Local Government Bill

Lord Elton

My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for his courteous welcome. There is no coyness in my reply to him when I say that I am very happy to accept the amendments which he now proposes. I believe that they will be an improvement to the Bill and I am most grateful to him for spotting a possible defect in the drafting which had escaped our notice.

The Deputy Speaker (Lord Alport)

My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I shall put Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 en bloc.

Baroness Stedman

My Lords, as the noble Baroness has said, Amendment No. 9 is designed to give the joint planning committee a real job of work to do. At the moment, as I see it, the committee is to perform a useful role as a kind of forum within which views about the area can be expressed and analysed. However, there is no requirement for that body to commit its views in writing or for the local planning authority to have any proper regard for those views. In short, the boroughs can agree to disagree and very little will have been gained in the process.

If, on the other hand, the boroughs, sitting on their joint planning committee, are required to issue guidance for the planning over the wider area, then they will have been given a task. This would have the effect of bringing them together in a common piece of work. Such guidance would be similar to that which the Government will issue if the amendment is not carried.

If the amendment is carried, that guidance to be given will remain in local hands, such as the structure planning in the counties is in local control at the moment. The amendment would leave the same powers in the hands of the Secretary of State as those which he currently enjoys and which, even under this Bill, he will continue to enjoy in the shire counties. It would not prejudice his right to give any national or regional guidance. Neither would it affect the Secretary of State's power to call in, if he felt it was appropriate, or to intervene in the making of, land use plans.

In other words, it is the distribution of power between national and local level which will be left as it is at the moment, with no need for the Secretary of State to take closer control of local affairs. I join with the noble Baroness in making a very strong plea for the joint planning committee to be given a real job of work to do, in order to ensure that it remains active and effective.

In the future arrangements under this Bill there will be considerable call on local councillors' time in order to meet the demands of the various joint committees and the other arrangements which have been made. Without a definite function in mind for the joint planning committee, there is every chance that it will decline in its importance, in terms of the time which local councillors are willing to devote to it. It will therefore decline in influence also. That would be a very great pity, given the very important job that has still to be tackled, to bring about much needed economic and environmental change within the area.

Lord Sandford

My Lords, I am very glad to hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, that she has received a copy of the SERPLAN document, which I sent as long ago as 22nd May to noble Lords who were participating in our debates on this issue, with the rather different purpose of helping those taking part to see the need for the kind of body that we now have in the Bill. But I believe that both noble Baronesses are going too far with their Amendment No. 9.

1078 The SERPLAN document also shows regional strategic guidance in course of preparation. What is contained in its pages at the moment is the fruits of the efforts of a number of working parties set up between local planning authorities and industries such as those concerned with sand and gravel, cement and building. The document is now out for consultation with all the local planning authorities in London and the South-East. That is to say, it is strategic guidance being prepared. That is the word which the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, used and it is an entirely appropriate function for the new committee we have just incorporated into the Bill.

That in itself is more than enough work for those authorities to be engaged in, but when it comes to the final stage—namely, the issuing of the strategic guidance which has been prepared for the Secretary of State—that is a job for the Secretary of State and not for the joint committee or the separate local planning authorities. The reason it is so important for the Secretary of State to issue the guidance is that he is then tied in to the decisions incorporated in the final document and obliged to have regard to them when he calls in matters for his own decision and receives reports from his inspectors. If he has issued the guidance which has been prepared for him by the local planning authorities, he is much more closely bound to have regard to them in the planning decisions he finally makes. That is why it is not appropriate for the newly-constituted planning body for London to give the strategic guidance. That is going too far.

Lord Campbell of Alloway

My Lords, perhaps your Lordships will allow a brief intervention if I apologise for not being in my place when the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, moved this amendment. I shall be very brief.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, put it, the joint committee should be given "a real job of work to do". That involves granting mandatory, statutory executive functions in this sphere; the issue of what my noble friend has called, quite rightly, strategic guidance. That is a matter for the Secretary of State and I suggest that the amendment is therefore inappropriate.

Lord Elton

My Lords, I am most obliged to my noble friend Lord Sandford for really sufficient exposition of why I myself am opposed to this amendment, and I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway for his support of this. Perhaps I ought nonetheless to parade my credentials in resisting the amendment—or both Amendments Nos. 9 and 20, which embody the proposals of the noble Baronesses concerning strategic guidance.

We propose in the Bill that strategic guidance should come from the Secretary of State. The model for that strategic guidance will be the letters issued in the South-East by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, to which I referred before and which are available for your Lordships to see in the Library. So neither the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, nor I need go on about what is going to be in them.

The noble Baroness will see that they are not very detailed matters, as she seemed to think we would be producing if this amendment is not carried. We expect the guidance to cover population, housing, industry 1079 and so on, but in general terms. The joint committee will have a positive role, as my noble friend has said, in pulling together the views of the boroughs and putting them into the guidance.

The noble Baroness, on the contrary, has proposed that the guidance should come from the joint committee. In my view, there are at least two sound and conclusive reasons why that should not be so. First, it is always the Secretary of State who must in the end make strategic decisions. I previously cited the M.25 ring road and the third London airport as examples, and I quote them again. Secondly, as decisions of that kind cannot be taken by a joint committee of London boroughs because they affect areas far outside the areas for which alone they are responsible and indeed take place there, so the guidance which infers what strategic decisions may be taken cannot be given by them either.

Strategic guidance cannot be given by a substrategic body because it is in no position to grasp the strategic issues and has no reason whatever to subordinate its own substrategic interests to the truly strategic interests of the region.

I shall not now rehearse again the workings of the unitary planning system, or list again its benefits and safeguards. The issue before us now is a simpler one. It is simply this: should the strategic guidance, which local planning authorities in London bear in mind as they draw up their plans, come from the London authorities themselves, as the noble Baroness proposes, or from the genuinely strategic authority of the Secretary of State? That authority, I should remind your Lordships, will be informed, through the new committee, of the pan-London issues and the views thereon of the London boroughs. The Secretary of State will not operate in ignorance, nor in a policy vacuum and many—indeed, most—pan-London issues will, of course, remain to the boroughs themselves to decide. But it must, I think, be obvious to your Lordships that London cannot be left to develop its own strategy within the South-East region, and I ask your Lordships to reject these amendments as firmly as the others which the noble Baroness has brought forward.

Baroness Birk

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply—I think that is the courteous thing to say—but I cannot say that he has convinced me in the slightest degree; nor has the noble Lord, Lord Sandford. I was not under any impression that the guidance was going to be in extreme detail, but even in its broad brush attempt it would still be special guidance for London coming from the Secretary of State rather than regional guidance. There would then be the joint committee giving the guidance as mentioned in the Bill.

I can only go back to what I said. It seems that the proper exercise of the Secretary of State's authority is to give views on the broad direction of regional development, but I am afraid there has not been a very clear or acceptable answer to the question of why the Government see a further role for themselves in issuing guidance at a much more detailed level within London. With great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, what he said against the amendment is almost contrary to what I may call the philosophy 1080 running through his plan; but that is a point for him, not for me. It seems a great pity, having moved the amendment this afternoon which alters the picture—I am sure the Minister will agree with that—that the Minister does not see that this would be a much clearer, simpler and more economic way of going about things. Therefore, I wish to test the feeling of the House.

Lord Chelwood

My Lords, as I moved the main amendments on the subject of urban nature conservation on the 2nd May and the debate was concluded on 7th May, prehaps I may add a few words. I am very grateful to noble Lords in all parts of the House who supported those amendments on that occasion. We seemed to be pretty unanimous about them. The reason they had to be put down was there was no provision made in the Bill for the continuation of urban nature conservation by the districts and boroughs after abolition of the GLC and the metropolitan counties. The burden of our argument on that occasion, when these amendments were 1083 moved, was that ecological advice is far better provided at Greater London and metropolitan county levels than dispersed to the boroughs and districts. I think all those who spoke argued that it would be more economical and more efficient to do it in that way.

The amendments sought to make it obligatory for the boroughs and districts to carry out what most of us regard as their duties in these respects; but I confess that I was wrong in going beyond the Long Title of the Bill and trying to make it obligatory using the Bill as a vehicle. It was the wrong vehicle. As we have no rules, perhaps I did not actually err from them, but if I did I certainly owe noble Lords an apology. Since the Committee stage I have had several discussions with a number of my noble friends, including my noble friends Lord Elton and Lord Skelmersdale, and indeed I have been in correspondence with Mr. Kenneth Baker. I have had nothing but helpfulness. Unfortunately, during the Report stage this subject somehow was lost. I was away myself, being a little bit under the weather, and that could have been part of the reason. Anyhow it was lost, and I think that this was probably the reason why my noble friend answered a Written Question which I put down, still having anxieties about this, which appeared in today's Hansard. I shall be extremely brief, but if I may I shall quote just one sentence from the Department of the Environment Circular No. 108 of 1977 which was referred to in that Written Question. It comes from paragraph 2: The Secretaries of State look to local authorities to take full account of natural conservation factors both in formulating structure and local plans and in the consideration of individual planning applications". That was as long ago as 1977. Last month we had the White Paper, which is the Government's reply to the first report from the Environment Committee of the House of Commons—I confess that I found most of the White Paper very disappointing, but we are not discussing that now—and in it there is a nugget which says the same thing in even more forthright terms. When I went to see my noble friend—he will not mind my saying this—I had the White Paper with me and I wrote "Aha!", against paragraph 4 in large red letters. He read it upside down and did not seem displeased. Paragraph 4 reads as follows: As the Report [the House of Commons Report] points out, there has been something of a revolution in attitudes to countryside issues in the last five years. Conservation is not now an optional extra with which land use and agricultrural policies are decorated, but is built into the structure of policy-making, as it should be". I think that that quotation says everything that we have been talking about and makes it perfectly clear that the Government wish to achieve what we have been asking them to achieve.

I am not sure that this amendment is entirely necessary. It might very well be wrapped up already in the clause which it seeks to amend. I am not certain about that. But I see absolutely no harm in this amendment. At any rate, it has served the purpose of enabling me to round off a subject about which we have had a lot of debate, and it is clearly a subject to which noble Lords in all parts of the House—and indeed Members in another place—attach great importance. I hope therefore that my noble friend will feel able to accept this amendment.

Lord Skelmersdale

My Lords, the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, seeks to add the words, "areas for urban nature conservation", to the matters on which my right honourable friend will be required to lay a report before Parliament under Clause 6(2) of the Bill. Your Lordships will remember that that was added to the Bill in Committee.

Before addressing myself to the merits of the case, I should make it clear that, as with other amendments carried in Committee against Government advice, we still have to take a final view on that subsection. Subject to that, we will also wish to look at the drafting to see whether any technical improvements are needed. That said, however, I accept that there is much force in the noble Lord's argument that any report on countryside matters should also cover nature conservation areas within the towns.

Indeed, no one listening to or reading our debates in Committee could have the slightest doubt that when your Lordships agreed to what is now Clause 6(2) urban sites allocated to conservation were uppermost in your minds. Whether temporary or permanent, those facilities clearly play an important part in introducing city dwellers to the countryside. In the light of the great interest shown in the House, I would certainly envisage that they would be covered in any report on facilities for the protection and enjoyment of the countryside.

The noble Lord asked about the future of ecology units. As he well knows, Clause 88 of the Bill, which is based on the powers used by the GLC to collect ecological information and to undertake research into the natural environment, also provides for the borough and district councils to make schemes for London or county-wide research and information activities. The co-ordinating committee to be established in each area will have a specific duty to consider, and where desirable promote, the making of such schemes. That statement was in the Written Answer that my noble friend Lord Elton gave to my noble friend Lord Chelwood.

I readily accept that the noble Lord does not feel that that goes far enough. I suspect what he wants is 100 per cent., and a 100 per cent. assurance from the Government. But as we have made clear from this Dispatch Box all along, it is absolutely impossible to give that assurance in such concrete terms. It will be for the successor bodies—in this case the borough and district councils—to decide what use they wish to make of those powers. In order to concentrate their minds, in the later stages of the Bill we have made provision to give the residuary bodies a catalytic role—so ineptly and inaptly named, as the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, pointed out, I seem to remember, on one occasion.

In spite of that we have provided in the Bill that as long as the successor bodies want those to continue—and I have no reason to suppose that they do not want them to continue—every facility will be given to them to continue. Having said that, I return to the amendment. Subject to the reconsideration of Clause 6(2) which I have already mentioned, I am willing to accept the amendment without of course any commitment on the wider context.

Lord Campbell of Alloway

My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, may I ask him whether he agrees that in supporting the amendment as a matter of construction "countryside" could not conceivably include an area of urban nature conservation such as the garden of a redundant church, and that it is appropriate to have this amendment in the statute when it becomes law?

Lord Skelmersdale

My Lords, I would agree that an urban conservation area would not be included in the word "countryside", but I would have expected, and I am so advised, that it would be included in the phrase currently in Clause 6(2)—"wider county areas".

Lord Melchett

My Lords, it is nice to have agreement from the noble Lord. I am very grateful indeed to him. Two things that he said gave me a great deal of encouragement. First, I think he said that he had no reason to believe that the successor authorities would not wish the ecological services provided by the G LC and the other metropolitan counties to continue. That matter has been subject to considerable debate, as the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, pointed out, as the Bill has been going through your Lordships' House and indeed another place. I am sure that if there were any reasons for the successor authorities not to wish the services to continue, the Government would have heard about them by now; so what the noble Lord said must be encouraging.

Secondly, I am very encouraged indeed that the noble Lord has agreed to accept the amendment and that we shall therefore have a Government Statement about the future of those services in due course. With many thanks on my behalf, on behalf of the many people who will be affected and on behalf of the many more who believe that nature conservation and the ecological services are important in metropolitan areas, I commend the amendment to your Lordships.

Baroness Birk

My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend perhaps I may say that we are delighted to see that the Government have honoured their word and tabled the amendment; but I still have to say that it does not go far enough. It does not alter the substantive content of the clause which will force ILEA, which will be a directly elected education authority, to consult authorities with no specific educational responsibilities on its budget and policy objectives. No other education authority is subject to such consultation and constraint. As has been said before, we consider that the whole clause is unnecessary. However, half or even quarter of a loaf is better than none, and we welcome the amendment.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes

My Lords, I should like briefly to say that although I support the existing amendment, I should have been very unhappy had my noble friend moved any further amendment on the subject. I think that the consultation is absolutely necessary, particularly in view of the vast amount paid by the cities of Westminster and London for the education of the whole of London. Consultation is essential.

Lord Campbell of Alloway

My Lords, having spoken in favour of this amendment at the last stage, perhaps I may acknowledge with gratitude the form in which the spirit has materialised and also the way in which my noble friend has given a helpful explanation.

Baroness Darcy (de Knayth)

My Lords, I should like to welcome this amendment most warmly and also to thank the Minister for his very full explanation to the effect that it has the force of the law behind it. The amendment does all that the Minister undertook to do at Report stage—to ensure that any scheme set up addresses itself as a whole to the needs of the entire area. I think it is true to say that some of the voluntary organisations would have liked an annual review, but I think equally one can argue that it is preferable to keep matters under continuous review and, as the Minister has said, that it is not intermittent.

I particularly like three points about the Minister's amendment. First, the review of needs is linked specifically to what the constituent councils actually do, so that it cannot become a mere paper exercise. Secondly, I think his modified "needs" are a great improvement on my social "needs". Thirdly, as well as having a collective responsibility to keep the needs of the area under review, each and every constituent council is encouraged to adjust its perspective beyond its own boundaries when carrying out its functions under this clause.

In these respects I agree that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Elton, is better than the one that I moved on Report. The voluntary organisations are happy with it. As the noble Lord the Minister said, they had been very worried over a long period of time throughout this Bill and they welcome this amendment. I thank the Minister very much indeed.

The Lord Bishop of Rochester

My Lords, as I supported the noble Baroness in the original amendment she moved, I should like to thank the Minister not only for the amendment, but I think rather more particularly for his speech and for the way in which he made it clear to the House that he understood the fears, the undoubted fears, of the voluntary organisations in certain parts of London. I should like to thank him for the assurance that he has given the House that his door will remain open—I think that was the phrase he used—and that the process will be carefully monitored in the months and years ahead. I am as grateful to him for that assurance, which will be in the written record of the House, as I am for the amendment.

Lord Harmar-Nicholls

My Lords, I am a little puzzled. The amendment contains the words, "for the avoidance of doubt". Putting in those words has created a doubt that was never previously there. It is perfectly clear to everybody who knows anything about this matter that the regional tourist boards are non-profit-making, non-statutory, and fall very clearly, without any doubt, within the scope of Clause 48 as it stands. I believe that it would be a mistake to indicate, by these words at this stage, that there was a doubt in the matter when there was no doubt at all. It weakens, rather than strengthens, what the noble Lord wants.

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may inform him that the English Tourist Board was concerned about this and it wrote for clarification, as it had some doubt.

Lord Harmar-Nicholls

Well, my Lords, the English Tourist Board was wrong as well.

Lord Campbell of Alloway

My Lords, I welcome this amendment being tabled for clarification. I hope that the noble Lord will be satisfied, when the matter has been investigated, that notwithstanding delays, there is no doubt at all. Regional tourist boards are established on a voluntary basis and, as I see it, they fall within Clause 48.

Lord Elton

My Lords, I am so glad to meet the phrase "for the avoidance of doubt" even peripherally in a statute. I am reminded of a correspondence which I am told took place in The Times, about the turn of the century, when the pond in St. James's Park was drained and the soft mud was exposed below. A letter appeared in The Times from the Chancellor, saying that he had been walking in St. James's and had seen some wagtails there, leaving their imprints on the mud of the pond and that at this time of year it was unusual; for the avoidance of doubt, these were pied wagtails and not grey wagtails. The next day but one there appeared a letter in The Times saying that the individ- 1090 ual who wrote it had been in St. James's innocently pursuing his pastimes in the soft mud of the recently drained pond when he saw a Chancellor go by; for the avoidance of doubt, this was a Chancellor of the Exchequer and not a Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. That may be thought irrelevant to the debate, but I could not resist the pleasure of sharing it with your Lordships.

The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulhrede, asked a short question, and I can give him a short answer. I can assure him that any body whose activities are not carried on for profit and which is not a public or local authority does fall within the definition of voluntary organisations in Clause 48. So long as regional tourist boards are constituted in this way, they will come within the category of voluntary organisations which may receive funding under a Clause 48 scheme as they have, I understand, this afternoon—somewhat belatedly, I confess—learned themselves.

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Baroness Fisher of Rednal

My Lords, I should like to support my noble friend Lord Dean. I know that we have already received some assurances from the noble Lord regarding the staff commission. I speak with some experience as one of three people who served on the new towns staff commission. As a staff commission, we visited all the local authorities concerned while the transfer of housing was going on. We met not only the local authorities but also all members of the staff. We regarded that as a necessary function. We recognised that in any reorganisation those who earn their living in local government or public service have normally given many years to that service and are therefore worried not only about the loss of their job but often also about the loss of pension rights. This reorganisation takes place in identical circumstances. Many of the staff know full well that there will be no job at the end of the road when the Bill is finally passed. They know it full well because the Government have stated clearly that the idea of the Bill is to save money. My Lords, you only save money, in the long run, by having fewer staff.

It is therefore important that the Government should inform us now if they can say anything about the speed at which the staff commission is moving. While we know that the Bill will go through, it has to be remembered that abolition means that many staff become innocent victims. They have no alternative. They work for the metropolitan counties. If the metropolitan counties are abolished and the district councils do not want to take on the staff of those councils—many of them will not need to do so—this will affect many people who have given years of service. Many of them, who joined the service over 10 years ago, have worked hard to make workable a stratum of local government which the Government feel is unnecessary. They have worked in good faith for a public body believing their jobs to be secure so long as they performed their task well and efficiently and to the best of their ability. We now find that there are differences even between the metropolitan counties because some metropolitan counties were able to put in their bids earlier than others. So there is a difference between the compensation at present paid by different metropolitan authorities.

I say very sincerely to the Minister that he must recognise that these are men and women who have jobs now. They must be adequately safeguarded by adequate compensation for loss of jobs or else jobs must be found for them. Alternatively, redundancy payments and an assurance of the continuation of pension schemes must be made apparent. Perhaps the Minister can tell us how the staff commission is proceeding on those particular points.

Lord Campbell of Alloway

My Lords, I oppose this amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, referred to the question of negotiations or discussions which arose on the day of the Gold Cup amendments in which the noble Lord, Lord Rochester—who I do not see in his place—played a somewhat enigmatic role as a sort of éminence grise. The noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, is right, because it is relevant to bring those matters which were discussed on Gold Cup day into play on this amendment; it is strictly relevant.

1093 As I understand it, the Government's intention is to issue regulations which will set out scales of compensation. It is understood that, by and large—and no doubt my noble friend the Minister may be able to confirm this—these will not be less generous than those afforded under any existing local government severance scheme. In due course when these regulations are laid before Parliament noble Lords can satisfy themselves as to whether, to use the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher of Rednal, they are adequate, reasonable and fair.

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, that the question of compensation is of the utmost importance. Indeed, I believe I said so when I spoke on the amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, moved.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes

My Lords, the noble Lord moved the amendment after that one.

Lord Campbell of Alloway

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, did not move his first amendment, but he did move his second amendment. I spoke on his second amendment and I have no intention of boring your Lordships by repeating what I said on that occasion. However, it is relevant.

I would suggest that this amendment is premature in two senses: first, because it pre-empts consideration of the regulations which will be laid before your Lordships; and, secondly, because it pre-empts the discussions, which so far, as I understand it, have been inhibited by certain Labour-controlled councils and certain trade unions, to which my noble friend Lord Sandford referred earlier today. Therefore, with respect to the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, is it really on, if I may put it that way without any hint of offence, to complain that no indication is given by Her Majesty's Government when, as I understand it, the Government are trying to have sensible discussions and when certain trade unions and certain Labour-controlled councils, for the reason of political opposition to this Bill, are refusing to play ball?

Lord Dean of Beswick

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, for giving way. I should like to refer to something that took place on the last occasion we discussed this particular subject. It is on record that, in reply to one of the amendments, the Minister said that the people involved in this exercise could not be afforded the same rates of redundancy as were afforded on previous occasions. He said that no one could expect the residuary authorities to carry such a burden. I may not have got the words quite right, but I think the message that the noble Lord conveyed to us was that they would not receive the same benefits.

Lord Campbell of Alloway

My Lords, with respect, I did not understand my noble friend to say or mean that, but my noble friend the Minister must speak for himself. As I understand it, he was really saying that, first, looking at the matter straight up, factually, there is no doubt that these obstructive activities have damaged the interests of staff. Secondly, as I understood it, my noble friend the Minister was saying that it would be wholly unreasonable to seek to indulge 1094 in a sort of cover-up by an over-generous award based on obstruction. I do not think that my noble friend went further and said that these people would in any way be positively or intentionally penalised. But in any event, for those two reasons the amendment is premature, and because it is premature I oppose it.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes

My Lords, unlike my noble friend, I do not use the word "premature"; I think it was long overdue that the Labour Party tabled an amendment concerning the staff which really cared about staff interests. It is very sad that this amendment has been tabled at this stage when it is far too late and far too ill-thought-out for anyone here to support it.

The noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, spoke very well and very clearly from her own experience, but that sort of statement should have been made long ago. As we know, some authorities have adopted an ostrich-like attitude, as have the unions in these authorities, and have said that because the Bill will not go through they will not consider any of these issues on behalf of all these people.

Last week the London Boroughs Association met but they could only bring in the lowest possible level of reserve concessionary fare scheme because the Labour boroughs would not attend. It is high time that the other side realises that this Bill will become law and looks at the interests involved.

On other points, such as that concerned with the Crombie formula, I understand that as long ago as 1980 we were told that that formula would not be used any more. The point has been raised in this House again and again about the difficulties caused by housing transfers in London when people on one level are transferred to a borough which pays on a different level. It is an extremely complex issue and the staff commission will have a great deal of work to do. I hope that good terms and certainly rewards for those who have held their jobs for a long time and find themselves redundant will be achieved. But I do not think that this amendment is the way to do it.

Lord Dean of Beswick

My Lords, by leave of the House, the noble Baroness has questioned the role of the Opposition Labour Party and its concern for staff. I must remind the noble Baroness that during all stages of this Bill amendments have appeared on the Marshalled List in my name, in the names of members of the Liberal Party and in the name of my noble friend Lord McCarthy, who unfortunately cannot be present today.

Lord Skelmersdale

My Lords, if I may interrupt the noble Lord for a moment, perhaps I may point out that the noble Lord is speaking to his own amendment on the Third Reading of an important Bill, and therefore any criticisms and replies that he wishes to make would, within Standing Orders, be pertinently made when he winds up on the amendment rather than by constant intervention.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes

My Lords, by leave of the House, may I say that on 20th June I personally asked the other side to speak on that amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, was not willing to move, and they declined to do so.

The Earl of Gowrie

My Lords, Third Reading is usually a reasonably ecumenical occasion and I do not want to reopen the controversies of a previous stage of the Bill. But I must say that I think that the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, taxed our patience a little, at least on this side of the House, and indulged in what I can only call a "whopper", which I would define as a statement exaggerated to a comically intense degree.,

No one muzzled the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, so that he could not represent staff interests, except conceivably his own Chief Whip who concluded—rather erratically, as it happened—that other forms of business, other amendments, might better be taken on the day of the Gold Cup at Ascot, thereby displaying a lamentable lack of knowledge of the private lives of the contemporary Conservative Party.

However, that is water under the bridge. It is simply for me to register that the noble Lord was not prevented on any occasion from dealing with staff matters. I only said at the Report stage of this Bill that I could not reply to him within a time span of something like 15 minutes. I am delighted to reply to him now.

I think that my noble friends have pertinently and trenchantly illustrated a new and rather unpleasant technique in contemporay politics. It is not that one objects to a particular piece of Government legislation—obviously it is the right of the Opposition or of any given local authority to object to the legislation—but by not co-operating with its implementation in any way one then seeks to represent one's own party as somehow being concerned with the interests of those who are affected by the legislation.

The Government have made it clear all along, as I shall spell out in a little more detail in a minute—not at length, because this is the inappropriate place—that we are delighted to engage in discussions about matters which affect the staff. But all but a few of them have been pretty well forcibly prevented from engaging in discussions with us.

I really do not think that this is the moment to go over all the ground on this issue, as I spoke at some length in responding to amendments tabled at earlier stages, and I hope that the House will accept this. I do not propose to dwell either on the specific defects of the amendment except to point out that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will make the compensation regulations under Section 24 of the Superannuation Act 1972 rather than under this Bill. Moreover, Clause 59 of this Bill does not place any liability on the residuary bodies to make compensation payments to former GLC and MCC staff under those regulations. That too will be specified in the regulations. In explanation, Clause 59 concerns only statutory redundancy payments and compensation payments to which staff may be entitled under their former contracts of employment.

These distinctions are not just legal or academic niceties but serve to demonstrate the significance—the significance for the staff themselves—of the compensation regulations which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State is committed to make. As I have emphasised throughout the various debates we 1096 have had on compensation issues, we would prefer to make those regulations in the light of discussions and negotiations with the unions and employers concerned. That is the usual and proper way of doing things.

This amendment would render such discussion irrelevant except perhaps at the margins. It would specify the compensation terms that would be available to staff. Moreover, it would specify that the terms would be those which have been available under the Crombie code, which are the terms for which the 1980 GLC regulations provide. As I explained at Committee stage, and also on Report, the experience of the London housing transfers has been one of the factors which persuaded us not to adopt the staff arrangements which have applied to previous reorganisations.

Those GLC housing staff transfers have taken place on Crombie terms as provided by the 1980 regulations. In the same year (as we said in our original White Paper, Streamlining the Cities), we made clear that the Crombie terms would be withdrawn. This amendment would require us to go back on that commitment.

As I have explained, the Crombie code was drawn up many years ago. We live now in harsher and more straitened times and those terms are no longer relevant or appropriate to reorganisations such as this one. Even the MCCs themselves have recognised this. Not only would Crombie terms be more generous than those we have proposed, but they would also be more generous than those available under the various local severance schemes which the MCCs have introduced in anticipation of their demise.

The proper way to settle compensation terms is through negotiation and constructive discussion. On redundancy terms, our offer is on the table. It has been there since November. We shall shortly issue proposals on compensation for financial detriment. As I made clear to your Lordships on Report, if the unions come to the negotiating table they will not find us inflexible, but equally they too have to be realistic.

The invitation is there. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has written to the chairman of the TUC Local Government Committee urging him and his colleagues to take up this offer. The decision is of course theirs, but we believe that the time has long since passed when the unions can allow their generalised political opposition to abolition to inhibit their proper role in representing their members' interests. I hope, therefore, that they will respond positively to our invitation. We are ready to meet them quickly if they do.

May I quickly give an answer to the question put to me by the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher of Rednal. The activities of the staff commission are a matter for them. The commission are an independent body with the remit laid on them by the Local Government (Interim Provisions) Act, but I understand that the commission have issued six circulars setting out the arrangements for looking after the interests of staff affected by abolition. The latest of these sets out ring fencing procedures to give GLC and MCC employees priority in obtaining posts with successor bodies.

1097 The commission have also established their presence in the areas of the GLC and the MCCs. They have appointed assistant commissioners and they have visited all MCC areas to make it easy for staff to contact them. Against the background of the activities of the staff commission and of my right honourable friend's continuing and viable offer to employers and unions, I am sure that if the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, has the best interests of staff at heart, as he constantly claims, he will not find it necessary in any way whatsoever to pursue this amendment.

Lord Dean of Beswick

My Lords, I listened intently to the Minister's reply to the amendment. When I rose earlier I was perhaps out of order, and I have no wish to pursue my reply to the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, but I must say that I have not noticed during any of the proceedings on this Bill where she herself has been so compassionate that she has tabled any amendment on behalf of the staff. I do not think that my party or I need any lessons from that direction.

The Minister in his reply has underlined what I said when the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, so graciously gave way. What comes through clearly is that there is going to be a diminution of redundancy payments and protections afforded in the past under previous Government reorganisations of this kind, whether by a Conservative or a Labour Government. Irrespective of whether or not the trade unions respond, the present people are not going to enjoy the same benefits which have historically been given in these exercises. Otherwise there would not have been the need for one amendment on the Marshalled List. That was what it was all about.

Having put the case, we shall await the negotiations or discussions—I understand that this is still at the discussion stage, according to the Minister—to see what bears fruit. Having said that, I do not see any point at present in pressing the amendment before the House.

Lord Campbell of Alloway

My Lords, this amendment assuredly presents certain problems. It is a pale shadow of amendment No. 81 ZAC, I believe it was, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, but moved on Gold Cup Day by the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton. Amendment No. 18 substitutes the word "consult" for the word "coordinate", which was discussed at considerable length in your Lordships' House. My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter made the telling point that "coordinate" involved power and the executive use of power, and that it was unacceptable. At the end of the day on a Division your Lordships rejected the need for co-ordination, the need for some supra-general purposes financial committee, and for this further tier of administration.

But back it comes again in another form; hence the problem from certain of us on this side of the House. If there was no need for co-ordination, then what is the need for the type of consultation proposed in relation to the preparation of estimates and the fixing of precepts? Putting the matter shortly, I hope, the problem arises because, quite apart from the question of form, this amendment, albeit in another form, again seeks to erect a tier of administration which is not within the spirit of the Bill. The reason given by the noble Lord is that it is helpful in the search for economy, if I caught his phrase aright. This is very near to the expression used by the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, on Gold Cup Day—the expression "cost-effective".

The thesis appears to be—and this is the objection that raises the problem—that you can challenge the principle on the basis that what you are proposing is either more cost-effective or more helpful in the search for economy. You can do that; and, if you do not do it, your Lordships' House (in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Barnett) has—and I quote—"No role to play". This creates a problem, and the problem is that under the Parliament Act and under the conventions of your Lordships' House there are certain areas where this House has no role to play. This is not within that area—I concede that straightaway—but it touches on the fringes of it. I would oppose this amendment.

Lord Boyd-Carpenter

My Lords, an amendment moved by a former Chief Secretary to the Treasury, and seconded (on the Marshalled List, at least) by another, which claims to help to restrain public expenditure, would seem to come with rather formidable credentials. But I am not sure that those credentials really stand up to analysis, because this is, as my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway has pointed out, simply a repetition of an amendment brought forward on Report with the compulsory powers involved in that previous amendment eliminated.

It is not only, therefore, somewhat repetitive—and I shall come to the point in a moment as to whether such an amendment is at all appropriate on Third Reading—but it is also obviously an ineffective proposal. If you are to study (let us take the case of Greater London, for example) the budgets of 33 boroughs, and if you are to study the precepting powers of a number of joint authorities, it is plain to any of us with experience of these matters that you have to have a large, efficient and highly-paid staff for the purpose. It is obviously going to be quite a large and elaborate bureaucratic machine.

For what purpose, my Lords? As I understood the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, and as I understand the reading of the amendment, this body, so briefed, so supported, will be able to discuss these complex financial questions with the boroughs and the joint authorities; but at the end of the day those boroughs and joint authorities will be perfectly free to tell it where it gets off, if I may use a colloquialism. All this effort, all this bureaucracy, all the public expense, will have come to nothing. Therefore, if this is the noble Lord's idea of achieving public economy, it perhaps casts a somewhat revealing light on the expenditure patterns of the previous Labour Government in which he was involved.

I now come to the other point, as to whether this really is an amendment which your Lordships should be taking on Third Reading. Perhaps I may quote your Lordships from page 99 of the Companion to the Standing Orders: The principal purposes of amendments on Third Reading are to clarify any remaining uncertainties, to improve the drafting and to enable the Government to fulfil undertakings given at earlier stages of the Bill. It is considered undesirable that an issue which has been fully debated and decided upon a previous stage of a Bill should be re-opened on Third Reading". On both those points—on the point that it does not come within the principal purposes of Third Reading amendments as defined, and, on the second ground, that it involves virtual repetition of an issue which has already been decided at an earlier stage—it seems to me (and I say this with great respect to the noble Lord) that the tabling and taking of this amendment is in breach of the rules of this House.

Lord Henderson of Brompton

My Lords, I wonder whether I might have a word immediately after the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, because he has spoken specifically on the procedures of the House. For myself, I would say that the Table must have passed this; otherwise, it would not be appearing on the Marshalled List. But let that pass, because Peers 1101 must be responsible for their amendments. But also I think the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, very clearly drew a distinction between the amendment which was moved on Gold Cup Day and the amendment which is before us now. I respect the noble Lord's clarity in drawing a distinction between the two, and for that reason I would say that it is not the same amendment, or approaching the same amendment, and it is therefore perfectly within the rules of order for it to be tabled on the Floor of the House.

Lord Boyd-Carpenter

My Lords—

Lord Henderson of Brompton

My Lords, may I make one other point before the noble Lord interjects? He quoted the principal reasons for the moving of amendments on Third Reading. I would only say that the word is "principal", and not "only".

Lord Boyd-Carpenter

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Of course, I accept that "principal" is the qualification; but that would not seem, if it is to mean anything at all, to let in a broad amendment on a broad issue of policy which plainly does not come within the qualifications as set out in the Companion. Therefore, I feel that the noble Lord is putting far too much weight on the word "principal" and is not giving it its natural meaning. On the other point—that the issue has already been decided—as I said to your Lordships (and I would have hesitated to do anything else, since it is a fact) the amendment is not the same as that moved at an earlier stage because it lacks the compulsory punch. But it raises the identical issue; that is, the issue of the taking into the hands of one of these controlling bodies the whole allocation of finance and of precepts. If the words of the Companion are to mean anything, then I suggest to the noble Lord that it is the same issue.

Lord Henderson of Brompton

My Lords, I do not know whether or not that was an interruption of my speech, but may I take it as such? I think that what it boils down to—and, of course, I shall not bandy words about the use of the word "principal" in the Companion to the Standing Orders because I do not think that that is really a significant point—is the interpretat