,800, 73 per cent. were in favour. The polls are not entirely satisfactory, but all the independent polls have come out in favour of the unitary authorities in Berkshire.
We wish to retain our Royal County. We wish to be part of our Royal County, but we do not wish to fund a defunct and useless county council which cannot reach agreement with other members to provide proper government. I am surprised that more noble Lords have not taken the trouble to find out what kind of a county council they are supporting here today. It would have been much more satisfactory if your Lordships had been able to do that. It comes to your Lordships from a position of weakness at this last moment when all legal challenges have been concluded. The House of Lords has refused it leave to appeal further. It comes to your Lordships from a gross position of weakness, not a position of strength, and I hope that your Lordships will remember that when you vote later tonight. The people of the Royal County of Berkshire will not thank you for retaining this defunct county council.
5.53 p.m.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, I had not intended to speak in the debate until last night when I saw many names down to speak, but not many from Berkshire. I believe that to date we are running at "two all" as regards the residents of Berkshire. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Goff of Chieveley, and the noble Lord, Lord Renwick, have spoken in favour of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, and the noble Baroness, Lady Flather, have made powerful speeches in favour of the Government's proposal.
I, like the noble Baroness, Lady Flather, have lived for 30 years in Berkshire in the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead. I support the creation of the six unitary authorities. I have been consistent in my support of the abolition of Berkshire County Council and I see no reason to change now.
Why did I so decide? The county council proposed its own abolition, uniquely as the Minister said. Was it uniquely naïve? I do not believe so, as the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, has shown. The district councils and all the MPs concerned also supported the abolition. Before finally making up my mind I consulted the noble Baroness, Lady Flather, and the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon. Your Lordships will agree that there are a good many issues on which they disagree but they were united in their support for the proposed change to unitary authorities and in their conviction that Berkshire was ideally suited and capable of making a success of it.
The Local Government Commission proposed the abolition of the county council and local people supported that. As the Minister said, it is the county council and not the Royal County of Berkshire, which is to go. I entirely understand the feelings of my noble friend Lord Palmer. I had the greatest respect and fondness for his father, who was Lord Lieutenant, and for his mother, who is now Deputy Lord Lieutenant. However, as noble Lords have said, Berkshire has changed radically since 1974. We are not abolishing the Royal County. It is interesting that the most ardent local pro-Berkshire campaigner, who has been writing to many of your Lordships, is writing to restore the county's historic boundaries pre-1974. It has nothing whatever to do with the unitary authorities.
People, very understandably, have been concerned about the ability of six smaller authorities to keep and deploy specialist facilities to meet particular needs. I am, however, very impressed by the close co-operation between the six districts. I know that they plan to maintain the specialist services, with lead authorities running particular facilities and services and providing them on a contract basis to the neighbouring authorities. I do not have the experience of the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, nor of the noble Baroness, Lady Flather, but I should like briefly to describe my experience of collaboration at a local level in Windsor and Maidenhead to meet the needs of people with disabilities. That gives me hope and confidence in the development of local solutions.
I wish to talk about the Windsor and Maidenhead Users Network (WAMU). It comprises a group of disabled people, of which I am a member, and carers
786
and their families can join in. It was set up to support and encourage the participation of disabled people fully in the life of the community. Among other things, it issues information and advice and ensures that disabled people receive the support and services they need. It also advises the local authorities on what disabled people need. For example, it advises the borough's access group. In partnership with the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead, it runs the shopmobility scheme, which provides powered wheelchairs for disabled people who want to go shopping. It is establishing a nursery/garden centre to employ disabled people on the site of a former local council nursery. One of WAMU's aims is helping to plan and effect the transfer of services to the new unitary authority.
Last night when I decided to take part in the debate I consulted Peter Field, the chairman of WAMU, on what is happening in other districts. He stated that from a user point of view, provision varies. To date, there is no active user group in Wokingham. However, Bracknell, like WAMU, has at least one councillor as an active member. Newbury has close ties with the authority and is particularly strong in the social service arena. Reading and Slough also have good communication lines and Slough is bidding to become involved with shopmobility, as has WAMU. Peter Field states:
"This is only the beginning. The Berkshire Disability Forum, the umbrella group co-ordinating the work and development of the groups, is determined to retain a wider geographic base to ensure that equality of service is maintained and that services do not suffer as a result of splitting up the providers.
Much has been accomplished over the last twelve to eighteen months which has provided a much better platform to ensure that the impact of decentralising services will either be lessened or at least will be recognised and brought to the attention of those who can correct the situation".
Peter Field is a level-headed, retired businessman. Many years ago he had polio. He is severely disabled and needs an electric wheelchair to move around. Therefore, he is very much a user of social services within the royal borough. He states:
"I think things have now moved way beyond any reasonable argument in favour of retaining the status quo, and all energy should now be devoted to looking forward and making sure that all those with a contribution are heard and their views, if relevant, taken into account".
I totally agree. We must move forward. We must get the new system operating and ensure that key skills remain to meet local needs.
I greatly respect the noble Lord, Lord Peyton. He was extremely persuasive—he has a magical way with words—but I urge your Lordships to support the Government, to support the noble Baroness, Lady Flather, and the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, who have spoken with a wealth of experience and local knowledge, and allow the six local authorities of Berkshire to get on with the job.
Lord Elton: My Lords, like my noble friend Lord Aldington, I have two reasons for speaking. I am so sorry, I am out of turn. I apologise to my noble friend Lord Lindsey and Abingdon.
6.1 p.m.
The Earl of Lindsey and Abingdon: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for giving way. Like the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, I live in Scotland and therefore have no material interest in present day Berkshire. However, in the past my family owned land both in Berkshire and Oxfordshire. My reason for speaking today is that I have retained an active interest in the town of Abingdon, where I take part in various local authority functions.
There is one point I should like to correct. My noble friend Lady Flather said that Abingdon was the county town of Berkshire until 1974 when it was transferred into Oxfordshire, together with Wantage and Farringdon, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart. The historical fact is that Abingdon was the county town until the 1860s, when the county offices were transferred to Reading due to the rapid expansion of Reading at that time with the coming of the Great Western Railway, and industrial expansion.
I was very interested in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart—although I do not agree with all that he said. He mentioned one of the main reasons for there being so much confusion over Berkshire at the moment. The county council has been criticised unduly, because it has been in a state of confusion for the past 20 years since the reorganisation of local government in the 1970s when it lost northern Berkshire, as the noble Lord pointed out. I do not, however, agree with his point as to why that has happened. The county of Berkshire as it is presently constituted can manage as a single county council so long as the uncertainty which has been behind its troubles for the past 20 years is resolved.
I have nothing against unitary authorities. However, I must disagree with my noble friend the Minister who said that they would not result in an increase in rates and taxes. The only way a small unitary authority can carry out its duties, without having to go to central government for funds, is to increase taxes.
I therefore support my noble friend's amendment to leave the status quo as it is, and which provides that the people of Berkshire—who are the most important people to consider under this order—should be consulted again.
6.5 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I rise with trepidation having risen once, too early, to see whether the noble Lord, Lord Burnham—whose name I correctly deleted from the list—was about to rise in the same way as my noble friend, whose name I accidentally deleted, and to whom I apologise.
Like my noble friend Lord Aldington, I rise to speak for two reasons—one personal, the other logical. The personal reason is that I support my noble friend Lord Ferrers, who, at the outset, I thought was heavily outnumbered. I am not so sure now. My logical reason is that I believe that he is right.
My reasons for saying so arise from an experience different from that of other noble Lords. I took part in the principal legislation relating to this matter, and in the legislation relating to Wales, in particular. I had a
788
slight interest in the legislation for Scotland. We are now reaping the fruits of that legislation and I shall revert to it.
Only three reasons have been advanced in the debate for opposing my noble friend and supporting this Motion. The first is that the people have not been consulted. My noble friend Lord Peyton suggested that the Conservative Party, to which we both belong, had an urgent need to return to its roots. He started, incidentally, with Noah's Ark and went via the Tumbrels to get there, so the roots go a long way back. But where are our roots? Our roots are in the electorate of the United Kingdom. How are those roots to express themselves if not through their elected representatives? All seven of the elected representatives of the Royal County of Berkshire as it is now constituted supported the abolition of the county council. Six out of the seven specifically supported what is proposed in this order, and the other place let it through without a Division. I should have thought that that was an expression of the opinions of the roots.
But if you want to go further down you must go to the county councillors. At the outset, and for three years thereafter, they supported their own abolition, which is what is proposed in the order. They actually set it rolling. Or, if you want to go further down, you go to the district councillors. All the district councils are in favour.
As a House we give ourselves, if not airs, at least importance, as the defenders of democracy. Democracy has spoken. We now have an order to implement that voice, and it is opposed on the grounds that it is against our roots. That is misconceived.
Incidentally, my noble friend eschews referring to polls as a reliable source of opinion, but there was a reference—was there not?—to the MORI poll where 1,800 people were consulted. In the NOP poll—which was not carried out by the commission but was carried out for it by NOP—38,000 people were consulted, of whom 72 per cent. wanted to get rid of the county council. Every indicator that we have shows that, on the evidence given, the people want change, and change which involves the abolition of the county council—not of the county, but of the county council.
The second reason advanced for opposing the order and supporting the Motion is that it would be very expensive, complicated and inefficient to deliver services by unitary authorities which have hitherto been delivered by a tiered authority and by the county council.
Your Lordships may not realise it but we have been over this ground in a serious way on a number of occasions and we have always come to the same conclusion. We went over it in the Local Government (Wales) Bill. We went over it in the principal legislation for this Bill, and we went over it in the principal legislation for Scotland. I advanced that argument in two of those pieces of legislation, because, having been a Minister in the Department of the Environment and being interested in the delivery of local authority services, I have followed matters. I felt that there was merit in the argument that services would be less

789
effectively and more expensively delivered by the small unitary authorities. This House overbore me on every occasion. Your Lordships have decided and you are now reopening an issue which has been decided.
That is my second reason. I would add to it by saying that what matters in the delivery of local services is immediacy. The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, suggested that what mattered most about them was only their delivery in the home. What matters is when they do not arrive. What do you do then? You go to your member. Who is your member? Is he a member of a county council representing 7,500 people on average or do you go to a representative on the district council who represents 2,000 people on average? The district councillor is more than three times more likely to know you by name when you are in trouble. That must be a measure of the benefits which this order can provide.
The third argument which has been advanced is the emotional one that it is a Royal county. I notice that those who oppose the order use the term "Royal" much more frequently than others. It is an emotive term. But the county as it was constituted does not exist. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, pointed out that a great slice of it has disappeared into Oxfordshire. I do not believe that he mentioned that with it was taken Alfred's Castle and the White Horse which was the badge of the County of Berkshire. Other bits were stuck on at the other end.
The historical analogy breaks down. Even if your Lordships feel that in some way that persists, I ask your Lordships to remember that the Lord Lieutenancy and the Shrievalty will continue. I believe that my noble friend has a difficult task ahead. He started out well; I hope that he finishes it better and that the rest of you join me in the Lobby with him when it is over.
6.11 p.m.
Lord Teviot: My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Elton. I support my noble friend Lord Peyton of Yeovil. Reference was made to my noble friend Lord Colnbrook. He did not wish us to have the situation which we have today. He hoped that this would all be dealt with long before your Lordships had to make this decision.
As regards the history of local government, it started off with a parish system and then there were the Poor Law units in 1834. The boroughs existed and then there were counties and rural districts and urban districts. In the 1970s, something had to be done. That was faintly disastrous. Everyone thought that it was going to be economic within five minutes flat; and it was not. It took a long time. Twenty years later, it has all been rather successful. The Royal County of Berkshire would have been better without the bits sliced off it, apart from the purlieus of Oxford, which would make sense.
This is all very expensive. Archives is the one subject which I know about. I know that it is not the most essential service in the world but it is a very important service. I am told that if County Hall is sold, a new archive will cost £5 million. I have sat here for 30 years.
790
I can remember the late Lord Winterbottom asking a question of Lord Brockway when £100,000 was described as no bagatelle. I can assure your Lordships that £5 million is no bagatelle.
Archives is only one area in which there will be a great deal of expense. It will be dreadful; and to what effect? I listened carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon. I thought that he was going to give a rather more stirring speech in support of Reading. I have listened to others who have tried to persuade me. I shall listen to my noble friend who might persuade me. The last part of my noble friend's amendment calls on Her Majesty's Government
"to withdraw the order until such time as the people of Berkshire have had the opportunity to indicate support or otherwise for this position".
My noble friend Lord Elton dealt with the question of Members of Parliament very well.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Pender: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, spoke for 17 minutes. I shall speak for one minute. I support the amendment outlined so well by my noble friend Lord Peyton. One aspect causes me anxiety. What becomes of the associations and voluntary bodies who bear the county's name? Is it possible to have cohesion when associations such as the Red Cross, St. John's Ambulance and a myriad of others have to seek advice from six unitary authorities with six differing views compared with one central body of the county council? I am not suggesting that the spirit of those great organisations within the county may be broken but the prospect of clear, uniform thought is zero.
6.16 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I should like to speak in the gap. The reason that the second Local Government Commission was set up was that the Secretary of State claimed that there was a lack of consistency and coherence if you looked at the result of the proposals of the first Local Government Commission. The proposals to break up one of the long-standing county councils surely represents an inconsistency.
Secondly, the tragedy of this whole process has been that the Government refused from the very beginning to discuss functions and finance. The process has been fundamentally flawed from the beginning. What we have heard this afternoon has been a sad, tragic catalogue of people criticising and attacking other tiers of local government than the one which they choose to support.
Democracy is too important for us to be trapped by the narrow perspective of the exercise which the Government began. I do not believe that this second look at the process with regard to the County of Berkshire has produced the consistency or coherence across the English county areas with which the Government charged the commission. I personally would be prepared to accept incoherence and inconsistency if I had been convinced that the people of Berkshire want that and want to pay for it.

791
With the greatest respect to the noble Lord, Lord Elton, the Secretary of State for Wales and in particular, the Secretary of State for Scotland have had to admit that their costings for a change have been wrong. The Secretary of State for Scotland has had to find additional resources in order to prevent what was almost a revolt by the people of Scotland.
I believe that the people of Berkshire should have an opportunity to have a say, if they are going to be asked to pay for a change. At the end of that process, I, for one, would accept their verdict.
6.17 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I start by declaring an interest, as I did in the debate yesterday evening, in that I am a member of a unitary authority. It is a London borough. I have no geographical or family connections with Berkshire or any part of it.
I may say that my unitary authority runs education for a population of about 160,000, although referring to comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Finsberg, I accept that we have imposed on us, because there is a matter of parental choice, the education of a number of children who live in an inner London borough and across the borough boundary. Therefore, to that extent our catchment is larger.
In previous debates on the various local government orders, I have made comments along the lines of, "We should not have started from here, should we?". The appropriate comment here is, "We didn't start from here". That is at the root of the whole confusion, and the material for the difficulties and in some cases I would say even almost ill feeling, which is a very great pity.
The county's original reaction, described as "naive" in its support for the process, should not be held against it. The Government may well feel that it has more than balanced its support by the actions that it has taken since then. But its original stance, on the basis that there would be a uniform pattern of unitary authorities, is entirely understandable.
I share with my noble friend Lord Thomson of Monifieth the view that the Government should accept that there is nothing wrong in admitting to a change of mind. I must say that in introducing the order I felt that the Minister rather glided over the change in proposals since the joint submission was made by the county and constituent districts.
Comments have been made along the lines that almost anything would be acceptable to end the uncertainty. I understand that point of view. However, more than anything else, I believe that that is an indictment of the Government's having set up a process which, in retrospect, really cannot be supported; it is short-termism which I would not today support.
As my noble friend Lady Thomas of Walliswood said, the Minister's introduction seemed to contain pretty good arguments for unitary authorities in a regional context—and, I would add, with widespread parish councils. The noble Lord, Lord Elton, commented
792
on my noble friend's reference to quality of service. If I may speak for my noble friend, I believe that she would entirely accept that promptness of delivery is part of quality. Moreover, all of us who are members of local authorities should, in my view, be seeking to do ourselves out of a job as a court of appeal for those who are the recipients of services. I believe that the job of good local government is to ensure that the services are delivered well as a matter of routine, and not only if an appeal is made to a council member; in other words, to provide good quality overall, not individually.
I have often spoken of my concern that suitable arrangements should be made for strategic matters, including planning, transport, waste, minerals and so on. The points about Silicon Valley and the pressures for housing in the area are most important. However, to pick up a matter that I raised late last night on the Kent debate, it can at least be said for this order that it avoids the gap in legislation of which the Minister did not seem to be aware.
I regard the matter of ceremonial arrangements as less of a reason for concern. I was surprised that the noble Baroness, Lady Flather, did not claim the experience that her own borough must have in dealing with royal matters. It is, perhaps, a matter of routine and, therefore, she did not even think to mention it. It surprised me a little that, in another place, the Secretary of State said that people will still refer to themselves as coming from Berkshire. I am not really sure that that is an argument for anything; but that seemed to be his response to the point.
In my view—and I stress that this is my view—these proposals are good in parts. For example, the character of Newbury is rural and more westward looking than the other parts of Berkshire, while the areas of Slough and Reading quite clearly have their own urban centres; indeed, they have an urban character. I cannot say the same for Wokingham. I hope that its citizens will not think it pejorative if I say that it is substantially commuter land for Reading. It is quite a different sort of authority. That is why, as I said, the proposals are good in parts.
I should also say that I have been very impressed by the co-operation which has been shown by the district councils, which I believe have dealt with the proposals and plans most calmly and professionally. Quite clearly, they are already undertaking much work jointly. However, those are my views; they are not the views of the people who will be affected. We do not know what those are.
If the Government really had serious thoughts about the kind of slapdash polling that the Minister described—where the outcome depends on the question—they had no business not to ensure that the guidance to the commission required professional and objective polling. Comments have been made on polling this afternoon which have compared quite different types of poll. Indeed, polls which involve a relatively small number of people, undertaken in this instance by MORI, are not the same as NOP polls or questionnaires sent out to large numbers of people. I have made the

793
point before and, although I have no brief to defend pollsters, I must say that good polling does not depend on numbers.
There has also been mention of cost. In my view, it is not just a matter of the costs of transition and the extra costs which may be incurred by a unitary solution. I am very conscious that, in addition to those costs, there are also the uncosted person hours that have been spent in responding to what has been happening. I believe that that is understandable. The main point on cost is probably the overall loss of cash to local government services. It is from such services that the payment for this farrago—I believe that that is the word that has been used—has come.
I very much agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington of Ribbleton, who referred to the question of function. We should, perhaps, have started by addressing the issue of what local government should do. In my very early days in your Lordships' House, I remember debating that issue with the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, who has come into the Chamber today to listen to the debate. That was my first Bill. Indeed, had we first addressed function, then perhaps the issues of structure would have been easier to deal with.
I shall support the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, quite simply because of the failure to consult on the proposal which is the basis of the order. I regard that as a real failure. There has been comment about those who have come to your Lordships' House this afternoon to put, in some cases, a very personal perspective. However, that is the nature of this House. Whatever the outcome, I should like to use the occasion to thank both members and officers of all the authorities concerned, who must have had an extraordinarily unsettling and difficult time but who I have no doubt have been doing their best to continue to provide good services. I end with a plea that none of the authorities is served an unremitting diet of either Karl Marx or Jeffrey Archer.
6.26 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, on these Benches we oppose the amendment and support the orders. I hope that your Lordships will forgive me if I emphasise briefly two points made last night in the Kent debate. First, since 1974, the Labour Party has broadly supported the principle of unitary authorities. We have done so because we believe that they offer a more transparent, "getatable" and accountable form of local government in which important services are not splintered between two tiers of local government. We know that that splintering generates confusion.
Reading District Council carried out its own survey in 1994. It found that 28 per cent. of the people of Reading thought that Reading provided education: it does not. It also found that 30 per cent. of the people thought that Reading provided social services: it does not. Finally, it found that 52 per cent. of the people thought that Reading provided libraries: it does not. What does accountability mean? How does any library user in Reading hold Berkshire County Council responsible for its library services if it believes, wrongly, that Reading Borough Council provides the libraries?
794
The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, said that, although the county council may be remote, services were nonetheless locally administered and delivered. I do not believe that local administration is a satisfactory substitute for local democracy. That is perhaps the difference between our points. A two-tier structure generates confusion. Moreover, in my view, it undermines the competence of local government to meet the major challenges facing it in the decades ahead—for example, the issues of care in the community and of economic regeneration. How can local government deliver the best services for the public when, in response to the needs of care in the community, housing is the responsibility of one tier and social services another? Some of the most fragile and most vulnerable people in our society may fall in the gap between the two.
It is precisely for that reason that tomorrow afternoon, on the Third Reading of the Housing Bill, we shall be moving an amendment with which I know the Minister will sympathise. Of course, he may think that it is unnecessary, but I do not believe that he will disagree with the purpose of the amendment; namely, to require housing and social services to co-operate in order to make the services under care in the community appropriate and effective. We have to move such an amendment on a housing Bill precisely because that co-operation is now not happening between two tiers of local government.
Equally, when it comes to economic regeneration, what sense does it make to have planning at district level, highways at county level, youth and community services at district level, education and training at county level, and economic development run by both at the same time? Who knows who does what? How can you ensure a seamless service when officers duplicate each other, run side by side, send letters to each other and spend most of their time trying to co-ordinate with each other? That cannot offer competent and value-for-money services to the public.
The first reason why we on these Benches support the order is that we believe that in most parts of the country, and certainly here, unitary authorities will provide more effective services. We also take a stand on the issue of wrecking or "fatal" Motions. We believe it is wrong to support Motions or amendments to statutory orders which effectively overturn the will of the elected House. It is not a matter of convenience but of principle. We have no problem at all—in fact we are delighted—if, on an amendment to a Bill, we can persuade your Lordships' House to ask the other place to think again. We do that whenever we can and whenever we can persuade your Lordships to support us. On rare occasions—sadly, too rare—we sometimes succeed. But when that other place has declared its intention, either on the first round or if necessary on the second, we defer to the hegemony of the elected House. That deference was reaffirmed by very many of your Lordships just a few days ago when we had that same constitutional debate. We, as a House of Lords, respect and defer to the authority, in these matters of statutory instruments and orders, of the elected chamber. To do otherwise would be for the unelected House to overrule the considered view of the elected House. The elected

795
House, on this matter, did not have a single voice in dissent to the Berkshire order. There was a not a single vote against the Berkshire order. I think we should take the view of the elected House very seriously indeed and not seek irrevocably to overturn it.
I come now to Berkshire itself. First, the order does not abolish the historic county, as many of your Lordships have said tonight. It is the county that is historic, not the county council, which came into existence only in 1888. Before then the county was run by the lord lieutenant, the JPs in quarter sessions and the Poor Law guardians. The county council ran that county territory only until 1974. As the noble Lord, Lord Finsberg, said, in 1974 one third—not a trivial amount—of the county jurisdiction changed county area. The Vale of White Horse and Abingdon went to Oxfordshire; Slough and Eton went from Buckinghamshire to Berkshire. A third of the territory of Berkshire is new or has changed since 1974. So much for the historic county.
The order abolishes the county council. That is not entirely surprising because, until recently, the council was trying desperately hard to abolish itself. As my noble friend Lord Stoddart said, in May 1992, before the review began, the county council said:
"Unitary councils offer the best way forward for local government. The [county] council sees the benefits of such a system as one single point of contact for all the local government services the public needs; a single voice to represent areas; no opportunity for passing the buck between tiers of local government; the avoidance of duplication of effort; and therefore the opportunities for greater economies and efficiencies."
As the Minister said in his opening remarks—and it bears repeating—in their joint submission to the Local Government Commission the county council with the district councils said:
"All councils, including the county council, recognise that unitary authorities are the best way of delivering services in Berkshire."
There has been much speculation in your Lordships' House as to why Berkshire County Council appears to have performed a volte-face over what was an unambiguous assertion that Berkshire County Council was in favour of unitary authorities and also in favour of its own abolition. Its policies changed when there was a change of leadership among the Liberal Democratic group 18 months ago. That leadership has a perfect right to change its views; I am not disputing that. The other parties, I believe, remained consistent and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Flather, said, Berkshire county administration has remained exceedingly—one might say excessively—fluid. I understand that committee chairmen have to be individually and separately elected at each and every committee meeting. It is not surprising that in that situation county policies have not been exactly consistent.
This reorganisation, on almost every test of opinion that I am aware of, commands wide public support, including the support of all Members of Parliament. The MORI poll has been quoted. That poll shows 69 per cent. of the people of Berkshire to be in favour of unitary authorities, 49 per cent. in favour of the reorganisation of the existing boundaries, and the rest split between "don't knows" and "opposed".
796
The noble Lord, Lord Peyton, mentioned the opposition of voluntary organisations. I do not know whether it applies to Berkshire, but I know—I repeat, I know—that in many counties voluntary organisations have been clearly told that if they do not write appropriate letters of support for the county council to the Local Government Commission their applications for grant will not be sympathetically considered the following year. Those letters have subsequently been checked by county council staff—
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Baroness, but I think that in this Chamber we should be very careful not to cast aspersions on people in that generous-handed way. I think it a most unwise thing to have said. I beg the noble Baroness to withdraw those remarks.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, on the contrary, I said that I know, and I do know. I do not know whether it applies to Berkshire, as I said, but from my own knowledge I know that this has happened. The noble Baroness may have a very different experience from mine; I am speaking to what I know.
Finally, we come to the point of costs. Examples from Middlesbrough have been much quoted. Let us stay with Berkshire, because there the transitional costs of reorganisation have been estimated by the Local Government Commission at up to £16 million with running costs of up to £8 million. I do not wish in any way to suggest that the figures are negligible—indeed, they are not—but what has not been mentioned is the Written Answer to Andrew Rowe, MP, from the Minister in the other place in June which confirmed that the transitional costs of £16 million should be more than covered by the capital receipts from the sale of County Hall, a modern building by the side of the M.4. Its value is estimated at £25 million. As for the ongoing costs, Reading, for example, estimates that there will be something like £1.9 million or £270,000 a year amortised over seven years, or about one-quarter of 1 per cent. of its budget of £100 million. Reading says—it may be wrong—that it expects its council tax to remain the same. So much for all the scare stories of "£100 on your bills". It is quite extraordinary. I have looked at a number of county council reports regarding the extra costs that will be generated by reorganisation. All suggest that it will be precisely £100 on the council tax bill. If it is not the same figure then, given that 85 per cent. of Reading's expenditure is funded by central government, any increase in council tax expenditure, or reduction in council tax expenditure, is much more likely to be due to alterations in the revenue support grant—for good reasons or bad—than to local expenditure decisions. We wish the new boroughs well. We believe that they will offer good local government which is effective, economical and accountable. We hope that they deliver services to the public that the public want and support.
6.40 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, there is nothing like local government and its procedures to get people worked up.

797
I do not suppose that today is the first occasion on which your Lordships have been in such a state. I thought some of your Lordships were in an equivalent state last night, so perhaps this might be described as a hangover from last night.
We have had today the sort of debate that we usually have on Wednesdays. Noble Lords have discussed the advantages of unitary authorities and single or two-tier government or the advantages of MORI polls or other kinds of Gallup polls. Noble Lords have asked why the people were not asked about this measure, and have discussed how we ought to ask them. It is difficult to acquaint all that your Lordships have said with what we are talking about, which is a simple order which has been passed by another place and has come before your Lordships for consideration today. Many different views have been expressed today. Someone has to decide something. So what did we do? We set up a commission. We told the commission to discuss the matter and think about it and then tell us what it thought. That is exactly what it did; the commission reported.
My noble friend Lord Peyton said that anything is better than continual uncertainty. That is precisely what we are trying to avoid. But who is causing the uncertainty? It is my noble friend behind me. Here is an order that has been passed by another place—
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords—
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, half a moment, I am in full flood. As I said, the order was passed by another place and now my noble friend says that it does not matter about any conventions, we should chuck the order back at the House of Commons, and that we should not agree with what the House of Commons has decided.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, the excuse of being in full flood is hardly a good cover for misleading the House. Let me be quite clear about what I said. I said that it is understandable that people may come to say that anything is better than uncertainty. From that point I went on to say that the damage and the cost of what is now being proposed is something which in future people will find hard to handle, and ought now to be considered.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, as they say, I shall have to read in Hansard what my noble friend said. However, as he referred to what other people might say, I assumed that he had associated himself with those thoughts. However, if have misconstrued him, I am sorry about that. My noble friend Lord Renwick said it was a sadness to support the amendment against the Government. However, he need not do so. He is entirely free not to do so. He is free to support the Government which, if I may say so, is the right thing for him to do.
I agreed with what my noble friend Lord Elton said in an excellent speech when he said he thought it looked as if I might have a rough time. I thought so too, but various cohorts have helped and have put the Government's point of view, or have supported the Government in what we are doing. I am grateful to my noble friends Lord Finsberg and Lady Flather for
798
their remarks. My noble friend Lady Flather made an excellent speech drawing on her direct knowledge of unitary authorities. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis. My goodness me, we are now getting the Opposition to understand the way to run a government! I so welcome their support, and I hope that they will continue to give it.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am sorry if I have disturbed the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition. Yesterday the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, was in good robust form. He was in good robust form today. He accused the Government of acting like a commissar over Kent. That was not a nice word, but that is what he accused us of. He said the Government had a master plan to impose consistency, or rather uniformity. Today we are criticised for accepting that different approaches are right for different counties. My noble friend Lord Peyton asked why Berkshire alone had been selected out of 36 shire counties. We have been through that. That is what the Local Government Commission suggested and that is what Berkshire County Council agreed with and supported. Berkshire County Council supported unitary authorities. If it wishes to change its mind, it can do so.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, will the Minister please confirm that the second Local Government Commission was appointed because the Government were concerned that across England there was a lack of coherence in the proposals that were being put forward?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Baroness is quite right. There was a second commission. The reason for that was because it was not just the Government who were unhappy about a lack of consistency in some of the recommendations of the first commission. That applied to the Opposition too and to most independent commentators. In any event that is irrelevant as regards Berkshire because it is the first commission's recommendations which we are implementing and not those of the second commission, with the minor exception of the merger between Windsor, Maidenhead and Bracknell Forest, which we rejected.
My noble friend Lord Peyton said that Berkshire had changed its mind. The noble Lord, Lord Bancroft, in what I thought, if I may say so, was an extraordinary remark, said that Berkshire went along with the Government's view because my right honourable friend the Secretary of State had said—I paraphrase what the noble Lord, Lord Bancroft, said, and not what my right honourable friend said—that the two-tier structure would be an exception, but when that was not the case, it changed its mind. I find that quite extraordinary. I cannot believe that Berkshire County Council said it wanted unitary authorities because that was what it thought the Secretary of State wanted, but when the commission proposed something different Berkshire then said it would change its mind. It is important to

799
remember that the review process has been conducted in two halves. First, there was a round of consultation and then the commission produced a draft report in which it recommended four unitary authorities. Consultation was held on the draft recommendations and then a final report was produced which recommended five unitary authorities with Bracknell Forest, Windsor and Maidenhead being the fifth.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, said there was no consultation on change. I believe the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goff, said he was surprised by the response. The Local Government Commission carried out two rounds of public consultation and the Government allowed time for people to make representations to Ministers on the commission's final recommendation. As the review progressed across England it was clear that no change was an option which could be considered in every case.
I now turn to my noble friend Lord Carrington for whom I have always had the greatest admiration. When I was a junior Minister I knelt at his feet and I looked up at him in admiration. I still do. There was a small hiccup this afternoon in that admiration but I have no doubt that it will continue. My noble friend said that the unitary authorities were too small. Up to 1974 there were many equally small, and smaller, county borough councils which provided in effect unitary services. Many were renowned for the good services which they provided. It is not the size of the authority which matters but the quality of its councillors and its officers. None of the proposed unitary councils for Berkshire is unusually small by comparison with some existing metropolitan boroughs which have been unitary since 1986. My noble friend said there was nothing that antagonises people more than tinkering with local services. I can understand that. We have had a reflection of it this afternoon. My noble friend referred to the reorganisation in 1974 involving Lord Walker and Lord Redcliffe-Maud. That issue caused a bit of an upset. However, my noble friend was a member of the Government in those days. He supported those changes, even though in retrospect he can quite reasonably take a different view.
Lord Carrington: My Lords, has the noble Earl left me?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I shall come back.
Lord Carrington: My Lords, can my noble friend—for whom I have an equally profound admiration—tell me why, the commission having recommended that exactly the same proposals be accepted by Buckinghamshire and the Secretary of State having refused to allow them, he has not done the same for Berkshire?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am always nervous when my noble friend begins by saying that he has enormous admiration for me. Something in my inner brain says, "Watch it!".
800
The answer is that each county and each order is separate. We are dealing not with Buckinghamshire, in which my noble friend resides, but with Berkshire. All the elected Members of another place were keen on the order and approved it.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Goff, said that strategic services cannot be provided locally. He mentioned housing, which is already a district service, and highways, where the work is carried out by district councils on an agency basis. That illustrates the confusion and misconceptions which can arise about which tier of local government deals with the service.
The point is that six unitary authorities can work well together. My noble friend Lady Flather says that they already do so. On top of that, those unitary authorities will be closer and more responsive to local people. The districts say that they can supply services at no extra costs; and it is up to them to do that. The local authorities' own submission to the commission emphasises that the different community identities and the unitary authorities ought to be able to represent those differences across the range of services.
My noble friend Lord Aldington yesterday moved a Motion which declined to support the draft order for Kent. I suggested to your Lordships that it would be quite wrong to support that Motion because it would have prevented your Lordships from agreeing to an order which another place had passed. My noble friend's amendment is far worse. Let me remind noble Lords what it says. It states that:
"This House deplores Her Majesty's Government's proposal to abolish Berkshire County Council … and calls on Her Majesty's Government to withdraw the order".
That is a wrecking amendment by any stretch of the imagination.
I sometimes wonder what has happened to the Liberal Democrats. They have been charging along the field today, and yesterday too, like a herd of heifers with the warblefly, with their tails up, having a go at anything in sight. I wonder whether they ever talk to their counterparts in another place. In another place a Liberal Democrat who is a Member of Parliament for the area is in favour of the order; yet all the Liberal Democrats who have spoken here—the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth—say that they will vote against the Motion. It makes us wonder what on earth is happening. It gives justification to what someone said the other day: if God had been a Liberal Democrat, there would have been "The Ten Suggestions".
What has happened over this issue? There is a problem. The Government set up a commission. The commission reported for unitary authorities. All five Conservative elected representatives of Berkshire in another place agreed entirely with the order. The Liberal Democrat hovered, but he was in favour of Newbury being a unitary authority. The order was put to another place; and it was agreed not only by those Members of Parliament but by another place, and was passed.
The matter now comes before your Lordships' House. A number of noble Lords have said that they wish to vote against the order. I urge your Lordships to think

801
very carefully and, having thought very carefully, to decide not to do that. There is a serious constitutional problem. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, reminded us that two weeks ago we had a debate on the constitution, the position of your Lordships' House, the composition of your Lordships' House and what ought or ought not to be done. I believe that for your Lordships to vote against this order which has been passed by another place—it is acceptable to the Members of another place and to all the local representatives in another place—would be quite intolerable and would give enormous offence.
My noble friend Lord Peyton takes up the cudgels and walks along rather like Moses visiting the Red Sea, saying, "Stop the waters. We don't want this to continue". I do not believe that that is the duty of your Lordships' House. Your Lordships' House is quite right to discuss the matter; your Lordships' House is quite right to put forward views on it. But to say, another place having passed this order, that simply because we cannot amend it therefore we shall throw it out would be quite intolerable. I hope that your Lordships will not do that.
6.57 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, various temptations face anyone, having moved an amendment, replying to such a debate. First, I should like to yield to one temptation and spend a moment thanking noble Lords who have taken part in the debate, whichever side they were on. However, I shall not yield to the temptation to go through every speech and applaud some and challenge others.
I wish to deal with two points. First, I congratulate my noble friend who has replied to the debate on the particular pleasure that he must have from the strong support he received from the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis. When the two Front Benches representing the two principal parties get too close together, as I believe they have throughout this operation, I become a little uneasy. Perhaps that unease is shared by some of my noble friends.
Secondly, there is the constitutional issue. I do not ask my noble friend to explain anything because I am sure that he would not wish to speak again. However, I express my bewilderment. In Bill after Bill and clause after clause we impose a requirement on the Minister making an order under a certain power that the order should be subject to an affirmative resolution in both Houses of Parliament. If my noble friend's point carries weight, we ought to change the form of that requirement and say that an affirmative resolution in favour of an order is required only by the House of Commons, and noble Lords will then forego the privilege which almost every similar provision has given to them in the past. That I find difficult to understand.
From experience of others in winding up such a debate, I believe that there is a great danger of losing support, and none of gaining it, by going at length into matters which have already been debated with differing degrees of skills on both sides of the House. I commend the amendment in my name.
7 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 90; Not-Contents, 132.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Aberdeen and Temair, M.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Ackner, L.

Lloyd of Berwick, L.

Addington, L.

Lloyd-George of Dwyfor, E.

Aldington, L.

Lowry, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Bancroft, L. [Teller.]

McNair, L.

Bathurst, E.

Malmesbury, E.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Mar, C.

Bridge of Harwich, L.

Marlesford, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Carlisle, E.

Monkswell, L.

Carrington, L.

Monson, L.

Chalfont, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Moran, L.

Chorley, L.

Newall, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Palmer, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Combermere, V.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Cooke of Thorndon, L.

Pender, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L. [Teller.]

Croham, L.

Pike, B.

Cross, V.

Redesdale, L.

De L'Isle, V.

Renton, L.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Renwick, L.

Falkland, V.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Gainsborough, E.

Rochester, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Russell, E.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Sandwich, E.

Gillmore of Thamesfield, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

Sherfield, L.

Goff of Chieveley, L.

Simon, V.

Greenway, L.

Slynn of Hadley, L.

Halsbury, E.

Stockton, E.

Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

Suffolk and Berkshire, E.

Hamwee, B.

Taverne, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Tenby, V.

Henniker, L.

Teviot, L.

Holderness, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Huntingdon, E.

Tonypandy, V.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Tope, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Tordoff, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Walpole, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Weatherill, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Archer of Weston-Super-Marc, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Arran, E.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Balfour, E.

Carnock, L.

Beloff, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Berkeley, L.

Chesham, L. [Teller.]

Berners, B.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Biddulph, L.

Colwyn, L.

Blaker, L.

Courtown, E.

Blatch, B.

Craigavon, V.

Bowness, L.

Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Biuntisfield, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Cadman, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Caithness, E.

Denham, L.

803

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Devonpon, V.

(Lord Chancellor.]

Dilhorne, V.

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Dubs, L.

Mackintosh of Halifax, V.

Dundee, E.

Massereene and Ferrard, V

Eden of Winton, L.

Merrivale, L.

Elibank, L.

Mersey, V.

Elton, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Ferrers, E.

Mottistone, L.

Finsberg, L.

Mountevans, L.

Flather, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Nicol, B.

Geddes, L.

Northesk, E.

Gisborough, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Glenarthur, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Goschen, V.

Parkinson, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Gray of Contin, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Hardwicke, E.

Rawlings, B.

Harlech, L.

Reay, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Remnant, L.

Harris of Peckham, L.

Richard, L.

Hemphill L

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Hertford M

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Seccombe, B.

Hogg, B.

Seledon, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Hooper, B.

Stewartby, L.

Howe, E.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Inchcape, E.

Strafford, E.

Inchyra, L.

Strange, B.

Inglewood, L.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Sudeley, L.

Judd, L.

Swinfen, L.

Kenilworth, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Kintore, E.

Trefgarne, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Trumpington, B.

Lawrence, L.

Tugendhat, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Leigh, L.

Ullswater, V.

Lindsay, E.

Vivian, L.

Liverpool, E.

Whaddon, L.

Long, V.

Wharton, B.

Lucas, L.

White, B.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Wilcox, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Wynford, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Hereford and Worcester (Structural, Boundary and Electoral Changes) Order 1996
7.10 p.m.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 12th June be approved [23rd Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move. This order gives effect to recommendations from the Local Government Commission's review of Hereford and Worcester. It sets up a unitary authority for Herefordshire on its traditional, pre-1974 borders. Worcestershire will keep two-tier local government;
there will be a new Worcestershire County Council. There will also be a new Malvern Hills District Council made up of those parts of the existing Malvern Hills and Leominster which are in Worcestershire.
I discussed earlier the reasons why we believe that unitary local government can often be better local government. The issues in Hereford and Worcester were looked at in detail by the Local Government Commission and the recommendations which this order implements were fully explained by the commission in its report.
In this order, the main elements are the same as in the Berkshire order. It provides for reorganisation on 1st April 1998. There will be all-out elections for a new council for all three new authorities—that is, Herefordshire, Worcestershire and Malvern Hills—in May 1997. In each case the order provides for the redrawing of the electoral boundaries.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 12th June be approved [23rd Report from the Joint Committee].—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Devon (City of Plymouth and Borough of Torbay) (Structural Change) Order 1996
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 12th June be approved [23rd Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move. This order sets up two unitary authorities in Devon, in Plymouth and Torbay. Two-tier local government will remain in the rest of the county. The changes were recommended as part of the county structure reviews. However, we have not been able to bring them forward any sooner because we were awaiting the outcome of the commission's further review of Exeter.
In its essentials, this order is the same as the ones that we considered earlier. I commend the order to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 12th June be approved [23rd Report from the Joint Committee].—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Essex (Boroughs of Colchester, Southend-on-Sea and Thurrock and District of Tendring) (Structural, Boundary and Electoral Changes) Order 1996
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 12th June be approved [23rd Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move. The Essex order will create two unitary authorities in Essex—one for Southend and one for Thurrock. Each will follow the existing boundaries of the respective boroughs. The rest of the county will remain two tier.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 12th June be approved [23rd Report from the Joint Committee].—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Cambridgeshire (City of Peterborough) (Structural, Boundary and Electoral Changes) Order 1996
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 12th June be approved [23rd Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move. This order implements the Local Government Commission's recommendations for Peterborough. Its primary effect will be that on 1st April 1998 the City of Peterborough will become a unitary authority. The rest of Cambridgeshire will retain the existing two-tier structure of local government.
We shall be making separate provision for ceremonial arrangements, under which Peterborough will be deemed to be part of Cambridgeshire.
There will be all-out elections to Peterborough City Council in May 1997, after which the order provides for the city council to return to its regular cycle of elections by thirds.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 12th June be approved [23rd Report from the Joint Committee].—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Nottinghamshire (City of Nottingham) (Structural Change) Order 1996
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 12th June be approved [23rd Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move. This order gives effect to the Local Government Commission's recommendation that the City of Nottingham should become a unitary authority on its existing boundaries. The rest of Nottinghamshire will retain the existing two-tier structure of local government.
The structural change will take effect on 1st April 1998. We shall be making separate provision for ceremonial arrangements, under which Nottingham will be deemed to be part of Nottinghamshire.
There will be all-out elections to Nottingham City Council in May 1997, after which the order provides for the city council to return to its regular electoral cycle.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 12th June be approved [23rd Report from the Joint Committee].—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Shropshire (District of The Wrekin) (Structural Change) Order 1996
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 12th June be approved [23rd Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move. This order gives effect to the Local Government Commission's recommendation that The Wrekin should become a unitary authority on its existing boundaries. The rest of Shropshire will retain the existing two-tier structure of local government.
The structural change will take effect on 1st April 1998. We shall be making separate provision for ceremonial arrangements, under which The Wrekin will be deemed to be part of Shropshire.
There will be all-out elections to The Wrekin Council in May 1997, after which the order provides for the district council to return to its regular electoral cycle.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 12th June be approved [23rd Report from the Joint Committee].—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Cheshire (Boroughs of Halton and Warrington) (Structural Change) Order 1996
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 12th June be approved [23rd Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move. This order gives effect to the Local Government Commission's recommendations that Halton and Warrington should become unitary authorities on their existing boundaries. The rest of Cheshire will retain the existing two-tier structure of local government.
The structural change will take effect on 1st April 1998. We shall be making separate provision for ceremonial arrangements, under which Halton and Warrington will be deemed to be part of Cheshire.
There will be all-out elections to Halton and Warrington Borough Councils in May 1997, after which the order provides for each council to return to its regular electoral cycle.
The order provides for Halton and Warrington Borough Councils each to prepare a unitary development plan. We agreed with the commission that it would be more suitable and convenient that strategic as well as local policies for each of these areas should be dealt with in one plan. Cheshire County Council will remain responsible for the structure plan covering the rest of the county area.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 12th June be approved [23rd Report from the Joint Committee].—(Earl Ferrers.)
Lord Rochester: My Lords, I am sorry to spoil the party but I wish to say a few words about this order. In

807
a debate on the work of the Local Government Commission initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Cornwallis, in March 1994, I said that, having lived in Cheshire for nearly 50 years, I thought that a sufficiently strong case had not been made for changing the existing local government two-tier structure.
I was pleased when the commission, under the chairmanship of Sir John Banham, recommended that there should be no change in the county structure. Nevertheless, the Government ordered further reviews in the case of both Halton and Warrington, despite the fact that the Secretary of State had earlier said that the views of local people were of paramount importance and that in a series of polls the great majority of people in both Halton and Warrington had made it plain that they were opposed to any change in the existing structure.
Now there is this order giving effect to the commission's final recommendation that Halton and Warrington should each be accorded unitary status. I feel bound to say that I deplore the Government's decision. However, the decision having been made, I feel that Cheshire County Council is to be applauded for having decided to co-operate with the two borough councils, thus ensuring a smooth and timely transfer of staff and services. I understand that the county council has already established good working relations with the two other councils and that detailed protocols have been agreed between the three authorities guiding their new relationships. Indeed, their leaders have jointly signed a declaration of commitment to that end.
I am glad that the order before us provides that it should not take effect until 1st April 1998. Even so, the task facing the three authorities is enormous and it has to be undertaken against a background of significant reductions in public expenditure. Therefore, I express the hope that the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, when he comes to reply in a moment, will agree to ask his right honourable friend the Secretary of State to consider sympathetically the case for providing all three of the reorganising councils with the additional resources that they will certainly need to achieve their joint purpose.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: My Lords, in speaking briefly in this debate I confess that I have somewhat mixed feelings. For 23 years in another place I represented in turn Runcorn—much of which now goes into the new unitary authority of Halton—and Warrington South, much of which also goes into the new unitary authority of Warrington. I am aware of the views of the political leaders in the Warrington area and of their desires in this field.
On the other hand, I have a sense of sadness in that, like the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, having lived all my life in Cheshire, I have a strong regard for the Cheshire County Council. Like him I was one of those Members of your Lordships' House who wrote to the Secretary of State urging that in Cheshire we should retain the status quo. Like him, I welcomed Sir John's original proposals and still believe that the vast majority of people who live in Cheshire as a whole wished to see that status quo retained.
808
Two points concern me. First, it is my genuine belief that Cheshire education authority is an education authority of an extremely high standard. The unitary authorities may not be able to provide the same width of services as Cheshire could. Secondly, I am concerned about the escalating cost of the reorganisation. Having said that, I realise, and repeat, particularly in relation to Warrington, that it is an extremely strong unit. It is an area, as the Member of Parliament for that constituency said in another place in a debate on the order, which has a strong community spirit. The two new towns have both been successful in encouraging inward investment into their areas. I have no doubt that they will do their best to make a great success of that unitary authority.
I believe that in relation to Halton the spirit of community between Widnes at one end and Runcorn New Town at the other may not be quite the same as that which applies within the borough of Warrington. Warrington probably never came to terms with Cheshire—at least I did not. I remember, and perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, remembers also, that just after our last local authority reorganisation it was said on the BBC that the Rugby League final would, as usual, be an all-Lancashire affair between Warrington and Widnes—some six months after Warrington and Widnes had been moved into Cheshire.
Cheshire is right to accept the decision that has been made. It has done so with good grace and it is clear, as the noble Lord said, that the areas are working together to achieve a successful handover of powers. Like the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, I ask my noble friend to confirm that the Government will assist in any way they can. Though it was not necessarily my choice, I wish both unitary authorities well in the future.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful both to the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, and to my noble friend Lord Carlisle for the way in which they received this order. I appreciate too the sadness that they feel in that they felt that there would be no change and now there is to be change. For my noble friend who was a Member for a long while and has been associated with that part of the country for many years, any change of this kind is no doubt upsetting. However, I have no reason to believe—from what was said I am sure that my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, feel the same—that the changeover will not be successful. I agree that Cheshire County Council behaved in a most plausible way and that bodes well for the future.
The fact that the second revisitation—if I can so call it—of the commission occurred is the same as for Berkshire: that there seemed to be inconsistencies across the country about some areas that were made unitary authorities and some that were not. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State asked the commission under the new chairman to look at 21 of those district councils to see whether there was any inconsistency. He found that nine district councils ought to be made into unitary authorities, whereas the others should remain with the status quo. I can understand therefore the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, saying that from his point of view it was a pity that that happened.

809
I have no doubt that the new councils will do all that they can. Of course, as unitary authorities they will be a great deal closer to the people and do all that they can to serve those people to the best of their ability. Cheshire County Council's attitude since my right honourable friend the Secretary of State announced the decision is to be much applauded. It has been constructive rather than obstructive and I thank the council for that. The bids for financial support will be sympathetically received. That cannot be a carte blanche, but we shall certainly listen to their problems and see how we can deal with them. I commend the order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Lancashire (Boroughs of Blackburn and Blackpool) (Structural Change) Order 1996
7.26 p.m.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 12th June be approved [23rd Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the new local government structure to be established in Lancashire will create two unitary authorities—one for Blackburn and one for Blackpool. Each will follow the existing boundaries of the respective boroughs. The rest of the county will remain two-tier.
Those changes were recommended by the Local Government Commission following the review of 21 districts, including—in Lancashire—Blackburn and Blackpool. The content of the Lancashire order, which is to implement these changes, is broadly the same as those in other orders for structural change.
The order makes provision for the creation of new unitary authorities for Blackburn and Blackpool to come into effect on 1st April 1998. In both areas there will be all-out elections for new councils in May 1997. The order provides for each unitary authority then to return to its normal electoral cycle—by thirds in the case of Blackburn, and by full elections every four years in the case of Blackpool.
The commission recommended that strategic planning should be retained across the area of the existing county. The order achieves that by transferring the county council's strategic planning responsibilities to the unitary authorities. The county council and the unitary authorities can then make voluntary arrangements for joint working on the structure plan for their combined areas.
The order provides also for the two unitary authorities to become fire authorities so that the Home Office can make a fire combination scheme—covering the two unitaries and the residual area of Lancashire County Council—under the Fire Services Act 1947.
The separate provision we intend to make for ceremonial arrangements will clearly show that the new unitary authorities are to continue to be part of the historic county of Lancashire for ceremonial and related
810
purposes and will therefore remain within the jurisdiction of the Lord Lieutenant and High Sheriff of that county.
As for other areas subject to change, separate provision will be made for policing. The intention is for the existing Lancashire county police authority to continue to cover both unitary authority areas. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 12th June be approved [23rd Report from the Joint Committee].—(Earl Ferrers.)
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, when I spoke in the gap to an amendment on the first of this group of orders I said that I would speak about Lancashire. What I wish to say comes from my knowledge of counties in general and from my background as a county councillor for Lancashire County Council from 1977 until now.
This is an extremely sad day for local government, not because I believe that unitary local government cannot work on the basis of the boundaries, in particular of the former county boroughs whose record and tradition I greatly respect. I refer to Blackpool and Blackburn and to my own town of Preston which has perhaps the longest tradition of all, its charter dating back for so long.
As I said earlier when speaking to the Berkshire order, the beginning of this exercise should have been function and finance. I support my party's objective which is to have genuine democratic accountability at appropriate levels. I would be happy supporting unitary local government across the north west of England with a democratically accountable regional tier of government coming in at the same time. That is what I believe the people of the north-west and other regions of England deserve.
It is a tragedy that the basis of this whole exercise has been wrong. The starting point has been wrong. People have fallen into the trap of fighting over the corpse of real local democratic accountability in England and who is responsible for the inability of local authorities to deliver the services that people in the locality want. I wish all local authorities well for the future, but I do not believe that, under this Government's current policy, the new local authorities that come into being after today will have the freedom to provide the genuine local government that would flow from my party's commitment and that of the Liberal Democratic party to the charter of local self-government. I do not believe or trust that under this Government the costs will not be recouped in the case of Blackburn and Blackpool from the people who need the services.
Why do we need a tier above the unitary local authorities being created here which ought to have been part of a much wider group of unitary local authorities? We need that because the environment needs strategic action, not a voluntary coming together, at a regional level. We need genuine, strategic action to deal with environmental problems. We need it because the north-west needs tourism and development at a strategic regional level as well as at local level. We need it in

811
terms of economic development. There have been references to conflicts between economic development initiatives. The European Commission and the European Union see the north-west as an entity. KONVER programmes are needed at a regional level with democratic accountability. Defence is a major industry in the north-west. We need it for the macro-regional, public/private sector partnership that the authorities in the north-west are seeking to achieve on the basis of a voluntary association. It could be done better with a proper regional tier.
What we ought to be celebrating today is the opportunity for people to choose different means and different levels of locally delivered services. That will not emerge while current government policy stands. The opportunity for new and continuing authorities to meet the needs of the local population cannot be met while we have the rigid hand of central control. That will continue to cap the aspirations of those who seek to bring back policies to Blackpool and Blackburn that existed some time ago.
I do not make any apology for taking up your Lordships' time in what has been a long debate on a very complex issue. I wish that we had started from somewhere else. When, as a member of the committee of the regions, I attend meetings with people from other regions with democratic powers and accountability in the countries of our European partners, I am ashamed that we lack the democratic means of tackling the problem of air pollution as it affects children as a result of the lack of a proper regional transport policy in the north-west.
I wish all well for the future. My difference is not with my party, but with the Government, their motivation and the rest of their policies towards local government. Unlike some of my colleagues, I am not prepared to support wholeheartedly change until we have change from the centre. However, I wish people well. I have not put down a notice to amend the order at this stage as I said at the beginning of the debate yesterday. I respect the conventions of the House as regards wrecking amendments. I await the time when there is such a change of government that we can actually celebrate democratic diversity rather than shifting the deck chairs around on the sinking ship of democracy under this Government.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, I did give notice that I intended to speak in the debate. I am very pleased. On behalf of the majority of the citizens of Blackburn I welcome the opportunity of Blackburn going back to the position that it once held. We were a county borough long before county government. We in Blackburn, as a county borough, rendered human service to this country and to the citizens of the town. We were one of the leaders in education, housing, health and so on. We were sufficient in doing those things. Like my colleague, we were very upset in 1974 when we found that we were no longer our own masters and had been victimised because of something we had not done.
812
We are grateful to the county for what it has done since 1976 until now in acting as caretaker. We accept that it was a caretaker looking after our interests. Now we have the opportunity of going back to where we left off. I am convinced that the people of Blackburn who have been elected are competent people who will be able to carry out their duties and look after the interests of their electorate in just the same way as the people of Blackburn were looked after by the county council.
The priority over the next two years is for the county council and the new authority, which is to come into being, to work together and to prepare for the future. They should make sure that they are achieving what they want for the communities. I am sure that they can do that with co-operation. I am proud of being a Blackburnian, but I am also proud of being a Lancastrian and a deputy lieutenant of the county as well. I look forward to progress in local authority work. I hope that we can go forward together and not as enemies.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, perhaps I may take up the last point made by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Blackburn. He is quite right in saying that he hopes that everyone will be able to go forward as friends and not as enemies. If people are against each other over matters, then progress will never be made. When we have change it is essential that people work together. The noble Baroness, Lady Farrington of Ribbleton, is very knowledgeable about these matters, having been chairman of the Lancashire County Council. She knows all about that area. However, I was distressed when she took such a swipe at the Government. She said that we would never find democratic diversity in the sinking ship of democracy. That was pretty strong stuff.
The noble Baroness said that she was against the Government, against their motivation and against their policies. I shall not take on the noble Baroness on that point because that is what she believes and she is entitled to her view. The noble Baroness said that she wanted locally chosen delivery of services. The whole point of these provisions is to make unitary authorities get closer to the people so that they can provide better services than previously.
The noble Baroness said that central government is assuming rigid powers and that she did not like the cap. Central government is bound to contain some fairly rigid powers. When one considers that 24 per cent. of all public expenditure is spent by local authorities, one sees that there is no way in which governments will not need to keep a rein on local authority expenditure.
The noble Baroness said that she wished that we had not started here and said that perhaps we should have started with functions and finance. The trouble is that wherever you start, there is always a reason why you should have started somewhere else. We have taken the bull by the horns with these structural orders. The noble Baroness will readily accept from what has happened this afternoon that that has not been universally popular. We are trying to make local government more accountable and closer to the people. However, ultimately governments cannot do that. It depends on

813
the councillors who are elected. I hope that those in Lancashire will work together despite the changes and the alterations. I am sure that they will.
I was glad that the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Blackburn, at least was pleased with the order and with the changes that it encourages. There is a diversity of view on the Benches opposite. I do not make any gibing or party political point on that, because we have had the same thing this afternoon on our side of the House. People take different views and they hold them strongly. However, somebody had to decide what to do and the Government have done that. It may be that what we have done will not be to everyone's satisfaction, but I hope that your Lordships will think that we have at least tried to get the framework right. It is then up to the people in the locality to make sense of it. I commend the order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Statutory Instruments (Production and Sale) Bill
7.42 p.m.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
This is an important, if technical, measure. It is needed to remove an anomaly in existing legislation whereby HMSO may lawfully contract out the printing of all legislative and other material, with the sole exception of statutory instruments. That is not a trivial loophole; it raises doubts about the evidential status of copies of statutory instruments and calls into question the considerable savings on cover prices HMSO can achieve by contracting out that work. The Bill amends the Statutory Instruments Act 1946 to validate retrospectively and to authorise prospectively the printing of SIs by parties working for HMSO. It has no other purpose whatsoever.
Perhaps I might begin by outlining some of the reasons why HMSO and other printers routinely contract out work. Printing is an expensive business; in particular, printing plant is expensive to acquire, maintain and operate. A printer must obtain maximum usage from the plant he owns, otherwise he will incur unnecessary costs when his machinery is idle or under-used and will not obtain the maximum income to offset those costs. It is therefore very common in the printing industry to own only so much plant as the printer can be sure will be heavily used at all times. At times of higher demand, or for jobs where additional technical expertise is needed, the printer contracts out work to others. This is especially important for a printer like HMSO which has highly volatile demand for its services. Its workload depends on such imponderable factors as the electoral cycle, the legislative programme and new government policy initiatives. If it were to own sufficient plant to meet the peaks in that demand, its costs would increase greatly, with an obvious impact on cover prices and therefore on public access to official information.
814
The necessary alternative is for HMSO to contract out printing work. It has done so for very many years for a very wide range of material, and in the vast majority of cases this practice is perfectly lawful. In particular, it is able under the Documentary Evidence Act 1882 to contract with third parties for the printing of Acts of Parliament and other legal documents. Provided that these are printed under the "superintendence and authority" of HMSO, they retain their evidential status. As well as Acts of Parliament, HMSO has contracted out the printing of Budget and other sensitive official documents, passports and, indeed, the report of debates in your Lordships' House. Most of these jobs are technically very simple and the private sector has had no problems in providing a fully satisfactory service.
HMSO, its customers and the users of its information have therefore benefited for a long time from a regime which allows costs and cover prices to be kept as low as possible. There is only a single, anomalous, exception to this regime, and that is the subject of this Bill. It relates to the printing of statutory instruments. The Statutory Instruments Act 1946, as it currently stands, imposes directly on HMSO or its ex officio head, the Queen's Printer, the duties of printing, issuing and selling SIs. It does not contain the "superintendence or authority" provisions of the 1882 Act. Instead, the 1946 Act followed the pattern of its predecessor, the Rules Publication Act 1893, but these conditions are no longer suitable for modern conditions, even if they had been at the time. It is not clear why Parliament chose this form of words in 1946. However, the volume of secondary legislation passed, and therefore the burden on HMSO as a printer, was in those days very substantially less than it became from the late 1950s onwards.
Notwithstanding the provisions of the 1946 Act, HMSO has in fact contracted out the printing of statutory instruments for some time. Records show that the practice dates from at least 1965, and probably earlier, although it is not possible to give an exact date as HMSO has not retained any details of contracts before that date. Such contracting out may well be technically in breach of the 1946 Act, but HMSO thought it had good reason for acting in this way. First, it was merely following long-established practice for all other official material. Secondly, and more importantly, demand for SI printing is, if anything, even more volatile than for other documents. Large volumes of important instruments may be required at very short notice. If HMSO had attempted to produce all of them itself to the tight timescales required, its costs, and therefore the cover price of SIs, would have had to increase. As it is, contracting out has allowed HMSO to maintain prices of SIs at their current level for some three years at a time when paper and other costs have risen markedly.
The result of HMSO's actions is, though, that there are in existence very many copies of statutory instruments which have not been produced in strict conformity with the 1946 Act. I must stress that there is no question of the SI itself not being valid, nor of past convictions for breaches of SIs being unsound. Secondary legislation becomes law from the moment it

815
is made, or on a specified date thereafter, and can be proved if necessary by production of the original signed version, or a certified copy, to a court. However, individual printed copies may, possibly, be contested by those charged under them and it is possible that courts would be burdened by arguments as to their validity. As things stand, defendants charged with contravening an SI could be acquitted solely on the technical argument that an SI not printed by HMSO had not been properly produced; case law suggests that that is unlikely, but not impossible. It is more likely that the courts might become obstructed by arguments over the validity or status of SIs, and that individual SIs would need to be specifically proved.
In any event, it is clear that urgent action is needed retrospectively to confirm the validity and evidential status of individual copies of SIs. That would be effected by passage of this Bill at the earliest opportunity. Although the Government have been aware of the potential problem for some time, the extent of it and the need for legislation only became clear after taking detailed and expert legal advice and evaluating alternative courses of action. This Bill was introduced as soon as it was clear that primary legislation was the only way forward. Having publicised the problem, it is now necessary to solve it by passing the Bill as soon as possible. It is therefore essential that the Bill both confirms the status of existing SIs and allows contracting-out to continue in the best interests of all concerned ending this outdated anomaly. As drafted, it does precisely that. It would allow HMSO to contract with others for the printing and distribution of SIs on exactly the same terms as those currently applying to all other material, including Acts of Parliament.
This is a simple step and requires only this short Bill. All that is required is to amend the wording of the 1946 Act in each place, such that instead of specifying that SIs must be printed, issued and sold directly by HMSO, it merely requires that they may be printed, issued and sold by others working under contract to it. That is the substance of the Bill and forms the first part of Clause 1(1). The second part of that subsection deals only with a related document: the list showing when each statutory instrument was issued. There is no reason why this should be printed and distributed directly by HMSO, and again HMSO has in the past contracted out this work. The list can be used as evidence in court of the date on which an SI was issued, and it is essential that its evidential status is clear. This subsection both verifies that practice and provides that it may continue. As a consequence, the statutory instruments issue list would not bear the imprint of the Queen's Printer, but would instead state "printed for HMSO" rather than "printed by HMSO". The House will see that this is a minor point.
The second subsection of Clause 1 is a slightly more complex matter. One of the Bill's effects would be to amend retrospectively Section 3(2) of the 1946 Act. This section states that proceedings for an offence consisting of a contravention of a statutory instrument may be defended on the grounds that the SI concerned had not been issued by HMSO at the time the alleged
816
offence took place. Subsection (2) of the Bill prevents this amendment from applying to proceedings commenced before the Bill was published. Thus, the Bill does not deprive an accused person of any argument he might have had. In particular, it does not prevent a defendant from calling into question the validity of the statutory instruments issue list and thus argue that there is no conclusive evidence of the date of issue of an SI. The Bill makes no other changes to the scope of the defence under Section 3(2) of the Act or to other rights of defendants. It would simply change the criteria by which an SI might be deemed to have been properly printed and issued and the formalities for producing the SI issue list.
The House might have expected that, in introducing this Bill, I would by now have made reference to the privatisation of HMSO. There is a very simple reason why I have not done so. The Bill is not necessary for the privatisation of HMSO, which will proceed to completion irrespective of the Bill's passage. Short-listed bidders are all aware of the position, and each is proceeding on the basis that SI printing would be carried out in the public sector. The House should be aware that the total value of sales of SIs represents less than 1 per cent. of HMSO's turnover, so the work is in any event of no more than marginal importance to bidders. My right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has instructed HMSO to cease putting SI printing out to contract, and the practice will cease when this House rises for the Summer Recess. This is the earliest date on which HMSO can make alternative arrangements.
The Bill would allow the residual HMSO, which will remain in government after the sale, to contract out the production of statutory instruments. It could do this under contract either with the privatised Stationery Office or with some other printer, and in effect would be acting in the same way as HMSO does now. It is hard, therefore, to see any difference in the service that would be provided. The Bill merely puts its legitimacy beyond doubt.
We must be clear that failure to pass the Bill would have no impact on privatisation. The residual HMSO will have whatever capacity it needs to meet its statutory requirements, whether amended by this Bill or not. If it is not enacted before the sale occurs, all that would happen is that Residual HMSO would arrange to print all statutory instruments directly itself. Detailed arrangements for how this would be done are being drawn up. Residual HMSO would employ printers of its own and rent the night-time use of equipment at HMSO's Sovereign Press at Elephant and Castle. This would meet the requirements of the 1946 Act as it stands but would be a most unattractive option. It would require government to maintain a capacity that was rarely fully used and which would therefore involve needless extra costs. Without a subsidy from the taxpayer, these extra costs would need to be passed on in the form of higher cover prices for SIs. Estimates indicate that, if this course were to be followed, the average cover price of SIs would rise by around a third. There would be no obstruction to the sale of HMSO, only to the affordability of secondary legislation.

817
The brevity of this Bill belies its importance and urgency. It would, first, confirm the evidential status of existing statutory instruments, prevent the courts from being obstructed by specious debate as to their validity and remove any chance of defendants in criminal cases being acquitted solely on the technical grounds that an SI had not been properly produced. Secondly, the Bill will allow HMSO to continue to contract out SI production and secure best value for money and lowest possible cover prices in doing so. Its failure would create a real risk of burdening the courts and necessitate rises in the cover prices of Sls. I trust that noble Lords will see that this is a non-contentious and urgent measure, and it is in these terms that I commend it to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Earl Howe.)
7.56 p.m.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I wish I could agree with the noble Earl that this is a simple and non-contentious matter. I do not believe that it is. On the face of the Bill, the matter is simple and clear. The noble Earl has opened the matter on the basis that the Bill merely purports to rectify an uncertainty in the present law. It is also retrospective in its application. I go part-way towards the noble Earl in saying that prima facie if that was all it did I believe that it would be relatively unobjectionable. The problem is that it does not stand on its own but must be seen against the background of what we believe to be the Government's foolhardy determination to press on with the privatisation of HMSO. On the 18th December 1995 in another place the Chancellor of the Duchy (at col. 1285 of Hansard) said:
"… I can confirm that my advice is that no primary or secondary legislation is needed".
Yet, here we are approaching the Recess and, according to the noble Earl, rushing primary legislation through the House with great urgency. Both he and the Government continue to argue that this has nothing to do with the privatisation of HMSO. The Written Answer given by the Chancellor on 19th June 1996 (at col. 471 of Hansard) says:
"Some of the printing of statutory instruments has been contracted out by HMSO for over 30 years as the most cost-effective way of producing them. A careful examination has recently been made of the legislation which refers to HMSO and the Queen's Printer. This has revealed that while the Queen's Printer can contract out the printing of statutes, this may not be the case for statutory instruments".
On the face of it, HMSO has been acting outside the law for over 30 years in contracting out the printing of statutory instruments. To put it into economic perspective, as I understand it the annual cost of this work is about £200,000, while the total bill for the publication and printing of statutory instruments is about £2 million out of a total HMSO turnover of some £375 million a year. The Government's difficulty is patent. The legal basis of all statutory instruments contracted out would be open to challenge on the argument that those instruments were illegally printed. As the noble Earl has said, that might lead to doubt—I put it no higher—as to the propriety of the convictions
818
of those found to be in breach of regulations which had been so illegally printed. However, one ought to note that, although the legal force of statutory instruments so printed has been challenged on a number of occasions over the past 30 years, apparently no one has so far thought of the ingenious argument that as they have been illegally printed that is a reason for challenging them.
So, leaving aside the question of retrospection—if there was a hole in the law in 1946 I accept that should be put right—the rest of the Bill is the part which causes me some problems. The Stationery Office—HMSO—could easily have done the necessary printing itself. The noble Earl confirmed that tonight. It could, indeed, go on to do the necessary printing itself. It is not necessary to include in a statute the requirement that the Queen's printers should be allowed to contract out the printing of statutory instruments in order to fill the hole which existed in 1946. It is designed for a privatisation package so that whoever buys HMSO knows that they will be able to contract out the printing of these instruments without the possibility of legal challenge.
I am concerned about where this privatisation now stands. I propose to say one or two words about it. Over the last month or so the trade unions have taken the opportunity to hold detailed discussions with each of the bidders. I have a document which sets out the result of those conversations. The conclusion they come to is this:
"When the proposed privatisation was debated in Parliament the Government continually emphasised that if HMSO were to he privatised there would be 2 substantial benefits—HMSO would increase its turnover by trading with the Private Sector and HMSO would be able to invest in the future of the business without affecting the Public Sector Borrowing Requirement".
To put it more correctly, HMSO would be able to reinvest for the future without being constrained by political judgments on the PSBR. With this in mind, the unions posed two issues to each of the bidders: "What plans do you have to grow the trading base in both the Public Sector and the Private Sector'?" and secondly, "What plans do you have for future investment in HMSO?"
Each bidder identified that the key for HMSO to continue to be successful was to ensure that it progressively took a larger share of the public sector market, not the private sector market. They all argued that this is the sector where HMSO is known and is the sector for which HMSO has the expertise. None of the four bidders anticipated seriously attempting to make inroads into the private sector market in either the short or the medium term.
If that is right, and if that is the opinion which the trade unions went away with, one can only say that it knocks a hole in one of the strong arguments that the Government make for this whole privatisation in the first place.
As far as the issue of future investment in HMSO is concerned, the answers they received from the bidders did nothing to lead them to believe that any of the bidders contemplated significant investment in HMSO. None of them identified further areas of investment within HMSO over and above those already identified

819
in HMSO's own business plan. All of them were anxious to emphasise that any investment made in HMSO would have to be financed from within HMSO's own resources, presumably previous profits or loans set against projected profits.
The trade unions formed a view that none of the bidders plan to develop HMSO in the way that the Government outlined when debating the matter in Parliament.
I have detailed accounts of the discussions with each of the four bidders. At this time of night I do not propose to weary the House and go through them in detail. But they do say this:
"Clearly all of the bidders are backed by financial institutions who are all seeking a similar financial return from HMSO. None of them have outlined firm plans for the future that employees can look to and feel that HMSO will be facing a stable future. None of them intend to make substantial investment in HMSO. Crucially all of them envisage substantial further job loss and none of them will rule out compulsory redundancies. In view of all this we do not see one bidder who from our perspective offers a secure future for our members.
… With all of the bidders making it clear that they expect to float HMSO on the Stock Exchange within 4 to 8 years following a further period of change and uncertainty there is not a great deal that we can point positively towards."
I have to say to the Government, even in a House as thin as this tonight, if that is the real position that the bidders are taking up it does not accord with what the Government set out very fully and very firmly as the objectives of this privatisation. If that is the position, the Government can do one of two things. They can either call it off—which I do not expect they will for I imagine that they are now over-committed on this particular frolic—or, alternatively, they could perhaps readvertise and hope to attract a few new buyers—a few new bidders who would at least pay greater attention to what the Government set out as the original objectives for this privatisation.
In our view, this is a privatisation too far. It is flawed in its concept. It has been ill thought out by the Government and particularly by the bidders. It is creating deep uncertainty in the workforce. I think the Government should think again.
8.5 p.m.
Lord Taverne: My Lords, I should like to add a few words to what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Richard, about the Bill. I should like to congratulate the Government on finding a mess which has to be cleared up and for which they could not possibly be held responsible. One cannot blame the Government for an oversight of a draftsman of a Labour Government Bill in 1946. But it is a piece of retrospective legislation and it should not, therefore, just be automatically passed on the nod. It deprives people of a defence that they now have or may have in proceedings which may be brought against them. They may not realise they had such a defence, but it has now been brought to their attention and we are taking that right away.
820
It is hardly a heinous case of retrospective legislation. One could think of a great deal worse than this particular Bill. If one looks at it one can be satisfied that no injustice will be done and therefore there are not really any objections to the Bill.
But it could, incidentally, also be regarded as an indemnity Bill. If one looks at the Documentary Evidence Act of 1882 it says under Section 3
"If any person prints any copy of any … order, regulation … which falsely purports to have been printed under the superintendence or authority of Her Majesty's Stationery Office, … he shall be guilty of felony and shall … be liable to penal servitude for a term not exceeding seven years …"
The printers to whom the printing was delegated in the case of statutory instruments obviously claim to have an authority that the Stationery Office could not possibly give them, or at least may not possibly have been able to give them. So I wonder if Section 3 of the Documentary Evidence Act should also not have been referred to in addition to the Act of 1946. But there clearly cannot be any objection to the Bill itself. It is perhaps somewhat doubtful whether one can really take the view of the noble Earl that this has nothing whatever to do with privatisation because clearly until this muddle is cleared up, it will be an embarrassment to anyone who takes over the Stationery Office.
On the issue of privatisation, I should like to add three extremely brief points to the rather impressive speech on this subject made by the noble Lord, Lord Richard. First, it does seem to me, in a nutshell, essential that a government should have control over their own printing—something which is so vital to many of their activities. To release total control of the printing seems an extremely rash act.
Secondly in the debate in another place it is very significant that one of the speeches made against the Bill by one of the Members of the Government party was made by Mr. Robert Jackson who was the Minister in charge of the Stationery Office. He says that on two occasions he looked at the question of privatisation and the idea was rejected, for some of the reasons which I think I have given.
Thirdly, the most important and ostensible reason given for privatisation is to release the Stationery Office from the restrictions on borrowing. The restrictions on borrowing, as a result of the way in which the matter is treated under the public sector borrowing requirement should be looked at again. This is not something which only restricts the commercial operations of the Stationery Office, or might do so, but it is a very serious restriction on other publicly-owned trading companies and other bodies. It is an important and embarrassing restriction on British Nuclear Fuels, on the Post Office and on the BBC. I think it should be looked at again on its own merits. One should not simply say privatise because this is a restriction which we must get rid of.
8.10 p.m.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords who have spoken. Despite all that has been said, I hope that the House will appreciate the importance of this measure. I also hope that I have no need to repeat what I said a few minutes ago. The measure will ensure

821
that the courts are free of doubt on the status of copies of statutory instruments. It will ensure that HMSO can continue to offer such copies at the lowest possible cover price. Failure of the Bill will have the opposite result; it would obstruct the courts and would push up the cover price of SIs. I hope that at the very least noble Lords will appreciate that it is in no one's interest to allow either of those results to happen.
The noble Lord, Lord Richard, sought to question my assurance that the Bill has no bearing on the Government's plans to privatise HMSO. He also sought to accuse the Government of inconsistency in what they have said on the matter. Perhaps I may emphasise that there is no connection between this Bill and our plans for privatisation. There is an urgent need for the Bill to be passed and the reasons for that are unconnected with the sale.
The Government reviewed HMSO's statutory functions in detail and uncovered the current anomaly in the law and in HMSO's compliance with it. The Government have taken detailed legal advice and have concluded that legislation is the best course to correct the position and to place the status of existing copies of SIs beyond doubt. That is the long and the short of it; there is nothing further to be said. The measure is not necessary for privatisation for all the reasons that I have explained. It would be perfectly possible to continue without the Bill, but the effects would be as I have stated, which would not be desirable.
Notwithstanding all that, the noble Lord, Lord Richard, rehearsed his objections to the privatisation plans. I would simply say that HMSO is facing a difficult situation. Despite successfully struggling to meet the demands made of it, it is a business in decline. Its future in the public sector would be bleak. The core market is shrinking and unless action is taken, HMSO's ability to offer its customers good value for money will be eroded.
During the past 15 years HMSO's annual turnover has risen from £260 million to £359 million, but in order to have kept pace with inflation it would have had to have reached £523 million. In order to avoid unfair competition, HMSO has been prevented from competing for private-sector work. But even on its home ground, the public-sector market, it averages only an 8 per cent. market share. HMSO is under increasing pressure in public-sector markets as customers are looking for better deals from their private-sector competitors. Why should they not do so? However, that is background and it is why I have no doubt that those to whom the noble Lord has spoken have rightly referred to their wish to expand their public-sector work. That is a laudable objective.
The noble Lord, Lord Richard, suggested that the Government should re-advertise for more bidders. In fact, the bids which we have received are of a high quality. I believe that all of them demonstrate a real commitment to the business. A re-advertisement would do no more than prolong the uncertainty to which HMSO and its staff have been subjected, and I cannot see that that would be desirable.
Bidders plan to invest in the future development of HMSO. I understand that the trade unions are receiving presentations from the various bidders tomorrow, when
822
no doubt the plans for investment will be explained in as much detail as is proper at this stage. I have no doubt that those bidders want to consolidate the current business in the public sector before expanding into the private sector. They want to ensure that current public-sector customers receive a first-class service. As I said in the debate in this House some months ago, that is a natural objective for them. Without satisfied customers, they would be in danger of losing the business. The matter works two ways.
As regards redundancies, a significant number are already pencilled in in HMSO's current business plans. However, I believe that if we are looking to protect jobs, the best long-term future for employment is with privatisation. With HMSO in its present form, the downward spiral looks set only to continue.
The noble Lord, Lord Taverne, referred to Section 3 of the Documentary Evidence Act 1882. There was no force purporting to be acting under superintendence and authority of HMSO. That, on general principles, would require actual knowledge by the printer that he had no authority from HMSO. The printer was entitled to assume that HMSO could give the authority. Therefore, I am not sure that the noble Lord's point was well founded. The retrospective element of the Bill also puts right any doubt that there may have been as regards any question of an offence under Section 3. There is no need for further provision.
The Bill closes a loophole and puts the law beyond doubt. I repeat that there is no impact on privatisation. The sale will continue to completion regardless of the passage of this Bill.
The Bill is the only way to resolve what could become a serious problem. I believe that it is a non-contentious measure which I hope noble Lords on all sides will support. Its urgent passage is essential for the efficient administration of justice—and I was grateful for what the noble Lord, Lord Richard, said on that point—and to control the cost of public access to the text of secondary legislation. I therefore urge the House to give the Bill its wholehearted support.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Asylum and Immigration Bill
Returned from the Commons with certain amendments agreed to with amendments; with one amendment disagreed to but with an amendment proposed in lieu thereof; with further amendments disagreed to with a Reason for such disagreement; and with the remaining amendments agreed to. Commons amendments and Reason ordered to be printed.

Belfast Charitable Society Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with an amendment; the amendment was considered and agreed to.
House adjourned at eighteen minutes past eight o'clock.