Sitting of 24 February 1984

Preamble
The House met at half-past Nine o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

London (Government Policy)
9.35 am
Mr. Tony Banks: I beg to move,
That this House is of the opinion that the Government's proposals to cancel the 1985 elections to the Greater London Council and the Inner London Education Authority are an affront to democracy and a fundamental attack upon the liberties of the people; notes that unemployment has risen in Greater London by 241,507, since May 1979 and that the number of persons claiming supplementary allowance in Greater London has increased by 240,800 since May 1979; notes the likely devastating effects upon the education service of Inner London of the proposals incorporated in the Rates Bill; further notes that hospitals, wards and units are under threat of closure in London as a direct consequence of the Government's public expenditure policies; and calls upon the Government completely to withdraw all the legislative proposals it has made to dismantle the structure and destroy the direct accountability of the Greater London Council and the Inner London Education Authority, and to bring forward policies designed to end the scandals of mass unemployment, poverty and reductions in the quality of public services in the capital city.
The Benches resemble the enclosure at Hartlepool United football ground on a bad Saturday afternoon, but I expect that hon. Members will drift in as the morning continues.
The primary purpose of my motion is to bring to the attention of the House what amounts to a deliberate and systematic attack by the Government on the democratic rights and living standards of Londoners. Everyone is affected by the former, and a growing number are affected by the latter. Although London is often regarded as the cornucopia of the country, it is a region in which great extremes of wealth and poverty exist side by side. In London, as elsewhere, we live in a divided society—a society where the Government are effectively at war with the people.
London, like nowhere else in the United Kingdom, can demonstrate enormous disparities of wealth, opportunity and circumstances. To the well-heeled visitor or the privileged resident, London can truly be a magic city where all needs and desires can be satisfied, but at a price. However, if our visitor cares to wander from the luxury hotels, restaurants and night clubs of Mayfair to the Charing Cross Embankment, Vauxhall or Spitalfields, he will see the army of the ragged and dispossessed who nightly wrap themselves up in cardboard and newspapers and sleep rough on London's streets. Our visitor might be shocked to see how many of those people are young, who are unable to find jobs or who, if they have been lucky enough to find jobs, cannot find a home in the city. Our visitor might also notice that many of the dispossessed clearly suffer from mental disorders. That is what happens
1072
when hospitals close and the non-critical long-term disabled are forced back into communities that simply cannot care for them.
It is estimated that 50,000 people are homeless in London every night. Not all, of them sleep on the streets. The lucky ones manage to get a place in a hostel, a reception centre or a bed-and-breakfast establishment. There are 200,000 people on London's housing waiting list, yet we have the scandal of 32,000 unemployed building workers in London alone. Government policies have resulted in the lowest level of housing starts in London since 1924, yet office blocks continue to be built despite the millions of square feet of unlet office space that we see all round us in the city.
Where is the sense in all this? What humanity is it that condemns thousands of Londoners to sleep rough, and thousands of people to remain on housing waiting lists, yet keeps those building workers on the dole? There are needs to be satisfied, and there are workers who have the skill to satisfy those needs, but the system prevents the demand from being met.
Since 1979 unemployment in London has increased by more than 240,000 and is now about 370,000. It must be remembered that that represents the largest concentration of unemployed people in the country. We hear, rightly, about the problems of other regions but, despite the fact that the House is located in London, we do not hear enough about the real problems of London, which equal and surpass the problems of most other areas.
The increase in unemployment since 1979 has been a result of the policies of a Government who, in the 1979 general election, used the slogan, "Labour isn't working." By that con trick on the people of London and of the country, the Government have, since 1979, reintroduced mass unemployment as a deliberate economic policy. Its purpose is to prop up an ailing capitalist system that cannot survive unless the welfare state is steadily dismantled, the wages of those in work are forced down and the living standards of the majority are steadily eroded.
In 1983, for the first time in 200 years, Britain ran a balance of payments deficit on its manufactured trade, a fact that was not widely reported in the Tory press. In 1983, we also recorded historically high figures for bankruptcies and unemployment. What a record — a treble of truly titanic proportions; and in economic terms Britain is daily looking more and more like the Titanic, with the Prime Minister standing on the quayside still trying to sell us tickets for the maiden voyage.
The right hon. Lady says that she bats for Britain. Apart from putting up the occasional dolly catch for her son Mark, all the signs are that her innings will end in a rather dramatic run-out for the British economy. It is the once-for-all bonus of North sea oil that is effectively preventing Britain from going bankrupt, but when the oil runs out the true extent of the capitalist crisis will become apparent and the impact in economic and social terms will not be pleasant to experience. The Prime Minister is effectively destroying the country's economy, and if she is still in power when the oil revenues stop Britain will have been transformed into a banana monarchy beset by massive social tensions that will affect London far more critically that any other region.
Perhaps the Government have already worked out the likely social consequences of their kamikaze economic policies, which is perhaps why they are so busily pumping resources into the armed services and the police. Perhaps

1073
the Government need them to suppress the civil population later this decade. Who knows? We can only observe the facts and interpret them. I am rather disturbed to see that Conservative Members seem to think that this is funny. Earlier in my speech I left our well-heeled visitor to London contemplating the sleepers on the Embankment and I suggest that some hon. Members, at an appropriate moment, should stroll out from the House and down to the Embankment to see what goes on in the city every night. Some of them would then realise just how serious London's problems are becoming.
I shall now take our visitor to the east end where, away from the centre, he can see the miseries that are caused or exacerbated by Government policies, and they may be seen in depressing abundance. The borough of Newham is ranked by the Department of the Environment as the second worst off of all the local authority areas in England. The worst-off area is Hackney and the third worst-off is Tower Hamlets; all three stand close together and present a depressing picture of the east end in 1984.
It is an area characterised by much poverty, few jobs and no hope. In Newham, since the Tory victory of 1979, unemployment has increased by 242 per cent. and now stands at 19·4 per cent. of the working population, which is much higher than the national average. Large numbers of Newham residents work in the low income socioeconomic groups — 13 per cent., compared with less than 9 per cent. in London as a whole. Less than 1 per cent. of residents are qualified professional workers and the figure for London as a whole is five times greater. Some 65 per cent. of Newham's housing tenants receive income support towards their housing costs and over 27,000 people receive supplementary benefit from the three DHSS offices in Newham.
Most depressing of all in this litany of depression is the way that the problems of Newham are clearly being passed on to the next generation. Some 61 per cent. of Newham's children live in overcrowded accommodation and 15 per cent. live in households containing at least one unemployed adult.
Newham is one of the foremost deprived local education authority areas in the country. Of the 104 local authority areas in England, Newham has the highest percentage of children in low socio-economic groups and the highest percentage of children living in poor housing. What a miserable prospect for the children of the east end, when they see the conditions under which they and their parents live and the way that the whole of the east end is getting more depressing.
Housing in Newham is appalling. In the private sector in the borough, well over half the dwellings are unsatisfactory through unfitness, serious disrepair or lack of basic amenities such a fixed bath. Some 15 per cent. of Newham's households do not have their own bath or inside WC, the second highest percentage in the country. Homelessness in Newham is now higher than ever before, despite the efforts of the council, which in 1982–83 rehoused the third largest number of families in London.
Nearly a quarter of Newham's council accommodation is in the 107 tower blocks in the borough. Many people whose only wish is to get out of the tower blocks come to my surgery.
Mr. Harry Greenway: Who built them?
Mr. Banks: They were built by a Labour authority because of the cost yardsticks, the encouragement that was given to build in that way, and the pressure on land and the high cost of land in London. It was wrong of Newham to build them, but the pressures were on it. We are now living with the problems today. We cannot just ask, "Who built them?" The problem is how we will solve the problems created by the building of those tower blocks and the living accommodation that people now have. Let us address ourselves to solving those problems.
Few hon. Members will have had the experience of living in a tower block. It is not to be recommended, particularly when trying to bring up a young family, yet in Newham there are 800 young families still seeking rehousing in these blocks. In the 107 tower blocks, there are more people living above the tenth floor than in any other area in the country. It puts great pressures on people, and I am sure that hon. Members will be able to decide from their own experience the great social and psychological problems put on people when they have to live so high in the air.
The elderly in Newham are, if anything, in a worse position than the young, and that is saying something. For example, 20 per cent. of pensioners over 75 are without a plumbed-in bath. The 1982 standardised mortality rate for Newham is 15 per cent. higher than in the country as a whole and 20 per cent. higher than the average for southeast England. The perinatal mortality rate for Newham is 55 per cent. higher than the national average and 70 per cent. greater than the regional average. The high level of stress resulting from low incomes, unemployment, poor housing conditions and poor environment has resulted in unbearable demands being made on the borough's social services. As a borough, it simply cannot cope.
I recognise the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment as the acceptable face of Tory extremism today. He is known to have some social concern left. It has not yet been beaten out of him by his experience on the Government Front Bench. However, I must ask him why the borough of Newham was refused partnership status by the Government, which would at least have enabled it to face up to some of its problems.
Clearly one cannot blame all Newham's problems on the Government, and I do not seek to do so. However, all the problems that I have mentioned have become worse since 1979, and look likely to become even worse under present Government policies. London boroughs such as Newham simply cannot solve their problems with their own inadequate resources. There is only one way that the problems of Newham, which obtain in so many other boroughs — no doubt my hon. Friends will tell the House about those problems later—can be solved, and that is by the Government giving the financial support that is obviously necessary
However, instead of doing that, the Government have been systematically taking money away from the London boroughs. It is estimated that since 1979 London has lost more than £2,700 million of Government grants in real terms. In 1982 the Prime Minister sent a task force to the Falklands. Why is she apparently more concerned about the problems 8,000 miles away than about the massive problems on her own doorstep, which she does not have to travel 8,000 miles to see? I only wish that the right hon.

1075
Lady would send a task force to the east end of London and pursue it with the relentless vigour that she is so proud of boasting about when it comes to looking after British people 8,000 miles away. There are many British people in London, very near the right hon. Lady and the House, who would like to see her apply herself with the same vigour to solving their problems.
Hon. Members should remember that £1 billion per year is being spent on the Fortress Falklands policy. It could be far better spent on liberating London from the oppression of its many and varied problems. People in London and throughout the country are living off an inheritance. For example, the Victorians largely built London's sewerage system. Fortunately, they had the foresight to construct excellent sewerage systems, but London's system is cracking and breaking up and needs replacing. That can be done only by massive public investment on the part of the Government. Such work would benefit successive generations, would generate a lot of work in London and would do something for the appalling unemployment rate.
It has been estimated that £7,500 million is needed to bring London's housing stock up to a reasonable standard. That would bring immediate relief to many hundreds of thousands of Londoners and would also bring thousands of jobs to London. In that way, the Government would be meeting some socially desirable needs. However, they show no willingness whatever even to contemplate such a spending programme.
Perhaps the well-heeled visitor that I described earlier, who is still trying to recover from the misery of the social and economic decay of the east end, will recommend that Londoners should use the ballot box to make their feelings known to the Government. Here I come to the second part of my motion. Not content with denying Londoners the necessary economic support to enable them to confront their problems, the Government are now poised to take away an important element of their democratic rights in London. There will be ample opportunity to debate the detailed arguments surrounding the Government's proposals for the GLC and ILEA in the coming months, so I shall deal only with the principles today.
In the Tory party manifesto of June 1983 there appeared, much to the surprise of the electorate and most of the Tory Cabinet, an undertaking to abolish the GLC and the metropolitan county councils. Informed opinion leads us to believe that the GLC's extermination order came directly from the chief dalek herself, who, no doubt influenced by the balanced reporting about the GLC in the Daily Mail, The Sun and the Daily Express, had reached the conclusion that the advent of a radical Labour administration in County Hall signified the end of civilisation as she knows it. Oh, were that to be so.
It is well known in the House that the right hon. Lady hates opposition, whether it be from inside or outside her party. To her, opposition amounts to treason and must be dealt with accordingly. I find myself among those who are worried by the petty personal element so often introduced by the Prime Minister into her political decision making. In the case of the GLC, she has clearly developed a dislike for my very good friend Ken Livingstone to a point where it appears to have unhinged her judgment. Of course, the ministerial poodles will troop loyally behind. Personal antipathy is not a proper basis on which to predicate a major restructuring of local government in England. To paraphrase a well known jingle that is used to sell
1076
chocolates, it is all because the lady loathes red Ken. Because she does so, and takes such a personal view of politics and of opposition to her, the House is about to turn itself inside out to give legislative reality to a piece of party political vindictiveness.
I should remind the House that the GLC was created by a Conservative Government in 1963, after the detailed studies of a Royal Commission on local government in London, which was set up in 1957 under Sir Edwin Herbert and which reported in 1960. The Herbert commission recommended devolution to the boroughs of as many of London's services as possible. I encourage Conservative Members to read paragraphs 701 to 740 of its report. In those paragraphs, in the summary of findings, the commission specifically rejected the very sort of proposals that the Government have made 24 years later in their White Paper "Streamlining the Cities".
To talk, as Ministers do, of giving back GLC powers to the boroughs which they never had in the first place reveals an ignorance about London's local government that is quite breathtaking. In 1978, the Conservative GLC under Sir Horace Cutler — incidentally, I should just mention to the Government that he is still a bit miffed that he has not been given a peerage—set up an inquiry under Sir Frank Marshall, now Lord Marshall. It reasserted that a metropolitan authority was necessary to enable London government to function properly. Indeed, the present Secretary of State, who is now busily trying to make some sort of reality of his leader's vindictiveness, gave evidence to the Marshall inquiry. In his letter, dated 1 August 1977, he wrote:
"I therefore believe we have got progressively to return to the concept that the GLC is a strategic authority. It should not be a housing authority and the intention of the London Government Act that housing should be progressively handed over to the Boroughs should now be firmly implemented. The GLC's planning powers should be essentially strategic and provide the framework within which the Boroughs should operate the day-to-day planning controls. The GLC should remain responsible for London Transport"—
ha, ha—
"and its transport planning should be progressively integrated with its strategic land use planning."
The present Secretary of State for the Environment appears to have changed his mind radically since 1977. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman is also in favour of the measure to take the control of London Transport away from the GLC and give it to an unelected quango comprised of people appointed by the Secretary of State for Transport. That seems strange, for in 1977 he believed that the GLC should remain responsible for London transport.
How many more principles and apparently thought-out positions will Conservative Members sacrifice, turn inside out and reverse at a stroke merely because they are led by a Prime Minister who does not understand local government, who does not appreciate the structure of local government in London and who cannot have any realisation of the damage that her policies are doing to local democracy and efficiency in London?
From what the Government say in their White Paper, they are proposing machinery which was dismantled in 1888, when the Local Government Act of that year set up the directly elected London County Council. The Government are proposing now to take London back to the days of the Metropolitan Board of Works, which was set up in 1855. We have heard of the Prime Minister's great love for Victorian values. She clearly has a love for

1077
Victorian local government because we are about to be taken back by her to the local government structures of the last century.
An editorial in The Times in 1859 said of the Metropolitan Board of Works, as it then was:
"The system of double elections has never yet produced anything but cliques and jobbing. Unhappily, the Board spends our money and rates our property and we cannot afford to let them alone to their own devices."
In 1984 the Government are apparently seriously suggesting that joint boards should compromise the future structure of local government in London.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: The real criticism of the Metropolitan Board of Works was the extent to which a double tier of that variety, particularly in respect of civil engineering contracts and other large items of patronage, gave scope for financial irregularities which all too often we are beginning to see as a result of some of the policies of the Conservative Administration.
Mr. Banks: I accept that, and the pressures which built up after 1855, following the setting up of that board, led to its being scrapped. Unless accountability is direct, the control cannot be sufficient. One need only consider what has happened with bodies set up subsequently, such as the Thames water authority. I am not suggesting that that is a corrupt body, but it is not subject to direct scrutiny and is not accountable. That means that discipline cannot be exerted on its day-to-day management.
Mr. Richard Tracey: Coming down to basics, will the hon. Gentleman say whether the metropolitan board which he has been criticising built the sewers and drains which he was praising earlier?
Mr. Banks: Yes, and I would not detract from the good works that the board did. Eventually, however, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) pointed out, because of a lack of scrutiny, that good work, if not brought to naught, was greatly diminished by the corruption and ineffeciencies that crept in.
When we have an opportunity to discuss the proposals which, no doubt, the Government will lay before the House for the abolition of the GLC, we shall be able to deal in detail with the way in which local government structures have developed, and on that occasion I shall hope for an interesting contribution from the hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey) on the activities of the Metropolitan Board of Works in Victorian London. It is a tale worth telling.
The Government intend to set up any number of joint boards which, together with unelected unaccountable quangos, will run the GLC services, and that means, in local government terms, taking us backwards in time. It may be a modicum of comfort to Conservative Members who share the Prime Minister's belief that the GLC is some sort of political monster, to note that the following was said of the LCC not long after its creation in 1889:
"Its notable feature was its radical aggressiveness. The violence of its denunciation of the City by some of its members and its persistence in indulging in attacks upon privilege and vested interests were uncompromising, almost ruthless."
It appears that little changes when it comes to the attitude of people in authority to the running of London through County Hall, but the record speaks for itself. The GLC and LCC together have a record of achievement in London that is second to none.
Mr. Greenway: As one who formerly worked for the LCC, I subscribe to the hon. Gentleman's tribute to it, at least in education, where it had a good record. However, in housing, to which the hon. Gentleman referred extensively earlier, the LCC was principally responsible for establishing the high-rise blocks to which he took strong exception — [Interruption.] It was done in conjunction with local authorities, and while the GLC gave some support, it was a matter for local decision. The hon. Gentleman's borough of Newham, like Tower Hamlets and some others, has had a Labour council for over 50 years, so who has been responsible in that case?
Mr. Banks: I thought that I had made it clear why we had finished up with tower blocks. The hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) did not refer to the pressures imposed by successive Departments of the Environment on the LCC, the GLC and individual boroughs to build in the way that they did. I am not an apologist for the planners and architects of tower blocks. Indeed, I should like to see far more planners and architects living in their creations. They usually choose to live in very low-rise and luxurious accommodation as far from the centre of London as they can get. Some of them should come back years later to see just how much damage they have done in various parts of London.
I am not seeking to attribute blame. When I speak of the problems and the need to deal with them, I am not interested in recriminating but in bringing pressure on the Government to solve the problems in Newham, Tower Hamlets and many other inner boroughs.
Mr. Greenway: The hon. Gentleman has been arguing strongly for the preservation of the status quo which, by his own acknowledgement, has been responsible for creating those very problems.
Mr. Banks: No. It is the policies that are at fault, not the structures. However, it is the structures that the Government are proposing to change. It has gone about changing them in a superficial and almost flippant manner.
Two consistent features of London's government since 1855 are worth emphasising. First, there has always been a London-wide multi-purpose body. Secondly, each of the main changes to that body has been the subject of a commission or inquiry. However, changes to local government structures in London and in other parts of the country are now being based on what appears to be personal vindictiveness. It appears also that the proposals have been worked out on the back of an envelope. One can well imagine the horror and frustration of the civil servants who had the job of writing the White Paper. The glaring omissions and inaccuracies reveal its superficiality and its failure to address itself to London's problems.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: I ask the hon. Gentleman to give two explanations. First, what was meant by the passage that appeared in the Labour party's manifesto that referred to local government and its possible reorganisation? Secondly, why was it that the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) never once during the election campaign said publicly that the GLC should continue?
Mr. Banks: I cannot be responsible for my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman). In fact, I should like to know who is. The Labour party's manifesto addressed itself to the structures

1079
of local government and was a clear admission that we need to examine those structures. That should cause no great surprise. It should not be forgotten that the major reorganisations that were carried out in 1963 and 1972 were the results of Tory Government policies. If Conservative Members contend that the structures are all wrong now, they must take the blame, for they created them.
The Government are setting about making changes in an inadequate manner. Conservative Members must know in their hearts that the Government's proposals are no way to go about restructuring local government. We have a chuck-away sentence in an election manfesto that no one really thought very much about at the time. It was a good populist gesture that was rather like the Government's approach to the Falkland Islands. They probably had the idea that it would win a few votes. They decided to latch on to the campaign that was being waged by Fleet street against the GLC. They did so to get a few more votes.
When we examine the implications of the proposals in the Conservative party's manifesto and the White Paper, it is clear that the Government's proposals are inadequate. Indeed, they are intellectually insulting, and I am surprised that Conservative Members are not prepared to express some doubt, some feelings of trepidation, about the proposals for London and the metropolitan areas.
There are no costings in the White Paper. The Secretary of State for the Environment has plucked some figures out of the air. Despite close and intense questioning by my Front Bench colleagues, he has still failed to explain how he has reached his figures. I tabled a question which was answered by the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, who embodies the other acceptable face of Tory extremism. Members such as the hon. Gentleman are always given the task of undertaking the nasty work. I asked the hon. Gentleman to
"estimate the costs of change and how they will be met in the event of the Greater London Council being abolished."
He replied:
"It is not possible to give detailed estimates of savings or transitional costs at this stage. Much will depend on decisions to be made by the London borough councils."—[Official Report, 22 February 1984; Vol 54, c. 523.]
That reply was given on 22 February and the consultative period ended on 31 January. The Government still do not know, or are still not telling us—I believe that they do not know—how much the reorganisation or butchering of local government will cost. There is no doubt that there will be a cost because no restructuring of local government in recent years has not led to higher costs and deteriorations in certain services.
We must always keep the structure of local government under close review, but the way that we go about doing that is perhaps the most important feature. Some hon. Members may be aware that I am still a serving member of the GLC. I do not come to this place as an apologist for the GLC. I accept that the GLC has its faults — [Interruption.] I shall try to think of one if I am given a chance to do so. However, abolition of the GLC is no way to get rid of its faults. If someone goes to his doctor and complains of a headache and the doctor chops his head off, the headache will disappear, but that treatment will not do much good for the rest of the body politic. The way in which the White Paper has been formulated and presented is an insult to London.
The Government have completed their consultative process on the proposals that are set out in the White
1080
Paper. I understand that they have received about 1.500 submissions. I am having a running battle with the Department of the Environment to get information out of it, for I should like to know far more about the contents of the submissions. Getting information out of the Department is rather like getting blood out of a stone.
Mr. John Wheeler: The hon. Gentleman should consult his friends on the Greater London council, who wrote most of the submissions. Many of the submissions have come from bodies that are funded by the GLC. The hon. Gentleman knows that.
Mr. Banks: The hon. Gentleman makes a wholly unwarranted point. Conservative Members can sit back and have a cheap snigger, but I suggest that the hon. Gentleman asks the Under-Secretary of State whether what he has said is true. If he cares to leave the Chamber—if he does so, I shall not be offended — to go to the Library, he will find a list of all the organisations that have made representations to the Government. That list is available only because I fought like crazy to force the Department's Ministers to put it there. If the hon. Gentleman reads the list, he will realise that his intervention was fatuous. If he thinks that all the national organisations that appear on the list are funded by the GLC, he must be off his rocker, or whatever the colloquial expression is that is used by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition these days. If he really thinks that they are so funded, that suggests a certain amount of mental derangement.
The Government have received 1,500 submissions and we are not getting information about them because most of them are opposed to what the Government are recommending. The overwhelming majority express opposition, and that goes for Conservative associations of local authorities, employers' organisations and stockbrokers. I have seen some of these pieces of evidence but not the whole 1,500. Eventually I shall see them all because I shall force the Department to give way. If it does not, I shall flood the Order Paper with questions.
When Conservative Members read the submissions, they will realise the extent to which the Government's proposals have found disfavour with most responsible bodies and have been rejected as unworkable.
Mr. Bottomley: Which associations of Conservative local authorities oppose the abolition of the GLC?
Mr. Banks: I think that the Association of Metropolitan Authorities has done so. I think that it opposes the GLC's abolition. The Association of County Councils rejects its abolition. These questions should be directed to Ministers of the Department of the Environment.
The Minister is sitting on much of the information. The idea that all submissions have been written by hacks and stooges of the GLC does not bear examination. There is cross-party opposition to the Government's proposals. If the hon. Gentleman wants another example, he only needs to walk over the bridge to County Hall. There is an interesting vista as one walks over there. Life gets more pleasant, the air becomes richer and cleaner, and the company improves radically. He should go over and talk to Conservative Members of the GLC—for example, Alan Greengross, the Tory leader of the GLC, and see whether he agrees with the Government's proposals. Conservative Members know very well that he does not.

1081
The Government are bing arrogant. They sit on their 140 majority. No doubt, if the right hon. Lady wanted to add an eighth day to the week, Conservative Members would all troop through the Lobbies to give her the eighth day. In London, however, opinion is very much against the Government's proposals. The recent Harris opinion poll, commissioned not by the GLC but by Thames Television, showed that 59 per cent. of Londoners thought that the GLC was doing a good or fairly good job, and an even larger proportion were opposed to the Government's suggestions.
Mr. Tracey rose—
Mr. Banks: In view of the time, I shall not give way. I know that Conservative Members are fascinated by what I am saying, but I detect a certain enthusiasm on the Opposition Benches to join the debate.
The Government do not propose to abolish the GLC services, but rather to abolish the GLC elections for those who have the responsibility for running those services. Probably some time next month — who knows, the Minister might let it slip out during his speech—the House will be asked to vote to abolish the 1985 GLC and metropolitan county council elections. The House will be asked to do that before it knows in any detail what successor bodies will be set up to take over the services of the GLC and the metropolitan authorities. We shall be asked to abolish the elections to a body that is still in existence and functioning, and the people of London will no longer be allowed to vote for it. I detect that opposition is growing among the people of London to the Government's proposals, as I think hon. Members on both sides will agree, and they will soon see how ruthless and arrogant the Tory Government have become. I maintain that the abolition of the GLC elections will create a shock wave of public reaction in London. Public opinion in London is already unhappy about the proposals, but when Londoners see the Bill to abolish the elections they will get really angry.
We come down to the fundamental issue: why not let the people of London decide? Why not allow elections to go ahead in 1985? If I am wrong—on rare occasions I am—Londoners will boot out the Labour party and put in Mr. Greengross and all his Tory supporters. I would prefer to see the election of a Conservative GLC through the ballot box than a Conservative Government attempting to neuter and emasculate the democratic process in London, because that is what they are doing. If the Government have any courage, they will let the people of London decide at the ballot box in 1985.
I do not expect Conservative Members to support my motion in the Lobby today. I do not expect the Government to change their policies, which are having such a destructive effect on our great city. In the final analysis, we can solve our problems in London and elsewhere only if we sweep away this uncaring and arrogant Government, and with them the wasteful and corrupting capitalist system. That will be our task as Socialists in the House.
10.24 am
Sir Anthony Berry: It is an old custom of the House, and a nice one, to congratulate the hon. Member who comes first in the ballot. It has never
1082
happened to me, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) and thank him for initiating a London debate. We all enjoy London debates. London Members enjoy them, and non-London Members enjoy them for other reasons. When the Greater London Council (General Powers) Bill went through the House on the nod the other day, I thought that something had gone wrong. We missed the chance to have a debate on the subject, but now the hon. Gentleman has made it posible.
I wanted to find out whether the hon. Gentleman was my constituent. I do not think that he is. That may sound a rather odd thing to say, but his predecessor was my constituent, and I always think of him at this time of the year because my car licence comes up for renewal on the last day of February. Woe betide any hon. Member of any party who did not have an up-to-date car licence when Arthur Lewis was around.
I shall not take up all the hon. Gentleman's arguments. He spoke with great experience as a member of the GLC, and for that reason we listened to him intently. He knows that London Members are being bombarded with a great many coupons. One of them, which causes pensioners many worries about their concessionary fares, is quite disgusting. I shall come back to it in a moment.
I want to mention one coupon in particular, because it relates very much to what the hon. Gentleman was saying about democratic rights. It says:
"I demand my democratic right to vote in the 1985 GLC Election and urge you to vote against the Bill."
It is interesting to see how far Londoners used those democratic rights when they had the opportunity to do so in voting for the GLC. I looked up the figures. I found that in 1964, 44 per cent. voted, the following time it was 41 per cent., in 1970 it was down to 35 per cent., in 1973 it was 37 per cent., in 1977 it was 43 per cent., and in 1981 it was at an all-time peak of 44·4 per cent. That does not show any great enthusiasm for voting at the GLC elections.
To be fair to the hon. Gentleman, I thought it only right to get the figures for Newham, the borough of which he represents a part. In 1964 as many as 30 per cent. of the Newham electors voted at the GLC elections. By 1967 the number had gone down to 25·3 per cent., and in 1970 it was 18·7 per cent. It has gone up a bit since then. The figures for the hon. Gentleman's constituency in 1973 were 18·9 per cent., in 1977 they were 29·7 per cent. and in 1981 they were an all-time peak of 33·1 per cent. In other words, less than one third of the voters in his constituency bothered to vote at the last GLC election. Indeed, it is not only at the GLC elections, because the figures for the borough elections in Newham are no better. They are 38, 35, 35, 31 and 31. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that when he talks about democratic rights in GLC elections, he should remember that the public have not shown any great enthusiasm for using those rights.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Is the hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting that if there is a relatively low turnout at the election, the election itself should be abolished and the democracy that goes with it swept away?
Sir Anthony Berry: No. I was saying that the bogus enthusiasm for the GLC elections claimed by this coupon is not borne out by the figures, which clearly show that the majority of Londoners do not bother to vote at GLC elections.
Mr. Tracey: Does my hon. Friend agree that we should set against that the general election figures in June 1983, when in many areas well over 70 per cent. of people turned out to vote, faced with a clear statement in the Conservative manifesto that the GLC would be abolished by a Conservative Government in power, and that in that election the Conservative party returned Conservative Members in London and received more votes than ever before?
Sir Anthony Berry: My hon. Friend is correct. The fact that London has twice as many Conservative Members as all the other parties put together is a clear sign of the voters' wishes.
Mr. Simon Hughes: The hon. Gentleman will accept that that is despite the fact that the Tory vote in London and nationally went down at the general election. There is no sign that support for the GLC's policy had any effect on improving the Tory Party's support in London. The Tory vote went down at the general election in London as it did everywhere else.
Sir Anthony Berry: Support for the Liberal Party and its representation in the House went down from two to one.
The Conservative manifesto clearly showed that we would abolish the GLC.
Mr. Corbyn: What proportion of Conservative candidates for London knew that their party was about to try to abolish the GLC? How many supported that policy, and how many included it in their election addresses? Did the right hon. member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) make any relevant remark on the matter during the election?
Sir Anthony Berry: That is a bit of a questionnaire, but I think that the answer is yes in every case. Certainly all the candidates knew that the abolition of the GLC was part of their policy. I cannot be certain that every candidate put it in his election address, because I have not seen them all, but I imagine that a large number did. I am sure that they made it clear to the electorate in their speeches.
Mr. Greenway: The third paragraph of my election address, as the Conservative candidate subsequently and handsomely elected the Member for Ealing, North, said:
"The GLC duplicates borough powers and is unnecessary and a massive waste of money. The present GLC has also prevented new jobs by holding up planning applications. New arrangements for London Government will be made by Conservatives; holders of GLC mortgages and other contracts will be safeguarded. The GLC has abused ratepayers' money for funding way-out organisations."
There is plenty that I could say about that.
Sir Anthony Berry: I think that perhaps, to use lain Macleod's famous phrase, I should now intervene in my own speech.
Mr. Bottomley: More important than what Conservative candidates put in their election addresses is what the Labour candidates said. My Labour opponent said that he wanted to keep the GLC and he discovered that 3,000 fewer people voted for him. That should be put in the balance with the letters that go to the Secretary of State.
Sir Anthony Berry: That is very interesting and I thank my hon. Friend for his helpful contribution.
The important thing about the general election was that we made it clear that the GLC would be abolished, and that
1084
policy was endorsed by the London electorate. It was different in 1966 when the then Labour Government, two years after the first borough elections for the new, larger London boroughs, suddenly decided for their own good reasons—most boroughs being Labour controlled at that time, because the election had taken place in May 1964—that they would postpone borough elections for a year until 1968. There was no mention of that in the Labour party's manifesto in 1966. No Labour candidate in London in 1966 said that a Labour Government would postpone borough elections. The right hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins) was Home Secretary at the time and he introduced the London Government Act 1967 which postponed those elections.
I do not often refer to my earlier speeches, because they were probably not particularly interesting even at the time, but on 15 November 1966 I said:
"If we do carry the Bill in due course, I think the electors of London will remember it for a long time. In particular, they will think of it when they vote."—[Official Report, 15 November 1966; Vol. 736, c. 295.]
Well, they did, at the borough elections a year later, by which time untold damage had been done in many boroughs. All the secondary schools in Enfield were turned into comprehensives during that stolen year, against the wishes of the electorate. The Conservatives won Camden by 42 to 18; Haringey by 53 to seven; Lambeth by 57 to three; Islington by 47 to 10; and we even won Hackney. That just shows what Londoners thought about not having been told beforehand what would happen. That is the result of gerrymandering.
The abolition of the GLC is desperately needed. A great argument is going on about whether London needs a voice. It has never had one in the sense that the phrase is used, nor does it need one. Comparisons are made with other countries. The mayor of Paris is of no great standing as such. He is often a leading member of the Cabinet, arid not a mayor in the sense that ours are. The mayor of Bordeaux was Prime Minister. One hears about the mayor of New York mainly because New York went bankrupt a year or two ago. As for the leader of the Greater Moscow council, we do not hear a great deal. about him and I am not sure how he is elected.
The hon. Member for Newham, North-West made considerable play of education. I am not entirely happy with the new arrangements for ILEA. I should not mind seeing some directly elected councillors on it, not merely representatives of borough councils in inner London. However, we can still consider that. Certainly all the figures show that the costs of ILEA are out of all proportion to the services that it provides and compared with the rest of the country. One only has to look at the nursery schools, whose rolls have dropped 16 per cent., while over the same period costs have risen by 76 per cent. Secondary school rolls are down 21 per cent. and their costs are up by 71 per cent.
Ms. Harriet Harman: Is it not the case that Britain has an appalling record on nursery school provision and pre-school education compared with most other EC countries and that ILEA is one of the few which Her Majesty's inspectors of education have said provides an adequate service? In fact, much more needs to be done to provide nursery education. Is the hon. Gentleman committed to nursery education, or would he like to see it abolished? If the Rates Bill goes through, nursery education will suffer enormously.
Sir Anthony Berry: I do not want to see nursery education abolished. I want to see it improved. My figures suggest that there is room for improvement. I want to see that in schools at all levels, and that is why reorganisation is needed.
The same is true in the colleges. London has the highest ratio of non-teaching staff to pupils in the country. I expect that the hon. Lady would like to see that improved. Expenditure goes up and up. In adult education, income covers only 9·3 per cent. of costs compared with a national average of 25·8 per cent. I should hate to see literacy, numeracy and help for the young unemployed suffer. I believe that the opportunity to take such subjects should be free for those who want to take advantage of them. But when wine tasting and bridge, in which I am interested, are free, the matter needs to be reconsidered. A considerable amount of unnecessary land is owned by ILEA which could be sold for the benefit of education in London.
I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North (Mr. Wheeler) will refer to the police if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so I shall not say much about that. However, the GLC gives two impressions. First, it suggests that it has some responsibility for the police, which is nonsense, and, secondly, that it is against the police. That is at a moment when law and order is such an important issue in our capital. I begin to wonder on which side the GLC is, and that is a strong reason for the Government's policy.
I want to know one thing from the hon. Member for Newham, North-West, who represents the GLC. Quite understandably, the GLC—
Mr. John Fraser: If the hon. Gentleman believes that London government should not have a structure, why does he think the London police force should have a structure?
Sir Anthony Berry: The police are doing an excellent job. The force is structured in the best possible way and has an excellent Commissioner. New schemes such as the neighbourhood schemes are proving of tremendous benefit.
The hon. Member for Newham, North-West will know that a great deal of our constituents' money is being spent on propaganda — on the lush brochures, leaflets and magazines pouring out of County Hall. It would be interesting to know how much they cost. Obviously it is possible to do a costing on an individual magazine, but we do not know how many of them are being printed.
Mr. Tony Banks: I am not here as a representative of the GLC. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman made a slip of the tongue. The GLC is probably spending about £1·5 million on the campaign to defend itself. The hon. Gentleman spoke about propaganda, but propaganda streams endlessly out of Government Departments, abusing and opposing the policies of the GLC. How much does that cost the taxpayers? Conservative Members always ask, "What about the taxpayers?", but how much is that propaganda exercise costing the Tory party?
Sir Anthony Berry: I simply said that the hon. Gentleman was a representative of the GLC, which he is. I must say that I find £1·5 million an interesting figure and would like to know more about it. I suspect that that figure is rising.
1086
My borough, which is Conservative-controlled, is strongly in favour of the Government's proposals, as are all other Conservative-controlled London boroughs.
Mr. Eric Deakins: Does that include the borough's representative on the Greater London council?
Sir Anthony Berry: Yes, it does. The great majority of Conservative councillors are in favour of the Government's proposals. I wish to cite two examples to show why I say that the GLC is so distant from my borough. It plans to establish a bus contra-flow lane in Enfield town. That plan is opposed, even by the Labour GLC member. Everyone is opposed to it. Nevertheless, the GLC intends to go ahead with it. It is completely out of touch with the local community.
Another example is the GLC's plan to deal with the problem of lorry routes. I am not advocating a ban on heavy lorries in London as a whole, but heavy lorries trundle down roads in my constituency night and day, despite the building of the M25, because the GLC reneged on the plans of the previous Conservative-controlled GLC to impose a ban on heavy lorries using those roads unless they had business in the area. We shall continue to press for such a ban.
Mr. Spearing: I am mystified by the hon. Gentleman's argument. He has every right to criticise the GLC's policies of administration, but there is a great distinction to be drawn between criticising its policies and its distance from his constituents, and saying that the GLC should not exist. I could say—although I am not accusing the hon. Gentleman — that he has the wrong policies and is distanced from his constituents, but I would fight to the death for their right to elect him as their Member of Parliament. Surely that is a comparable point. He should not say that the GLC should be abolished simply because he does not like some of its policies or the present administration.
Sir Anthony Berry: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for offering to fight to the death for me, although I hope that he will not have to do so. I understand his argument.
The GLC is so far removed from parts of London that it does not understand the problems. That is why transferring many of its powers to the boroughs will provide a local awareness of what is happening. Councils will know of the problems and be answerable to the electorate for them.
Other local problems include the fact that we do not yet know who will administer the grounds of Trent park, which is a famous and lovely park in my constituency. Similarly, we must know what is to happen to the Lea valley regional park authority, much of which is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Dr. Twinn), who is sitting next to me. The GLC owns a great deal of land in London which it has acquired over the years, and which must be distributed properly—back to the boroughs, I hope.
The hon. Member for Newham, North-West referred to unemployment. I am surprised that he did not say anything about the youth training scheme, which is proving so successful in my area.
It is time that Labour Members and their friends at County Hall stopped frightening pensioners into believing that they will lose their concessionary fares.
Mr. John Fraser: The hon. Gentleman claims that pensioners are being frightened. At the moment they have free fares—
Mr. Tracey: They pay rates.
Mr. Fraser: They get free bus passes. Has the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Sir A. Berry) received an unconditional assurance that the free travel facilities currently enjoyed by pensioners will continue?
Sir Anthony Berry: The best thing for me to do is to quote the answer to a parliamentary question by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who said:
"As we made clear in our White Paper 'Public Transport in London' … the Government have always recognised the concern of London's pensioners that a joint scheme for concessionary travel should be available to them. The London Boroughs Association has agreed the principle of such a joint scheme and discussions on the detailed arrangements are progressing.
We propose to safeguard this agreement by providing in the London Regional Transport Bill for the continuation of a uniform scheme should any of the London local authorities refuse to participate. London Regional Transport would offer free off-peak travel to London's pensioners and disabled people and free travel at all times for the blind. The cost would be recouped from London authorities who would issue the necessary permits."—[Official Report, 15 February 1984; Vol. 54, c. 210.]
Mr. Greenway: Does my hon. Friend accept that free travel passes were first introduced for Londoners under the Conservative Government in the early 1970s? No Labour Government have ever guaranteed those passes, but this Conservative Government will do so.
Sir Anthony Berry: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for adding to my argument.
I must draw to a conclusion. My speech has been rather longer than I intended, but I hope that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will agree that it has not been entirely my own speech. We all make mistakes—even the hon. Member for Newham, North-West. One major mistake was the setting up of the GLC. Now, we are putting that right.
The hon. Gentleman made great play of the Government's White Paper. The Government have not had time to study the 1,500 reports that he mentioned. I remind him that the Secretary of State described the White Paper as having green edges. It is much more of a consultation paper than most White Papers. It gives us time to examine all the important matters and get them right.
The hon. Gentleman referred to Sir Horace Cutler. I have a photograph which was taken on the terrace of County Hall on the day after the Conservative party won control of the GLC. The present Prime Minister was there, together with many GLC members, and we were toasting Horace Cutler on his great victory. But, of course, the Labour party could not take a similar photograph on the day after it won control of the GLC because Lord McIntosh, who led it to victory, had already been sacked—and in his place we have Mr. Livingstone.
I never thought I would ever praise Mr. Livingstone, but having discovered that a few years ago he was in favour of abolishing the GLC, I can only say to him, "Good for you."
The debate is important. It reaffirms my belief—despite having listened to the hon. Gentleman—that it is right for the GLC to go, and the sooner it goes the better for all the citizens of London.
10.49 am
Mr. John Cartwright: I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) on winning a place in the ballot and on the typically robust and entertaining way in which he introduced the subject. It will be no surprise to him that I did not agree with everything that he said. The prospect of a cunning Government meeting police pay claims in order to be able to put down popular uprisings in London was not a picture which I found altogether possible to believe. Nevertheless, I congratulate him on raising some important problems.
I entirely agree that one of the difficulties facing London Members is trying to persuade successive Governments, and some of our colleagues, that not every London street is paved with gold. I shall give a few examples of policies or areas of activity where that problem emerges. The first is the National Health Service.
The main problem for Londoners with the NHS is the impact of the resource allocation working party philosophy. I should say at once that RAWP does not date from 1979. It was the redoubtable Barbara Castle who introduced the concept. At the time it seemed extremely fair, that there should be discrimination in the allocation of resources against parts of the country, including London, which were reasonably well endowed with Health Service provision. It might have made sense during growth in Health Service investment, but it is much more difficult to justify against a background of stagnation in investment in the Health Service or, as is more likely, falling investment in the Health Service.
The problem for Londoners is that the RAWP philosophy hits them twice. The Thames regions are discriminated against in the allocation of national resources and when resources are allocated within the regions the London health districts are again discriminated against. It is hard for us in the south-east Thames region to accept that some inner London areas must accept a reduction in services to provide resources for what seem to us unlikely deprived areas such as Hastings, Tunbridge Wells and Eastbourne.
The impact of manpower cuts has fallen disproportionately harshly on the London area. The national net loss in manpower in the most recently imposed cuts was 4,837 of which 4,218 were lost to London. In other words 87 per cent. of the manpower cuts fell on the Thames regions. That and the application of the RAWP formula are having a major impact on the Health Service in London. Some 39 London hospitals are threatened with closure in the immediate future. I have a special problem in Greenwich where no fewer than three hospitals face the axe. The first is the British Hospital for Mothers and Babies which was sentenced by a Labour Secretary of State in 1978 and it is finally to close its doors some time this year. The other two are the Dreadnought Seamen's hospital and the St. Nicholas hospital.
It is no longer possible for Health Service administrators to say that, although they are suffering from cuts, these can be absorbed by greater efficiency, that they can rationalise services and continue to provide the same level of care by being more efficient. Those days are long gone. They are now saying that there is no way in which they can evade a substantial fall in the standard of health care which people in many inner London areas have traditionally enjoyed. We should put it clearly on the

1089
record that that is one of the results of blindly applying a formula without examining the real problem, especially in inner London boroughs.
The picture in housing is also one of London carrying a disproportionate share of the burden. Homelessness, which many of us know about from our surgeries, is once again a growing problem, especially in inner London. The most recent figures that I have seen show that, of the 71,000 families who are accepted as homeless in England, 21,000 are in London. Moreover, of the more than 1 million people on housing waiting lists in England, about 250,000 are in Greater London.
There is a special problem with the single homeless. Such cases are one of the most frustrating experiences of my surgeries. It is almost impossible to offer young people any hope if they are homeless and looking for somewhere reasonable to live in London. The saddest cases are those of people who have jobs in the London area but have to give them up to find somewhere to live outside London. The most recent available figures on the single homeless in London show that some 14,000 are in hostels, night shelters and similar accommodation and that some 2,000 are trapped in the bed-and-breakfast arrangement. Against that background of proven need, it is hard to justify the cut in investment in housing in London and the fall in public sector starts.
I accept that the private sector is picking up some of the burden and that starter homes for first-time buyers and shared ownership schemes have a contribution to make. I welcome what they do but, for as long as most of us can envisage, there will be a continuing need, in inner London especially, for rented housing. I do not believe that the Government's policy is attempting to meet that need, whether the provision is made by local authorities or housing associations.
Mr. Tracey: The hon. Gentleman probably knows more about these matters than many of us, as he is a former long-standing member of the Labour party who has partially seen the light. Is it not true that the principal areas of housing deprivation are in Labour-controlled boroughs? Does he agree that if money were applied better, and if there was more value for money, that housing deprivation could be put right?
Mr. Cartwright: That is the circular argument which we constantly hear from Conservative Members. They argue that cause and effect in regard to political control and poverty is the reverse of what many of us see. Many of us regard the political control of traditionally poor areas as flowing from the poverty. The hon. Gentleman seems to argue that it is the political control that has produced the poverty. I find his argument difficult to accept.
The problem of inner city areas in Britain is similar to those in many other countries. We can see the same pattern in the United States of America, for example, where there is no Left-wing control to blame. I should like us to learn from our mistakes. We probably made a mistake by creating far too many municipal ghettos. We need more choice in housing, especially in rented housing. It is wrong for local authorities to have a monopoly of it. However, we need the resources to provide that rented housing.
Mr. Ernie Roberts: There is some truth in what the hon. Member
1090
for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey) said. We face enormous problems such as the large number of unemployed, the 1 million homeless and many other social problems. Our basic industries have been devastated. We have a Tory Government pursuing Tory policies. The hon. Member for Surbiton is right. Such policies create the problems that I have outlined, for local authorities as well as the country.
Mr. Cartwright: The Government, for good or ill, have not begun to grasp some of the difficulties of inner London areas. The purpose of the debate is to draw attention to the fact that the policies that the Government are pursuing do not help the difficulties to which the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Mr. Roberts) referred.
The hon. Member for Newham North-West mentioned another aspect of the housing problem—the condition of the housing stock in Greater London. One of the most frightening statistics to emerge from the Greater London house condition survey of 1979 was that about 25 per cent. of the stock—roughly one home in four—was unfit, lacked basic amenities or needed substantial repairs. Within those statistics there were perhaps two areas which were comparatively new to us. One was the condition of public sector housing; the other was the problem of the elderly owner-occupier.
The problem in the public sector in London is twofold. Property built in the 1920s is very soundly constructed but lacks modern basic amenities. There is also the much more worrying problem of the stock built in the 1960s. Unfortunately, it was not so soundly built and needs substantial investment of public funds to bring it up sometimes to standards of safety and certainly to standards acceptable to tenants.
I have already referred to the fairly new problem of the elderly owner-occupier locked up in a house which he or she cannot afford to maintain, and without the mobility, in the Greater London area, to give it up and go into something a good deal more convenient and pleasant.
A programme to tackle the problems associated with the housing stock in Greater London would be a very sensible investment. It would provide jobs in labour-intensive areas for people engaged in housing repair, maintenance, improvement and refurbishment. It would also provide many training opportunities for the young unemployed in Greater London. It is work that must be done at some time. The longer we leave it, the more expensive it will be, and the more distress and poor social conditions we produce. Our children will not thank us for neglecting important work of that sort simply on the grounds of an economic theory that is very difficult to justify.
With regard to education, the pincer movement of rate-capping on the one side and the restructuring of the Inner London education authority on the other threatens some of the services on which our constituents have traditionally depended. On this question there seems to be a total difference of view between the two sides of the House. Conservative Members—and certainly the Secretary of State for Education and Science — have firmly stated their belief that it is possible to cut the spending of the Inner London education authority by about 13 per cent.—a cut of £1 in £8 in money now being spent—without impairing the basic quality of the education provided. I find that statement extremely hard to believe.

1091
I do not hold a brief for the political attitudes of those who now lead ILEA—some savings must be possible in any organisation of that size—but I cannot believe that a cut of 13 per cent. can be imposed without doing real harm to the quality of the education. When Conservative Members point to the very much higher level of spending by ILEA as compared with other areas, it is reasonable for us to say that ILEA has much more difficult problems to face than any other education authority in Britain. There are the overcrowding problems and the fact that so many more people in inner London are crowded in their homes, living in high-rise blocks, or homeless. The population density in inner London is double that of many other British cities.
There is the problem of single-parent families. Over a quarter of ILEA's pupils come from one-parent families. That is two thirds higher than the national average. There is the problem of old schools. Half ILEA's secondary schools and a quarter of the primary schools are in buildings put up before the turn of the century—a much higher proportion than elsewhere. Land and building costs are a third higher than in other parts of the country.
There is the problem of children with special needs. Over 8,000 inner London children need special help with their education, and that is a third higher than the national average.
There is the general problem of deprivation. On the Department of the Environment's own system of scoring deprivation, based on economic, social and housing indices, seven of the most deprived local authorities are in ILEA's area. Against that background it is even more important to recall the oft-quoted but worth quoting again comment in 1980 by Her Majesty's inspectorate in reporting on the services in ILEA:
"The Authority is faced with problems of a type, range and complexity unmatched in other LEAs and any assessment of its performance should take account of the circumstances in which it operates."
Conservative Members who make very grand but unsubstantiated claims about the savings which are possible in ILEA simply do not take account of those problems and difficulties.
With regard to the organisational changes — the abolition of the GLC and the restructuring of ILEA—I do not take the view that the GLC is a perfect piece of machinery. Like many other Opposition Members, I was totally opposed to the concept in the beginning. It is perhaps worth reminding ourselves that the Labour party, which was opposed then, has been opposed to the concept of the GLC over most of the years since 1963. In abolishing the GLC, or going to something different, we have to examine not just an abstract idea but proposals which have been made. The Government's proposals should be examined in relation to four important tests.
First, will the proposals save money for the ratepayer? I cannot believe that they will. The patchwork quilt of bodies and authorities will have to have staff and headquarters, the different parts will have to talk to each other and they will have to talk to the boroughs. I cannot see how it can lead to a major reduction in the burden on London ratepayers.
Secondly, and more importantly, will the proposals really decentralise power? I do not believe that they will. The Secretary of State for the Environment will retain the power to control the spending levels of joint boards and their manpower levels, we are told, for three years. I find
1092
it very hard to believe that at the end of three years that power will be given up. Our experience is that when Ministers get their hands on power it is very difficult to prise their sticky fingers off it.
Thirdly, will the new system be simpler and easier for Londoners to understand? Again, I have to say that it will not; it will be much more complicated. The patchwork quilt of the joint boards and bodies will be much more difficult for Londoners to understand, and it will be much more difficult to decide to which board or authority to go.
Fourthly, will the new system introduce a greater level of accountability of councillors back to their electorates? No, it will not, because councillors elected to a borough council will be elected in relation to a wide range of borough activities and policies, but the electors, voting in a borough council election, will not be deciding who goes, for example, on to the joint board for education. That will be decided when the election is over. It will be the sort of smoke-filled-room decision which produced Mr. Livingstone as leader of the GLC, and to which such strong objection is taken on the Conservative Benches.
My experience of local government was that councillors elected for one thing and then pushed off sideways to do something else did not give a very high priority to the sideways move which gave them a place on another authority. But the basic objection is that concillors serving on the joint boards will not be directly accountable to the electorate for what they do on those bodies.
There was a tendency earlier in the debate for Conservative Members to suggest that the very strongly sceptical reaction—to put it no higher than that—to the proposals was entirely engineered by the GLC and the many bodies which it finances throughout greater London. I would not dispute the fact that some of the reactions to the proposals may well be somewhat coloured by that sort of background, but it is almost impossible to open one's post these days without finding a submission from some learned body, some academic group, some professional group, in no way connected with the GLC, pointing out flaws in the Government's proposals, demonstrating that the ideas were not thought through, and that there are gaping holes in the proposals for the arts, recreation, housing, planning, transport and many other areas.
There is a powerful case for the Government to say, "We shall drop the proposals for the moment and make a proper, impartial survey of the situation." It is reasonable to say that, after 20 years of operation, the system needs to be reviewed and ought to be re-examined. However, both reorganisations of local government in recent years—the 1963 reorganisation in Greater London and the 1972 reorganisation outside — followed a Royal Commission or a similar inquiry. The Government of the day did not follow the recommendations of either inquiry, but at least there was an impartial examination against which to judge the Government's actions.
It is monstrous to introduce a major local government reorganisation on the basis of a throwaway line in an election manifesto. If the Government want to retain credibility on this issue, they should drop their proposals and set up a proper impartial inquiry to re-examine the government of London.
11.10 am
Mr. John Wheeler: The motion calls attention to the effects of the Government's policies on the democratic rights and living standards of

1093
Londoners. Many of the local government institutions for London—the ILEA, the borough councils and the GLC—are in the hands of the Labour party and I suspect that, in drafting the motion, the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) was attempting to divert attention from his party's disastrous record in London by making the Government the scapegoat.
For example, blaming increased unemployment in London on the Government is, at best, hopelessly naive. Since taking power at County Hall, the present Labour administration has more than doubled the GLC's rates precept. Well over half its rates revenue is paid by the commercial and industrial sectors, and companies have had to make staff redundant to pay the rates bill. Out of 505 replies to a survey by the London chamber of commerce and industry, 38 per cent. of the companies stated that they had reduced staff numbers as a result of rate increases.
As a rule of thumb, one job stands the risk of being destroyed for every extra £10,000 paid in GLC rates.
Ms. Harman: Is it not the case that there is no evidence that rate increases result in job losses? When rates are low, as in enterprise zones, the owners of land put up the rents, which more than outweighs the lower rates.
When money goes to land owners in increased rents, as opposed to local authorities in increased rates, the money is not spent in that area to create jobs. If rates were lower, more corporation tax would be paid. The relationship between rates of job losses, which the chambers of commerce and industry are keen to claim, is not proven.
Mr. Wheeler: I must allow the hon. Lady to make her own speech. I have just given the evidence from the London chamber of commerce and industry. I could go on giving evidence from the London region CBI, the City of Westminster chamber of commerce and industry and so on, but if I did so we could be here all day. The evidence is overwhelming and I have more to say on this aspect.
The sign outside Couny Hall recording the number of London's unemployed would be more informative if it also specified the number of jobs lost directly as a result of the GLC's policies. Mr. Livingstone appears at last to have grasped this point.
Mr. Frank Dobson: How many jobs have been lost?
Mr. Wheeler: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman should listen to what Mr. Livingstone said. When he announced this year's rate reduction he was at pains to illustrate its benefit for offices and businesses in the capital. However, the official Labour line, as propounded by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), is that rates are irrelevant to business. If the hon. Gentleman really cares about unemployment, he should get out and talk to a few business men. I suggest that some London Labour Members ought also to do that.
The GLC's rate precept remains staggeringly high. Between 1981 and 1983 it rose by 118 per cent., compared with an increase in the general rate poundage for all local authorities in England of 20 per cent. and an annual increase in the retail price index of 14 per cent.
Mr. Chris Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Wheeler: No. I shall press on for a while.
It is particularly disturbing to see the total unscrupulousness with which some of the money is spent. The GLC has become a sort of a charity, not so much for those in real need as for the Labour party's extremists who could not hope to be employed anywhere else. For example, Mr. Reg Race, a former Member of the House, has become the GLC's head programme officer at £21,000 a year. Mr. Alan McGarvey, deputy leader of Wandsworth council, has become chief executive of the Greater London enterprise board at a salary of £35,000, plus benefits estimated at another £10,000. There is a host of similar appointments.
Ms. Harman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Wheeler: No. The hon. Lady can make her own speech.
Perhaps those other appointments illustrate the arrant hypocrisy of Socialist dogma. The Left preaches equal pay, yet seems happy to pay itself several times the national average. It is reminiscent of all the fringe benefits that come with membership of the Soviet Communist party. Perhaps George Orwell can help the Labour Left to justify the salaries that it pays itself:
"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."
Mr. Tracey: My hon. Friend has mentioned some of the big fish in the succulent GLC tank, but does he agree that more than 1,000 positions have been created by the GLC, all of which seem to have gone to Labour activists in London?
Mr. Wheeler: My hon. Friend is right. It is generally understood that a person has to be a Socialist before getting on to the short list for a job at County Hall.
The House should also be aware of the scandalous way in which London's Labour party exploits schools and schoolchildren. For example, cases have been brought to my notice where Labour school governors have used children's Christmas parties to distribute propaganda. One of my constituents has complained that his seven-year-old infant was being made to distribute leaflets for the Labour party which, incidentally, were printed on school notepaper.
The case for the abolition of the GLC was put clearly in a debate at County Hall on the Marshall inquiry in 1979. One speaker said:
"I feel a degree of regret that Marshall did not push on and say 'Abolish the GLC' because I think it would have been a major saving and would have released massive resources for more productive use.
And I think there would have been a lot of support on the Labour side for that, provided that adequate powers were devolved down to the boroughs and not absorbed upwards by central Government.
I do not believe you need two tiers of local government and I very much regret that Horace Cutler has not been the really ruthless Tory he likes to project and come forward with the biggest axe of all, and axed the whole appalling show."
The speaker was not a Conservative, but today's leader of the GLC, Mr. Ken Livingstone.
Indeed, Mr. Livingstone was right. There is virtually no role for the GLC, so it has constructed responsibilities for itself. One example is its police committee. Last week, the GLC approved an increase in that committee's budget from £1·25 million to £1·80 million, an increase of over £500,000 in real terms. Yet the GLC has no statutory responsibility for the police. Despite that, it intends to

1095
distribute £990,000 in grants next year to groups calling themselves monitoring committees. These groups collect information that is essentially hostile to the police. This would appear to be exactly what the GLC police committee seeks.
Scarcely a word of support for the police is heard. The GLC claims that this is done in the interests of the majority of Londoners, yet it bears no relation at all to what Londoners really want. They want the prevention and reduction of crime. They want to be able to walk safely through the streets and to feel secure in their homes. To undermine public confidence in the police will not go one step towards achieving this, nor will refusal to co-operate with the police community consultative groups and the production of a constant stream of inaccurate propaganda at the ratepayers' expense.
Mr. Simon Hughes: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the success of the police in the last year—for the first time — of reducing crime in London is at last attributable to the slightly more intelligent policies of the Commissioner—community policing—rather than to the hard, Tory dogmatic, "hammer of the Scots" type policies which, under previous commissioners, saw crime increase for many years? Does not the improvement in the crime figures and the safety of Londoners most effectively stem from a changed community policing style?
Mr. Wheeler: I am grateful to the hon. Member. I was about to come to that very point, if he will allow me to continue.
Two years ago, Mr. Ken Livingstone said:
"Five years of Newman could leave the working class areas of our city in much the same state as the Catholic areas of Northern Ireland."
It is worth looking at what one year of Sir Kenneth Newman's work has actually meant to London — an overall drop of 4 per cent. in recorded crime; a 5 per cent. drop in recorded robbery and other violent theft; a 4 per cent. drop in recorded burglaries; a 9 per cent. drop in recorded auto crime; and a 25 per cent. improvement in the clear-ups for robbery and other violent thefts.
These statistics represent a welcome move in the right direction. The reduction in crime has happened not as a result of the ill-considered nonsense of the London Labour party but rather as a result of clear thinking by Sir Kenneth Newman and the Metropolitan police, backed by solid support from the Government.
The 18 per cent. increase in Metropolitan police manpower since 1979 has allowed the commissioner to develop a series of strategies to mobilise public support and improve the effectiveness of his force. The importance of public consent to good policing—the point made by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes)—is underlined by the setting up of 19 police-community consultative groups, backed up by regular meetings between London Members of Parliament, the London Boroughs Association, the Outer London Districts Association, the commissioner and the Home Secretary. These groups help to keep the police aware of local concern, and to make operational decisions accordingly.
Nor have the lessons of the Policy Studies Institute report been ignored. While the report identified those areas of crime that most concern the public — incidentally, findings confirmed by the British crime survey—it also illustrated that there have been occasions when some police officers have behaved in a way which may damage
1096
public support for the police. I welcome the commissioner's proposal to introduce a code of professional ethics for the Metropolitan police—I am surprised that the House is so silent; we should welcome this development—which emphasises citizens' rights; and for the same reason I welcome the steps taken in the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill to clarify the law and the rights of suspects.
These are all important, sensible developments. They reflect the reasoned approach of the commissioner, in marked contrast to the blinkered thought of the so called GLC police committee.
Other ideas have been implemented. Sixty-nine neighbourhood watch schemes have been formed, and a further 223 are in an advanced stage of preparation. The usefulness of neighbourhood watch is already apparent. In the Hurlingham area of Fulham, a scheme began in September of last year. In the first two months of operation, there was a 50 per cent. reduction in burglaries and a 52 per cent. fall in all major crime, compared with 21 per cent. for the division as a whole.
The use of manpower has been carefully examined. Officers have been transferred to divisional strengths from Scotland Yard and the traffic police, and the deployment of detectives has been improved to increase the detection of offences such as street robbery and burglary. The system of screening of cases of burglary has improved detection rates. The police obviously face great difficulty in this area—in many cases, there is simply no evidence to pursue — but it is already clear that Sir Kenneth Newman will not accept that as a reason for complacency.
Many of the problems reflected in the low detection rate for crime stemmed from the management structure and use of resources in the force. The continuing review of the functions of the police by the commissioner has already led to improvements, and his recent report to the Home Secretary outlined others still to be implemented.
Mr. Ernie Roberts: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the costs of the solution of crime in London? A recent comparison showed that the cost of solving a crime is about £1,400 in other parts of the country, whereas in London it is more than £5,000. In view of the fact that there is concern about closing down the GLC because of its costs, should not the same be done with regard to the Metropolitan police?
Mr. Wheeler: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Is the implication of his question that the Metropolitan police should be closed down?
To listen to Labour spokesmen, especially those on the GLC, one could be forgiven for thinking that none of these advances had been made. Hardly a word of support for the police has been heard from them, and they have made few realistic contributions to the task of reducing crime. Their activities show only too clearly how far the Left wing of the London Labour party has distanced itself from the hopes and aspirations of ordinary Londoners.
Many of the activities of the GLC support this view. Londoners are already overgoverned and overtaxed. In the interests of its pursuit of an ideology which pays little heed to what Londoners feel, the GLC is contributing little to tackling London's problems. Most of its functions can be performed far more effectively by the boroughs—for example, housing, which has already been transferred, and transport, which is soon to go. There is simply no longer

1097
a role for the GLC, and I eagerly await the date when the Conservative party manifesto commitment to abolish it arrives.
11.28 am
Mr. Eric Deakins: I cannot claim to follow the hon. Member for Paddington—
Mr. Wheeler: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not represent Paddington.
Ms. Harman: That is for sure.
Mr. Deakins: —the hon. Member for Westminster, North (Mr. Wheeler), and I cannot claim his disadvantage of reading a Central Office propaganda brief. However, I wish to comment on two of his points.
Most Londoners want to see democratic accountability of the police in London—a right which Londoners are denied but which citizens in the rest of the country have. If the hon. Gentleman feels that the police system in London is perfect, why does he not advocate it for the rest of the United Kingdom? I doubt whether he would do so.
The hon. Gentleman's main point was the big rises—and there have been big rises—in GLC rates. He should be reminded—obviously Central Office did not tell him—that GLC rates have risen because of Government cuts in rate support grant to local authorities. Those cuts were made as part of a pattern of public expenditure cuts to pay for increased expenditure on defence and unemployment. London ratepayers have had to pick up the tab.
Mr. Tracey: The hon. Gentleman talks about the loss of rate support grant, but is it not true that in 1982–83 the GLC collected £200 million more in rates than it needed? As a result of that revelation it will receive £100 million of rate support grant which it lost because of its excessive budget. Why is that £300 million not being returned to ratepayers?
Mr. Deakins: The ratepayers of London have suffered greatly as a result of the point that I just put to the House. They have lost nearly £3 billion in rate support grant under this and previous Conservative Administrations. To talk about a footling £300 million against that £3,000 million explains why rates in London have increased so much. It is the Government's fault.
The hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright) mentioned health care, and I shall discuss the health requirements of inner cities. My area, which is typical of many other areas in London, some of which are represented by Conservative as well as SDP and Liberal Members, suffers from great social deprivation. As the Black report on health care in inner cities showed, there is great inequality in patterns of ill health, based almost entirely on differences in social class. The Government tried to strangle that report at birth, and it is still difficult for the ordinary citizen to obtain a copy of that masterly report on health care needs, which are not being met fully under present Government policies.
My urban area needs more facilities for community health care, shorter waiting lists in hospitals and more health centres. It needs better facilities in general practice and better preventive medicine, but is not getting them. There is a large Asian population in my area, together with other ethnic minorities — I am sure that other hon.
1098
Members have such ethnic minorities in their constituencies — who have special health needs. There is a cultural problem because of the lack of female doctors for Moslem women, who are reluctant to be examined by male doctors. There are also linguistic problems, and I am not satisfied that the DHSS is fully aware of what must be done to inform Asians especially, many of whom cannot read or write and who understand only Urdu or Gujerati, of the facilities available to them. The communications problem will not be resolved until more attention is paid to it and more money spent on it.
We must spend more money efficiently on health care in the inner urban areas of London. However, a great deterioration in services has been forced on health authorities by the policies of the Government and especially those of the DHSS. There have been hospital closures from time to time as new hospitals have opened, and no one opposes that improvement in facilities. But now we have hospital closures without new hospitals being built. In my area, Harts hospital and Lugano nursing home have closed, and another two major hospitals will close in the next couple of years. There will soon be only two hospitals serving the entire district, which covers slightly more than the London borough of Waltham Forest.
Those cuts are being made not to improve health facilities in my area — I am sure that the same is happening in other parts of London — but because authorities must juggle with financial resources to try to meet the health needs of the population. The result will be longer waiting lists and fewer preventive medicine facilities, especially for women. In my area the waiting list for screening for cervical cancer is becoming longer all the time, but I doubt whether that is happening in the leafy suburbs represented by some Conservative Members.
This is happening because the Government do not like the National Health Service. However, because the NHS is so popular in London and elsewhere, the Government's attitude of the past few years could be summed up by the couplet:
"Thou shalt not kill; but need'st not strive Officiously to keep alive."
I ask the six Conservative Members in the Chamber how many of of them do not use private health facilities and medicine. [Interruption.] There would appear to be three in this group, which is not an unrepresentative sample of the Conservative party in Parliament. We find that 50 per cent. of Conservative Members do not use private medicine.
The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir George Young): Since when have we conducted opinion polls in the House of Commons? Perhaps those hon. Members listening to the hon. Gentleman's speech are assumed, by putting up their hands or in some other way, to have indicated a response to his questionnaire. I do not know what he assumed about me. I use the National Health Service. I understand from his remarks that he assumed that I do not, and he may have made a similar mistake with some of my hon. Friends.
Mr. Deakins: Conservative Members need not have answered my question, but those who did showed a lack of enthusiasm for the Health Service. That lack of enthusiasm is repeated by Cabinet Ministers who, with the Prime Minister, do not use the NHS. The same is true of many members of district health authorities, who are appointed by Ministers.

1099
Although the Government are not trying to kill the National Health Service outright, they are introducing a series of measures, such as privatisation, which mean that private profit is put before the interests of patients. Only a couple of weeks ago the Minister for Health boasted to the House about what the Government had done to bolster and encourage private medicine. That will not help my constituents or the bulk of Londoners when it comes to improving health provision. The Government are working towards a two-tier health service in which there will be poor care for those who cannot afford to pay, and the best quality care for those who can afford to pay. I thought that we had got rid of that concept in 1948, but it seems to be returning. There is still time to save health services in London, and I hope that all hon. Members, including Conservative Members, who may or may not feel strongly about saving the NHS, will join the all-party campaigns in their constituencies to ensure that health facilities are preserved and, where necessary, improved.
The motion mentions the Government's attack on local democracy. One example of that is their rate-capping Bill. There is a move towards central control by Secretaries of State, especially the Secretary of State for the Environment, and by a vast bureaucracy composed not only of civil servants but of quangos. That bureaucracy and the Secretary of State may technically be accountable to the House and, through it, to the British people, but the Secretary of State does not have facilities to examine the details of everything that local councils must do on behalf of the population. He will act with a broad brush and make decisions for local authorities on their rate expenditure which will not necessarily be in the interests of local people.
The Government argue that we are a unitary state, and that is true if by that they mean that we are not a federal state. However, if by a unitary state the Prime Minister and her cronies in the Cabinet mean the exclusion of the concept of pluralist democracy, with countervailing centres of democratic power in society to balance each other and an elected Government at the head, that is a devastating blow to democracy and a sign that the Government regard themselves more and more as an elected dictatorship. The best example of a unitary state is a dictatorship. It is only democracies that have the courage to be pluralist and have countervailing centres of democratic powers.
Under the Rates Bill electors will no longer have power to determine rate levels, and this will make a mockery of local elections. This is without the problem of the abolition of the GLC and the election next year. Increasingly, councillors will be elected to carry out the Government's orders on the level of services and rates. How many worthwhile people will continue to want to be councillors? After all, unless one has some control over one's finances, one is a puppet, because one has no real power. The Government's arbitrary target for local authorities, the grant-related expenditure assessment, has failed to prevent local authorities from going their own way and saying what they need to do to provide services for their local people and asking them to pay the appropriate amount of rates, bearing in mind the cuts in the rate support grant. If local people vote for those councillors in those circumstances, what right have the Government, even a democratically elected Government, to say them nay? What right have the Government to put-their own interests before those of local people?
1100
We are seeing a major constitutional change, possibly the biggest one in Britain in this century. That constitutional change masks the failure of the Government to live up to the Prime Minister's promise, given some years ago, to abolish rates. To quote a paper which is by no means a supporter of the GLC, the Labour party or myself, The Standard, if the Rates Bill goes through it will mean the end of
"any vestige of true local council independence."
Increasingly, there will be dictatorship by Whitehall.
I invite Conservative Members to think back, if they have been in the Tory party for 25 years or more, as I think some them have, to the slogan that used to be thrown at the Labour party by the Tories. We were accused of being the party that said, "The person from Whitehall knows best." Now it is the Tories who are saying the same thing. That is a change of which the electorate should be aware.
When the GLC is abolished, a large number of quangos will be set up under Government patronage, and I wonder how much democratic accountability there will be with those quangos, which will cover a wide variety of topics on a London-wide basis. How much democratic accountability is there in water authorities, such as the Thames water authority? I suspect that there is very little, or perhaps none, but there will be more and more of such bodies, and less and less and less democratic accountability. There will be far more bureaucracy, subject to less democratic control under these quangos.
What is more, unlike the GLC, which, whatever its faults, has always consulted Londoners on its policies and on what it proposes to do, these quangos will be under no such obligation, and neither will the Secretary of State. For London-wide services we need a democratic local government in London. I shall quote from Hansard of some years ago. It said:
"these great strategic tasks of planning, traffic, roads, overspill housing and all other needs affecting the whole of Greater London should be made the responsibility of a directly elected Greater London Council. One would have thought that this proposal that Londoners should have an effective say in the shaping of their own environment would have an obvious appeal. Those who find it unpalatable must face up to the question of what they would have instead." — [Official Report, 10 December 1962; Vol. 669, c. 53.]
That was the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) speaking as Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs. Those words are as true today as they were then, but I imagine that the right hon. Gentleman, who is not here, may have changed his mind for reasons which are not apparent.
The Government's attack on democratic rights in London could be said to be motivated out of spite and a dislike of the policies of the GLC, but I reject that, because even that motivation does not justify the length to which the Government are going in their attack on local democracy. Almost overnight we are seeing something frightening—particularly as we have another three or four years of this Government, with their large majority in Parliament—an attack on any opposition, whether from trade unions, the local people, the Greater London council or metropolitan authorities, or even from Conservative authorities which happen to feel that they have a right to determine how much should he spent locally. There are a number of such Conservative local authorities—good luck to them—which take that view.
The Government want to remove local obstacles to any aspect of their policies, not merely because they are

1101
defending the rights of local people to determine the level of services and therefore the level of rates, but, much more important in London, because the GLC and some local authorities are showing what can be done, even with inadequate financial resources, once one starts to tap the human resources of the people of an area and consulting them. This is true in the areas of social and economic depression over much of London. The GLC has made a small-scale start on showing what can be done, with the Greater London enterprise board and other schemes. There is a great potential that will be choked off if the GLC is abolished.
I regret to say this, and I do not think that the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment necessarily shares these views, but we have a Government who, at the top level, basically dislike every democratic process except that of a general election. They are trying to get rid of the substance of local democracy, while retaining the shell. That cannot be good for local democracy, for Parliament or for the people.
11.47 am
Mr. David Amess: I make no apology for contributing to this debate on London as a non-London Member. I hope that the reasons for my presence will quickly become clear. It is a great shame that the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) is not present at the moment to listen to what I have to say. However, I join other hon. Members in congratulating him on his good fortune in winning the ballot and allowing us to debate the motion.
I wish that I could praise the hon. Gentleman for his speech, but I cannot. I did not agree with one word of it, and I regret the bitter tones in which it was delivered. Until June of last year I was somewhat envious of the hon. Member's fortunes in representing Newham, North-West, as he represents the area in which I was born and where I lived for most of my life. However, I now represent Basildon, which contains many of my former friends and neighbours from Newham, some of whom were driven out by the policies of the Labour party.
Some Labour Members believe that we in the Conservative party were born with silver spoons in our mouths. I, for a start, was not. My mother was one of 11 children. I was born in Plaistow, within the sound of Bow bells, and I grew up in a little terraced house in Forest Gate, where my parents still live today. We had no bathroom and only an outside toilet, as did thousands of other people. We did not have much money, but we had our dignity, pride, self-respect and, above all else, Newham was a decent place in which to live. If only that were the case today.
I am a Conservative and a Member of Parliament partly because of my experiences in Newham. I have spent most of my political life fighting the Labour party in Newham. It is priceless that a motion about living standards and democratic rights should be moved by a Member of Parliament who represents Newham. What an area in which to talk about democracy! If my right hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Prentice)—who used to be a member of the Labour party—were here today, I am sure that he could make a very useful contribution to our discussion on democracy.
1102
If there is any validity in the arguments of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West about living standards being low in his area, much of the blame must be laid at the feet of the Labour party. The Conservative party has not had one person elected to that authority since 1968. For as long as people can remember, Newham has elected Labour members of the GLC and Labour Members of Parliament, and it has had a Labour-controlled council. It is, of course, the area for which the Labour party had its first Member of Parliament returned, Keir Hardie. He would turn in his grave if he could see what the present Labour party stands for.
It is distressing to see an area dear to so many destroyed out of all recognition, and completely run down. The local authority that the hon. Member for Newham, North-West waxed so lyrical about is one of the most inefficient in the country that it has been my misfortune to come across. Not so very long ago, a lady came to see me looking for a job through my employment agency. She had been dismissed from the authority's employment because she had had the audacity to complain about inefficiency in the authority, the wasting of ratepayers' money and other matters that she saw and disapproved of. In the course of my four election campaigns in Newham for council seats, the GLC and Parliament I found myself morning, noon and night trying to deal with housing problems of every description. Old dwellings were bulldozed and families were split apart, so breaking up the good old east end tradition and spirit. A concrete jungle was developed, with so-called slums being replaced by far worse ones, instead of dwellings being systematically restored.
From 1964 onwards, tower blocks were erected, with disastrous consequences. I am sure that people will remember, in particular, Ronan Point. I know my father does, as he was working on it at the time. Not so very long ago, the authority decided to vacate one of those tower blocks because its structure was declared to be unsafe. A business man from a neighbouring borough put in a bid for the property. He would have restored it and turned it into luxury dwellings. The authority dismissed the proposals, and spent £500,000 on blowing it up. The list of housing disasters is endless. The authority has created a monster that it can no longer control from its pyramid in Stratford.
Newham employs the greatest number of staff of all London local authorities. The latest figures for September 1983 are 8,835 full-time employees—an increase of 3·6 per cent. over 1982—and 2,555 part-time employees. One would think that an authority employing so many people would be a paragon of virtue when it came to efficiency. However, my parents have been corresponding with the authority for more than a year about renovation grants. Most of their letters were ignored, so I decided to step in. I have in my possession a letter from the chief executive, which begins:
"I refer to your letter dated the 29th November 1983."
The date of his reply to me was 12 January 1984. That is a scandal and a real attack on the democratic rights and living standards of Londoners. As for the renovation grant, the letter states:
"I would mention that due to the heavy burden now placed upon this Authority to deal with such applications, without the necessary staff resources, applications received in 1982 are still waiting to be dealt with."
There we are—the authority with the highest number of employees cannot reply to letters efficiently or process

1103
grants. What absolute poppycock. There is something very wrong with democracy in the London borough of Newham.
It is well known that Newham has been most reluctant to comply with the Housing Act and to sell council houses to those who wish to purchase them. The authority has continually gone out of its way to fight that law and to slow down sales. I have the latest statistics. So far, the London borough of Newham has the disgraceful record of having sold only 1,715 properties. At present, it still owns 33,965 properties.
Mr. John Fraser rose—
Mr. Amess: I shall not give way. If Opposition Members wish to make speeches, they must wait.
I well remember holding an extremely well attended public meeting on that issue at East Ham town hall, and then starting our own list of people who wished to purchase those houses. I also wrote to my hon. Friend the present Under-Secretary of State on the matter.
Ms. Harman: How long did he take to reply?
Mr. Amess: The Rates Bill, which is now going through the House, is welcomed by Londoners generally.
Mr. Deakins: The hon. Gentleman is joking.
Mr. Amess: I am not joking. That Bill will add to rather than detract from the democratic process. The statutory obligations on authorities to consult businesses before setting the rates are long overdue and are warmly welcomed. Last year, Newham set the third highest rates of all the outer London boroughs, whereas the London borough of Redbridge—where I still serve today as a councillor—set the fourth lowest rates. The authorities are next door to each other. In one, the residents obtain very poor value for money, while in the other there is excellent value for money.
I also well remember the introduction of comprehensive education in Newham. I was at school at the time. It was instigated by the then Labour Secretary of State for Education and Science who is now the president of the SDP. The way in which the system was introduced had disastrous consequences for Newham, and today Newham is still suffering from it. I believe that that is why Newham is at the bottom of the educational league.
I look forward eagerly to the abolition of the GLC. It is a superfluous tier of Government. We always said that we would abolish it, and the Conservative party was returned with a thumping big majority. Indeed, in London we increased the number of our seats to 56 out of 84, so we do not want to hear any nonsense from the SDP and the Liberal party about their representation.
There are many aspects of the GLC's activities in recent years that Conservative Members deplore. One is the outrageous rate increases. They are hardly acceptable when one considers how some of the money is spent. The mind boggles at some of the grants that have been handed out by the GLC. Two in particular should be of great interest to the House, as they have been awarded to groups in Newham. More than £16,508 has been awarded to the Abyssinian Society. As far as I am aware, that society does not even have a settled base in Newham at present. A sum of £7,654 has been awarded to the Jewish Socialist Group. Community advice bureaux receive substantial funding.
Mr. Tony Banks rose—
Mr. Amess: I shall not give way. I did not interrupt the hon. Gentleman when he was speaking. Now that I am in full flow, I shall continue.
To continue, £29,000 was given to the Newham Welfare Society, £33,600 to Newham Rights Centre, and the Newham Voluntary Agencies Council got £10,750 for women's projects. The police committee has given the Newham monitoring project over £38,000.
On the subject of the police, we appreciate, I am sure, how supportive the GLC is of the custodians of the law. That is being augmented in Newham with leaflets and meetings trying to undermine the confidence of the police force, with a concerted campaign against the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill that is currently going through Parliament.
The hon. Member for Newham, North-West is a great patron of the arts and I admire some of his efforts in that direction. He is fortunate to have in his constituency the Theatre Royal, Stratford—an extremely famous stage on which many of today's leading actors and actresses have performed. I have enjoyed a number of shows there over the years. It is with great regret, therefore, that I have learnt about some of the shows that are being put on in that august theatre. I understand that a play called "A Mad World, My Masters" by Barry Keeffe is shortly to be staged there and that part of that play will include a striptease of our Prime Minister. I hope that the supporters of the feminist movement on the Opposition Benches, who once condemned the phrase "Ditch the Bitch", will do likewise with this disgraceful play.
The Government's policies will result in more, not less, democracy for Londoners. The number of London Members of Parliament give the capital a large say in how the nation, and itself, should be governed. On many occasions London's problems are national problems, and this House ensures that they are dealt with at national level. The Opposition point out that London is so important that it must have a voice of its own. In my view, London is so important that more often than not its views are expressed here, rather than on that giant Monopoly board on which the GLC rests. By giving local government a clearly-defined role, by eliminating the blurred edges of the GLC writ and by encouraging privatisation and localised cost centres, we are giving back democracy and accountability to the people of London and adding to the motivation of people to take part in the democratic process.
We are constantly chided by Labour Members about our treatment of pensioners. It is fascinating to remember that a Conservative Government rectified the gap in legislation and provided pensions for the over-80s. Labour Members fought tooth and nail against those measures, which are particularly important today, considering the aging population. A great deal of valuable social legislation has been introduced by the Conservatives, rather than by Labour Members when they were in government.
Each day as we come to the House we have a clear view of County Hall. I deplore the fact that the GLC's response to the problem of human tragedy, in the form of the unemployed, is to display the numbers of people without jobs on a board as if money were being raised for charity. If only that were the case.
Ms. Harman rose—
Mr. Amess: We have the same insulting display for those without jobs in Basildon. Conservatives believe in sound financial control—that every penny counts—and while Labour Members share our view with their own money, that maxim does not apply to the money that comes from the ratepayers of London.
In Newham, whenever there has been a Conservative Government, the local Labour party does not accept responsibility for its actions and blames everything that goes wrong on the Conservatives. But whenever there is a Labour Government, whatever goes wrong is the fault of the wicked capitalist system and the multinational companies. The truth is that Labour has done precious little to improve the lot of the people of Newham. I suggest to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West that he should put his own house in order before attacking the Government for what they are trying to do in London.
12.6 pm
Mr. Nigel Spearing: The tradition of the House is for free speech, and I can understand how the hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess), knowing that my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) was to introduce today's motion, decided that his target should be Newham borough council. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that the basis of his logic was narrow, but more of that later.
I shall confine myself to dealing with two of the points with which the hon. Member for Basildon dealt. First, he referred to the vexed question of improvement grants. I wish that all those who put in for improvement grants could get them as soon as possible. However, the Conservative Government opened the coffers in the latter part of 1982 — I wonder why? — shortly before the general election, and it was not possible for the municipal machine to deal with the flood of applications—over 6,000 in Newham — to be divided from the several million pounds available to ensure that that public money was spent properly and responsibly in maintaining and retaining good standards of housing in Newham. We wanted to do it, but the Conservatives decided that local government should not have the staff to deal with the number of applications.
Secondly, the hon. Gentleman spoke of tower blocks, and his basis was very narrow, like his reference to Ronan Point, which is in my constituency. He knows well that the pressure to adopt that type of building started not with the town hall but in Whitehall, and it was pressed by centralised financial authority on local authorities throughout the country.
West Ham council, when it was Labour controlled, had great debates about whether to go in for such developments and was persuaded to do so. East Ham borough council, also Labour controlled, stood out, at some financial disadvantage to that authority, and said, "We will not have them." That, too, is in Newham. It is a good example of the danger of centralised power making such judgments in exercising financial control over local government. That is what we have been discussing. Therefore, when the hon. Member for Basildon talks about tower blocks in Newham, let him remember that central Government imposed that pattern of building on us and that it was not the free choice of the local authority.
I continue with the Newham theme—which the hon. Member for Basildon introduced — in dealing with transport. I have received many hundreds of the dockets
1106
that I hold in my hand from old-age pensioners concerned about their future as travellers. The London Transport Act 1969—it was supported by the Conservatives at that time—provided in section 5 that
"it shall be the general duty of the Executive to exercise and perform their functions, in accordance with principles from time to time laid down or approved by the Council"—
the GLC—
"… with due regard to efficiency, economy and safety of operation, to provide or secure the provision of such public passenger transport services as best meet the needs for the time being of Greater London."
In other words, the needs of Greater London as interpreted by the GLC.
The Bill that is now before the House has the equivalent in clause 2:
"It shall be the general duty of London Regional Transport, in accordance with principles from time to time approved by the Secretary of State…"
In other words, we are transferring judgment of the needs of the people from the locally elected authority—in this instance the GLC—to the Secretary of State. But we all know that it is not the Secretary of State personally who will be responsible. Secretaries of State change from year to year irrespective of the Administration that is in power. This means that decisions will be taken at lower levels. Decision taking will be taken into the womb of Whitehall and away from the offices of County Hall, whatever one may think of individual administration.
When the Secretary of State for Transport says that there will be a scheme for old-age pensioners' travel, he does not say with equal force that the costs will fall upon the finances of local authorities. The financing of the scheme will fall directly upon the ratepayers of Newham, Redbridge and every borough in London. It will not be spread equally over the rateable value of the GLC, including the Cities of London and Westminster.
The scheme that the right hon. Gentleman will introduce will differ from the present scheme. He will be able to give permission for charges to be made. In other words, it will be a pale substitute for the present scheme. It will be merely a shadow of the scheme that now operates. I say to Conservative Members, especially the hon. Member for Basildon, that the Secretary of State's scheme will not benefit pensioners in Redbridge.
Mr. Corbyn: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is appalling that Conservative Members who are considering the Regional Transport Bill in Committee voted down an Opposition amendment that would have guaranteed the continuance of the existing system, and that the Secretary of State for Transport said that the Government would introduce a new clause to provide for a new scheme without revealing the details of it but suggesting that it would be a return to what we considered to be the patchwork system of pre-1973 days?
Mr. Spearing: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for emphasising the argument that I was advancing. These matters can be discussed in Committee and the Secretary of State for Transport has had ample opportunity to damp down the fears and rumours about the travel arrangements for old-age pensioners, but he has not taken the opportunity to do so. This is a clear example of the drift to centralisation. In their activities the Government are purveying a movement to undemocratic centralism.
An example of undemocratic centralism in Newham is the docklands development corporation. Vast sums of

1107
public money are going into the corporation but the powers of that organisation have displaced those of local government. Decisions on how the money should be spent and the merits of those decisions are matters that are considered behind closed doors. We are to exchange the skills and background of Trafalgar House for the skills and background of the Metropolitan Estates Property Corporation.
The hon. Member for Basildon may not like the Newham council and his relatives may not like it either, but they have the opportunity to vote it out if they will. Keir Hardie came to this House in 1893. He was a man of great Victorian virtue. The first Labour administration in the corporation of West Ham was founded in 1889. The men who were members of that administration were men of Victorian virtues. The 20th-century Tories are taking away the democratic rights of the people of Greater London, especially within the ex-LCC area, to vote. The hon. Gentleman had better be very careful when he talks about these matters because the Government he supports are denying a right which is currently possessed by those in Newham and which they have used to ensure that no Conservatives become members of their authority.
Mr. Amess rose—
Mr. Spearing: No, I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman. He did not give way to Newham Members during his speech and I regret that I do not feel that I can give way to him.
I proceed to another area of undemocratic centralism to which the Government are heading, and that is education. I shall continue with the Newham and Redbridge theme. The hon. Member for Basildon may know that many people from Newham surround him in his residential area in Redbridge. I accept that he knows many people from Newham. He will be aware that some of them attend evening classes in London.
Since 1902 facilities have been provided for adult education. The provision was introduced by the ex-London county council, and is often based on professional employment that is backed by the industries that are well represented by the hon. Member for Westminster, North (Mr. Wheeler).
The Westminster chamber of commerce and the other London chambers of commerce, in co-operation with the LCC, set up institutions of professional and vocational learning, which still abound in the central area. It is one of the facilities that London must have. The chambers of commerce and others encouraged the establishment of the institutions. At one time, City firms had to bring people from Germany to provide skilled labour in their offices. The time came when they realised that there must be an education system in London to produce the home-grown product.
The ex-LCC education system is not confined to the LCC area. It was designed to perform a function for the whole of London, whether one lived in Redbridge, Ilford, Newham or Islington. That was well recognised throughout the area. Unfortunately, it has not been so easy for that system to be retained. Following the introduction of the new regulations, there has been a change in the number of adults from outer London attending the ex-LCC classes that are now run by ILEA. In 1979, 32,000 students enrolled for ILEA evening classes. In 1983, only 12,000 enrolled. I do not think that the difference of about
1108
20,000 is made up by an increase in the numbers attending equivalent institutions in outer London. I do not believe that that has happened.
I suggest to Conservative Members, especially the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway), that the facilities provided by the former Middlesex, Essex, Kent and Surrey county councils for further education in those outer London areas were based on the excellent facilities that were provided by the LCC. I suspect that they were not easily capable of providing equivalent facilities" and it was not suggested that they should do so. In Newham, we have the North-East London polytechnic, which has been subjected to Government cuts and a reduction in staff of 40. That is not in a very good shape to do very much either.
Mr. Greenway: The hon. Gentleman and I were colleagues in the ILEA service and we both think highly of it. I am sure that he is not suggesting that ILEA's services are in danger from the Government's proposals or that the services will not continue. Provision for adult education is one of ILEA's best features. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is important that the high profile of adult education, which costs so much less per capita to provide than many other activities, should continue? Will he accept that since his days and mine in that service there has been a tremendous and unacceptable expansion of bureaucracy, notably within the inspectorate, each member of which has a secretary, an office, a personal assistant and all that goes with that provision? There are other areas in which this has happened and there should be a tightening up of provision, which would be in the interests of the education service in London.
Mr. Spearing: The hon. Gentleman has reminded me of something which I should have said at the outset of my remarks. A good many years ago I was an employee of the LCC and later of ILEA. I have family connections with ILEA, for three of my children have attended ILEA schools and I have relatives who teach in them. I do not think that that is an interest that will worry Conservative Members too much, although some of their interests worry my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself quite a lot.
The hon. Gentleman has claimed that the Government's proposals will not have an effect on the services that ILEA provides. Perhaps he has not realised the sequence of events which, if the Government have their way, especially the Prime Minister, will certainly have an effect on the ILEA education machine of which he speaks highly. Because of the changes in the grant system over the past few years, ILEA has not had any central finance. It has had to rely entirely on the rate-funded system, instead of having an injection of centralised finance. So it has borne a much greater proportion of its costs than it should have done.
Mr. Greenway: I know that, because I have worked in the ILEA and the LCC, and I have had three children at ILEA schools. What is not in question is the structure of ILEA, and it is quite wrong of the hon. Gentleman to attempt to say that it is. However, ILEA should tighten up its administration. It has become very flabby over the years. My wife has waited three months for an answer to a simple letter. In my view, that is quite inexcusable, when one realises how many people are employed by the authority and the importance of the question that she has raised in her letter.
Mr. Spearing: I shall be glad to answer the hon. Gentleman's question. However, before I do, may I say that one of the unfortunate features of this debate has been a complete confusion of efficiency, policy and constitutional and financial structure. One can dislike intensely the policy of a body or criticise its efficiency — as we might do in the case of the Government machine and Whitehall—but we do not say, "Let's do away with it."
Mr. Greenway: Nor do we.
Mr. Spearing: The hon. Gentleman knows very well that there have been two attempts to do away with the LCC education service, the ILEA education service. I shall go back further. It really started with the London school board in 1870, for which, I remind the hon. Gentleman, there were direct elections, in which ladies could be candidates and in which ladies could vote. I shall come back to that later.
Let us look ahead to what will happen to the ILEA service, which there have been two attempts to destroy. The initial attempts in 1962–63 and the attempt two years back were to give responsibility for education to the boroughs. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that that is not the current proposition, but the current proposition will inevitably change the nature of ILEA. although it may be legally similar, in practice it will not be similar, and I shall explain why.
Mr. Dobson: Does my hon. Friend agree that, if the Secretary of State for Education and Science is to take power for three years to determine the ILEA budget, in effect ILEA will be destroyed?
Mr. Spearing: My hon. Friend has taken the words out of my mouth. What one can do is constrained by financial policy. As my hon. Friend says, the Secretary of State — I am not sure whether for the Environment, Education and Science, or Treasury or perhaps the Prime Minister — said that shortly the complete financial control of ILEA will be determined not by County Hall, not by London ratepayers or their elected representatives, but by some financial or governmental mechanism in Whitehall. The hon. Gentleman, as a professional man, knows that those decisions will be taken not in Queen Elizabeth house, but in the Treasury or in a Cabinet sub-committee, or even in No. 10 itself. That is where the power will be to control ILEA, and I challenge the hon. Gentleman to say that ILEA will remain the same. It cannot be the same, whoever is appointed to the board. If the financial control goes to Whitehall, all the policies will go with it, too.
The Government have said that ILEA is overspending—13 per cent., 66 per cent., I do not know. I asked a question on 25 October of the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science about the cost per head. I asked whether the Minister recalled claiming that ILEA was overspending by 66 per cent., and whether that meant that Government spending on each pupil should be reduced by a similar figure. I shall not read out the answer, because it is off the point.
Does the 13 per cent. recently quoted mean that there will be a 13 per cent. drop in expenditure on each pupil? If it is not on each pupil, in secondary and primary schools or in nursery schools, where is it coming from? Is it coming from the diagnostic and remedial service? Where
1110
is it coming from? It cannot come from administration, however efficient or otherwise that might be, because that is only a small part of the cost. Is it coming from teachers' salaries, which are nationally negotiated? It is the Government's responsibility to tell us, not just that there will be a cut, but where it is coming from. So far they have not done so. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that, because of governmental control, there will be a change in the nature of ILEA.
On top of that, of course, there is a change in the nature of those representing ILEA at its top level. In April 1985–86, there will be joint representatives, I understand, appointed by the existing councils for a year. Then there will be local government elections. So there will be a different set of representatives in 1986–89. So we shall have three different administrations, even in whatever remains of County Hall, in the next few years, together with complete centralised control of finance. Not even the most optimistic Government supporter could claim that ILEA would be the same after that.
Finally, I want to say a word about the democratic rights of Londoners to control some of their major London services. Education has always taken probably half the cost of the old LCC area. Since 1870, and beginning well before that, a number of integrated services have arisen. I shall not catalogue them, but the Government are just finding out about them. They have been integrated, and they have been working with relative administrative efficiency. One cannot suddenly separate them and expect the same value for money. The cost of administering any other system would be even greater for the ratepayers of Westminster, North, and they will be much less efficient. The point is that the control will not be in the direct hands of the electors, as it has been for education since 187
The hon. Member for Basildon mentioned West Ha corporation, and I referred to its Victorian virtues. The problem with the present Government is that they tk about Victorian times, but they know nothing of e Victorian virtues which gave rise not only to this party to some of our greatest civic and municipal institution. If the Government bring in a Bill to dissolve the GLC, t Prime Minister will constantly be asked, when she go round the world, why London alone, of all the western capitals, cannot have a proper city administration. I do no believe that the right hon. Lady will be able to answer that question, because she and the Government know nothing of Victorian virtues; they are only expressing Victoria vice.
12.27 pm
The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir George Young): The majority of contributions so fa have come from east London, and it might make sense and give a fairer geographical distribution, to have a contribution at this stage from west London where, fortunately, the picture is not as grim as in some of the parts of east London about which we have heard. The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) has a nodding acquaintance with my constituency, but of course he spoke from his new political base of Newham, South.
I join in the commendations to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), who introduced the motion. He painted a moving picture of some of the real problems that exist in London. No one would wish to deny what he said, but when he said that it was all due to the failure of capitalism, I feel that he began to lose part of

1111
his audience, and not only on the Conservative Benches. When he illustrated the failure of capitalism by pointing to tower blocks, he had gone complete circle. Tower blocks are a monument to Socialism, and in a capitalist society one will not find difficulty in letting tower blocks, whatever one may say about a capitalist society. The hon. Gentleman did not sustain his case when it came to the root causes of some of the problems. If we are to put the problems right, we must get the analysis correct.
There are two legs to the proposition which the hon. Gentleman put to the House when he opened the debate, one dealing with democracy and the other with living standards. I want to address myself to each and to show that the hon. Gentleman's conclusions simply cannot be sustained.
I begin with the most important—democracy. I want to advance the argument that Government action is subject to the checks and balances of our democratic constitution and that our constitution faces threats, but threats that come almost exclusively from the Left rather than the Right or the centre of our political spectrum.
The Government put an unequivocal commitment in their election manifesto last May on all the metropolitan counties and the GLC. They said:
"We shall abolish them and return most of the functions to the boroughs and the districts."
No hon. Member, and few people who are interested in the issues that we are debating, can be unaware of that commitment. Not only were we returned with an increased majority nationally, but we won more seats in London than the Opposition—56 out of 84 in Greater London—and half as many votes again in London as the Labour party. On a purely subjective note, the Government's policy on abolition was well received on the doorsteps of Ealing and Acton.
I make no major claims about the doctrine of the manifesto. I do not want to be drawn into the debate, but I do say that the supporters of democracy would have much more to grumble about if we did not proceed than if we did.
Mr. Dobson: Has any Conservative candidate said that the powers of the GLC over London Transport would be taken over by a quango or a board appointed by the Minister which would be able to levy rates on London?
Sir George Young: I hope that none of my hon. Friends said that, because it would not be true.
Having been elected, we set out our proposals in the White Paper and consulted on them. We shall table the appropriate legislation for approval by both Houses and we shall then defend what we have done at the next general election, by which time Londoners will be able to judge exactly what substance there is in some of the scare stories being put out by the Labour party at County Hall, some of which are beginning to look pretty threadbare.
What we have done, and what we propose to do, is subject to all the snakes and ladders of the British constitution.
Mr. Dobson: There are more snakes than ladders.
Sir George Young: The idea that the abolition of the GLC is a threat to democracy was never advanced by the Labour party at the general election. I well recall one "Newsnight", when the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) was asked what his party would do about the GLC. He refused categorically
1112
to give any commitment whatever that it would defend the GLC. In any case, it would have been difficult for Labour Members to pursue the constitutional argument that the removal of a tier of local government was undemocratic in the light of the Labour party's commitment, given by the right hon. Gentleman at the Labour party's local government conference on 11 February last year, when he said:
"The time has come, once and for all, to introduce what most people devoted to local government now recognise as the most democratic as well as the most efficient form of authority. We shall therefore legislate to create unitary district authorities which will be responsible for all the functions in their area that they can sensibly undertake."
If the election had gone the other way, Labour Members would probably be standing on this side of the House defending proposals to remove a tier of local government. The tier which they wanted to remove—the county councils—provides far more services to the public than does the GLC, and that change would have meant far more disruption.
As we have discovered i n our debate this morning, Ken Livingstone is a supporter of one tier of local government in London. In his speech at the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy conference as recently as 3 June 1982, he said:
"To be really effective that means we have to have unitary local government in this country, and clearly people would be better served if it was provided by the borough councils in the metropolitan areas. I have always at heart been committed to the borough council rather than to regional government."
The Opposition's posture on local government was summed up by one of their delegates to their recent local government conference in Nottingham, when he said:
"A year ago our Party's local government policy was in chaos —and it is still in chaos."
He went on to say:
"A year ago we were in favour of the mets, now we seem to have no positive policies of our own at all; our only policy is opposition to Tory policies. We need an alternative."
Mr. Tony Banks: I am delighted to know that the Minister spends so much time listening to the Labour party's local government conference. If the Conservative party had a similar conference, we could all listen to it. Our complaint is not about the reorganisation of government, but about the way in which it is being done and the way in which the GLC will be replaced by a series of joint boards and unelected quangos. Why will the Minister not establish a Royal Commission, or, if he wants to test the strength of his case, hold a referendum? Our objection is to the style of his approach.
Sir George Young: I wonder whether we have been listening to the same debate. The arguments were not as the hon. Gentleman has interpreted them. Of course, he has not been in the Chamber all the time. The Opposition's argument has been that it is wrong to abolish the GLC per se. They did not develop the consequential arguments put forward by the hon. Gentleman, as he will see if he reads Hansard.
I agree with Opposition Members that the democracy of London is threatened. It is certainly threatened when councillors in Brent are prevented by a mob from discharging their obligations. The Caribbean Times said — [Interruption.] It is a good newspaper, which I read every week. It said:

1113
"The Labour group in Brent as we predicted last week finally came crashing down. Their behaviour and that of their supporters were a disgrace to the Labour Party that so many of our people have supported over the years.
The disgraceful scenes in the Willesden High School hall showed quite clearly why a spell in the opposition would do them a world of good."
Democracy in Lambeth is not assisted by attempts by the Labour party to hold on to power by bringing forward by two months the traditional date of the mayor-making ceremony. Democracy in Lambeth was disgraced when a Social Democratic party councillor, who had left the Labour party, returned to it after an indefensible campaign of violence and intimidation — [HON. MEMBERS: "Smear."] I understand why Opposition Members feel so sensitive about these issues. We are debating democracy in London. The issues that I have described are a fundamental threat to democracy in our capital city.
Democracy in local government in London is also threatened by the breaking down of the distinction between elected politicians and neutral officers. The integrity of public service is undermined by a whole series of appointments at County Hall—the appointment of Mr. Reg Race, a former Labour Member of Parliament, as head programme officer; the appointment of Robin Murray, the former Tribune group economic adviser, as chief economic adviser; the appointment of Mr. Alan McGarvey, and those of Mr. Arthur Latham and Miss Merle Amory to the London Transport Board.
Democracy is also threatened by the issuing of party political propaganda funded by the ratepayer. There has been a never-ending paper chain in London in recent weeks. Londoners have had countless sheets of purple prose, masquerading as news, pushed through their letter boxes, and have seen hoardings covered with expensive anti-Government posters.
Of course those who oppose the Government have a right to make their voices heard, but what we are seeing in London is quite different from that. We are talking about campaigns costing millions of pounds, as the hon. Member for Newham, North-West conceded. Such campaigns are highly party political. They are funded out of the public purse at the expense of the wretched ratepayer.
I understand the concern of our supporters who wonder why we do not respond in similar terms. The Government are not prepared to enter into irresponsible action, using public funds. We will explain our policies, defend them in the House, on the doorstep and in the media—but we reject the expensive gimmicks, the mass rallies, the organised write-in campaigns and the lapel badge politics as weapons of democracy.
Londoners should know exactly what is the scale of the campaign. The GLC has spent more than £750,000 this year, and plans to have spent a further £1 million before the end of March. It has engaged professional advertising agencies whose contracts, according to press reports, are worth £300,000 a year in commission alone. Moreover, about 20 authorities are reported to be contributing to the so-called local government campaign which already has a bureaucracy of nine. It would be less appalling if there were some concern for factual accuracy in some of the documents. However, much of the material is aimed to alarm rather than to inform. For example, the GLC said
1114
in a recent edition of The Londoner that more people in London would die in fires after abolition of the GLC. That is utter nonsense.
Ms. Harman: With regard to factual accuracy about the GLC and the ILEA, is the Minister not worried about the factual inaccuracies given to the House by the Secretary of State for Education and Science? On 7 February 1984 he said that there were 6,073 more non-teaching staff than teachers in the authority's employment. That is completely wrong. There are 2,544 more teachers than non-teachers. When we are talking about facts, why do the Government not look at their own returns before telling us that we are being inaccurate?
Sir George Young: I am not sure whether the hon. Lady has seen a copy of the letter which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science sent to the leader of the ILEA. It deals with precisely the points that she mentions.
Ms. Harman: What does it say?
Sir George Young: If she has not seen it, its text is further on in my speech and, if she can contain herself, I might get to it in a few minutes.
Democracy in London is not served by attempts in some London schools to use the school system for party political purposes.
Mr. Dobson: Give examples.
Sir George Young: I am about to do so. A leaflet on the future of the Greater London development plan quotes the examples of someone asking children in a school what the GLC stood for. "Working for London," they all chorused. Democracy is not served by Camden council, for example, imposing restrictions on the freedom of the individual. I saw in yesterday's paper that it is banning a pianist from appearing in one of its festivals unless he agrees never to appear in South Africa again. Nor is democracy in London served by a continuous attack on the police, whose job it is to preserve the law and order on which our freedoms depend.
My hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North (Mr. Wheeler) made a powerful speech about the police. The House ought to know that Paul Boateng, the chairman of the GLC's police committee, speaking at a fringe meeting of the Labour party conference in 1982, proclaimed that Britain's police were "Mrs. Thatcher's storm troopers". Nor are the police helped by funding, at the ratepayers" expense, so-called police support units, the purpose of which is not to support the police but to criticise them.
We have heard the argument about whether there should be a voice for London. The GLC has never supplied an articulate London-wide representative voice. I do not think that Londoners thought that Sir Horace Cutler spoke for them, and I am pretty sure that they do not think that Ken Livingstone speaks for them, especially if he holds the following view about our democratic system, which he expressed in an article in Town and Country Planning.
"The conflict between labour and capital is still to come in his country … The Government knows a conflict is coining. That is why it is necessary to abolish those power centres which argue in a small way that there is an alternative."
That view is not shared by many Londoners.
The inevitable result of the activity that I have described has been less support for the Labour party. In Brent a few weeks ago a safe Labour ward was lost to the

1115
Conservatives and with it went control of that council. The activities that I have described are not typical of all Labour parties in London, but sadly it is a growing trend, which receives little support from Londoners. Before the Labour party initiates a debate on democracy in London and starts to criticise the Government, it should have a long hard look at itself and put its house in order.
The second proposition advanced by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West concerned living standards. The prosperity of London and of Londoners is linked inexorably to the health of the national economy. The extent to which the GLC, under whichever party, can shield London from the ebb and flow of the national economy is marginal. It is ultimately the success of the Government in creating the right climate, encouraging investment, providing jobs and increasing earnings that is the key to living standards of Londoners.
I am sure that the House will take comfort from the series of encouraging economic indicators of the past few months. House building starts in Greater London for 1982 were 46 per cent. up on the previous year and 65 per cent. up on 1980. Public sector starts in Greater London for 1982 were also up on the two previous years. Private sector starts in Greater London for 1982 were the highest for nine years and 30 per cent. up on the previous year.
The outlook for the construction industry, which is so vital to the London economy, continues to brighten. Nationally, output in the first three quarters of 1983 was 4 per cent. higher than for the same period of 1982, and recently released figures show that new orders in 1983 were at the highest level since 1978, and 13 per cent. higher than 1982. Public non-housing orders were the highest since 1976.
Mr. Dobson: What were the building starts in 1979 compared with 1982? Will the Minister confirm that one of the major reasons why so many people, particularly in inner London, can no longer get rehoused by borough councils is the collapse of the borough council's housing programmes as a result of Government restrictions?
Sir George Young: I think the hon. Member knows that the dramatic reduction in public investment in housing in London began in 1976, after the IMF visited us, and fell for six or seven years. Happily, under this Government that decline has been reversed.
The retail price index fell by 0·1 per cent. in January —only the third monthly fall in 14 years. The inflation rate is down from 5·3 per cent. in December to 5·1 per cent. now.
The proposals to abolish the GLC and the six metropolitan county councils will have no effect on local government capital spending or on the capacity of local government to invest in construction. We recognise the need to ensure that projects under way are continued by the appropriate successor authority.
Mr. Chris Smith rose—
Sir George Young: I must make progress, because there are a large number of London Members who wish to make their contributions. I note that the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) is being restrained by his hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman).
I said that the ability of the GLC to help was limited, but unfortunately the GLC has a capacity to obstruct, slow
1116
down, foil or complicate, which can delay and lose investment opportunities and jobs in London. Its belief is that people who work in offices, as opposed to factories, are somehow not contributing to the nation's prosperity. That prejudice has led to a series of planning inquiries which have delayed badly needed investment in the rundown parts of inner London. The GLC has a negative approach—
Ms. Harman rose—
Sir George Young: It is in the hon. Lady's interest that I complete my remarks, so that the House may have an opportunity to listen to what she may have to say.
The GLC has a somewhat negative approach to the London Docklands development corporation, which is now breathing fresh life into a neglected part of London. It is estimated that, in the docklands as a whole, 1,964 new permanent jobs have been created since the LDDC's inception, and that 1,528 temporary jobs have been created in the construction industry.
By January 1984, on sites released by the LDDC, 800 housing units had been completed. In addition, 1,700 are under construction and 2,000 are firmly programmed. The LDDC gives priority to local people, council tenants, and those on the waiting list. People in those groups secured about 30 per cent. in the Beckton schemes and have reserved 42 out of 47 homes on one of the first sites to be developed in Southwark. With this, the tenure of households in docklands is changing, so that 9 per cent. of households in docklands are now owner-occupied, as compared with 5·3 per cent. in 1981. It is hoped that the rate in docklands will be 30 per cent. by 1986.
Private investment worth over £100 million is under way or committed, providing over 1 million sq ft of commercial and industrial floorspace.
Mr. Simon Hughes: The Minister will no doubt accept that the LDDC is a Government-created body; it is certainly not a democratic body. Of the jobs created, what proportion went to local people in the boroughs? He mentioned figures for local occupants of housing, but clearly the jobs that have been created have gone to people coming in from outside the area. Indeed, there has been a net job loss for the people who live and work in the community.
Sir George Young: The hon. Member tempts me into a rather complicated debate about travel-to-work areas in London. I shall inquire whether the information can be obtained in the form that he wishes. I should be misleading him if I said that I carry the figures in my head.
The hon. Member for Newham, North-West asked why Newham had been refused partnership status. That 'was a legitimate question and I know that there are strong feelings in his part of London about the consequences of not having partnership or programme status. Newham narrowly missed that status when we promoted a number of authorities recently.
Newham already receives money under the urban programme, as one of the designated districts, and account will be taken this year of its needs under the traditional urban programme. Part of the answer is that LDDC investment benefits Newham. The corporation is spending £3·3 million in the borough on environmental improvements and £4·2 million on roads. It gives £165,000 to voluntary organisations and £290,000 to 31 firms in the

1117
borough under the Inner Urban Areas Act. To that extent, the borough is compensated for the absence of partnership status.
Mr. Chris Smith: If the Under-Secretary is concerned about the needs of Newham, will he explain why the grant-related expenditure assessment of the borough's spending needs in the present financial year is down by 1·5 per cent. compared with the previous year, whereas in the rest of England and Wales the GREAs are up by an average of 3 per cent.?
Sir George Young: I am sure that that is due to interest rates. Fortunately, my fellow Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, who understands these matters, is at my elbow. As the hon. Gentleman knows, I have done little else in the past three or four days than debate with him in Committee the implications of grant-related expenditure. I am reluctant to weary the rest of the House with that upmarket debate, which is proceeding rather slowly in Committee.
The GLC also has the capacity to deter investment in London by increasing the rates disproportionately and encouraging potential entrepreneurs who would like to invest in London to go elsewhere. My hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North menioned the London chamber of commerce and industry's trends survey of March to June 1983, in which 23 per cent. of companies surveyed said that rate increases in the past two years had caused them to cut their work force and another 15 per cent. said that they had curtailed recruitment. One in six companies said that they had relocated in the past five years because of high rate increases or the promise of low rates elsewhere.
Mr. Dobson: Were they asked about interest rates?
Sir George Young: If they were asked, they would have welcomed the Government's success in reducing interest rates by five points over the past two years.
More than 40 per cent. of companies said that the level of rates was a decisive factor in determining where to locate new plant. If Labour Members and members of the GLC think that high rates are such a good idea, I wonder why they cut them this year.
Mr. Tony Banks: The hon. Gentleman will not find many defenders of the rating system on the Labour Benches or in County Hall. Indeed, we were waiting with great interest for the Conservative party to bring out another of its 1979 manifesto undertakings—the promise to do something about the domestic rating system. In the event, the Government have done nothing except introduce the rate-capping Bill.
Would the Under-Secretary be prepared to commission a proper, independent, respected inquiry so that we can see, once and for all, the relationship between unemployment, job losses and rates?
Ms. Harman: We know the answers.
Mr. Banks: I believe that the information which the Under-Secretary and Conservative Members punch out in the House does not bear a close relationship to the truth. In fact, interest rates are a far greater influence on employment than rates.
Sir George Young: The hon. Gentleman's argument is destroyed by his friend at County Hall who boasted of
1118
the rates reduction and said that it would have a beneficial impact on the London economy. We do not need an inquiry. The hon. Member for Peckham said during the hon. Gentleman's intervention that she already has all the answers to his questions about the impact of rates on location decisions. If the hon. Gentleman will develop the dialogue, he will get all the information that he needs.
A number of exaggerated claims have been made about what will happen to London when the GLC is abolished. For example, the chairman of the GLC, Tony McBrearty, has been reported as speculating that the abolition of the GLC will mean a halt to the development of Thamesmead. He said that
"no private developer would be prepared to take on a scheme of this scale".
Yet we have already had approaches from two firms which are interested in taking over responsibility for seeing the development through to completion.
A GLC official is quoted in a recent edition of "Roof' magazine as saying,
"If we are abolished, you might as well abandon any idea of improving stock.—"
That is, housing stock
"All the expertise would be lost, boroughs would take longer to work up to it, the deprived areas would stay that way."
That is nonsense. Such talk is alarmist and misleading. There is no reason why improvement works cannot be carried out at borough level, as a substantial number are already.
Some remarks have been made about London Transport, and my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Sir A. Berry) read the reply of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport which gave pensioners the assurances that they need. I hope that the GLC will now call off the expensive campaign on London Transport.
Mr. Simon Hughes rose—
Sir George Young: I am reluctant to give way on this point, because, as I mentioned, there will, I think, be a Committee amendment to the London Regional Transport Bill, and that will provide a full opportunity to have a proper debate on London Transport. I would rather that that were the forum in which to pursue this matter, especially as there are several other questions that I wish to try to answer.
This has also been a debate about ILEA, the possibility of savings and the impact on the standard of education. There is plenty of opportunity for making savings in ILEA, and its leaders have been at particular pains to create a wholly misleading impression and to arouse unnecessary concern about our proposals. I want to make sure that hon. Members understand the true position, because the education of the children of inner London is far too important to be subjected to scaremongering.
Nationally, expenditure per pupil is at record levels in real terms—5 per cent. up in secondary schools and 10 per cent. up in primary schools since 1979 — and the pupil-teacher ratio is at its best-ever level. I must make it absolutely clear that ILEA is not to be dismembered, broken-up or abolished. In abolishing the GLC, of which the present ILEA is a part, we propose to replace ILEA by another single education authority to perform the same functions of looking after education for inner London. This new authority will be a joint board composed of

1119
councillors chosen by the inner London borough councils, the Common Council of the City. Some members of ILEA are already chosen in that way.
Mr. Simon Hughes rose—
Sir George Young: I must make progress. ILEA has spent excessively for many years, and next year's budget of £920 million is nearly £400 million in excess of its grant-related expenditure. GRE takes full account of social needs and special factors, such as London weighting, for the purposes of distributing Government block grant.
If ILEA were to be rate-capped in 1985–86, it would not be possible in a single year to undo the effects of ILEA's over-expenditure. That is the answer to some of the figures that Opposition Members have bandied around. The Government would have to judge what could realistically be achieved in a single year. We happen to believe that substantial sums could be saved—for example, on school meals, administration, non-teaching costs and so on—without detriment to the quality of education.
Mr. Dobson: How?
Sir George Young: I shall give some examples.
Mr. Chris Smith rose—
Sir George Young: Let me give the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) a few telling comparisons. In the three years to 1982–83, ILEA's spending on school meals went up by 25 per cent., whereas nationally it went down by 2·5 per cent. ILEA spent 60 per cent. more per pupil than the national average.
Of course ILEA has its problems, but so do other areas. ILEA spends 37 per cent. more per secondary pupil than Ealing, which has the same range of problems, in that it must also look after Southall. ILEA spent 40 per cent. more than Manchester, 46 per cent. more than Newcastle and 76 per cent. more than Birmingham. This year, ILEA spending is up 11 per cent. on last year's—far more than any other authority — yet the number of inner London children is falling faster than the national average.
Mr. Dobson rose—
Sir George Young: I must draw my remarks to a conclusion.
I have read most of the important submissions that have come in as a result of our consultation exercise. I have seen nothing there, and have heard nothing today, which leads me to alter my view that abolition of the GLC is right. Indeed, much has reinforced it, not least the positive response from the London Boroughs Association, whose members will assume most of the powers that are devolved.
As someone who has served as a London borough councillor, a GLC member, a London Member of Parliament and a Minister at the Department of the Environment, I hope that I am in a good position to look at this issue in a broad perspective. I must tell the House that there is life after the GLC. Not only is it not the case that London will collapse like a pack of cards when the GLC is abolished, but there are positive benefits and advantages to be secured from abolition. It will lift a burden of unnecessary bureaucracy off the shoulders of Londoners and they will feel the benefits in their pockets when the result is rates lower than would otherwise have been the case. They will be better able to exercise close
1120
democratic control over the services that will be run by their local, accessible town halls, and not from the remoteness of County Hall.
I refute entirely the hon. Gentleman's motion. Our policies are designed to improve the democratic rights of Londoners in asserting control over local government. Our broader policies are designed to improve the education and health services in London, and our economic policies are the best way forward to prosperity for Londoners. We will bring forward legislation, as we promised, and we shall secure a healthy and wealthy capital city.
1 pm
Mr. John Fraser: I begin, as did many hon. Members, by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) on coming first in the ballot. I hope to emulate his example next week, in a debate on housing.
We are debating the Government's vindictive attack on the GLC and on London as a whole. The Conservative party proposes to do to London with a parliamentary sledgehammer what it failed to do at the ballot box. I do not deny that it is obvious that the Conservative party has more Members of Parliament in London than the Labour party, and that it gained more votes than the Labour party. However, that is not the issue. The issue is the way in which Londoners determine, in municipal elections, how London should be run. Arguments about the GLC spending its money on propaganda and other matters, and judgments on how much ILEA spends on school meals and books, are irrelevant. Perhaps Conservative Members are right about expenditure in some areas, but in other areas the SDP and the Labour party are right.
The argument that the Government have a majority carries no weight. If that argument were pursued in a federal state, the moment a federal Government had a majority it could abolish democracy in those states where there was no political agreement. But that has never been the argument. I was interested to hear the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Sir A. Berry) arguing that one reason for the abolition of the GLC was that not many people voted in the local elections, and he mentioned a high point of 45 per cent. However, the figure for voting in the American presidential election is not substantially higher than that. If he had to choose between votes of about 40 per cent. in the American presidential elections and votes of about 99 per cent. in presidential elections in the USSR, I am sure that he would regard the lower percentage in the United States as being more democratic.
Sir Anthony Berry: The point that I was trying to make was that the coupon that we have received showing that Londoners are keen to exercise their rights in GLC elections is nonsense, since most people do not use their democratic rights.
Mr. Fraser: It is not helpful to take the figure for London as a whole. In the last GLC election in my constituency, where Mr. Knight was a candidate, there was a high turn-out of voters because there was considerable interest in the campaign.
Mr. Simon Hughes: What happened?
Mr. Fraser: We all know what happened. When there is a narrow margin in a constituency, the vote tends to

1121
increase. The hon. Gentleman's argument that a poll of about 45 per cent. is a reason for abolishing a democratic institution holds no water.
I am proud to represent part of one of the great cities of the world. When I say city, I do not mean the commercial square mile, which by 227 per cent. has gone above its grant-related expenditure, but is not in any danger of abolition. There is one thing that one can say about the Tory party: it knows how to look after its friends. When I use the word "city" in my speech, I am talking about the city conurbation which I am proud to represent. London as a whole, compared with other conurbations in Britain, is relatively prosperous. I say "relatively prosperous" and "as a whole" because London suffers from pockets of massive poverty, despair and alienation. London's prosperity as a whole should make us even more aware and ashamed of the pockets of poverty.
London is also a great commercial city, but if the Government persist in their obsessive fixation about doing nothing to regulate the commercial activities of the City of London it could suffer. The Government have yet to learn the lessons of Lloyds. They seem to believe in a policy of doing nothing or as little as possible, as evidenced by their capitulation to the stock exchange. The City could do with streamlining — streamlining of investors, of regulation of insurance and of the commodity markets. The Government can take the square mile and streamline there. Their aversion to legislation and interference there is beginning to do some harm to our commercial reputation and integrity.
London is a great artistic centre, one of the greatest in the world, with its range of music from punk to opera. It is a great dramatic centre and a great centre of artistic endeavour. All those things are at risk from the Government's proposals to abolish the GLC and to delegate these matters to local authorities.
Sir George Young: Nonsense.
Mr. Fraser: The Under-Secretary says, "Nonsense," but there has been masses of responsible, non-party criticism of the Government's artistic policy in London which make it clear that London needs support for the arts as a whole. There is bound to be failure and inter-borough jealousies the moment that the Government try to delegate support for the arts into boroughs rather than into the GLC.
The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. William Waldegrave): As the hon. Member knows, when I wear another hat I have to answer questions on the arts. One of the things that I have learnt about is the considerable fear for the arts after the election of Mr. Livingstone's GLC. The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) has now left the Chamber, but the first thing that he did on the election of the Labour GLC was to threaten the opera house grant, and to sell the pictures from Kenwood, and the GLC is now discriminating against the performers who may or may not appear at the south bank. That is not a very strong line for the hon. Member to take.
Mr. Fraser: I do not pretend to be an expert on the arts, but I am reflecting the opinions expressed by many people who know more about these matters than I do. However, when it comes to support for theatres, orchestras or
1122
institutions that go beyond borough boundaries, the idea that boroughs will voluntarily come together and be unselfish in their support of artistic institutions will not hold water.
London is also a tourist centre, but this is bound to suffer as against other cities, once the Government interfere with the London transport system, and fares are inevitably increased and services reduced. One of the great attractions of many cities as tourist centres is the ability of people to travel freely and cheaply from one part of the city to another. I have had discussions with the tourist industry, in which one thing became clear about the decline of tourism to this country —the the effect of the very high level of fares as between one city and another. The same argument would obtain in London when services are curtailed and fares increased. There will be an adverse effect on tourism, which is a valuable earner of foreign currency.
London is a generous city which has not guarded its prosperity much. It has been quite tolerant in seeing thousands of its jobs go to other parts of the country, to development areas and to new towns. Since the end of the war, London must have lost hundreds and thousands of jobs in that way. London's citizens do not complain too much that motor car taxation is dealt with in Swansea, or in Bell street, Dundee, or that their personal taxation is dealt with not in London but in Cardiff or Edinburgh. Londoners have been pretty tolerant about the way in which London has lost some of its jobs and about the fact that the Mint and many of our industries have moved away. Recently, for example, Companies house moved to Cardiff.
London is not crying out for privilege or patronage. Londoners demand one thing, and that is equitable and fair treatment from central Government and a recognition of the fact that neglect of parts of London, particularly some of the poorer inner city boroughs, could — if Government policy and the present trend in deprivation continue—turn segments of London into the hell holes found in many American cities.
When I first went to New York and saw some of its more awful aspects — modern versions of Dante's Inferno— I was struck by the thought that if we got policy wrong in London there would be similar hell holes and areas of deprivation, alienation and violence in London. Our capital has a reputation for being relatively peaceful. However, I am afraid that some of my fears are beginning to come true. Indeed, they came true in the riots of 1981.
The Government have done nothing in terms of diminishing unemployment, increasing the supply of housing, or diminishing homelessness to give us any more hope now than we had in 1981. Lord Scarman reported on the social aspect of the riots and said:
"There are, however, three areas of disadvantage which emerge from the evidence I have received."
He highlights housing, education and employment. The Government have done nothing about any of them on their own initiative that has done anything to improve the prospects for London since those riots in 1981. Indeed, unemployment has increased much more since that inquiry.
I welcome the diminution in crime in some parts of London. I hope that I have personally played a helpful part in my borough by obtaining new forms of policing and working in co-operation with the police and the

1123
community. The two must work together. However, recently the number of murders in London has increased to one a day. One can hardly open the South London Press without seeing reports of not one murder, but two or three a week. That murder rate is an indication of the deeply disturbed state of parts of our capital. The hon. Member for Westminster, North (Mr. Wheeler) shakes his head, but such murders are quite distinct from the more professional crimes, and are a sign of the deeply disturbed nature of some of the deprived areas in our city.
Mr. Wheeler: Surely the hon. Gentleman appreciates that nearly all cases of homicide in London—whether or not they are murders is a decision that rests finally on the court's verdict—involve parties who are related to each other in one way or another. They do not involve the killing of innocent members of the public.
Mr. Fraser: Even if the murder is domestic, it is a sign of a deep disturbance in the pattern of family life. Furthermore, we are beginning to see incidents of mindless violence between total strangers. I hope that such incidents are simply a flash in the pan, and will diminish in number, but the present state of serious crime in London shows just how disturbed our capital is becoming.
It used to be said of certain Labour party candidates that if a donkey were put up for election it would be elected. I never believed that, but it used to be said in criticism of our party. While I do not accuse Conservative Members of being donkeys, I accuse them of being Trojan horses. They have been elected to represent London, but they are prepared to play a part in its abolition and impoverishment. There has been little defence for the interests of London from them in today's debate.
Greater London does not have a patron saint, unlike Paris, which has the martyr, St. Denis. If Greater London had to choose a patron saint, it would probably choose St. Sebastian because of the number of attacks from different sources which are being inflicted on it, and I will deal with some of the arrow shots at the body of London.
First, let us consider unemployment, which is a measure of the neglect, indeed the malevolence, of the present Government. In 1979, the total number unemployed in Greater London was 126,000. By the end of 1983, it had reached 366,000, an increase of 240,000 since the Conservatives took office. When the Minister talks about things getting better, with economic turn-ups and the rest, he should look across the river from the Library at the figure displayed on County Hall, showing 375,000 unemployed in Greater London. That is an absolute record for the number of unemployed in our capital city. There is no sign of an upturn taking place. Indeed, if there were an upturn one would expect to detect it in the capital city. In other words, there is nothing in the unemployment figures showing an increase in the prosperity of London.
Looked at in percentage terms, the rate of unemployment in London since the Conservatives came to office has risen from 3·4 per cent. to almost 12 per cent., an increase of more than 300 per cent. overall. Looking at the figures for some of the individual employment exchanges—we have been provided with a list—we see that in my constituency overall unemployment has gone up by about 300 per cent., and in Hackney, one of the poorest areas not just in London but in the country, it has risen by 253 per cent.
1124
The outer London areas are not exempt either. In Hayes —I do not think that an hon. Member who represents that constituency has been present during the debate—the rate is up by 338 per cent. In Mitcham—nor is that area represented here today—unemployment has risen by 527 per cent. since the Conservatives were elected. In other words, unemployment is one of the attacks that has taken place on London and has led to the impoverishment not just of individuals who find themselves on the dole but of society as a whole.
The second attack on London—this was mentioned by the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright) —has been the attack on the Health Service; 87 per cent. of all manpower cuts have taken place in the Thames region, and the figures inside London are staggering. There have been compulsory job cuts totalling 3,753, and they must be added to the figures of unemployment which I gave. Those cuts have been imposed on a city in which the standards of primary health care and family practitioner service are much worse than in other parts of the country. In other words, the second attack has been on the Health Service.
The third attack has been on housing in London. Nobody would deny that one of the biggest problems of London is the lack of decent, secure housing. One of the main causes of the break-up of family life is inadequate housing—indeed, perhaps it is sometimes the cause of murder — with people living cheek by jowl, with insufficient insulation between, so preventing them from living a private and secure life.
In the public sector in 1979—it is the only sector for which the Government are directly responsible and that being the last complete year in which we had a Labour Government — 17,461 homes were completed and 10,994 were started. In 1983 —I have annualised the figures for the first nine months — completions were running at an annual rate of only 6,400, one third of the level of completions achieved in 1979. The figure for starts, also 6,400, was two thirds of the total inherited by the Conservatives in 1979, and the figures have dipped even lower in the four or five years while they have been in office. The combination of local authorities and housing associations produced 6,400 starts on new dwellings. That must be compared with the scale of London's problems. About 250,000 Londoners are on housing waiting lists, but the numbers on the lists are not usually a very good indication of housing need, which is often greater than the lists suggest. A recent citizens advice bureaux summary on homelessness in London revealed that 447,000 families or households are overcrowded or are living in circumstances in which more than one household is sharing. There are 16,000 homeless families and 14,000 of them are in short-stay hostel accommodation.
I gained some idea of the problem when I visited Rowton house, which Lambeth borough council has been able to acquire with Government help. My visit gave me an idea of the depths of housing problems in London. In Rowton house, many men have lived in cubicles of about 8 ft by 3 ft. The cubicles looked rather worse than prison cells. Borough council officials and I discovered to our horror that some of the men had been living in this accommodation for 30 or 40 years. They had not been there for short periods while they were temporarily unemployed or in poverty. They were living in conditions which were worse in terms of space and general accommodation than those provided in a prison cell.

1125
All London Members will be aware from their advice bureau sessions of the despair and frustration expressed by those who are denied a full and happy life as a result of inadequate housing. What is the right measure? Is it the 250,000 who are on housing waiting lists, or the almost 500,000 who have inadequate accommodation or overcrowding? Against those massive totals, we have 6,500 public sector starts a year. That provision is well down on the figures that the Government inherited. This represents an unconscionable attack upon the rights and ability of Londoners to lead a decent life.
The Government are also mounting an attack on transport. I shall not go into the issue in great detail because transport matters are currently being debated in Committee. I do not understand how anyone can doubt that taking away London Transport from any form of democratic control and reducing subsidy is bound to provide London with a transport system that is less efficient, that will cause more pollution, that will be involved in more accidents, that will be more expensive and, as a result, will interfere with people's freedom.
I represent a poor constituency and I know that one of the things that is relevant to unemployment and the ability to get a job is cheap transport. When fares are forced up and transport services are curtailed, passengers generally are hit, but those who are hit especially hard are those who are looking for work, whose share of the labour market will be in the lower paid sector. There is a close relationship between the ability to travel cheaply on public transport and the ability to obtain a job. The attack on public transport in London will have a much wider effect than that which can be measured in services and fares.
The Government are also mounting an attack upon the Inner London education authority. It is said by some that the Government propose to decimate expenditure on education in London. I believe that they intend to do rather more than that. They are proposing a cut of 13 per cent. They plan to reduce the budget of ILEA by a figure that is equal to about five times the amount that we spend on nursery schools. It is equivalent to about two thirds of the total expenditure on primary and secondary education. That will be about the scale of the cut.
Sir George Young indicated dissent.
Mr. Fraser: I note that the Under-Secretary shakes his head, but from recollection we spend about £125 million on primary education in inner London and the Government propose to cut ILEA expenditure by £125 million. We have been given figures to show the amount of overspending that there has been by ILEA, and we have heard proposals by the Government to take over and control ILEA expenditure for three years. It is, therefore, not unreasonable to conclude that it is the Government's aim to decimate expenditure in London and to cut from its budget a sum equivalent to the total amount spent on primary education in London and five times the amount spent on nursery school education in inner London.
Mr. Tracey: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way to me on this important matter, because the Labour party constantly homes in on it, trying to make out that a Conservative Administration will cut the front end, that it has done that in the Health Service, and that it is doing it here with education. Surely the point is that in
1126
ILEA there are vast numbers of unused or underused buildings, and there is a vast administrative tail that could be cut, but there is no reason to suggest that the teaching of children needs to be cut in any way.
Mr. Fraser: We disagree. There is a place to settle the matter, and it is called the ballot box. I, like many of my Labour colleagues, have been to parents' meetings in and around my constituency, where there is a great interest in the matter. There was great interest when the Government were considering the abolition of the ILEA a few years ago, when Baroness Young carried out an inquiry into the matter.
All of us, as Members of Parliament, have to attend parents' meetings. I always give parents the facts. I tell them that in inner London we spend more on books and equipment than almost any other education authority in the country, that we have a better pupil-teacher ratio than almost any other part of the country, that we have a better scholarship and grant record than almost any other part of the country, that we have a better record in adult education than almost any other part of the country, and that it costs more than in almost any other part of the country. I tell them that they have the choice. On the one hand, they can elect a Tory ILEA, which will spend less and have fewer nurseries, less adult education, fewer classes, and less spent on meals. On the other hand, they have the choice of a Labour ILEA which will spend more.
In my experience, the middle classes, above all the rest, come to the meetings and say, "Yes. We have the freedom to spend our money as we wish, and we intend to vote for more expenditure, not less." In the last resort, the choice is not that of the Under-Secretary, and it should not be the choice of the mad monk, the Secretary of State for Education and Science; it should be the choice of the electors and the parents in London, voting at the ballot box. Does the hon. Gentleman disagree with that?
Mr. Tracey: With respect, on the subject of democracy, I asked the Labour party whether it consulted the local authorities when it wanted to impose comprehensive education throughout the country. That is point 1.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will stick at point 1 for the time being. I note that he is seeking to catch my eye to speak in the debate. He cannot have it both ways.
Mr. Fraser: The hon. Gentleman can pursue the point about comprehensive education in his own speech.
I want to say one more thing before I put a challange to the Under-Secretary. Of course we spend more. I believe that people should have a choice. However, there is no case whatever for the Government to interfere because, unlike any other education authority in the United Kingdom, ILEA does not get a penny of assistance from the Government. It is completely a London domestic matter. The Under-Secretary of State says that it is public expenditure. So what? Why should not the people of London choose collectively whether they wish to spend their money on the education of their children, on foreign holidays or on stereos? It is monetary madness to suggest that the parents of children in London should not have that clear democratic choice.
As I was talking, the Under-Secretary mumbled about the decimation of expenditure by ILEA on London's

1127
children. Perhaps he will now tell us whether the Government propose to cut ILEA's expenditure by at least 10 per cent. Can we have an assurance that there will be no interference with its spending and democratic judgment of what is best for London's children and education?
Sir George Young: I am reluctant to take up the time of the House, particularly to repeat what I have already said. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman listened. If ILEA were to be rate-capped in 1985–86, it would not be possible to undo in one year the effect of its over-expenditure. The Government would have to judge what could realistically be achieved in a year. That is what I said and that is the position. Labour Members' figures have no substance whatever.
Mr. Fraser: I interpret that as meaning that the Government will not be able to perform the amputation in one year, but that they will be able to do so in three years.
The Government do not have a good record. They are proud of the reputation of London's police force. They say that the Metropolitan police are now more effective in reducing crime. The hon. Member for Westminster, North said so. How have the Government done that? Have they done it by cutting expenditure on the Metropolitan police or by reducing staff? Have they cut out administrators or canteen meals — the equivalent of school meals in ILEA? Of course not. The Government have done it by employing more policemen and spending more money.
Incidentally, the Metropolitan police force is not very efficient. The Minister of State, Home Office, in a written answer to me, said that expenditure on the Metropolitan police, expressed in terms of the cost of crime cleared up in London, was £5,578 compared with £1,461 in the metropolitan counties. That is almost four times the cost of clearing up crime in the metropolitan counties, yet the Under-Secretary of State is complaining about figures 37 per cent. above the cost of the comparative education authority. That is bogus. At the end of the day it must be for Londoners to decide on the quality and standard of their services.
Of course, the Government bemoan the fact that there have been rate increases by the Greater London council. As a ratepayer and representative of many poor people, I hold no brief for high rate demands, and the sooner we can change the system the better. It impinges not just upon business but upon some of the worst paid people in the community. It is a regressive form of taxation and no hon. Members like it. However, a large part of the increase in the expenditure of metropolitan boroughs in London, the GLC and ILEA, has come not just from their proposals but from the fact that the Government have penalised them. Half the GLC's rate increase is attributable not to its policies and plans, but to the policies of the Treasury and the Department of the Environment. The same is true of ILEA and boroughs such as Lambeth, which, at the time of the riots was fined £6 million and on current proposals may be fined £30 million. A large part of the rate increases is due to Government action.
If ILEA is abolished, further expense of about £150 million will fall upon the boroughs—13 of which are among the 20 poorest boroughs in the country. The Government's proposals, which have been published in the White Paper "Steamrollering" — "Streamlining the Cities" —have not yet been debated. Our most serious
1128
charge against them is that they are malicious, spiteful and partisan. It is crazy to propose abolishing the structure of London government.
The Government intend to solve their argument with the GLC not by democratic decision, argument or debate, but by assassination. They have taken the example from 1381, when there was a revolt by poor people in England. When those people reached one side of London bridge, Wat Tyler was invited to go across the bridge to discuss the differences of opinion between the establishment and the poor people. When he reached the other side, there was no debate—the master of the Fishmongers Company assassinated him with a dagger, which it still keeps in its hall. The Government propose to deal with the GLC and ILEA with the same honour and delicacy.
Since 1889, we have had a system of government that recognised the practical unity of London as a whole. It has represented the unity of its road and transport systems and its flood prevention system. It has recognised, although not fully enough, the need for a strategic housing authority. One reason for the tower blocks and the acute housing problems in some boroughs, but not in others, is that there is no strategic housing policy for London. We need one.
London is a unity of artistic centres, planning units and the lesser matters, such as the collection and disposal of refuse and the provision of recreation facilities. It is only blind dogma that has made the Government produce their White Paper without any deep examination of the problems of governing London and how change might be brought about. No one disputes that there is a constant need to examine the way in which London is governed and the relationship between the boroughs and the GLC.
In the past, such matters have been examined responsibly and in depth. That happened in the Victorian era. It happened through the Herbert commission that proposed the establishment of the GLC. Even the Conservative party at County Hall recognised it through the Marshall inquiry. The Government should abandon their plan. If they felt that there was a genuine problem about the government of London, they could establish another Royal Commission that could report speedily on the relationship between the GLC, the boroughs and the Government. The Government should not treat London with contumely to override the wishes of the majority of Londoners. They should not legislate without proper consultation or without a detailed examination of the problem.
I wish to quote from not a Labour but a Conservative source, which sums up the position rather well:
"The Government has invited a response to its White Paper `Streamlining The Cities'. Central to that White Paper is the remarkable suggestion that the democratically elected Greater London Council should be abolished, and the functions that the GLC presently performs transferred largely to non-elected statutory boards and quangos with only its minor functions being allocated to elected local authorities.
Little evidence is produced to justify this extraordinary proposal other than mention of a commitment to abolish the GLC contained in the Conservative Party's General Election manifesto in June 1983. That commitment was a brief statement only two lines in length. It was personally written into the manifesto by the Prime Minister without the knowledge of many of her Ministers and without discussion with Conservative members of the GLC. No cogent argument has been advanced since, either my Ministers in Parliament or within the White Paper, to justify the proposal even though it runs wholly contrary to the

1129
Conservative Government's 1963 London Government Act, to the recommendations of the Herbert Commission (1960) and the Marshall Report (1978).
In the past all reorganisations of local government have been preceded by a Royal Commission; but not this time. Apparently our system of government has become so refined that Ministers may now tinker with the Constitution without having to submit their proposals to any form of independent enquiry.
Such little explanation as there has been from the Government was perhaps most eloquently expressed by Lord Bellwin when he told the Conservative Party Conference in October 1983:
The GLC is being measured for its concrete overshoes and in 1986 over the parapet into the Thames it will go".
"Gratitude", says George Tremlett.
Mr. Waldegrave:Not Tremlett?
Mr. Fraser: Yes, George Tremlett, who is a respected Conservative member of the GLC.
"Gratitude should be expressed to Lord Bellwin for expressing the Government's case with such clarity and depth of analysis".
The Government are acting spitefully and malevolently against London because they feel that they cannot win at the ballot box. They are trying to treat a city county which has giant problems and giant achievements with a pigmy administration which is to be supervised by bigots. Johnson once said that the man who is tired of London is tired of life. I am not saying that the Government and the Prime Minister are tired of London or that they are tired of life, but they are tired of democracy. We shall fight them tooth and nail against that proposition.
1.43 pm
Mr. Richard Tracey: Perhaps I might start on a non-acrimonious note. This is the first opportunity that I have had to congratulate you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on the recent happy news of your engagement.
The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) is to be congratulated on presenting the motion. I suppose we must expect him, as a former chairman of arts, recreation, entertainment and so on, to present his case with the overstatement for which he is becoming quite renowned. He mentioned such things as the Government being at war with the people of London. That is a massive overstatement. It is possible that the GLC is at war with the Government. We should expect that, as we were promised that in the Labour party's manifesto for the GLC elections in 1981. I recollect that it said that a Labour GLC would become the hub of the wheel of protest against the Tory Government. We should remember that the Labour GLC is spending millions of London ratepayers' money on being the hub of the wheel of protest.
It surprised me to discover that the hon. Gentleman had a box office manager or ringmaster working for him in the shape of the new director-general of the GLC, Mr. Stonefrost. He wrote a letter to various groups in London, presumably those in receipt of GLC grants, informing them of today's debate. The letter tells them to come here, and even tells them how to find their way to the House and how to apply for tickets.
Ms. Harman: What is wrong with that?
Mr. Tracey: I do not object to their being given information, but it is an extraordinary way in which to use the director-general of the GLC. Millions of pounds are being spent in that building on public relations and a public relations office. Why did it not write?
Mr. Banks: If the hon. Gentleman understood a little more about the structures of local government, he would realise that correspondence is always sent out in the name of the chief executive, in this case the director-general. He does not send such correspondence out personally.
Mr. Tracey: I reiterate that I find it a most extraordinary use of the director-general of the GLC that this should be done. It is a classic example of the way in which his office is being turned into a poodle of Red Ken and his friends on the other side of the river.
We have heard from the hon. Member for Newham, North-West and some of his hon. Friends about deprivation in London. The GLC allows that deprivation to continue, while it has been distributing £30 million in the past nine or 10 months to an extraordinary collection of groups. I do not think that the demands of those groups are in any way equal to those of some of the deprived areas which the hon. Member for Newham, North-West mentioned.
The sum of £1,600 was given to the now infamous organisation Babies against the Bomb, and £29,750 to Camden Policing the Police. There was an interesting £9,060 to the Marx memorial library. I wonder of what interest that is to the people of London. I note that £6,902 was given to a very interesting organisation, Chile Democratico GB; £9,170 to the Liberation Movement for Colonial Freedom; £10,823 to See Red Women's Workshop; over £6,000 to South East London Women for Life on Earth; and £38,077 to the Campaign Against the Police Bill.
There is another contribution I consider to be very questionable; the amount is not specified in the figures from the GLC that I have here, but a contribution was made to the Labour Research Department. I wonder why that was.
Mr. Tony Banks: The hon. Member has privilege in this House, but he should have a care, for the simple reason that the GLC had all those grants legally checked. The GLC has done nothing illegal in making any of those grants. Is the hon. Gentleman intending to continue to read out the rest of the 2,000 grants which the GLC has given to community groups looking after the interests of the old, the sick and the handicapped throughout all the boroughs of London, and perhaps even in his own borough?
Mr. Tracey: I am not questioning the legality of the grants; I am questioning the taste and the propriety of giving grants to some of those organisations. I suspect that I know what is going on.
It has been suggested to me, from an analysis of the figures, that about two thirds of the £30 million went to groups in boroughs controlled by the Labour party, whereas only one third went to boroughs controlled by the Conservative party. One begins to see only too clearly how the ratepayers' money is being used across the river to facilitate a political cause and not to help London, about which we have heard so much today.
The campaign of which we have heard in the speeches from the Opposition Benches is, of course, an orchestrated campaign. It was well publicised in the Morning Star in the middle of January. It reported that in early January 150 of London's leading Communists met in conference. They were addressed by the chairman of the transport committee of the GLC, Mr. Wetzel. It was apparently agreed, after they had heard his speech and the deliberations which

1131
followed, that the Government's policy to abolish the GLC, and the Government's Rates Bill, were areas on which a lot of political point-scoring could be made, and that they should be pushed as hard as possible. The motion and Labour members' speeches in the debate are part of what is obviously a scaremongering campaign.
Much has been said about democracy, but I cannot accept that the Government are doing anything unusual in proposing that the GLC should be abolished. There is no reason why we should not do that. I pray in aid the words of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), who used to be the Opposition spokesman on local government. He said in a book called "Renewal", published by Penguin Books in 1983:
"Local government, as we have known it in Britain for a century, is literally the creation of Parliament. Local Government Acts decide what kinds of local authorities we should have … Parliament and local government cannot be regarded as equal, simply because both are elected. I reject the concept of conflicting mandates; the mandate of Parliament, the fountain of all authority, must prevail. Local government has no power over Parliament; Parliament, if it wishes, can exert whatever power it wants over local government, even to the extent of abolishing it."
The hon. Member for Newham, North-West said that he does not understand what the right hon. Member for Gorton is getting at in many of their party's policies. However, I believe that the right hon. Gentleman expressed a sensible and accurate view in that book.
The GLC is the secondary local authority in London. The boroughs have always been the primary authorities. Unlike the shire counties, they control social services, and in outer London they run the education service. The GLC has become superfluous. It has lost responsibility for the ambulance service, for water and drainage and, as a result of the actions of the 1977 Conservative administration at County Hall, it has lost its housing responsibilities. The GLC is now no more than a propaganda unit for Labour party policies attacking the Government.
The GLC has not carried out the strategic powers about which we have heard so much. The problem of docklands was not tackled properly by the council, though it had the opportunity to tackle that task for many years. Eventually, the problem had to be dealt with by a corporation created by the Government.
We also hear a lot about the GLC's strategic powers over roads. In reply to that, I would merely cite the south circular road, which the hon. Member for Newham, North-West probably knows as well as I do, because we both live close to it. That road is a disgrace. It is a collection of signposts and a memorial to the GLC's strategic powers on roads.
Let me cite two important quotations that are relevant to the debate. The first is that this House
"considers that the proposals in the White Paper … provide no adequate answer to the problems of planning and transport, would wreck the humane and efficient performance of several local government functions, notably education, housing and the children's service, in central London and elsewhere". —[Official Report, 19 February 1962; Vol. 654, c. 56.]
The second quotation is:
"the scheme hardly meets one single basic requirement for good or effective local government … the wanton destruction of effective services and effective local government … To us, this scheme is an abortion, ill-conceived, and malformed. — [Official Report, 20 February 1962; Vol. 654, c. 313–23.]
Those comments were not made about the Government's present plans. The first was made by the then Mr. Michael Stewart, the Labour Member for Fulham
1132
until fairly recent years. The second was a comment by the then Mr. George Brown, the Labour Member for Belper. Both those gentlemen are now in another place, but they made those comments at the time of the creation of the GLC.
It is significant that Labour Members criticised the creation of the GLC, just as they are now criticising its proposed abolition. That illustrates only too graphically the whole nature of the arguments which we have heard today, which we heard throughout the general election campaign, and which we shall no doubt continue to hear until the GLC is well and truly dead.
1.57 pm
Ms. Harriet Harman: Throughout London there is a rising tide of anxiety and anger at the Government's planned interference in our education service. The various Secretaries of State know that. They know full well that more than 100,000 people have signed petitions opposing their proposals. There have been hundreds of school meetings to protest at what the Government are planning, and 1,300 organisations and individuals have written to Ministers and their Departments complaining about what is planned.
Even the Tory councillors on the ILEA unanimously object to the Government's plans to have three administrations for London's education in as many years.
As well as dismantling the structures for democratic accountability for London's education, the Government also plan drastically to reduce spending on our education services—first, through the Rates Bill and, secondly, by direct Government control over the budget of the new joint board that they intend to create. This will inevitably lead to a drastic deterioration of educational standards in London. It cannot be otherwise. It is simply nonsense for Conservative Members and Ministers to say that the education service in London can withstand cuts totalling £130 million and that services to adult education and primary, secondary and nursery schools will not be affected. Of course they will—and drastically.
I am not saying that we can solve all of London's education problems simply by financial resources, but one thing is certain: we cannot solve them without adequate resources. Londoners know that their education service will drastically deteriorate, which is why they are desperately worried.
How have the Government responded to this genuine concern and fear about the future of London's children and their education? They have responded with a cynical and disgraceful campaign which has misled not only the public about what will happen but also Members of the House.
Earlier, I asked the Minister about the completely wrong information given to the House by the Secretary of State for Education and Science on the balance between non-teaching and teaching staff, and the Minister replied that his right hon. Friend had not done so. Therefore, Ministers have not only sought to mislead the public, but have misled hon. Members.
The Government and Conservative Members often cite standards in their accusation against the ILEA. The Government's own inspectors have said that the ILEA is one of only six authorities—out of 96 in the country—which are providing adequate resources under all the main headings of education spending. That is based on the Government's own figures. Why does not the Minister turn his attention to the 90 authorities which failed to

1133
provide adequate resources for their expenditure requirements on education, to encourage them to achieve the provision that ILEA has managed to achieve?
What are the Government's priorities? Instead of attacking the other 90 authorities, they are attacking one of the six authorities that managed to provide reasonable standards. For each of the past six years examination results in ILEA have improved—there is steady and necessary progress — and the authority aims to consolidate that by setting up two major independent committees to advise it on the curricula of primary and secondary schools. It is the Government, not ILEA, who are casually unconcerned about education in London.
ILEA has pioneered curriculum reform in mathematics, modern languages, special education, graded assessments, and profiles on all pupils. Some of those pioneering ventures have been picked up by the Secretary of State for Education and Science, without acknowledging the authority's part in developing those schemes. ILEA also leads the way in adult education. Hon. Members have talked about the effect of the Government's proposals on commerce in London. Many firms depend upon ILEA to train their staff in adult education institutions, so the Government will do no favours to commerce and industry by attacking adult education.
People from the outer London boroughs flock to ILEA's evening classes. Those who live in the Prime Minister's borough, which spends nothing on adult education and can, therefore, claim to be a low spender, cross the border to take advantage of adult education classes in inner London. We do not begrudge them the service, but it is cheek to praise boroughs which spend little or nothing on adult education and then condemn ILEA for providing what those boroughs need and for being a high spender.
The Government obviously believe that adult education is expendable, because local education authorities are not statutorily required to provide it. They also clearly believe that nursery education is expendable. That is worrying, because compared with most EC countries, Britain's record of pre-school education is atrocious. ILEA is struggling to meet the enormous need for pre-school education, but it cannot manage. The Education Act 1944 said that the education service should base itself on, the needs of an area. In that case, we need more nursery schools and classes to give children a decent pre-school education. This is all the more vital at a time when the alternative is to be cooped up in pokey high-rise flats.
It is a pity that the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave), is no longer in the Chamber, because I wished to raise with him something that he said in the Rates Bill Committee. He said that if local authorities are worried about failing to meet their statutory responsibilities because of rate capping, they could always cut their non-statutory provisions, and gave the Committee the example of nursery education. I challenge the Minister on this point: because nursery education is not statutory, is he prepared to see it cut?
The Government also ignore special needs, and all the indicators show that London has special needs that place special demands on its education services. ILEA must provide services for seven out of the 10 most deprived boroughs in the country. There are also higher costs in
1134
London, and, although the Government fall over backwards to recognise those costs when it comes to financing the police force, they do not recognise them when it comes to financing the education of London's children.
Sir George Young: The hon. Lady invited me to respond to her accusation that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science misled the House. It is clear from Hansard that the figures about which the hon. Lady complained were not quoted by my right hon. Friend.
Ms. Harman: They were quoted by a Conservative Member of Parliament, and the response of the Secretary of State for Education and Science was to say that he agreed with them. He did not take the opportunity to put them right and they remain on the record. Would the hon. Gentleman care to correct them now?
Sir George Young: I suggest that the hon. Lady looks up what my right hon. Friend said. She said that he agreed with the figures, but he did not.
Ms. Harman: The right hon. Gentleman said:
"ILEA spends more than twice as much … as the outer London boroughs on support staffing".
That is simply not true.
Sir George Young: The figures which the hon. Lady mentions were mentioned not by my right hon. Friend, but by my hon. Friend who was asking the question. When my right hon. Friend replied, he said, not that he agreed with the figures, but:
"I agree with my hon. Friend's general thesis." — [Official Report, 7 February 1984; vol. 53, c. 748.]
The hon. Lady is misleading the House if she says that my right hon. Friend gave those figures to the House, because he did not.
Hon. Members: Apologise.
Ms. Harman: I shall not apologise.
Instead of recognising the considerable achievements of ILEA in working with parents to improve education services in worsening circumstances, the Government heap more propaganda on ILEA's head. How dare the Government attack ILEA on school meals? The increase in the cost to ILEA of school meals next year is 4·1 per cent., and that is largely as a result of the increase in free meals, which in itself is a direct consequence of unemployment. The national decrease in school meal spending is as a direct result of pressures by Government on local authorities to cut the school meals service. Therefore, the increase in spending on school meals in ILEA should shame the Government rather than lead to the Government criticising ILEA.
Mr. Dobson: Will my hon. Friend confirm that, as a result of the Government's policies nationally, the percentage of children outside London taking school meals has fallen from over 66 to less than 50 at a time when the poverty of many parents and the level of child nutrition have been getting worse?
Ms. Harman: That is an important point.
The Government have also accused ILEA of overspending. Their accusations are selective. The Government will contemplate a huge increase in spending on the staff of the police, but spending on the education of children in London schools is overspending. In some

1135
areas of London, spending in education authority budgets has been reduced. Spending has increased on some things and we should be proud of that. Administration and inspection have been mentioned. The survey on asbestos, which remains a real danger in London's schools, accounts for as much as 3 per cent. of that increase, but should there not have been that increase? It is vital that there should be proper inspections of asbestos in schools and maintenance programmes to take it out.
There has been an increase in spending on nursery education, which is right as we still have a long way to go and need more spending there. I hope that Conservative Members will realise the effects of the spending cuts on their constituents. Does the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor), understand that the long-awaited nursery classes now being built in Sheringdale, Huntingfield and Riverdale could not be opened if the spending cuts were to go ahead? If he does not recognise that, I hope that his constituents do.
Does the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Maples) appreciate that the special arrangements for admitting young children early at various schools would have to be abandoned in his constituency? If he does not, I hope that his constituents do. I hope that the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg) is ready to defend the inevitable consequences of the cuts on the new nurseries at Fleet, New End, FitzJohns and kingsgate for which parents have been campaigning for years and for which there is an enormous need. Do the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science, the hon. Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke), the hon. Member for Westminster, North (Mr. Wheeler)—who was here earlier—and the hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moynihan) appreciate the damage which will be done to the small voluntary schools in their constituencies if those cuts are made? Londoners have much to be proud of in their education service. Instead of threatening it, the Government should recognise the achievements and support those efforts by restoring the grant that has wrongly been withheld. They should express confidence in Londoners by allowing them to continue to do what they have done for more than 100 years —to elect their own education authority to run London's education, and to leave it to decide how much it wants to spend, and on what.
2.10 pm
Mr. Christopher Chope: I realise that I shall be unable to move my motion on Southampton freeport, but it is some consolation to be called to participate in such an important debate on London. I shall confine my remarks to my experience as a member of the finance committee of the Inner London education authority until less than a year ago.
I am, and have been for about eight years a governor of a mixed comprehensive school in south London. There is no doubt that the present administration of ILEA at County Hall is systematically wrecking education in inner London. The hysterical reactions to the Government's proposals to control ILEA's expenditure are a smokescreen for the Leftist takeover in London's schools.
There is no doubt that ILEA is overspending massively. Next year's budget is nearly £400 million in excess of the grant-related expenditure. If it were spending at GRE, it would be receiving £100 million in block grant. The
1136
ratepayers of London would have about £500 million in their pockets if ILEA spent close to its GRE, so we are talking about very large sums. It is important that we should have regard to the reality of what is happening in the education authority rather than to the mythology that has been propagated by Opposition Members today.
Mention has been made of school meals. In the three years to 1982–83, ILEA's spending on school meals rose by 25 per cent. The premises cost of school meals last year went up by 35 per cent., and the cost of food went up by 25 per cent. When I served on the authority's finance committee, the only thing it seemed concerned about was whether it could legally reduce the cost of school meals to those who contribute towards them. Of course, those who are badly off received free school meals. Thus, the authority was trying to sail as close as possible to the law in having excessively subsidised school meals which had to be paid for by the ratepayers.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Chope: I shall not give way, as other hon. Members wish to speak.
I shall cite a few examples of ILEA's gross inefficiency. It has twice as many teaching staff per pupil as the average for the rest of the country. Yet, earlier this week, when I asked for a copy of the annual report for ILEA for 1982–83, I was told that it had not been published and that the only report available was for 1981–82. That means that, despite such massive administrative expenditure, the authority is not able now—10 months after the end of the last financial year—to produce its annual report.
Mr. Dobson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?
Mr. Chope: No.
When I was on ILEA's finance committee, I asked the education authority to consider engaging some management consultants to look at its expenditure. If the education authority had had the will to find genuine cost-effective savings, it would have been a good idea to engage independent consultants to help it in that task. My proposal was voted down out of hand by the Socialists on the authority, which meant that there was no prospect of having an independent report on the cost-effectiveness of ILEA's services.
Bearing in mind that the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright) quoted selectively from the 1980 report of Her Majesty's inspectorate, the House should be reminded that that report referred repeatedly to clear instances of inefficient management of finance and said that it was common to find under-use or neglect of resources. Since the publication of that report, matters have got worse rather than better.
The principal change since the publication of that report has been the change in control of ILEA at the last elections. In that connection I shall quote from a recently published analysis of ILEA which gives an insight into the true nature of what is taking place in County Hall. It shows that the scares about cuts are a cover for some very sinister developments. The article stated that there had been a complete change in the authority after the elections, and commented:
"Prior to the election there occurred a 'takeover of the executive of the London region of the Labour Party by a majority of people who, though claiming the designation socialist, can only be accurately described as leftist." [Interruption.]

1137
The article continues:
"Not surprisingly the new ILEA and GLC reflected this change. People like the previous Leader of the ILEA, Sir Ashley Brammall, were elbowed unceremoniously out of the way and London's schools were in the hands of Authority members whose contact, if any, with London's schools and their children and parents could be measured at best in months and whose understanding and knowledge of education is minimal."
The article went on to say—[Interruption.]—that the new people in charge had
"a determination to intervene forcefully in the running of London's schools, no matter what, backed by an attitude that said `we are going to make you do your job our way, and if you don't like it you know what you can do'. Examples of what this attitude might portend for London's schools were not long in manifesting themselves. Candidates for headship, as well as for 'adviser' and inspector and other posts soon discovered that those who could trot out the cliches of the pseudo-educational jargon of the new regime had a definite edge over people with mere experience of responsibility, a record of sustained expertise in the classroom and commitment to tried and tested effective methods of organisation and teaching."
Ms. Harman rose—
Mr. Chope: I shall not give way.
Some examples were then given by the author of the article about certain other things that had been going on. Commenting on the takeover of the National Union of Teachers in London by Trotskyists, he wrote that nine of the 11 NUT associations in London had been taken over by the Trotskyists. He said:
"By a sustained process over recent years of malevolent personal abuse, manipulation and outright intimidation, all but the hardiest, most committed, experienced and clear-headed of opponents have been driven out of general meetings by varied groupings of teachers hooked on the 'policies' of Rank and File (Socialist Workers' Party, formerly International Socialism), Socialist Teachers' Alliance (International Marxist Group), many of whom now have 'entered' the Labour Party and even masquerade as Labour Party local councillors, together with a number of members of the Communist Party of Great Britain —Marxist-Leninist." [Interruption.]
I conclude my quotation with this comment by the author:
"In the 'general' meetings of these associations, consisting on average of three per cent. of the membership, the various trotskyite groups vie with their Godzilla 'resolutions', united only in one thing—their hatred of the Union nationally and their contempt for the general membership."
The ILEA and its unions have been taken over by the extreme Left— [Interruption.] The noises off made by Labour Members interest me, because they will wish to know that that article from which I quoted was published in the winter edition of Education Today and Tomorrow, which is the education publication of the Communist party of Great Britain. The author of the article has the same name as the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser), but I do not think that they are one and the same person.
The author is claiming that from the Communist point of view, the members of ILEA, who are even further to the Left than those in the Communist party, have taken over and are running the show. Articles of this sort disclose what is really happening in London schools. I hasten to say that I do not agree with the author's conclusion that spending must be increased even more if we are to save London education. However, I accept his analysis of what is happening and the need to take immediate measures to do something about the Leftist takeover. I hope that those who send their children to schools in London, those who teach in London schools and
1138
London ratepayers will realise that the Trotskyists have taken over control of their schools and that they are being aided and abetted by those in County Hall.
Mr. Dobson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I seek your guidance? It seems that a number of Labour Members who represent London constituencies will be excluded from the debate, but, because of the paucity of attendance on the Government Benches, no fewer than two Members not representing London constituencies have been called to contribute to the debate.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I take the hon. Gentleman's point, but the occupant of the Chair has a discretion when calling hon. Members who seek to catch his eye.
2.22 pm
Mr. Simon Hughes: We are meant to be discussing the democratic rights and living standards of Londoners. Those listening to the debate may have come to two conclusions. First, they may understand that the policy that belonged to the Tory party of creating and supporting the GLC is now being reneged on by the Government and turned back to front, and that the Labour party, which opposed the establishment of the GLC, is now fighting to defend it. Secondly, they may have come to the conclusion that a good show is to be put on at the Theatre Royal, Stratford, in which someone representing the Prime Minister is to do a striptease. I have no doubt that that will do wonders at the box office of the Theatre Royal, which deserves to be fully supported. I hope that that will secure its existence for a little longer.
The Government have proposed to abolish the Greater London council. That idea is supported, so they claim, by the great mass of Conservative supporters thoughout the land. The Conservative vote throughout the United Kingdom declined from 44 per cent, in 1979 to 42 per cent. in 1984. Over the same period it declined in England from 47 to 46 per cent. Although we had the ludicrous result that the number of Conservative seats in this place has increased from 339 to 397, the Conservatives' London vote decreased from 46 per cent in 1979 to 44 per cent. at the 1983 general election.
The Conservative majority will be used to steamroller legislation through the House against the wishes of the people and, unfortunately, that majority does not reflect the fact that the Conservative party has been losing support. The Government continue to have minority support, whether at the GLC elections last time round or at the London borough council elections in 1982. As they have announced their proposals in my borough, they may care also to reflect on the fact that at the past four elections in my constituency the Conservative vote has been 5·5 per cent., 3 per cent., 13 per cent. and yesterday, in a by-election in which the Liberal candidate took a Labour seat, 5 per cent. The Conservative party is hardly enjoying phenomenal support south of the Thames.
Sir George Young: The hon. Gentleman referred to the by-election at Southwark borough yesterday. I think that he referred more specifically to the Burgess ward. Perhaps he will give also the result in the Ruskin ward
Mr. Hughes: The Conservative party held the seat in the Ruskin ward. In the Burgess ward the Liberal party trounced the Labour party to win the seat.
Sir George Young: What happened to the alliance in Ruskin ward between the previous result and last night? Is it not true that originally it came second and that last night it came third?
Mr. Hughes: I did not stay at the town hall for the results, so I do not know the figures. However, perhaps the Minister would like to reflect on these figures.
Mr. Dobson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Hughes: No.
Since May 1982, in all the seats which Liberals supported in London, the total number of votes up to the end of last year were as follows: Liberals, 22,962 votes, gained seven seats, held four and lost none; Tories, 17,546 votes, no gains, five losses and six holds; Labour, 12,427 votes, gained 1, lost 2 and held 2. Thus if the Minister does an equalisation—he likes to do it on rating matters—on election matters, he will see that his party is not doing particularly well.
The Government's proposals to reform the GLC are based on three premises. The first is that it will cost the ratepayer less. There are no figures to support that. All the reports, including the Coopers and Lybrand report, suggest that that is fallacious, and that it is misleading of the Government to suggest that it will cost less to have no GLC and instead to have a myriad of joint boards, all with their own civil servants.
The second premise is that there is no need for strategic authorities. One does not need to go far above London in an aeroplane to realise that there is a homogeneity or unity about London and that there is a metropolitan urban area where people live, surrounded at the moment by the green belt, although whether that survives will depend on whether the Government change their mind on that policy. Anyone would say that to have the largest city conglomeration in western Europe without a council running it in a co-ordinated fashion is nothing short of crackers. Indeed, it does not happen in any other city of equal or smaller size. It is ludicrous to imagine that one does not need strategic decisions in health, transport, planning, water supply, housing, education, and so on, by such a body. The Government's proposals mean that Brent will have to advertise for its own tourists—"Come to beautiful Brent"—and no doubt we will have to do the same in Southwark.
Mr. Laurie Pavitt: Brent is a beautiful place.
Mr. Hughes: No doubt it is, but I have not been there recently to check.
The third premise is the Government's new-found argument—no doubt the civil servants have been working hard to discover it—that this is a unitary state and the fount of everything is Parliament. The Government might care to reflect that Parliament gained its rights at the beginning from people allowing Parliament to be an assemblage of local representatives coming here to debate matters of mutual concern to the nation. It should also be remembered that when we debate the public expenditure White Paper each year, even when, as happened twice in the 1970s, the Government are defeated in the debate, the money that is set down for the block grant and rate support grant is none the less paid. Therefore, the Government are not correct in saying that they provide from Votes here for local government expenditure.
The proposals on rate-capping, the proposals which mean that the Health Service has no democratic input, the proposals which mean that the water board is controlled by appointees, that the Metropolitan police have only the Home Secretary running the service—
Mr. Ernie Roberts: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it possible to have an extension under the Standing Orders to allow this debate to continue until 3 o'clock?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that that is not possible.
Mr. Hughes: —mean that the Government, for the first time in Conservative party history, are totally uncommitted to handing power back to individual local authorities—something to which they had always said they were committed. As a centralist Government they are second only to the justifiably centralist Labour Government of 1945 to 1951, who at least said that they intended to be centralist and then set about being so.
Democracy in London means that we should have local councils making local decisions and raising their own money. It means that we should have access to public information—not closed registers of members' interests, as in Southwark and Lewisham. It means that we should have a two-chamber parliament to debate the matters. The sooner the Government realise that they will pay a heavy price for the removal of democracy in London, the sooner they will change course. It is not too late. They must do so soon.
2.29 pm
Dr. Ian Twinn: I am not surprised to hear the arguments presented by Labour Members today in view of their emotional attachment to the GLC. We have heard of grants of £60 million in this financial year to organisations which largely support Labour Members. I have taken the opportunity to have a look through the responses of GLC committees to see what they do for my constituency of Edmonton in the London borough of Enfield. The answer is precious little—
It being half-past Two o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
Mr. Laurie PavittOn a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I would be the last person to challenge your ruling and I do not seek to do so now. You have correctly followed the tradition of the House in calling hon. Members, but in debates on Scottish, Welsh and regional matters preference is given to local Members rather than following the tradition of calling hon. Members first from one side of the House and then from the other. Thus, Yorkshire Members receive preference in a debate on Yorkshire. Therefore, may I ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to discuss the matter with Mr. Speaker to see whether in future there can be some flexibility in regional debates?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The occupant of the Chair has to take many factors into account in determining who should catch his eye, but I shall certainly bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman has said.

London (Government Policy)

  TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Ordered,
  That Mr. Charles Wardle be discharged from the Trade and Industry Committee and Mr. Mike Woodcock be added to the Committee. — [Mr. Fox, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

Orders of the Day

  TOUR OPERATORS (ADVERTISING OF FOREIGN HOLIDAYS) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 23 March.

  WORKING CONDITIONS OF GOVERNMENT TRAINEES (No. 2) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 9 March.

  CHRONICALLY SICK AND DISABLED PERSONS (AMENDMENT) BILL
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question — [18 November] —That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 9 March.

  STRAW AND STUBBLE BURNING (CONTROL) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 2 March.

  Osmosin
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Garel-Jones.]
  2.32 pm
  Mr. Eddie Loyden: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the subject of the drug Osmosin this afternoon, not simply in the interests of those who have used it but because of its wider implications and the Government's attitude towards this drug in particular and drugs in general.
  As someone who suffers from arthritis, although not of the severe kind, thank God, I fully understand the problems facing those who have to rely on drugs to make bearable what can be a painful and sometimes crippling disease. I also understand the pressures that are placed upon doctors and the medical profession in general when presribing drugs to relieve that pain to make life more bearable and to allow people to use their bodies to the maximum.
  There is sufficient evidence to confirm that such drugs have side effects which, in many cases, are highly dangerous. I am concerned that there appears to have been a lack of responsibility on the part of the Government and the Secretary of State in responding to a serious matter.
  I first raised the matter of Osmosin—an inlomethacin drug—as early as August 1983. At that time, I wrote to the Secretary of State about a small item in one of the national papers—less than a column—which sent out signals about the drug. I do not understand why that small item of information was not taken up by any section of the media — press, radio or television. I reached the conclusion that I had come across that piece of information virtually by accident, and I immediately stopped taking the drug.
  I began to ferret through the various places in the House to obtain information about Osmosin. It appeared that the Secretary of State was being somewhat coy in responding to my letters. I eventually went to that fount of wisdom, the House of Commons research section — scientific division—which provided me with information about the drug. The information disclosed that there had been about 600 adverse reports on the drug, with possibly 20 related deaths. I again wrote to the Secretary of State in August pointing out that information. Unfortunately, the matter was not taken up by the press, which usually alerts people to the risks associated with such drugs.
  What shook me was that when the drug was eventually withdrawn it was because of an approach to the manufacturer by the Federal Republic of Germany, on the basis of United Kingdom figures. That is astonishing. The Secretary of State was sitting on the adverse reports about the drug causing irritation or perforation of the bowel and, in some cases, death. The father of one of my constituents was, in the opinion of my constituent, a healthy man for his age. He entered hospital because of a duodenal ulcer, suffered kidney failure, and died. He had been taking Osmosin.
  It is a shame and a scandal that it should have been the German authorities, on the basis of United Kingdom figures of which the Secretary of State was aware, that made the approach to the manufacturer to withdraw the drug from the German market. Perhaps because of EC regulations — I know not—the manufacturer withdrew the drug from the whole of Europe. It was withdrawn

  1143
  through pressure not by the United Kingdom — the Comittee on Safety of Medicines or the Secretary of State — but by the Federal Republic of Germany. The company withdrew the drug from Europe as a whole rather than only from Germany.
  Something that further shocked me was a letter I received from the Secretary of State in which he said that he was reluctant to make a further statement—I had asked for a statement in the House about the dangers faced by those who were prescribed the drug—for commercial reasons. It is a shame and a scandal that the Secretary of State should have guarded the commercial interests of a drug manufacturer rather than the health and safety of about 80,000 people who were taking the drug. I have made strenuous efforts to bring the Secretary of State to the House to make a statement so that he could inform the medical profession and people who take the drug. There has been a lack of publicity. It is not the responsibility of one Member of Parliament to pursue information on behalf of the Secretary of State to safeguard the interests of people taking a drug.
  The only newspaper that seriously dealt with the matter was the Liverpool Echo. Although it is unusual for me, I am grateful to it for raising the problem. Even though it has a fairly small circulation, I have many letters from people who have taken Osmosin and suffered side effects. Many letters were written to the Secretary of State so that he could be made aware of the response that I received from Liverpool and its surroundings. One of those letters mentioned the death of a man in his sixties.
  I believe that I have a perfect right to accuse the Secretary of State of negligence, because he did not respond to my pressures to make a statement to the House. It was only after the Daily Mail mentioned the dangers of the drug on its front page last week that the Minister for Health made a statement to the House and mentioned an inquiry. I have been pressing him on this matter since September last year. I am therefore entitled to feel angry about his inactivity.
  I hope that the Minister will wander from his brief to answer some of my points. I understand that about 1 million people in Britain suffer from arthritis. If we include people who suffer from rheumatism, the numbers of people affected run into millions. They are painful and sometimes crippling complaints. What is the Government's policy towards this form of ill-health and what do they intend to do about it?
  Doctors are understandably under a great deal of pressure from the hard selling of drugs and because they have only a limited time to deal with their patients to prescribe drugs to respond to patients' requirements. We are rapidly becoming a drug-orientated society. There is now much dependence on drugs. We must examine the weaknesses of the relevant legislation with regard to dangerous drugs. I understand that the Secretary of State has power under the Medicines Act 1968 to withdraw a drug for at least three months. That gives sufficient time to investigate adverse reports.
  Ultimately, people who have suffered from taking the drug are entitled to be considered for compensation if it is proved that the adverse effects on them were drug-related; and, where death has occurred, dependants should be entitled to be considered for compensation.
  The Secretary of State should investigate this area of ill-health in order to see what medical innovations can be introduced to relieve the suffering and pain of millions of
  1144
  people. He should also consider the extent to which fringe medicine could relieve arthritis and rheumatism. Although I agree that at present we have to be cautious about fringe medicine, there is evidence that certain aspects of it could be used as an alternative to the taking of drugs.
  I hope that the Minister will consider the questions that I have raised and, in particular, explain why he or his right hon. Friend have resisted requests for them to come to this House since August or September 1983 when I first raised the matter. Until this week, no statement had been made in the House, and thousands of people who were taking the drug were thereby at risk.
  With regard to the mechanism for the withdrawal, of a drug, I accept that if on a Monday the Secretary of State says that a drug should be withdrawn, it is not reasonable to expect that on the following day the drug will he completely off the market. For that reason, it is possible for a drug to continue to be prescribed beyond the date of withdrawal.
  I received a letter from one of my constituents, a lady in her fifties, for whom the drug had been prescribed. After the date of withdrawal, she returned to her doctor and the drug was prescribed again; indeed, she was given two months' supply. Therefore, her consumption of the drug went far beyond the point at which it was meant to be withdrawn. That shows a weakness in the mechanism for withdrawal.
  I hope that the Minister will discuss with his right hon. Friend measures that could be taken to ensure that, when a drug is withdrawn, it is not left on the shelves of pharmacists or chemists, or even in the hands of doctors who may be unaware of the withdrawal of the drug, and who may continue to prescribe it to patients. The Minister may tell me that notice was given to doctors, but we know that procedures take a considerable time to percolate into every corner of the medical profession.
  As a Socialist, I believe that the drug industry should be nationalised and under the care of the state. Drug manufacturers put tremendous pressures on doctors to prescribe drugs. That results in the National Health Service having an enormous bill to pay for drugs.
  My disclosures this afternoon show that there is a need for a far closer watch and control over the use of drugs. That can be done only by making the drug industry part of the National Health Service. I do not expect a sympathetic response from the Under-Secretary to that argument, but I hope that he will note what I have said about the effects of the drug, the Government's policy towards the drugs industry, the investigation of alternative medicine and innovations in the NHS to meet the needs of the many people who are suffering greatly and doubt whether drugs are the answer to their problems.
  2.50 pm
  The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. John Patten): I thank the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) for raising this important subject which has been in the public eye this week and needs to be ventilated. I am sure that I would be called to order if I went down the avenues that the hon. Gentleman opened up on the nationalisation of the drugs industry. I hope that he will forgive me if I do not deal with those matters today.
  I express my sympathy for those who were prescribed Osmosin and have suffered reactions. The hon. Member for Garston told us that he suffers from arthritis and was

  1145
  prescribed the drug. Therefore, I can understand his interest in the problem, although I am sure that he would have been just as interested had he not suffered personally. The Government share his concern about the number of people who died, including, apparently, one of his constituents.
  The hon. Gentleman raised a number of general matters about the treatment of arthritis, the relief of pain and possible ways of alleviating suffering. I wish to deal with a number of important questions and, as I have only a short time available, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not follow him down that road either. I would just say that, through the Medical Research Council, the Government are supporting considerable research into arthritis, the alleviation of pain and the relief of suffering. The medical community intends to battle hard towards those ends.
  I welcome the hon. Member for Garston's proper and responsible efforts to satisfy himself that the question of the safety of the drug was considered promptly and thoroughly and that the necessary action was taken without undue delay. I hope that what I have to say will go some way towards satisfying him on those aspects, although I cannot accept his swingeing criticisms of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
  I shall set out for the House what happened from 1 September last year, because it is important to get the chronology of withdrawal right. On 1 September, following discussions with the United Kingdom licensing authority and at its request, the manufacturers ceased marketing Osmosin — later, they announced the same action worldwide. On the same day, they issued a statement to doctors about the decision to discontinue the sale of the product in the United Kingdom. It was not felt necessary at that stage to request the withdrawal of stocks of Osmosin from pharmacists; that allowed patients using the product to complete their courses of treatment and to discuss further treatment with their doctor.
  I draw the attention of the hon. Member for Garston to what my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Health said in his statement to the House on Monday about the rare occasions when doctors would prescribe a drug that was generally banned. They would have particular clinical reasons for doing so, would weigh up the pros and cons of prescribing the drug and would do so only if the benefits outweighed the disbenefits. That happens rarely and should not happen often.
  Reports in the Liverpool Echo—I note what the hon. Gentleman said about that paper—and the Daily Mail drew attention to the fact that too many repeat prescriptions were being written for drugs such as Osmosin. That is a cause for deep concern. Compliments are not often given in this Chamber to the national press —indeed, it is often the other way round. However, the Daily Mail has acted very responsibly indeed by releasing all its information immediately to Government in the interests of introducing change rather than mounting a campaign merely to score a number of publicity points.
  That having been said, the developments last September followed similar action in Germany, announced on 1 September, and made at the request of the German regulatory authority pending an inquiry there into the drug's safety, which was established.
  1146
  Information is swapped and traded among European countries in this way. Sometimes we learn from the experience of other European countries, and on other occasions other European countries learn from us. In the case of the drugs Opren and Flosint, the United Kingdom took the lead in withdrawing them from the market, and the Germans, acting on the information given by the British Government, followed suit. Therefore, there is nothing odd in our seeking information from our European colleagues.
  Mr. Loyden: The point that puzzled me was that the German authorities responded to the United Kingdom figures, of which the DHSS must have been aware, and first made an approach to the drug company to withdraw the product. That cannot be explained away.
  Mr. Patten: The Germans acted not only on our figures but on their own.
  The Commitee on Safety of Medicines duly considered Osmosin at its meeting on 22 September, and advised that the licensing authority should revoke the product licence on grounds of safety. This decision was notified to the manufacturers, who in turn decided to exercise their legal right of appeal to the committee. That right is at present enshrined in law. But they requested a delay in order to gather evidence for their case. This was agreed provided that the company agreed immediately to withdraw all stocks of the product from pharmacies. Eventually in January this year, the company decided not to proceed with the appeal and surrendered its product licence at that stage.
  There are some important general issues to which I wish to refer in the remaining four minutes of the debate. The first relates to the decision to license Osmosin. Decisions on product licences of new products are taken by the licensing authority after a rigorous evaluation of the scientific evidence by the Committee on Safety of Medicines.
  That certainly occurred in the case of Osmosin. New information about the safety of the drug did, however, become available after marketing. In some cases that is inevitable. No matter how meticulous the pre-marketing clinical trials of drugs are, they can involve only a limited number of patients, and it is always possible that a rare and unpredicted reaction will not be exposed during such trials. That is exactly why special post-marketing surveillance procedures, including the "black triangle" mark in the British National Formulary, are applied.
  A second important issue is the adequacy of our present methods of monitoring adverse reactions to drugs such as Osmosin. Clearly — I say this on behalf of the Government—we still need to improve our methods of identifying adverse reactions to drugs. But these methods are not wholly in the hands of Government—oh that they were! They cannot simply be introduced by legislative means. It depends so much on medical advance and technology, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman will appreciate.
  The third issue, which is of great importance, is whether there was any delay in acting on the adverse reactions report on Osmosin. The product was closely monitored by the Committee on Safety of Medicines from the date on which it was marketed. As soon as adverse reactions were reported the committee considered them, and it continued to monitor reactions and consider them throughout the period.

  1147
  It is always difficult to know exactly when the right moment has come to withdraw a drug from the market on safety grounds, but we are satisfied, having taken a first look at this issue, that there was no unreasonable delay in acting on the evidence available at the time. When my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Health announced, with characteristic rapidity, the investigation into these important issues—he is as fast on his feet in making policy announcements as he is in debate in the House—he meant that the Government had referred to the Medicines Commission an important range of investigations which it must undertake. We look forward to receiving a report from the commission in the near future.
  It has been suggested, although not by the hon. Member for Garston, that doctors should give patients more
  1148
  information about adverse reactions. Perhaps I may give a word of caution there: as an interested layman with a professional interest, I have examined product sheets, and I did not understand many of them. It is clinically correct for doctors to be cautious before they make evidence freely available to patients, who might not be able to judge its weight.
  I welcome the hon. Gentleman's debate, although I think that he was more than unfair to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's about the Government's actions. He and I will await the evidence in the report of the Medicines Commission on this important topic of public concern.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at one minute past Three o' clock.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL
  Constituent (Prosecution)
  Constituent (Prosecution)
ENERGY
  Domestic Fuel Supplies
  Domestic Fuel Supplies
  Gas Supplies (Northern Ireland)
  Gas Supplies (Northern Ireland)
WALES
  Waste Disposal
  Waste Disposal
EUROPEAN COMMUNITY
  Act of European Union
  Act of European Union
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Vietnamese Refugees
  Vietnamese Refugees
  Hong Kong
  Hong Kong
  GCHQ, Cheltenham
  GCHQ, Cheltenham
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Cervical Cancer
  Cervical Cancer
  NHS (Pay)
  NHS (Pay)
  Food Policy
  Food Policy
  Redditch District General Hospital
  Redditch District General Hospital
  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Hospital Waiting Lists
  NHS (North West)
  NHS (North West)
  National Organisation for the Widowed and their Children (Exhibition)
  National Organisation for the Widowed and their Children (Exhibition)
  Supplementary Benefit
  Supplementary Benefit
  Domestic Fuel Supplies
  Domestic Fuel Supplies
  Mr. M. V. Reynolds
  Mr. M. V. Reynolds
  Deputising Services
  Deputising Services
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Life Assurance (Tax Relief)
  Life Assurance (Tax Relief)
  Recategorisation Programme
  Recategorisation Programme
  Capital Allowances
  Capital Allowances
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
  Spastics Society
  Spastics Society
  British Airways (Dollar Loans)
  British Airways (Dollar Loans)
  Representative Sport (South Africa)
  Representative Sport (South Africa)
  Manufacturing Output
  Manufacturing Output
TRANSPORT
  Heavy Lorries (Parking)
  Heavy Lorries (Parking)
  London Transport (Grant)
  London Transport (Grant)
  Gravelly Hill Interchange
  Gravelly Hill Interchange
  M6 (Witton Viaduct)
  M6 (Witton Viaduct)
  M6 (Bromford Viaduct)
  M6 (Bromford Viaduct)
  Drivers' Hours
  Drivers' Hours
  Capital Projects
  Capital Projects
  Lorry Weights
  Lorry Weights
SCOTLAND
  Civil Defence
  Civil Defence
THE ARTS
  Expenditure
  Expenditure
  Merseyside (Ministerial Visit)
  Merseyside (Ministerial Visit)
EMPLOYMENT
  YMCA Special Programmes
  YMCA Special Programmes
  Mr. Kenneth Dormer
  Mr. Kenneth Dormer
  Trade Unions (Political Funds)
  Trade Unions (Political Funds)
  Gas Installations
  Gas Installations
  Manufacturing (Statistics)
  Manufacturing (Statistics)
  Health and Safety Executive
  Health and Safety Executive
  Hertfordshire
  Hertfordshire
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Stubble Burning
  Stubble Burning
PRIME MINISTER
  World Health Assembly
  World Health Assembly
  Senior Personnel (Private Sector Employment)
  Senior Personnel (Private Sector Employment)
  Pressurised Water Reactors
  Pressurised Water Reactors
  Engineering Contract (Oman)
  Engineering Contract (Oman)
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Cattle
  Cattle
  Local Government
  Local Government
  Lear Fan Project
  Lear Fan Project
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  School Leavers
  School Leavers
  Students
  Students
  Students (Travel Costs)
  Students (Travel Costs)
  Representative Sport (South Africa)
  Representative Sport (South Africa)
  British Youth Council
  British Youth Council
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Child Abuse
  Child Abuse
  Immigration (Detention)
  Immigration (Detention)
  Robbery with Violence
  Robbery with Violence
  Wormwood Scrubs Prison
  Wormwood Scrubs Prison
  Wandsworth Prison
  Wandsworth Prison
  Channel Islands and Isle of Man
  Channel Islands and Isle of Man
  Liquor Licensing
  Liquor Licensing
  Computerised Information
  Computerised Information
  Mr. R. Honeyman
  Mr. R. Honeyman
  Prisoners (Police Cells)
  Prisoners (Police Cells)
  European Parliament Constituencies
  European Parliament Constituencies
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
  Accidents (Glass)
  Accidents (Glass)
DEFENCE
  Royal Aircraft Establishments
  Royal Aircraft Establishments
  Hall Russell (Shipbuilding Orders)
  Hall Russell (Shipbuilding Orders)
  Royal Ordnance Factories
  Royal Ordnance Factories
  Royal Navy
  Royal Navy
  Youth Training Scheme
  Youth Training Scheme
  Representative Sport (South Africa)
  Representative Sport (South Africa)
  Training Sailplanes
  Training Sailplanes
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Export Prices
  Export Prices
  Videotape Recorders
  Videotape Recorders
  Finished Manufactures
  Finished Manufactures
  Tariffs
  Tariffs
  Restraining Devices (Export Control)
  Restraining Devices (Export Control)
  Manufactures
  Manufactures
  Steel
  Steel
  Japanese Investment
  Japanese Investment
  Companies (Political Contributions)
  Companies (Political Contributions)
ENVIRONMENT
  Greater London Council (Abolition)
  Greater London Council (Abolition)
  Norman Shaw South
  Norman Shaw South
  Exchange Land Inquiries (Inspectors)
  Exchange Land Inquiries (Inspectors)
  Rowton House, Vauxhall Cross
  Rowton House, Vauxhall Cross
  Planning Inquiries (Review)
  Planning Inquiries (Review)
  Glazing (Code of Practice)
  Glazing (Code of Practice)
  Falkland Islands
  Falkland Islands
  Housing Associations
  Housing Associations
  Defective Houses (Remedial Work)
  Defective Houses (Remedial Work)
  Local Government Reform
  Local Government Reform
  Representative Sport (South Africa)
  Representative Sport (South Africa)
  National Garden Festival
  National Garden Festival
  Acid Rain
  Acid Rain

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Hereford.

Drug-Taking: American Servicemen
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware that drug-taking is reported to be a massive problem affecting up to 50 per cent. of American servicemen and whether they are also aware that it is reported to have existed among those in charge of nuclear weapons on British soil; and that, although said officially by USAAF not to be a common practice here, drug-taking is also reported to exist at Greenham Common and elsewhere; and whether they will now assert British operational control over cruise missiles or require their immediate removal.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy (The Earl of Avon): My Lords, I understand that the level of drug abuse among United States Air Force personnel is very substantially below the quite inaccurate figure which the noble Lord cites. The small number of people involved at RAF Greenham Common were all in non-sensitive clerical posts and were in no way associated with the missiles themselves. There are of course special and stringent screening procedures for personnel engaged in sensitive areas.
As the Government have repeated on many occasions, we are entirely satisfied with existing arrangements for the control of United States GLCMSs based in this country.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, are the Government not too easily satisfied? Is it not disquieting that anybody who is accused—and apparently justly accused—of being concerned with drugs, should have any association whatever with nuclear weapons? Is it not even more disquieting when those people are not under the control of the Government of this country?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I do not think that the noble Lord can have understood my earlier Answer when I said that the number of people concerned were in the non-sensitive clerical posts and were in no way associated with the missiles themselves. Although I respect the noble Lord's views, and of course he has a right to them, I do feel that, by disseminating this inaccurate information, he does his views only discredit.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that the information is not inaccurate, as I will
962
prove to him in due course in further Questions which I shall put down upon this matter? Is he further aware that I always understand his Answers, because he does attempt to answer the Question, which is not universally the case among his colleagues?
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, as the capacity of NATO to defend the countries of Western Europe against the fate of Czechoslavakia and Hungary depends directly on the massive contribution made by the United States to NATO, is not the noble Lord's Question, alleging unconfirmed statements, designed to give the maximum offence to our oldest and strongest ally? Is not this a peculiarly unhelpful Question in the interests of national security?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I concur with my noble friend and I should like to add that we have complete confidence in the United States and its commitment to the collective defence of the West.
Lord Bishopston: My Lords, in the absence of dual-key control, the Government assure the House that the agreement made in Mr. Attlee's time still prevails with regard to the joint operation of the sites between the United States and United Kingdom personnel. Can the noble Earl assure the House that this situation is always updated in view of changing circumstances, including those such as my noble friend has mentioned, and also having regard to the increased lethality of the weapons which they operate?
The Earl of Avon: Yes, my Lords, indeed I can reiterate what my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said about the present arrangements. The effect of the understanding and the arrangements for implementing this, is that no nuclear weapon will be tired or launched from British territory without the agreement of the British Prime Minister.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, is it not pleasing to see that we shall have the support of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, in making sure that cannabis is not legalised?—because, although it is a comparatively innocuous drug, the noble Lord is well aware as many of us are aware that, if it falls into the hands of people with great responsibilities, it could be a very considerable danger.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I believe that that is another Question.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, since the question appears to be addressed to me rather than to the noble Earl, perhaps I may trespass upon the kindness of the House—
Noble Lords: No!
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, in that case, I ask the noble Earl to acquaint his noble friend with the fact that Portugal is our oldest ally, and not the United States. Will he also inform our noble friend on the Cross-Benches that I will support him on the point that he has raised here? Finally, may I ask the noble Earl whether he is aware that I and many other people in this country and in the United States will much

963
more warmly welcome the American contribution when it becomes a non-nuclear contribution?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, of course I appreciate what the noble Lord has said and particularly his last point.
Lord Leatherland: My Lords, will the noble Minister agree that this alleged drug-taking is not so very different from the rum ration which we used to be issued with in the trenches in 1915?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, it was very clever of the noble Lord to bring in Portugal again.

Metropolitan Councils: Consultants' Report
11.12 a.m.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have considered the first report on a study by Coopers and Lybrand Associates Limited on the financial implications of the abolition of the six metropolitan county councils.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Bellwin): Yes, my Lords. We have studied this report in detail. As my right honourable friend observed when it was published, it confirms our assessment that the volume of metropolitan county council's current expenditure has grown very much faster than that of other English local authorities.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, will the noble Lord agree that Coopers and Lybrand are respected management consultants, well experienced in local government matters, who have been used by various Government Departments, including the Department of the Environment? The noble Lord has seen the first report, but has he also seen the final report which was issued last Wednesday and which gave the financial implications? Is not the conclusion of both reports not what the Minister has just said, but that the facts in the White Paper are misleading and that, far from there being any savings, there could he additional costs? Does not this make it absolutley essential that the Government should do what they have not yet done—that is issue their own justification for their claims, so that we can set that against the Coopers and Lybrand Report?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, there is nothing in either report that makes the White Paper statements misleading. The fact is that both the reports, including the second one to which the noble Lord refers, prove what the Government have said all along, that no detailed analysis can be carried out at this stage because, as they themselves say, they do not know what decisions the boroughs and districts which will take over the services will make as to how they will deal with the services. The Government remain absolutely confident that the removal of a whole tier of local government will give rise to savings.

Metropolitan and Borough Councils: Services
11.14 a.m.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether if the metropolitan county councils and the GLC are abolished, they will impose on borough councils an obligation to provide the services previously provided by the metropolitan district councils and the GLC and in particular an obligation to provide free travel passes for old-age pensioners.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, where responsibility for a service, including a scheme for concessionary fares, passes to the district or borough councils after abolition of the metropolitan county councils and the GLC, they will normally exercise the same powers and be under the same duties as the MCCs and the GLC. The Secretary of State for Transport has announced that he would make provision in the London Regional Transport Bill to safeguard the future of a uniform scheme of travel concessions for pensioners and disabled people in London. There would be a different situation in the metropolitan county areas following abolition, where there would be joint board transport authorities, which could take over responsibility for these functions, while in London the Secretary of State will have responsibility for LRT.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his reply, but is he not aware that this wilful destruction of the metropolitan county councils—and their crime would appear to be similar to that of the GLC, that on occasions they vote Labour—will mean the abolition of very many services which will affect millions of ordinary people, particularly the infirm and old-age pensioners? Is the Minister not further aware that these six metropolitan boroughs, which were created in 1972 by a Conservative Government, and the GLC, now provide tremendous services and are completely in line with the Redcliffe-Maud Royal Commission's recommendations which said:
"All aspects of transportation must he controlled by the metropolitan area and a unified policy is essential".
They have justified that Royal Commission's recommendation. Why do the Government wilfully want to destroy what is good for so many millions of ordinary people?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I have to remind the noble Lord that five out of seven authorities concerned were, of course, Conservative-controlled on a previous occasion, and the politics of those authorities has nothing whatever to do with the intentions of the Bill. Of course, the noble Lord will not expect me to agree with him on his assertions. I am sure it was a slip of the tongue, but the noble Lord referred to borough councils and not to county councils.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, can the noble Lord the Minister say whether the Government have the same obligation in connection with this area

965
in so far as the ordinary consumer organisations are concerned? Is the noble Lord aware that most consumer organisations—certainly, the citizens' advice bureaux and I think the trading standards officers—are really and truly concerned at what they believe will be the detrimental effect suffered by the people who make use of these organisations? Is the Minister able to say that the Government have the same obligation to ensure that those services are continued after this legislation, if it comes about, has been effected?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, as I am sure the noble Baroness is aware, consumer services are one of the concurrent functions. Indeed, many think that the fact that there were concurrent functions has itself contributed to authorities of this kind not having been successful. Of course, districts which will receive back this function on its own (whereas at the moment they still have that responsibility as do the counties) will be responsible. I see no reason why we should assume that at the lowest level—truly the local level—they will be any less responsible than those who at present have a broader canvas.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, would the Minister agree that the point in my noble friend's Question on the continuation of services of the metropolitan councils is linked to the Question I raised on the Coopers and Lybrand report? Despite what the Minister has said, does not that financial analysis make absolutely clear that if the present services are continued there cannot be the savings which the Government claim; there can only he savings if there is a deterioration in the services?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, on my reading of the report, not only does it not make that clear at all, but the very fact that even by their analysis they show opportunities for some savings only confirms what we have said all along: that there will be opportunities for very much greater savings. Indeed, reports now coming in justify that claim.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that if, by this new structure, he can maintain these essential services and the main objective—which is, to relieve the hard-pressed ratepayers of some portion of the rates—he will earn the gratitude of everybody?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for what he says. Of course that is one of the objects of the exercise, but it is not the only one.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell us of any instance in our history where there has been a change in local government structure which has actually resulted in savings?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, that is precisely why we intend to show that this time it can be done.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, the Minister has not replied to the last point I raised on my first supplementary question. As there is obviously a difference between the Government's reading of this
966
report and my own reading of it, is it not now bounden on the Government to issue a statement answering the statements made in this report by responsible management consultants?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, need I remind the noble Lord that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment issued a press release and comment on this almost immediately it was published?
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the Minister not aware—and the House must be aware—that we now face an extraordinarily serious situation? I listened carefully to what the noble Lord said in answer to my first supplementary question. Is he aware that this does not in any way link up with what Mr. Ridley said in the other place? He said that it might well be necessary to make changes, certainly for the administrative costs, in providing passes for old age pensioners. This is not a free pass as it exists at the moment. This House, and I believe the nation, want to know what are the facts of the current situation and the policy of the Government? They want to know what is said in the other place, or what is said in this place. Can we have the straight, direct answer to which people have a right?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I am not aware of any difference at all between what my right honourable friend in another place says and what I have said today. Indeed, I consulted with him before I answered the noble Lord's Question.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the report demonstrates once more that there is no case whatever on cost grounds for abolishing the metropolitan counties? The noble Lord, Lord Nugent, spoke about everybody. Is he aware that most fair-minded people in the country regard this proposal as sheer spite at the whim of the Prime Minister? Is he aware that if the GLC is abolished, we shall be the only major capital city in the West which does not have a unified authority?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I can say to the noble Lord that clearly we do not agree with what he says. I do not think that quoting the GLC and some of its antics this past few years is a good example to give. I made the point a few moments ago that the abolition of them—and I have made this point many times in the past—is not based upon their antics. It is based on the fundamental, underlying fact that they provide only 16 per cent. of all the services in the whole of the area; 84 per cent. come from other bodies.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, will the Minister address himself to the problem which is faced by many people in local authorities? When the Minister says that the money will be made available, what the councils are worried about is that the management of their funds, particularly the rate support grant, is wholly in the hands of the Government. Can the Minister give a categorical assurance that when these powers are devolved away from the metropolitan areas, they can look forward to a continuation of the kind of monies which have been

967
spent on services like bus passes and others in the future? There is a great deal of suspicion that when words are used like "powers will be available", and "we intend to see", it still leaves it to local decision. Local people who are enjoying those services are fearful that, regardless of the needs, there are many local councillors who will take the view that they cannot afford the money.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, the noble Lord makes many assertions, but I understand his concerns. They are shared by everyone who has concern for local government, as indeed I have myself, as I think the noble Lord will confirm. The resources and the funds which go to an authority like the GLC will properly go to the other authorities who will take over from them. The only difference will be that in that one presumes that they will not be in default and therefore lose such grants, they will have more to spend than the GLC has without going to the ratepayer.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Lord the Minister aware that the Government have to some degree moved towards meeting the criticisms of various bodies and other parties, but that they are still a long way from giving complete satisfaction to the many millions who will be affected?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I take the noble Lord's point that there is much that has yet to be spelt out in greater detail, and indeed which will be. I hope that that will go some way to assuaging his concerns.
Lord Leatherland: My Lords, may I ask the Minister how many of these councils which are to be abolished are ruled by the Conservatives, and how many by the Labour Party?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I said earlier that at the present time the seven authorities concerned are Labour-controlled. At the last time five of them were Conservative-controlled.
Lord Leatherland: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that since the last time to which he refers the electors have seen the light?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, it is not for me to comment on the noble Lord's assessment of what is "light".

Orange Badge Scheme: Misuse
11.25 a.m.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how many prosecutions there have been for illegal use of the orange badge scheme for disabled persons from its inception on 1st December 1971 until the implementation of further regulations in 1975; and from that date until the present day.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the offence of misuse of the orange badge scheme was created by Section 2 of the Disabled Persons Act 1981, which came into force on 27th October 1981. The records at the last available date show that from October 1981 until the end of 1982 there were seven prosecutions for this offence.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that reply. I must admit that I am not exactly surprised that there have been so few prosecutions, although I am appalled. If I may, I should like to quote—
Noble Lords: Order! Question!
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I beg your pardon. Is the noble Minister aware that the Department of Transport on 19th December 1982 issued a circular in which, referring to the orange badge scheme, they stated:
"Unfortunately the scheme has come in for much criticism in recent years because of widespread abuse."
In view of that statement, will the noble Minister explain to the House why police and traffic wardens would appear to be turning a blind eye to the many infringements of this Act? In London, and maybe other places, every day one can see active people leaping in and out of motor cars which display a badge. The cars would be parked illegally were it not for the fact that they displayed an orange badge.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I am aware of the new regulations dating from 1982, and local authorities have been given stronger powers to withdraw badge facilities which are persistently abused. The eligibility criteria have been tightened. With regard to the second part of the noble Earl's question, the Government are currently reviewing the arrangements with the police to establish whether further guidance would be helpful in their quest to notify local authorities of cases of misuse.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, may I thank the noble Minister for that reply. May I ask whether she is aware that there would appear to be now an active black market in orange badges which were supplied to people who have since died, and instead of the badges being returned to the authority—which they should be—the badges are being sold on the open market to active people?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I have no evidence to suggest that this is so. The main problem is that the badges were issued too freely in the past; but this is a matter for the local authorities to check. Badges are valid for only three years, which limits the scope for abuse.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, if there was fraudulent abuse of the kind that the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, has indicated, would there not be immediate prosecution if the facts were brought to the notice of the authorities?
Baroness Trumpington: Yes, my Lords.
Lord Belhaven and Stenton: My Lords, has my noble friend ever tried to take one of these badges off the back of a car? I think it would be very difficult to do, let alone sell it.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, that applies under the old form of badges which were stuck on cars. Present badges are in plastic envelopes which should be removed when the disabled person is not actually in the vehicle.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, may I ask the noble Minister how many severely disabled drivers have been issued with parking tickets because they have had such difficulty in parking and cannot find any special place or free meter at which to park?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, in answer to the noble Baroness, no separate record is kept of parking offences involving misuse of disablement badges. I have no information because that is another question.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness whether she would be interested for some of our spinal injury people to give her their parking tickets which they have been given by the police and the traffic wardens? Some of them have drawerfuls, and some have been taken to court.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I take note of what the noble Baroness has said.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, while I strongly support everything that is done, and ought to be done, to stop abuse of the orange badge scheme by persons not entitled to it—which tends to bring this admirable scheme into disrepute—may I ask this question. Would the Minister not agree that the orange badge scheme represents discrimination in favour of the disabled, and that it is as well to record that fact on a day when we are about to debate a Bill about discrimination against the disabled?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I take note also of what the noble Lord has just said.

Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill [H.L.]
1 1.30 a.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Longford.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Commitee accordingly.
[The Lord Aberdare in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Discrimination on grounds of disability]:
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth)Baroness Darcy (de Knayth) moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 7, leave out ("No person shall") and insert ("It is unlawful for a person to")
The noble Baroness said: This is a simple amendment. Its purpose is not to change the meaning or the intention behind Clause 1, but to bring the wording into line with that used in the Sex Discrimination Act and the Race Relations Act. It is appropriate to use the same words here so that the clause, if amended as I suggest, would be clearer and, in a sense, neater. I hope the Minister will agree that this is a sensible amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Ennals: I want to do no more than support the noble Baroness. There is no significance except to bring the wording into line, as she has said, with the other two Acts which make it an offence to discriminate. At this stage I do no more than support the noble Baroness.
Lord Edmund-Davies: It has not only the virtue of being reconciled with other statutory provisions in relation to discrimination, but it more neatly links up, does it not, with Clause 8:
"A claim by any person that another person has committed an act of discrimination against him which is unlawful by virtue of section 1 may be made the subject of civil proceedings.".
If this suggested amendment to Clause 1 were adopted it could lead to a substantial reduction in the wording of Clause 8. In other words, I have something like this in mind—thinking on my feet—
"It shall be unlawful for any person to discriminate".
Then when we come to Clause 8 it could run on the lines of,
"A claim by any person in relation to a contravention of section 1",
and so on. It would not only have the attraction of being compatible with and consistent with other statutory provisions, but it would also be neater.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: Would it not be better to have the word "unreasonably" added? It would be better if it stated,
"No person shall unreasonably discriminate against another person".
I feel that we need helpful discrimination; for example, as the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, has said, a special parking place for a disabled driver is helpful discrimination. This Bill is not clear enough. We need equal opportunities. If we have no helpful discrimination to help overcome disability and handicap our situation might become even more difficult than it is now. I hope the noble Earl and others will take note of this point because it is very worrying.
Lord Renton: What the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, has just said seems to go to the very heart of the whole of the Bill. In the very nature of things some discrimination is inevitable in some cases, and in some instances, as the Bill later envisages, would be perfectly justified. Therefore it should be made clear at the very outset of the Bill, in Clause 1, that it is unreasonable discrimination that the noble Earl and those who support him on the Bill are trying to prevent. Although it might have been better if there had been an amendment to cover this, it is relevant to our consideration of Amendment No. 1. I should like to support what the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, said.
The Earl of Longford: May I say a word before the noble Lord winds up? I am sympathetic to the idea of including the word "unreasonable" at the beginning. I have discussed this with some of my advisers and I think it was felt that "discrimination" in itself suggests unreasonable conduct. I should prefer to see that in, but having expressed that degree of sympathy, before I hear what my noble friend Lord Ennals will say, I hope that point will be left over to the next stage.
Baroness Lockwood: While I sympathise very much with what the noble Baroness has in mind. I would point out that we are here considering what is unlawful. At a later point in the Bill we shall go on to define what is unlawful. If it is the intention of the Committee to include in the Bill some measure whereby there can be positive assistance to the disabled. I think it would be much better if that were taken under another clause. This is the clause which is saying that it is unlawful to discriminate on grounds of disability. It is important to establish that clearly at the outset in the Bill.
Lord Ennals: I do not disagree strongly with the point that has been made by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, although I agree with my noble friend Lady Lockwood. If the Committee is prepared to look at Clause 5(1)(c), it will be seen that that refers particularly to "reasonable or unreasonable" discrimination. We shall have to recognise, and shall conic later, to discrimination which is perfectly reasonable. It makes sense if we look also at Clause 9(1)(c)(ii) to find that the requirement is
"not reasonable in the circumstances of the case".
This will certainly he referred to later. If it is the will of the Committee that we should insert this in the first clause, 1 certainly should not want to see the Committee divided against it. The more we are united the happier I shall be.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: I should like to ask the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, who has so much experience—probably more than any other person in the House—on equal opportunities, whether she would not agree that "equal opportunities" would have been less emotive and more acceptable to members of the public who are frightened of disability, rather than "discrimination", which is frightening in itself?
Baroness Lockwood: Yes, but I think there are two purposes in the Bill. One is to eliminate what the Bill sill define as "unlawful discrimination". There are other provisions in the Bill which go on to promote equal opportunities for the disabled. In my experience it is important to have both those aspects included in the Bill.
Baroness Darcy (de knayth): I should like to thank noble Lords for their support, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood. Her experience is very valuable. I should like to reiterate what the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, has said in reply to my noble friend Lady Masham of Ilton that there are provisions in Clauses 5 and 9 where the concept of "reasonable" and "unreasonable" is written in. The point is that it is unlawful to discriminate. If conduct is "reasonable"
972
then it does not constitute discrimination. Therefore it is better to have these as separate points.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Renton, that it is good to have "discrimination" defined at the outset. I should like to see a clause on discrimination early in the Bill, but it is important to keep the two concepts separate. I believe that the Minister's silence means that he is not opposed to this amendment, so I hope your Lordships will agree to it when the Question is put.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): I have to point out that if Amendment No. 2 is agreed to. I cannot call Amendment No. 3.
Lord Finials Lord Finials moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 8 leave out ("physical, mental or sensory").
The noble Lord said: May I, on behalf on the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), and of the noble Earl, Lord Longford, briefly move the second amendment which is also standing in my name. I would simply point out that it is really paving the way to Clause 9, on which I wish to speak at rather greater length. I am a little disappointed, although one has to accept the ruling of the Chair, that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, may not be able to move his amendment No. 3, but I have no doubt that he will find his opportunity of using the same argument. By this amendment we take out the word "mental"; although at a little later stage I want to emphasise the importance of the fact that if we are going to make it an offence to discriminate against people we should not leave it not an offence to discriminate against people on grounds of their mental handicap.
Lord Renton: I am most grateful for what the noble Lord has said.
The Chairman of Committees: Is the noble Lord interrupting or is he making a speech; because I have not yet put the Question. I shall do so now; Page 1, line 8, leave out "physical, mental or sensory".
Lord Renton: I apologise for having interrupted quite wrongly, I trust that I may have your Lordships' permission to refer to Amendment No. 3 while we are discussing Amendment No. 2: Amendment No. 3, Page 1, line 8, leave out ("mental"), Otherwise, the point which is covered by Amendment No. 3 might go by default.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: I am not happy about this. The rest of the clause does not make sense if the words in the amendment are removed. Can anybody enlighten me?
Lord Ennals: May I answer the noble Lord? I sought in my very brief moving of this amendment to say that it is simply a paving amendment to have a more effective means of defining the amendment to page 1, line 9. The noble Lord, when he sees that that replaces "physical, mental or sensory", will see that it will make absolute sense. I would say to the noble Lord and to the Committee that if they passed the present amendment and defeated Amendment No. 4 it would leave the first paragraph absolutely nonsensical.
Lord Renton: May I say that, for reasons that will be apparent, I support Amendment No. 2 which has been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, but without prejudice to one's attitude on his later amendments. I made it clear at Second Reading that, although I am president of MENCAP, I was speaking for myself in saying that the Bill was not suitable for the protection of the interests of the mentally ill and handicapped. Indeed, I felt (and still feel; and this is, again, a personal opinion) that it could cause great disappointment and distress to the mentally handicapped. I will not trouble your Lordships with the arguments which I used at Second Reading but I would stress that, by the time the mentally handicapped have gone through the legal procedures which would be involved in asserting their rights, even with the best will in the world on the part of all concerned a great deal of delay will have taken place.
Imagine a mentally handicapped person who, we will say, is excluded from an hotel or a hoarding house and then that person (or his or her parents) may decide that there should be legal proceedings taken in accordance with the later provision of the Bill. What will happen? I would ask your Lordships to hear with me while I quickly outline what would happen. An approach would be made to a solicitor who would write a solicitor's letter, no doubt with the implication that if the answer is not satisfactory proceedings will be commenced in the county court—because that is what the Bill envisages, although the High Court is not excluded. Then 14 days, at least, would be given for the reply; and, in order to enable inquiries to be made, it might be much longer. So we will assume that the reply, when it comes, is not satisfactory and then a writ is issued.
Then all those preliminary proceedings, (interlocutory proceedings as they are called in the law) would take place which generally last some months and then, eventually, the case is disputed and is set down for trial. Again, with the best will in the world, it might he nearly a year before the trial takes place. At the trial, the first contest will be on the facts. They may be heavily disputed. Then there will be arguments on the law as to whether the particular act of alleged unreasonable discrimination comes within the terms of the Bill; and when we come to consider some of the later clauses we may find that that will give rise to a very great deal of legal argument. It may be that some trade association is supporting the defendant in treating it as a test case and, whichever way the judge decides it, there may be an appeal to the Court of Appeal from the county court or the High Court. That could mean many more months' delay.
Meanwhile, the mentally handicapped person would have the anxiety of waiting. It is had enough for normal people to have to wait for the outcome of litigation. We all know that; and I trust that most of us are responsible members of the Bar, so that, far from trying to create litigation, we would advise our clients of the disadvantages which inevitably (with the best will in the world) flow from it. And ours is the best legal system in the world.
I ask your Lordships to consider, to ponder carefully whether the method proposed by the Bill for protecting the interests of the mentally handicapped is better than to continue to develop the goodwill in the
974
minds of the public which is growing every year and which is not counter-productive, as could well be the inclusion of the mentally handicapped and, indeed, the mentally ill in this Bill. For that reason, a purely temporary reason, I support Amendment No. 2, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals. If that is not carried, I shall move Amendment No. 3.
Lord Ennals: I had not intended to rise again but I think it would be unfortunate if at a very early stage of this extremely important Bill one side of an argument is presented by a noble Lord for whom I have a deep personal admiration, and who may have either the advantage or disadvantage of being a barrister, to say that this is not how things work. He knows that this is not how things work in the field of allegations of discrimination on grounds of sexual equality. The vast majority do not go to court at all. The law is simply a hack-up mechanism for conciliation—and conciliation usually works.
That is also the case as far as allegations of discrimination on grounds of race, colour or creed. In this particular case, I may tell the noble Lord that in South Australia—where there is already legislation on which this Bill is substantially based—all the cases that they have dealt with in their first nine months, with one exception, have been solved by conciliation: 30 cases, 29 solved by conciliation and only one where conciliation failed in the High Court. I think that noble Lords will be misled if they think that the purpose (let alone the outcome) of the Bill was to lead to very intensive litigation. It is designed to lead to very positive conciliation which in most cases and certainly in our society—which is a very fair society—is likely almost always to succeed.
Lord Renton: If I may briefly deal with that point, conciliation is in itself a somewhat vague concept, and would be in these circumstances. The Bill gives specific rights to people to litigate as a parallel remedy to conciliation by the commission. Perhaps I may say that the Management Committee of MENCAP, which met last week when I could not be there, was very doubtful about the work of the commission; and it is upon the existence of the commission that conciliation would depend. Conciliation is all right, if we understand it, for the most glaring and flagrant cases but there is a great twilight area in which conciliation, as we know from the other examples which the noble Lord has given—the Race Relations Commission and the Equal Opportunities Commission—is not the answer. Therefore I do think we should consider the principal right which the Bill gives to people: that is the right to litigate.
The Earl of Longford: Perhaps I may say just a word in reply to the noble Lord. I hesitate to set myself up against the noble Lord on the question of MENCAP. I was chairman many years ago and am still a vice-president, though of course that is very small beer compared with a president. On the other hand, neither of us was present when they last discussed this. I received a communication, which I believe the noble Lord has seen, which was in some ways rather cryptic. They said that they hoped to see discrimination outlawed and certainly made no reference in their letter to me about leaving out mental handicap.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: Am I not right in saying that the South Australian Act is called the Equal Opportunities for the Handicapped Act and does not use the word "discrimination"? Again, the noble Earl, Lord Longford, has just referred to "discrimination" without saying "unreasonable discrimination". That is so important that I think each time the word "discrimination" appears in the Bill it should be preceded by the word "unreasonable" so as to make it "unreasonable discrimination".
The Earl of Longford: I express my sympathy for that point of view. Perhaps we might look at that, although perhaps not carrying it through to the extent of putting the word "unreasonable" before every single word "discrimination". However, I think this point does deserve careful consideration before the next stage.
Lord Ennals: I can confirm to the noble Baroness and to the noble Lord that the actual heading of the Bill—which is why I said I did not disagree strongly with the noble Baroness—is Disablement (Prohibition of Unjustifiable Discrimination) Bill.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
11.54 a.m.
Lord Ennals Lord Ennals moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 1, line 9, at end insert—
("( ) In this Act "disability" means—

(a) the total or partial loss of any function of the body or mind;

(b) the loss of a limb or part of a limb;

(c) the malfunctioning of any part of the body or mind; or

(d) the malformation or disfigurement of any part of the body.").

The noble Lord said: I beg to move the amendment standing in my name. This is a very important amendment and, as I explained to your Lordships when I moved the earlier paying amendment, it is the substantive one and goes to the very heart of the Bill. If your Lordships will permit me, I will take a few minutes in developing it because I think this is perhaps the main issue on which the Committee will wish to concentrate.
These amendments seek to define with greater clarity what we mean by "disability". Taken with Clause 5, to which there are also linked amendments in respect ofdefinitions—that is, Amendment No. 6 in my name and Amendment No. 7 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Renton—and Clause 9, which defines the meaning of "discrimination" for the purposes of the Act, I believe these form the nub of Part I of my noble friend's Bill.
Amendment No.6: Page 3, line 1, leave out paragraph (b).
As the Bill stands at present, without the previous amendment and the amendment we are now debating, the definition of disability was:
"physical, mental and sensory disability".
Clause 5(1)(b) empowers the Secretary of State to set down in regulations:
"the persons and their disabilities to which this Act shall apply providing always that they shall include people with physical, sensory, communication and mental disabilities including mental illness and mental handicap".
As a number of your Lordships are aware, the Royal Association for Disablement and Rehabilitation was
976
unhappy with the Bill as it stands at present, for various reasons. That is why we have sought to meet their concern and have introduced an amendment on their suggestion.
First, using different wording in the two sections is likely to cause confusion, and the relationship between Clause 5 and Clause 1 is unclear. Secondly, we do not believe that it is necessary to leave the definition of "disability" to regulations. If we are going to pass an Act it is in the principal legislation that the definition of disability should be given. It therefore seems preferable for the definition to be included in primary legislation.
Thirdly, the Bill as drafted does not include discrimination on the grounds of impairment which does not cause disability. I should like to pause for a moment, because this deals principally with facial disfigurement where, perhaps as a result a fire or a terrible accident in which there has been surgery, someone's face is unattractive to look at. The fact of their being unattractive to look at is extremely unfortunate for them but there is no reason why they should not do some important jobs. Perhaps one would not choose them as receptionists and one can think of a number of other cases where "reasonable" or "unreasonable" might come in. But, so far as they are concerned, it is a form of impairment and therefore a form of disability.
It was made very clear during the Second Reading of Mr. Bob Wareing's Bill, which was identical with mine and with the noble Earl's Bill, that a definition of "disability" was needed to clarify the intentions of the Bill. RADAR, the Royal Association for Disablement and Rehabilitation, endorses this view, and, in seeking a definition, we have looked at definitions that already exist in similar legislation in other countries. We came up with the conclusion, which was endorsed by the noble Earl, Lord Longford, that the definition in the South Australian Handicapped Persons (Equal Opportunity) Act of 1981 seemed to be the most sensible.
This Bill, as your Lordships will realise, is largely based on the report by the Committee on Restriction Against Disabled People—that is, the CORAD report—which was prepared by a very distinguished group of people led by Mr. Peter Large, MBE, himself disabled and a man who in many different ways has been a dedicated and convinced spokesman for the needs of disabled people. Most of the people were themselves disabled and I believe that their report is a very authoritative one. I wish a copy was available for each of your Lordships to read. Their work was assisted by Ministers and officials of both Labour and Conservative Governments.
No one in your Lordships' Committee will doubt the tremendous disadvantages suffered by disabled people or the extent to which their needs have been increasingly met by society, as society has become more aware of their disadvantage. The Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970, which was introduced by Mr. Alf Morris and which this Bill seeks to amend, was a landmark in society's recognition of the needs of disabled people. Much, but not nearly enough, has been done in terms of access and cash benefits, not so much to compensate disabled people for their disability as to enable them increasingly to

977
play an equal part in our society, or as near to equal as their disability permits.
I emphasise the last phrase because it would be folly to assume that disabled people could ever, by legislation or in other ways, be enabled to do things which their disability prevents them from doing. That is why I referred earlier and now refer again to Clause 9(2), which is an essential part of the Bill. Unless one saw that, one would be opposed to the Bill. I should be opposed to it myself. Obviously someone who is deaf could not be an effective telephonist and someone who has a leg missing could not claim that he was discriminated against when he applied to be a member of a football team or a waiter. Then there is the idea of a blind policeman. One can think ofcountless examples, though it is amazing how disabled people manage to compensate for their disabilities; and there are present in this House today a number of disabled people who have compensated in a quite extraordinary way.
But there is a great deal of quite unjustifiable discrimination and we felt it was necessary in this Bill, at an early stage, to define what we meant by "disability". That is what the Bill tries to do. It is a means for society, as represented by Parliament, to say, "Not only is it wrong and unlawful to discriminate against people because of their sex, their colour or their race, but it is also wrong and unlawful to discriminate against people because they have the misfortune to be disabled". The arnendment defining "disability" for the purpose of this Bill was drafted by RADAR itself and we are much indebted to them and to other organisations of disabled people for their help in this and other amendments.
May I refer to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, if that is not out of order—your Lordships will tell me if it is, as I am a new boy—because he has mentioned the issue contained in it. To a considerable extent my noble friend Lord Longford has dealt with the proposal to leave out the word "mental" in Clause 1, but it is still found in the amendment that I am proposing:
"(c) the malfunctioning of any part of the body or mind".
The noble Lord, Lord Renton, and others who may share his view, would agree that if this House sends the Bill to another place—as clearly it will wish to do, because there was no dissenting voice on the Second Reading and no one here would wish not to send the sense of a Bill to which no objection had been raised (maybe there was a verbal objection, but the Bill was agreed to without dissent)—it would be quite wrong that mentally handicapped people, and people who have had a mental illness from which they may now have recovered or which may have left them disabled, should suffer. Someone who is a schizophrenic may he disabled in terms of the jobs he can do.
But this Bill does not deal just with jobs, as Clause 5 very well shows. It deals with services, with housing and with so many other aspects of life. It would seem very wrong indeed—and I am seeking to anticipate what the noble Lord may say—if this House were to declare that it was wrong to discriminate on grounds of housing, of entertainment or of public places, and an offence to say "We are not prepared to admit someone into that house or that public place because he is disabled or disfigured", but that it was not an offence
978
for someone in a hotel to say "We are not prepared to have those people, because they are mentally handicapped". There is an extraordinary lack of logic from the noble Lord, Lord Renton, which I find very surprising. I am not in the least surprised that his own colleagues in MENCAP find themselves in disagreement with his own interpretation.
I hope, therefore, that this amendment will be passed. It is essential, if we take it with other amendments to the Bill. It is perhaps the most essential part of it, because, together with later definitions of what is "discrimination", this is a definition of people who might he discriminated against and against whom that discrimination would be unlawful according to the amendments that we have already passed. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: May I first say that I have some sympathy with the method of drafting which brings definitions to the front of the Bill. We do that with statutory instruments, but for some reason the draftsmen have always resisted doing it in Bills, and Ministers who are responsible for drafting have gone along with it, quite wrongly. But here we have a definition of "disability" coming on early and, to that extent, I think that the noble Lord has performed a service in inviting your Lordships to consider the possibility of having it in.
Having said that, I would ask the noble Lord to consider whether or not his definition is too broadly drawn. If, for example, we look at paragraph (a),
"the total or partial loss of any function of the body or mind".
that includes any kind of ailment or disability from which an of us may be suffering. Excessive smokers, for example, may suffer from lung cancer, but even without that they may have bad smokers' coughs which could be very disturbing in some circumstances. Sometimes people with bad smokers' coughs cough all night, and in a boarding house with rather thin walls it could cause rather a nuisance to the people next door. I do not need to elaborate on that, but the paragraph is very widely drawn and I would ask the noble Lord to consider whether it should be more narrowly or more specifically drawn. Paragraph (b) is very clear and one would go along with that. Then there is paragraph (c)
"the malfunctioning or disfigurement of any part of the body or mind".
Should any malfunctioning of any part of the body give rise to the rather elaborate procedure for conciliation through the commission, to the procedure for an action for damages which I described? Incidentally, in doing so I failed to mention the subject of having to apply for a legal aid certificate, which can also take quite a long time. One wonders whether that paragraph also is too widely drawn. I think that one could go along with paragraph (d),
"the malformation or disfigurement of any part of the body".
It would be terrible for any of us with a squint to be discriminated against for any reason at all. As the noble Lord referred to my colleagues on MENCAP, with whom I am in disagreement, I should point out that at their meeting last week they did not take legal advice. Their decision cannot he regarded as

979
unanimous, because although I made my views clear before the meeting, I did not agree with it. Therefore, it cannot be said to be a unanimous view of the management committee. In any event, the governing body of MENCAP is the national council—over which I have often presided, and so has the noble Lord in the past. It used to be called the national executive in those days. But it has not yet had an opportunity of considering this, so I hope that the noble Lord will not mind my just mentioning those qualifications.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: I wonder whether I may follow the noble Lord, Lord Renton, if only to agree with the first part of what he said, as I had the honour to serve under him in the committee on the preparation of legislation where we strongly recommended that definition clauses should come at the outset of Bills. So to that extent I must congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, on what he has done and support the noble Lord, Lord Renton.
In addition, I myself am extremely unhappy about the definition clause altogether. On Second Reading (when I was not a Member of the House, but I have carefully looked at the report of the debate) the noble Lord, Lord Rea, who is a doctor, said, at col. 437:
"it is extremely difficult to decide who is and who is not disabled.—[Official Report, 16/12/83.]
In a sense, we are all disabled. It may well be true that we are all sick in one way or another, physically or mentally. How do you quantify this sickness? How do you define it for the purposes of unlawful discrimination, whether reasonable or not? To my mind, the difficulties of definition in legislation are so great that for that reason alone I cannot support the Bill.
I do not need to give any further illustrations such as those which the noble Lord, Lord Renton, has given. I would only say that there are a very great many kinds of disability which are invisible but which are real, both physical and mental. I have the greatest possible sympathy with the view put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, about those who are grossly disfigured and discriminated against. Any kind of discrimination of that sort is disgusting and should be eliminated, but I do not believe that legislation is the right way in which to eliminate that kind of discrimination. That must be done by education, not by the force of law. For many reasons I disagree with this amendment in particular and with the Bill as a whole.
In conclusion, may I say that I much supported the line taken by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, on Second Reading. Not enough is known about the extent of discrimination for legislation to be brought forward at this stage. It is much better to have a thorough examination of its extent. I am told that only some 18 to 20 cases have been brought to attention so far. There may well be hidden discrimination which we do not know about. There is so much that we do not know about that this is premature legislation. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, suggested reference to a Select Committee or something of that kind. I should prefer the Committee—I hang these arguments on the definition clause—until it knows the extent of this problem and can decide the extent of the application of this Bill to those who are seriously disabled, not to proceed further.
12.13 p.m.
The Earl of Snowdon: When the City of London held a ceremony honouring, rightly, those who died in the struggle for the rights of the Falklanders to go on living under the British flag and enjoying British freedom I read in the newspapers that certain servicemen, disabled in action, who wanted to watch the ceremony were deemed a security risk and advised to stay at home and watch it on television. It was evidently announced that there was no point in including those blinded for life while serving our country, "because they could not see anything, anyway".
In a sense, everything I have to say can be thought of as a comment on those facts. We respect the dead and we are right to do so. Indeed, it is not fanciful to think of death as the ultimate disability; yet those who are disabled—in their limbs, their sight or their minds—have to contend daily and hourly with the lack of the simplest understanding, let alone sympathy. A publican refuses to serve disabled customers. He explains his refusal aloud, with the words, "People like them shouldn't be allowed out". A cinema manager refuses entry to a woman in a wheelchair. She challenges his right to do so and receives the reply, "People like you should stay indoors". Let us not comfort ourselves with the convenient fiction that in any society there will be brutal and insensitive people, and that doubtless these were among them. The truth is that such things happen regularly, frequently and all over the country, and that the people who behave in that fashion are not monsters but ordinary human beings who regard their disabled human fellows with—I am sorry to have to say, but I must—contempt. "People like them"; "People like you"; "Does he take sugar?" It may be that for disabled people such wounding words are even worse than the discrimination itself. Again, let us not deceive ourselves: it is indeed discrimination that we are talking about.
A disabled art student, fully qualified, is refused a place at an art school because, and only because, of her disability. A policewoman, injured, ironically, while displaying conspicious bravery in the course of her duties, is turned away from a charity event because—and only because—she is in a wheelchair. A blind woman is refused entry to a supermarket because—and only because—she has her guide-dog with her and no dogs are admitted. Will anyone say that that was unfortunate, but of course you cannot have dogs in supermarkets? Let them say it to Sainsbury's who welcome blind shoppers with their dogs and also supply special trolleys for disabled people. Even a priest refuses to marry a man in a wheelchair who is paralysed. These are just a few examples of downright discrimination that we have all read about recently.
Imagine for a moment w hat an outcry there would rightly be if the discrimination practised against disabled people were to be offered to people of another colour or religion because—and only because—of that colour or that religion—for, of course, that kind of discrimination is banned by law. If there were as much concern and understanding throughout the country as is shown by noble Lords in this House, there would be no need for legislation; but I fear there sadly is not. It

981
is a pity—a great and tragic pity—that disabled people should need a law to protect them from discrimination, from the denial of their most elementary rights to live, as best they can, a normal life. Yes, it is a pity that it should be needed; but, as I see it, it undoubtedly is needed. And it is needed at every level of society and in every part of our national life. Why should not architects, engineers and town planners be obliged to take into account the most elementary needs of disabled people? Why should those in charge of offices, places of entertainment, shops, banks and other public and semi-public areas be allowed to refuse entry—sometimes hiding behind the smoke-screen of fire regulations—to citizens who have already been discriminated against by birth and condition, or accident or disease, and who are now experiencing the full, bitter, literal truth of the old cliché about "adding insult to injury"?
We all know that 1981 was the International Year of Disabled People. It was ushered in with high hopes—I shared those hopes—that it would bring an end not to the suffering of disabled people from their disabilities but at least to the extra suffering they experience at the hands of their more fortunate fellow-citizens. Alas! the year came and went with little more than the expression of pious aspirations. Pious aspirations are, unfortunately, of little practical use to disabled people who do not ask to have more than their fellows but who quietly ask only to have as much. As much what? As much opportunity as you and I and our children have to work, to be educated, to enjoy our holidays and leisure time, not as a charitable handout from well-meaning people, not as a favour from a society that would much rather they hid themselves from sight so as not to disturb our own more pleasant lives with their embarrassing presence, but as a right equal to the rights enjoyed without question by their neighbours, who have, and should be eternally thankful to have, the full use of their bodies and minds.
My main concern is for the ordinary man or woman in the street who is not in a position of power nor privilege and has little money to spend. They cannot send for the manager and make a fuss, even if they wish to. They just want to be treated as equal, first-class citizens—not as a favour, not out of gracious sympathy, nor as a condescending gesture, as an exception, but as of their right.
Few thinking men and women welcome new legislation, particularly legislation which makes more rules for more people to abide by; but I hope that few thinking men and women, if they stop to think about this problem, will believe that such legislation is unnecessary. Of course I know that legislation does not in itself change minds or hearts or attitudes.
Even when such laws are enforced, disabled people will have a long and hard road to travel to the goal of true equality. Perhaps they will never quite get there, but may I remind your Lordships of the words of Martin Luther King when he had to face that argument in the field of racial equality. He said:
"Morality cannot be legislated, but behaviour can be regulated. Judicial decrees may not change the heart, but they can restrain the heartless".
Disabled people in Britain do not demand to be loved for their disabilities; they ask only not to suffer additionally for them. They do not demand sympathy;
982
they ask only for rights denied to them. They do not reproach their unthinking fellow citizens; they ask only that their unthinking fellow citizens should start to think. Legislation cannot itself bring to an end the suffering of disabled people but it will be a huge step forward towards that noble aim. My Lords, may I suggest that we resolve to make that step?
12.21 p.m.
Lord Howard of Henderskelfe: I had not intended to speak to this amendment, but in view of the breadth of discussion which has been engendered by it—and, With the greatest of respect to the noble Earl who sits in front of me, we heard a Second Reading speech on the amendment which defines disability—I believe that this matter ought to be looked at again. It is very broadly drawn.
It so happens that for nearly 40 years I have drawn what is not a very large 40 per cent. disability pension for a war wound. I have never regarded myself in the commonly accepted sense of the word as disabled. I have diabetes and I suppose that may be regarded as a disability. The amendment covers such an enormous field that there is almost nobody who could not be included under this definition. To place, simply because they fall within this very broad definition, the full weight of the law behind people who delight in litigation and who are not truly being discriminated against seems to me to be a proposal which the promoters of this Bill should consider again. I hope, too, that they will look again at the people to whom this Bill should be truly directed.
There are of course hard-hearted people around and of course there are people who behave badly—but there are far more bureaucrats who find it convenient to behave badly. Whatever the noble Earl, Lord Snowdon, in front of me may have said about the people who use the convenient excuse of fire regulations, it is true that the very worst of all when it comes to discrimination—particularly against disabled people in wheelchairs—are fire officers. They are the people we want to attack; the bureaucrats with all their regulations. We want to get at them, and not the people exercising their ordinary day to day business.
I therefore appeal to the promoters of this amendment to look again before the next stage of the Bill at the width of its definition and particularly at its application to the mentally handicapped. Their problems are very often of a wholly different nature from those who are physically handicapped, who are handicapped facially, or who are handicapped in other ways. That is a totally different ball game and it is one that commands the deepest thought. I hope that the organisation of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, when its full management committee meets, will give its deepest thought to that aspect.
The Earl of Halshury: I have been listening attentively to the arguments which have been put forward. In the hope of making a helpful suggestion to the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, perhaps I may comment that under (c) and (d) the breadth could to some extent be eliminated if the concept of incorrigible malfunctioning or incorrigible malformation or

983
disfigurement is included. That is something which could be done at Report stage if the amendment is passed in its present form.
For example, a squint is corrigible by the wearing of spectacles, and diabetes is corrigible by the taking of insulin. Some concept along those lines may help to tighten the definition a little and make this particular amendment acceptable to the Committee.
Lord Tordoff: I fail to understand why people are so averse to the clause being drawn widely. We are talking about discrimination. I should think it unfortunate if people were discriminated against for having a squint. That is very unlikely to happen, but I do not see why this clause cannot be drawn as widely as possible. It is discrimination that we are trying to outlaw—not squints.
Baroness Lockwood: I have some sympathy with noble Lords who have said that the clause would be drawn rather widely. I wonder whether we might be able to tighten up the amendment to some extent at Report stage. In a Bill, it is not possible to define either discrimination in its totality or to define disability. While I am not suggesting to the noble Lord, Lord Renton—who would be most concerned if he thought I was suggesting such a thing—that there will be a lot of case law under this particular Act, there will be some case law. I should hope that such case law will establish the interpretation which the courts place upon certain clauses. In that way, it will be possible for us all to understand just what "discrimination" means.
Perhaps I may draw a parallel with the Sex Discrimination Act. Although—as the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, has said—we had a very powerful Select Committee of your Lordships' House and a Select Committee in another place, and although their reports were very important in identifying areas of sex discrimination, it was not until the Act was operating that we began really to understand the ramifications of sex discrimination. I believe that the same will apply to this Bill. I would ask that we do not try to dot every "i" and cross every "t", because we can do some of that when the Act becomes operational.
Lord Ennals: Having moved this amendment, I wish to express my deep thanks for the way in which it has been debated. I feel it would not be unfair to welcome especially the powerful intervention made by the noble Earl, Lord Snowdon, who has made a very great contribution to the needs of disabled people. Some of the points which have been made ought to be considered again. I admire the silence of the Government and I hope that they remain silent for the rest of the day; I am sure that the noble Lord the Minister will not misunderstand me, but it does repose therefore with those who sit on this Front Bench to take over the role of those who sit on the Front Bench opposite. The whole purpose of this Committee stage is to ensure that at the end of the day, or the week, or the month, we send to another place a Bill that satisfies as many noble Lords and noble Baronesses as possible.
I did think that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, perhaps entered into the realm of fantasy when he
984
suggested that it was a disability to have a smoker's cough. I suppose that the whole question of self-inflicted disability is one that the noble Lord might wish us to consider, but I am not going very far down that line. But if I look both at (a),
"the total or partial loss of any function of the body or mind".
and (b)
"the loss of a limb or part of a limb".
then I can see that it may be drawn very widely. When it comes to (c),
"the malfunctioning of any part of the body or mind".
I was impressed by the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Henderskelfe, when he admitted his 40 per cent. war disability pension. Let me admit that I have a 100 per cent. war disability pension and I should resent being discriminated against on grounds of any of those particular causes. But this aspect is creating a sense of concern in this Committee, even among a number of noble Lords, whether on one side or the other, who have a squint—I do not know whether a political squint or a real squint. But in fact I think we ought to have a second look at this. I have in front of me a number of other very valid definitions. The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Disabled Persons adopted on 9th December, 1975 gave its own definition, which was somewhat different from that which is contained here. It seems to me—and I have sought the permission of the promoter of the Bill, the noble Earl, Lord Longford—that we should have a look before Report stage at this particular definition in order that we may meet the concerns quite rightly expressed by noble Lords who are as much against discrimination, and in many cases for legislation, as he is or I am. So on behalf of my noble friend may I say, without wishing so to dilute this that it is meaningless, that we will look at some of the words again and come back with a new draft at Report.
The Chairman of Committees: Is the noble Lord withdrawing the amendment?
Lord Ennals: I suppose that means that I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 1, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Baroness Lane-Fox: Everyone here undoubtedly wants to find the most effective way of improving the lot of all disabled people. Indeed, we all abhor the idea or the kind of discrimination we are told is enacted against them, or may I say us. Surely we are all agreed on that: that we dislike discrimination—in fact we hate it—as was so clearly described in that splendid speech of the noble Earl, Lord Snowdon, a splendidly idealistic speech I would say. Where we tend to differ is about the hest way to deal with discrimination.
Clause 2 aims to set up a commission, a quango, call it what you will, with the duty to investigate and eliminate the circumstances of such discrimination. Is this truly likely for one minute to catch the real offenders? There are those who generously discriminate in our favour, and it is often a question of the healthy and generous attitude of mind of other persons which determines this. If a transgressor is brought to

985
book by the commission, is it likely that he or she will change his or her attitude, at least in more than a tiny minority of cases? It is likely, I believe, that to set up a commission will cost two or three million pounds, and to me that sounds like an awful lot of money to spend just to bring a fraction of the public to heel—money, I may add, from which we really need a great deal, from resources which are scarce.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: I think we have gone past that stage now.
Baroness Trumpington: I ask the noble Baroness whether she is speaking on Clause 2 or on the Question that Clause 1 stands part?
Baroness Lane-Fox: Clause 2, I think, as on the Marshalled List.
Baroness Trumpington: We have not actually finished with Clause 1. I do not like interrupting my noble friend, but will she desist at the moment and start again later?
Baroness Lane-Fox: May I ask the forgiveness of the Committee?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Glenarthur): I am sorry to disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, but as I have sat mutely on the Front Bench for some time perhaps this is an appropriate moment for me to intervene briefly. I made it very clear during Second Reading of this Bill that the Government do not accept the need for a Bill of this kind and do not propose to give it any sustenance at any further stage. But while fully sharing the abhorrence which was so powerfully expressed by the noble Earl, Lord Snowdon, that there is some deplorable discrimination, we do not believe that there is sufficient evidence of genuine discrimination against disabled people to warrant the establishment of a complex and expensive regulatory machine which this Bill seeks to provide. None of the proposed changes to the Bill have altered that view. Clearly, of course, I respect your Lordships' wish to give further consideration to the text of the Bill. I have listened and will continue to listen with interest to what is said today. However, in view of the Government's position on the Bill as a whole, which I have stated as fairly and frankly as I can, I do not propose to comment one way or other on the individual amendments.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: I did not intend to intervene, but I have been listening to speeches here this morning which remind me very much of the period we went through before we got the first Race Relations Act. I remember a lot of the arguments being made about the need to educate rather than to legislate, and also that we did not have clear enough evidence of discrimination to act on it. We seem to be travelling along that road again on this question of dealing with disability. I may, therefore, remind your Lordships of some of the consequences of legislating against discrimination on the grounds of race.
986
When I was chairman of the Campaign against Racial Discrimination and I talked with people who were representing the shops, they said that coloured people could not be employed in the shops because the customers would not like it. Well, the Race Relations Act was passed and, as your Lordships know, when you do your shopping the shops all have black people serving and we do not hear any complaints from the customers. I also remember—the one that I enjoyed most—the banks telling us that they did not employ black people in the banks because any person who works in a hank ought to be able to become a manager and they did not think the community had reached a stage when they would accept a black bank manager. I am sure many of your Lordships go into banks where you see blacks employed. It may well be that they have concluded that the community has reached a stage where it will accept black hank managers. The truth is that education is of the utmost importance. Legislation is part of that education. It is by enabling people to see that people who have disabilities are able without any problem to play their full part in society that you will get a relaxation of the attitude. That will play a major part in education as it does in other fields.
Therefore, while it may well be sensible for this amendment, No. 4, for example, to be tightened up, and while it may well be that we do not need so elaborate machinery in Clause 2, what we do need is this declaration that, in the view of society, discrimination against anybody who is disabled on the grounds of his disablement is unlawful and unacceptable. That is what is needed and that is what we want legislation for. Then there is the question of how best to carry it out, and that is where Clause 2 comes in and I do not wish to rush that. The question is, is it best to have the commission which, in fact, does the educating as well as other things, because that is where the commission will come in. Therefore, I hope that the Government will not put obstacles in the way of our legislating successfully on this matter, because it is of the greatest value to the people who are disabled that it should be illegal for anyone unreasonably to discriminate against them.
12.40 p.m.
Lord Stallard: I shall be exceedingly brief, if only to support what my noble friend said about education and legislation. This is not a Bill about whether it should be education or legislation. It is not one or the other. My noble friend put that adequately and clearly. The legislation is part of the educative process, and the measures contained in this Bill must be seen as part of that process. All of us engaged in this debate will be against discrimination, and as my noble friend rightly says, that is what the Bill is about. All my adult life I have been involved with the educative process on the question of disablement and mental health. There is now a need for legislation to support that educative process, not to combat it. Both must go together. We must have legislation if we are to make the educative process mean what it ought to mean.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): May I say a few words in favour of this clause. I was extremely disappointed to hear the Minister, but delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Pitt of Hampstead, gave us the benefit of his experience. We are extremely lucky to have both the

987
noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, and the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, with us today and to have their experience. I feel very strongly that law and education should go hand in hand. We are not talking about either/or, as the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, said. At present, if someone is reluctant to do the right thing and says, "Why shouldn't I go on doing this?" all one can say is "It's not very nice, is it?". However, if one can point to the law and say that it is wrong and against the law, one has a good chance of educating the person pretty rapidly. So many of the examples of discrimination that I have been given are ones that could not have been sorted out by education alone. As regards conciliation, we must remember that one of the jobs of the commission will be to conciliate, and it is extremely difficult to conciliate without the backing of the law, otherwise one is just pleading for better treatment.
One last point is very important because I do not think anyone has made it previously. It concerns future legislation. If discrimination becomes unlawful in this Bill then whenever future legislation is being drafted those who are drafting it will have to say, "How will this affect the disabled? Can we do this without discriminating against them?" It is often difficult and expensive to put things right later. Therefore, if we can ensure that the interests of the disabled are considered whenever new laws are being drafted we will probably save time, energy and possibly a good deal of money.
The Earl of Longford: I feel that after the Minister has been kind enough to intervene it would be only appropriate for the promoter to thank him at least for speaking so briefly, and I gather he is not intending to say anything more. He did not disappoint me in what he said because he made plain previously what his attitude was. Therefore, I do not express my disappointment. I am not going to attempt to reply because we are not dealing with the amendment, but I hope that no one will suppose that because we have said we will look at the wording that there is any retreat on the main aspect. The Bill, as my noble friend Lord Ennals said, was given an unopposed Second Reading. Therefore, the House must have decided in favour of the principle of this Bill. Therefore we could not begin to accept anything that involved wrecking the Bill. I say that because I do not want to raise a lot of Use hopes that we are weakening. As my noble friend Lord Ennals said, that is very much to the point. There are a lot of possible definitions, and it would be ridiculous for us to pretend that all wisdom has been delivered to our particular group. Perhaps those who do not agree with much of the Bill may want to come and talk about the actual terminology. So we ought to be open-minded on the terminology.
The Lord Chairman may have in mind one point. By withdrawing the amendment it seems to me that we have got into a little bit of a problem area. I imagined that when we said we would look at it again that that could be accepted by the Committee and that we could go forward, but without the amendment—
The Chairman of Committees: I cannot accept that at the moment. The question we are debating now is whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill.
The Earl of Longford: I was merely pointing out that before we leave Clause 1 we may have got into a little bit of a muddle. Perhaps the noble Lord will bear that in mind.
The Chairman of Committees: I have not got into a muddle.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 [Appointments and duties of Disablement Commission.]
On Question, Whether Clause 2 shall stand part of the Bill?
Baroness Lane-Fox: I apologise for my final intervention. I apologise to the promoter of the Bill and certainly apologise for any time wasted. May I go briskly on to Clause 2, which aims to set up a commission—call it what you will—with the duty to eliminate and investigate circumstances of such discrimination. Is it truly likely for one moment to catch the real offenders? I know I have said this before, but I want to stress that. It seems to me that there are those who generously discriminate in our favour, and it is often a question of the healthy and generous attitude of mind of the other persons which determines this. If a transgressor is brought to book by the commission, is it likely that that will change his or her attitude at least more than in a tiny minority of cases? I believe that to set up a commission will cost £2 million or £3 million and that seems to be an awful lot of money to spend just to bring a fraction of the public to heel. That is money, I should add, which we have begged from scarce resources for other most important assistance areas for disabled people.
I know that this is a very emotive subject. Some of us have gone out to work for our living and know the difficulties and obstacles that have to be overcome in order to do this. Although it is no joke to realise that your presence is a nuisance to other workers who do not necessarily include you in their privileges it would not be any balm—certainly it would not have been to me—to be told that one is being discriminated against and that the quango will look into all one's little troubles—whether it be that people will not open the doors or windows for you or take you out to tea with them.
Some disabled people complain that police, officials, taxi-drivers, and porters, discriminate against them. Well, if we are in wheelchairs, I for one realise that other people can have cricky backs, hernias, heart problems and lots of other things. Just to touch our proposition threatens their own situation. I consider that in that case they are more than justified in taking cover when they see us approaching. That is not the sort of thing I would have thought ought to go before a commission, but from what I can read of the Bill it looks as though it would. Questions of employment difficulties should be dealt with by DACs and if the disabled are not dealt with properly then we should agitate until they get better treatment. As for accessibility, we have the new national accessibility committee which I think and believe really will make a difference to that front.

989
I found it rather shocking that with all the kind help and potential opportunities offered to disabled people, particularly since IYDP, the public are to be dealt this very expensive snub of a commission. It is to be set up on the assumption that very many disabled people understand it and want it. I believe it is very doubtful if very many disabled people realise that to be effective the commission generally will depend on legislation at national or local level.
To my mind it is a psychological howler to tell a disabled person that he is being discriminated against, thereby probably removing the flimsy threads on which his or her ego rests and probably sowing new seeds of bitterness. There could be little that is more destructive and harmful to a person's frame of mind, upon which so much of the power to cope with disability depends.
It is never easy to speak the unpopular line, and that is what I am trying to do today. It is very much nicer to recommend everyone to sit back and pay for a commission which will solve the problems. Alas, I am not enough of a hypocrite to go along with that. No doubt there are others who are more highly qualified to hold views; but I can claim to have been working with and for disabled people of all kinds for the past 45 years. It is my view that cases can be much better dealt with by immediate help through existing channels than by noises from a costly commission.
For six years I broadcast a regular programme on local radio to give news and information for disabled listeners. I found that in very many of the cases referred to me people wanted—and took—advice and assistance rather than to construct great cases for a commission. So often it is friendly help and not more bureaucracy and officialdom that people want.
In my view, the setting up of a commission would be derogatory to the cause of disabled people. It would make them more segregated and further remove them from the integration which we have sought. It could well lose friends and helpers for the disability cause and hard-gained popularity and constructive sympathy. Even if our views about the methods are different, we all want to find the best way to direct our efforts really to get the advance that we want. We believe that we could do something that is truly relevant through the existing schemes which are a real help to the many individuals whose future we care about. There is no lack of a framework to receive our combined efforts to make things work better, given help from the departments, and help which I believe we should receive. Knowing how many excellent schemes receive Government funding, I am conscious that to spend money unwisely on the cause of disability is against the interests of those who are most affected. For these reasons, I ask that Clause 2 shall not stand part of the Bill.
12.52 p.m.
Baroness Lockwood: I am sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, has taken this approach to Clause 2. I appreciate just how much she has done in the past to assist the disabled, and so on this question I do not like to be on a different side of the argument. I speak not as one who has been deeply involved in the Campaign for the Disabled, although I myself suffer
990
from a disability. I must draw a parallel with what has happened with the Equal Opportunities Commission.
The very heart of Clause 2 is stated in subsection (1)(a):
"to work towards the elimination of discrimination against disabled people and to promote the integration of disabled people into society."
Those two functions are being given to one body, and this body will have the opportunity to assist individuals to fight against discrimination in their particular circumstances; but the commission will also have the opportunity to draw from individual cases examples of discrimination which very often are hidden in the system of our society and which we do not recognise.
I think that this is where such a body has an advantage over other organisations that may be working in the field. It will look at and analyse unlawful discrimination and at the same time work to promote—in this case—the integration of the disabled into our society. It will, therefore, have a positive approach to the problem as well. In this sense it will have the opportunity to change attitudes.
The noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, said that it is likely that the commission's work will affect only a fraction of the public—it will bring only a fraction of the public to hand. I think that its work will be much wider than that; it will be to identify what is discrimination and, by so identifying, to affect policies.
I again draw a parallel with the Equal Opportunities Commission. When it was set up in 1975 all that the employer and trade union organisations wanted to do was to avoid unlawfully discriminating. They said, "Tell us what to do in order that we do not break the law?" I must confess that the educationists were in that category, too. But after the commission had been functioning for four or five years, employers and educationists were saying, "Tell us what to do to promote equality? How can we improve our policies?" These have been policies which have gone across the board. The question would be, "How can we integrate the disabled into our workforce and help them to become full and effective members?"
The work of the commission would cover a very wide field indeed. It would give help and assistance to individuals, either advising them how to process their complaints or taking up with the appropriate bodies complaints on behalf of individuals. The Equal Opportunities Commission has been criticised as being ineffective simply because it has not produced as many cases through the courts as some people thought it would. But what it has been able to do on numerous occasions is to prevent cases from going to court and to stop the discrimination at the very outset. It could not have done that had it not had the opportunity of using the law as well, if that was necessary. If it had not been able to invoke the force of the law, it would not have been such an effective body in promoting equal opportunity policies.
The noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, mentioned the amount of money that having such a commission would entail. In the last annual report of the Equal Opportunities Commission, which referred to 1982, its expenditure was about £3 million. When one considers the total income of this country, £3 million is a very small amount to pay. On Second Reading the House was told that the amount of money spent on the

991
campaign to publicise the need for seat-belts and to educate people to wear them was £7.8 million, but with very little effect. But immediately we had an Act of Parliament which said that it was unlawful to drive without wearing a seat-belt we found that 99 per cent. of the population of the country observed the law. We are not normally a law-breaking community. People want to observe the law. But very often people do not know what discrimination means; and an important part of the commission's work would be to bring to the attention of the public the ramifications of discrimination.
I wish to say one final thing. I think that this country has a very good record with regard to sex discrimination compared with other countries in the European Community. Our European colleagues agree that the reason why we have this record and reputation is that we have a commission that has an overall responsibility for eliminating discrimination and promoting equality of opportunity. Therefore on the basis of my experience as the chairman of a quango or a commission—and I do not see why a nongovernmental organisation should be called a quango as though it were a term of abuse—I believe that if we are to eliminate discrimination of this kind it is absolutely essential that we have a commission charged with the responsibility for so doing.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: I expressed serious misgivings about the Bill on Second Reading and I have been greatly worried about it ever since. I do not think that we are going about the Bill the right way to achieve the purpose that so many of us have in mind. Quite frankly, I feel embarrassed at having to participate in proceedings which I believe are almost futile from the legislative point of view.
This Bill was introduced in another place and failed to make progress in unsatisfactory and indeed controversial circumstances. It was introduced here very speedily after that event and it received an unopposed Second Reading. Nearly all the bad Bills that I remember have been those which got on to the statute book not because people were for them, but because many people were afraid to vote against them. Here we are feeling that we are in support of the moral purpose behind the Bill, but realising its grave imperfections as a piece of draft legislation from the point of view not only of principle in one or two respects, but also of administration generally.
The intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, made it clear that we were not going to receive the Government's help and co-operation, or even advice, in the further stages of the Bill. I do not quarrel with that decision, though I regret it. But it seems that the Government, too, must hold the view that we are not doing the cause which we have at heart as much good as we should.
I recall, as I did on Second Reading, that, in a reform of this kind—of profound importance and great complexity, where the moral issues are clear and definite, where public opinion is being marshalled behind them, but where the expression of them in the statute law and in the course of administration presents many complexities—we must proceed in an orderly and rational manner. Some causes are ill-served by the way their sponsors handle them, and I
992
believe that we want from the sponsors of this Bill a realistic approach to where we are at this moment. If we continue the discussion on the Bill, it is inevitable that general questions of where we are going and whether we are using the time of your Lordships' House and of the Committee profitably will arise on different occasions. Clause 9, for example, is a dreadfully difficult clause upon which there could be an enormous amount of discussion because of the tortuous nature of much of its language and the obscurity of the precise principle that it seeks to establish. So we are not by any means through with the Bill merely by going from clause to clause, since it raises many difficult issues on the way.
On a previous occasion—and I have mentioned this before—when the sex discrimination issue ran into difficulty in another place, in a Private Member's Bill, as did this Bill recently in another place, your Lordships' House wisely gave a Second Reading to a similar Bill on sex discrimination and referred it to a Select Committee for examination. In my view that was the turning point in the progress of legislation against discrimination on grounds of sex. This House performed its traditional role of taking a draft Bill and examining it in detail, calling evidence from all the interests and the sources of advice and wisdom in the hope of being able to present to your Lordships' House not the sense of a Bill, but a workmanlike piece of legislation which satisfied the standards of this House as a revisionist Chamber and are responsible for considered legislation.
When the House of Commons again took up that subject, it had the benefit, in its own Select Committee, of all the work that had been done in your Lordships' House, and from then on the cause of legislator against sex discrimination made unimpeded progress. I think that something of that kind could have helped this Bill had we taken the right decision at the end of the Second Reading. I had hoped that it would be referred to a Select Committee, but I made inquiries about it and I was given to understand that there were difficulties about mounting a Select Committee on the Bill during the current Session. Well, it may be that the Bill will make much better progress if it is carefully examined by a Select Committee in the next Session, but I cannot believe that it will make any progress at the present time.
I cannot agree with my noble friend Lord Ennals that we should send the sense of the Bill to another place. We do not send the sense of Bills to another place. We send Bills to another place—Bills that have been made sense of; and in those circumstances it will not help to send this Bill to another place. If the other place wanted the message, it got it on the passing of this Bill on Second Reading without a Division. That was the message to give to another place, which after all, had declined to give a Second Reading to the Bill when it had the opportunity to do so. That was the message not only to another place, but to the Government, too; and surely it is the Government's help that we require in order to place on the statute hook a Bill of this importance and complexity. It is unthinkable that we can legislate with the Government sitting on the Front Bench virtually mute and saying merely, "It's nothing to do with us. We can't provide any facilities for its progress through Parliament".

993
So I hope that the sponsors of the Bill will really consider what we should do now. How can we get through the Committee stage of this Bill this day? How shall we ever get through it properly unless we can seek evidence and have much better opportunity and a great deal of time to go into its complex detail? Therefore, if the Committee divides on the Question that Clause 2 shall stand part, I shall vote against it because I think that it is the least objectionable clause upon which to register my view that the Bill ought not to make further progress in the present conditions.
I believe that the cause is in our hearts and minds all the time. We want to see something done about it. But this is not the time to complete our examination of this complex problem. We want a little more time. We want closer examination of all the implications and problems of administration. There is provision for that in the procedures of your Lordships' House, and I think that we ought to embark upon that course and not continue with what I regard as an unrewarding exercise, possibly causing much misapprehension among the public outside, raising hopes that we cannot fulfil, and not justifying to ourselves the procedures that we are being asked to follow.
1.8 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: I feel that I must reply to the noble Lord, Lord I Houghton, before we go any further. I think that it ought to be plain to everybody—and I think that it is plain to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton—that what is proposed would really amount to a vote against the Bill on Second Reading; it is against the principle of the Bill. I do not think that the noble Lord mentioned Clause 2 other than incidentally. He was not dealing with the proposal of the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, which I must say a few words about in a moment. He was dealing with the Bill. He was, if I may say so, making the same speech as he made on Second Reading. I was stupid enough to interrupt his speech then, but I did not interrupt him again today. However, it was the same speech, and of course he is entitled to take that view very strongly.
But that is opposing the principle of the Bill; there is no doubt about that. It is for noble Lords to say whether the House of Lords would come out of it very well if your Lordships, having given the Bill an unopposed Second Reading, voted it down the next time round. I cannot imagine that that would be in accordance with the traditions of your Lordships' House; however, that is for others to say.
I should like to turn to the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, and if I do not reply to it at all fully, it will be because it was dealt with so very effectively by the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood. The noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, has made no secret of her dislike of the Bill. This is a wrecking proposal and, if agreed to, it will wreck the Bill. Therefore, the technicalities of the commission hardly come into it. It would be impossible for anyone responsible for the Bill to accept the proposal put forward by the noble Baroness. It may well be that she will want to divide the Committee and then we shall have to see what happens. However, the proposal defeats the Bill. No wording is inspired, and perhaps
994
somebody could think of some slight reformulation of' the functions or the composition of the commission. However, so far as this proposal is concerned, no one who has any belief in what we are trying to achieve could possibly support it.
Lord Renton: With deep respect to the noble Earl, I do not think that he is right in saving that the elimination of Clause 2 would mean that there was nothing left in the Bill. There would still he the right of people to sue in the county court or the High Court on the grounds of discrimination. There would still be the whole of Part II which places heavy burdens upon local authorities which have been expressed as costing £30 million.
However, we should all heed the words of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, who speaks with tremendous authority, perhaps as much as any of us, of the workings of the public service. He speaks as, at one stage, head of a civil service union and chairman of the Parliamentary Labour Party, and with all the political experience that he has had. He has spoken clearly and strongly against the setting up of a commission.
As regards what I am about to say, I can at least say that I am not in disagreement with the management committee of MENCAP, because in the letter which Mr. Rix has sent to the noble Earl, and to which the noble Earl has already referred, he said that some members of the management committee had doubts about the effectiveness of a commission. That is well understood. If it be the fact, as my noble friend Lord Glenarthur told us in his reply to the Second Reading debate, that a commission would cost approximately £3 million, then I say that we at MENCAP and other voluntary bodies as well, could much better do with some of that money for the purposes which we wish to pursue—for example, getting people out of these long-stay hospitals for the mentally handicapped, many of them children and young people who ought not to be there. But it costs money to get them into the community, which is what we are trying to do. That is only one example of the way in which the money could he better spent. However, let us examine the clause.
If we look at subsection 1(a) we find that, among other things, the commission has:
"to promote the integration of disabled people into society".
Here I speak with the full authority of MENCAP, because I presided over a meeting of the national council when we were considering the integration of mentally handicapped children into the education system. We were unanimously against it. I pointed that out when the Education Act 1982 was going through the House—the Act which dealt with "special needs". Your Lordships and the Government eventually accepted that, so far as mentally handicapped children were concerned, they are better not integrated. Yet his paragraph would require the commission—because the Bill applies to education as well as to other matters—to integrate them. Therefore, we would have a statutory conflict, a conflict within the will of Parliament.
Subsection 1(b) says:
"to carry out general investigations with a view to determining whether this Act is being complied with and to make recommendations".

995
My noble friend Lady Lane-Fox, with whose speech I entirely agreed, has pointed out that a voluntary body representing the various organisations dealing with disability could perform that function perfectly well and advise the Government, and in doing so save vast amounts of public money.
We then come to paragraph (c) which deals with individual complaints. I briefly mentioned this in reply to an earlier amendment, but I did not mention it on Second Reading. Surely the investigation of individual complaints under this Act, where it seems appropriate to conciliate in relation to such complaints, would in practice enable only the flagrant and obvious complaints to be dealth with. They can be dealt with perfectly well without establishing a new quango. Mr. Rix did a marvellous job at Teignmouth last summer as regards the flagrant complaints which were voiced there. It did not require the intervention of any Government body. All it required was just him and a bit of publicity and the determination of the hotel keeper concerned to stick to his guns and allow the mentally handicapped people to stay in his hotel. That was enough; surely we do not need a quango to do that?
The Earl of Longford: I think that it is plain—is it not?—although none of these matters is absolutely plain, that Mr. Rix is in favour of a Bill along these lines.
Lord Renton: Mr. Rix has written a letter in, I think, rather guarded terms to the noble Earl, to which he and I have already referred. As I said earlier, the management committee, although the most important body, in a way, in MENCAP, is not the top body. The top body is the national council which has not yet had a chance to formulate policy on this point. Mr. Rix does marvellous work for us and for the mentally handicapped.
If we turn over the page we come to paragraph (d). Under that paragraph we find that the commission will have:
"to keep under review the working of this Act".
As has been rightly pointed out, an important part of the working of the Act would be the commission's own work under Clauses 2 and 7 which deal with procedures as to complaints. So they would therefore be reviewing their own efforts. I suppose that it is better than nothing, but it is not very usual—is it?—to ask a public body to review its own efforts. Such a body reports to Parliament and we should review its efforts. That is the best way of doing it. I agree that somewhere there is mention of a report to Parliament.
We then come to subsection (4) which gives rise to very great difficulty. It says:
"At least one half of the total number of members of the Commission shall be people who are themselves disabled and whose various disabilities are those to which the Act applies".
I entirely agree that the physically disabled should be represented on the commission, as they are increasingly on various public and advisory bodies. I fully agree with that. But it is not realistic or sensible to expect mentally handicapped people to take these difficult decisions. As for the mentally ill, I think that they too in many cases would be in a great difficulty.
996
But the Bill applies equally to the mentally handicapped and the mentally ill as it does to the physically disabled of various kinds. So in my view subsection (4) also creates difficulties. I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, and with my noble friend Lady Lane-Fox that this clause should not stand part of the Bill.
Lord Ennals: I shall be very brief because it is important that we reach a decision on this matter in order to make progress. I thought that to most of the arguments the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, and my noble friend Lord Longford gave very satisfactory answers. To remove this clause from the Bill would wreck the Bill, because we would simply declare something to be illegal, define the people concerned and the types of discrimination, but not have a commission to take some positive action, which is surely what most Members of your Lordships' Committee would want to see. The noble Lord emphasised the elimination of discrimination to promote the integration of disabled people into society. I do not believe for a moment that the majority of disabled people do not want to be treated as ordinary members of society, so far as it is possible for them to be so treated. Therefore, a good deal needs to be done in terms of access to entertainment and public places, and the rest.
Equally, I believe that the carrying out of general investigations on behalf of disabled people is an extremely important task. We have to ask ourselves, who are these people who are being proposed? I think that some point is raised by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, in suggesting that perhaps mentally handicapped people would not be appropriate, but I doubt whether the Secretary of State would actually make those appointments. After all, in his wisdom he appoints all of them, and I believe that he would consult with the organisations concerned.
I should be very surprised if any Secretary of State did not consult with the organisations representing the groups which are covered here in order to choose a commission that is balanced, wise and comprised of people with proven ability. Their task, in a smaller way—smaller because the numbers are smaller—is similar to that of the Equal Opportunities Commission and the Commission, for Racial Equality. To take away the commission would really be to take away the heart of the Bill. I know that some people want to take away the whole Bill. Bearing in mind that this House without any opposition in votes, has already given this Bill a Second Reading, I think that a decision should be taken now in order that we may proceed.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: I should like to make a few remarks. At a very early age, when I was a child in the middle of the war, my mother ran a London canteen for servicemen at one of the London stations. On one occasion two air force people came in with very disfigured faces and none of the people would serve them. They were frightened and called for my mother who went and served them. Afterwards she told me their story, and I have always remembered that there are people who are discriminated against. Today we have heard the noble Earl, Lord Snowdon, speaking about modern-day discrimination.

997
Both the noble Lord, Lord Renton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox have pushed and pushed to get mentally handicapped people out into the community. I serve on a regional health authority and we are worried that some regional health authorities and districts may not have the time adequately to plan for the wellbeing of these handicapped people. I believe that the Government will be very unwise if they do not set up a commission to look, to gather information and to sort out the problems of the disabled, for the problems are so varied and wide. My goodness! we all need to be educated. I am educated every day when I open my mailbag of letters from disabled people and read of their problems.
On Wednesday I returned from France to London Airport and I found that the lavatory, which had been specially built and adapted for disabled people, had been changed so that no person in a wheelchair could get near it. New rails had been placed on either side and banged down into the floor, so that you were stopped from getting anywhere near the lavatory. That is not following BS.5810. Therefore, circumstances change from day to day.
I was very interested in what the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, said; and I agree with what he said. I think that this needs to be planned very carefully. But I also agree with what the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, said. I believe that we should vote on the principle. I think that we should have the Government behind us, and it is very worrying if they sit mute in another place. We cannot do without our Members of Parliament behind us. If we take a vote on this, I hope it will be on the principle of whether or not there should be a commission. I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Renton, said (and he was answered by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals) about subsection (4) because I believe that a mentally ill or mentally handicapped person—
The Earl of Longford: In order to avoid misunderstanding, may I say that I also agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Renton, said on subsection (4).
Baroness Masham of Ilton: Yes, and that can be improved. I think that we must vote on the principle, but I believe that the Government will be very unwise if they do not set up some body which will learn of these changing problems. We now have multitudes of handicapped people coming into a community which is perhaps not ready to receive them, and that community needs to learn and be educated. As the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, has said, perhaps legislation will help to educate them. I want to do what is best for the disabled and I also want to do what is acceptable to those people in the country.
Lord Howard of Henderskelfe: There may possibly be a way forward here. We have heard the wise advice of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, as to what should have happened to this Bill after its unopposed Second Reading. I was not here for that Second Reading. I suspect that many people did not wish to divide the House, because if one opposes any measure directed towards the alleviation of the problems and the
998
difficulties—undoubted that they are—of people who are disabled in one way or another, one is thought of as hard-headed, brutal and beastly. Not many people like to be thought of in that way.
In the past, to some degree I have been associated with this matter, in that I had the honour to be one of the vice-presidents of the noble Earl, Lord Snowdon, during his presidency of the International Year of Disabled People. I have taken a close personal interest in this. Although I cannot officially describe the noble Baroness who spoke first as a friend, because I do not actually sit on the same side of the House as she does, I have known her all my life and I know with what vigour she has pursued the cause of her fellow handicapped—handicapped in all kinds of degrees and in all kinds of different ways. I believe that it is that work, and particularly what happened during the International Year of Disabled People which has resulted in considerable steps forward.
I know that it has helped me, as chairman of the BBC, to tight battles, which I did not always win, with the fire officers to try to get more people in wheelchairs into studios. Initially we could not get any in at all because we were told that they were a frightful danger and could not be got out if there was a fire. I asked when there was last a tire in a studio which could possibly have endangered any disabled person, and nobody could produce any evidence of any such fire. I shall not continue with such anecdotal evidence. However, as I said earlier, we need battles on draft by-laws, on fire regulations and on building regulations. Those are not battles which are necessarily best fought by a commission. They may well best be fought be persuading Ministers in the department to take on their own civil servants head-on. They sometimes win too, as past Ministers in this House will know, and they sometimes actually get what they want.
I believe that what has happened in the last three years is important. We have seen a very considerable step forward in the provision for the disabled because people have been made more alive to the problems and to what is needed. That has perhaps been most obvious in the case of the provision for those who are confined to wheelchairs, and I would tell your Lordships that, in fact, to provide such facilities can be of benefit to the person providing them.
My house is open to the public and I provide one of those chairlifts, and in each lavatory we have a special lavatory for the disabled, although I regret to say that it is unisex—we cannot afford to have one for each sex. The number of disabled visitors to the house has very considerably increased since we installed those facilities. I do not say that we have made a profit on it—I have never computed a figure—but it has certainly been of great benefit to me as well as to the disabled people. I should like to see further evidence, at a time of rapid advance in the provision of facilities for disabled people, of what has been done. I should certainly like to see, if it were at all possible, the course which the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, suggested pursued as the correct course in this matter.
The Earl of Halsbury: I have listened to this debate with my head being pulled one way and my heart being pulled the other. From the standpoint of tactics

999
and generalship, I believe that the advice of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, is right. I hope that the noble Earl will take it, and bring the Bill forward in the next Session with the object of sending it to a Select Committee of the House. For that reason, I shall follow the noble Baroness. Lady Lane-Fox.
1.31 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 2 shall stand part of the Bill?
Their Lordships divided: Contents. 49; Not-Contents, 43.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Amherst, E.

Lockwood, B.

Attlee, E.

Longford, E.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Lovell-Davis, L

Beswick, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Brockway, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Collison, L.

Oram, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Peart, L.

Crowther-Hunt, L.

Phillips, B.

Darey (de Knayth), B.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede. L

Elwyn-Jones, E.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Ennals, L. [Teller.]

Sefton of Garston, L.

Fitt, L.

Snowdon, E.

Gaitskell, B.

Stallard, L.

Galpern, L.

Stamp, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, E.

Hale, L.

Stone, L.

Hanworth, V.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hayter, L.

Tordoff, L

Jeger, B.

Underhill, L. [Teller.]

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L

John-Mackie, L.

Wigoder, L.

Kearton, L.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Lane-Fox, B.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Lauderdale, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Lawrence, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Long, V.

Cottesloe, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Craigavon, V.

Lyell, L.

De Freyne, L.

Mancroft, L.

Denham, L.

Margadale, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Marley, L.

Elton, L.

Merrivale, L.

Enniskillen, E.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Gainford, L.

O'Brien of Lothbury, L.

Glasgow, E.

Portland, D.

Halsbury, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Harvey of Prestbury, L.

Renton, E.

Henderson of Brompton, L.[Teller.]

Romney, E.

Sempill, Ly.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Trumpington, B.

Howard of Henderskelfe, L. [Teller]

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Westbury, L.

Killearn, L.

Windlesham, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Clause 2 agreed to accordingly.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Recommendations Commission]:
1.39 p.m.
The Earl of Longford The Earl of Longford moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 2, line 34, leave out ("notwithstanding the provisions of section 9(2) ")
The noble Earl said: I hope that this will be accepted as a nominal change. If anyone looks at Clause 9, they will see that the Secretary of State has to pass prescribed regulations. All we say here is that that power is not to be ignored. If the noble Lord, Lord Renton, were here he might catch me out over this. He may not be here in time. I was just saying that in the absence of Lord Renton I was hoping that this might be accepted as a nominal change.
Lord Renton: May I say that I have the enormous pleasure of, for once, agreeing with the noble Earl? It is quite absurd that we should, within any statute, refer to other parts of the statute. It is mere surplusage to do so and, from the purely drafting point of view, whatever other motive the noble Earl may have had. I think he has done right to move this amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 5 [Regulations of Secretary of State as to scope of Act]:
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Nugent of Guildford): I should warn your Lordships that, if Amendment No. 6 is agreed to. Amendments Nos. 7, 8 and 9 cannot be called.
Lord Ennals Lord Ennals had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 6:
Page 3, line 1, leave out paragraph (b)
The noble Lord said: I do not propose to move this amendment, simply because the amendment that I said we would look at and bring back at Report stage was a better definition than this. I think it is better that at least some definition remains in the Bill, so I shall not move the amendment standing in my name.
[Amendment No. 6 not moved.]
Lord Renton Lord Renton had given notice of his intention to move amendment No. 7:
Page 3, line 3, alter ("sensory") insert ("and").
The noble Lord said: In view of what has passed earlier and in view also of the carrying of Amendment No. 2 and the falling of Amendment No. 3, I do not think that it would be right for me to move Amendments Nos. 7, 8 or 9. Nevertheless I hope no one will misinterpret that. I reserve my position with regard to the mentally handicapped and the mentally ill. Therefore I do not move.
[Amendment No. 7 not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 not moved.]
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clauses 6 and 7 agreed to.
Clause 8—[Court Proceedings]:
Earl Attlee Earl Attlee moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 4, line 26, after ("hovercraft") insert ("which is registered in Great Britain").
The noble Earl said: this amendment is simply a clearing up amendment. The clause states:
"A county court or sheriff court shall have jurisdiction to entertain proceedings under subsection (1) with respect to an act done on a ship, aircraft or hovercraft outside its district, including such an act done outside Great Britain".
An act done outside Great Britain—how can that be? How can we pass legislation on foreign flag carriers in international waters? Your Lordships may remember that recently there was quite a fuss in the newspapers because the United States of America had passed a law stating that if British companies bought "hi-tech." equipment and installed it in the United Kingdom, before they could move that equipment from one office to another they had to obtain the permission of the State Department of the United States; which is obviously wrong.
When I was a sailor for five years, if I went to New York I would be asked on arrival whether it was my intention to overthrow the Government of the United States. I was quite happy to reply, "No". But if I had been asked that same question when I reached my home port of Liverpool, I would have been exceptionally annoyed because I do not think that any foreign country has any right to tell me in my own country what I can do. I do not believe that we in this country should tell foreign nationals what they can do on foreign flag-carrying vessels, aircraft and so on when they are outside our territorial waters. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: I should like to support the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, on this amendment, but before I speak to it I wonder whether I may say what a real pleasure it is to have him speaking here again in this House. We all enjoyed his maiden speech on Second Reading and we are thankful that that was not a finality. We hope that we shall have him speak again, especially on these matters. When I entered another place as long ago as 1945, I was approached by the Prime Minister of the day, the noble Earl's distinguished father, who came up to me in the Smoking Room one day and said: "I gather you were at Univ.", referring to the same college at Oxford that we were at. I thought how typical of that great man to refer to a young and humble Back-Bencher just arrived, when he was Prime Minister, and make contact with him in that way. I have never forgotten and I was always grateful.
Clause 80) is very widely drawn. I wonder whether Your Lordships appreciate quite how widely drawn it is. It means, as it stands, that if an act of discrimination takes place on any ship or aircraft, whatever its country of origin, under whatever flag it is registered and wherever in the world the act of discrimination takes place, the master of that ship or whoever on the ship was responsible for the alleged discrimination can, when that ship comes to our ports, be brought before our courts and sued for damages for an act of discrimination. The international implications of that seem to me to be hard to contemplate. I hope that the noble Earl, Lord Longford, will not only accept this amendment, but realise the whole implications of what is contained in subsection (4).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 9—[Meaning of "Discrimination"]:
Lord Stallard Lord Stallard moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 5, line 7, leave out paragraph (d) and insert—
("(d) he imposes conditions that will adversely affect people with disabilities to an unreasonable extent.").
The noble Lord said: I, too, can be brief because much of the argument that would have taken place on this amendment has already taken place. My amendment seeks to insert the words on the Marshalled List with one slight alteration, because of a typographical error in the first line, where it says:
"he imposes conditions that will adversely effect people".
To make that correct, it should read "affect".
As the paragraph was originally worded it attracted much criticism during the debate in another place and, as we have heard earlier this morning in this debate. If I have interpreted correctly the criticism both inside and outside your Lordships' House, it was that the wording of the amendments tended to imply too much positive discrimination in favour of the disabled: too much preferential treatment, it was felt, was being given to disabled people.
That is not the intention of the Bill or of the clause. It would be churlish to argue that a measure should not be introduced for the benefit of the population at large, if the disabled are not able to enjoy as much benefit from it as non-disabled people. This amendment seeks to correct that apparent churlishness of the clause as printed by introducing reasonableness—and this has been mentioned on many occasions in this morning's debate. This legislation, I would argue, does not give disabled people preferential treatment. What it is intended to do, and what it does, is to give them access to the law to secure equal treatment. I think there is a fairly subtle and important difference in the kind of approach and interpretation in the positive discrimination and affirmative action which may be required on occasion which would merely bring disabled people alongside the non-disabled persons. It would not give them an unfair advantage as far as non-disabled people are concerned. In my view, non-disabled people have nothing to fear. It seemed to me that there was this element creeping in, for some kind of reason, that they were afraid of this positive preferential treatment. I do not see it that way. I am certain that none of the organisations and individuals with whom I have discussed the Bill see it in that way, either.
I will give one example from an excellent document prepared by the Disablement Income Group who have worked extremely hard on this Bill—as they do on all similar measures; and we are grateful to them for their efforts. One of the examples they give is this. They say that if British Telecom, for instance, were to introduce charges for all directory inquiries and make no provision for blind people who depend upon the directory inquiry service to make full use of the telephone, everyone would have to pay. Sighted people can avoid this by looking up a number whereas blind people cannot. That is an excellent example of where this amendment would be relevant.
Another example from the same document says that the amendment would also get over the problem of the "No dogs" rule in flats or houses where this rule prevents blind people with guide dogs from living in those houses and flats. This amendment would get over this kind of difficulty. Those difficulties could not be handled under paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of Clause 9 but paragraph (d) would put it right and, in my view, improve it. I hope that with those few words, together

1003
with the discussions that we have had, the amendment will commend itself to the Committee.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Amendment proposed: Page 5, line 7, leave out paragraph (d) and insert the words on the Marshalled List and the manuscript amendment substituting the word "affect" for the word "effect" in the first line.
1.53 p.m.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): I should like to support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Stallard. I did not like the existing paragraph from the moment I saw it. First, I find it very difficult to understand and, in the second part, it really did seem to be unacceptable because I did not see why the able-bodied person should not benefit from some schemes which would benefit the disabled less. One could probably argue that precisely because of their disability disabled people are always going to benefit slightly less to some extent from any scheme which is not specifically designed to benefit the disabled.
The amendment of the noble Lord would ensure that the disabled do not suffer unduly from any scheme; and I am glad that it incorporates the concept of reasonableness because I think that this is very important. Another example that subsection (d) would cover would be the pedestrianisation of large areas, say, shopping precincts. This is very important because shopping areas which have been fully pedestrianised are in a sense wonderful for those in wheelchairs and on sticks and crutches because they have nice flat surfaces and access is easy. But it is a disaster if there is no parking nearby and perhaps worse for those on crutches and sticks than for those in wheelchairs. This can quite easily be solved by making the culs-de-sac which have been created by the pedestrianised area into parking places for the orange badge holders. This will be covered by Lord Stallard's amendment. I support it.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 9, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Renton: I had given notice of my intention to oppose this Question and my intention remains the same, in spite of the amendment just made which is undoubtedly an improvement. The basic trouble with Clause 9 is one which we come across very frequently in that it is an attempt to spell out all the hypothetical circumstances which might arise instead of leaving it to the court to decide in general terms whether or not there has been unreasonable discrimination. One could make a rather long technical speech about this, but I will spare your Lordships.
May I, however, refer to just some of the difficulties of interpretation that will arise undoubtedly if and when this clause were to come before the courts. In doing so, I must remind your Lordships of what I said earlier about the fact that litigation is not easy and involves controversy, delays, appeals and so on.
Let us consider some of the points. Look at subsection (1)(b) which reads—and one must use the word "if" to start off—If
"he discriminates against him on the basis of a characteristic that appertains generally to persons who have such a disability"—
1004
and I pause there. The court is going to have to receive evidence on characteristics which appertain generally to persons who have the particular kind of disability. Perhaps medical evidence will be called, psychological or psychiatric evidence. Besides the conflict of evidence, the court will have to reach a decision on the matter, a decision reconcilable in the conflict of evidence on the facts and a decision for which the best the court can do is to give a clear interpretation of this very imprecise term. Let us read on. It goes into further depths:
"or a presumed characteristic that is generally imputed to persons who have such a disability".
Goodness me! If I were sitting judicially I should not like to have to receive evidence on that and reach a decision on it. What is a "presumed characteristic"?
The Earl of Longford: May I make a suggestion in a desire to show, I suppose, how intelligent I am! Let us take West Indians. Some West Indians find it rather hard to make themselves understood, the young ones particularly, by people who are not as bright as they ought to be. It could be thought if a young West Indian went for a job he would be turned down and they would say. "Oh no, I cannot take you. You can't make yourself understood. You are a West Indian". It might be quite untrue of him but it might be a label attached, unfairly, if you like, to all people who are West Indians.
Lord Renton: The noble Earl has lifted the curtain upon the most remarkable possibilities. In the first place, I did not understand that this Bill referred to linguistic disadvantages. If we are going to blind ourselves to linguistic disadvantages and say that every time somebody possesses one they must nevertheless be turned down for a job in which linguistic capacity or an ability to speak our own language is an essential, then, my goodness, there will be disappointments on the part of potential litigants.
The Earl of Longford: I did not mean it to apply directly in the case of this Bill. I was trying to lay the concept before the noble Lord.
Lord Renton: If I may with the deepest respect presume to say so to the noble Earl, if he wants to find examples to illustrate the application of the Bill, he should find an example which comes within the terms of it; and clearly the one which he has chosen does not do so. I say that with deep respect. 9(1)(b) says:
"a presumed characteristic that is generally imputed".
Who is going to give evidence as to whether it is generally imputed? Is the court going to have to take judicial notice of it? Judicial notice is not easily extended. The courts are required to take judicial notice of many things—the rising of the sun, the phases of the moon, the tides and all sorts of things—but I do not think they could be required to take judicial notice of presumed characteristics that are generally imputed to persons who have a particular kind of disability.
However, the trouble does not end there, because we have to go to Clause (1)(c) to consider whether the person who discriminates has done so:
"by reason of the fact that he does not comply, or is not able to comply, with a requirement".

1005
I agree that is not so difficult, and in view of the telling speech by the noble Earl, Lord Snowdon, which we all heard with immense admiration, if I may say so, that is the kind of thing which would not be so difficult. But that is in the majority of cases. There would be some cases where it would be a matter of intense discussion. Then we come to subsection (1)(c)(i) which says:
"the nature of the requirement is such that a substantially higher proportion of persons who do not have such a disability complies, or is able to comply, with the requirement than of those persons who have such a disability,".
That raises three or four implications. I will not weary your Lordships with them because I have no desire to be legalistic. But this is a legalistic provision: and, in my submission, we would do better without it altogether. We would do better to leave the question of reasonableness for the courts to decide and not attempt to cover every hypothetical circumstance with these words which will lead to difficulties of interpretation.
Then we come to subsection (2). There is something here to which I must invite your Lordships' attention, because it says
"The Secretary of State may from time to time prescribe by regulations the action or inaction in areas covered by this Act that may he deemed not to constitute discrimination on grounds of disability; notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (1) of this section."
That in effect enables the Secretary of State to create lists of exemptions from the terms of the rest of Clause 9; and it is not until the Secretary of State has made that list of exemptions by regulations that people will really know where they stand. I think the courts will lean in this direction once regulations have been made. They will almost certainly say that anything not exempted must, prima facie, be presumed discriminatory. I maybe wrong about that—it is open to legal argument—but at least that is an interpretation which may well be put upon it sometimes by the courts.
One cannot deal fully with the need for Clause 9 without referring to Clause 10, because Clause 10 in effect amplifies Clause 9 and they really stand together. If, as I hope your Lordships will agree, Clause 9 should not stand part of the Bill, it would follow that Clause 10 could not stand part of the Bill.
A very strange thing arises of the timing of the coming into force of Clause 9 and Clause 10. If your Lordships will refer to Clause 19, which is the one that brings various clauses of the Bill into operation, you will see that Clause 9 is to come into force under subsection (3)(b) of Clause 19 after six months. But Clause 10 (which is a remaining one) is to come into force within two months: that is before Clause 9. So we have to assume that Clause 9 in any event will not come into force until the Secretary of State has made regulations under Clause 10 which will create exemptions to Clause 9. I am hoping I am making this clear enough in the simplest terms that I can.
One of the difficulties about Clause 10 which will be of great importance, and could in effect almost nullify the effect of Clause 9, is that Clause 10 coming into force by regulation is subject only to annulment in either House of Parliament and the negative procedure. We shall not be able to amend it. It will come into force automatically unless within 40 days a Prayer is moved in either House to prevent it from
1006
coming into force. There is a further source of confusion. It would be better if the regulations were subject to affirmative resolution, and we shall come to that later. I hope that I have said enough to point out that we should certainly do better without Clause 9.
Lord Ennals: I greatly admire the way in which the noble Lord has assiduously studied the Bill, which is exactly as it should be. Had he proposed in terms of amendments some of the comments that he has made, I might have had some sympathy with him and so, I believe, might my noble friend Lord Longford. But the proposal that the clause should be simply deleted is totally illogical and thoroughly unsatisfactory.
Earlier clauses have established that it is unlawful to discriminate against certain disabled people. First, a new offence has been created. Secondly, we have voted to set up a commission to investigate alleged acts of discrimination, as well as to do lots of other profitable things. Thirdly, we have given the Secretary of State powers as set out in Clause 6, and we have given him other powers which are set out in Clause 7. If your Lordships were then to fail to describe the meaning of "discrimination", it would leave the commission, which your Lordships have decided should be established, and the Secretary of State, with powers which they are obliged to use, without the guidance of Parliament on what is and what is not discrimination.
If the noble Lord feels that there are some parts of Clause 9 which should be worded in another way, then his method of approach at Report stage—with his legal abilities, which we all respect—is to come forward with an amendment. I wish that he had done so today, because that is the best way of acting at Committee stage. But to delete the clause would leave a yawning gap in the Bill. It would put an intolerable burden upon the commission and an utterly unfair burden upon the Secretary of State and. I add finally, upon the courts. I said "I add finally, upon the courts", because we must have legislation which defines discrimination and which the courts can properly interpret. But I lay much more emphasis on the other work that will not be done before the courts. That is why I say that we must have a fair definition and I hope that the noble Lord will apply his very active mind and come along at Report stage. But I could not for a moment—and I know that this applies to my noble friend—accept the proposal that the clause should be deleted. It would make nonsense of the Bill.
Lord Renton: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his opening remarks. I did not do quite as well as he was kind enough to say, because I should have said in relation to Clause 10 that it is not merely exemptions that can he made under Clause 10, as they can under subsection (2) of Clause 9, but it is such modifications as are necessary that can be made. That leaves us somewhat in the dark. What modifications? Who will decide whether they are requisite? So the combination of these two clauses is very confusion at the moment.
The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, both on Second Reading and later today, as well as other noble Lords, has said that Clause 9 simply will not do as it stands. My solution would be to do what I did altogether, but, as a compromise with the view put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, I should have been prepared.

1007
if somebody else had drafted it—because I do not hold myself out as being competent to do so—to find a compendious way which would lead the courts in simple terms to the matter which really has to be decided, which is unreasonable circumstances whenever they arise; perhaps with some qualification, but certainly not in these terms, which give rise to endless complicated issues. It would not he fair to the disabled to leave Clause 9 as it is, and, rather than run the risk of that happening, I suggest that your Lordships should leave it out.
2.14 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 9, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 40; Not-Contents, 33.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Ampthill, L.

Jeger, B.

Attlee, E.

Kearton, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Beswick, L.

Lawrence, L.

Boothby, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B

Brockway, L.

Lockwood, B.

Collison, L.

Longford, E.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Cottesloe, L.

Phillips, B.

Crowther-Hunt, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Ennals, L. [Teller.]

Snowdon, E.

Gaitskell, B.

Stallard, L. [Teller.]

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Stodddart of Swindon, L.

Grimond, L.

Stone, L.

Hale, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hanworth, V.

Underhill, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Wigoder, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Long, V.

Cork and Orrery, E. [Teller.]

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Craigavon, V.

Mancroft, L.

De Freyne, L.

Marley, L.

Denham, L.

Merrivale, L.

Elton, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Enniskillen, E.

O'Brien of Lothbury, L.

Halsbury, E.

Portland, D.

Harvey of Prestbury, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Renton, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Romney, E.

Howard of Henderskelfe, L. [Teller.]

Segal, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Killearn, L.

Stamp, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Trumpington, B.

Lane-Fox, B.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Lauderdale, L.

Westbury, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Clause 9, as amended, agreed to accordingly.
2.23 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 10 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Renton: To ease your Lordships' minds, I do not intend to divide the Committee on this "clause stand part" motion, but I should like to ask the noble Earl whether he will explain Clause 10; it would help
1008
very much. What modifications does he have in mind when he says in Clause 10:
"Section 9 of this Act relating to discrimination … is to be read as applying equally to anyone discriminated against on the grounds of disability".
That is plain enough so far, but the later words require explanation:
"and for that purpose shall have effect with such modifications as are requisite".
These modifications seem to be clasped out of the air and I am not quite sure how they are to be brought about. I do not understand, and it is not stated, who will decide whether they are requisite. I feel that this clause does need more explanation in order to answer those points.
Lord Ennals: This is a difficult concept and it was inserted in order to be fair, because if one has legislation which says that it is an offence to discriminate against someone who is disabled on the grounds that we have already defined in the Bill, someone else may feel, as a result of a disabled person not being discriminated against, that they have been discriminated against. We are in fact dealing with negative discrimination, and this is, in a sense, to legalise positive discrimination in favour of disabled people, even though others might in consequence be discriminated against. I. personally—I can speak only personally on this, and in any case it is Private Member's Bill—do not feel very deeply about this clause. I would not go into the Division Lobby and I am glad, therefore, that the noble Lord is not going to press it to a Division. I will ask my noble friend whether he will look at it again before we come to Report. I think this is a confusing concept, and we do not want to add any confusion to the Bill.
The Earl of Longford: May I just say that I shall be pleased to look at it again. At the moment I stand firm on it, but I am perfectly ready to look at it again.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): I feel quite strongly that this clause, should stand part of the Bill. It is very important that the able-bodied also come into it; as Section 2 of the Sex Discrimination Act applied to men, so this would make the Act apply to the non-disabled. It would also, I think, apply to families of disabled people. Say an able-bodied family with a handicapped child was refused accommodation on the grounds of that child's handicap, it would be the able-bodied parents who would need this section. A person who is at risk from an inherited disease but who has not actually manifested any of the signs of that disease might be discriminated against on those grounds, although he would not qualify as disabled at that time. I know nobody else is really with me on this matter, but I feel strongly that the clause should stand part.
Lord Renton: The noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), has mentioned circumstances with which I am familiar, because in a large block of flats in Westminster we had a flat on which there was a lease in which it was written that "no person of unsound mind shall be admitted," but we regularly took our mentally handicapped daughter there. Nothing ever happened, and I knew it would not happen, because she had no behaviour problem. If the landlords had

1009
tried to turn us out I would have obtained relief against forfeiture of the lease from the court. So, quite frankly, that does not present a problem in practice with our courts, with their very equitable jurisdiction.
Lord Ennals: May I ask the noble Lord this question? If he were not a noble Lord, or even, as he was before, a Member of the House of Commons, but maybe a modest person less able to speak with great clarity and perhaps even loudly on occasions—though I have never heard the noble Lord speak loudly—does he not think that there should be such a provision for ordinary human beings?
Lord Renton: No, I think the noble Lord dishonours the people of our country when he says so. I have never heard of a clause like that being enforced, although it is right that there should be such a clause because there are people, both mentally ill and mentally handicapped people, who can create a frightful disturbance in a block of flats. It is right that the landlords should have that up their sleeve. But it was obviously too widely drawn in that case.
I think the fear which the noble Lord has expressed is an unfounded one in practice, and I speak from very long experience of practice. II I may use what I regard as the now operative word in this Bill, may I say that the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, and the noble Earl have both been reasonable in their attitude to my comments on this clause. I am living in hope that their reasonableness will survive.
Clause 10 agreed to.
Clause 11 [Regulations]:
On Question, Whether Clause 11 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Renton: I do not intend to detain your Lordships further but I said earlier that it is not good enough for the regulations under this Bill, which are of vast importance and many of them can be made, to be merely subject to annulment by the negative procedure. After all, let us consider the various places in the Bill where the Secretary of State can make regulations. Indeed, he can make regulations which will enable the law to be altered, and altered substantially. To have that merely the subject of a negative resolution is not good enough, and I hope that between now and Report the noble Earl will consider amending the Bill so that regulations are subject to an affirmative resolution.
Clause 11 agreed to.
Clause 12 [Amendments to section 1 of the 1970 Act]:
Lord Stallard Lord Stallard moved Amendment No. 12:
Leave out Clause 12 and insert the following new clause:
("Amendments to section 1 of the 1970 Act.
12.—(1) In section 1(1) of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 after the words "within their area and- there shall be inserted the words "so far as reasonably practicable, of the identity of such persons and".
(2) At the end of section 1(1) of that Act there shall be added the following words—
"and shall inform every such person of the facilities and services available to him".
(3) At the end of section 1(1) of that Act there shall be added the following new subsections:—
"(1A) It shall be the duty of every local authority which finds it is not practicable to provide within its area the special therapy, rehabilitative or educational facilities that are required to meet the needs of the disabled persons residing in its area:

(i) to inform the disabled person or his parent when the disabled person is under the age of 18 years of such facilities which are available to him in another area or owned or managed by a particular voluntary organisation and which meet his specific needs: and

(ii) to make suitable arrangements with a local authority or a particular voluntary organisation that owns and manages such facilities and that is willing to make such facilities available so that the disabled persons residing in its area shall have access thereto and the local authority shall meet the fees and other necessary costs thereby incurred.

(1B) Where it is not practicable for a local authority to provide in its area the special therapy, rehabilitative or educational facilities in its area or where a local authority is unable to secure the use of such facilities as provided for in subsection (1A) above it shall be the duty of the local authority to promote in conjunction with other local and statutory authorities or bodies and with voluntary organisations concerned with the interest of the disabled person requiring the use of such facilities to serve the needs of disabled persons who reside in the area of the local authority and in an area or areas which are conveniently associated.
(1C)(i) If a disabled person or the parent of a disabled person under the age of 18 years asks the local authority to arrange for an assessment to be made of the disabled person's needs the local authority shall within 6 months of the date of the request comply with the request unless it is in their opinion unreasonable.
(ii) Assessments under this sub-section shall be made in accordance with guidelines to be laid down in Regulations to be made by the Secretary of State on the ways in which identification and assessment of disabled persons shall be undertaken.
(1D)(i) Every local authority shall make arrangements for a disabled person or his parent to appeal if after making an assessment of the special needs of a disabled person under this section the local authority decides that it is not required to provide or arrange for the use of the special facilities required by this section.
(ii) A local authority shall inform the disabled person or his parent in writing of its decision and the reasons for its decision and of his rights to refer it to an appeal committee.
(iii) An appeal by virtue of this subsection shall be to an appeal committee appointed by the local authority which shall be constituted in accordance with guidelines to be laid down in Regulations to be made by the Secretary of State."
(4) Subsection (2)(b) of section 1 of that Act shall be omitted.").
The noble Lord said: Although this is a fairly long amendment on the Marshalled List it is a re-written version of the existing clause to improve the drafting of it without necessarily altering the sense so that the wording is tidied up to make it more acceptable, in Parliamentary draftsmanship terms.
It is on the sense of the clause that I wish to say a few words. The first part of the new clause amends Section 1 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970, so that "so far as reasonably practicable" local authorities will identify disabled persons in their area and find out more information about the disabled population in their area. We know that many of the better local authorities already do this. Indeed, the amendment brings the law of England, Scotland and Wales into line with existing Northern Ireland legislation. Therefore, the machinery already exists in both those instances for the gathering of information on disabled people. What is wrong at the moment is that it is not adequately utilised in most cases and that is what we attempt to correct in the first part of the

1011
amendment. I believe it was Professor Townsend who once said—I am paraphrasing his words—that we have a very subtle and elaborate form of discrimination against the disabled in this country; we do not even count them. That is about right. This part of the amendment seeks to put that right in order to get local authorities to implement this necessary identification of the disabled and their needs.
The proposed changes in that respect have been criticised on the basis of cost, as everything is. We could argue from now until doomsday about the social cost, when cost is necessary and what is or is not necessary. I have not seen any scientific reply to this argument about cost. I was in the Chamber in another place recently when the Minister replied to a Question about cost. He was asked how he estimated the cost of £30 million to conduct these surveys on the part of local authorities. He was asked how he arrived at that figure. He said:
"The answer … is that the basis of the calculation was that it cost £750,000 to conduct such surveys for 1·5 million people in Northern Ireland. By a simple arithmetical process we calculated roughly what it would cost for … Great Britain".—[Official Report, Commons. 31/1/84; col. 122.]
None of us, certainly not from the kind of discussion we have had this morning, would accept that as a scientific analysis of the cost of a survey. Nor do we accept it.
There are other surveys that put the cost as low as £4 million, so there is a great discrepancy between the Minister's simple arithmetic and the much more complicated and scientific approach carried out by voluntary organisations and others who work in this field with their realistic estimates of between £3 million and £4 million. So we ought not to put too much store on the Government spokesman's estimated cost for this survey.
The second part of the suggested new clause would extend the existing responsibility of the local authority to inform disabled people as to what services it provides to include services provided by all other organisations. It is not good enough for the local authority to say only what services it provides. We want it to say what services are available in the area generally, whether provided by voluntary organisations, and so on. We want to include that provision.
The suggested new subsection (1A) is aimed particularly at the problems faced by minority handicappped groups. I pay tribute to the National Association for Deaf-Blind and Rubella Handicapped, which has done much of the work in drawing attention to the problems faced by a minority group. There are also the spastics, and many other groups. Noble Lords can probably think of other examples. But the National Association for Deaf-Blind and Rubella Handicapped has been exceedingly helpful in bringing the problem to our attention.
Because of the small number of young adults involved in this particular case, it may not be justified to insist that the local authority provides services in the area. There may be only three, four or five, or even just one, in a particular minority group. We therefore ask for national or regional planning to take care of the
1012
needs of the smaller minority groups. Having identified the group, and informed its members of the facilities that are available, we have to make sure that they are available. That involves national and regional planning and the setting up of special provisions. Rather than leaving the voluntary organisations to deal with these problems, we feel that it should be written into the Bill that local authorities and the Government have a responsibility to provide facilities, and, in the case of local authorities, to fund the people identified as needing these facilities, wherever they may be. It should provide the finance for the one or two youngsters in the area to be sent to the nearest facility, wherever that may be.
The final difficulty that might arise in the interpretation of the clause is the problem of assessment of the disabled person. We are indebted to RADAR, which has been mentioned a number of times today. It has a code of guidance in relation to assessment procedures which the best of the local authorities already follow. One proposed new subsection in the amendment would seek to legalise the code of practice in order to improve overall standards or to bring all authorities up to a good standard.
New subsection (1D) recognises the fact that, by itself, the code of practice may not be sufficient, and it would introduce an appeals procedure. That is something that is lacking in many of the provisions for the disabled. They have nowhere to go to appeal against a decision. Again, the National Association for Deaf-Blind and Rubella Handicapped suggests that an appeals procedure could be on lines similar to those laid down in the Education Act 1981. Your Lordships will be conversant with that provision, so I shall not go into it in detail. It seems to me to be an excellent basis on which to found the appeals procedure.
I hope that this new clause and the explanations which I have tried, however inadequately, to give, will commend themselves to your Lordships. The voluntary organisations and local authorities involved have welcomed the proposals in the new clause, and I hope that in the same spirit the new clause will be welcomed by your Lordships' Committee. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 13 agreed to.
2.40 p.m.
Clause 14 [Local Authority charges for services]:
The Earl of Longford The Earl of Longford moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 7, line 31, leave out ("Without prejudice to") and insert ("Notwithstanding").
The noble Earl said: This is a technical amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Longford The Earl of Longford moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 7, line 32, at end insert ("(or, in the case of Scotland, section 87 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968)")
The noble Earl said: This, too, is a technical amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 14, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 15 [Composition of Social Security Advisory Committee]:
On Question, Whether Clause 15 shall stand part of the Bill?
Earl Attlee: I oppose the Motion, That Clause 15 shall stand part of the Bill, because word for word it is contained in paragraph 3(1) and (2) of Schedule 3 to the Social Security Act 1971.
Clause 15 disagreed to.
Clause 16 agreed to.
Earl Attlee Earl Attlee moved Amendment No. 15:
After Clause 16, insert the following new clause:—
("Hospital accommodation.
.—After section 17(1) of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970, there shall be inserted the following subsection:—
"(1A) so far as is practical, a person of whatever age suffering from a condition of chronic illness or disability shall not be cared for in the same hospital as patients suffering from mental illness which manifests itself in bouts of shouting or screaming or other noise so as to cause distress, inconvenience or annoyance to other patients not so afflicted and to inflict undue burden and stress on nursing staff, where necessary and specialised facilities and staff specifically trained for such duties are not readily available".")
The noble Earl said: I apologise for the drafting defects in this amendment, but this is the first time that I have tried to draft an amendment. Basically, Section 17 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 separates young patients from older ones, and though it does not state how old the younger people are, it states that older people are those who are aged 65 or over or who are suffering from the effects of premature ageing. I do not know why it was decided to separate the young from the old, though I should imagine that it was because the requirements of the young are different from those of the old. One can imagine that the young people probably like loud music and watching television, while the old people want a quieter life and are not really interested in music.
The trouble is that at the moment there is no law which separates certain patients who are in-patients in hospitals from other kinds of patients. I am referring specifically to some patients who have a disability which causes them to scream usually very loudly and for prolonged periods. I would not swear to this, but I believe that what these people suffer from is called either senile dementia or premature senile dementia. If even only one patient who suffers from this unfortunate malaise is put in with a whole lot of other patients who may be in hospital only because of some physical disability, such as muscular dystrophy, that one patient can disrupt the whole hospital.
My amendment is merely to get these unfortunate people moved to a hospital where they are better able to be looked after by the nursing staff. I know of one particular case of a girl who screams for two hours on end while she is being bathed and dressed. The result is that the patients themselves are upset, and when the nursing staff return to look after the ordinary patients, the nursing sisters' hands are shaking and their nerves are shot to shreds. This does not seem to me to be right. Therefore, if my amendment is accepted, people with this type of disease would go to a special hospital.
It may sound as though I am being cruel and thoughtless, but I am given to understand that such
1014
people have very short memories, so short in fact that if such a person were to go out one day—and going out is a great thing for them—and one asked him the following day if he had enjoyed himself, he would say, "What do you mean?". One says, "Well, you went out yesterday" and he would say "Oh, did I?" So if these people are taken away from one environment and put into another, I honestly do not think they will miss the first one at all. Therefore, I beg to move.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: It is very sad that this amendment had had to be put forward, because surely this is a bad management matter at district hospital level. Someone who shouts and screams should be put into a side ward so that he or she does not disturb the other patients. There are some problem patients, such as those unfortunate people who suffer head injuries and nobody quite knows which hospital to put them in. The big problem is when some hospitals do not have enough room to make a private place. I hope that as this is a health matter the Minister will speak to the amendment.
Earl Attlee: If I may refer back to what the noble Baroness has said, I should like to point out that in the hospital to which I was referring all the patients are in separate rooms and, so far as I know, there are not any big wards, although there may be some. But the person who has these screaming fits is in a private room. If these rooms were well soundproofed it would be all right, but they are not soundproofed and the girl's screams can be heard throughout the hospital. But I, too, would welcome comment by the noble Minister.
On Question, amendment negatived.
Clauses 17 and 18 agreed to.
Clause 19 [Short title, extent and commencement]:
2.48 p.m.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth)Baroness Darcy (de Knayth) moved Amendments
Nos. 16 and 17 together:
Page 9, line 7, leave out ("9").
Page 9, line 7, leave out ("and 16") and insert ("16 and 17").
The noble Baroness said: With the leave of the Committee, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 16 and 17 together. They are extremely simple, almost drafting amendments because they are to correct an error. It always should have read "17", and not "9" at the beginning. It was never intended that Section 9 should come into force six months after the date on which the Act is passed as it stands at the moment, because that would make Section 1, outlawing discrimination, come into force a good four months before the definition of discrimination, which would plainly be ridiculous. Section 17 applies to Scotland and it was always intended that this should come into force six months after, to give a hit more time to Scotland. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 19, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with the amendments.

Pensions Commutation Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Recreational Gardening Bill [H.L.]
2.50 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill he now read a second time. On 17th March 1976 I was privileged to initiate a short debate on allotment gardens and home food production. Time and time again in the debate the need for up-to-date legislation on allotments was stressed. A particularly emphatic speech was made by the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, who pointed out the urgent need to implement the Thorpe report, the recommendations of which have been accepted and praised by various governments but unfortunately never implemented.
The late Professor Harry Thorpe was present at that debate in 1976. He was delighted with the unanimous support of noble Lords and their speeches, and subsequently used the Hansard report as the basis of an address to an international conference in Luxembourg very shortly afterwards. The then Minister, my noble friend Lady, Birk, showed enthusiasm and even indicated that legislation could come along in due course. But—alas!—it never did. However, that is not unusual. Similar promises have been made since 1971: Mr Graham Page, MP, on 28th July 1971 and 5th May 1972; confirmed in a letter from the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, to Mr Toby Jessel MP, dated 14th November 1972; the noble Baroness. Lady Young, in a letter to Mr Toby Jessel dated 27th July 1972; and Mr Tom King. MP, speaking in the House of Commons Standing Committee D at col. 46 of Hansard on 12th February 1980. It might interest noble Lords if I quote what he said: I quote from col. 46 of that Standing Committee on 12th February 1980. I do this particuarly because my noble friend who will speak for the Opposition was involved. Mr King said:
"The hon. Member for Edmonton asked what we intended to do about the Thorpe report. At present, we are considering comprehensive legislation to take in the Thorpe report. There has been in the background of the Government's thinking for some time what is called a recreational gardening Bill, familiar to both Administrations. The 1969 Thorpe report Ills not been jumped upon by either parts with great alacrity."
This is the point I want to stress:
"This reforming, radical Administration is looking at it seriously, but I cannot give any commitment about it".
I am now looking to the radical reforming Administration for a little moral support.
To sum up the matter in a few words, nothing has happened, and so this Bill is presented in good faith and. I would stress, with great goodwill. Allotment legislation is out of date mainly because of social changes in Britain. No more is it a provision for the poor, but it is now a healthy and productive recreation as a result of which many thousands of men and women enjoy fresh air and honest down-to-earth labour, and it provides fresh produce to the further enhancement of their and their families' health. In addition of course Allotments Acts need to be brought
1016
up to date to line up with much recent local goverment legislation.
Great effort has gone into the preparation of this Bill, thanks to the London Association of Recreational Gardeners of which I have the honour to be president, and their enthusiastic secretary, Mr. Tom Hume. I have also to declare an interest as my daughter is joining the increasing number of women who have taken over allotment plots, and I have not the slightest doubt whatever that I shall be involved in the family plot.
As quickly as possible, I shall now outline the provisions of the Bill. Clause 1 is designed to give local authorities precise directions as to their duties as allotment authorities; namely, to provide sufficient allotment gardens to satisfy, the demand for them. The clause will supersede Section 23 of the Small Holdings and Allotments Act 1908, and accordingly Section 23 is included in the repeals in Schedule 2. The reason is that experience has shown that there is a lack of positive legislative direction as to the provision of allotment gardens.
Allotment provisions has not received the consideration recommended by Her Majesty's Government. Allotment gardening is statistically the most popular and satisfying of active outdoor recreations provided by local authorities, and it is felt that Government exhortations now need to be reinforced by a statutory duty to require allotment needs to be met. The effect of Clause 2(1) will require allotment authorities to keep separate accounts of their receipts and expenditure with respect to allotment gardens, and provides that allotment monies may not be transferred from the allotment account to be used for other purposes unless the district auditor is satisfied that allotment needs have been met. These provisions will apply not only to allotment gardens directly managed by allotment authorities but also—where management is devolved, for example—to an allotments organisation. At present allotment authorities are not obliged to keep separate accounts in respect of allotment gardens.
The net income—if we may, call it profit—from allotment gardens can be automatically transferred to the general rate fund, when it may be used for purposes other than the allotment service. The first call on allotment garden rent monies should be the improvement of existing sites to bring them up to an appropriate standard with respect to fencing, water supply, access, et cetera. When statutory or permanent allotment garden land is sold, the first call on the proceeds of the sale should be the provision of alternative land for the displaced plot holders, or the improvement of existing land. This was confirmed on behalf of the Government on the 14th February 1980 in Standing Committee D. and the reference in Hansard is col. 102, but I shall not deal with that in detail unless requested later.
Much allotment garden land has in the past been acquired by allotment authorities by deed of gift, by legacy, or under the terms of a charitable trust. When such land is sold, if the wishes of the original benefactors are to be observed, then the proceeds should be devoted to allotment purposes and not used for other purposes unless and until the allotment

1017
garden needs of the local population have been fully realised.
Then I come to Clause 2(2). This subsection will require allotment authorities to make their allotment garden accounts available to public inspection. This reflects the standard practice with regard to public availability of local authority accounts. Clause 3 is quite important. It w ill require the Secretary of State for the Environment to publish annually a limited statement of statistics with respect to the numbers and areas of allotment gardens, and the number of people who desire to rent an allotment garden.
At the moment, as the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, and others pointed out in a debate some time ago, there are very few statistics available. Up-to-date statistics of allotment gardening are essential for the following important reasons. When preparing planning statements, for example, structure and local plans and regional recreational strategy, it is essential that the demand for allotment gardens is known to enable the appropriate provisions to be made. Also they are required for use in submission at public inquiries where the facility of being able to put the allotment situation into perspective both locally and nationally is most essential.
The White Paper, Food From Our Own Resources, highlighted the need for statistical information on domestic food production which could only be assessed on information derived from allotment statistics. There is generally an increasing awareness of the importance and value of allotment statistics.
Clause 4 is a key clause. The clause adds allotment gardens to the standard list of recreational facilities which is contained in Section 19 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976. This clause makes clear that allotment gardening has the same status as other recreation and should be financed accordingly. Successive Governments have accepted allotment gardening as a recreational pursuit and the amendment in Clause 4 is a logical consequence of that acceptance. There was a case in the High Court where the learned judge decided on a case because his view was that allotment gardening was a recreation.
Clause 5 is quite important in the sense that it removes the disability on councillors from speaking or voting when they are the tenant of an allotment garden and wish to discuss and vote on allotment gardens which are before a council, provided that a councillor discloses his interest. This disability on councillors who are tenants of allotment gardens is contrary to the recreational status of allotment gardens. If a councillor plays tennis or bowls or carries out other recreational activities offered by a local authority, he is not expected to declare an interest, nor does he have to.
Clause 6 gives statutory effect to the amendments to Schedule 1 to which I shall come later.
Clause 7 contains the usual technical provisions common to all Acts of Parliament.
Schedule 1, paragraph 1, adds two new subsections to Section 28 of the 1908 Act. New subsection (5) enables the Secretary of State to prescribe model rules which local authorities may follow in order to lay
1018
down the conditions under which allotment gardens are let. New subsection (6) permits local authorities to adopt the model rules without formality, but a local authority is required to submit the rules for confirmation if they want to vary the implementation of the model. They then have to submit the rules for variation to the Minister for confirmation under Section 236 of the Local Government Act 1972.
Experience has shown that local authorities often wish to include in the rules provisions that are contrary to the requirements laid down in the Allotments Act. Some safeguards in the interests of both local authorities and allotment garden tenants are required. The practice of submitting for confirmation only those rules which contain novel features is in line with current Government proposals for the confirmation of by-laws. Authorities will then be encouraged to save administrative costs by adopting the model rules as they stand.
In regard to Schedule 1(2)(1), the amendment made here will update the Act by enabling parish and community councils, London borough councils and the Greater London Council to assist and make grants to allotment associations. At present, only county and district councils may assist in making grants to allotment associations. As to Schedule 1(2)(2), there is a growing tendency for allotment societies—and this is quite important—to devolve the management of allotment garden sites to allotment associations. This is a practice to be encouraged as it enables allotment garden sites to be managed more efficiently, often to the financial advantage of both the local authority and the allotment garden tenant. This sub-paragraph will give further encouragement to the practice of devolved management. The actual arrangements for devolved management are a matter between the allotment associations and the local authorities. They come to agreement and then the allotment associations will carry on the council's work.
I turn to Schedule (1)(2)(3). This sub-paragraph will empower the Sports Council to make grants to the allotment associations. The Sports Council are presently of the view that the development of allotment gardens and associated facilities do not come within the Sports Council's terms of reference. The report of the Departmental Committee of Inquiry into Allotments 1969 (CMND. 4166), the Thorpe Report, recommended that allotment gardening should be regarded as a recreational pursuit and be financed in line with other recreations. There is another important point, and at my age and time of life, it becomes very important—and this may apply also to other noble Lords. Allotment recreational gardening is often the only recreation of the 50-plus age group, who deserve just as much consideration from the Sports Council as any other group. The Sports Council's list of recreations include a number of recreational pursuits analogous to recreational gardening; for example, caving, dance and movement, hang-gliding, mountaineering, rambling and wild fowling. Why should recreational gardening be omitted?
In regard to Schedule 1(3), this paragraph provides that when an allotment garden tenancy is terminated the former tenant will be entitled to receive compensation for any structure, fencing or

1019
improvement that he has made at his own expense. At present, on quitting his allotment the tenant is entitled to receive compensation only for crops growing on the land and for any fertiliser applied to the land. As to Schedule (1)(4), at present, the maximum fine for criminal damage to an allotment site is £25. This is totally inadequate. The standard scale for fines for summary offences was introduced by Section 37 of the Criminal Justice Act 1982 and the paragraph fully accords with that section. On Schedule 1(5), this paragraph brings the definition of an allotment garden into line with present-day requirements.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell us how the 500 square metres compares with the present one-eighth and one-quarter of an acre? I realise that I am very ignorant in asking that, but it would help.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, subject to correction—and I add that because I will then advise the noble and learned Lord—I assume that it is up to the standard of the 10-rod plot which is the standard size presently enjoyed. But we are in the age of metres and that causes complication, particularly to me. Anyway, if there is any change on that, I will advise the noble and learned Lord. The maximum size of an allotment garden is reduced from 40 to 20 poles, which is the Thorpe Report recommendation. It is made clear that allotment land must be suitable for cultivation, have vehicular access, fencing, a water supply and so on. Furthermore, tenants are permitted to grow flowers as well as fruit and vegetables.
There may be an argument over wholly growing flowers: that is a question for the model rules to be settled with the local authority. I have no objection to anybody growing flowers. A chap who lives with his wife and family in a flat or a maisonette with a small garden or with no garden at all will find it very nice to be able to grow his own flowers and to give a bunch to his wife to ease the burden of carrying the can for the family seven days a week without pay and without a union. So I am all in favour of giving one's wife flowers. A legislative amendment on these lines is long overdue.
Schedule 1, paragraph 6, provides that the statutory safeguards on the disposal of permanent allotments will apply to allotment land acquired by deed of gift or legacy, as they apply to land purchased or appropriated for allotments.
Schedule 1, paragraph 7: the effect of this is that allotment rents must reflect the recreational status of allotment gardening. Some local authorities mistakenly believe that allotment gardening is a highly profitable activity. This is a total misconception. The Thorpe Report states that the "average" allotment-holder spends between 400 and 500 hours per annum on his allotment. It is pertinent to ask what other spare-time activity receives as much attention from its adherents. One also has to provide seeds, fertiliser and many other things. I have my own specialised method, for example, of growing early peas, which robs the birds of a feast but I then have to pay for nuts as an alternative diet. As a result, I get twice as many peas on the average as the person who puts them into the ground in the ordinary way. Any noble Lord
1020
approaching me afterwards can, for the slight consideration of a cheap coffee, receive details of this process. There are many other special ways of doing things which are costly but they give the satisfaction of a good crop. When a family can sit down to eat, as mine did at Christmas, early peas (Little Marvel) as fresh as the day they were plucked from the plants, it gives one a great deal of satisfaction. It does not matter about cost: it is the personal satisfaction that does you good and gives you that healthy outlook on life. I will not go on further about that, otherwise I shall be holding up the House for some time.
Schedule 2, first repeal: Section 23 of the 1908 Act is being replaced by Clause 1 of this Bill. Schedule 2, second repeal: this removes the need for Treasury consent to Government grants paid to allotment cooperatives. I gather that no grants have ever been paid either by the Sports Council or by the Secretary of State.
Schedule 2, third repeal: this provides that Section 28 of the Land Settlement (Facilities) Act 1919 will cease to have effect. That section creates an artificial distinction between allotment land and open space land. This repeal enables allotment land for which the demand is reduced, to be used for open space purposes and, when the demand for allotments revives, permits open space to be taken for allotments without formality. The repeal also dispenses with some very bureaucratic Government controls which are presently contained in Section 28.
Schedule 2, final repeal: at present, if a prosecution is to succeed under Section 19 of the Allotments Act 1922, a notice must be displayed. The repeal removes the need to display the notice. This repeal accords with the modern requirements of the criminal law as exemplified, for example, by the Criminal Damage Act 1971. I have been very brief, I must apologise to your Lordships because all the week I have been suffering from a very heavy cold, and that has not been improved by the problems of waiting for this debate.
That is an outline of this Bill. I have already stated that it is introduced in a spirit of goodwill and co-operation, and all I am asking is that the Government extend the same goodwill and co-operation as I have done. On the details of the Bill, there is not the slightest reason why we should not work together. This is a Bill which is in the general interests of allotment holders and is for the advancement of social recreation for a large number of people who have not yet had an opportunity of going in for this delightful and healthy recreation. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved. That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Wallace of Coslany.)
3.15 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I should like to congratulate the noble Lord on producing this Bill. First, it gives us an opportunity to discuss a most important subject, which he has given us before in this House, and a Bill of this kind is certainly overdue. Since the passing of the 1908 Act, there have been six further amending Acts passed up until the Allotments Act 1950, as well as other pieces of legislation before and since. The whole subject has

1021
become extraordinarily complex and there is a need for the legislation to be simplified and consolidated.
The record of my party over the years in this field is a good one. We have always held very strongly to the importance of both allotments and smallholdings. We have felt that the whole movement is extremely important and that importance is not declining over the years. It is undoubtedly to the benefit of this country to be able to support ourselves as much as possible. It is not only in wartime that benefit is found. A country which is not capable of supporting its own population is in a fundamentally unhealthy situation. It is, so to speak, the basis of that country's wealth; and if the basis is not adequate, the whole economic state of the country immediately becomes rather less fundamentally sound than it would otherwise be.
We are not used to thinking of ourselves in this sense of being founded on the food producing capacity of our country, but it is important; and, in the sphere of allotments, we very much underrate the amount which allotments contribute. Certainly, it is over 10 per cent. of the food consumed in this country, according to the only serious study of this subject, which is more than most people would give credit for. Also, at the same time as concentrating on producing for ourselves, we shall probably need to rely less on imported foods from other countries.
There is a growing realisation that not only is dependence on other countries for food imports bad for us, but it is not necessarily good for them. At this moment, also, we have the problem of unemployment and the difficulties in our inner cities. Here over the years it will become more and more necessary for us to provide opportunities for people to grow their own food and to work productively when there is no other work for them to do.
The demand for allotments appears to go in 10-year cycles. At the moment, we are in the middle of a cycle where supply is outstripping demand. In 1979, there were 120,000 people in Britain waiting for land and the provision of allotments declined by 10,000 acres. For example, in Coventry there was a waiting list of 2,000 in 1978–79, yet today there are between 200 and 300 vacant plots, and the same trend is repeated nationally. However, there is one constant which is that the amount of land available for allotments is in decline. If the cycle follows its usual trend, possibly helped by our present economic situation, it is likely that within the next five years this country will again be facing a serious shortage of allotments and we should be preparing legislation on that basis.
Although I understand the reasons and certainly would not cavil at it, it is a pity that the Bill is centred on the name "recreational gardening". One of the reasons why it is problematical is that we already have, and are going to have over the next few years, growing trouble over the use of words like "work", "leisure" and "recreation". In a world where full-time paid work is probably not going to be available for more than half of the population at the most, the useful and creative work which people can do cannot just be pushed aside under terms that we have used in the past to describe matters of rather less importance. That is not to say that "recreational gardening" is not a good and accurate term, because it does re-create in many
1022
ways. Of all the various leisure-type activities, gardening and food growing can earn the title of recreating rather more thoroughly than most.
Having said how much I welcome the Bill in order to bring the legislation up to date, I have to add that my party finds one major part of it totally unacceptable. It is, I regret to say, embedded in clause 1:
"The council … shall maintain a register of persons … and shall purchase or appropriate to allotments' use sufficient land to satisfy the demand indicated therein, and shall let that land as allotment gardens to such persons".
The Bill lays a statutory duty on local councils to provide allotment gardens. My party is a party of devolution. We believe that as much as possible should be left to local government itself. It should be able to make up its mind as to what it is to do and how it is to do it. We should be very much in favour of plenty of carrots and even the occasional stick in helping local government to do these things, but we believe that basically it is up to local government itself. We believe that it is an area where those who have allotments and those who wish to have allotments are quite capable of putting pressure themselves on local government to get the kind of action that they want. We are the first to admit that they would suffer from the electoral system of local government which does not make it tremendously easy to change the representation in a one-party area.
We also deplore—and we deplore it when used by any party—the over-caucusing of decisions, which sometimes makes it difficult for electors to put pressure on their immediate local representative. Nevertheless, we believe that as much power as possible should be given to local government to support matters in their area which are not ones of vital, central, national importance or of civil rights. Allotment gardening, important though it is, does not come under either of those two headings. It is a matter quite properly for local government itself to deal with.
It is very much our hope that the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany, and those who are helping him put forward this Bill, will, in the course of its passage, be able to find ways of amending it so that we can change it from being a Bill which enforces various actions on local government to a Bill which encourages actions by local government. We will do our best to make such changes. If we are unable to make such changes, I regret to say that we will not be able to support this Bill. But there is a great deal that is good in it, and I hope that we will be able to make the changes which are necessary.
3.26 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, for allowing me to slip into the gap on the speakers' list after I had inadvertently failed to put down my name, but I must not abuse his courtesy. I also share with your Lordships' gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany, for putting forward this Bill, giving us an opportunity of discussion, and for his very clear exposition of the Bill's provisions. I notice, however, that he shares my own woeful inability to translate the old measurements into the new.

1023
The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany, as it seemed to me, made out an overwhelming case for legislation. We all of us like to promote our own enthusiasm and interests, and this is an interest that I share with the noble Lord. In addition, he has given me a most interesting gardening gadget which puts me further under his obligation—although that is not why I give him my general support today.
The allotment system is, of all the outside activities referred to in Clause 4, the most beneficial—for both the health of a very wide spread of the population when one considers them in age, and because the allotment system, as I understand it, makes the most productive use of land both horticulturally and agriculturally. Perhaps the Minister will be able to help us on that point, as he himself, as we all know, is a notable horticulturist.
Having said that, and, like the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, sharing in the general objectives of this Bill, I. too, have some hesitation about it. My hesitation is not exactly the same as that of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley. As I understand the situation at the moment, the duty of local authorities is with only one exception already mandatory. Perhaps the Minister will put us right on that. I have always understood that there was a duty on local authorities, with the one exception, to meet demand for allotments. The one exception I know of is the inner London boroughs. I very much doubt whether it is right to make that duty mandatory rather than permissive so far as they are concerned.
My second objection is that I shall be very sorry to see legislation with this vast apparatus of bureaucracy. I hope that the Minister will be able to make encouraging noises towards this Bill; will undertake to bring in legislation; and will hold out hopes that the objectives of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany, can be carried out a little less cumbrously.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I should like to begin, as indeed others have, by congratulating my noble friend, Lord Wallace of Coslany, not only on the opportunity that he has today—his good fortune—but also on his dedication to this particular subject over many years. Those of us who have not had the benefit of being in your Lordships' House a long time—and I am one of the privileged newcomers—read up in preparation for the debate, and of course we looked at the 1976 debate, which has great significance. One begins to sec that today perhaps is a red letter day in my noble friend's legislation and parliamentary career. Whatever happens to the Bill after today—and we can be hopeful from what has been said up to now—to actually get to this stage is an achievement.
I believe each four years there is a notable achievement; 1976 and 1980 were mentioned by the noble Lord and now we are into 1984. I hope that he has a better reward for his endeavours on this occasion than in the past. I echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, and the noble Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, who paid tribute to the lucidity, the clearness and the care of my noble friend's exposition, and in fact he has served the House well because none of us needs to go through the detail as much as he did.
1024
I should also like to join in special tribute to the London Association of Recreational Gardeners and particularly Tom Hume their tireless secretary. I can recall when I served on the Committee on the Local Government (Planning and Land) Bill in 1980 in another place. The Government then took the opportunity to interfere and intervene in the allotments sphere, but were unable to accept the suggestions which were put to me, and which I happily put to the Government at the time, that it was about time that the Thorpe Report recommendations should be acted upon. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, drew attention to the words of the Minister in Standing Committee D, but in effect they were more or less precisely the same as the words of his noble friend and mine, Lady Birk, who had the honour and privilege of being the Minister in 1976. What she said then—and I think it is important to have it read again into the record—was:
"But when Parliamentary time permits—and I cannnot say when that will be—we shall be introducing further legislation on allotments to rationalise the existing complicated legal code which is contained in the various Acts from 1908 to 1950."[Official Report, 17/3/76; col. 261.]
Then when she was chided by Lord Sandys in that debate that in fact we had the opportunity, the noble Baroness said (in col. 261):
"Yes, my Lords, but I am always ready to use a good idea produced by somebody else".
This is what we are discussing this afternoon. I think that the Thorpe Report, which was being discussed then, certainly is at the very least a good idea, and provides the Government with an opportunity to assist a great many people.
I genuinely have no idea of the attitude of the Government on this particular matter. I very much hope they will recognise that there is a time which comes in a great many issues, and I think the time has come for the Government to act. Undoubtedly these are difficult times—and I do not refer only to finance but also to time pressure, priorities and lists—but I hope they will look kindly upon this Bill and give it a fair wind. Allotment gardens, statistically, are among the most popular and satisfying of outdoor activities provided by local authorities.
When I served the London Borough of Enfield on the allotments committee it was always enormously satisfying to feel that On the margin, which is all it can be as a councilor, one was helping to provide for so many people the opportunity of a satisfactory means of exercise. As has been said—and my noble friend Lord Beaumont of Whitley in an effective speech said this for us—over the years allotmenteers have served the nation well. In effect, he said that if any nation was unable to make provisions of this kind properly—and what we are about is to provide a better legislative framework—and could not properly provide food from its own resources, there was a great question mark. So far as I am concerned, we need to do what the Thorpe Report and this Bill are asking us to do.
We are making the provision of allotments, if not more respectable, certainly visually more attractive. I only know my own area, but I travel about the country and I should think that over the past 20 years many councils have taken the opportunity of spending money—ratepayers' money, of course, but money well

1025
spent—on tidying up what could he looked upon in the had old days as simply an allotment site. We are now seeing all over the country—I speak particularly of my own area of Enfield—allotments that are tidy, well-fenced, well-watered, well-provided with paths and with neat, tidy little sheds in which gardening tools are kept. I certainly want to say nothing disrespectful about the efforts of councils in the past, but we are seeking to make sure that literally hundreds of thousands of people who enjoy using their allotments can feel satisfied and more secure that the interests of allotments and allotmenteers are better looked after.
I certainly picked up when I read of the intention to ensure that any monies realised from the sale of allotments is returned to allotment purposes. That is very important. When changes in the stature and designation of allotments happen and councils decide to get rid of land—I make no political or party point—I imagine that some councils would be under some stress and strain, particularly over the next few years, when they are forced to find some other means of increasing their income or decreasing their costs. Some might he tempted to realise allotment land or what might he seen from a committee decision as allotment land that is not needed or suitable for allotments and try to capitalise on it. Simply put, we are seeking to protect the interests of allotmenteers in the future.
I certainly share the views of my noble friend Lord Beaumont of Whitley who said that the Bill is not flawless. He was frank enough to say this on a very basic point: the strengthening of the duty of councils to make provision to interfere and carry out an activity that they themselves may not he too enthusiastic about. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, quite properly queried whether that was necessary and whether there was not at the present time a mandatory duty laid upon councils. So we are going to have an argument and a discussion. I certainly agree with what my noble friend Lord Beaumont of Whitley said in his constructive speech. We are in the business—by compromise perhaps and having to accept that there will be some things in the Bill that may not necessarily he included at the end of the day—of bringing to fruition, hopefully in 1984, the aspirations of many people, not least those of my noble friend Lord Wallace of Coslany, and peace of mind to thousands of people who are looking to us to provide a legislative programme. From this side of the House I certainly give the Bill a very warm welcome on what is quite clearly a tentative stage, Second Reading, and I hope the Minister is able to do the same.
3.39 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany, has made clear in this Bill his interest, concern and goodwill for the allotments movement in this country. Indeed, how could it not be so? He is the distinguished president of the Association of Allotment Gardeners. I, too, welcome this opportunity to reaffirm the Government's support for the thousands of allotment gardeners in England and Wales. As my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary wrote in this quarter's edition of The
1026
Allotment and Leisure Gardener:
"We recognise the value of allotment cultivation both for recreation and as a source of fresh food. It is fun, it keeps you fit and it produces something valuable and useful. It is important for old and young. It is one of the pastimes which is worth while for many disabled people. And if you don't like food grown with additional fertilisers and sprayed with pesticides, your allotment lets you have your vegetables just as you want them".
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, obviously agrees with this, but he did ask me to educate him, so perhaps I should tell him that a rod is the same as a pole, which is the same as a perch, which is five and a half yards or approximately five metres. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, referred earlier to the average size of plot, which is 10 square rods.
It seems to me that the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, and the Government are at one in having at heart the best interests for the future of the allotments movement. Where we differ is that we feel that Parliament has placed the responsibility for the provision of allotments on local authorities and not on the Secretary of State; and that it is right and proper that each authority should be free to decide for itself what proportion of its resources it is prepared to allocate for allotment purposes. It is the Government's view that the proposals put forward in this Bill are not the best way of tackling the question of adequate allotment provision.
There are in fact a number of reasons why we cannot support this Bill. In the first place, we have declared our determination to reduce substantially the number of controls over local government activities and to give the authorities more discretion and flexibility in the discharge of their functions. In the case of allotments, we did this in the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 under which some 11 central Government controls were removed, in accordance with our policy of giving local authorities just that much more freedom to manage their affairs with the minimum of interference from Whitehall, that Parliament at that time, and I still, recognise that they should have. There are, therefore, important reasons why we cannot support this attempt to reimpose such statutory duties on local authorities and central Government at this time.
The Bill, as introduced by the noble Lord, seeks to impose a statutory duty on district, parish and community councils and the London boroughs to maintain a register of persons wishing to rent an allotment, to purchase or appropriate sufficient land to satisfy the demand as indicated by the registers, and to let that land as allotments to such persons. The Allotments Acts 1908 to 1950 already place an obligation on local authorities to provide a sufficient number of allotments where the authority is of the opinion that there is a demand for them by local residents; and the Acts make provision for the acquisition, management and control by local authorities of allotment sites.
As the statutes are not specific about the extent and nature of allotment provision, it is appropriate that each local authority should be free to decide for itself what proportion of its resources to devote to this purpose, bearing in mind the availability of land and all other demands on the finite resources which are

1027
available—a point made by the noble Lord. Lord Graham of Edmonton—particularly so as allotments are unique in being the only recreational facility which local authorities have a duty to provide. Perhaps I may draw the attention of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, to that fact. I should add that an exception to that is inner London, where this duty is discretionary. In this respect I was delighted to hear the views of the Liberal Party enunciated from the refurbished lips of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, whose return to our midst I particularly welcome.
To answer again the point of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, this does not mean that authorities have an absolute duty to satisfy the total demand for allotments. Any requirement on authorities to provide numbers of allotments so as to meet total demand would clearly be likely to lead to irrational expenditure, when compared, for example, with housing, which is another matter that is very dear to your Lordships' hearts. Is it rational to have allotment for all-comers at a time when waiting lists for housing remain so ridiculously long?
The requirement upon authorities to keep separate allotment accounts of receipts and expenditure would reimpose a statutory duty which was repealed by the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980, as would the duty to use the receipts only for allotments purpose, except where allotments needs had been certified as having been met. The House covered this ground before, during the passage of the 1980 Bill, when the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, criticised the repeal of Section 54 of the Small Holdings and Allotments Act 1908 on precisely these two points. The repeal of that section went some way towards meeting a recommendation of the Thorpe Committee, which expressed the opinion that any expenditure on allotments should fall on the general rate fund in the same way as other recreational provisions. Local authorities are still able to keep separate allotments accounts if they wish, but we see no need for this to be a specific statutory obligation.
We now rely on Section 32(2) of the 1908 Act, which requires local authorities to use the proceeds of sale of allotment land in discharging any debts or liabilities incurred by the council in respect of land acquired for allotments or in acquiring, adapting or improving other land for allotments purposes.
The Bill that we are now considering also seeks to reimpose a statutory duty under which local authorities would be required to publish annual accounts, and it seeks to impose a duty upon the Secretary of State by which, on receipt of information from each authority, he would be required to publish an annual statement of the numbers and area of allotments, together with the number of persons on the waiting lists. With the greatest respect to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace. I regard that as a retrogressive step. Statements of annual allotment statistics were discontinued following representations from the local authority associations, and I doubt whether the loss of those statistics has proved a serious inconvenience. That is hardly surprising, since the information was based on returns from some 800 authorities, (out of a total of about 10,000), supplemented by information
1028
from a sample of 1,500 parish councils every fourth year. The best that could be said for them was that they provided merely an indication of the national picture. Clearly no reliance could be placed on their accuracy. I do not approve of statutory duties which local authorities would have extreme difficulties complying with.
The Thorpe Committee, whose report I have already briefly referred to, reviewed allotments policy and recommended legislative changes. The 460-page report, published in 1969, included a recommendation that allotments should be called "leisure gardens" and that gardening on such sites should in future be considered mainly as a recreation. I agree with that. The Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, does not attempt to implement many of the Thorpe Report recommendations, but its Long Title and its provision in Clause 4 to add allotment gardens to the many other recreations listed in Section 19 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 (in which local authorities are empowered to provide facilities) are consistent with the Thorpe Report concepts. In other words, we have already taken that step.
The Goverment remain sympathic to the broad thinking underlying the Thorpe Report. We agree that it is desirable to remove the drab, charitable image of allotments to the benefit of the plotholders and the landscape alike. However, unlike the noble Lord, Lord Graham, we do not accept that all the detailed rules and restrictions which the Thorpe Committee envisaged are in any way appropriate to the 1980s, nor are we aware of any adverse effect on allotment provision as a result of the repeal of various controls in the 1980 Act.
Thus while I of course accept the principal of a better deal for allotment holders—who, indeed, does not?— this is not the way to go about it because it is in complete contrast to the Goverment's philosophy of non-interference in matters which are properly the total concern of local government. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, feels that the Government exhortation should be reinforced by legislation. I could not disagree more. The Government's policy is that recreational gardening is a matter of education and not legislation; and on that the Government's case rests.
Lord Kilmarnock; My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, and for the record, may I ask whether I heard fall from his lips the statement that he did not approve of statutory obligations that local authorities would have extreme difficulty complying with? In the light of certain legislation on the horizon, is that not an interesting proposition?
Lord Skelmersdale: No, my Lords, I do not think that it is, for the simple reason that if the noble Lord is referring to the current housing benefits scheme, or something of that ilk, it was widely canvassed among the local authorities before it was adopted, and a decision that they should take it over as a type of agency function was reached. So I do not think that there is anything at all inconsistent in what I have said.
3.50 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: I was somewhat amused at the final remarks of my noble friend Lord

1029
Skelmersdale—I call him my noble friend because we have a mutual interest in gardening but he is more of a professional than I am. However, the noble Lord did refer to the fact that the Bill would interfere with the Government's policy of non-interference with local authorities. With all due respect to the noble Lord, I found that remark completely hilarious considering the problems that we are facing with the rate capping proposals and "Whitehall knows best". That was not a very good point in his brief, but I do not blame him.
As regards the general debate, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley. I am glad to see him back and I am grateful for his undoubted interest in the Bill. My thanks are also due to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, whose presence to support the Bill in some degree today is very deeply personally appreciated and a very friendly gesture.
There was a Liberal objection. I thought I heard the noble Lord. Lord Beaumont, introducing an argument for proportional representation as regards Clause I. Apparently he did so. However, there was a Liberal objection as regards the local authority providing plots—
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord is unaware that proportional representation cures all ills?
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, the noble Lord will tell me next that it gets rid of greenfly, but I rather doubt it. However, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, also took a similar view of Clause 1 and my noble friend Lord Graham gave me a hint of a similar type of objection. That is fair enough. As I said at the beginning, this Bill is capable of negotiation and I ask for goodwill from the Government. I am afraid that they rather stunned me with a bucket of cold water. However, we can still progress. I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Graham, because in point of fact he is not new to these matters. He did some valuable work with his colleague, Mr. Nigel Spearing, in the House of Commons; they are experienced local government men.
When the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, started to develop his speech, my mind went back to 17th March 1976 when I was speaking from the Government side—not the Front Bench; that doubtful honour came later—and the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, was speaking as spokesman for the Opposition from this bench. He made a damning speech of delay about the Bill. He stressed emphatically all the points that I put forward today about statistics and so on. I only wish that he was present here today so that I could hear the type of speech that he would make now. On the basis of his form in the debate of 1976, he would certainly have slammed the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, for six. I also heard some comment by the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, about the rate burden on ratepayers. Of course allotments help ratepayers; allotment holders are ratepayers. At least if they "dig for victory" and grow a few more cabbages and so on it assists the family finances and helps them to pay the rate bill. I happen to be a very good ratepayer; I pay my rates on the dot.
1030
I do not think that there are any further points that I need to make, because I am conscious that this is Friday afternoon and a late hour, and that there are staff here who want to get home as well as noble Lords. However, I still make the point to the Government that if certain amendments are brought forward in Committee, I ask for their co-operation. We will consider this and see what can he done to meet their point of view and that of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale.
This is not a party political debate. Far from it—it is the last debate that could be classed as political. Therefore, I make the offer that we shall give very careful consideration to the points made; Hansard will be obtained and studied, and then we shall see how we can improve the Bill. Nobody pretends to be perfect. This is the first time in my life that I have ever personally handled a Private Bill, and I have been in parliamentary life for many years. I have been used to handling other people's Bills, but there is one heck of a difference when you have to do it yourself. I should like to thank all noble Lords who have taken part and who have attended to listen. I beg to move.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at lour minutes before four o'clock.

  PAROLE
  PAROLE
  MR. JAMES ANDERSON: PETITION
  MR. JAMES ANDERSON: PETITION
  GCHQ: EX GRATIA PAYMENTS
  GCHQ: EX GRATIA PAYMENTS
  CONCILIATION REPORT: IMPLEMENTATION
  CONCILIATION REPORT: IMPLEMENTATION