Lords Sitting of 18 November 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 Chichester.

Firearms: Homicides
Lord Burnham Lord Burnham asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many separate incidents of killing or malicious wounding by legally held larger calibre handguns have taken place in the last five years.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, information is not available precisely in the form requested. In England and Wales in the three years from 1992 to 1994, 22 homicides are known to have been committed with legally held firearms of which four were handguns of a calibre larger than .22. In Scotland no legally held handgun is known to have been used in crimes of homicide, attempted murder or assault between 1991 and 1995. Information for Northern Ireland is not available. Information about the calibre of guns used in woundings is not collected centrally.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. In the light of the action which is being taken in another place and also here, is that not a very important statistic? Is it not the case that however horrible the events of Dunblane, ill thought out action is being taken on the basis of incomplete information?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, a great deal of thought has been given to this matter. I remind the House what the Home Secretary said in another place. He said that for all the analysis and comment that there has been about what happened in Dunblane primary school on 13th March, the fact remains that these awful crimes were committed with a handgun which was legally bought and legally possessed. That places a heavy duty on the Government to consider what controls there should be on the ownership and possession of handguns. Lord Cullen concluded that there are compelling grounds for stringently restricting their use and availability. We agree with his conclusion and have taken the measures which we believe to be right and in the interests of the public.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I understand that there is to be a debate today in another place on the subject of privately owned guns, and a very important vote is to take place. After that, the Bill will be considered in Committee in another place and will eventually find its way to this House. Would it not be better to leave the subject until the Bill comes here for a Second Reading when noble Lords can express various points of view on the use of all types of guns? That
1092
would be a more suitable time at which to discuss the matter rather than during a Question at your Lordships' Question Time.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I have enormous sympathy for what has just been said by the noble Lord. It is not an easy time, and it is a particularly sensitive time. Of course, we do not know the nature and shape of the Bill which is to come from the Commons and we cannot possibly pre-empt that. Therefore, it is a difficult matter. However, I have a duty to answer Questions on the Order Paper. The Question has been tabled and I am answering it.
Lord Monson: My Lords, does the noble Baroness not agree that the figures which she gave to the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, prove that less than 1 per cent. of homicides in England and Wales in 1992, 1993 and 1994 involved legally held firearms of whatever description?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, that statistic is not quite right. It is 14 per cent. of those which involved shooting. If we are talking about those three years, there were under 3,000 homicides, of which 196 were shootings. Of those, 22 involved legally held guns.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we accept and understand the Minister's caution in answering questions. I agree with her that it would be wise for the wider issues to be debated on another occasion. But in response to the specific and very limited question of the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, does she not agree that the statistics appear to show that it is not the calibre of the legally held handguns which matters most in homicide shootings?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, this is a matter for debate at another time. The Government have thought very carefully about this issue. They have taken the view that there is a body of people within the community who have engaged in a legal sport for more than 100 years and that their right to sport shooting should be protected. That is what has given rise to today's debate. We have taken seriously what Lord Cullen said: that those matters should be rigorously controlled. We have balanced rigorous control with the freedom to engage in a sport which is legal.

Afghanistan: UN Conference
2.42 p.m.
Viscount Waverley Viscount Waverley asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will use today's international conference on Afghanistan at the United Nations to call for, or support, an immediate and total arms embargo by all states in the region.
Lord Chesham: My Lords, we urge all states to comply with the UN Security Council resolution adopted on 22nd October which called inter alia for an

1093
end to the supply of arms and ammunition and which the UK was instrumental in drafting. We shall also continue to urge all parties and states to co-operate fully with the UN special mission to Afghanistan.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, does the Minister agree with me as regards the need for the international community to become serious about Afghanistan? Will he recognise that mandatory action, rather than resolutions, to halt the flow of weapons is overdue and is prolonging the civil war?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, when the resolution was tabled on 22nd October we opposed the inclusion of language which would amount to the imposition of a mandatory arms embargo. We do not consider that an embargo would be enforceable and we are concerned that the Security Council would lose credibility if it passed a legally binding resolution which it could not enforce.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, what is the position of Her Majesty's Government regarding the demand, reported in some of today's newspapers, by the Taliban to take over representation of Afghanistan at the United Nations? Further, and more generally, can the Minister say what criteria have to be satisfied in a civil war situation for a particular party to assume control of the UN delegation for that country?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, we recognise states, not governments. We have contact at official level with a wide range of the factions involved in the civil war. I would prefer not to go further with the matter at this stage.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, does not history afford caution against mandatory action in Afghanistan?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, we do not believe that mandatory action anywhere, unless it is enforceable, should be brought into account.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, can the Minister comment on the statement by Mr. Portillo on a radio programme this morning that the UK has one of the tightest systems for regulating arms sales? Moreover, in the light of arms sales to Afghanistan, and the recent revelation that a British company has been exporting arms via Albania to Rwanda, can the Minister say whether or not those regulations should now be tightened further?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, we consider all export licence applications for defence equipment on a case-by-case basis in the light of established criteria and international guidelines to which we are committed through the UN, EU, OSCE and so on. These take into account inter alia whether a proposed transfer would
1094
prolong or aggravate an existing arms conflict. We have not received an ELA for defence equipment for Afghanistan since 1992.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House whether there are any representatives of Afghanistan at today's conference?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, I believe that the noble Viscount is referring to a conference taking place in New York today. As I understand it, there is no Afghanistan representation at the conference as it is a wide-ranging UN conference which aims to try to get the international community's strong support for the UN special mission to Afghanistan.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, does the Minister agree that arms exporters are very ingenious? Have the Government evolved any means whereby they can interfere or stop the process whereby a British firm which itself exports arms can and does export to an embargoed country by ordering through companies of another country, for example, in Mexico? Those arms are then exported to the embargoed country without passing through this country at all. Is that a position which escapes government control?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, it is a situation which it is almost impossible for the Government to control. I can also say that where America has tried to utilise the Helms-Burton legislation so far as concerns outside countries—for example, Cuba—it seems to have attracted, and indeed still attracts, great distaste throughout the world. That may be a parallel to what is being requested in this situation.
Lord Richard: My Lords, perhaps the Minister can help further. My noble friend asked whether there were any parallels to be drawn between the trickle—or, indeed, the flood—of arms which seems to be going into Afghanistan and the arms which appear to have got into Rwanda. Can the noble Lord tell us what rules there are in respect of British companies possibly selling arms to Afghanistan? Can he also tell us how the rules in respect of Afghanistan compare with those in relation to the sale of arms to Rwanda? Finally, have the Government any knowledge of the sale of arms to Afghanistan and Rwanda by British companies?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, the rules are exactly the same. We are talking about an export licence application. There has been no export licence application for any defence equipment for Afghanistan since 1992. We are not aware of any British company selling arms to Afghanistan, and we are not aware of any British company directly selling arms to Rwanda.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House whether the Government are aware of any indirect sale of arms to Rwanda?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, it seems to me that we are moving away somewhat from the Question on the Order Paper.

Arbitration Act 1996: Commencement Date
2.49 p.m.
Lord Hacking Lord Hacking asked Her Majesty's Government:
When the Arbitration Act 1996 will come into force; and whether they propose that the distinction between domestic and international arbitrations should be abolished.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie): My Lords, my honourable friend the Minster for Corporate and Consumer Affairs gave an undertaking when the Arbitration Bill was being debated in another place to use his best endeavours to bring the new Act into force in January next year. That remains the position. Our intention is not to commence Sections 85 to 87 of the Act. After the rest of the Act has been commenced, an order will be laid before both Houses under Section 88 of the Act to repeal those sections. Assuming the order is agreed, the special provisions for domestic arbitrations will no longer apply.
Lord Hacking: My Lords, I thank my noble and learned friend for that Answer. Can he confirm he is saying that when the Act comes into force there will be no distinction between domestic and international arbitration? Has my noble and learned friend received any representations from any quarter relating to any section of this Act not coming into force at the commencement date? If he has received representations, what has been his response?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, my noble friend is correct to say that on commencement—which we hope will be in January next year—there will be no distinction between domestic arbitration and international arbitration. As regards the latter part of his question, the only representations we have received concern Section 46 of the Act, which relates to the so-called equity or honourable engagement clauses. This provision will apply only to new arbitration agreements entered into after the Act has come into force. The provision will be different from the rest of the Act because it is concerned with the critically important issue of how the substance of the dispute is to be decided. Other provisions relate to procedural matters. Those representations came from the insurance industry, and the departmental advisory committee on arbitration law agreed with the view put to us.
Lord Hacking: My Lords, will my noble and learned friend give further consideration to that issue for two reasons: first, the Act, right the way across its provisions, will now apply equally to all arbitrations started after commencement date? Secondly, will my noble and learned friend consider whether it is in the best interests of the insurance and reinsurance industry that this delay is allowed?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, that is certainly the view of the insurance industry which, as
1096
I indicated, has been supported by the departmental advisory committee. What I sought to explain in my first Answer is that we see that Section 46 is different in character because it goes to the substance of a dispute. It seems to us that while one might adjust procedural matters, it would in principle be wrong to adjust the way in which the substance of a dispute is determined.

Digital Television Services: Regulations
2.52 p.m.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they are taking, through the implementation of Directive 95/47/EC and the accompanying Telecommunications Act Licence, to secure the effective, timely and compulsory licensing at fair prices of all proprietary aspects of the technology used in conditional access and subscriber management systems for digital television services.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, regulations have been in place since 23rd August this year, well in advance of any manufacturing agreements for decoders for digital television, which deal with the licensing of proprietary conditional access technology. Additional regulations covering the supply of conditional access services, including subscriber management services, will come into force around the end of this year.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I apologise to the House for the complexity of the Question, which has certainly exercised my mind. This is a complex area. Will the Minister confirm that the August regulations relating to the European directive cover conditional access? Does the Minister agree with me that to ensure that there is no monopoly of this new technology it is also necessary to give the director general of Oftel full powers to deal with the other aspects of this matter, such as intellectual property rights at a fair price, the applications interface and, of course, the electronic page guides, without which we are in grave danger of allowing a monopoly situation to arise in this important developing area?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I certainly congratulate the noble Baroness on her firm grasp of this extremely technical subject. I can confirm that the statutory instrument that was introduced in August implemented obligations under the directive. It related to the technology of conditional access. What we are consulting on at the moment relates to another part of the directive; namely, the conditional access services and the extent to which those should be regulated. I have indicated that we hope to introduce regulations in respect of that before the end of the year. The noble Baroness is absolutely right; it is not simply a question of leaving the matter there. Changes will be introduced in terms of the Telecommunications Act Licence which would be subject to the direction of the director of Oftel. We are determined to secure that broadcasters may gain

1097
access to the services on a fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory basis. I know there is a concern that at present there is potential for anti-competitive abuse of the so-called "gatekeeping position" as regards the company or individual who has control of the box that will sit on top of televisions in years to come. We are determined to ensure that there is a proper regulation of that situation so that the abuse which is feared will not arise.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, does not my noble and learned friend agree that it would be preferable to have one box on the top of everyone's television to cover digital satellite television and digital terrestrial television as opposed to having many boxes? Does not my noble and learned friend also agree that the regulations should include conditions that satellite broadcasters should be made to license their technology to other manufacturers? If that does not happen, those satellite broadcasters with conditional access systems could block free-to-air television services, which would be detrimental both to the industry and to the consumer?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I cannot offer a view about whether there should be only one box. However, if my noble friend has asked me whether I consider that there will be only one box, the answer is yes. It is for that reason that we must ensure that the arrangements for conditional access are properly in place. As regards technology, the regulations that we have already introduced cover the licensing of conditional access technology. As I indicated, that must be undertaken on a fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory basis. There will also be a further protection for manufacturers who wish to include what is described as a common interface, which can be either satellite, terrestrial or cable. It would not be permissible for one licensing body to exclude the opportunity for a manufacturer to include such a common interface. I hope that is reasonably clear to my noble friend.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, is the Minister aware that under these technical matters there lies a serious public interest issue as regards the field of competition policy? We are dealing with one media group; namely, the Murdoch group, which at the moment owns 36 per cent. of our national press and has a dominant position in satellite subscription broadcasting. If the Government do not take sufficiently vigorous action, the Murdoch group could have a dominating position with regard to the new digital technology. Is it not necessary for the Government to take pro-active action here rather than wait to see what the Murdoch group does and then try to seek to deal with matters later? Is there not a real danger of the Murdoch interests becoming digital dictators?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, the whole purpose of my answers has been to explain that we are not prepared to see an anti-competitive position adopted by whoever may be first into the market. However, I neglected to respond to one part of my
1098
noble friend's question, which may be relevant to what the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, has mentioned. Those who are described as free-to-air broadcasters will have exactly the same rights for access to the conditional access service as anyone else who would otherwise pay. We have to recognise that those who move first and take the greatest investment risk have a legitimate first mover advantage. However, we are concerned that no one should adopt a dominant position. We have the technology regulations in place. We are consulting on the conditional access services position. If anyone has any further views on how those should be refined, my department will be interested to receive those representations.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, in view of the fact that this directive became operative in the Recess, and of the importance which my noble friend Lady Dean, and indeed the Government, attach to this matter, would it not be wise for the Government to initiate a full-dress debate upon this whole subject? Will the noble Viscount the Leader of the House take steps to ensure, in conjunction with the usual channels, that an adequate opportunity is afforded to the House to discuss this question?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, if there is to be a full-dress debate, I suggest that on that occasion my noble friend Lord Inglewood might respond to it. I am beginning to reach the end of my knowledge on this complicated matter.
There are no such digital arrangements in place yet. It was desirable that we had the regulations published as soon as possible; as I indicated, I very much hope that the second part of them will be introduced before the end of the year. Then, well in advance of any activity using conditional access, all the regulations will be in place.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, I apologise for pressing a question that has already been asked at least once; however, I should like some reassurance upon it. Is it not a fact that, under the regulatory regime as presently drafted, upon the launch of digital television there is a danger that one broadcaster could exercise a monopoly over access to all digital television—unless of course the viewer were to purchase a number of technology boxes for the top of his set to decode different signals? If that is so, is it not a matter of the greatest importance that the Government pre-empt that before the launch of digital television and ensure that no monopoly is possible? Will the Minister please give the House that assurance?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I believe I answered that question. However, if it is not clear, perhaps I may attempt to clarify the matter further. The regulations we have already introduced cover the licensing of conditional access technology. That licensing must be undertaken on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms. It would not be open to

1099
the one granting the licence to require of the manufacturer that a common interface arrangement be excluded. If someone regards himself as having been improperly refused such a licence, then the regulations would allow him to take action in court. That is not the only aspect of the matter. Even if the technology is in place and only one box allows access from satellite, terrestrial or cable television, we want to have in place regulations that allow proper access to the services. Those regulations are presently out for consultation and we hope to have them in place before the end of the year. If the noble Lord has views on the draft regulations and is concerned to see them amended, I have already extended an invitation to offer representation. As I hope he will appreciate, our purpose is exactly the same as his; namely, that those who come into the business and take large risks should secure a first mover advantage. However, at the same time we strongly resist the idea that any monopoly should be created.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord arrange for an explanatory paper to be published so that the people who pay the licence can understand what he is talking about?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I should be delighted to have such a paper myself.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I join in congratulating the Minister both on his rapid mastery of this delightful subject and on the reassuring tone of his remarks. He will have noticed the strong feeling on all sides of the Chamber. Does he agree that it is not spoken words in this House that matter, but that we examine the regulations in great detail? Is he aware that the directive contains ambiguities which might allow a potential monopolist to wriggle off the hook? Will he therefore assure the House that the regulations will be absolutely precise in a number of areas? In particular, will he ensure that broadcasters will be able to issue their own smart cards to their own customers and not be subject to the control of a monopolist gatekeeper?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his opening remark. If there are points of ambiguity in the regulations, it is precisely during the period of consultation upon which we are presently engaged that we wish to have them cleared up. I shall be grateful to him if he will let me know of any such ambiguities.
The position is not entirely easy. We cannot adopt certain steps being urged upon us such as the mandatory licensing of intellectual property. That would be an extreme step. Nothing at the present time indicates that such a course would be appropriate. As I have stated on a number of occasions, we do not wish to see a monopoly in place; but we want to allow those who take the risk of investment to take
1100
proper advantage of it, while at the same time ensuring that no such complete restriction is allowed to favour them.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I appreciate that the situation is difficult and complicated. However, am I right in thinking that the regulations referred to by the Government are based on a European Union directive? If that is the case, will the Government give an assurance that, if the final regulations allow Rupert Murdoch to have a monopoly that excludes the BBC, they will not blame the European Union for that outcome?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I hope that none of my remarks led the noble Lord to believe that we should try to blame anyone else. We are concerned to ensure that, as we hope, the pre-eminent position that the United Kingdom presently enjoys in this field can be secured. It is a massive opportunity for exports and trade. We want to maintain that position. At the same time we are well aware of the dangers of establishing a monopoly and seek to introduce regulations to avoid that possibility.
Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare: My Lords, will the Minister agree that the Question has proved that there are far too many television programmes already?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I am a little anxious in responding to my noble friend since the one thing I do understand about digitalising the signal is that it will possibly allow him to enjoy as many as a further 200 channels.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde: My Lords, I thank the Minister for dealing so fully with the Question. Will he take into account that, in relation to the regulations presently out for consultation, time is of the essence? I gather that the present monopoly supplier of satellite television is already out to tender for the new set-top box which will be launched next autumn. Time is of the essence in putting the regulations in place very quickly, in order to give the director-general the right to cover and license these areas.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, all the points that the noble Baroness made are well understood. As I indicated, that is why we put out the regulations on 23rd August, giving the maximum time available to put the provisions in place. Clearly it is desirable to ensure that some of the anxieties that noble Lords have will be met, that access will be very much greater than at present, and that the opportunities that lie in the television world will be very much extended and to the benefit of the United Kingdom as a whole.

Relations between Central and Local Government: Select Committee Report
3.7 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Tanworth Lord Hunt of Tanworth rose to move, That this House take note of the Report of the Select Committee on Relations between Central and Local Government, entitled Rebuilding Trust (Session 1995–;96, HL Paper 97), and of the Government's response (Cm. 3464).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving the Motion in my name on the Order Paper, I should perhaps start by reminding noble Lords briefly of the remit that the House gave us in October last year. Our task was to consider the relationship between central and local government: the balance in that relationship; whether it was working well or badly; the legitimate concerns of both parties to it; and in particular the financial relationship, including the extent to which financial independence for local government is desirable and practicable. We were not concerned with structure or boundaries, with devolution or with problems relating to particular services; and our terms of reference excluded Northern Ireland. Finally, we were told to complete that rather formidable task by the Summer Recess.
After studying some 150 written memoranda and holding 28 meetings, during which 35 sets of witnesses gave oral evidence, we were left in no doubt that relations between central and local government, although perhaps better than a few years ago, were unsatisfactory. There is a high degree of unconstructive tension between them. We did not point fingers or attempt to allocate blame because the movement of power to central government or to quangos has been happening over a long time and under different governments.
The pressures for national standards are part of the story and, of course, in the 1980s some local authorities had only themselves to blame for some of the restraints imposed upon them. The trouble is, however, that the shift in the balance over time has been on a piecemeal basis as governments reacted to particular problems by taking powers away from the local authorities and it has not been in accordance with any over-arching philosophy as to what it is right for local government to do.
However, the cumulative effect has been not just a weakening of local democracy—which most people who gave evidence to us regretted, since local government is concerned with issues which affect the citizen locally and directly—but also a blurring of accountability so that a local consumer or taxpayer with a problem often does not know and cannot even find out who is responsible for it.
The overwhelming weight of our evidence was that a change of climate was required and that that change pointed to strengthening local democracy while safeguarding and maintaining the essential interests of central government. Although some of our witnesses sought that change in new constitutional arrangements or a Bill of Rights to reinforce the democratic mandate
1102
of local government, we did not see it as within our terms of reference to consider or to call for a codified written constitution to enshrine the powers of local government. We thought it more sensible to assume the continuation of the doctrine of vires under which local government has to adduce powers from Parliament for any action it takes and to see how the climate could be improved and how present arrangements could be made to work better. We came to the unanimous conclusion that there was plenty of room for this.
I cannot mention them all, but our main recommendations can be summarised under three objectives: first, to mark the status and respect which is due to a system of local government enjoying a democratic mandate. We recommended that, first, the guidelines agreed in November 1994 between the Prime Minister and the English local authorities should be expanded into a more formal concordat on the place of local government, its role, its financial base and so on. Secondly, we recommended that the UK should adhere to the Council of Europe's Charter—and of course, the Council of Europe has nothing whatever to do with the European Union. The charter is on local self-government and we seem to meet its provisions anyhow. Thirdly, we recommended that a permanent parliamentary committee should be established to take an overview of and to monitor central/local government relations.
Next, we recommended helping local authorities to play what we felt was their increasingly important role of community leaders in the field of local governance where they alone at the local level can take an overall and prioritising role, in contrast to quangos which are normally single-interest bodies and often unelected. We recommended that: first, the local authorities should have a new power of local competence somewhat wider than that provided in Section 137 of the Local Government Act, but still a restricted power; secondly, that they should be enabled to experiment with different internal management and electoral arrangements; and, thirdly, that better arrangements should be introduced in Whitehall to co-ordinate policy on local issues like public safety and drugs which cut across departmental boundaries.
Finally, on the crucial issue of finance, we recommended: first, that capping should no longer be the general practice, although a reserve power to cap should remain subject to parliamentary approval. Whatever the past justification for capping—and we did not comment on it—it is in our view no longer necessary. It distorts local finance, it confuses accountability and it restricts the ability of local authorities to take financial responsibility for their action. Secondly, we recommended that Treasury control of local authority self-financed expenditure should be relaxed and that the local revenue base should be enlarged by returning the non-domestic rates to local authority control. We felt that the shrinkage of the locally financed base is a disincentive to accountability and has a most undesirable effect on gearing. Thirdly, we recommended that standard spending assessments should be simplified and should be used only for their original purpose of grant distribution. Fourthly, we

1103
thought that there should be a review of whether compulsory competitive tendering should become voluntary and in any case less detailed.
I do not have time to expand on most of the recommendations, although I hope that some of my colleagues will do so. However, I wish to say a word about the proposal for a permanent parliamentary, although not necessarily House of Lords, committee to maintain an overview of central and local government relations. We were aware that in 1992 the Select Committee on committee work, under the chairmanship of the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, considered and came down against the idea of a standing committee. We would not wish to appear disrespectful of that view. Indeed, our recommendation for an outside overview committee is couched somewhat tentatively and does not necessarily refer to this House. It seemed to us, however, particularly in the light of the evidence we heard, that things had changed somewhat since 1992. We were mainly influenced by the feeling which ran through all the evidence that we took that whatever decisions were taken on particular issues, the real need was for central and local government to put an adversarial past behind them and to build a new relationship of trust, otherwise, we might as well get rid of local government altogether. To give them their due, I believe that both sides recognise that. But we were struck by the number of witnesses who felt that an outside independent body could play a useful role in making the inevitable tension between the two tiers creative rather than adversarial.
Before touching on the Government's White Paper which is also mentioned in the Motion, I wish to thank all those who helped the Select Committee in its work. I wish to thank the many witnesses, and perhaps I may say how struck we all were by the number of people who thought the issue that we were discussing was important and volunteered evidence to us. We were also exceptionally fortunate in our two specialist advisers: Professor Michael Clarke from the School of Public Policy at Birmingham University, and Mr. Tony Travers of the London School of Economics. Their wide knowledge and experience and their constructive approach were very helpful to us. Our clerk, Mr. Simon Burton, was a real tower of strength both in organising our work and in drafting and redrafting our report against a very tight timetable.
Finally, I wish to express my personal thanks to my colleagues for their consistently helpful approach and for their forbearance. Some of them may wish today to develop points raised in evidence which do not feature in our report, but I wish to stress that the report itself was unanimous.
I now wish to express my appreciation of the fact that the Government's response to the report takes the form of a White Paper. I understand that it is an unusually formal way of replying to a Select Committee report and thus marks the Government's view of the importance of the subject. It is most welcome. I am sure that my committee would also welcome much of the tone of the White Paper and, above all, the fact that it looks to the future and does not rake up old scores. Of course, my
1104
committee no longer exists, so the few comments that I should like to make about the White Paper are essentially personal ones.
The Government agree that the present state of central-local government relations is unsatisfactory and that a change of climate is needed. They agree that the existing guidelines for central and local relations for England and Wales should be developed to incorporate issues of the kind identified by the Select Committee and that similar guidelines should be prepared for Scotland. They agree that those guidelines should include a statement setting out the role and status of local government, covering the same ground as the Council of Europe's charter, even though, no doubt for political reasons, the Government are still unwilling to adhere to the latter.
The Government agree in principle on the need for a new and restricted power of local competence to encourage the leadership role of local authorities. They agree to legislate to allow experimentation with new forms of internal management and to conduct joint research on ways of encouraging public participation. They agree also to examine the effectiveness of Whitehall arrangements for handling cross-departmental business affecting local government.
Those decisions and the language about partnership accompanying them are very much in line with the Select Committee's thinking and I welcome that. But then, coming to the crucial, day-to-day issue of finance, a quite different tone emerges. The Select Committee's recommendations on the discontinuation of capping as a standard procedure with a reserve power to cap when an authority sets a clearly unreasonable budget, on the simplification of SSAs, on the relaxation of control over local authorities' self-financed expenditure and on the return of the non-domestic rate to local control are all rejected.
The Select Committee fully accepted the Government's clear need to ensure that local authority expenditure as a whole is kept within reasonable bounds and that adequate reserve powers are in existence to ensure that. However, we were concerned about the way in which that control is exercised at present. I am afraid that we were not at all persuaded by the Treasury's evidence on the matter. Our recommendations may not be perfect but I am bound to say that it seems somewhat inconsistent, to say the least, to talk the language of rebuilding Trust while refusing to make any concession at all on the financial issues which are at the heart of the central-local government relationship. We shall all want to listen very carefully to what the minister has to say when he comes to reply to the debate.
Perhaps the most intriguing sentence in the White Paper came at the end of paragraph 6. After saying that the building of good central-local government relations is something which must be continued and developed over time, it goes on to say:
"The Lords Report and this response, therefore, should not be regarded as the end of a story or even a beginning, but rather simply as one more, albeit significant and valuable, chapter in the continuing development of our living constitution".

1105
I hope that that does indeed mean that as trust is rebuilt both sides will show a greater sense of partnership and greater flexibility in future years *on finance as well as on other matters.
I commend the Select Committee's report to the House as a contribution to what will be a continuing debate. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House take note of the Report of the Select Committee on Relations between Central and Local Government, entitled Rebuilding Trust (Session 1995–;96, HL Paper 97), and of the Government's response (Cm. 3464).—(Lord Hunt of Tanworth.)
3.25 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for presenting the committee's report and for outlining its conclusions in the elegant manner we would expect from a former Secretary of the Cabinet. To my party, the debate is particularly welcome at this time. A general election is in the offing. One of the issues which no doubt will be debated, perhaps because of a coincidence of dates between the general election and local elections, is the future of local government. The least I can say is that there appear to us to be some important differences of opinion about what that future should be between ourselves and the present Government—I use the words "present Government" advisedly—which the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, illustrated. I am glad of the opportunity afforded today to restate and reaffirm the essential themes presented to the committee by the Labour Party in both our written memorandum and oral evidence.
The House will be grateful to the noble Lord not only for the clarity with which he introduced the report of his committee but also for the manner in which he chaired its proceedings, as I know from the compliments I have heard paid to him and my own personal experience. As the noble Lord said, the committee's report has been welcomed not only by my party but also by those who will form the new Local Government Association in England, the Welsh Local Government Association and the existing Convention of Scottish Local Authorities.
The report has also been welcomed, although in a somewhat muted tone and with many reservations, by the present Government. That is indeed a tribute to the committee, especially as the welcome is in the form of a White Paper.
I hope that I do not strike too much of a partisan note if I say that the committee's report is particularly welcome to us since it broadly endorses views which we have held for some time and which we set out in our evidence. I shall mention only a few specifics on which our agreement is absolute. Britain should sign without delay the Council of Europe's charter on local self-government. Local government should be encouraged to develop its role as the community leader; should be allowed more freedom to experiment with internal structures; and should seek new ways of increasing turnout in local elections and be encouraged
1106
by central government to do so. Capping should no longer be a general practice imposed without regard for circumstances. The non-domestic rate should be returned to local authority control. The whole system of compulsory competitive tendering needs to be reviewed and there should be some outside independent body. I recommend that that might be an appropriate matter for your Lordships' House in the course of time.
In all those matters we support the conclusions of the report. I do not wish to say too much more about them except perhaps that we regard the Council of Europe charter as a matter of the greatest importance. My noble friend Lady Farrington will have more to say on that matter later; she will also comment on SSAs, of which she has great experience.
I wish to concentrate on what I regard as the central issue of the report; namely, the problem of what may be described as centralisation. From that follows logically the matter, described by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, as a crucial issue, of local authority finance. In case your Lordships feel that I am wholly and uncritically supportive of the report, I should like to indicate some of the difficulties we see in the full and immediate implementation of the committee's conclusions. I can assure your Lordships it is a matter of timing rather than substance.
Centralisation, as our evidence to the committee pointed out, is not a new problem. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, described how the shift to the centre has taken place throughout the 20th century under governments of all political persuasions. The Liberal Government in 1906 took control over the payment of pensions. The Labour Government of 1945 nationalised gas and electricity. The provision of water and sewerage, long regarded as a local government function, was nationalised in England and Wales by a Conservative Government in 1973. Even by the time the Conservative Government took office in 1979, the position of local authorities in terms of authority and stature was a long distance from the old Birmingham of Joseph Chamberlain. In the matter of centralisation no political party can claim total innocence.
Our concern now is that the shift to the centre has gone unhealthily far. In short, we believe that central government have taken too much to the centre and that local democracy has become enfeebled to the point where it is neither true nor effective. We agree with the broad conclusions of the report on that issue. But let me be brutally frank. We believe that since 1979 there has been a deliberate and sustained assault on local government. The time has now come to call a halt. It is not only a question of calling a halt; it is also a question of putting the whole process into reverse.
The nature of the assault was perhaps best illustrated by the imposition of the poll tax against the advice of practically everyone in local government—of all parties or none—who saw its pitfalls. The experience, as noble Lords will be aware, was truly dreadful. Indeed, it was largely responsible for the fall of one Prime Minister. It is now time to repair—in this we agree with the report—in so far as we can, some of the damage that has been done.
I understand from the government response that the Government have, somewhat belatedly, come round at least partially to that point of view. They accept the

1107
recommendation in the committee's report that the guidelines agreed in November 1994 between the Prime Minister and local government associations should be in a more formal framework. But the government response still reserves the right to add to the issues suggested in the report another matter; namely,
"the role of local government in supporting national aims and objectives set by the Government".
I find that particular response seriously depressing. The Government—or perhaps I should say the Conservative Party since it is the Conservative Government who are responding—have completely failed to understand that one of the main features of local democracy is pluralism. Simply put, that means that democratically elected local authorities may well fall to be controlled by parties or a combination of parties different to the party in power at Westminster. That is a fact which any party in control of central government must accept. It is a monstrosity to insist that any party, of whatever colour, should retain the right—not in legislation, because that is self-evident as long as that party commands a majority in the House of Commons—to require local government to support objectives set by that party's government unless those objectives are either submitted to and approved by Parliament in legislation or they are the product of a consensus between all those who have responsibility in the area; in other words, and in practice, all political parties. Anything else would be a negation of proper democracy. Unless that fundamental point is accepted I doubt whether all the fine words in the Government's response are worth more than a row of beans.
Local authorities have a direct democratic mandate which is quite separate from national government. Until and unless that is recognised—this is the main thrust of the report—and local authorities are no longer treated as mere providers of services, democracy in this country will continue to suffer. I recognise that in their response to the committee's report the present Government—I repeat, the present Government—have moved their ground a bit. But the history of the past few years gives me little confidence that it is more than a temporary spasm.
Let us consider the facts. Since 1979 over 200 Acts of Parliament affecting the powers and responsibilities of local government have been implemented. Regulations of the greatest detail have been introduced to curtail the freedom of local councils to take their own decisions. The degree of central government interference in what most countries would regard as management decisions is not mirrored anywhere else in the developed world. There has been a deliberate attempt to bypass local authorities through the mechanism of the quango. Government-appointed or self-appointed bodies are now responsible for over £30 billion of public spending which used to be under the influence or control of elected local authorities. Education, training, housing, urban development, public transport and planning are only some of the major policy areas over which democratically elected representatives of local people have lost their say. To cap it all, central government now make no fewer than 40,000 appointments to non-elected bodies.
1108
In the light of all that, it is no wonder that local authorities have lost trust and that the noble Lord—I am sure he was responsible—entitled the report, Rebuilding Trust. It is little wonder that in the circumstances so few candidates of quality in any party are prepared to stand for election as councillors or to serve local authorities as officials. Local government used to be the breeding ground for aspiring politicians at national level. It is no longer. It seems that that role has now passed to estate agencies.
That leads me naturally, since it is central to the problem pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, to local authority finance. It is at the heart of centralisation, as the committee points out in chapter 5. It is clear to us that local authorities should have as great a control over their revenue-raising powers as is possible. Perhaps I may speak to the present situation. Local authorities should not be put in the position in which they are forced to raise council tax in order to provide a dying government with room to reduce the headline rate of income tax. In case your Lordships think I am making too much of a party political point, it is worth remembering that last April, when inflation was 2.4 per cent., council tax increases averaged 6 per cent. The previous year, when inflation was at 3 per cent., council tax increases averaged 5.2 per cent.
We know that the Government wish to reduce the standard rate of income tax for purely electoral reasons—it has been advertised well in the press—but it makes no social sense to force a disproportionate increase in council tax in order to do that. In purely party political terms, if I may be cynical for another moment, it makes great sense since the manoeuvre allows the Conservatives, who control central government, to blame Labour and the Liberal Democrats for the council tax increases as opposition parties control most local authorities which are responsible for setting the level of council tax. The tactic is really very simple. You reduce the revenue support grant from central government to local authorities so as to leave room for income tax cuts. Local authorities are then forced to raise more in council tax in order to maintain the level of service which has been, and is, required of them by central government and Parliament. Central government—Conservative—can then reduce national income tax and blame local councils—Labour or Liberal Democrat—for raising taxes in another form. It is all very simple, but I put it in those terms to your Lordships because I believe it is fundamentally dishonest.
I said earlier that we accepted the broad conclusions of the committee's report. Nevertheless, as I pointed out when giving oral evidence to the committee, what is required in our view is a change of culture—a change in the whole way in which the governance of this country is perceived. As I said in the debate on the Address—I do not like to quote my own words but I shall—subsidiarity, like charity, begins at home. And it is no good demanding subsidiarity from Europe unless we are prepared to concede it at home. But it is equally no good imagining that such a cultural shift

1109
as I am suggesting and as I suggested in oral evidence to the committee is quickly or easily accomplished. It is going to take a long time and many disappointments to get from where we are at the moment, as the committee pointed out, to where we should be. It is that word of caution which I would leave with your Lordships. Fine words may be spoken in opposition, but they butter no parsnips in government, and since that is where we expect to be in a few months' time I hope your Lordships will accept that my reservations on timing are to the point.
Having delivered that perhaps slightly sombre warning, I conclude by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and his committee on the quality of the study and the report. I assure your Lordships that we do, and will, take most seriously their recommendations. They have pointed to changes that are needed. Their work has been thorough and effective. We will make sure that that work and those results are not lost.
3.43 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I start by declaring an interest as a serving councillor in the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames and I have various local authority positions, mainly stemming from that. I wondered how, in paying tribute to our chairman, I could avoid being formulaic. It really is quite difficult. One has heard before the thanks to chairs of Select Committees, but I have to say that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, expressed what members of the committee thought far better than we could have done. It would have been a pleasure to have been a fly on the wall witnessing his incisiveness and objectivity. It was an even greater pleasure to take part in the process and in the work led by him, with, as he rightly said, the assistance of the professional advisers and of the Clerk of the Committee.
It was in large part due to the noble Lord's chairmanship that our report was unanimous and also to a large extent because the subject matter—the importance of rebuilding trust—transcended so many differences. I suspect that some members of the committee may have been a little uneasy at how far we went. I know that some of us might have liked to have gone a little further, not perhaps so much in content as in emphasis and in the expansion of certain points. However, the serious nature of the report, and especially of its recommendations, is underpinned and underlined by that unanimity.
I have explained that I am a local councillor. I have been vividly reminded recently of the need for trust by somewhat parochial events—but parochial events illustrating wider issues. In my ward the local authority has been involved in what I think most people would regard as a very small proposal for a very small development. We have called it "mini golf', for failure to find any smaller term to describe it. People who live nearby are anxious and suspicious and talk of it in terms such as an "astro-turfed theme park", but it is something on the scale of clock golf at the seaside.
I have been forced recently, because of these reactions, to assess the response. Why do people think there is a hidden agenda? In my defence I should say
1110
that generally the scheme has been well received, but why should some people think that my colleagues and I—and indeed the council officers—would want to impose something if it is really so very unpopular? What possible benefit could there be in it for us? The answer is not logical, or if it is logical, at any rate it is not causally connected. I think it is that politicians and politics generally are in such disrepute that the instinctive view among many members of the public—the default mode, perhaps, in computer speak—is that anything that comes out of the political process must be tainted. So they distrust the politicians. The future of local government—the future of all government—lies in recreating trust. I do not believe we can recreate trust between the tiers of government without rebuilding the trust of the public.
I recall that when I first thought about standing for my local authority one of my friends started to call me "T. Dan Hamwee". Things have moved on rather positively since then, but politicians share the responsibility for rebuilding trust. If we can do it, we shall be a little nearer to the goal of helping to build a society of people who are keen to exercise their rights of citizenship. That is what a good deal of our report was concerned with—the quality of government, the importance of democracy and the ballot box and the opportunity for local government to do what it sees as right for its own community and to take the consequences at the ballot box. It is that readiness to take the consequences that entitles councillors to do things differently between different areas.
We heard a good deal of such sentiments during the evidence given to the committee. The Scandinavian countries have gone through this exercise. I was fascinated to learn of the experiments that have gone on there. In Scandinavia the systems of local government have traditionally been subject to quite heavy regulation. To try to break that up, free local government experiments were set up. The aim was to innovate, to develop systems and service delivery and to develop ways of relating to the citizen. The experiment was endorsed officially—ironically, that means that it was endorsed centrally—but the endorsement created an environment in which people would take risks. The whole process involved evaluation. So schemes which did not work were dropped and some which did work and worked well were taken up by central government; and the examples were passed round. That very culture of freedom meant that some authorities actually did things which they discovered they could have done under the old rules but had assumed that they could not. That freedom to experiment, as your Lordships will readily appreciate, means that the freedom to fail must be accepted as being an occasional, one hopes, but inevitable consequence.
In our first public session, we moved very quickly to the issue of local competence. The Select Committee raised with the Department of the Environment the freedom for local government to exercise the power of competence. The DoE stated very firmly in its written evidence that,
"local authorities must be able to adduce specific statutory authority for their actions".

1111
The senior civil servant giving evidence to the Select Committee commented that local authorities can use Section 137 of the Local Government Act. That section is referred to in the Government's response. He reminded the Select Committee that the section enables local authorities to spend money for the benefit of their areas and inhabitants.
I asked whether spending within that section has to come within any cap which is applied by Government under the current rules. The reply was, "yes". My noble friend, Lord Tope, asked,
"Since capping is related to Standard Spending Assessment, can you tell us how section 137 spending is reflected in the SSA calculations?"
The reply was,
"I think specifically not at all is probably the short answer".
I am disappointed with the Government's response on the question of the power of local competence. To say that financial limits placed on the use of those powers do not give rise to difficulties because most authorities are spending within the limits is perhaps a failure to understand or admit the relationship with the other regulations to which I have just referred. I look forward to the reassessment which we are promised, but the very wording used in the White Paper:
"whether a more general power of local competence is practical and advisable in the light of broader priorities",
seems to hint at the answer.
The freedom to experiment seems to be accepted more readily in the response in the area of internal working arrangements. How one does things is important, but the scope for effectiveness is limited if what one can do is limited. The freedom to do things differently has recently been identified as important by Sir Charles Carter, whose report on pulling together 10 years of work by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation on local government has just been published. He says that leadership is especially needed in promoting this idea. It is,
"not a ground for suspicion or rebuke or bureaucratic obstruction, hut the essential means for the emergence of new ideas which can then compete for more general acceptance".
It is a pity that the Government are not more willing to embrace the freedom to do things differently. That is particularly odd, given that at European level they argue this very freedom for themselves.
The various controls and constraints which the committee called to be lifted, such as capping, CCT and so on, are not just about constraining spending, but about constraining innovation. The effects are much more long term and fundamental than year-on-year economies. Pushing CCT so far that those who let the contract lose all sense of hands-on experience; controlling capital in order to control a local authority's capital base, because that base means power, so that there is little investment; capping and ring fencing and the Treasury imposing hypothecation even when it does not accept it for itself—all these things are very serious.
I read earlier this year of a warning that the private financing of local authority projects was at risk after a recent court judgment. For the cognoscenti, I refer to the Allerdale case. Bankers would not know if their
1112
borrowers were allowed to borrow so they did not know if they could enforce repayment. The Government were being urged to establish a new tribunal to vet deals in advance in order to certify whether a proposed borrowing was intra vires. Is not the real issue local authority freedom, not the artificial criteria but a local authority being able to seek borrowing based on proper, normal commercial and indeed correctly political assessments?
These regimes also distort perceptions. Who is responsible for certain courses of action or indeed the failure to take action? Accountability breaks down so fast when discretion is constrained. My own authority is currently consulting, as it always does, on next year's budget. At a public meeting last week we were asked, "Please do not spend so much on roads. We want you to spend more on education and on services for elderly people". But if my local authority gets credit approvals, as it may well do, for work to the roads, what are we to do? That credit approval will not be transferable. How do we explain without whingeing—I assure noble Lords that most of us would prefer not to whinge about all this—to the resident who sees road works outside his own house when he has an elderly relative who is receiving less than an ideal level of domiciliary care? I believe that we shall continue in the vicious circle of deficient accountability and mistrust by the public while so little of the local authority budget is raised locally. That is a view that is widely shared. The Government seem to accept that there should be an increase, even if it is a small one. I have to say that theirs is a minority voice in arguing against a return to the business rate.
It is no wonder that people are so confused and that their votes, if they do vote locally, are so affected by what is happening nationally. I am glad to see the statement in the White Paper that the Government want to see progress in increasing public participation in local democracy and local government. I hope that their actions will not be as top down as some of their comments seem to suggest. I do not believe that people want to be treated with paternalism, which is not to say that they do not want leadership. They are very open to that idea, particularly where they have been involved by their local authority. I believe that the future of local government lies in finding the best level of that involvement and the best mechanisms. That is almost bound to vary from place to place and from group to group because even in a relatively small country such as ours we have a culture which is not a monotone. I remain true to my Liberal Democrat roots in believing that government should be delivered at the lowest possible level, but I do not believe that there is any one formula. Certainly I believe that politicians at all levels have an obligation to encourage participation, not simply saying to people, "Here is power, get on with it", but "Here is power and support to use it in the best way".
It is all a question of trust, which is sometimes assisted by symbolic actions. Signing the European charter of local self-government would, among other things, be such a symbol. Perhaps that would be too symbolic in the case of Europe. Establishing a new mechanism to scrutinise the Government's proposals

1113
would also be a symbol, as well as a useful mechanism. As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Tanworth, reminded us, that is what was proposed when we drew to some extent on the experience of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee. That is not perhaps the step which the White Paper suggested. A concordat between central and local government, something more than a guideline, would also be a symbol, but it would be much much more.
The Government's response states,
"It hopes that local government will be willing to play its part".
That is fair enough. Every sector must play its part to rebuild trust, including the trust of citizens—and of people who want to be citizens, not subjects—and the trust of tiers of government of one another.
I believe that there is a great responsibility on the next government, of whatever colour and of whatever intensity of colour, to work to rebuild that trust. If the next government fail, or refuse, to do that, they will be failing thousands of councillors and council officers who are frustrated in the job that they want to do. They will be failing millions of people, not only by precluding efficient and effective local government, but by precluding their participation. Indeed, I do not think that it would be going too far to say that they would be failing the cause of democracy itself.
4.1 p.m.
Baroness Platt of Writtle: My Lords, our interests are declared in our report so your Lordships will understand that I attach great importance to the deliberations of the Select Committee on relationships between the two elected tiers of government in our democracy and that I deeply wish to see the gradual but strong move towards "Rebuilding Trust" between them, which is the title of our report. We were very fortunate in our chairman whose longstanding skills drew out an agreed report although there were many areas of disagreement during our deliberations.
I am glad that in their response the Government also accept the importance of the subject and wish to play their part in improving those relationships and regenerating trust, as does the newly set up joint Local Authority Association. That augurs well for the future.
The committee believes, as do the Government, that there will always be tensions between the two levels of democracy. Those tensions need, however, to be used constructively on both sides to solve difficult problems of future policies. Too often they are used as an excuse for slinging mud across the fence, particularly if different political parties are involved and, of course, the media love to stir up a row.
As we stated in our report, recognising that local government is created by statute, it needs to play its part in improving future relationships with a mature recognition of its standing relative to central government. As councillor Sir Jeremy Beecham and others fully acknowledged in evidence to us,
"Some local authorities during the 1980s sometimes tried to take on national government in matters which were not their proper concern, and to spend to excess".
1114
That was a great mistake which I believe many now regret. We need a mature recognition of their standing.
Central government must play its part too, and I was glad to read in the response that the Government regarded,
"robust, independent local government as an essential feature of the country's democratic society".
Local government has become more corporate over the years and I am glad that the Government are to examine the effectiveness of cross-departmental handling of business so as to reflect that need in Whitehall. The involvement of the Government's regional offices in this respect will be valuable as they too are more corporate, but they must be seen to take local needs upwards to Whitehall, as well as demonstrating government policy the other way. I am glad that the Government are already putting our recommendation into action by increasing the number of two-way secondments and exchanges between senior civil servants and local government officers so as to improve the link between "Town Hall and Whitehall". There needs to be a strong ongoing policy in developing mutual professional respect.
We welcomed the Prime Minister's guidelines for central and local government relations as a turning-point of the tide towards better days, but those need to be further strengthened and mutually and sincerely put into action on both sides over future years. Actions of central government such as publishing major policy changes affecting local government in the press without prior notice to local government so that it can produce a considered response instead of a knee-jerk reaction should be unthinkable. That shows a total lack of trust. I am glad that the Government accept our recommendation that those guidelines should be strengthened and given more formal status and that they are to pursue the matter with the new overall Local Government Association, and in Wales and in Scotland, with the stated aim of improving the guidelines. It may be worthwhile looking at the impact of the Citizen's Charter in this area because it has been very successful overall. I also welcome the fact that the Government propose similar action to improve public involvement and local participation in local government. That is very important.
I am very sorry that the Government are not to set up a parliamentary committee to review relationships and to receive annual reports from those concerned. I believe that that would have helped to strengthen relationships between Members of Parliament and their local authorities and to improve mutual respect. Perhaps at least annual reports should be presented to the Select Committee on the Environment, and to others where relevant.
I also regret that the Government will not sign the European Charter although they support its principles. However, I welcome the fact that they consider that a clear signal is necessary to recognise the value of local government and that they intend to agree with local government a statement covering the same ground as the charter and setting out the role and status of local government. That constitutes a valuable step forward in trust.

1115
It is of great importance that the Government accept the vital role of local government in community leadership and agree to review the scope for action within Section 137 and to assess whether a more general power of local competence should be allowed. I hope that that too is approached on both sides in a constructive manner and results in progressive action.
I am glad that the Government intend to bring forward enabling legislation in the next Parliament to allow local authorities to propose experiments in internal management. I am not in favour of wholesale change in that area, but pilot schemes can often give valuable experience that others can follow, and new arrangements can gradually develop based firmly on successful practical experience. I am not in favour of any major reorganisations in local government—certainly for another 20 years—as they always prove more expensive than expected and, if anything, create more problems than they solve. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" is a good motto.
I am sorry that the Government do not feel that they can loosen the compulsion on compulsory competitive tendering. We felt that that would indicate a substantial statement of increased trust. It is a pity that, to quote from the Government's response,
"many local authorities have sought to avoid competition wherever possible",
but we felt that the holding of a reserve power by government, which is strictly enforced, might have controlled those few authorities adequately. We have no doubt, as we say, that CCT has produced a change for the better, and has led many councils to see themselves as efficient and economic enablers in the provision of services rather than purely providers. Public services must be there to serve the local public in the best possible manner and flexibility must be the name of the game.
Finance is a knotty problem. In saying that, I believe that the Audit Commission has done an excellent job in encouraging efficiency, economy and the conservation of public expenditure. I hope that it continues to do that. It is very important that the public should be clear who has made a decision to alter the services that affect them substantially. At present mud is slung indiscriminately by both sides and the public have no means of judging who is at fault. As The Times said on 25th July, councils can be their own worst enemies, whingeing a great deal but still managing to foot the bills. They cry "Wolf' too often.
Accountability is vital in a healthy democracy. SSAs are complex and the public does not understand them. Councillors often feel that they are a very blunt instrument, and especially when used for capping. Different parts of England have very different expectations and priorities in the provision of services, and elected local government must be free to try to meet those local needs in a variety of ways. SSAs and capping form a straitjacket of prevention rather than enablement, especially when associated with a high gearing which is inevitable where local government is raising only 21.4 per cent. of local expenditure. I am glad to hear that the Government plan a modest increase in the proportion met by council tax.
1116
I am sorry that the Government did not feel able to return the non-domestic rate to local authority control. I have doubts myself, in that the non-domestic rate smacks of "taxation without representation" as industry and commerce have no vote. However, I believe that local authorities now have a statutory duty to prepare an economic strategy for their areas upon which they must consult the business community. If non-domestic rates are too high, industry and jobs flee to other parts of the country. So I hope that that new duty will enforce prudence. It would certainly have improved accountability.
Local government is only as successful as the people it attracts to its service—councillors and officers. I thoroughly support the Nolan Committee's view that the most important qualities to be encouraged in public life are selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership. Beyond that, we want members with a variety of experience in life, and good professional officers upon whom to rely for advice. They will be attracted to local government only if they have sufficient freedom to develop innovative and worthwhile services to the public to meet local needs.
I am glad that the Government are taking the steps that they are in response to our report. I wish they had gone further in relaxing financial controls, with safeguards, but clearly making local government both responsible and accountable for its decisions. In that respect, I believe that the emphasis on local government elections should return to being more local. Too often the media show local elections as a vote for or against the national government in Westminster, which they most emphatically are not. Local elections must be about electing the best and most responsible local councillors—strong-minded, honest, efficient men and women prepared to stand up for the needs of their local communities—truly prepared to be accountable locally.
Whitehall certainly does not know best on local matters, and local government, as the Government accept, has been elected to be a focus of leadership in local communities. The Government themselves believe in subsidiarity, and are proposing, in the new Local Government Rating Bill, to give more influence to the lowest tier of local government (parish councils), which I welcome.
I hope that the Government, in their wish to continue to work on improving relationships over a period of time, will see their way, step by step, to relaxing some of those straitjacket financial controls as local government itself acts responsibly. I hope that will attract people of calibre into local government, and although not a believer in "golden ages", I am sure that democracy in this country will be the beneficiary in future.
4.14 p.m.
Lord Borrie: My Lords, in following two speakers who were themselves members of the Select Committee, I have great pleasure in congratulating them as well as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Tanworth, on the

1117
presentation of this clear and valuable report and I also congratulate the noble Lord on initiating this debate today.
I have only one small interest to declare, as honorary president of the Institute of Trading Standards Administration, an office which I held for four years from 1992, until a few weeks ago, when I happily handed over that task to the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, whom I see in her place on the Government Benches. The Institute of Trading Standards Administration is the professional body for trading standards officers engaged by local authorities in the important task of upholding high trading standards and fair dealing in the market place, to the benefit of the general public and legitimate business.
I am proud of the fact that the institute asked me to be its president when I left my post as Director-General of Fair Trading in 1992, because, after all, I had been head of a non-ministerial central government department and they are local government officers. I am happy to imagine at any rate that there were good relations between those two parts of central and local government and trust between us, in the pursuit of similar objectives.
Yet I do not disagree with the general thrust of the Select Committee's report. In general, I do not have much doubt that relations between central and local government are, as it put it, "unsatisfactory and can be improved". Given the all-party and cross-bench membership of the committee, the report's title, Rebuilding Trust, is significant. After all, one can only rebuild trust if it has broken down. Trust is, at its best, a two-way concept.
I suppose that central government in the 1980s, with its strongly assertive and conviction politics agenda, did not trust local government to conform to central government's objectives for policy and spending restrictions, and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Platt, indicated, some local authorities overreached themselves in ambitious and often silly extensions of local authority competence. Local authorities, for their part, lost trust in central government because their powers and functions, and spending capacities, were drastically reduced and their role marginalised when vital areas of policy were transferred to central government or central government-appointed quangos.
The Select Committee report steers clear of commenting upon local government structure. I fully understand that, and I do not complain. But I believe that another aspect of local government distrust of central government has been the launch of large-scale local government reorganisation in all parts of Great Britain. I follow again the noble Baroness, Lady Platt, "If it ain't broke, why fix it?" I wonder what all that restructuring was in aid of. The exercise seemed to involve a remedy in search of a problem at least in England, as distinct from Wales and Scotland. There was massive consultation through the work of the Local Government Commission, although one must admit that that seems to have resulted in a great deal of confusion and inconsistency between one part of England and another. When Sir John Banham did not invariably
1118
come up with solutions acceptable to central government, he was replaced as chairman. In Wales and Scotland, reorganisation simply went ahead imposed by Act of Parliament.
Trading standards form but a small part of local government activity, but they are important to consumers of goods and services of all kinds, and, as I said, to legitimate business. I point out that at one time I led a delegation of trading standards officers, all employed by local authorities, to see various Ministers. When we went to see John Redwood, then Secretary of State for Wales and Allan Stewart who was then at the Scottish Office, I did not find them at all rewarding occasions. Our concern was that splitting up existing cohesive, hard-working and useful trading standards departments between several new unitary authorities would be bad for efficiency and even the viability of the service, and therefore for the protection of the public. These concerns were brushed aside with the suggestion that local authorities could after all co-operate voluntarily one with the other. There could be voluntary co-operation between different local authorities. Can the government tell us in the course of today's debate whether such arrangements in Wales and Scotland have been made?
The report of the Select Committee expresses the general position extremely well. I do not believe I need to apologise for quoting it again. The Select Committee reports that many in local government feel that they have been crushed and abused by central government over many years. I believe that that expresses the matter with great clarity. I particularly like the conclusion of the report that acceptance of its recommendations would give local authorities more space in which to breathe and develop.
I detect in the report a moderately optimistic note to the effect that recently there has been an improvement in central government/local government relations. I quote Councillor Sir Jeremy Beecham, chairman of the Association of Metropolitan Authorities. He has already been quoted today. He gave evidence to the committee that in the past few years there had been an increasingly relaxed relationship between Department of the Environment Ministers and representatives of local government. So that I do not partially quote him, he added that he was not sure whether that extended to other government departments.
Sir Jeremy was one of three leaders of major local authorities on my party's Regional Policy Commission (on which I also served) whose report was published earlier this year. I should like to conclude my remarks this afternoon by mentioning two of the commission's conclusions. They are particularly relevant to the subject of today's debate and give some cause for optimism for the future. One of our conclusions was that local government could and should give leadership. My noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel referred to community leadership as a vital aspect of local government work. We believed that it should give leadership to much needed economic and social regeneration, particularly in the worst parts of urban conurbations, in partnership with private as well as various community interests.

1119
The Select Committee report gives a number of examples of partnerships between local authorities and other bodies, for example to achieve successful single regeneration budget bids. An example of successful local authority leadership is the work of Lancashire Enterprises which was started by Lancashire County Council. It has a number of achievements to its credit, including the rescue of Leyland Daf in 1993, investment in small-scale management buyouts and worker buyouts and the provision of venture capital to local entrepreneurs. Recently, someone has commented that partnerships are becoming as familiar a feature of urban life as traffic jams. At least they are more constructive.
I also want to mention our approach to the 10 government offices for the regions established two years ago to co-ordinate the work of central government departments in the various regions of England. We sought to follow the twin principles of democratic accountability and subsidiarity. We proposed that a Minister at Cabinet level be appointed with overall responsibility for co-ordinating and integrating regional matters for which the government offices for the regions would be accountable. In time, as regional chambers or assemblies were set up some of the functions of the government offices for the regions should be transferred to them, ensuring more direct accountability to elected representatives of local and regional communities.
I believe that the work of the Select Committee has been extremely timely. History may show that it led the way to a more collaborative and co-operative relationship between central and local government—one in which the inevitable tensions between different levels of government are creative rather than negative.
4.25 p.m.
Lord Beloff: My lords, those of your Lordships who have studied the list of members of the Select Committee will be aware that I stated no interest. I believe that in that I was unique; I was a member of the committee who had never served in, or been in any organisation related to, local government. My interest, such as it was, was confined to local government in the late 17th century, about which I wrote my first book, when England was governed by justices of the peace, local landowners, clergymen and the closed corporations of the towns. Whether we were then governed better or worse is not a matter that we need to go into today.
When we refer to local government we mean locally elected government. My interest was to find whether, in a modern advanced industrial society, that is a viable proposition in the sense that, unlike the situation in the 17th century, more people now work in one place, get their recreation in another and reside in a third. So the question of local identity is itself a problem. We were confronted with passionate advocates of local self-government and increased powers for local elected bodies both in the scope of their activities and their freedoms. I, and no doubt my colleagues, were interested in the evidence of the witnesses who came before the committee. For me, it was a wholly new world. I was like an anthropologist in the rain forests of New Guinea. They were strange creatures. My conclusions were somewhat surprising. In the whole series of oral evidence—I do not
1120
believe that I missed a single session—those who came out best were the officers of local government. Their evidence was in general clear, to the point and well expressed. Those who came out worst were, without exception, civil servants. It may be that they are so restricted by their duties to Ministers that they are unable to answer questions on which they have not previously received instructions. It might be referred to as "smothered by Osmotherley".
We have to ask ourselves whether Select Committees of either this House or another place can properly fulfil their proposed functions if an important part of government that makes so many of the decisions is inhibited in helping those committees reach conclusions. I was not in the least surprised—I imagine that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, to whom we owe an obligation, was also not surprised—by the tone of the White Paper in dealing with our financial suggestions since the representatives of the Treasury showed a total inability to understand the subject we were investigating. That was a problem.
The other problem which exercised me and which still exercises me after hearing the enthusiastic proponents of some kind of reinvigoration of local government is whether there is a popular demand. My noble friend Lady Platt of Writtle who, unlike me, has vast experience in this field, says that parish councillors, town councillors, county councillors and so on should be elected in the light of the services they can perform for their local communities and not as a demonstration of people's attitude to the government in power or to the Opposition of the day.
That might be a moral injunction but I think it bears no relation to what research indicates and, indeed, what the bare statistics indicate about local government. If people were really interested and if they thought that different councillors would give them better roads, better miniature golf courses, or whatever the current phrase may be, would they not seek opportunities to question them about such matters and eventually to vote? The low turn-out in local government elections is a fact which the committee could not escape and which your Lordships, in considering the matter, cannot escape either.
Democratic local government was created in this country as part and parcel of the democratisation of government as a whole. The various reforms in local government did not exactly coincide with but were roughly parallel to the enlargements of the franchise for Parliament; that is, they were part of a general movement by which power was diffused from the few to the many.
I have come to doubt whether in this country there is an enthusiasm even for national self-government. After all, we have allowed an increasing part of Parliament's duties to be transferred to the institutions of the so-called European Union without much protest on the part of the public; in fact without an awareness that it is happening. I wonder whether noble Lords opposite who hope to form part of a forthcoming Labour Government appreciate that Mr. Blair as Prime Minister will have

1121
less influence on our destinies than his predecessor, Mr. Kinnock, who is a Brussels Commissioner. There is someone with power.
If we are not interested in self-government as a nation, it is perhaps understandable that we are not interested in self-government locally. When one questioned the enthusiasts for self-government on the ground, locally, there was an inability to show a demand from the public for the return of greater power to local authorities.
Another factor to emerge very clearly was that without a greater degree of fiscal autonomy there was nothing much that local government could do to improve its powers or its performance. The cry, "No representation without taxation" was heard from successive witnesses. I venture to disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, about the poll tax. The more I listened to people saying how important it was that there should be a direct relationship between those who were receiving the services and those who were paying for them through local taxation and that that relationship should exist through the elected councils, the more it became clear to me that the poll tax was a very good idea and would have been a very popular way of returning power to local government if it had not been messed up in its application. In principle what we were being asked for was a form of poll tax which would have re-created the link between local expenditure and local taxation on the one hand and local services on the other.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will forgive me for intervening. I have two questions. The noble Lord referred to the 17th century. Does he believe that the way forward is that pursued by Louis XIV which led in my view, and I am sure in the noble Lord's view, to the inefficiency of local administration which was part of the main cause of the French Revolution? Secondly, as regards the poll tax, it is all very well to say that you can vote for finance for the charges that you want. The problem with the poll tax, as Wat Tyler would have reminded the noble Lord had he been here, was that it was simply a head tax with no distinction between one source of income and another.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, there were weaknesses in the definition of what could constitute a tax of that kind, but a tax on individuals, perhaps of greater flexibility than that which appeared in the Bill, rather than a tax of property, seemed to me to be something which was espoused in one form or another by many of our witnesses.
The noble Lord referred to Louis XIV, and I know that the noble Lord has a special interest in France. But I was thinking about local government in this country at the time of the Glorious Revolution when there were, and remained, very considerable powers in the hands of local authorities, admittedly not elected, which proved extremely successful in guiding the country until the industrial revolution demanded greater central
1122
intervention in their affairs. Therefore, I am not shaken by reference to Louis XIV, who does not often figure in our debates.
Looking back, I can say that it was an extremely educative experience serving on the committee even though I share the disappointment of some of my colleagues that more of our recommendations were not looked at more favourably by the Government. That raises the question, referred to by several noble Lords, including the chairman, of what happens next. Clearly, it would be worth having some kind of inquiry, possibly parliamentary, possibly extra-parliamentary, to determine what is an almost irreconcilable logical difficulty. People say that they want local initiative, local autonomy and the capacity to innovate and experiment. At the same time they want services which are no different if they move from one part of the country to another. That is most obvious in the field of education, but one can perhaps see it elsewhere.
Those two things are very hard to reconcile. Does one prefer something original but different and so risk, when one moves, having to accommodate oneself to a new system? Alternatively, does one believe that uniformity of service and provision is something which every citizen of a democracy has a right to demand? Those are problems which certainly demand further consideration. Despite the Government turning down the ideas that the committee put forward, I hope that something will be done to address them in the future.
4.40 p.m.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I should like, first, to thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Tanworth, and his committee for a most excellent report. I must admit that during the debate I had a blinding flash of revelation. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, suggested that his membership of the Select Committee opened his eyes like—and I paraphrase his remarks—a series of anthropological lectures on a foreign race. At any rate, that seemed to be the gist of the noble Lord's remarks. It is curious that a senior supporter over the past 17 years of the Conservative Government, who have implemented, according to my noble friend Lord Williams, about 200 Acts of Parliament affecting local government, should turn round after the event and say, "I knew nothing about it; it was like a foreign race".
The latter is perhaps an explanation as to why this country no longer has an empire. If Conservative Governments have been followed by such assiduous followers for the past 200 years while implementing legislation which affected British citizens throughout the world, no wonder they turned around and said, "We are not totally happy about it". They just did not know what they were doing.
I could use today's debate to indulge in a long and probably rambling discourse about how badly local government has been treated over the past 25 years, and then take some time to suggest how things might be changed for the better in the future. However, I am sure that noble Lords will be glad to hear that I shall try to contain myself. I aim to make just a few simple points. First, I would commend anyone listening to our debate,

1123
or reading the transcript of it in Hansard later, to read the report itself. It is a very useful document which has been most skilfully compiled. I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, to all the members of the committee and, indeed, to all the officers involved for their work. I would also recommend people to read the Government's response. Although I do not agree with all their responses to the recommendations in the report, at least they have at last recognised that there is a problem.
Democracy as we know it can do two useful things. In the first place it can enable people in a community or society to come together to develop them. Secondly, it can enable that society or community to accommodate change. To do those things successfully there must be a climate of trust. I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, pointed out that if central government politicians do not respect local government politicians then they cannot expect respect in return. That does not apply just between the national political arena and the local political arena; it also applies to the European and—dare I say it?—the worldwide political arena. I hope that the report will help to build that mutual trust and respect which both national and local politicians need. It is essential.
Innovation and change is one of the things that local government can do most effectively. Indeed, that has been demonstrated, for example, over the past 150 years. I shall give your Lordships three specific examples. The first was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel; namely, Joseph Chamberlain in Birmingham. He instituted the municipal provision of public utilities that is now taken for granted across the country. It is interesting to reflect that it took something like 30 or 40 years before Birmingham's experience effectively translated to London. However, that is another story.
The second example is one of competitive tendering, not compulsory competitive tendering, for local authority goods and services. I believe that that happened in the 1930s and 1940s. It was insisted upon by Communist members of the Leiston urban district council. To prevent the previous local councillors providing their friends and cronies with orders for council work, competitive tendering was insisted upon. Again, even today, that remains an essential feature of local authority activity throughout the country.
My third example is that of the Conservative controlled county council of Leicestershire in the 1950s and the 1960s. It realised the inadequacy of the secondary modern education that was being provided for a large proportion of their young population and instituted the system of comprehensive education which has benefited this country so much over the past 30 years or so.
I can understand why the following was not touched upon by the Select Committee. It is unfortunate that it did not do so, but I believe that it was slightly outside the committee's terms of reference. I have in mind the structure of local government. I have referred to three tiers of local government; namely, the small urban district county council and the county borough—the
1124
Birmingham-type situation. However, there is a third category which we no longer have and that is the ability of all the people living in a large urban conurbation to come together and have a directly elected council which can speak and work for that whole population. I make a plea that all the people in our urban heartlands—that is, the Glasgows, the Liverpools, the Manchesters, the Birminghams and the Londons of our country—should be able to elect a council to speak and work for the whole of that urban conurbation.
We did have such councils but they were lost. It is interesting to note that they were instituted by a past Conservative Government under the leadership of Sir Edward Heath who reorganised local government. He did so after a series of Royal Commissions on local government and indeed committees of inquiry stretching over a good many years. The final result was the local government reorganisation which began in 1974 and which went on to bring about the introduction of the regional authorities in Scotland.
Interestingly enough, that Conservative Government under Sir Edward Heath made two significant constitutional changes. The first was our entry into membership of the European Community, which is now the European Union. The other was the institution of the major elected authorities for the major urban conurbations. It is unfortunate that Sir Edward Heath's involvement in trade union/industrial affairs and in economic policies went wrong, but I believe that history will suggest that those two constitutional changes were of great significance. I hope that the actions of this Conservative Government of the past 17 years which have attacked both those constitutional changes will be reversed by the next government.
4.50 p.m.
The Earl of Kintore: My Lords, I also had the privilege of serving on the Select Committee under the chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Hunt of Tanworth. The chairman kept us in remarkably good order and any points that had to be conceded to produce a unanimous report were conceded with grace and humour. We were well served by our Clerk, Simon Burton. I wish him good luck in his new appointment.
I wish to address two points. As the only "independent" on the committee, apart from our chairman, I started the inquiry thinking that local government would be more effective if all councillors were non-political. By the end, I think I was just persuaded that political parties are necessary in local government to provide the necessary infrastructure. However, I hope the political parties will regard the prime function of their councillors as that of acting for the good of all their local electors. I realise there may be some noble Lords in the Chamber who consider that dominance by one political party of central government for too long is a bad thing. At the local level it is even worse. I am pleased to note at paragraph 42 of their response the Government accept that some form of proportional voting should be tried to achieve a better consensus at local level.

1125
Local government is big business. It will spend £74.5 billion in 1996–97, including capital and revenue expenditure. Most of the money is provided by central government—as we have already heard—but a small proportion is raised locally through the council tax. I note at paragraph 65 of the response that the Government state their belief that,
"the council tax should raise a slightly larger proportion of money spent locally and current plans envisage a modest increase in the proportion met by the council tax".
I suppose the words that worry me are "slightly" and "modest". The Department of the Environment told us that council tax might raise, say, a quarter—that is, 25 per cent.—of local government revenue. While not knowing if my council tax for this year represents a figure of 25 per cent.—here I declare an interest as owner of a Band H house—I hope I may encourage the parties involved in local government to bear in mind that local authority expenditure should be kept within reasonable bounds. If that is the case, local authorities may then be able to restrain the increases they demand of the top band payers who raise insignificant amounts, but even these amounts are beginning to bear heavily on those who have to pay. I hope our report Rebuilding Trust will aid and carry forward positively the relations between central and local government.
4.54 p.m.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, it was a privilege and a pleasure to serve on the Select Committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. However, he also achieved at the end what I thought would be well nigh impossible when we started; namely, a broad measure of agreement among such a diverse membership. He certainly showed skills which in previous years the Cabinet had the benefit of.
I should perhaps declare an interest in that in the past I have been a local councillor on Westminster City Council and for a few years I worked in local government. Since that time there have been many changes in local government in this country. I believe morale is now lower and fewer people feel that to become a local councillor is worthwhile as a career and as an expression of civic duty. I agree with the thrust of our report that far more needs to be done to promote the image of local government. If that were to be achieved—I believe it is achievable—some of the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, when he suggested that local government was not particularly interesting to people and that people did not care much about it, might be reversed. It is one of our challenges to try to make local government exciting and interesting to the local communities that are served by local authorities.
One of the key points that came out of our work was the question of centralisation. I note that over many years—particularly since 1979, but it is a longer-term trend—there has been an erosion of local government power. That has arisen partly because central government have sought to exercise tighter control over local authority spending. However, the matter goes further than that. I accuse the Conservative Government
1126
of having tried to suppress views emanating from local authorities which ran counter to the Government's beliefs. I believe that a healthy democracy is a plural democracy. One has only to look at the United States to see the differences of view expressed between the President and Congress and between the states and Washington. Those differences may sometimes be too wide but I believe it is healthy in a democracy that different points of view should be expressed. We have gone too far in trying to denigrate the views of local government when those views have been contrary to the policies of central government.
If powers are taken away from local government it becomes less attractive to serve as a local councillor. However, it has also had one other consequence which is that voting for local authorities has increasingly become a way of indicating views on national politics rather than on the worth of the policies and practices followed by a particular local authority. It would be a healthy move if we could devise ways in which people in local authority areas were as concerned about the policies of their local authority as about those of national government, and sought to reflect those concerns in their voting practices.
There is another problem which I think is as yet unresolved, and that is the dilemma to which other noble Lords have referred as to how to resolve the conflict between seeking to have uniform national standards of service throughout the country, as provided by local authorities, and giving local authorities the right to encourage diversity, and for local authorities to practise that element of diversity in the way they provide services. Clearly there are many pressures to adopt national standards. I refer to pressures of public expectations and pressures from the media and from the Audit Commission with its proper emphasis on performance measurement and comparison between one local authority and another. However, if we are to support local government and local diversity we have to accept that there have to be some departures from national standards. Another area in which local authorities have lost power is to quangos. That is a well developed argument and one which need not concern us too much this afternoon.
I now turn to finance. I am concerned that central government now contribute 80 per cent. of local authority expenditure. Not so long ago the figure was 50 per cent. I appreciate the argument made earlier this afternoon by my noble friend Lord Williams, when he prophesied something that I believe is widely expected; namely, that in their bid to reduce national taxation central government will impose pressures on local authorities to increase the amount they levy through the council tax. That may slightly change the percentage of central government support to local government, but it is not the answer that I seek. I should like to see a different method whereby central government contribute less and local government is therefore not so dependent upon central government funding. It is therefore a matter of particular regret that the Government have not accepted the committee's recommendations that the business rate should be returned to individual local authorities. That proposal is supported by the CBI and

1127
the Institute of Directors, among other bodies, and would help to make local government finance more independent of central government and therefore make local authorities more autonomous.
However, we need to go further. The committee throws out a few hints in that direction. It would be right and proper to seek ways of providing additional income for local authorities. One example might be that the road tax on motor cars could be transferred from central government to local government. After all, the presence of motor cars is a burden on local authorities, which have to find parking space for them; motor cars exercise pressure on roads which local authorities have to meet. It might be better if the income and the process of collecting the road fund tax could be transferred from central government to local government. We should also look at other sources of income for local government in order for it to achieve more independence from central government.
It is right, as the committee states, that a power of local competence should be given to local authorities to raise money for other purposes—a power rather wider than the old Section 137 as it was called. Obviously some reserve powers would have to be given to central government to ensure that there was no abuse. But it would he a proper way of allowing local government to exercise some element of independence.
I should also like to see more freedom for local authorities to experiment in constitutional matters, as the committee suggests. The idea of elected mayors is an interesting suggestion. They might well give more focus to a local authority and might attract more interest in local government on the part of electors. Certainly at the time of the GLC there was a great deal of interest in that body. The GLC established something in the minds of its people that most local authorities do not establish.
I accept that if we are to move to the position of having elected mayors—I support the idea merely on an experimental basis—there would have to be a change in the role of elected councillors; and that would possibly involve some diminution in their powers. It is worthwhile examining the idea of elected mayors, but I see that problems might arise. We might also move to annual elections for councillors, with one-third of the members of a council retiring every year. That is the practice in some areas, but not in others. It would be a good thing if it became universal. It would make local authorities more sensitive to changing opinions on the part of their electorates.
Finally, I turn to a point that was outside the remit of the committee, and it concerns local government in London. I am not sure that it should have been outside our remit, but I accepted the decree that it should be. I believe that since the abolition of the GLC there has been a constant weakness in local government in London. The various measures devised to bring together the 32 London boroughs and the Corporation of London simply do not represent a democratic way of providing local government for the capital of this country. It is right that following a change of government there should be a move not to bring back the GLC in its old
1128
form but to provide some strategic body that can represent the people of London and look after the overall interests of Londoners.
5.4 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, the noble Lord, in a very interesting speech, bemoaned, as did other speakers, what he sees as the diminished power of local government. I agree with him. I also agree with my noble friend Lord Beloff in his remark that had we been able to implement the poll tax, albeit in a much more flexible form than that in which it came before Parliament, local government now would have a lot more power than it has and would probably he raising more than 50 per cent. of what it spends. But that is history.
I read the report with very great interest. It is a masterly report. It contains a number of ideas that are new, at any rate to me. I was not a member of the committee. I wish to confine myself to two limited points, both as they might affect Scotland in particular. The first concerns the report's evidence and recommendation on the capping of local government expenditure. The second relates to what is proposed for competitive tendering.
On capping, the Select Committee concludes that a council's spending should no longer be capped by central government unless a council's budget is clearly unreasonable. It recommends that whether a budget is reasonable should be determined by a Select Committee of Parliament, which would receive recommendations from the relevant Secretary of State backed by means of a statutory instrument. The noble Lord, Lord Williams, who is presently not in his place, indicated that the Labour Party liked that idea.
The question arises as to what would happen in Scotland should Mr. Blair win the general election and implement his plans for a Scottish parliament. That parliament, out of a block grant from Westminster together with any amount raised in Scotland as additional income tax on the Scots—the so-called tartan tax—would be entirely responsible for allocating central funding to 32 Scottish local authorities as well as for legislating for local government.
Would it be appropriate for a Westminster committee to consider the Secretary of State for Scotland's recommendation on what are reasonable budgets for Scottish local authorities? I think not. In any case, the idea seems to be that there would no longer be a Secretary of State for Scotland to do any recommending at Westminster. I take it therefore that in Scotland the committee that would do the recommending would be a committee of the Scots parliament to the Scots parliament. I suppose that that parliament would then act by means of a Scots form of statutory instrument, if it had one. However, I wonder how easily the members of a Scots parliament and its committee would accept that the council had budgeted unreasonably. One must remember that they would not have determined the overall block grant in the first place.
We heard from the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, at the outset of the debate that in contrast to the Government the Labour Party would probably

1129
implement this proposal. I wonder whether the noble Baroness, in winding up, might be able to tell us whether the Labour Party considers that it would work in Scotland—whether the mechanics would work in relation to a Scots parliament, and whether the politics would work. It could be an important point. As local government and its funding would be a major part of the work of a Scots parliament, it would doubtless have to be catered for in any devolution Bill.
My other points relate to competitive tendering, which has hardly been mentioned so far in the debate, and whether it should continue to be compulsory. The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, like the local authority associations south of the Border, in its brief to noble Lords indicated that it believes it should be voluntary. The Scottish National Party said, in evidence to the committee, that compulsory competitive tendering is:
"a prime example of inappropriate central government policy applied to local Authorities".
It also said that it had had,
"disastrous consequences on local Communities and local Authorities".
The Select Committee's report takes the view that competitive tendering has brought about major changes of management style and approach which have been good, but it also expressed the view that they would not have come about without some compulsion and that if compulsion were to end there would need to be an alternative. I agree with that. I would add that in Scotland the alternative would need to be a pretty strong one, at least if the part of the country where I live is anything to go by. When Tayside Regional Council was set up in 1974 under Conservative control, we used competitive tendering in many areas of our activities from the outset. We did it partly to aid cost effectiveness, but also to invigorate the local economy. In Dundee, which was part of our area, the private sector had withered on the vine because traditionally it stood little chance of contracts in the midst of such an enormous public sector.
We councillors took a lot of care in designing our system and in appointing a really able official of great integrity to operate it. The system worked extremely well. But when, 12 years later, a Labour council took over, supported by the Scottish National Party, there was little enthusiasm. As a Conservative central Government began to take a grip, efforts were increasingly made in Tayside to undermine the system.
Also, private sector competition does not seem to be viewed with great favour in the three all-purpose councils that have succeeded the Tayside Regional Council. A team recently appointed by the Secretary of State for Scotland to investigate residential care for the elderly has found that all three of the new authorities are paying more for accommodation in publicly run homes than they would in the local private sector. In the Scottish National Party-run Angus and Perth and Kinross councils, council homes for the elderly cost £200 and £150 a week more respectively. In Labour-run Dundee, it is £100 a week
1130
more. What is more, the added costs, says the inquiry team, are not leading to better quality care. That attitude does not bode well for the formal system of competitive tendering which we are discussing in this debate. In Tayside and, I believe, throughout much of Scotland, should tendering no longer be compulsory, there must be a very strong alternative indeed.
I add just one final point. To work, a competitive tendering system must clearly have the confidence of both business and the public. Councillors need to confine their role to agreeing a good system, choosing the official to operate it and making the final decisions on the official's recommendation according to predetermined criteria.
In my view, for councillors to allow themselves to be beholden in any way to potential tenderers for contracts would compromise the integrity of a council's system from the start. I profoundly disagree with Mr. Ashdown when he said that there was nothing wrong in inviting potential tenderers to contribute to party funds so as to meet councillors at the Liberal Democrat Party conference in order to hear about business possibilities in local government, however general the discussion may have been. Councillors need to keep at arm's length the whole tendering procedure until they exercise their statutory responsibility of deciding which tender to accept. I dare say that it is not only in Scotland that the framework for competitive tendering must be both clear and strong.
Lord Hunt of Tanworth: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, on her first point perhaps I may draw her attention to paragraph 1.7 of our report. It states that we specifically did not consider the effect which our recommendations would have if there were a Scottish parliament and devolution. We could not do so. In a sense, it was outside our terms of reference, but unless one knew what the powers of that parliament were to be in relation to finance, one could not consider it.
The noble Baroness raised an important subject and the essential point that we were trying to get over is that if you abolish capping and have a reserve power to cap, which we felt was necessary, it should not be exercised at the whim of the Secretary of State thinking that it would be a nice thing to do in the case of a particular council. It should only be exercised after debate and approval in the appropriate parliamentary assembly.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for pointing that out. I appreciate that the committee decided not to take account of the possibility of a Scots parliament and I understood why. Nevertheless, the noble Lord, Lord Williams, having said that he was very much in favour of that approach, would have to accept the point which perhaps the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, will take on board when she replies; namely, that some arrangement would have to be made for the Scots parliament. There are problems in making such a move in the circumstances of that parliament. That was my point.
5.16 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, as a member of the Select Committee I too wish to begin by giving my thanks for the manner in which the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Tanworth, guided our deliberations with his outstanding skills as a former Secretary to the Cabinet. I also wish to thank our chairman for the clear way in which he presented the report's main recommendations to the House today. I am very pleased that the local government associations are greatly heartened that the report attaches vital importance to local government and its democratic legitimacy. I believe that that is one of the basic principles of the report.
I note that in their response the Government call in aid the well-established principle that local authorities are statutory bodies created by Acts of Parliament and hence are unable to act unless given specific statutory authority to do so. Of course, Parliament, in the end, is supreme. Parliament giveth and Parliament taketh away. Yet the local authorities have invoked the equally well-established principle that a local authority is itself more than the sum of its statutory functions. It has itself a distinctive role to play as trustee serving its community. I am gratified that the Government acknowledge that wider principle in at least two lines of the report.
Surely the proper relationship of central and local government must be based upon a common understanding which pays regard to the two principles which I have attempted to describe, both the restrictive and the positive. Indeed, unless that common understanding is there, it seems to me that we have a recipe for trouble.
To some degree, the relationship has always been adapting and changing. Yet, as Professor George Jones of the London School of Economics and a member of the National Consumer Council put it in his evidence to the committee:
"something very serious happened in the 1980s".
For their part the Government recognise, in paragraph 8 of their response, that the traditional central and local government relationship, in their words, "broke down in the 1980s". As our chairman indicated, it was not for the committee to attribute blame.
The legislation of the 1980s left a legacy which has soured the central and local government relationship. There is also something else. Many councillors and council officials who gave evidence to the committee felt that they had been treated by too many Ministers as outsiders, constantly under unfair attack, while those same Ministers were never short of praise for the quangos, many of which now provide services formerly provided by local government and which are in the hands of unelected members appointed by Ministers. I have seen no evidence in the report that that criticism has been taken on board by the Government.
But, in fairness, the Government agree that the present state of relations must be improved. So where do we go? As the House has repeatedly been reminded, our report takes as its title Rebuilding Trust. Mutual trust is essential. How can it be rebuilt? For my part, I share the view, expressed by many of our witnesses, that we
1132
have to go back to the principle that local government is a cornerstone of what has been called "a viable system of local democracy." That principle is well illuminated in the evidence of Mr. Vernon Bogdanor, Reader in Government at Oxford University, and Mr. Simon Jenkins, chairman of the Commission on Local Democracy, in particular.
As we heard from our chairman, the committee fully agrees that there is not one single answer to the problem. There is not one single answer because the problems are far too deep-seated for that. There is a need for a package of significant measures. Those measures can be said to fall within three broad categories: first, the symbolic changes to recognise that local government has an assured place in the governance of this country; secondly, the strengthening of local government's position in its relationship with central government; and thirdly, the strengthening of local government's position in financial matters.
Time permits me to touch only briefly on some of our main recommendations and the Government's response thereto. We urge the Government to sign the Council of Europe's charter of local self government as an expression of a commitment to local government. Many witnesses pressed for that. They believed that signing the charter would send a clear signal to the local authorities that the Government wish to establish a new chapter in its relationship with them. Alas, the Government do not agree that it would be "a worthwhile step". Of course, I do not deny that there are difficulties for this Government in going down a path which is signposted to Europe. It is therefore gratifying that the Government say they support the principles of the charter and that these will be reflected in the new concordat between central and local government. That compromise is welcome. I hope that the preparation of the new agreement is given great priority in Whitehall.
The committee considered that there is a very good case for setting up a permanent committee of Parliament—not necessarily of your Lordships' House—to keep central and local relations under review. It would have the wide-ranging remit touched on by our chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Tanworth, in his opening speech. That recommendation is supported by the evidence of Professor John Stewart and Professor George Jones and by the local authority associations.
I am saddened that, contrary to our hopes, the Government have not fully supported the proposal, although they have come part of the way. They have relied on the view which the committee chaired by the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, took of it in 1991. I re-read the debate held on 3rd June 1992 on the Jellicoe report. The climate has changed since 1992, and we now have the analysis of the Select Committee. I, for my part, am not satisfied that the arguments then advanced against it remain valid today. I find it difficult to believe that a permanent committee of Parliament with the wide-ranging remit described in the report would merely duplicate the work of the existing departmental Select Committees. We are entitled to ask whether those committees are producing the rewards which the proposed permanent committee could achieve.

1133
The Government have suggested the possibility of another ad hoc Select Committee in about five years' time. That would be a step in the right direction. Nevertheless, I suggest that an ad hoc Select Committee would not be so informative and so effective as a permanent forum operating within the remit that the committee suggested. I hope that in due course the House will pursue the proposal.
Again and again we heard that the local authorities are seeking a more active role as community leaders serving their communities. That implies that they should have freedom to supplement statutory services in accordance with local needs and aspirations and to raise money for that purpose. The committee believes that that role could be partly achieved by a new statutory power of local competence, although it would be legitimate for safeguards to be written into the proposed new power. I am glad that the Government accept the spirit of that recommendation and propose a review of existing Section 137.
The review is welcome. But we find that it is the Government's intention that a power under an amended Section 137 is not to be exercised in a way which will increase total spending of the local authorities. The committee (in paragraph 6.27) found that Treasury argument unconvincing. Surely it is for local electors, to whom the councils are accountable, to determine whether the additional expenditure is acceptable or unreasonable. So I fear that at the end of the promised review the Government will miss the opportunity to strengthen the role of the local authority as community leader.
I should like to mention briefly compulsory competitive tendering, which, as we say in the report, is a clear example of central regulation of local government. The committee recommended a review of whether CCT should now become voluntary and in any case less prescriptive. It is a pity that the Government seem to have set their face against that recommendation. But that is another reform which could be a symbol of greater trust and confidence on the part of the Government in the local authority's ability to serve its community.
We have indicated that action is also required on the part of local authorities to promote local government. We have heard of the low level of public interest in local government generally and low participation in local elections. Those must be matters of concern. It is important that local government leaders in England, Wales and Scotland should get to grips with the issue. I note in their supplementary written evidence that the local authority associations accept that they too must be ready to make a fresh start.
In conclusion, I hope that the publication of the report and the Government's response mark the opening of a new and constructive debate about the role of local government in the future. It is time for all concerned to realise that unless we move forward along the lines suggested in the report there is a danger that local government could wither away. Would that matter? I think it would. I believe, notwithstanding the
1134
increased mobility mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, that strong local government in partnership with their communities is important to the health of local communities and democracy.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, I appreciate that it is inevitable that a Motion to consider a Select Committee report will inevitably lead to a certain amount of repetition. But I make no apology for starting my remarks by joining with others in paying tribute to our chairman. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Tanworth, chaired our committee with total acceptability. His guidance when we were deliberating was profound; his tolerance when we were taking evidence was equally impressive and I am sure that we are all delighted to have served on a committee under his leadership.
I should like also—briefly because it has already been elaborated upon—to say thank you to both our professional advisers and also to our clerk, Mr. Simon Burton, whose tireless work was much appreciated by everybody.
I have to admit that I was less than enthusiastic in relation to one or two of our recommendations. But if a Select Committee is to produce a unanimous report, everyone has to make concessions. In the end we were able to produce a report which, at any rate I feel, is worthwhile and forms a basis for improved relations between central and local government. I trust that it will not be cast aside to gather dust, but will be used as something which may sow seeds among those who read it which will grow into fresh developments. Indeed, my only worry about the report is the warmth of the response to it from the other side of the House. I always feel a little apprehensive when I have been involved in something which receives as much praise from our natural opponents as the report has done.
Probably the most satisfying aspect so far is that it has been given a positive welcome both by the Government and by local authority associations. Both sides seem prepared to try to work positively to come at least some of the way towards the other's point of view. The tone of the Government's response is optimistic and the briefing paper from the local authority associations for today's debate carries a different tone from much of the evidence we heard earlier this year. That is good and augurs well for the future. Indeed, the Government go so far as to suggest that their responses form a package of proposals which can open a new chapter in their relations with local government.
I am glad that the Government were able to accept a good many of our recommendations in principle, if not to the letter. It is rather like a Minister at the Committee stage of a Bill who accepts an amendment in principle but does not like the drafting. We now look forward to the Government's implementation of the good will which they have shown in accepting a great deal of what we suggested.
However, we should not forget why we are where we are. The main reason is the abuse of the old conventions which existed between national and local government—abuse by only a minority of councils. That gradually

1135
resulted in the introduction of measures to ensure that local authorities kept within their budgets. If those are to be relaxed, there must be a positive indication that local authorities will co-operate and put behind them some of the blemishes they attracted in the past.
I was interested in what my noble friend Lord Beloff had to say about the poll tax because I happen to agree with him. In principle, it was probably the answer. I still believe that had my party in another place been prepared to accept an amendment around two-thirds of the way through the discussions in Committee which would have taken into account ability to pay, that may well have gone through. I agree with my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour that it might have made a considerable change to the whole of local government as we know it today.
Certainly the Government's responses are positive on many of the recommendations. For example, the recommendation for existing guidelines to be expanded is virtually met; the power of local competence is accepted in spirit; experimentation with new forms of internal management and alternative electoral systems is accepted; and the Government agree that they will examine our recommendation that Whitehall arrangements be changed. It is only when we come to the financial aspects that the Government do not go along with much of what we want. I suppose one must admit that it is relatively easy to accept proposals from the Opposition Benches; it is relatively easy to accept them from our Back Benches, but when one has to implement them and make them work it is a totally different matter.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, gave us one of his interesting addresses this afternoon. But I noticed that he carefully avoided the question of capping. He did not deal with that in any serious way at all. I am not surprised. During our deliberations we received, among other documents, a paper from the Scottish Local Authorities Management Centre at the University of Strathclyde. It was interesting in as much as it was as critical of the Labour Party as it was of the Conservative Party. When we are dealing with the question of capping it is interesting to read what the document says at page 9:
"It is alarming that the Labour Party in its published consultation proposals seems to accord the same priority to expenditure control as the present government in order for Ministers to discharge their macro economic responsibilities a 'reserve power' of capping will be retained".
The report goes on to be rather scathing about that position. I merely wanted to point out that those who think that a change of government will lead to a loosening of the reins in relation to expenditure are barking up the wrong tree. It seems to me from everything said by Mr. Gordon Brown and other Front Bench spokesmen that a future Labour Government would treat local government in regard to expenditure in not too different a fashion from the way it has been treated over the past 17 years. We must not forget that local government brought most of those measures upon itself. No government could sit back and allow local government to defy government policy in relation to local government expenditure and not do something about it. That is precisely why the present Government
1136
took the necessary steps and I believe that those steps would be enforced just as rigidly by a new Labour Government, if we ever have one.
The evidence we received was not particularly inspiring. However, I would not criticise those who came to give us evidence. I say it was not particularly inspiring because it said very little new. It did not feed us with any number of ideas that we could turn over and think about. It was very much along the old lines: much criticism of the present system and much criticism of the present Government, but no exciting alternatives. However, I do not criticise those people. I merely state fact. I do perhaps criticise ourselves as a Select Committee. Perhaps we were not exciting enough; perhaps we were not radical enough; perhaps we were not able to give the intellectual spark to produce a report to which both government and local authorities could immediately have responded, "Here they are. They have hit the nail on the head. This is exactly what is needed". I feel sorry that we did not rise to the challenge placed before us.
I have already indicated how highly we all thought of our chairman. However, it does not really matter how good a chairman is. If the ideas are not forthcoming from the members, there is not a great deal he can do about it. I hope that, if a future ad hoc committee is set up in five years' time, perhaps our successors will be able to give that intellectual spark and to create something which can be universally accepted. I strongly support the chairman in the Motion he has put before the House.
5.40 p.m.
Baroness David: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Gray of Contin, is so suspicious about the attitude of the Opposition. I should have thought that, as a member of the committee, he would have been rather pleased to have had a generous and, I think, sensible approach from this side. I am also rather surprised that he does not seem more enthusiastic about his own committee's report when everyone else has praised it; and I am going to do the same.
I should like to thank the chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Tanworth, most warmly for a very good and clear report which I have thoroughly enjoyed reading. The report has come at a very opportune moment, when the local government associations are to amalgamate and when central government seem to be a little more flexible and willing to listen than they were. As both the report and the White Paper recognise, this will offer an important opportunity to take advantage of the new climate and to re-fashion a positive working relationship between central and local government. I also congratulate the noble Lord on achieving a unanimous report. That was a great achievement when one considers the membership of the committee. I believe that a unanimous report will have much more effect in Parliament.
I should perhaps declare my interest. I have been a councillor in Cambridgeshire and I am presently a vice-president of the ACC and the AMA. Last week

1137
I was at the last ACC conference in Eastbourne, which was presided over by Sir Frank Layfield, who told me how much he appreciated the report.
It begins by stressing the importance of deciding whether local government was,
"primarily a means of administering a national service at a local level or a means by which local people democratically make their own choices about local services".
The committee came down strongly for the latter. Local government is democratic, as quangos and appointed bodies are not. Layfield is quoted:
"Local government has a value in its own right in promoting democracy; it acts as a counterweight to the uniformity inherent in government decisions".
Democratic accountability has not been respected by this Government.
What is disappointing is that the Government are not willing to sign the Council of Europe's charter of self-government, as many others have said, which would have been, as the report says, an obvious first step in signalling the value of local government in the UK. This refusal seems illogical, since the DoE accepts that the UK system of local government powers conforms to the charter. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, himself said that. One can only suspect that there are party political reasons for this refusal. The Labour Party has said that it will sign up to the charter. But the White Paper does state that the Government intend to agree, with the new local government associations and the Welsh AGA, a statement covering the same ground as the charter and setting out the role and status of local government in England and Wales, and that this would be included in any expanded guidelines. I suppose we should be grateful for that, but it does seem to be rather odd logic.
The guidelines are to be developed into a more formal concordat. That is satisfactory. What strikes me on reading the guidelines is that they are admirable and, if followed, would be a real help to local government. But has there really been informal discussion with the associations at the early stages of developing policy affecting the role, functions, organisation, financing and operating of local government and its services? I suspect that the consultation promised has been minimal and that the period in which to respond to the proposals has been much too short.
The recommendation for there to be a permanent parliamentary committee to maintain an overview of central/local government relations is something about which I confess I have some doubts. The White Paper rejects it, drawing attention to the existing departmental committees in the Commons which, interestingly, it says the Government,
"intends should in future have more opportunities to scrutinise legislative proposals, including those affecting local government".
I hope that really happens. The more early scrutiny, the better. If Ministers could be questioned after even a Second Reading debate on a new Bill, and would then pay attention to what emerged from that session, a great deal of parliamentary time could be saved and a better Bill produced. A similar committee to the one chaired
1138
by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, should be set up in the course of the next three or four years to monitor developments.
A very legitimate concern of the committee is the lack of interest in local elections shown by the low percentage of those voting. The White Paper does propose that the LGA and the Welsh LGA should join government in analysing current difficulties, with public participation. Power to experiment with different internal managements and different voting structures and patterns should be given. The Government have given an undertaking to legislate in this area.
If local government is allowed to innovate, to experiment, to pay a lot of attention to its community role, and if the wide general power which would help to support that community role is conceded by the Government, I believe that it will encourage people to be more interested in what is going on locally. With very reduced powers, it is not altogether surprising that there has been, I am afraid, a greater lack of interest in local elections.
Local government has been very innovative in the past. Chief officers have had ideas—and good ideas—and I was very glad to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, said about the good quality of the officers who gave evidence. I speak from my own experience of Cambridgeshire where our most famous chief education officer, Henry Morris, invented the village college, providing education, services and care to people of all ages in its area. From the village college grew the community school and the community college. Although the idea of local management of schools—LMS—had been talked of, Cambridgeshire was the first to put it into practice. That was in my time in the late 1970s. We were also among the first councils to have truly representative governing bodies, adding parents and teachers and independent people to the councillors. So much can be done with good will.
I want to say a word about secondment. The report recommended an expansion of existing programmes. The Government appear to agree and congratulate themselves on what has already been done. I would suggest that 70 exchanges in three years was not very much when you consider the number of senior officers there are in all our councils. I do not know whether the fact that the social services have a positive and creative relationship with the Department of Health was because of secondments or on some personal basis. But Mr. John Ransford, secretary of the Association of Directors of Social Services, said that positive relationships were enjoyed with both Ministers and officials.
There had been an enormous amount of round table work on the Children Act and as one who took an active part when that Bill was going through this House, that certainly showed in the legislation. It was very enjoyable working on that Bill. The noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, was perhaps a benign influence on all of us, but everyone was concerned to get the best Bill possible.
Contrast that with the atmosphere when education Bills were going through the House. The Society of Education Officers, in evidence to the committee, said

1139
that relations were very poor and that there was a gap in terms of policy making and a lack of real partnership on major educational issues. Surely, if there had been more secondments, relations and understanding would have been improved. I was sorry to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, said about civil servants, if they are as had as he made out. I believe that there probably has been a deterioration in the quality of civil servants, but I had hoped that the secondments would work and that there would be good enough people to come to local government and to learn how it works. However, I believe that relations are, as far as the education officers are concerned, a bit better than they were.
It is typical that it is only in the section on finance that the Government disagree profoundly with the committee. That is very disappointing to me. It takes away from the value of the Government's response, which started by being pretty emollient and good. They seemed to agree with a lot that the committee recommended. But to turn down the recommendations on capping, SSAs, CCTs and the non-domestic rates seems to me to be profoundly disappointing. The trust that it is hoped to rebuild will not be encouraged by that.
I must end by saying that as a true believer in local government and as one who regrets very much the diminished role and loss of powers it has suffered in the past 16 years, I am immensely grateful for this report and its hopeful title, Rebuilding Trust. It will take time to rebuild that trust, but a start has been made and I hope that it heralds a happier time ahead for the relationship between central and local government.
I am pleased that many of the recommendations in the report are already Labour Party policy. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Gray of Contin, will enjoy that. I recommend to those noble Lords who are interested in this subject that they read the Labour Party document Recovering Democracy, Rebuilding Communities. I believe that they might find that quite informative and helpful.
5.53 p.m.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, perhaps I may add my congratulations to those of other noble Lords to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Tanworth, and his committee for providing us with the report that forms the basis of today's debate. The report has many virtues—it is concise, it is clear and, at the risk of being misunderstood, it is politically correct.
I do not know whether in the course of the debate the noble Lord, Lord Gray of Contin, and the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, have been laying the ground for the Conservative Party's first manifesto for a Scottish parliament. If so, it would appear to have one policy—bring back the poll tax. I have to tell them that we shall be very happy to fight the election on that basis.
I was a member of my own council in Aberdeen from 1974 to 1984, and between 1982 and 1984 I served as president of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. Those were not happy days for local government, especially in Scotland where, to many of us, it seemed that we were being used almost continually
1140
as guinea pigs for policies and legislation. Once they had failed and been seen to fail in Scotland, they were then applied to England.
It was during those years that central government moved from influencing to actually controlling the level of local government spending. It was also the time when central government both exercised more detailed control over local government and also moved areas of activity outwith local government's sphere of influence. By the time I left local government it had lost control over local taxation and it had seen its powers further reduced.
But it had all started so differently. The Royal Commission report under the chairmanship of the late Lord Wheatley led to the fundamental change in the structure of local government brought about through the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973. The Wheatley report appeared to promise a new age for local government and perhaps for the first time argued the case for local government from first principles. Wheatley was about a system of local government in which local councils were strong enough and had sufficient capacity and capability to tackle in a co-ordinated and comprehensive way the problems confronting their communities. What Wheatley was attempting to establish was a strong local government system within which local authorities would be able to provide local solutions to local problems against a set of locally defined priorities. There was to be a decisive shift away from the idea of local administration to that of local government, or what is now called local governance. Local councils, while remaining creatures of statute, were to be something much more than the passive administrative agents of central government.
Wheatley wrote about the need even then to bring about a fundamental shift in the balance of power from central to local government. Those were brave days, but things turned out, sadly, rather differently. Now, some 30 years on, the Wheatley Report is still worth reading. It is interesting and fascinating how so many of the same issues and concerns that appear in the Wheatley Report resurface in our own Select Committee's report and in the debate today.
If we are to discuss the relationship between central and local government, we have to ask some pretty fundamental questions about the nature of our political system and the distribution of power within it. Essentially, the case for a strong system of local government rests not so much on issues of service delivery, important as they are, but on local government's contribution as a key building block in the structure of a democratic, pluralist political system. Pluralism is a difficult concept to define, yet in essence it is about the diffusion of power within the political system and especially to those intermediate institutions in society that stand between the individual and the state. A society that enjoys a richness of strong, vigorous and autonomous intermediate institutions enjoys the best defence against both totalitarianism and authoritarianism. Indeed—and this is one of the ironies of the past 20 years—the party opposite has historically been sensitive to such propositions and has traditionally been suspicious of centralised power. Of course, from time to time there is a need for reform, but over the past

1141
20 years or so those institutions that act as a check on the power of the state have not so much been reformed, they have been enfeebled.
The report draws our attention to the idea of local governance as a possible way forward for local government. I believe that such an approach has a lot to offer. It is a model which sees local government, because of its democratic authority and legitimacy, acting as the local community leader. It provides the means by which local problems and challenges are not only identified but are challenged by bringing together the local interests and agencies drawn from the public, private and voluntary sectors. They are all given focus and direction. But one of the major costs of the rise of the quango and of the enfeeblement of local government has been fragmentation at the local level: the mushrooming of different, largely unaccountable organisations with often differing and conflicting agendas. In the future I believe that local government is going to be required to play a local strategic leadership role, bringing together and helping to focus the work of all those organisations that both affect and have a stake in the future of their communities. If not, I do not see how such diverse problems as urban regeneration on the one hand and rural depopulation on the other can be tackled effectively.
However, for such an approach to succeed, it would be necessary for central government to rethink its relationship with local government. I do not think that the conventional partnership model has ever been wholly adequate or accurate to describe the relationship between local and central government. There have always been too many contested areas. There have always been too many areas where objectives and outcomes have not been shared. In recent years the response of central government to those tensions has been brutal in its clarity. Central government dominates and says, "We'll abolish you if you disagree".
What I am asking for and what I think is necessary if we are to make progress towards the idea of local governance is a move away from central dominance, but we should not replace that with a system of city states. We need a system in which central government's relationship with local government is marked by the toleration of difference. That is essential. It must be recognised that in a diverse society such as ours, with its richness of different local communities, those local communities will be tackling different problems and challenges. In such circumstances, the emergence of local priorities and local policy outcomes, which may differ from those of central government, should not be seen as a threat, but as the mark of a flourishing, plural, democratic society.
Of course, the toleration of difference will have to be exercised within boundaries and there are limits, but those limits should not be as closely drawn as they are today. I do not think that we would do well by trying to be too precise in defining the relationship between central and local government through statute. I am a strong supporter of the "I know what it is when I see it" school and do not place too much faith in the usefulness of abstract definitions.
1142
One of the key proposals in the report which I found attractive was that relating to the establishment of a parliamentary committee to oversee relations between central and local government. It is a pity that the Government have been less than lukewarm in their White Paper response to that proposal. Such a committee could undoubtedly exercise a much wider breadth of view than a more narrowly focused and perhaps more centrally oriented departmental Select Committee. One of the useful functions that could be exercised by a permanent parliamentary committee such as was advocated in the report would be to act as something of a whistle-blower and to draw attention to where either central or local government was pushing too hard at the boundaries, where local government was going beyond the limits of tolerable difference and where central government was seeking to impose too great a degree of central control and direction.
We have had the benefit of an excellent report which has produced an equally excellent debate. I hope that the Government will listen and reflect rather than pursue further a narrow, constraining and ultimately distorting agenda. In their White Paper the Government have started what should be a more positive process. For my part, I remain an advocate of strong local government operating within a local governance framework because I am convinced that not only will that provide the means by which local problems can best be confronted in an integrated, effective and comprehensive way, but because I believe that by going down that road we also strengthen and revitalise our democratic, pluralist political system—and that is a worthy and necessary objective.
6.4 p.m.
Lord Tope: My Lords, like others I start by paying a warm tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Tanworth. His Select Committee was the first of your Lordships' Select Committees on which I have had the privilege to serve and, as one who frequently has to chair committees in other places, I found it an extremely valuable learning experience to see the gentle but firm skill with which the noble Lord steered us. To the surprise of many of us, we managed to produce a unanimous report without too much difficulty. That is a considerable tribute to the noble Lord.
Those who have managed to reach Appendix 7 of the report will note that our interests are declared there. I have some considerable local government interests, but absolutely none in central government so my place on the two sides is clear.
We have had some discussion today about when local government's golden age might have been. Some noble Lords have said that it was in the 1960s. The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, suggested that it was some time before the Liberal Government of 1906. The noble Lord, Lord Beloff, told us that it was in the 17th century—except that local councillors were not elected then. I must admit that that has its attractions at times. However, whenever the golden age of local government occurred, it certainly has not been in the 22 years in which I have served in local government.

1143
Indeed, no sooner was I first elected than the then Secretary of State told me that the party was over—before I had even got there.
I am clearly on one side of this debate—and that is because I have a strong belief not only in local government, but in local democracy. There is a difference. As I am so strongly on one side of the debate and because all my experience comes from one side, I am also sometimes one of local government's strongest critics. That is why I wanted to start my remarks by saying that I recognise, as do many in local government, that local government itself or at least some parts of it—that is an important qualification—has played a part in the deterioration of the relationship between central and local government. For too long we have paid the price of the damage that was done by a minority of local authorities in the 1980s. I acknowledge that. Indeed, that fact was acknowledged in the first evidence that was given to the committee by local government politicians when Sir Jeremy Beecham acknowledged that it had been a mistake in the 1980s for some local authorities to believe that it was essential for them to have a policy on Nicaragua. That is right, but those days are past, and very few, if any, local authorities now take that view.
The report is important because it recognises, first, that there has been a deterioration in the relationship between central and local government and, secondly and most importantly, that there are things which must and can be done about it. As someone from local government, I have been pleased by the tone of this debate because without exception every speaker has led me to wonder whether there is a problem. When listening to the debate one would think that the importance and the strength of local government and local democracy were already fully recognised. I must agree with the noble Lord, Lord Gray of Contin—I suspect that this will surprise him because we have not always taken the same view of the evidence that we have heard—that the evidence that the committee received was long on the problems but rather short on the solutions. I accept that as a member of local authority associations I have some responsibility for that.
However, as I listened to the evidence I became increasingly convinced that the fundamental problem is the low esteem in which local government is held in this country. At the root of so many of the issues that we considered was not only the low esteem in which local government is held in general, but sometimes the low esteem in which local government holds itself. I was struck today when a noble Lord referred to local government as the training school for Parliament and for national government. Perhaps that is a statement of fact, because one of the things that I discovered during our deliberations was that 280 of our current Members of Parliament had at some time been local councillors. I suggest that one of the matters that is wrong with the relationship is that too many good quality local councillors see their only progression as being to Parliament.
1144
One of the strengths of the report is the unanimity of its recommendations. The most important recommendation which goes to the heart of the issue is that there should be a concordat between central and local government. That goes substantially further than the existing guidelines, which were themselves considerably watered down from what was initially proposed to central government. I should like to quote briefly that part of the report which specifies the nature of the concordat. I believe that in principle it goes significantly further than simply beefed-up guidelines, however desirable they may be. The report suggested that the concordat should cover the constitutional place of local government, the role of local government and the financial base for local government. It should place a requirement on central government to consult local government about any changes to that relationship. It should also include a commitment by central government to consult local government on policy proposals and legislation affecting matters for which local government has a responsibility, and—this is important—there should be a commitment by local government to respond within a certain period of time. I believe that that concordat goes to the heart of what is needed to address the problems of the relationship and the low esteem in which local government is now held in this country.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, in a sense provided a trailer for the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, who follows me in this debate, when he spoke about the Council of Europe Charter of Local Self-Government. I will not say very much about it because I know that the noble Baroness is an expert in such matters. However, one of the important features of that charter is symbolic rather than real. Nothing would change the day after it was signed. However, it would be a recognition by central government, of whichever party, of the importance of local government. Noble Lords have suggested today, and others have suggested elsewhere, that the Government's disinclination to sign the charter is primarily because it begins with the word "European" and that may cause difficulties with some members of their party. That may have been one of the considerations. I suspect that when the Minister replies to the debate he will not reveal that to us. Having read the charter, I wonder whether the real problem is that someone else in local government has also read it and realised that it is at least questionable whether the United Kingdom qualifies under the terms of the charter as having local self-government. I will not take time in pursuing what I believe to be an important point.
I turn to the Government's White Paper response. I am pleased that the local authority associations have given a qualified welcome to it. I believe that that is a right and positive response. We need to build upon whatever is there for us to build upon. Others have said that they are disappointed with the response. To be disappointed one must have expectations in the first place. The only expectation I had was that the Government might agree to sign the charter on local self-government because they would not accept anything else in the report. My expectation was that the Government would provide warm words on the attitudinal points—those which dealt

1145
more generally with the relationship—and there would be a specific "no" on the finance-related recommendations. I was not disappointed. My expectations were met in full, except for the European charter. We have received warm words from the Government about the relationship. I hope and want to believe that they are meant. I strongly support the intentions of the new Local Government Association to try to build upon those warm words and develop that relationship. But warm words must be backed by real actions. Words alone are not enough. At the same time as we have warm words on the White Paper we are faced with an Education Bill that results in further powers being taken away from local authorities. We also have the Secretary of State for Health attending a conference on social services and announcing that there is to be a White Paper which proposes to take away social services provision from local government. In parenthesis, it was remarkable that in taking the evidence the relationship between social services directors and the Department of Health appeared to be markedly better than anywhere else within the central/local government relationship. Therefore, even where it is good it is now to be damaged. These are issues that need to be raised and discussed, not announced at a conference and put into a White Paper in this way. It must be developed in the way that the suggested concordat will do.
If we are to rebuild trust, as the title of the report proposes, central government must learn to trust local government, and local government must feel that it is trusted. Nowhere is that more important than in the realms of finance. For that reason, although I am not surprised, I am saddened that the Government still do not recognise that. It is the fundamental right of a democratically elected local council to determine the needs of its community, the priorities to meet those needs, the level of tax required to pay for them, to balance them, and to be properly and democratically accountable locally for the decisions that it takes. If local government is to be trusted that is the real test of that trust. Until we get back to that stage it will not happen. The recommendations of the committee which other noble Lords have addressed well—the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, in his intervention, put the case extremely well on capping—go a long way to meeting that. I am sorry that they drew back just a little from positively recommending local income tax. I believe that that would go even further towards creating the kind of direct link that many noble Lords in this debate said was needed.
I touch briefly on the CCT arguments. I believe that this is also a key measure of trust between central and local government. I have never been in favour of compulsion. I do not like it. But I will concede that it is probable that in the first instance there would not have been so much progress—I use that word carefully—in competitive tendering had there not been an element of compulsion. However, the Government's proposals in that respect were not driven primarily by a desire to improve competition—something which I believe that most, though not all, local authorities now embrace—but by a desire to take services away from local government. All of the rules and regulations surrounding
1146
CCT were designed, not for a level playing field on which local authorities could genuinely test whether their service provision was competitive, but to ensure that wherever possible those services went to the private sector. I believe that it is a tribute to local authorities that so many of them have been able to retain their service provision and to do so competitively.
I say a brief word about the parliamentary committee. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, in his intervention made reference to that committee in the context of capping. The suggestion was that the parliamentary committee should oversee the relationship between central and local government. It may be just a drafting error, although I suspect that it is more significant, that in the summary of the White Paper the Government refer to it as a parliamentary committee to oversee local government matters. To oversee local government matters is substantially different from overseeing a relationship between central and local government. If the Minister can reassure me that that is only a drafting error and it is not what the Government mean, I will listen with care.
I turn finally to community leadership. The Select Committee has made some useful recommendations on the development of the role of local authorities as community leaders. I believe that to be a very important future role for local government. It is, and is likely to remain, the only local democratically elected body with proper accountability to its community and the ability to take an overview of the interests and needs of that community.
Reference has been made to the problem of low turn out; of voting on national issues—there is no time for me now to explore that. I have to say that when I avidly read any report I can about what is happening in local elections I find that they are invariably written by national political correspondents and speak only of their implications for national government. Rarely do they say much about local government.
We can say a great deal about how to improve the ability of people to go to vote in terms of a different day for elections, different electoral arrangements and so forth. Noble Lords might not be surprised to hear me say that by far the best way to increase turn out and accountability is to introduce proportional representation. I have always believed that local government is well suited to a system of proportional representation.
The committee recommended that local authorities should have an opportunity to experiment, including in relation to electoral arrangements. My noble friend Lady Hamwee from the London Borough of Richmond-upon-Thames, and I, as leader of the London Borough of Sutton, feel a certain discomfort over that. My party has 84 per cent. of the seats on my council with about 53 per cent. of the votes. In the London Borough of Richmond-upon-Thames it is slightly less than that. We do not defend that, but I am not sure that we wish to experiment with proportional representation until and unless the London Boroughs of Newham and Haringey agree to join in the experiment. Nevertheless, it is an important point which would do much to increase interest in local democracy.

1147
There is much talk about experimenting as regards the right and opportunity to be different. That is important. The right to experiment is important. I am sad that the Government are a little lukewarm about it, for all their fine words, which I support, about internal management. The right to experiment is one thing: for those experiments to take place we need also the climate to experiment. If local authorities are to be bold enough to undertake experiments—we must recognise that by their nature some experiments must fail, and we may learn more from a failed experiment rather than from one which is an assured success and therefore not truly an experiment—they must know that if those experiments fail, or are perceived to fail, they will not be descended upon from a great height by Ministers, or big wigs from their own party; they are not going to be pilloried in the media. In other words, we need to have a climate in which well thought out experimentation—not reckless experimentation—is a good thing when encouraged positively. It is the kind of climate about which my friend Lady Hamwee was talking in the free communes in the Scandinavian countries.
To conclude, the report is entitled Rebuilding Trust. We need to return to that. If we are to rebuild trust, central government must trust local government and local government must reflect that trust by behaving responsibly and by playing a positive part in the central and local government partnership in the way that the concordat suggested in the report envisages.
The health of our democracy depends upon the strength of its roots, and its roots lie in local democracy. The report makes some major proposals towards achieving that. I was privileged to have served on that committee. I support the report most strongly.
6.24 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I, too, compliment and thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Tanworth, and all the members of his committee. It is an excellent report. At the end of the debate, it is even more remarkable to note that the report was agreed unanimously.
I wish to declare an interest as a serving county councillor and a member of the Association of County Councils, which is due to be replaced next April by the new Local Government Association. That is a welcome development for local government.
This has been a good and important debate. The issue is crucial because we need to live in a healthy democracy. That must include democratic subsidiarity and strong local government with a capacity to respond to local circumstances. My noble friend Lord Prys-Davies stressed the need for an understanding of the local community initiative and diverse issues such as economic development initiatives—pilot schemes and innovation. They all enrich the quality of life of the citizens of the UK with the provision of specific services through local government.
I shall refer to three issues raised in the report and during the debate. The first is the European charter; the second is the need for partnership; and the third is the vexed issue of finance, especially SSAs. The report
1148
rightly recommends that the UK should adopt the Council of Europe's charter for local self-government. I have a special interest in the charter because, as a member of the Standing Conference of Local and Regional Authorities of the Council of Europe, I was present and voted for the adoption of the charter. We sought support and understanding from colleagues in other countries as the UK Government insisted on watering down the proposals in the charter and, having achieved that, sadly refused to sign it.
DoE witnesses to the committee confirmed that the UK should have no problem in signing the charter. Despite that, the Government still refuse to do so. Presumably they will also oppose the acceptance of the charter within the revision of the treaty as requested by the Committee of the Regions. I declare an interest as a member of the Committee of the Regions. With the noble Lord, Lord Tope, and other Members of your Lordships' House, our CoR membership has convinced us of the need for the treaty to be revised within the EU in line with the charter which applies to the Council of Europe to ensure that European citizens both in the wider Council of Europe Europe and, in this case, in the EU have a greater say through genuine democratic subsidiarity which should begin in our cities, towns and rural communities where decisions can best be made at local level through full, universal, democratic choice.
Many people within the UK have for a long time been critical of Brussels. Perhaps they were unaware of the degree of centralisation of their own country until services affecting them and their families showed them the danger of the centralised state in which they live. The UK would be in an even stronger position in the process of working to encourage the development and strengthening of pluralist democratic societies, structure and stability in the countries of central and eastern Europe were we to be signatories to the charter. It is a sad irony that on many occasions the pressure on countries seeking membership of the Council of Europe to sign the charter has been applied even by representatives of our Government, notwithstanding their refusal to sign the charter.
During the debate there has been welcome stress on the report's recommendations with regard to the value of partnership. It is impossible to comment upon the wide range of issues raised in that area. However, the need to unlock the potential at local level, to respond to many of our economic, social and environmental problems, has been stressed by the report and by contributions today. We hope that the Government's agreement to review the scope of Section 137 funding will enable even greater initiative at local level. My noble friend Lord Borrie referred to the sort of development that has taken place in my own county of Lancashire through Lancashire Enterprises. There is a long list of authorities, Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat controlled, which have pioneered the way in that field of economic development.
I wish to refer to the vexed issue of local government finance. The report recommends the return of the non-domestic rate to local government and a reversal to the use of capping as a reserve power only where an authority has clearly set an unreasonable budget.

1149
There has been much dishonesty in the relationship between central and local government in many fields but nowhere greater than in the field of local government finance. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Platt of Writtle, who welcomed the shift towards council tax for the raising of revenue at local level. But my doubts, fears and concerns are strengthened by bitter experience over my many years, since 1973, in local government. It will be said by many Members of Parliament, and in the presence of many Members of Parliament both here and, more importantly, in the other place, that the result of government policy will be an inevitable increase in council tax bills with no improvement in service, an approximate increase in taxation of 5 per cent. being needed to raise every 1 per cent. of additional expenditure and to make up the shortfall. When that happens, sadly, there are those who lack political integrity who will return to their constituencies and make a party political point that those parties in government at local level are scurrilously raising taxation without any necessity to do so. That is the tragedy.
The second tragedy of local government finance during my time in local government since 1973 has been the development of the standard spending assessment. It is necessary for any government to develop and establish a system for the distribution of grant from central government funds to local government. SSAs are inevitably crude. Perhaps I may give a few examples to demonstrate that crudity. SSAs are broken into components by service area. The SSA for the fire service changed dramatically during the time the Minister was at the Home Office because of a change in the calculation of the formula concerning the Isle of Wight and whether an island authority could reasonably be expected to call on fire brigades from adjacent fire authorities at the time of an emergency. It is clearly a nonsense to suggest that a fire engine can drive across the Solent to tackle a fire. But the vagaries of changing the system made quite a marked difference because the calculation then became based on length of coastline. That took funds away from many fire authorities and gave them to another.
I understand that London, which is not an area on which I am an expert, has an SSA system which calculates degrees of social need, financial poverty and hardship. I understand that the system assumes that something in the order of 12 per cent. of all those living in the City of Westminster are considered to be in the category of social deprivation. There is also an assessment about the need to have regard to the number of visitors which an authority has. The result of those two calculations leads to a system of SSAs which places approximately 12 per cent. of visitors staying in the Savoy or the Ritz in the band of social poverty and need. It is unlikely that the City of Westminster is putting people who are homeless in the Ritz or the Savoy.
I make those points as serious points because any system or formula is bound to have a degree of crudity when it is worked out in Whitehall. I do not sneer at Ministers unless I believe that they are deliberately manipulating the system. But it is wrong, tragic and
1150
bad—bad for government, bad for local people and bad for local democracy—as the report says, for it to become a rigid measure of controlling the amount which is to be spent at local level.
It is important to protect and improve minimum standards for people. Noble Lords have referred to that. It is important that we recognise that government will always have a role to play. But when government cynically increase teachers' pay with end loading and when they say cynically that the grant will not increase but that the authority's ability to spend will increase and when those same government Ministers claim that that is an example of profligacy in local government, then we see the system being undermined.
It is critically important that we look forward. It is critically important that we do not engage in, and embark upon, a further war of attrition. I lived through the war of attrition in the early 1980s when I would say that it was six of one and half a dozen of the other. There were bad authorities. But there were government Ministers who demanded of local government that there should be no cuts in services, no rate increases and no rent increases.
The noble Lord, Lord Beloff, referred to the importance of the calibre of people who are local government officers. Personally, I have found the same high calibre among the civil servants with whom it has been my pleasure to work from local government. There is one deep difference. It is that officers at local level have to stand in public meetings night after night and answer detailed questions from the public as to what they are doing and what their political government is doing. They must face that. Therefore, I do not think that it is a difference of quality; it is the importance of changing the service.
The charter needs to be signed. It is important for us to go ahead. CCT is important and has achieved savings. But from these Benches we would argue with the noble Baronesses, Lady Platt of Writtle and Lady Carnegy of Lour, that it would have been better for the people working in those services had they as individuals been protected by a national minimum wage so that the savings were not made by cutting the pay levels of the poorest in the community.
From these Benches, I repeat the commitment made by my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel. We believe that this country must sign the charter. There is a need for a clear statement of the powers and duties of local government. We believe in a pluralist local system, as described so well by my noble friend Lord Sewel. We believe in a reduction in the dependence on central government grants; decisions made should be more transparent. We look forward to rebuilding trust; we believe that the report paves the way to achieving that worthy and important objective.
6.40 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, we have had an interesting debate and the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Tanworth, for having introduced today's debate and for giving your Lordships

1151
the opportunity to discuss one of the most important factors of a democracy—the relationship between central and local government. Noble Lords have also expressed appreciation for the masterly way in which I understand the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Tanworth, chaired the Select Committee. Indeed, a substantial tribute has been paid by those speakers this afternoon who served on the committee.
The committee deliberated for some nine months and produced a valuable report in a short time on a system of local government which has developed over many decades.
The Government welcome the Select Committee's examination of this subject and see the report as an important contribution to the debate about the nature of local governance in Great Britain. In turn, I was pleased that my noble friend Lord Gray of Contin was glad that the Government have gone as far as they have.
The development of good relations between central and local government is something which has to continue over time. The Select Committee's report, and the Government's response to it, should not be regarded as the end of a story—or, indeed, the beginning of one. It is merely a step on the road—a most important one—in the continuing development of what is, after all, a living constitution.
Local democracy is an essential element in the constitution of any democratic state. It is one of the hallmarks of a free society—along with the respect for human rights, the rule of law and a freely elected government. But just as there is no one universal model of a free society, there is also no one blueprint for local democracy.
Here in the United Kingdom, our local democracy is the product of our own traditions and of our unique constitutional experience. We have a constitution which continues to develop; therein lies its strength.
Today our local democracy provides democratically elected local authorities which provide the leadership of local communities; which have important roles in overseeing the implementation of various regulations; and which have a major part to play in providing, or arranging, different services to the locality.
Local government is also involved in carrying out the national priorities for the economy and in ensuring that certain minimum national standards exist—such as, for example, in education. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady "T. Dan" Hamwee, as she likes to call herself, that it is important to encourage people—and the right people—to go into local government. Of course, that does mean that a certain element of pro bono publico is needed behind those people.
The Government also share the committee's view that the traditional relationships between central and local government broke down in the 1980s. We agree that, from that point, there needed to be a rebuilding of trust. Indeed, I would echo those speakers who have already said that it is most appropriate for the report to be entitled Rebuilding Trust. It is important that that is achieved.
1152
Over a long period of time, relations between central and local government were always conducted informally. That continued during the period after the war when local authorities began to do an increasingly large number of things and when they began to spend an increasingly large amount of money. But there came a point at which central government were bound to acknowledge that the activities of local government were such that, when taken together, they had a real effect upon what central government could decide and what it could—and should—do at the centre. I suppose that that probably reached its zenith when a Labour Secretary of State, Mr. Tony Crosland, said, in a state of frustration on a famous occasion, "The party's over".
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, said that since 1979 there has been a deliberate and sustained assault on local government. I know that the noble Lord likes to use fairly graphic expressions from time to time but I believe that he went too far in that respect. Of course there has not been an assault on local government; indeed, we believe it to be an extremely important part of the constitution.
It is common knowledge that, from 1979, the Government took a very firm step to manage the economy and to ensure that people were given value for money in what local government did. It was pretty unpopular with some, but the economy today demonstrates that that was the right thing to have done.
Then, some in local government began to see themselves as an alternative voice on how the country as a whole should be run. Some tried to break the Government's plans to cut spending by pushing up their own local spending in the knowledge that many of their voters would be protected from increased local tax bills by the benefits system; that many local businesses do not have the vote and, therefore, could do little about their increased rates; and that many people who benefited from increased local authority spending did not actually pay any rates. That, of course, was the genesis of the poll tax, which the Government prefer to call the community charge. However, as my noble friend Lady Carnegy said, had that continued in operation, that may well have resulted in local authorities having more power. Other people tried to use their local platform to influence matters which properly belonged to central government.
My noble friend Lady Platt of Writtle pointed out that the committee said that there will always be tensions between central and local government and that we must try to lessen them. That is absolutely right. Clearly no government, whether this Government or one of another political complexion—if one can extend one's imagination to that enormous extent—can afford to find themselves in a position where they cannot decide major issues about the national economy. After all, the Government provide 50 per cent. of all that local government spends. If one adds to that the non-domestic business rates of 25 per cent., what is actually produced in the locality from the council tax is about 21 per cent. in broad terms.
The noble Lord, Lord Tope, wanted local government to be free to do what it wants and then to be accountable. However, I am sure that the noble Lord will realise that

1153
when you look at such figures obviously a government of any persuasion have a great interest in the way in which the money from taxpayers is spent. The government of the day have to be able to decide on the overall level of public expenditure, both central and local, which the economy can afford. They have to be in a position to decide their priorities for central government spending.
If local government collectively seeks to raise significantly the total amount which local government spends, then central government is bound to be forced to do one of two things: either they have to abandon their overall strategy for spending and taxation, or reduce their expenditure in other areas of the public sector—such as, on the health service—below the level which they consider appropriate. That is the position in which central government found themselves in the early 1980s.
The Government, therefore, took steps to make formal that which had previously been a reasonably well accepted informal understanding with local government as to the boundaries of local government action.
There was a good deal of tension and disagreement during the 1980s, as your Lordships will remember only too well, about the measures which the Government introduced, and which culminated in the present financial arrangements which involve capping, the national business rate and the introduction of the council tax.
Since then, there has been a genuine attempt—by local government and by central government together—to rediscover the traditional relationship between central and local government which we in the Government, and the great majority of those in local government, too, believe is the right way of proceeding.
The Government intend to do their best to improve relations with local government and to improve the esteem in which local authorities are held. My noble friend Lady Platt of Writtle said that it is not a bad maxim to say, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it". The noble Lord, Lord Borrie, agreed with that. I also agree with that. I hope that he will be able to persuade his noble friends to adopt that maxim when they consider the future of the constitution and of your Lordships' House. The noble Lord, Lord Borne, said that he visited Mr. Redwood and Mr. Stewart and that it was not a rewarding experience. He went to see them about trading officers. He was told that local authorities should be able to co-operate. The noble Lord, Lord Borrie, never visited me to inquire about that subject when I was at the Department of Trade. That was my misfortune, but those words were familiar because I have used them myself. The Government tend to speak with one voice on these matters. The Government have seen no evidence that the oversight as regards trading standards is any worse following local government reorganisation. It is for local authorities to decide whether and how to co-operate in that field.
My noble friend Lord Beloff made the most astonishing swipe at civil servants which I believe horrified the noble Baroness, Lady David, as well as myself. He said they are
1154
so occupied tending Ministers—that is a touching thought—that they cannot answer any questions unless they have sought advice beforehand. I have great sympathy with civil servants. Anyone who has had to answer questions in your Lordships' House will be upset if he has not been briefed properly on the questions which are likely to be asked. I thought the noble Lord, Lord Borne, was going a little far when he talked about trading standards. When he asked me a question about that I could not give him an exact answer at the time but, fortunately, my mental powers are such that I recalled the answer and I have given it to him. My noble friend Lord Beloff cast appalling aspersions on civil servants. In my experience, irrespective of the department concerned, they have always been absolutely superb in knowing the facts and the details and in expressing those articulately to Ministers, one of whom is not always quick to recognise the facts and takes rather longer than his colleagues to do so.
The Government's White Paper sets out a programme of action which has three objectives. The first is to strengthen local democracy; the second is to promote the local leadership role of local authorities; and the third is to improve yet further relations between central and local government. One might ask how local democracy can be strengthened. The respect in which it is held must be increased. Local democracy must be held in high esteem. The programme of action therefore proposes a statement, which is to be agreed between central and local government, on the role and value of local government.
For reasons which I shall mention later, the Government do not feel that we can accept the committee's recommendation that the United Kingdom should adopt the European Charter of Local Self Government. Indeed, we propose a statement instead. We view the proposed statement as addressing one of the main principles which underlies the committee's recommendation, which is that the Government should give a signal that they recognise the value of local government. The statement will do that.
The Government also wish to see local democracy strengthened by increasing public participation in local government. Your Lordships' committee has identified a number of measures which might achieve that, to one of which the noble Baroness, Lady David, referred; namely, allowing individual authorities the option of moving to a different electoral system for local elections. The noble Earl, Lord Kintore, thought we were going down the path of voting by proportional representation. Of course the noble Lord, Lord Tope, could not resist the opportunity of again banging the drum of proportional representation. I am sorry to have to disappoint them. Before decisions are taken about which methods might be used, there has to be a proper analysis of the issues and the difficulties which are being encountered. The Government's programme of action therefore involves joint research and analysis with the new Local Government Association on the level of local participation in local government. Then, and only then, will we be in a position to decide whether, and if so what, new measures and arrangements are necessary or desirable.

1155
The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, referred to the management of local authorities, and in particular elected mayors. The Government intend to bring forward in the next Parliament legislation to enable local authorities to experiment with their internal management arrangements. However, as regards elected mayors, it is worth noting that during consultation by my department in 1991, of over 600 responses only four favoured elected mayors. The main objection was that there would be conflict and confused accountability between the elected mayor and the other councillors on the council.
The noble Lord, Lord Tope, was concerned about what the White Paper meant by local government matters which could be overseen by a parliamentary committee. I can assure him there is nothing sinister in that. It simply means the matters to which the committee refers in paragraph 2.70 of its report; in other words, the matters which it suggests should be looked at by a parliamentary committee. One might ask then how we can better promote the leadership of local authorities. The noble Lord, Lord Sewel, wants us to move away from central government dominance over local government. Of course these are difficult balances to maintain but local authorities need the ability to innovate. To do that, the committee has recommended a general power of local competence. Local authorities, of course, already have a general power in Section 137 of the Local Government Act 1972. The Government accept the spirit of the committee's recommendation. Our programme of action also proposes a review of Section 137 in order to assess the scope which it gives for leadership action and to see whether a wider general power is either practical or advisable.
The Government also accept the committee's recommendation about experimenting with different models for the internal management of local authorities. We shall bring forward legislation in the next Parliament to enable local authorities to do so. All these measures will help to improve yet further the relationship between central and local government. The Government also accept the committee's recommendation concerning the existing guidelines for central and local relations. We propose to consider, with the new Local Government Association, how the existing guidelines can be developed yet further. The Government also accept the committee's recommendation concerning Whitehall arrangements for considering local government issues which involve more than one department. We shall carry out a review of their effectiveness.
I believe that this programme of action is based on the Government's belief—which I am glad to say the Select Committee shares—that democratically elected authorities have important roles in the world of local governance today, in particular that of being the leader of the community in which they serve. As your Lordships' committee recognised, local authorities are not, and never have been and never will be, the sole monolithic providers of all services in a given geographical area. Nor can they ever operate wholly apart from the powers of central intervention. Our programme will prove to be a significant chapter in the
1156
continuing development of local government. That is a development which we aim to continue in a spirit of partnership and of collaboration with local government.
The noble Lord, Lord Borrie, referred to regional assemblies. The Government see no case for setting up new bodies to provide regional government. That would simply add an unwanted and unnecessary tier of bureaucracy. As regards partnerships for regeneration, we share his view of the importance of partnerships and of local authorities' role in this. Of the partnerships which won bids for the single regeneration budget, 80 per cent had local authority involvement and about 50 per cent had been led by local authorities.
However, I am afraid there are some recommendations of the committee which the Government do not feel able to accept. I refer to the recommendation that we should adopt the European Charter of Local Self Government. That was a source of disappointment to the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, a source of shock to the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, and a source of scurrilous speculation to the noble Lord, Lord Tope. The Government have always held the view on the charter that while we support the principles of local government which are established in the charter—and which are reflected in the United Kingdom's system of local government—we do not consider that it is necessary for the United Kingdom to enter now into a binding international agreement which covers domestic local government arrangements. We have a long tradition of effective local government—a tradition which is founded on, and which is given practical expression by, the legislative decisions of your Lordships' House and of another place. We do not need a European convention to bolster those traditions or to show that we carry them out.
However, the Government accept the committee's view that it would be worth while for central government to send a clear signal that they recognise the value of local government. We therefore propose to agree with the new Local Government Association a statement covering much the same ground as the charter which will set out the role and status of local government in this country. The committee also recommended the establishment of a permanent parliamentary committee. It is clearly a matter for the House and for Parliament, and one that Parliament must decide.
My noble friend Lady Platt of Writtle was sorry that the Government did not view the prospect of a permanent committee with enthusiasm. It is the Government's belief that a permanent committee would be very difficult to justify when there is already an existing structure of departmentally based committees in another place to which can be added other arrangements such as the ad hoc inquiries which were undertaken by your Lordships' committee.
The committee also questioned whether there was still a need to retain the compulsory element of compulsory competitive tendering, and whether compulsory competitive tendering itself could be made less detailed and prescriptive. The committee felt that local authorities have now well embraced the tendering

1157
philosophy and that they can be relied upon to continue tendering without the compulsory element. A number of noble Lords felt that to be the case, including the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, and the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington. They wanted the compulsory element removed.
The Government's researches do not support the view that removal would be beneficial. They show that local authorities as a whole cannot be relied upon to provide open and fair competition in tendering. For the time being at least, we believe that the compulsory element ought to remain. It may, however, be possible in the longer term to consider a more flexible regime. Our recent experience does not lead us to believe that a voluntary framework would provide for local residents the benefits and improvements that are obtainable under compulsory competitive tendering.
As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, reminded us, the committee made a series of recommendations directed at removing the influence of central government over local government finance. It suggested that central government should relax their control over the amount of local authority expenditure that is financed locally—sometimes referred to by the ghastly acronym "LASFE"; that in essence the present arrangements for the capping of council tax should be abolished; and that non-domestic rates should be returned to the control of the local authorities.
The Government introduced a national business rate because they believed that businesses ought to be able to plan properly without major annual tax variations, and that businesses should pay the same rate wherever in the country they happen to locate themselves. We still maintain that view.
The noble Lords, Lord Hunt and Lord Williams, the noble Baroness, Lady David, and my noble friend Lord Gray of Contin, referred to the matter of capping. My noble friend Lady Platt also referred to it and said that Whitehall does not always know best. That is perfectly true. However, the Government are elected to look after national economic priorities and the overall level of local spending, including local authority self-financed expenditure, as it affects the national economy. The government of the day therefore have a legitimate interest in influencing it. Capping, although controversial, has proved effective in controlling the overall level of local authority budgets and in protecting the local taxpayer from excessive tax rises.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, and the noble Baronesses, Lady David and Lady Farrington of Ribbleton, referred to standard spending assessments. I am bound to say that I have a certain sympathy with the points made. The Government share the committee's aim. We would dearly like to simplify them if possible. Such action is very close to my own heart, since I have personally tried to simplify and understand the SSAs and regrettably, as noble Lords might imagine, both because of the nature of the problem and the quality of the erstwhile reformer, I failed desperately on both counts. The fact is, if one finds SSAs unfair and tries to simplify them, they
1158
become more unfair; if one tries to "refine" them, they then become more bureaucratic. However, that does not mean that efforts should not continue to be made to simplify them. After all, formulae ought to be designed to be the servant of the people, not their master.
The Government accept the committee's assessment of the present state of the relationship between central and local government and we agree that considerable effort has to be expended to improve further that relationship and to enable local authorities the better to be able to fulfil their role as leaders of the community.
On that basis, as well as having regard to wider economic and policy objectives, the Government have considered the committee's recommendations. We believe that the measures we propose to take will improve the current state of relations. We believe that they can open up a new chapter in our relationships with local government and will contribute to the development of local democracy and local government into the next century.
7.5 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Tanworth: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply, and I thank all noble Lords who took part in this interesting debate. Despite the criticisms that some of us made of the Government's decisions on finance questions, the debate has also been an encouraging one. No one is now saying that there is not a problem. No one says that the problem can be solved by a quick fix, whether by making local government simply a branch office of central government or by some new constitutional arrangement. Everyone seems to be saying that what is needed is a rebuilding of trust and of an attitude of partnership, of working together, with the essential acceptance by the Government of the recommendation that the guidelines should be developed into a more formal concordat that would send a signal to local government as to its place in the system. But the rebuilding of trust has to be earned, and by both sides. I am sure that people will reflect on that.
Some very kind remarks were made about me. However, I remind the House that this was not an issue on which a manipulative chairman could secure unanimous agreement. It was a hard, difficult issue. The committee was composed of senior Members with different political views and different experience of local government. Over a period of nine months we listened, read, argued and talked; and at the end we found that we had reached a consensus. I hope that the debate will continue, in Parliament and in the media, as to how local democracy best finds its place in our constitutional systems.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Land Registration Bill [H.L.]
7.7 p.m.
Lord Browne-Wilkinson: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
This is a short but very technical Bill. It has two aims. The first is to increase the rate at which land in England and Wales with unregistered title is brought on to the register of title kept by Her Majesty's Land Registry. As I shall explain, the Bill seeks to achieve that by a mixture of carrot and stick. The second aim is to make fairer provision for those who suffer loss by reason of some error or omission in the register.
Ever since Mr. Robert Wilson, a solicitor, first proposed a system of registration of title to land in 1846, it has been the aim of those who wished to reform conveyancing law to make the buying and selling of land as simple as dealings with other forms of property, such as stocks and shares. Now, 150 years later, that aspiration is close to fulfilment. Nearly 16 million of the estimated 21 million titles to land in England and Wales are now registered and more than 86 per cent. of all registered titles are computerised to the great advantage of the public.
The way in which unregistered land has been brought on to the register has been through a system of compulsory registration. There are two elements in this. The first—that the land must be in an area of compulsory registration—will always be satisfied now, because the whole of England and Wales has been subject to compulsory registration since December 1990. Secondly, the transaction must be of a type which is required to be registered. At present, these types are limited. The only dispositions of unregistered land that must be registered are conveyances of freehold land on sale; leases which are granted for more than 21 years; assignments of existing leases where the lease has more than 21 years still to run; and certain leases granted for 21 years or less under the right-to-buy legislation.
It is of course intended that all the remaining unregistered land in England and Wales should in time be brought on to the register. The existing triggers for compulsory registration will never achieve that objective because there is land that may never be bought or sold. In November 1992, Her Majesty's Land Registry issued a discussion and consultation paper, Completing The Land Register in England and Wales, in which a possible strategy was set out for completing the register. A number of options were put forward to achieve this. Two of the five clauses contained in this Bill are derived from the responses to that consultation paper.
A joint working group was set up in 1994 which consisted of representatives from the Land Registry, the Law Commission and the Lord Chancellor's Department. One of its objectives was to see whether parts of the Law Commission's third and fourth reports which had proved too ambitious for early implementation could be implemented at once. That objective has been fulfilled and the results are found in the First Report of the Joint Working Group which was published by the Law Commission as Law
1160
Commission Report No. 235. That report also makes recommendations to give effect to the responses to the Land Registry's discussion and consultation paper that I have already mentioned. The Bill at present before the House is based on the draft Bill attached to that report with a handful of minor changes.
I have mentioned that the first aim of the Bill is to speed up the rate at which land with unregistered title is brought on to the register and the Bill attempted to do that by a mixture of carrot and stick. I shall begin with the stick. The stick consists of the extension of the triggers for compulsory registration. Clause 1 replaces the existing Section 123 of the Land Registration Act 1925 with two new sections. The present Section 123 is not well drafted and has been criticised. The opportunity has therefore been taken not only to extend the triggers for compulsory registration but also to remedy the flaws in the present legislation.
The first of the new sections, Section 123, lists triggers for the compulsory registration of unregistered land that will apply when the provision is brought into force. First, all transfers of freeholds, all grants of leases for more than 21 years and all assignments of leases with more than 21 years to run will have to be registered if they are made for valuable or other consideration by way of gift, by way of an assent (including a gift of such land in a will) or to give effect to an order of the court. This is the effect of the new subsections 123(1) and (6).
Secondly, the new Section 123(2) provides that where an owner of an unregistered freehold or an unregistered lease having more than 21 years to run creates a first legal mortgage on that property which is protected by the deposit of documents of title, the title to the freehold or to the leasehold must be registered.
Those provisions will make two changes in the law. First, gifts of land, whether made in the donor's lifetime or by his or her will, are not at present registrable. In future they will be. Secondly, where an owner of an unregistered freehold or of a lease with more than 21 years to run either executes a first legal mortgage of it when it is unencumbered, or remortgages it, discharging any existing legal mortgages, he or she will have to register the title to that land. The two new proposed triggers were favourably received when the Land Registry consulted upon them in 1992.
It seems likely that in the course of time it may be desirable to add new triggers for compulsory registration. The new subsections 123(4) and 123(5) which the Bill inserts make provision for that to be done by the Lord Chancellor by way of statutory instrument. I understand from the Land Registry that it would not make any recommendations to the Lord Chancellor to extend the range of triggering dispositions without prior public consultation. The noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, will be able to tell your Lordships whether my understanding is correct.
The new Section 123A, which is also inserted by Clause 1, makes provision for the compulsory registration of dispositions falling within the new triggers and explains what happens if registration does not take place. This new section simply makes explicit

1161
and clarifies what is thought to be the present law and meets certain technical difficulties that could arise under the present Section 123. In practice it is unlikely to be much used because there is usually compliance with the requirements for compulsory registration. It is, I am afraid, lawyers' law of the driest kind—as, I interpose, is the rest of the Bill. As the new section is not intended to make any substantial changes to the existing law, I need not expand on this.
I now turn to the provisions of the Bill that use the carrot rather than the stick. The Lord Chancellor is empowered to make fee orders. There is, however, only a very limited power to authorise what the Act calls "specially reduced fees". It is not possible under the present power to charge lower fees in order to encourage voluntary registration. It is clear to the Land Registry, both from responses to its 1992 consultation and from correspondence from practitioners, that voluntary registration would be much more popular if there were reduced fees.
Clause 3 of the Bill replaces the existing Section 145(3) of the Land Registration Act 1925 with the two new subsections. The new Section 145(3) will enable reduced fees to be charged in cases of voluntary first registration of title.
The Land Registry has estimated that if the new triggers and the new proposed reduced fees were introduced, the number of first registrations would increase by about a third. This would be a very significant step towards completing the register. It would mean that over a period of three years more than 1 million new titles would come on to the register, a quarter of a million more than would be the case with the existing triggers.
The second aim of the Bill is to make fairer provision for those who suffer loss by reason of some error or omission in the register. Those proposals have their origins in the Law Commission's third and fourth reports on land registration. Section 83 of the 1925 Act makes provision for the payment of indemnity where loss is suffered as a result of rectification and in cases where there has been some error or omission but the register is not rectified.
Clause 2 of the Bill is intended to improve the provision for the payment of such indemnity and to strengthen the Land Registry's rights of recourse against those who have actually caused the mistakes that led to the payment of indemnity. Clause 2 substitutes a new Section 83 in place of the existing section. Much of the substance of the section is the same as at present, though in places the wording has been improved. I shall confine my comments to the changes.
The first change is in Section 83(1)(b) which deals with a problem that first came to light in a case decided at the end of 1975. It became clear that even where a landowner succeeded in obtaining rectification of the register in his favour, he might still suffer loss, and that is because the rectification did not affect the rights of a third party that had already vested when the register was rectified. As Section 83 is at present worded, the registrar has no power to pay indemnity in such a case. The new Section 83(1)(b) will give him that power.
1162
The second change is concerned with the effect of the claimant's fault on his or her claim for indemnity. At present, where a claimant for rectification has caused or substantially contributed to the loss by his fraud or lack of proper care, his or her claim to indemnity is wholly barred. The new Section 83 subsections (5)(a) and (6) makes a number of changes to that rule. First, Section 83(5)(a) makes it clear that a person who has caused the loss by fraud, whether wholly or partly, is barred from claiming indemnity. Secondly, the same bar applies where the loss has been caused wholly by a claimant's lack of proper care. Thirdly, the new Section 83(6) introduces a principle akin to that of contributory negligence. If the claimant has partly contributed to the loss as a result of his lack of proper care, he or she is no longer totally barred from indemnity, as up until now. Instead, any indemnity is to be reduced to such extent as is just and equitable having regard to his share in the responsibility for the loss.
The third change contained in the new Section 83(5)(c) is to extend the requirements for the prior consent of the registrar to cover not only legal proceedings but also negotiations if the person claiming the indemnity is to be subsequently provided with an indemnity against such costs.
The fourth change is to extend the Land Registry's rights of recourse against third parties in cases where it has had to pay an indemnity. The registry already has rights of recourse in cases of fraud and can enforce against third parties the rights of the person indemnified. Under the Bill those rights of indemnity are to be extended so that the registry can enforce any right of action which the person in whose favour the register has been rectified would have had if there had been no rectification. I understand that the Land Registry exercises such rights of recourse sparingly; in practice, only in such cases where there has been fraud or negligence. I further understand that it is not intended to change that practice.
The Bill contains provisions for consequential appeals in Clause 4 and for commencement in Clause 5, which do not call for any particular comment.
My Lords, any land registration Bill is unlikely to be particularly exciting and this one certainly is not. However, the Bill contains concrete proposals which will be of enormous practical advantage to many people. It will make conveyancing quicker and cheaper. It contains a number of useful measures that will still further improve conveyancing in England and Wales. I accordingly commend the Bill to this House and ask that it be given a Second Reading.
Moved, that the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Browne-Wilkinson.)
7.20 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Browne-Wilkinson, said that this is not an exciting Bill. It is the most exciting thing that has happened to me today. When, in days of yore, I was an articled clerk to my noble friend Lord Mishcon, I never imagined in my wildest dreams, based upon my capacity as a conveyancer, that I would ever be entrusted with a

1163
land registration Bill. But there it is; things move on and here I stand at the Dispatch Box simply because my noble friend Lord Irvine is not able to be present.
I am sure that the House is grateful to the noble and learned Lord for the clarity of exposition which he has portrayed for what is undoubtedly a complex measure, complex but necessary in the continuing process of simplification of conveyancing law. It started in 1925 and more recently, through computerisation, it has been radically reformed and become far less expensive. That is incredibly important for people who are dealing in title. Today, a solicitor or a licensed conveyancer is able to examine title within seconds. That constitutes a revolutionary change from the days when solicitors were to be found in dingy offices poring over title deeds.
The process of simplification has proceeded apace. The noble and learned Lord more than amply described how that has occurred, and he outlined the purposes of the Bill, explaining in particular the amalgam of carrot and stick to ensure the speed with which unregistered title is brought on to the register. The House will be relieved to know that therefore requires no further elaboration on my part.
Sensibly, the Bill replaces those mechanisms which do not work satisfactorily under the present law. It introduces important changes for the future, particularly in the way in which further compulsory registration will be triggered by statutory instrument rather than by primary legislation, thereby avoiding a good deal of unnecessary delay and complexity.
I very much like the idea of introducing reduced fees, as one of those carrots to which the noble and learned Lord referred. That should speed up voluntary registration. Different fees for different cases and in certain instances no fees at all can be a much valued instrument in that regard.
The noble and learned Lord referred to indemnity for those suffering loss through errors or omissions on the register. Those are cases which usually involve fraud. It is important that the provision for indemnity should be strengthened and I very much welcome that.
Another very important change is dealt with in the new Section 83(12). It will have the effect of enabling a claimant to claim certainly for six years after the date on which he becomes aware or ought to have become aware of the claim to indemnity which he would have. That is an important change and one which is certainly overdue.
The Bill merits rapid progress and I am sure it is unlikely to run into any great difficulties in this House—unless the noble Baroness has any severe criticisms, which I am reliably informed she has not—nor indeed in another place. Therefore, we thank the noble and learned Lord for having introduced the Bill so ably this evening.
7.25 p.m.
Lord Coleraine: My Lords, I warmly welcome the second reading of this dusty piece of legislation, so clearly introduced by the noble and learned Lord. I particularly welcome the carrot and stick aspect of the changes to registered conveyancing which are proposed.
1164
It seems to me that the sooner there is completion of the registration of all property in this country, the better it will be. I hope that the carrot and stick will be effective and, if not, that consideration will be given to creating a cut-off date, after which all land becomes compulsorily registrable. I can see that some land will remain unregistered for many years and there will be two systems of conveyancing existing side by side: the up-to-date registered conveyancing and the dying, old style unregistered conveyancing consisting of the examination and preparation of abstracts of title and deeds. We shall find, as the old style system dies out, that conveyancing becomes more sloppy and more difficulties arise, because fewer people will know how to do it or have experience of carrying it out.
There is also the fact that unregistered land carries an anomalous privilege of privacy in that, after many hundreds of years, under the Land Registration Act 1988 the ownership of land and title became public knowledge. But that does not apply to unregistered land. The 1988 Act did not extend to making public leases of flats and I should like to spend a moment discussing that matter because the Bill before us tonight, according to its Long Title, is a Bill to amend the Land Registration Act 1925. That gives us an opportunity to look at Section 112 of that Act, which is the section that now deals with the right of public access to information held by the Land Registry.
During the passage through Parliament of the 1988 Act, I moved an amendment to try to make the copies of leases of registered land held in the Land Registry available to the public, but to no avail. Among the reasons given for its not being then practical was that there was no need in practice for leases to be made available.
This evening I wish to press again that point and say that there is a need in practice for people who are buying flats to have access to the leases of the other flats in what may be a converted house, because it is only by having that access that they, their lawyers or conveyancers can find out whether the leases in the house are sensible and add up to a coherent whole as regards the management, service charges and the like, or whether in fact to buy into that house will amount to buying into a law suit.
Also, since 1988 there has been enacted the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993. As a result, it becomes necessary for lawyers and others dealing with collective enfranchisements of blocks of flats to have access to all the flats in the building, to find out exactly what is there. It is not always easy to achieve that by asking around in the building because one lessee will have his documents, another will not and yet another will not know where they are. If they are available from the Land Registry, it would be a very simple matter to get hold of all the copy leases and for whoever was advising in connection with the enfranchisement to advise promptly, speedily and probably in the long run more cheaply than would otherwise be the case.
The Leasehold Enfranchisement Advisory Service (LEAS) is experienced, after three years, in giving leaseholders and freeholders advice as to leasehold

1165
matters generally. It was introduced in the wake of collective enfranchises in relation to flats and now offers advice on all matters connected with leasehold tenure both to freeholders and to the lessees and to those who advise both. It seemed to me that it would know whether there was a need for the change in the law that I hope we can achieve out of the Bill. I therefore wrote to Peter Haler, the chief executive of LEAS, and asked him about it, particularly as to whether there was a need. He replied:
"It is in the interests of lessees and conveyancing generally that a prospective party, intending to acquire an interest in a property is able to reassure himself that his lease and the others in the property, which are likely to affect him, do not make the proposed acquisition a non-starter. Too often a lessee finds himself, once he has acquired his flat subject to matters either misrepresented or undisclosed in other leases. The recourse may, technically, be to pursue his surveyor/solicitor/vendor, but for practical purposes the law being what it is may make this impossible. Hence if the complete register and documents filed with it was open to them it would be for a purchaser to satisfy himself that the proposed purchase has no unforeseen, or misrepresented, problems. One imagines that such a search may raise the cost of conveyancing, but with this would come certainty".
Mr. Haler says that he does not accept the view that there is no need for information. He says,
"There was a need when you raised the issue in 1988 and the reasons then still apply now. We would certainly concur that this need has greatly increased as a direct consequence of the 1993 Act … We agree that there is a major case for public access to the copy leases and would strongly support your proposal".
That is a proposal which in due course I may put before your Lordships in Committee. In the meantime, I strongly welcome the introduction of this Law Commission Bill and strongly support the Motion for a Second Reading.
7.32 p.m.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I am not sure how I would describe my day, but certainly not as the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, did. Equally certainly, I am honoured to stand in for my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor and deeply grateful to the mover of the Bill for the kindness he has shown me.
I am also grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Browne-Wilkinson, for bringing this useful if technical Bill before the House. I am grateful to him both for outlining the clear advantages that registration of title brings with it in terms of expediting and simplifying conveyancing, and for explaining with such clarity the necessarily intricate provisions of this Bill. It is obvious that, if it is enacted, the Bill will do much to hasten the day when all the land in England and Wales is registered. I should like to remind your Lordships that the Government are committed to the objective of total registration as soon as is reasonably possible.
I would like to express my noble and learned friend's gratitude to the Law Commission and HM Land Registry for their continuing work to improve the legal framework of land registration, of which this Bill is merely the first fruit. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Browne-Wilkinson, reminded the House, the Land Registration Act 1925 is not happily drafted. Given its central importance to conveyancing today, it is clearly
1166
desirable that the legislation should be improved. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor looks forward to the second report of the Joint Working Group and to its proposals for redrafting and simplifying the present legislation.
I must refer to two specific aspects of the Bill, where the noble and learned Lord sought my assurance as to his understanding of what is intended. First, I can confirm that the power to extend the triggers for compulsory registration by statutory instrument conferred by the new Sections 123(4) and 123(5) will be exercised only after prior public consultation.
Secondly, I can also confirm that HM Registry would use sparingly its extended rights of recourse under the new Section 83(10) in cases where it had paid an indemnity. The extension proposed is both a logical and a modest one. I am aware that some concern was expressed by the Law Society when the first report of the Joint Working Group was published, that the registry's rights of recourse might be employed in situations where professionals such as solicitors had quite innocently caused the situation which led to the payment of indemnity. That concern was prompted by a recent decision, Penn v. Bristol and West Building Society, in which a firm of solicitors was held liable under a technical legal doctrine called warranty of authority. In principle, that doctrine could be applied to make a solicitor liable even in a situation where he or she was blameless. However, it is neither the practice nor the intention of HM Land Registry to resort to its rights of recourse against those who are neither fraudulent nor negligent. It is a power that will continue to be used only in bad cases.
My noble friend Lord Coleraine raised an interesting point in relation to making available for inspection by tenants involved in collective enfranchisement more information than can presently be had in regard to leases held by the Land Registry. I am grateful to my noble friend for having given notice of the points he raised. Time did not permit an answer to be prepared in time for this debate, but I hope he will be satisfied if I undertake to ask my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor to write to him shortly with a substantive reply.
I warmly welcome the Bill proposed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Browne-Wilkinson. I agree with him in commending the Bill to the House.
7.37 p.m.
Lord Browne-Wilkinson: My Lords, I am grateful for the welcome given from both sides of the House to this Bill. I demur at the modesty shown by spokesmen on both sides in their professed knowledge of the law. On one side I know it to be wrong and, on the other, the noble Baroness demonstrated a superb command of the technicalities.
I thank my noble friend Lord Coleraine for his great courtesy in informing me of the fact that he was going to take up the point that he did. The suggestion by the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, that the Lord Chancellor should deal with the matter in writing after consideration is a sensible way of dealing with it.

1167
Perhaps I should say that I have no proprietorial feeling about the Bill. It is a Law Commission Bill; not mine. For myself, at first sight, I am not enthusiastic about going into that interesting point in this Bill.
The Bill gives effect to Law Commission Land Registry reports which have been the subject matter of great consultation between those who understand these matters—I am afraid that I do not count myself among their number. It would be a mistake if we sought to insert into the Bill something which has not been the subject matter of the same research and consultation. Again, I commend the Bill to the House as being something which will produce some dull, but worthwhile improvement for the public.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Animal Quarantine Regulations
7.39 p.m.
Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what progress they have made in the relaxation of the quarantine regulations, particularly those relating to the importation of dogs and cats into the United Kingdom.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it is some 18 months since this House debated the issue of quarantine and the importation of dogs and cats into the United Kingdom, since when important changes in the status of rabies in domestic animals and wildlife have occurred in the European Union. For example, vaccination of wildlife has progressively reduced the number of rabid animals in the European Union in foxes and other animals, including dogs, cats, sheep, horses and indeed man. There have been improvements in diagnostic tests and procedures. Sweden has adopted a vaccination policy for dogs entering that country instead of quarantine and New Zealand has conducted an important risk assessment analysis. Indeed, there has been a growing tide of public opinion for a reconsideration and modification of the present regulations.
There are two organisations in which I must declare an interest. One is Passports for Pets, in which I have an indirect interest in that I assist with its scientific commentary, and the other is Vets in Support of Change, a document to which I was a signatory and which many of your Lordships will have already received. In both these cases reconsideration is asked in the knowledge that rabies is a fearful, horrible disease that kills 35,000 humans per year globally. It places a very heavy burden of responsibility on those pressing for change to be sure that freedom from rabies which we enjoy in the United Kingdom is not compromised in any way by the changes.
What then are the changes and issues believed to be consistent with the preservation of our rabies-free status? First, no changes are proposed for dogs and cats coming from countries where dog mediated rabies is endemic and where control measures are deemed to be inadequate. Those include countries in the Far East, Africa, South America and Central America. Animals
1168
coming from those countries would still be required to enter quarantine for six months and would also be vaccinated.
Secondly, the changes proposed are based on the following principles and concepts: animals from rabies-free countries pose no threat and should be admitted without quarantine or vaccination provided they are properly and unequivocally identified, preferably by microchip, and have documented evidence of residence in the country of origin for at least six months or since birth and would normally arrive in this country direct from that country; vaccination when performed correctly with an approved vaccine, of which there are three, is considered to be 100 per cent. effective. There has been no documented case of failure of vaccination in dogs in the European Union in the past 15 years. In any case, the efficacy of vaccination against rabies can be assessed by a blood test, when the antibody levels reach a required level which is consistent with protection against rabies.
A period of at least four months should be allowed to elapse after vaccination before admittance to the country in order to guard against rabies developing in an animal which has been vaccinated during the incubation period. Unequivocal identification is a necessity and is best performed by microchip. There is now an agreed international standard, published by the International Organisation for Standardisation and used by ANIMO, the acronym for Animal Movements, for the importation of dogs and cats under the Balai Directive and the importation of livestock.
Certification as to origin is essential. Veterinary certification must be reliable and is considered reliable under the ANIMO system. With animals coming from the European Union we already accept veterinary certification. Proof of residence is clearly a requirement. It is, however, the nature of rabies in the European Union that is particularly important. No dog-mediated rabies exists in the European Union. The dog strain occurs in the Far East, Pakistan, Africa and South America. In the European Union we have only the fox strain. Bat rabies is of little consequence. Foxes constitute the major reservoir.
Fox rabies can occur in dogs, cats and other domestic animals such as sheep, cattle and horses. In other than dogs and cats the infection is regarded as an end infection. In other words, the infected animals are the end hosts and are unable to transmit the infection to other species, and so naturally there is no onward transmission. That is why horses, cattle, sheep, pigs and so on are allowed into this country without quarantine. However, in Belgium and France it is said that there is more danger of a human getting rabies from a rabid horse or bovine than from dogs and cats. That is an indication of how successful the control of dog rabies has been.
There is an increasing body of scientific opinion that the dog is also an end host. Fox rabies is less infective for dogs, and dogs infected with fox rabies are less infective for foxes and other dogs. There is not a single known incidence of a dog infected with the fox strain infecting another dog or indeed another fox. Although

1169
dogs and cats infected with the fox strain can transmit rabies to man—hence the necessity for vaccination—the disease will not spread to other animals through the dog infected with the fox strain. Simply put, with respect to our own fox populations, the only realistic source of rabies is through the importation of a rabid fox. That would not normally happen and therefore it would be a fox that was brought in illegally.
Given all these facts about the nature of the rabies virus in the European Union and the safeguards of vaccination, the proof of response to vaccine and so on, we believe that we can safely remove the quarantine regulations from animals that meet the rigorous requirements within the European Union, and that includes animals from the United Kingdom whose owners include blind people and deaf people and also tourists who wish to take their animals overseas. They would be able to return without those animals going into quarantine.
What these proposals do not do is to eliminate smuggling. To use vaccination instead of quarantine would reduce smuggling, as has occurred in Sweden. At present there are about 100 notified cases of smuggling per year in this country. They are probably due to inadvertence or even ignorance. However, those are not the dogs and cats that are dangerous. The important ones are those that are being smuggled in illegally—possibly for a fee of, we believe, about £500. Under the Swedish system, which costs about £130 to £150 to the owner of the dog, they have also found that smuggling is much reduced.
Perhaps I may summarise by saying that we believe that we are out of step with the rest of the European Union—a situation which is not unusual, of course. The proposed new approach will benefit the health of humans, animals and wildlife by reducing smuggling and hence the importation of animals of unknown health status. It will allow greater freedom of movement of many groups. It will reduce the trauma of prolonged separation of the owner and his pet. It will also reduce the cost and expense of importation.
I believe that these various points are valid for a relaxation of the quarantine regulations. I hope that the rabies control review now taking place will lead to a swift risk assessment. I look forward with interest to the results of that review. But I also hope that a start will be made in relaxing the regulations where there is no risk whatever as regards the importation of animals.
7.51 p.m.
Baroness Wharton: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby, for introducing this debate. As noble Lords will know, the noble Lord raised the question of a possible relaxation of quarantine controls on 15th March 1995 in response to the report of the Select Committee on Agriculture in 1994. I, along with other speakers tonight, took part in that debate. This time I hope that we shall have a more positive response from Her Majesty's Government. We all want to continue to live in a rabies-free country. The difference between now and 40 years ago is that we have
1170
developed inactivated vaccines which are safe in both dogs and cats. We have also acquired a great deal more knowledge about the different strains of the rabies virus and the effects when transferred from one species to another.
As the noble Lord said, the rabies problem in Europe has always been in the fox population and these animals are unlikely to be imported. The infected zone in western Europe, thanks to continual immunising programmes, has now shrunk to about 130 square miles comprising north-west Germany, the southern part of Belgium, Luxembourg and north-east France. Rabies, contrary to the belief of many, is clearly declining both geographically and in the number of outbreaks within the European Union. Obviously, to the east and beyond, as the noble Lord said, there are problems and there is no possibility of lifting the quarantine on animals from these areas.
Now that we have a safe vaccine, backed up with blood testing, which provides an effective protection against rabies, and microchipping readily available with an established ISO standard so that every chip can be read by every reader, there seems to be no need for us to continue with six months' quarantine. That could now be viewed as a back-up procedure rather than the primary protection that most people still believe it to be.
When I opened the British Veterinary Association conference in 1995 in Winchester, I made a plea that we should shift our stance on quarantine, even knowing that at that time the BVA was not supportive of a change. Afterwards several delegates came up to me confirming that view despite all the advances made in trying to eradicate the disease in the EU. I am glad to see that that view is now shifting. Vets in Support of Change put out a paper, following their conference on 16th October. It was signed by the noble Lord and six eminent members of the veterinary profession. I hope we all have a copy of it. Many of us agree that it makes a very strong case for change. After all, quarantine regulations do not apply to cattle, goats, and horses, but they too are vulnerable, and the Balai directive allows dogs and cats to be commercially traded provided they are vaccinated and blood tested and accompanied by the correct paperwork. Yet companion animals which would appear to be the least at risk are obliged to endure six months' of deprivation, to say nothing of their owners. We all know that bonding takes place between owner and pet and sometimes the consequences of quarantine can be awful.
This story was told to me by a veterinary friend who is one of the signatories to Vets for Change and who has a special interest in the training of hearing dogs. A hearing dog and its owner were flying from Southampton, I believe, to the Channel Islands when bad weather diverted the plane to Cherbourg. However, soon after touching down in Cherbourg the plane got the all-clear for it to return to the Channel Islands. I would like to stress that no one disembarked and no doors were opened while the plane was on the French runway. Nevertheless the specially trained hearing dog was promptly removed on landing back in Jersey and put into six months' quarantine, despite not having set foot in France. Quite frankly, that is officialdom gone mad.

1171
It certainly makes a mockery of the law. I doubt whether any of the officials who dealt with that case gave a thought to the months of valuable training given to the dog or to the fact that after six months' quarantine it would have to be re-trained, not to mention the loss suffered by its owner who depended on the dog for its skills.
Pet Plan sent out a questionnaire to all its clients. They were asked if they would like to see quarantine abolished. Fifty per cent. said yes provided that there were safeguards. Secondly, they were asked if the situation should remain as it is. Only 22 per cent. agreed. Thirdly, they were asked whether there should be some form of quarantine. Twenty eight per cent. suggested up to one month with safeguards in place. The former owner of Pet Plan felt that the responses represented an overwhelming vote for change by the informed pet owner. Passports for Pets and Vets for Change both draw attention to the fact that Australia and New Zealand have modified their regulations. Dogs and cats coming from rabies-free countries are quarantined for 30 days while in Japan there is no quarantine.
It is now clear that all major animal welfare bodies are moving towards accepting the eventual abolition of quarantine for pets from the EU and other rabies-free countries. The RSPCA too has moved its position in the past few months. While on the subject of the RSPCA, I would point out that not all kennels are especially well run. RSPCA inspectors cannot automatically gain access even when they have reason to believe that all is not well. There is no legal obligation regarding the welfare of the occupants, only guidelines. The statutory obligation is that the accommodation be secure. The NCDL has been campaigning for the statutory inclusion of welfare considerations in the quarantine regulations.
Finally, the Ministry of Agriculture claims that it would be difficult and expensive to set up a system along Swedish lines. I cannot accept that. If other countries can implement changes, surely we can. I really do believe that the UK has remained rabies free, not because of quarantine laws, but despite them, for the past 25 years.
7.57 p.m.
Baroness Sharples: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Soulsby, in initiating today's debate, has put emotion on one side, which, in view of all the articles read and letters received, was not easy. I hope to follow his example.
Is not the system of quarantine now based on dogma and not on the best scientific data available? With the advances made in the area of prevention, vaccination, identification by tattoo or microchip, as mentioned by the noble Lord, and the incubation period before any animal is allowed into Sweden or Norway, for example, is that not sufficient to silence any sceptics? Why should we not follow their lead?
It is admitted here that the smuggling of pets is on the increase, and that is surely where the danger of rabies exists. As the noble Baroness has said, it is now two years since the House of Commons Select Committee on Agriculture decided unanimously that
1172
quarantine restrictions should be lifted subject to various safeguards, which I have already mentioned, yet until very recently there has been no move by Her Majesty's Government seriously to reconsider their approach. In reply to a Question I asked on 17th July the Minister stated that Sweden had administrative difficulties and that smuggling there remained a problem. As I believe my noble friend Lord Soulsby said, I understand now that both those situations have been virtually resolved. Tonight I trust that when the Minister comes to reply he will exhibit a positive approach and take the advice of independent organisations which have produced the scientific evidence which vets require.
7.59 p.m.
Lord St. John of Bletso: My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Sharples, who I know has for some time been an ardent supporter of the campaign not just for passports for pets, but also for identity cards for us, the two-legged creatures.
Last Wednesday, in a supplementary question to the Starred Question tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, on rabies and quarantine regulations, I jested that it would be difficult for the Government to consider a review of the quarantine laws ahead of next year's general election. The Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, answered that the Government were reviewing the current regulations, but could give no clear time horizons about when the review would take place. It was therefore a great surprise and most heartening to read on the front page of yesterday's Sunday Telegraph that the Prime Minister is now backing the campaign for a reform of our tough anti-rabies laws; and, furthermore, is considering including such a reform in the Conservative Party manifesto.
Against that background, it is opportune that the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, with his extremely distinguished background as a former president of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, has introduced the debate. The noble Lord gave an extremely convincing and expert overview of the current situation and the risks, making a strong and justified call for the relaxation of the quarantine laws.
In my allotted six minutes, I should like to touch on a few of what I believe to be the key issues. On 14th October, Michael Hornsby, the agricultural correspondent of The Times, aptly headed his article on the subject with the words,
"Expensive and cruel—or a vital a safeguard? Britain's strict defence against rabies arouses fierce debate".
So, what are the raw facts and figures that bring about such harsh and fierce debate?
Many believe that the current regulations are draconian. However, the reality has been that Britain is one of the few countries in the world to have escaped the rabies menace. I understand that the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, is to speak very much in favour of the status quo. Nevertheless, with advances in science and technology, there are now alternatives to quarantine which are just as safe, such as the passports for pets scheme. Vaccination and blood tests give the same guarantees.

1173
Furthermore, we have a rabies-free clean record despite the fact that, as the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby, and the noble Baroness, Lady Sharpies, have mentioned, many pets have been smuggled into Britain to avoid the quarantine laws. In fact, some commentators believe that for every dog and cat that goes through quarantine, another is smuggled into the country. In addition, apart from dogs and cats, many other potential rabies carriers enter Britain every day.
There has been much publicity about the condition of many quarantine kennels and calls for regulations to allow the RSPCA access to those kennels to monitor pets' welfare. Although there have been many complaints about the conditions in several quarantine kennels, the mortality rate of pets dying in quarantine is relatively low. A code of welfare practice has been introduced—which is to be welcomed—setting out minimum standards for kennel owners. Sadly, however, many pets come out of quarantine in a bad state of health—not only physically but mentally. A key statistic on quarantine kennels is that there have been no proven cases among any of the 200,000 dogs and cats that have been imported into Britain in the past 25 years. We are a nation of pet lovers and there is no denying that six months of solitary confinement is an extremely harsh regime for any domestic pet.
The British Veterinary Association believes that it would be wrong to abandon quarantine until electronic tagging is perfected to ensure tamper-proof identification of individual pets and accurate recording of their rabies jabs. Concerns have been expressed about how the proposed alternative protections could be implemented in practice. I have always found it extraordinary that in a country with such strict quarantine laws there is no compulsory dog licence. That may be an administrative nightmare to co-ordinate and police; but can the Minister comment on whether the Government have any plans to reintroduce such a licence? As noble Lords are aware, in 1994 the Select Committee on Agriculture in another place unanimously recommended that the passports for pets system be introduced.
With so much public support and with calls from the blind and deaf who rely on their dogs, together with support from military personnel and diplomats serving abroad, surely there is no denying the recent statement by Vets in Support of Change that,
"the present laws are an anachronism and are indefensible on scientific grounds".
8.6 p.m.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior for introducing this debate and for an extremely good speech. I do not think that the rest of us put together have my noble friend's knowledge and expertise in the subject.
I must apologise to my noble friend Lord Lucas: I may not be able to be present until the very end of the debate as I had promised to make another speech this evening somewhere else and had not realised that the debate on local government would go on for so long.
1174
Having served on the Front Bench, I know how irritating it is when noble Lords say that, so once again I apologise to him.
The first question that we must ask is whether the quarantine arrangements are really necessary and whether their repeal and the introduction of a licensing system would put at risk the health of either the people or animals of this country. The answer to that question must be no because, as we have heard, vaccination works. Even the Government agree that it can provide protection equivalent to that given by quarantine. We also now know that verification works. Microchip technology means that a chip can be inserted into an animal which can then be tested to ascertain whether it has been vaccinated with the right vaccine and whether all the other safeguards that have been mentioned have been applied.
The second question is whether smuggling would increase if the quarantine regulations were repealed. I think that the answer has to be no. All the evidence from Europe shows that smuggling has not increased. We know that the costs of the vaccination procedure are not all that high. Indeed, they are much less than the cost of keeping a dog in quarantine kennels for six months.
Last week in answer to a Question my noble friend said:
"any system is likely to impose considerable cost and inconvenience on people who are bringing pets in and out of this country".— [Official Report, 13/11/96: col. 932.]
As I do not understand what could be more costly or more inconvenient than the present system, I do not think that the argument that smuggling would increase is valid.
I do not propose to talk about kennels and the state of some of them. It is rather like debating prisons in this country; they are never good enough. What we are debating here is being sent to prison or, in this case, being sentenced to six months of solitary confinement.
I am optimistic because in answer to that Question last week my noble friend said that the Government are reviewing the current laws. In fact, he said at col. 929:
"The Government are now looking again at these matters".
That is a chink of light. This evening we must all encourage my noble friend in his endeavours to push at what I hope is not a closed door. However, my noble friend also said something that rather alarmed me, stating that any change would have to have the agreement of the European Union. If there is anything to make some of your Lordships greater Euro-sceptics than they already are it is the argument that somehow this will fall foul of European regulations. There are very few European regulations in relation to this matter. Although my noble friend is quite right in saying that certain matters have to be agreed in Europe, I hope that they will not be regarded as barriers but open doors to be pushed at. I believe that there is a valid case here.
I declare an interest as a keen foxhunter. I have always been concerned that any repeal may damage foxhunting. If foxhunting were to be threatened I would not be for this proposal. However, I am convinced—those who are expert in the matter agree—that there is no danger to foxhunting in this country. Indeed, there

1175
is more danger to foxhunting in this country from rabid Members of another place who try to ban it than from rabid foxes. It may be that even the noble Lord, Lord Carter, is one of those rabid Members who wish to ban it. I am sure that he is not because I know him to be a sporting man. I must also declare an interest in that I am the owner of dogs. If the law were repealed I would find it rather expensive. I have managed to curb the aspirations of her Ladyship to foreign travel by asking, "Who is to look after the dogs?". Of course, if this measure is passed, we will have to take the dogs with us and thereby incur huge expense, but that is our problem.
I believe that the noble Lord, Lord St. John, said that he thought that I would speak against repeal. He will know by now that that is not so. He said that in the article in the Daily Telegraph it was suggested that this might appear in the manifesto of the Conservative Party. If it appeared in the manifesto it would not only make the winning of the election a likelihood but guarantee success.
I should like to put a question to my noble friend. I do not know whether he has the answer with him this evening. If not, perhaps he will write to me. If the Government were able to produce a consultation paper and the consultation process showed that there was good reason to change the law in this country, would it have to be done by Act of Parliament or could it be done by order or under the deregulation initiative? I believe that your Lordships now know where I stand on this issue.
8.12 p.m.
Lord Cochrane of Cults: My Lords, first I thank my noble friend for his very clear explanation of rabies, its mode of transmission, and so on. Nothing less could have been expected from a man of his distinction in his chosen field: veterinary science. He is a great ornament to that profession so it seems to me what he proposes makes admirable sense.
However, it would be remiss of me if, before going any further, I did not point out that the regulations and law that your Lordships' House is presently considering were introduced in the teeth of Cabinet opposition by the grandfather of my noble friend Lord Long. One of the problems is that the perfection of his arrangements for the control of rabies are so successful that they have become almost written in stone and as such unchangeable. I sympathise with my noble friend, but time goes on and, believe it or not, science advances. We now have a situation in which the scientific procedures for ascertaining the presence of rabies, protecting against it and preventing its spread are a vast improvement on what they were some 70-odd years ago, when the grandfather of my noble friend took such wise steps to control what was then seen to be a very hazardous disease.
It is momentarily interesting to realise that in the first edition of Scouting for Boys published in 1908 some rather alarming advice was provided by Baden-Powell for dealing with a mad dog. Time does not allow me—nor do I believe it to be wise—to go into the details, except that the punchline refers to a well-aimed kick. In those days, as a matter of course everybody wore what
1176
are now known as bovver boots, or something of the kind. The example he gave of a rabid dog being pinned to the ground by the neck by a man wielding a pitchfork illustrates the ferocity of the dog and the way the problem was dealt with so many years ago before the present rules were introduced.
In passing, the 1977 edition of Black's Medical Dictionary—which, after all, is now quite out of date—remarked that there had been no proven case in the United Kingdom of anybody having caught rabies from a United Kingdom source since 1911. I do not believe that at the present time there is anyone in the Chamber who was even alive then.
In his reply to the noble Lord, Lord Carter, on Wednesday, my noble friend Lord Lucas appeared to differ a little from earlier Written Answers given in another place as to the extent to which the Government were considering revision of the rules. Perhaps some explanation for that is provided by the fact that my noble friend used the seven-letter "P" word, which is the great current excuse for doing nothing or finding reasons for not doing something. Before people's imaginations become overheated, I point out that the word is "paramount". It is used as an excuse that this, that or the other consideration is paramount, and I recall pointing out in connection with another subject that if there was a desire to make safety in this field paramount it was better not to have any of it at all. Of course, that is not a practical solution. Also we have the mystery of the missing brief. I hope that it will not be a three-pipe problem for the current successor of 222b Baker Street, but there appears to be a slight dichotomy of view within the Ministry of Agriculture.
The Agriculture Committee of another place has produced a comprehensive regulatory framework, which I suggest is a totally practical method of replacing the present regulations and laws with which we are now lumbered. This accords well with the advice of my noble friend Lord Soulsby and his distinguished colleagues. I believe that we should get on with it, remembering that the present regulations are full of loopholes and anomalies. As an earlier speaker has said, all mammals can get rabies. Contrary to what my noble friend has just said, my vet tells me that humans can get rabies from horses, although it is extremely difficult. (I am glad to see that my noble friend agrees with that). This country imports a large number of herbivorous animals which can carry rabies. The only difference is that the herbivores do not go mad but dribble most appallingly. That can be mistaken by the uninitiated for foot and mouth until one looks at their feet.
The present regulations represent a major impediment to tourism. I declare an interest. I have been engaged in this matter for many years. When the ancestor of my noble friend produced these regulations there were about four cross-Channel trips made from Dover per day. I understand that today there are 85 such ferry sailings. One can see the extent to which the trade has grown. That in turn should be a further consideration. I have the greatest admiration for my noble friend's proposals. They are worthy of consideration and early implementation.
8.19 p.m.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I am fearful of being accused of over-activity. I have already addressed your Lordships' House several times this Session. However, I believe that this is an important issue. Unlike many noble Lords, unfortunately at present I do not have a dog. I have yet to hear any scientific argument against the proposed alternatives to quarantine. The fact that this country has not had rabies is not a scientific argument. I have heard plenty of arguments against quarantine, many of which have been very well presented this evening. If the Minister or his department has some scientific argument against the scheme I shall be interested to hear it.
Like the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, I should like to draw the attention of your Lordships to the position of members of the Armed Forces who serve overseas. This is particularly relevant to many servicemen who have to change locations every two or three years. Such a situation makes it unfair to introduce a dog into the family, both for the dog and the children. Growing up with pets is an important part of a child's upbringing.
I should like to take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby, on one point: the rabies-free area. I do not claim any greater knowledge than the noble Lord—in fact, far less. But this is a point of practicality. If we were to have a relaxation of the rules, we should still have rock-solid defence. That means that we must have antibody testing, passports and microchips, whether or not the dog or cat comes from a rabies-free area.
The noble Baroness, Lady Wharton, mentioned kennels. In view of the way the debate is going, kennel operators should perhaps review their business plans. Will the Minister explain why the kennel operators do not always welcome RSPCA inspections? Whether or not the quarantine rules are to be continued, we must be confident that the kennels are being operated properly. In conclusion, I support the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby.
8.21 p.m.
The Earl of Liverpool: My Lords, I join with other noble Lords in thanking my noble friend Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior for giving us the opportunity to discuss this matter. I, too, have an interest to declare: my French wife and I are owners of a dog which lives in France. He has been properly inoculated against rabies, but we are unable to get him over here to live with us because we are not prepared to place him in quarantine kennels for six months. We have the directly inverse problem of that mentioned by my noble friend Lord Astor, because the result is that we spend an inordinate amount of money travelling backwards and forwards on Le Shuttle, succeeding only in upsetting ourselves and our dog when the inevitable separation comes. However, that is better than the torment through which he would be put in a quarantine kennel.
We are an animal and pet-loving country—a trait for which I am happy to say we are known throughout the world—so how is it that we continue to condone a system which forces an individual—British citizen or otherwise—coming to this country with a pet to place
1178
that animal in a concrete prison for six months without access to grass or the other natural elements so essential to animal welfare? As other noble Lords have said, the RSPCA is refused access to quarantine kennels. Quarantine vets have absolute discretion to deal with animals in the kennels without recourse to their owner. What is most important—this was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Wharton—a representative from MAFF visits the kennels once a quarter but his concern is just security and not the welfare of the animals.
Over 100 pets die needlessly each year in cold, cement, isolation cells. Let us consider the distress and anger that that must cause the owners of the pets when they know that advances in medical science make it unnecessary to cause that suffering.
The all-party Select Committee of another place which presented its report and recommendations in January 1995 came to the unanimous conclusion that the existing quarantine law should be changed and replaced by a safer and better system—I refer to tagging and passports. I have read its detailed report which has been mentioned previously in your Lordships' House. I hope that noble Lords will forgive me if I quote briefly one passage. In the conclusions it states:
"The introduction of a suitable system of controls through vaccination is emphatically not a relaxation of Britain's defence against rabies. We would never support a change which increased the likelihood of rabies entering the UK. In fact we consider that a system such as we propose would effectively decrease that likelihood, not least because the costs of the new procedure, a small fraction of the expense of quarantine, would no longer provide an incentive for many to smuggle their animals into this country".
I raised that point about smuggling last week on the Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Carter. I should be interested to know whether my noble friend the Minister would like to reconsider his answer to that, because I believe that smuggling would decrease dramatically if we introduced the inoculation and tagging system.
I shall refer briefly to our servicemen and their families—a point mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee. Many servicemen are required to serve overseas. They consider a family pet to be an essential stabilising element in the upheaval process. The trauma caused to both pet and family by quarantine can be deeply distressing. What adds insult to injury is that the serviceman is required to pay the bill which can be anything from £1,500 to £2,000, and no assistance is currently given by the MoD to meeting that cost.
Finally, I shall turn to the damage that current legislation is causing to UK plc. Recently, I met a well-known Canadian businessman who has two dogs. He and his family are very attached to them and believe in the adage that a dog is a man's best friend. He wished to come to live here and to establish a business in Great Britain which would have been capitalised at over £200 million. But he did not go ahead with his plans. Why? The answer is of course that he just could not bear to subject his dogs to a six-month sentence in the quarantine kennels. It would be folly to assume that he is the only overseas businessman with those views.
The efficacy of inoculation, blood testing and tagging is unquestioned. We must move forward, and, like Sweden, adopt that system as quickly as possible.

1179
I welcome the review currently being undertaken by the Government. I have been doing a little scoring during the debate. It is interesting to note that of eight speakers, we have so far eight people in favour of change and none against.
I believe that the great majority of the British public sees the current law for what it is—overreacting, Dickensian and discredited. I hope that my noble friend the Minister can give me some assurance that we will not have to wait long for the law to change for the better.
8.28 p.m.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior for initiating once again a debate on this subject that affects so many people in this country. Rabies, la rage, la rabbia—the word alone evokes in people a fear of death. Understandably, a disease called hydrophobia from the Greek—a horror of water, inability to swallow, owing to a contraction of the throat—is enough to scare anyone. "Rabid" is described in the dictionary as "raging", "fanatical". That could well be used to describe some humans who have not even been attacked by a rabid animal.
It is hard to believe that for over five years as a Member of the European Parliament, at practically every constituency meeting, the subject was brought up. As an MEP, one's postbag is huge—easily 50 to 100 letters a day, a great number of which concern pets. Sadly, I do not own a pet at the moment. I am also aware that there are many people—dare I say?—who are so politically incorrect that they still feel like W.C. Fields who said:
"Anybody who hates children and dogs can't be all bad".
The subject we are debating arouses as much passion as any European debate. We would all agree that we must keep Britain rabies free and continue to work for its extinction in Europe, as I wrote in my election address. But what is the most efficient and humane way? There are the technical facts, and there is the humane factor. I start with a few facts. Quarantine is not responsible for keeping Britain rabies free. We have heard that. It is 26 years since a rabid animal was found in quarantine. Perhaps I may say to the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, that scientific methods of countering rabies by an oral vaccine are a proven success. Incidentally, no one has died of rabies contracted in the European Union for more than 30 years.
There is no doubt that rabies still constitutes one of the major perceived threats to human health with estimates of some 35,000 deaths annually, mainly in India, Pakistan and other Asian, African and American countries—none, I repeat, in Europe.
There are two distinctive strains of rabies, as we heard from my noble friend Lord Soulsby: one in foxes and one in dogs. The former is far less dangerous and does not exist in the UK as foxes cannot swim or penetrate the Tunnel. The latter does not exist either because travelling pets are now vaccinated.
Secondly, there is the humane side. Pets in quarantine are not allowed to be handled. Owners are allowed to go to see their pets but not to touch them. There must
1180
be no cuddles because they are in quarantine. Let us remember that six months in a dog's life is the equivalent to more than three years of a human's. Many pets die in quarantine, quite understandably, from stress and related illnesses. That is plain cruelty and inhumane treatment of animals. Therefore, pet owners are tempted to smuggle rather than to allow that torture or to bear the very heavy costs.
What rules or laws do we need to keep Britain rabies free? Perhaps I may support a few suggestions which have been mentioned. As my noble friend Lady Sharples, in her Question on quarantine on 17th July mentioned, Norway and Sweden used to have quarantine but now have pioneered the pet passport system. However, there are essential requirements. The pets must be identified by a tattoo or microchip. The animal must be vaccinated with an approved inactivated vaccine. The animal must have resided in a European Union country for the preceding 12 months. At least four months after vaccination, a blood sample must be taken. Quarantine should still exist for animals which fail to test or which come from a non-European country which is not rabies free.
I fully support the Prime Minister by backing the reform of Britain's tough anti-rabies laws and I very much hope that reforms will be included in our manifesto. My right honourable friend Douglas Hogg deserves support too for having his department float the idea of a reform earlier this year.
Perhaps I may quote part of a recent letter written from Madrid and which appeared in Country Life headed, "Quarantine, a cruel farce". The letter states:
"Our Staffordshire bull terrier made her final journey to the vet last weekend, so not for her the human equivalent of three years in the slammer, a sordid cage with no remission. She had, like all dogs in Spain, had rabies shots and an identity chip implanted in her shoulder. As in most other European countries, the only instances of rabies in Spain during the past 25 years have been as a result of human importation or laboratory accidents.
"Nobody, least of all dog owners, wants to import rabies. Recently there was a case of rabies in the UK, imported in the blood stream of an unfortunate human returning from Africa. Should we put humans in cages for six months or should we confront, like many other countries, the unholy alliance of certain vets and kennel owners and end the farcical cruelty of quarantine?"
I am the tenth speaker in favour of the Motion. In case your Lordships are depressed, perhaps I may tell a short story. There was a little old lady with her knitting and a young man sitting in a railway compartment on their way to Norfolk. From time to time the little old lady threw cups out of the window. The young man finally summed up the courage and asked, "Why are you doing that?" "To keep the elephants away, of course". "But surely, my friend, there are no elephants in Norfolk?" "Exactly so! That is why I must keep doing it".
8.35 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, we must be very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby, for asking this Question this evening which has produced a great deal of wisdom and knowledge, even though, as the

1181
noble Lord, Lord Cochrane of Cults, goes out of the door, one must comment that his numeracy may not be as great as it should be.
As has been mentioned by some noble Lords, we had a preview of this debate in Question Time last Wednesday when the noble Lord, Lord Carter, asked a Question. On reading those exchanges, two matters caught my attention in particular. First, the noble Lord, Lord Hayhoe, got rather hot under the collar about what he thought was a suggestion that the Governor of Hong Kong might not abide by the regulations in force when he returns to this country. In fact, no one made such a suggestion nor do I believe that anyone in your Lordships' House would do so.
The second and by far the most important matter was the admission or the information from the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, that no welfare requirements can be imposed on quarantine kennels. That has been repeated several times in this debate.
That being so, we find ourselves in a position which is in some ways easy for the Government because, whatever their views on the necessity of quarantine, they must recognise that there is a need for legislation of some kind. Although the Minister expressed his belief that the conditions in quarantine kennels have been considerably exaggerated for the worse, nevertheless he and other noble Lords made it clear that there are instances where those conditions are not satisfactory and that again is a matter which has been repeated this evening.
Therefore, if we care for the welfare of those animals, we must bring in legislation either to enable those conditions to be controlled or to make them unnecessary by changing the whole system, particularly in view of the widespread conviction that there are now other and more humane ways of controlling rabies and probably more efficient ways too. The Minister suggested that there will always be a temptation to smuggle, and I grant that point, but that temptation must surely be greater under a system where the pet in question must spend one-twentieth of its life in quarantine than one under which it merely has to have a series of injections and be tagged and the cost is much less.
I brought a dog back from Hong Kong. It is fair to say that it was neurotic before it went into quarantine but it was far more neurotic when it came out. One would like to spare animals and their owners that kind of experience.
In view of the fact that the Government have to take action one way or the other, is it not time that they took the best advice available and acted decisively on it? We know that they are looking into the matter. That is the first step. On these Benches, we should be the last to ask the Government to act against a precautionary principle for which I find myself having to argue so often in debates in your Lordships' House. But we ask the Government not just to accept the status quo, against which they argue and act so vehemently in other areas, but to establish
1182
the facts and to act accordingly. They may find that the advice and the findings of the Fifth Report of the Agriculture Committee of another place, which has already been quoted, are extremely helpful in terms of exactly what to do about it.
8.39 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, like other noble Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby, for tabling this Question. This is a very sensitive subject. There is an understandable caution regarding any dramatic change in the existing regime and the equally understandable fear of a dreadful disease like rabies. My noble friend Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, who, I believe, was the Minister who set up the Waterhouse Committee in the late 1970s, asked me to say that if he had not had a previous speaking engagement he would have liked to speak in the debate and would exercise a word of caution.
We all agree about one thing: it is crucial that the UK continues to protect its status as a rabies-free country. Therefore, it is essential that any change to the existing system must be shown clearly to produce at least the same degree of protection which we now have and perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Cochrane, will not mind my saying that the precautionary principle should be paramount. All the technical points have been made; there is no need to repeat them. We have all received most persuasive briefing from vets in support of change and from Passports for Pets.
My colleague in the other place, Mr. Elliot Morley, who speaks for the Labour Party on animal welfare, made, while emphasising our concern to maintain our current rabies-free status, a number of very constructive suggestions for full consultation with interested parties on the following matters. Because of the lack of time, I shall paraphrase his suggestions. He says that we should consider stronger safeguards than those recommended by the Select Committee in the other place including a tighter requirement for import licences, restricted points of entry and powers to hold animals in quarantine pending blood tests if there is a doubt about their identity.
Mr. Morley also suggests a phased approach to the gradual lifting of quarantine which would have to be based upon a full inquiry by MAFF into all the procedures to be put into place and the effectiveness of other countries' schemes. Such an inquiry would obviously involve full consultation with all interested parties, the implementation perhaps of a full trial scheme between the UK and other countries with rabies-free status and an agreement on a European standard for microchip technology.
The Government's stance is, to say the least, a little unclear. Several speakers referred to the Question that I asked last week about the status of the risk assessment that had been announced, I thought, by the chief veterinary officer of the Ministry of Agriculture to the Royal Society of Medicine on 3rd May 1995. Noble Lords will no doubt remember that, in reply, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said that,
"no such risk assessment was announced".

1183
The noble Lord added later:
"Yes, there will be a risk assessment if and when there are proposals for change"—[Official Report, 13/11/96; col. 929.].
I found that hard to understand because, as your Lordships will know, it is clear that the chief veterinary officer did say in the "General Discussion" reported in Rabies in a Changing World:
"We will carry out our own risk assessment…The Ministry of Agriculture is taking a positive line. We are listening and will carry out our own risk assessment analysis".
Indeed, we all find this a little hard to understand. For example, we have Mr. David Willetts in the other place admitting that when the chairman of the Select Committee says that he wants advice, he does not want it and, presumably, when the chief veterinary officer says that they will carry out their own risk assessment, that actually means that there will be no risk assessment. I am beginning to feel that a qualification in linguistic philosophy might help me to understand such matters.
However, we do have the Written Answers referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Cochrane of Cults, from Mrs. Angela Browning, the Parliamentary Secretary in another place. She said on 6th November:
"We are now looking at the matter, taking account of the most recent information-.—[Official Report, Commons, 6/11/96; co1.488.]
Then, on 12th November, she said that possible identification and vaccination systems,
"are being considered as part of the review of rabies controls announced in my reply of 5 November 1996" [Official Report, Commons, 12/11/96; co1.72.]
Therefore, it would be extremely helpful if the Government could tell us what is actually going on. Are they reviewing their rabies policy? If they are, surely such an integral part of such a review must be a risk assessment.
As I understood the reply of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, last week, he seemed to imply that the Government will consider proposals for a change in policy and that they will then carry out a risk assessment. That would seem to a layman to be exactly the wrong way around. If the Government are reviewing policy, then surely a risk assessment must be an integral part of it. As I said, we now have an Answer twice within a week from Mrs. Angela Browning mentioning the review of the rabies policy.
When the Minister replies it will be extremely helpful if he will tell us what is going on. I understand that there is an inter-departmental review. Can the Minister tell us the timetable for that review and its components; in other words, what matters are being considered?
We have had a most useful debate on a most important subject. I have one further question for the Minister and I should at once declare an interest as a member of my family is a guidedog owner. Of all animals, guidedogs are properly looked after. They are fully recorded as regards their health; they are centrally registered and identified. Could not an exception be made for them on the same basis which already exists for what I believe are termed "tradeable animals"? Finally, I was intrigued by the mention of the possible
1184
inclusion in the Conservative election manifesto of proposals on rabies and quarantine. It seems to me that the spin doctors will have some fun with that one.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I must say that it is a great pleasure to be answering a debate where every single speaker has spoken so clearly in favour of the basic principles of Government policy in this area; namely, first, the need to protect the public and our livestock against the disease of rabies and, secondly, that we should take a very careful look at how best to do so.
I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior for initiating tonight's debate. I greatly respect the sincerity of the views that he put forward, which were, I believe, echoed by every other speaker in the debate. However, there is an equally strongly held view which has not been expressed this evening. It is what one might call the "long view"; namely, that quarantine has served this country well and that there are no alternatives which carry as few risks. We also respect the sincerity with which that view is held. I do not believe that it helps a debate when some people—including, I am sad to say, one of my noble friends, Lady Rawlings—indulge in spurious rubbishing of it. If we had not had quarantine, it is quite clear that we would now have rabies in this country. The question is not whether quarantine works but whether we can find something which works better.
The question of whether to amend the present six months' quarantine requirement is a complex and difficult one. We are now looking again at our arrangements to keep rabies out of this country. I hope that that answers one of the questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Carter. Clearly a risk assessment will be part of such an examination if and when we reach the point where the proposals are clear enough and few enough to make that a sensible thing to do. At present there are just too many options under consideration. However, as I made clear at the beginning of my remarks, any changes will have to take as their starting point the paramount—and I am delighted that I have been able to find that word in my brief—need to protect the health of people and of animals in this country.
Rabies is held in awe—and rightly so. As my noble friend Lord Soulsby pointed out, tens of thousands of people worldwide die each year from the disease. People are right to be concerned that the disease should be kept out of this country. I do not share the relative lack of concern of my noble friend Lord Soulsby about fox-mediated rabies. I have seen no research, certainly no published peer-reviewed research, as to the nature of the difference between fox rabies and dog rabies. I have not seen that it has been genetically sequenced. I have not seen that research has been carried out on different forms of rabies to show whether they evolve with the species or whether it is a disease which has crossed species barriers in the relatively recent past.
I have not seen information on the variability of the disease within the European fox population. I certainly have not seen any results of dog-to-fox transmission experiments. I appreciate that the noble Lord is right to

1185
say that there are no demonstrable instances of it. But one would not really expect to find such instances, given the fact that the fox is likely to go away and be wild and no one will have seen the bite and, therefore, no one will know whether the fox was infected by a dog or another fox. Indeed, it would require proper experiments to prove what happened. The indications we have seem to suggest that it is certainly a possibility that it could happen.
Fox rabies is not something that we would want in this country. We have a large urban fox population and it would no longer be safe to let one's children play in the back garden if we had it. As my noble friend Lord Astor said, it would cause significant difficulties with fox-hunting, although that may not trouble some people. I suppose that the only people who would notably benefit are vets, who might expect an additional income of about £300 million a year if fox rabies was endemic in this country.
Quarantine has for long been the basis of our current policies. But, as we have heard tonight, quarantine is not popular with the pet owners affected. Some feel the separation from their animals deeply. That prolonged separation of owner from pet is seen as imposing a hardship on both of them. The debate this evening and the ministry's postbag bear eloquent witness to that fact. My noble friend Lord Liverpool and others have made that point with great eloquence and have pointed out that it not only affects our own people but also visitors and businessmen who do not come to this country when they otherwise might.
The question has also been raised of the quality of welfare in quarantine kennels. We have recently published a voluntary code of practice on welfare standards which has been sent out to kennel owners and prospective quarantine customers. It is not the case that the death rate of pets in quarantine is higher than that in the general population. As regards access by the RSPCA and other organisations, we do not accept that that is necessary given the safeguards that we already have. However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Wharton, said, welfare considerations are something which we are prohibited by the current legislation from taking into account when MAFF inspects quarantine kennels. The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, will bring a Bill to this House in a couple of days' time. He is well aware that it is possible to address welfare issues through Private Member's Bills. I wish that he had chosen to address this issue rather than that of chickens. If he had done so, we might have had some more useful results from our debates.
In our review of rabies control measures, we shall look to see whether we can alleviate this distress while maintaining our existing level of protection against the disease. We accept the scientific evidence that a pet from Europe that is properly vaccinated before being exposed to rabies infection, satisfies a blood test, is conclusively identified, and has a residency certificate, would in theory pose no greater threat of introducing rabies into the United Kingdom than one entering under our current quarantine arrangements. However, it is not easy to devise an arrangement which would work in
1186
practice and offer the same level of protection. Clearly we could have a system ranging from what we have at the moment to a system where there were no controls at all, which I am sure would not be acceptable to any noble Lord. In between there is a wide range of possibilities, including those broadly of the type recommended in 1994 by the Agriculture Select Committee in another place. This might involve animals imported from certain "approved" countries being subject to a system of vaccination, blood checking and identification, along the lines of that introduced in Sweden. Animals imported from other countries, or which could not meet the conditions, would still have to be quarantined. We have not yet reached any conclusions but we are listening to all the arguments and weighing them up carefully. That is why the debate this evening, and all the various discussions which are going on through Passports for Pets and other organisations, are of such great value. However, I can tell the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, that we are not considering dog licences.
There are two factors of which we shall have to take particular account in our review. The first is Europe. The Common Market and the free movement of goods and people are clearly principles which give the European Union a crucial interest in the future of our rabies control. Any proposed changes will have to be discussed with the Commission in great depth. We have its assurance that it shares with us a determination that any proposals agreed by it should provide at least the same level of protection as that provided for in relation to traded animals at present.
My noble friend Lord Astor wondered whether we might not be pushing at an open door. Indeed, as regards Europe, we are. What we are worried about is that there might be an oubliette on the other side. We might find ourselves with regulations which are so loose that they resulted in an increased risk of rabies in this country.
Many noble Lords have raised the question of smuggling. To my mind the key defence against smuggling is that everybody knows that any dog or cat entering the country in a normal vehicle, or with a foot passenger, must be an illegal import. That is the key deterrent to smuggling. In any other system clearly there would be a reduced incentive—or there might be a reduced incentive—if the costs of importing a pet were reduced. However, there might be an increased incentive if it was easier to smuggle a pet under the particular system put in place. That is one of the aspects of any new system that one would have to look at. One would have to consider whether it would make smuggling easier to the point where people would smuggle more.
The second factor we have to look at is enforcement. Alternative arrangements would have to be capable of maintaining our protection against rabies in theory and in practice. With a vaccine based system we would need to be sure, for example, that the paperwork accompanying every cat and dog entering the United Kingdom could be checked and found to be acceptable. We would also, I imagine, want to be able to detain animals subject to blood tests until that test had shown an acceptable result. These difficulties may or may not be insuperable, but they would certainly require careful

1187
consideration. We would also have to consider the additional administrative cost of the alternatives to quarantine. Depending on the system adopted, enforcement could be expensive. Clearly we need a system where there will be people charged with looking at what might be a large number of dogs coming into and out of this country. I suppose we could give them the title "Dogwatch" and try to sell the rights to television, but somehow I think "Baywatch" will always be more popular.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, asked a couple of questions which I would like to give particular attention to. First, he asked about guide dogs. Guide dogs will in many cases have been kept under close control and have well-documented histories. We shall be looking at the question of guide dogs in our review but I cannot prejudge the outcome. Secondly, he asked when the results of the review would be announced. This was a question which I think was amplified by the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, who even suggested that something he had read in the Sunday Telegraph might be true. That is always a dangerous supposition. I said to the noble Lord, Lord Carter, last week that the Government are looking again at the rabies quarantine
1188
rules. If there is a decision on any new moves, an announcement will be made. Obviously this is a complex matter. It is too early to say when a decision might be made, if it were to be made. I hope that is suitably inscrutable for the noble Lord.
My noble friend Lord Astor also asked what mechanisms we would need to use to change the present regulations. We believe it would be technically possible to change them by a statutory instrument. But given the considerable interest there would be should any proposal be made to change these regulations, such considerations might weigh rather more heavily than the merely technical. Our challenge is to maintain a system of rabies control that is both secure and enforceable. We are looking again to see whether anything would offer us the same degree of protection and of enforceability that we enjoy at present. But, as I have previously said, any changes would have to take as their starting point the paramount need—I really think that is going overboard for my noble friend Lord Cochrane—to protect the health both of people and of animals in this country.
House adjourned at three minutes before nine o'clock.