Skip to main content

Local Government Bill

Volume 82: debated on Monday 8 July 1985

The text on this page has been created from Hansard archive content, it may contain typographical errors.

Lords Amendments considered.

Clause 4

Development Plans

Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 3, line 11, leave out subsection (2).

4.53 pm

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

With this we may take the following amendments thereto, (a) in page 3, line 12, leave out from 'establishment' to end of line 15 and insert

'in each metropolitan county of an authority to be known by the name of that county with the addition of the word "Authority", and the functions of those authorities in respect of planning matters'.
(b), in line 12, leave out from 'London' to end of line 15 and insert
'Authority, and the functions of the London Authority in respect of planning matters'.
Lords amendment No. 2, after clause 4, insert the following new clause—

Joint Planning Committee For Greater London

" .—(1) The local planning authorities in Greater London shall not later than the abolition date establish a joint committee to discharge the functions mentioned in subsection (2) below.

(2) The joint committee shall—

  • (a) consider and advise those authorities on matters of common interest relating to the planning and development of Greater London;
  • (b) inform the Secretary of State of the views of those authorities concerning such matters including any such matters as to which he has requested their advice;
  • (c) inform the local planning authorities for areas in the vicinity of Greater London, or any body on which those authorities and the local planning authorities in Greater London are represented, of the views of the local planning authorities in Greater London concerning any matters of common interest relating to the planning and development of Greater London and those areas;
  • and the committee may, if it thinks fit, contribute towards the expenses of any such body as is mentioned in paragraph (c) above.

    (3) The expenses of the joint committee which have been incurred with the approval of at least two-thirds of the local planning authorities in Greater London shall be defrayed by those authorities in such proportions as they may decide or, in default of a decision by them, as the Secretary of State may determine.

    (4) In this section references to the local planning authorities in Greater London are to the authorities which are the local planning authorities in Greater London for the purposes of Part II of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 or section 4 above.".

    Amendments thereto:

    (a), in line 4, at end insert

    'and the local planning authorities which the councils of districts (in this section referred to as "district planning authorities") in each metropolitan county shall not later than that date establish a joint committee to discharge those functions.'.

    (b), in line 8, at end insert 'or that county'.

    (c), in line 12, after '(c)' insert

    'in the case of Greater London'.

    (d), in line 18, at end insert—

    '(d) in the case of a metropolitan county inform the local planning authorities for areas in the vicinity of the county or any body on which those authorities and the district planning authorities in the county are represented of the views of the district planning authorities in the county concerning any matters of common interest relating to the planning and development of the county and those areas;'.

    (e), in line 18, at end insert—

    '(d) issue guidance to local planning authorities in Greater London for the purposes of paragraph 2(4)(a) of Schedule I to this Act.'.

    ,(f) in line 19, leave out 'paragraph (c) above' and insert 'pagagraph (c) or (d) above, as the case may be'.

    (g), in line 22, after 'Greater London', insert

    'or of the district planning authorities in a metropolitan county'.

    (h), in line 30, at end insert

    'and references to district planning authorities are to the authorities which are local planning authorities for metropolitan districts for the purposes of that Part of that Act or section 4 above.'.

    (i), in page 75, line 27, leave out 'Secretary of State', and insert

    'joint committee established by section (Joint Planning Committee for Greater London) of this Act'.

    Lords amendment No. 4, before clause 7, insert the following new clause—

    Highway And Road Traffic Functions

    '. The Secretary of State shall by order taking effect on the abolition date make provision for the London Residuary Body to exercise the following functions relating to highways and road traffic in London to the extent and in the manner that such order shall provide—

  • (a) that the Body shall have a duty to prepare, in consultation with the borough councils, plans relating to highways and traffic in Greater London and the Body and borough councils shall have regard to such plans when exercising their stationary functions;
  • (b) that it shall be a duty of the Body to establish and maintain an organisation for the purpose of assembling, disseminating and keeping up to date, information on road traffic and other transport in Greater London and that the Body may commission such research and carry out such surveys as they think fit in fulfilment of this duty;
  • (c) That the Body shall have the functions of the highway authority under the Highways Act 1980 in relation to metropolitan roads;
  • (d) that not later than 1st April 1987 the Body shall, in consultation with the borough councils review the existing network of metropolitan roads and prepare and submit to the Secretary of State for his approval proposals for the revision of that network;
  • (e) that, as respects metropolitan roads, the Road Traffic Regualtion Act 1984 shall apply to the Body (for the purposes of traffic management and parking control) as they now apply to the Greater London Council;
  • (f) that the Body shall be a local authority for the purposes of section 38 of the Road Traffic Act 1972 (power of local authorities as to giving of road safety information and training);
  • (g) that the Body shall be authorised, for the purpose of regulating traffic on metropolitan roads, to exercise the powers of a borough council under the said Act of 1984 as respects roads communicating with or adjacent to metropolitan roads in accordance with procedures to be prescribed by the Secretary of State;
  • (h) that, for the purposes of ensuring that the exercise by the London borough council of their powers under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 does not have any adverse effect on traffic on roads for which they are not the highway authority, the Body shall be given reserve powers similar to those given to the Secretary of State in Part 1 of Schedule 9 of the said Act;
  • (i) that the Body may exercise the powers of a London borough council or the Common Council under sections 6 and 9 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 for the purposes of prohibiting or restricting such use of heavy commercial vehicles as the Body considers expedient for preserving or improving the amenities of Greater London or some part or parts thereof;
  • (j) that the Body shall have a duty to control, manage, maintain and, where appropriate, develop and extend the system of urban traffic control through traffic light signals established by the Greater London Council;
  • (k) that the Body shall he a "London Authority" within the meaning of section 50 of the London Regional Transport Act 1984 (travel concessions on journeys in or around Greater London);
  • (l) that the Body shall be able to assist, by way of grant or loan, the provision of transport services by a voluntary organisation for the benefit of the public or any class of persons."
  • Amendment thereto, (a) in line 2, leave out 'Residuary Body' and insert 'Authority'.

    Lords amendment No. 5, before clause 7,

    Insert the following new clause—

    Strategic Highways Functions In Metropolitan Counties

    ". The Secretary of State shall by order taking effect on the abolition date make provision for the authority established by section 27 of this Act for each metropolitan county to exercise the following functions relating to highways and road traffic in that county to the extent and in the manner that such order shall provide—

  • (a) then in functions of the highway authority under the Highways Act 1980 in relation to principal roads within the county;
  • (b) the functions of a county council and a highway authority for the purpose of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 in relation to principal roads within the county;
  • (c) issuing guidance as to the manner in which in relation to non principal roads the councils of metropolitan districts should exercise their powers under the 1984 Act, for the purpose of ensuring that the exercise by such councils of those traffic powers in relation to non principal roads does not have an adverse effect on traffic or any class of traffic using principal roads within the county or any traffic or class of traffic in any area other than the area of the district council, as the case may be;
  • (d) the functions relating to the construction and maintenance of bridges within the county which on that date are the responsibility of the highway authority;
  • (e) the functions contained in the Road Traffic Acts 1972 and 1974 in so far as the same relate to road safety within the county; and
  • (f) the collection, examination, analysis and dissemination of data required for the discharge of those functions."
  • Amendment thereto, (a), in line 3, leave out

    'the authority established by section 27 of this Act for each metropolitan county'

    and insert

    'each metropolitan county authority established by Part II of Schedule I to this Act'.

    Amendment No. 9 (a) in clause 8, page 4, line 31, leave Out

    'London borough councils and the Common Council'

    and insert 'the London Authority'.

    Amendment No. 9 (b), in line 33, leave out 'Metropolitan district Councils' and insert

    'Metropolitan county authorities established by Part II of Schedule I to this Act'.

    Lords amendment No. 48, in clause 55 page 38, line 38, at end insert—

    "(4) As soon as may be after the establishment of a joint committee under section 93 below for Greater London or a metropolitan county the Secretary of State shall, after consultation with that committee, appoint one of its members to be a member of the apprpriate residuary body."

    Amendments thereto, (c), in line 38, at end insert—

    '(4) The members of the London Residuary Body appointed under subsection (3) shall be such members of the London Authority as are nominated by that Authority to the Secretary of State for that purpose.'.

    (d) in line 38, at end insert—

    '(4) The members of each residuary body appointed under subsection (3) above shall be such members of the Metropolitan County Authority established by Part II of Schedule Ito this Act in the area of the appropriate residuary body as are nominated by that authority to the Secretary of State for that purpose.'.

    Lords amendment No. 55, after clause 85—

    Insert the following new clause—

    Research And Collection Of Information

    " .—(1) A scheme may be made for Greater London or a metropolitan county by the constituent councils whereby one of those councils designated by the scheme has the function of—

  • (a) carrying out, or assisting in carrying out, investigations into, and the collection of informtion relating to, any matters concerning that area or any part of it; and
  • (b) making, or assisting in making, arrangements whereby any such information and the results of any such investigation are made available to any other local authority in that area, any government department or the public.
  • (2) Any such scheme shall require the other constituent councils to contribute as provided by subsection (3) below to the expenditure incurred by the designated council in carrying out its functions under the scheme.

    (3) The constituent councils shall be required to contribute to any expenditure of the designated council which has been incurred with the approval of at least two-thirds of the constituent councils; and the amounts of the contributions shall be determined so that the expenditure in respect of which they are payable is borne by the constituent councils in proportion to the populations of their respective areas.

    (4) For the purposes of subsection (3) above the population of any area shall be taken to be the number estimated by the Registrar General and certified by him to the Secretary of State by reference to such date as the Secretary of State may from time to time determine.

    (5) A scheme may provide that, if two-thirds of the constituent councils so decide, the designated council may require all or any of the constituent councils other than the designated council to carry out in respect of their respective areas an investigation into, or the collection of information relating to, any specified matter concerning the area covered by the scheme or any part of it; and where such a requirement is imposed on a council—

  • (a) that council shall comply with the requirement in such manner and within such time as may be specified in the requirement; and
  • (b) if that council fails to comply with the requirement the designated council may itself do what was required and recover the cost of doing it from that council.
  • (6) The expenditure which is to be borne as mentioned in subsection (3) above shall not include—

  • (a) any expenditure of the designated council which is recoverable by virtue of paragraph (b) of subsection (5) above; or
  • (b) if a requirement is imposed by virtue of that subsection on all the constituent councils other than the designated council, any expenditure incurred by that council in doing in respect of its own area what it has required the other councils to do in respect of their areas.
  • (7) Any information collected by the designated council, and the results of any investigation carried out by it, in the exercise of its functions under the scheme shall be made available, on request, to each of the other constituent councils.

    (8) A scheme shall not come into force before the abolition date but shall continue in force until the end of at least two financial years after that in which it is made.

    (9) A scheme may, in the absence of agreement between all the constituent councils, be made by a majority of those councils so as to be binding on all of them; but a council shall not be designated by a scheme except with its consent.

    (10) A scheme may contain such supplementary provisions as the councils making the scheme think necessary or expedient and, subject to subsection (8) above, may be revoked by those councils (or, in the absence of agreement between all of them, by a majority of those councils) with effect from the end of any financial year after that in which the decision to revoke the scheme is made.

    (11) The council designated by a scheme may be giving not less than twelve months notice to the other constituent councils withdraw its consent to act as the designated council with effect from the end of any financial year not earlier than the second financial year after that in which the scheme was made; and in that event the scheme shall terminate when the withdrawal takes effect.

    (12) For the purposes of this section the constituent councils are—

  • (a) in relation to Greater London, the London borough councils and the Common Council; and
  • (b) in relation to a metropolitan county, the councils of the metropolitan districts comprised in the county.
  • (13) Whether or not a scheme is made under this section a London borough council, the Common Council and a metropolitan district council shall have the power to exercise any of the functions described in subsection (1) (a) and (b) above.

    (14) The appropriate Minister with respect to any matter may require any such council as is mentioned in subsection (13) above to provide him with any information with respect to that matter which is in the possession of, or available to, that council in consequence of the exercise of any powers conferred by or under any enactment."

    Amendments thereto:

    (a) in line 1, leave out from beginning to end of line 4 and insert

    'It shall be the function of each Metropolitan authority established by Part II of Schedule 1 to this Act to make arrangements for—'.

    (b) in line 11, at end insert

    'in the area of the Metropolitan authority'.

    (c) in line 1, leave out from beginning to end of line 3 and insert

    'It shall be the function of the London Authority to make arrangements for—'.

    (d) in line 11, leave out subsections (2) to (14).

    Lords amendment No. 61, in schedule 1, page 86, line 38, leave out paragraph 18.

    Amendments thereto:

    (a) in page 86, line 38, leave out 'may' and insert 'shall'.

    (b) in line 38, leave out

    'at any time after the passing of the Act'

    and insert 'on the abolition date'.

    (c) in line 39, after 'body', insert 'in each metropolitan county'.

    (d) in line 39, leave out from 'known' to 'guidance' in line 40 and insert

    'by the name of that metropolitan county with the addition of the word "Authority" to prepare.'.

    (e) in line 40, leave out

    'Planning Commission to assist him in preparing'

    and insert 'Authority to prepare'.

    (f) in line 41, leave out `Greater London' and insert 'the relevant metropolitan county'.

    (g) in line 42, leave out 'him' and insert 'the Secretary of State'.

    (h) in line 43, leave out

    'for the appointment and terms of office of members of the commission'

    and insert

    'for the members of each metropolitan county authority to be elected by the local government electors of the relevant metropolitan county in accordance with this Act and the Representation of the People Act 1983'.

    (i) in line 45, leave out 'may' and insert 'shall'.

    (j) in line 46, leave out

    'for the appointment and terms of office of members of the Commission'

    and insert

    'for the members of the London Authority to be elected by the local government electors of Greater London in accordance with this Act and the Representation of the People Act 1983;'.

    (k) in page 87, line 1, leave out 'the commission' and insert 'each authority'.

    (l) in line 1, leave out 'Commission' and insert 'Authority'.

    (m) in line 4, leave out 'the commission' and insert 'each authority'.

    (n) in line 4, leave out 'Commission' and insert 'Authority'.

    (o) in page 87, leave out lines 5 and 6.

    On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. With all due respect to you, Mr. Speaker, and acknowledging that London is a marvellous place, of the eight speakers called during the debate on the guillotine motion, including a Minister and a Front Bench Opposition spokesman, five were London Members and not one Member was called from a constituency which is part of a metropolitan county. With respect, Mr. Speaker, I ask you to acknowledge that millions live in the metropolitan counties that are affected by the Bill.

    I am well aware of that. Unfortunately, there was only an hour's debate on the guillotine motion.

    I shall describe briefly the four broad effects of the Opposition amendments to the main Lords amendments. First, they build on the concession which was forced on the Government in another place on Third Reading that there should be a joint planning committee for London. In the Opposition view, the concession did not go far enough. We believe that there should be a strategic body to advise on the planning of London.

    The Government amendment, which was considered in another place, was and is hopelessly inadequate in its powers and authority. It lacks any kind of democratic accountability. The first purpose of the amendments is thus to build on the small concession that was made by the Government and to make the joint planning committee for London, and the committees that we hope to establish in the metropolitan counties, more effective.

    The second purpose of our amendments is to establish an overall joint planning committee for all the metropolitan counties. We do not accept that there should merely be a planning committee or authority for Greater London. The shire counties represent smaller populations than are represented in the metropolitan counties and there is no reason why they should have an overall planning authority while the conurbations, which now form part of the metropolitan counties, have no such authority. We wish to establish a joint planning authority for each of the metropolitan counties to take further the Government's inadequate concession in accepting that there should be a planning authority for London. It is almost inconceivable to reject the advice of every responsible planning commentator that the great megalopolis should be treated as if it did not exist for planning purposes.

    The third purpose of the amendments is to invest each county-wide planning authority—we want to see one for every metropolitan county — with a power to give strategic guidance that must be taken into account when plans are drawn up for the counties. We want these planning authorities to be able to go much further than merely giving guidance or advice. It is no use having a joint planning committee, whether for London or for all the metropolitan counties, if it is a toothless talking shop. The Government's concession in another place would merely set up such a body.

    Fourthly, and perhaps most importantly, the purpose of the amendments is to create an elected auhority for the Greater London council and for every metropolitan county to deal with the functions that we intend will remain on a county-wide basis. We want a democratically elected authority to continue as an interim measure to deal with planning, which is the main subject of the first two Lords amendments, highways, which remain a county function as a result of concessions elsewhere, traffic, waste disposal and research. We want also democratic accountability for the residuary body, which is assuming so many powers and functions to London. In other words, we want to put some democracy back into local government and the tangled web of functions that will remain after the Bill passes into law.

    In short, we are looking for more consistency in planning and more authority for joint planning committees for the counties. We want to allow the people to choose, by the democratic process, how their county functions are discharged. Ostensibly the Bill was about transferring power to the boroughs and districts but in reality that was not its purpose. It was designed to destroy seven powerful elected councils that had the inconvenience for the Government of being controlled predominantly by the Labour party. The real background to the Bill involves malice and the abuse of power, and the destruction of local government because it lay largely in the hands of the Labour party.

    5 pm

    Perhaps one should describe the Government's proposition as simple minded. On the face of it, the cities could be streamlined, but the Government's proposition means that Greater London will not really be Greater London at all. One can ignore it and treat it as 32 separate boroughs. One can ignore the conurbation implications of Merseyside, Manchester, the midlands, and so forth. On face value, that idea of streamlining is daft. I have authority for saying that the proposition is not workable. I quote:

    "It will be generally agreed that Greater London, an area of some 610 square miles containing seven million people, must continue to be more than an agglomeration of 32 boroughs with different degrees of urban disease".

    Those are not my words, but the words of the Minister for Local Government when he wrote about being a Londoner in 1977.

    The idea of streamlining the cities has turned out not merely to be daft—most commentators agreed at the beginning that it was daft—but to be impossible. The Bill is a great legislative lie. It does not deprive the counties of all the countrywide functions, it does not streamline the cities, it does not transfer many functions to the boroughs or the districts, and it does not give the districts and the boroughs the powers that the Government originally intended to transfer. The Bill defrauds people of their vote.

    One can sum up the Bill as it comes towards the end of its passage by saying that it does not streamline, it makes more complicated; it does not save money, it spends more; and it does not transfer powers and functions substantially to the boroughs or the districts. Above all, the Bill destroys an element of local democracy, and by doing so it adds chaos to the functions that remain countywide. It bears as much resemblance to streamlining as a Heath Robinson conveyance bears to Concorde. Carrying that

    analogy further, the only thing that it borrow s from Concorde is the cost. The original conception of abolition has not come about.

    The result of the Bill is the creation of 62 quangos consisting of joint boards, joint committees, a London planning committee, authorities for waste disposal, traffic and so on. The 62 quangos are part of the Government's plan to streamline the cities. It invests five Government Departments with quasi local government functions. It quite properly preserves the Inner London Education Authority as an elected body for all time and it gives to 127 boroughs, districts and shire councils functions relating to the government of part of the metropolitan counties.

    In London, the lie behind the Bill is illustrated because 60 per cent. of the GLC's expenditure will continue to exist as a countywide function. During the passage of the Bill in another place, 25 new county functions were devised for the counties as a whole instead of being transferred to the boroughs and districts. Incredibly, out of 80,000 staff working for the GLC, 71,000 will continue to work in services that will run countywide after the passage of the Bill. That underlines the lie.

    After the passage of the Bill a large number of people will be working for London and money will be spent on London and the other metropolitan counties, but the main difference between the government of London now and after the passage of the Bill is that there will be no democratic accountability. What will emerge is a share that is even more costly than the original—a municipal Byzantium, which, as was the case with Byzantium, has no democracy.

    The hon. Gentleman quoted figures of employees of the GLC and went on to say that there will be no democratic representation. Will he confirm that the figures included the entire work force and staff of ILEA? Under the Bill, the members of ILEA will be democratically elected. Therefore, the hon Gentleman is talking nonsense.

    I concede that the right hon. Gentleman is correct in saying that those who work for the ILEA will be controlled by a directly elected body. Why does the same principle not apply to every other county function that is being preserved as a result of the amendments made largely in another place under pressure from the Opposition? What is good for the ILEA and for countrywide local government at the moment should obtain in the future. Government supporters have the chance to vote for Opposition amendments, which would enable that democratic structure to be preserved. Otherwise, we shall simply have a distortion of local democracy. The main burden of our amendments is to give a democratic accountability to those functions which will continue not on a district or a borough basis, but on a countywide basis.

    The second main purpose of the amendments is to recognise the reality of planning our conurbations, and to give each metropolitan county a joint planning commission, which would be elected. One cannot plan a road system from one borough to another. One has to deal with land use on a conurbation basis. A magnificent change has taken place in the nature of south London as a result of the GLC financing over many years on a countywide basis, for example, with the creation of Burgess park. Much of south London was too densely populated and people were living with no green around them at all.

    It is impossible to have such a planning function simply on a borough basis. On such a basis, it is impossible to plan the skyline around our cities, planning that is very important both in London and parts of Yorkshire, where, without adequate planning, it is possible to destroy the skyline.

    The argument for planning our conurbations on a conurbationwide basis is made out in the Government's proposals on inner cities. The Government do not treat inner city policy as a subject merely for one borough or another. They recently set up, with a flourish from the Prime Minister, an organisation called City Action Teams, or CATs for short. As the Association of Metropolitan Authorities observed, what the country needs is not cats, but mice—more inner city expenditure.

    At any rate, when looking at the problems of the inner city, the Government did not choose to do so from borough to borough or district to district. They took a strategic overall view, and said that Government Departments and local authorities must come together to take a strategic view of the inner city. The inner city should be planned in that way. As my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) said, we shall repeal the Bill at the earliest opportunity. The further the Bill gets in its passage, the nearer the opportunity will come for a Labour Government to undertake that task.

    In the meantime, the amendments amount to no more than interim measures. They at least restore to planning some democratic accountability and sense. For that reason alone, I ask hon. Members on both sides of the House to support our amendments.

    I wish to speak to amendment (b)

    "to the words so restored to the Bill":—
    Page 3, line 12, leave out from 'London' to end of line 15 and insert
    'Authority, and the functions of the London Authority in respect of planning matters'.
    The Government made some concessions in the other place to various aspects of the Bill, but from the point of view of those in all parties who have opposed the Bill all the way through, and regarded it as a sad piece of legislation, to say the least, that has not been sufficient to repair the damage that is contained in many parts of the Bill. In the other place the Government lost some crucial amendments on significant occasions, but it was not enough to persuade them to depart from the central and still extremely unwelcome aspects of the Bill's structure.

    Amendment (b) deals only with aspects to do with London, but later amendments incorporate the metropolitan counties. At this late stage it is worth remembering that my hon. Friends and colleagues in all parts of the House still have an opportunity to do some useful repair work to the Bill's structure. The confusion and chaos in the original text has to some extent been made worse by the Government's concessions in an attempt to achieve a more rational structure. Despite their Lordships' interesting and heroic efforts—I pay particular tribute to Lord Plummer for his amendments — the position is more difficult than previously.

    With this amendment my colleagues and I suggest a significant adjustment to help the Government produce a much better structure. We do not seek to push them too far, or oblige them to depart from their original manifesto commitment, which is adhered to in the Bill. In some respects our arguments, fortuitously and felicitously, coincide with those of the Opposition Front Bench, but they are significantly and interestingly different. The substantial effect of the amendment is to put London's strategic planning, highways and traffic control, waste disposal and the important but often forgotten citywide research services into one directly elected London authority.

    Thus, we return to the theme of the body being directly elected. The body is not to be compared in any way with the existing Greater London council. It has no relationship to it and is wholly different. It would be a small body, which would meet the Government's objectives of saving costs, and would have the opposite effect to the present one. The Coopers and Lybrand report shows beyond all doubt that the whole exercise will cost a one-off £170 million. That may be the top end of its range of estimates of the extra cost.

    The amendment would transform the residuary body — which was supposed to be a marginal tidying-up body, but which has acquired more and more functions, which the Government's planners could not put elsewhere, as the text became more problematic—into a London authority. The amendment would also provide, together with related later amendments, that the London authority should nominate members of the London residuary body, instead of the Secretary of State.

    In the other place successful amendments transferred parts of highways and traffic to the London residuary body. As has already been said, the boroughs end up with only a small minority of the total activities and expenditure in gross terms, contrary to the original intentions of both the manifesto and the Secretary of State. Although my hon. Friends and I believe that the decentralisation proposed for the boroughs in the change for the residuary body is right, it is not appropriate to move the remaining overall Londonwide highways and traffic functions to a temporary nominated quango, such as the London residuary body or a joint board.

    The amendment is valuable in that it deals with direct elections, and immediately and specifically makes possible the co-ordination of those four important citywide services—planning, highways and traffic control, waste disposal and the research unit — into one London authority. Obviously, we want the authority to be directly elected because its powers and expenditure will be substantial, and it should be accountable to the ratepayers who will have to pay for its functions. We in this House and the other place will anyway have to return to the question of direct elections in separate legislation in due course.

    As the Secretary of State has often reminded us, the Conservative party election manifesto promised to abolish the GLC on the grounds that it was a wasteful body and an unnecessary tier of government. Those arguments have been rendered otiose by the passage of the Bill and the detailed examination of all the arguments for and against it. We shall be left with a yawning gap and major lacuna in London local government, unless this admittedly late-in-the-day adjustment is made.

    At the end of the Bill's passage — the Government will no doubt have a chance to refer to this later—there is little talk in official circles about saving large sums through abolition. All the evidence suggests that Londoners will face heavy one-off bills, and annually recurring bills for these regrettable changes. I do not exaggerate when I say that this is a tragic piece of legislation in every respect.

    5.15 pm

    The Londonwide tier of government will remain in a structural sense because the GLC's services have been distributed among various quangos, joint boards and joint committees, most of which will be under close ministerial supervision. Instead of the long-standing and solemn tradition of democratic co-ordinated government for London under whatever political control — elections come and go, to give all parties a chance—we have a muddle and a plethora of different bodies, which confuse everyone, including the Department, and none of which is directly elected. The boroughs will get about one third of the GLC's services in terms of gross revenue expenditure, excluding debt charges, according to the latest calculations, as opposed to most of the expenditure and functions, which was promised as the central rationale of the legislation when it began its unhappy passage.

    One of the worst features of the new scheme for London government is that the entire operation seems to be confused, botched-up and temporary. In a few years' time Parliament will have to return to the subject, and do a major repair job. All parliamentarians must find it tragic to think of all the hours that have been wasted on the legislation. I, therefore, ask the House, especially the Secretary of State, even at this late stage to rise to the occasion, to retrieve something secure from this confusion and chaos, to put the essential services together in one authority rather than into the proposed body, and to make it directly elected and wholly separate and different from the existing GLC, with none of the Left-wing hang ups that have rightly irritated Conservative Members. In that way, we would once again have sensible local government in London.

    I hope that the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) will forgive me if I do not follow his comments in detail. He spoke largely about London, whereas my interest lies in south Yorkshire. So far London and the Greater London council have attracted most attention in this debate. The hon. Gentleman suggested that their Lordships have made some minor improvements, and that may be the case. Some noble Lords who may normally be solid supporters of the Conservative party put the country's interest before those of their party in a way which I should like hon. Members in this House to do. The hon. Gentleman may be rather relaxed about the matter because he foresees further legislation in a few years' time. Our worry is that hon. Members from south Yorkshire do not have the time or the opportunity for a leisurely view. The economy of south Yorkshire is appalling and is deteriorating day by day. We are losing more than 200 jobs a week. This is not the time for the Government to plunge the area into the costly chaos that is bound to develop.

    Conservative Members know that south Yorkshire metropolitan county has a vigorous, thriving and growing public transport system based on low fares. What has escaped their attention is the fact that ridership has increased. The Government dislike the system and, for no other reason, they have adopted an attitude of hatred towards the county council, and cheer its departure because they want to privatise bus services, which in our area are first class.

    I am especially interested in participating in the debate because of the other aspects of the South Yorkshire county council that deserve consideration. It has a high reputation for its environmental work. It commands respect for as intelligent approach towards strategic planning responsibilities, which are now to be changed at a time when the economic condition is critical.

    The Minister does not have responsibility for steel and coal, but if he had he would turn grey at what is happening to our special steels industry. The week before last, we heard of the decision to close the British Steel Corporation's relatively new works at Tinsley Park, which he may have visited when he was at the Department of Trade and Industry. Last week, the River Don works, Britain's only large heavy forging and casting capacity, lost 500 or 600 jobs. In the coal industry, 4,000 or 5,000 jobs have been lost within a matter of months. This has happened while the Government are destroying our strategic planning capacity. Within the planning operation and generally, the county council has developed a splendid, internationally commended reputation in environmental protection. That is well known. If the Secretary of State cares to check, he will see that I am making no false or extravagant claims. The county council has done enormous work in recognising and conserving the ecology of our county. It has achieved much in the reclamation of derelict land. The Minister may be aware, despite the contraction of our coal industry, that there is a continuing problem of colliery spoil. There is a continuing and growing need to maintain the current work of the county council in land reclamation. I fear that the measure and the Government's attitude to the modest amendments carried in the other place will be of enormous disadvantage to the county.

    I hope that the Secretary of State will not feel that I am being unfair, but the other day I heard him telling a substantial and important gathering how deeply committed the Conservative party was to conservation. He claimed that it is the party concerned with conservation in Britain. I am well aware of what the Conservative party is disposed to conserve.

    The Secretary of State made substantial claims on Saturday. However, I am patron of the Yorkshire Wildlife Trust. There may be other hon. Members from my region who subscribe to the organisation. It is a long-established and reputable body.

    I am glad to have the confirmation of the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson). The West Yorkshire and South Yorkshire metropolitan county councils are the two most important financial supporters of the trust. If they disappear, the income they provide for the trust, which performs an important function in the county, will be imperilled. It is all right for the Minister to say that the quangos or the borough councils that will inherit the responsibility will be able to offer the same support, but hon. Members from Yorkshire, and perhaps other hon. Members, will be aware that, under the rate-capping arrangements and contracting central support for local government to which the Government continue to be committed, there is no possibility of maintaining the support currently given by the county councils. If the Minister pretends otherwise, he is doing his Department and the House a disservice. It worries me that at a time when we need to enhance our environment, to invest in the economy and the environmental infrastructure, to give our crushed and critical economy some chance, to give our young people some hope and to provide some decency for the leisure of those who have gone in huge numbers into the dole queues, one major area of leisure is put under a severe and unacceptable threat. I hope that even at this late stage the Minister will recognise that, whatever concessions he may be prepared to make for London, he is making far too few concessions for the metropolitan counties in the north. In my county, the economic position is grave. The environment will be seriously disadvantaged entirely as a result of this petty, politically motivated and grossly unattractive measure.

    I am glad to have the opportunity to follow my colleague from Yorkshire, the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy). It is undoubtedly true that there is anxiety about several of the changes that will result from the Bill, largely from the cash point of view. However, I do not understand why the matters that the hon. Gentleman raised, especially those relating to the environment, cannot be dealt with under a different structure, provided that sufficient resources are available. Today, we are dealing with the structures through which such services are carried out.

    Since the Government came to power in 1979, they have talked about the abolition or reform of the metropolitan county structure. The matter was discussed in the Department of the Environment early in the life of this Government. No report on local government recommended the present metropolitan county structure. It was a compromise. Some of us thought from the beginning that it was a botched compromise, because those authorities were large, had large bureaucracies and incurred vast expenditure on salaries, but had relatively restricted functions. There was no case for continuing them. It was not only Conservative Members or members of the Government in 1979 who believed that; most Labour city leaders believed that. Mr. Ken Livingstone in London and the leaders in Leeds, Birmingham and Merseyside believed that, because there was no balance of responsibilities at the county level as there was at the shire level. They were not responsible for education, but they were responsible for substantial transport systems, the police and the fire services.

    I do not accept that this legislation is tragic. It is bringing us back to the position in which we should have been from the start. Those authorities should never have existed, and are unnecessary. The Liberal party and the SDP today agreed that they are unnecessary. However, what they want in their place is equally horrendous, because I believe that the British people want powers pushed back down to a lower level, not the accumulation powers at a regional level.

    The hon. Gentleman must realise that the position is different in London. London has had directly elected, citywide government since the London county council was set up in 1889. Therefore, it is nothing new. If the metropolitan county councils are abolished, there will still be city government in Sheffield, Liverpool and Manchester, but there will be none in London. That is the difference.

    5.30 pm

    The point is that history moves on and structures do not remain absolute in value. In London the scale of responsibilities of the citywide authority has steadily diminished under all parties. Only about 10 per cent. of the resources spent on the individual citizen in London is channelled through the GLC. What is the value of the body? My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) always emphasises the need for "a voice" for London. I have never understood whom that voice is for, or to whom it is addressed. I can understand the ceremonial function and that people from around the world might want to be received, but the City of London could do that as well as the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks).

    Can the hon. Member explain the intention of the person who gave money to the Horniman museum, over the door of which is the inscription, to which the Bishop of Southwark referred,

    "Given to the London County Council as Representative of the people of London in perpetuity"?
    What authority other than the GLC or a county council can take responsibility for all citizens and look after all their interests?

    City government thoughout the world varies enormously. Municipal authorities elsewhere manage because such gifts are given to parts of cities or to institutions. There is nothing sacrosanct about a particular representative body for a city such as London. London happens to have evolved in a way which is different from other cities. Paris has evolved in yet another way. It has an elected mayor who has almost absolute power, whereas other elected representatives have little or no say. Power there is centralised. Nothing decrees that a particular body should speak for London and have particular powers.

    If we had not transferred housing and other major responsibilities down the line the argument would be different. I should have thought that the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), since he represents the Liberal party, would argue in favour of passing responsibilities down the line. He seemed to say that powers should be passed up to a regional body, which is even more divorced from the citizen. Most of my constituents do not know who their county councillors are or what functions they have, so how on earth would they know who to turn to at regional level?

    Only inner London had a county council structure and it was called the London county council. The county of Surrey and the county of Middlesex represented many outer London boroughs. Previously most of the metropolitan areas were county boroughs, which were smaller, unitary authorities and therefore more understandable to the public.

    The people of Leeds wanted to remain within a county borough. No one recommended the metropolitan county of West Yorkshire, although I am sad to say that a Conservative Government created it. It makes no sense. It is not a metropolitan conglomeration but a huge city with a number of other small towns.

    The hon. Gentleman's argument would make sense if the Government intended to pass back to the old county boroughs or districts the functions they lost, but they are not doing that. They are setting up unelected, undemocratic quangos with no responsibility or accountability to the people of Leeds or anywhere else.

    I am glad the hon. Gentleman has allowed me to return to my course. I want to deal with precisely those matters. People talk about the residuary body.—[Hon Members: "What is it?"] It is as described by definitiion. It is not intended to exist in perpetuity. Most of us believe that it is important to put the reorganisation on the road, to find out the rough edges and to resolve the problems.

    Some of the amendments are farcical. The residuary body is intended to find out how to deal with the functions and to farm them out to the appropriate quarter. Such a body should not be elected. We do not want the residuary body to be perpetuated by making it an elected body.

    The House of Lords has the notion that elections should take place for people who are to deal with tiny functions. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East, for whom I have a great respect on a European level, wants a directly elected body to deal with waste—an important function—research agencies, libraries and museums. That is in the realms of farce. We do not have a tradition of direct elections to deal with specific functions.

    In other countries such activities are handled on a broader basis on behalf of others by a single elected authority. Even in Britain we have a strong tradition of one authority acting on behalf of another. In education, for example, children can cross a boundary and be educated at a neighbouring school and one authority pays the recipient authority. We have a long tradition of agency agreements. Research facilities, safety inspectorates, quality controls and consumer standards can be operated by one authority on behalf of another through an agency agreement. That is a long-standing practice. An elected body is not necessary to perform that function.

    I opposed that idea. I do not wish to be side tracked into that argument. At least I was, and am, consistent.

    If we trust the authorities and place responsibilities firmly on them, rather than allowing them to hedge and pass the buck up the line to a nebulous body such as the county council, they will get together and reach agreement.

    We tend to view government in the United States in terms of the Senate and Congress, but I have lectured on their history and politics and experienced local government there. Town planning is the responsibility of the town. Small communities and county-level government devise their own plans for their communities. Areas such as Texas deliberately might do little in the way of planning. Where they do, in the east coast states, for example, boundaries adjoin and yet agreements are reached. When I was there last week I found local officials meeting over breakfast. Perhaps that is a good thing because there is less disagreement likely at that time.

    The current proposition is not as absurd as some people think. We have accepted many tiers and people spend years making structural plans, decisions often overturned on appeal to the Secretary of State. In many ways the arbiters of planning proposals are the Secretary of State's regional officials. We do not need all the present tiers because people can get together at a planning level to resolve difficulties amicably.

    These proposals are long overdue. The present county and London levels are unnecessary and the more quickly that we get rid of them the happier I and my constituents shall be.

    The most revealing point made by the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson) came at the end of his contribution when he claimed that the Government's proposals are not so absurd as many people think—an admission that the Government's argument is not getting across so well as Ministers claim.

    Hon. Members on both sides believe that this group of amendments provides the last chance of maintaining a minimal elected authority in each of the metropolitan areas and in Greater London. Unlike the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West, I believe that the powers proposed in these amendments are coherent and should be operated on a conurbationwide basis covering strategic planning, highways and traffic, waste disposal, central and support services and research and information. Those are all essential, practical services, not the high-visibility political issues which cause anxiety to so many people. The hon. Member for Leeds, North-West claimed that this was a minimal series of responsibilities for which to have people elected, but I believe that it entails a great deal more responsibility to exercise those powers across a metropolitan area or the Greater London area than is exercised by many elected district authorities.

    Is it not sensible that decisions on the important functions which affect neighbouring authorities should be taken by representatives from the directly elected district councils who have the interests of their communities at heart? The people on those joint bodies could then resolve the difficulties.

    Some of us have experience of trying to get this sort of agreement at local level when the interest of one borough or district is different from that of its neighbours. It is not easy to achieve. This is one area in which some hon. Members are sceptical about the Government's belief that co-operation and co-ordination will magically break out at district or borough level and that it will be all right on the night. This has not happened in practice because, for perfectly understandable and defensible reasons, local authorities fight their corner and for their people. They do not see the overall needs of the wider area, nor should they when they are elected to do a rather different job.

    The Government accept that many of these conurbationwide powers cannot be exercised by individual authorities because the Government have created an extraordinary patchwork quilt of joint boards, quangos and other authorities. Much of the expert evidence heard during the Committee stage gives the lie to the belief that there will be co-ordination and co-operation at borough and district level.

    Their Lordships went some way to recognise that key services are best carried out at metropolitan level. I welcome the idea of a joint planning committee for Greater London which will give elected borough councillors a chance to discuss planning issues, to represent their views to the Secretary of State and to send representatives to the south-east planning body. Having provided that committee for London, why will the Government not provide the same machinery for the other metropolitan areas, where the problems are the same and sometimes even worse—run-down inner city areas, declining industries, difficulty in attracting new developments and new jobs and problems with public and private transport? It is wildly illogical to provide that machinery for London and to deny it to the other metropolitan authorities.

    I endorse what the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) said about the need to view inner city problems on a conurbationwide basis. Our experience of metropolitan government has made it clear that it is impossible to solve inner city problems on the basis of inner city areas alone. One must take a wider view. For example, the Thamesmead new town development in my constituency is a highly imaginative scheme originally launched by the Greater London council. No one could possibly suggest that such a gigantic project could have been undertaken by one or two borough or district authorities.

    5.45 pm

    The philosophy of this legislation is in sharp contrast with commitments given by the Conservatives before they came to power in 1979. When the Labour Government were considering the question of organic change—the idea of giving powers back to some of the biggest of the former county boroughs—the present Secretary of State for Defence was reported in the Local Government Chronicle of 9 March 1979 to have told the Conservative party local government conference in March 1979 in his traditionally strong and robust manner that the Conservative party rejected the idea of a reform of local government structure. He said:
    "I do not believe for one moment that the British people are looking for a major upheaval in local government."
    He went on to say:
    "Change for change's sake or expensive experiments with the ratepayers' money must be ruled out and that must be the position of the Conservative party."
    The right hon. Gentleman announced that he had had discussions with the leaders of the Association of County Councils, the Association of District Councils and the Association of Metropolitan Authorities. He went on to make a clear declaration:
    "We are agreed that we do not seek another major reorganisation of local government because we are certain that change in this field is likely to be expensive and divisive."
    It has certainly been divisive, and from the Coopers and Lybrand studies it is clear that it will also be expensive. The GLC figure for the transitional costs is between £122 million and £167 million. Even on the most optimistic Coopers and Lybrand assessment it would take almost 12 years of annual savings to recoup that kind of expenditure.

    The present Prime Minister, speaking at the same conference, promised a close relationship between a Conservative Government and Conservative local authorities. She declared:
    "We've worked with you in Opposition. I want to say very strongly that we shall go on working with you in Government."
    Clearly, she felt that there was some scepticism on that point because she went on to say:
    "In case that comes as a shock to those of you with long memories—I repeat—we shall go on working with you in Government. Good Government rests on a partnership between Whitehall and town hall."
    She concluded:
    "We are going to give back to you more of the responsibility for running your own affairs."
    That will raise a very hollow laugh from many Conservative councillors up and down the country who are suffering even tighter control from the Department of the Environment. It would certainly get a short, sharp and rude response from those Conservative councillors whose councils will be abolished by the Bill. Conservative Members who believe in the traditional Conservative view of local government should support the amendments.

    This short debate has allowed the House to rehearse various arguments which have been extensively debated on previous occasions in this House and in another place. In those circumstances, it would not be right for me to go on too long. I shall therefore set out briefly the Government view on the points made by the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) and others.

    There seem to be three substantive issues. The first concerns planning in London. I was grateful for the welcome given by the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright) to the amendment accepted in another place. Lords amendments Nos. 1 and 2 and the consequential Lords amendment No. 61 provide for a joint committee of borough council representatives instead of the appointed London planning commission originally envisaged in the Bill. The purpose of the joint committee would be to consider matters of common interest relating to the planning and development of Greater London and to inform the Secretary of State and neighbouring planning authorities of its views. It is important to note that the joint committee will not itself be a planning authority but an advisory committee, as the originally proposed London planning commission would have been.

    The Lords amendments owe a good deal to the wisdom of my noble Friend Lord Sandford who has great experience in these matters. The London planning commission as an appointed expert body did not find much favour in another place. Instead, there was felt to be a need to co-ordinate the borough councils' approach to planning in and around London. The proposal for a joint committee has the support of the London Boroughs Association and of SERPLAN, the South East Regional Planning Conference. The Government are satisfied that that change made by the other place is an improvement, and I hope that the House will accept the relevant Lords amendments.

    The Opposition amendments to Lords amendment No. 2 seek to do two things. First, they seek to extend the joint committee concept to the six metropolitan counties. Secondly—the hon. Member for Norwood touched on this briefly — they would empower the London joint committee, but, strangely, not the metropolitan joint committees, to issue guidance to which borough councils must have regard in preparing their unitary development plans.

    I hope that the House will reject both Opposition amendments to Lords amendment No. 2. The Government remain unconvinced that there is any need for special planning machinery to cover the metropolitan county areas. In this context London is and always has been seen to be a special case. London has more than three times as many planning authorities as the largest metropolitan county and the impact of London's development on the surrounding area is far greater and more complex than that of any other conurbation in England. Our original proposal for a London planning commission recognised those facts and the decision to substitute a joint committee of the boroughs cannot alter the case against providing anything comparable for the metropolitan counties because there is simply no need for any such provision. Each of the metropolitan districts will be a powerful elected planning authority in its own right. To impose a joint planning committee would be an unnecessary bureaucratic top hamper and I advise the House to reject the amendments which call for it.

    The right hon. Gentleman may regard London's problems as quantitatively greater than those of areas such as Merseyside or Tyne and Wear, but under the Bill the powers granted to the joint planning commission for London will go to the Secretary of State in the case of the metropolitan counties. That is even more bureaucratic. Does the right hon. Gentleman envisage no possibility of conflict between district councils such as Liverpool and Sefton? Such conflict does not make for good local government planning. What advantage is there to the metropolitan counties in the system proposed in the Bill?

    In the case of town and country planning powers in the metropolitan counties the proposal has always been that strategic guidance would be drawn up by the Department of the Environment in response to planning conferences held within the areas concerned. The broad, strategic guidance is and always has been a function of central Government Departments. To try to interpose an extra layer between the powerful district and borough planning authorities and the strategic guidance — I emphasise the word "strategic"—which must inevitably come from central Government will merely create confusion and difficulty, as has already occurred when large bodies of that kind interfere with the planning functions of a large number of districts and boroughs.

    Thirdly, amendments to various parts of the Bill seek to provide for multi-purpose directly elected authorities either for London or for the six metropolitan counties or for all seven areas. A number of hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes), have spoken in favour of those amendments.

    I note with some relief that this really is the last opportunity to debate this issue. No one has ever denied its importance. It has been the central issue in the Bill. It has been debated time and again at every stage of the Bill—on clause 1 on the Floor of the House, on several occasions in the Standing Committee and again on Report. On that last occasion, on 27 March, the Voice for London amendment was defeated by 335 votes to 193. Now, undaunted — perhaps refreshed after three months' freedom from the need to debate the matter — hon. Members on both sides have returned to the charge yet again.

    The formation of the proposal is slightly different from those previously advanced, but the objective is the same. Whatever hon. Members may say, the objective is the retention in a different form of the GLC and the metropolitan county councils.

    The Secretary of State is destroying local government, but he will not give way to the chairman of the GLC.

    I know that a number of my hon. Friends are and always have been opposed to the abolition of the GLC, but I find the Opposition's stance puzzling. They have not put their names to the amendments relating to London, although they are supposed to be against abolition of the GLC. It is time that we were told what the Opposition policy for London really is.

    Do the Opposition agree with the Frankenstein horror of a report currently going the rounds at County hall which proposes to recreate not just the GLC but a body which could take unto itself a whole mass of additional powers, including powers over the London police, many of the functions of the London boroughs, stretching its tentacles right out into the green belt to commutor services and so forth?

    That report proposes to lop off a number of outer London boroughs so as to give the resulting body a permanent and undefeatable Labour majority. We need to know whether the Opposition support those proposals.

    As for the metropolitan counties, we were interested to see the press notice referring to a letter from the Leader of the Opposition to the leader of West Yorkshire county council, Councillor John Gunnell. The Leader of the Opposition was asked what was the Labour party's future commitment. We now know the answer to that question. The Leader of the Opposition wrote on 4 July:
    "With regard to the future commitment of the party I am quite sure that the strong case for strategic authorities in the metropolitan areas which you have advanced so well will influence our future policy considerations."
    That seems a less than wholehearted commitment to restore the metropolitan county councils.

    The Government view has always been clear. We oppose recreation of the GLC or the metropolitan county councils in any form. Those authorities do not have enough functions to justify their existence as separate directly elected tiers of local government.

    Although the amendments proposed today differ in some respects from those put forward on earlier occasions, neither they, nor, with great respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East, any of the speeches that we have heard today, begin to make out a case for successor authorities.

    Those who advocate directly elected authorities for London and the metropolitan counties have consistently failed to answer the following point. They know that the present arrangements do not work. They know that the boroughs and districts are now the major providers of local government services in those areas. They also know that major strategic planning and strategic transport decisions inevitably fall to central Government rather than to local government. That has always been so and will continue to be so in the future. Any attempt to stake out an area between the strong boroughs and districts and the central Government functions to be covered by an intermediate tier responsible for planning, highways, waste disposal and so on is doomed to failure. It is a very small area and certainly not large enough to justify a separate directly elected authority.

    At an earlier stage, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East and other Conservative Members argued that we should abolish the GLC and establish a new body with most of the same functions. That was illogical. They now say that we should abolish the GLC and establish a body covering only a few of those functions. That is even more illogical. If the GLC itself does not have enough functions to justify its existence, how can a body with even fewer functions be justified?

    The case for directly elected countrywide authorities for London or the metropolitan counties does not stand up. Between the functions of the boroughs and districts, which are the major providers of services, and the functions of central Government, which are and always have been wider than those of individual boroughs and districts, there is simply not room for an intermediate tier. Acting jointly, the boroughs and districts can, with central Government, provide all the co-ordination that is necessary.

    I do not deny the importance of this issue, but it has been debated time and again in both Houses of Parliament and time and again the changes proposed in the amendments have been firmly rejected. I ask the House to reject them firmly today.

    I had hoped that while the Secretary of State was speaking, attempting to clear up in people's minds the commitments made from the Opposition Front Bench, he would clear up the confusion resulting from his statements. He said at the beginning of this exercise that 7,100 jobs and £100 million would go if we did not have democratically-elected authorities. Where are those jobs to go? What services? Which counties? What were the targets in the mind of the Secretary of State when he started making those statements one and a half years ago? In Committee and so far on Report we have had no explanation. The hopes and aspirations of working people in the metropolitan areas and the GLC and the security of their jobs—

    It being Six o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order this day, to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

    Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

    The House proceeded to a Division

    Order. Does the point of order relate to the Division?

    Yes. We have just had a speech from the Secretary of State for the Environment which lasted about 12 minutes, or one sixth of the allotted time in which the Government have forced the House to consider—

    Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows that this is not a point of order for me. I am not responsible for Ministers' speeches or their length.

    Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was trying to ask you to protect the rights of Members who want to raise points because you decide when an hon. Member will be called. Ministers who coerce the House in terms of the guillotine should not be given a disproportionate amount of time to speak.

    I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, but he will know that the House has passed the allocation of time motion and it is my job to ensure that the will of the House in that respect is carried out.

    Order. I have dealt with the hon. Gentleman's point. He is now getting close to arguing with the Chair.

    The House having divided: Ayes 319, Noes 177.

    Division No. 256]

    6 pm


    Adley, RobertBrown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)
    Aitken, JonathanBrowne, John
    Alexander, RichardBruce, Malcolm
    Alison, Rt Hon MichaelBruinvels, Peter
    Amery, Rt Hon JulianBryan, Sir Paul
    Amess, DavidBuck, Sir Antony
    Ancram, MichaelBurt, Alistair
    Ashby, DavidButcher, John
    Aspinwall, JackButler, Hon Adam
    Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.Butterfill, John
    Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)Carlisle, John (N Luton)
    Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
    Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)
    Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)Cartwright, John
    Baldry, TonyCash, William
    Banks, Robert (Harrogate)Chalker, Mrs Lynda
    Batiste, SpencerChapman, Sydney
    Beith, A. J.Chope, Christopher
    Bellingham, HenryChurchill, W. S.
    Bendall, VivianClark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)
    Bennett, Rt Hon Sir FredericClark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
    Best, KeithClark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
    Bevan, David GilroyClarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
    Biffen, Rt Hon JohnClegg, Sir Walter
    Biggs-Davison, Sir JohnCockeram, Eric
    Blaker, Rt Hon Sir PeterColvin, Michael
    Body, RichardCoombs, Simon
    Bonsor, Sir NicholasCope, John
    Boscawen, Hon RobertCouchman, James
    Bottomley, PeterCranborne, Viscount
    Bottomley, Mrs VirginiaCrouch, David
    Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)Currie, Mrs Edwina
    Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)Dickens, Geoffrey
    Braine, Rt Hon Sir BernardDicks, Terry
    Brandon-Bravo, MartinDover, Den
    Bright, GrahamDunn, Robert
    Brinton, TimDurant, Tony
    Brittan, Rt Hon LeonEdwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

    Eggar, TimKennedy, Charles
    Emery, Sir PeterKey, Robert
    Evennett, DavidKing, Roger (B'ham N'field)
    Eyre, Sir ReginaldKing, Rt Hon Tom
    Fairbairn, NicholasKnight, Greg (Derby N)
    Fallon, MichaelKnowles, Michael
    Farr, Sir JohnLang, Ian
    Fenner, Mrs PeggyLatham, Michael
    Finsberg, Sir GeoffreyLawler, Geoffrey
    Fletcher, AlexanderLee, John (Pendle)
    Fookes, Miss JanetLeigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
    Forman, NigelLennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
    Forth, EricLewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)
    Fowler, Rt Hon NormanLightbown, David
    Fox, MarcusLilley, Peter
    Franks, CecilLloyd, Ian (Havant)
    Fraser, Peter (Angus East)Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)
    Freeman, RogerLord, Michael
    Freud, ClementLuce, Richard
    Fry, PeterLyell, Nicholas
    Gale, RogerMcCrindle, Robert
    Galley, RoyMacfarlane, Neil
    Gardiner, George (Reigate)MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)
    Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)
    Garel-Jones, TristanMaclennan, Robert
    Glyn, Dr AlanMajor, John
    Goodhart, Sir PhilipMalins, Humfrey
    Goodlad, AlastairMarland, Paul
    Gow, IanMarlow, Antony
    Gower, Sir RaymondMarshall, Michael (Arundel)
    Grant, Sir AnthonyMaude, Hon Francis
    Greenway, HarryMawhinney, Dr Brian
    Gregory, ConalMaxwell-Hyslop, Robin
    Griffiths, Sir EldonMayhew, Sir Patrick
    Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)Mellor, David
    Grist, IanMerchant, Piers
    Ground, PatrickMiller, Hal (B'grove)
    Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)Mills, Iain (Meriden)
    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)
    Hampson, Dr KeithMitchell, David (NW Hants)
    Hancock, Mr. MichaelMoate, Roger
    Hannam, JohnMontgomery, Sir Fergus
    Hargreaves, KennethMoore, John
    Harris, DavidMorris, M. (N'hampton, S)
    Haselhurst, AlanMoynihan, Hon C.
    Havers, Rt Hon Sir MichaelMudd, David
    Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)Murphy, Christopher
    Hawksley, WarrenNeale, Gerrard
    Hayes, J.Needham, Richard
    Hayhoe, Rt Hon BarneyNelson, Anthony
    Heathcoat-Amory, DavidNeubert, Michael
    Heddle, JohnNewton, Tony
    Henderson, BarryNicholls, Patrick
    Heseltine, Rt Hon MichaelNorris, Steven
    Hickmet, RichardOnslow, Cranley
    Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.Osborn, Sir John
    Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)Ottaway, Richard
    Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
    Hordern, Sir PeterPage, Sir John (Harrow W)
    Howard, MichaelPage, Richard (Herts SW)
    Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)Parris, Matthew
    Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)Patten, J. (Oxf W & Abdgn)
    Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
    Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)Penhaligon, David
    Howells, GeraintPercival, Rt Hon Sir Ian
    Hubbard-Miles, PeterPollock, Alexander
    Hughes, Simon (Southwark)Portillo, Michael
    Hunt, David (Wirral)Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)
    Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)Powell, William (Corby)
    Hunter, AndrewPowley, John
    Irving, CharlesPrice, Sir David
    Jenkin, Rt Hon PatrickPrior, Rt Hon James
    Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)Proctor, K. Harvey
    Jessel, TobyPym, Rt Hon Francis
    Johnston, Sir RussellRaffan, Keith
    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
    Jones, Robert (W Herts)Rathbone, Tim
    Jopling, Rt Hon MichaelRees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)
    Joseph, Rt Hon Sir KeithRenton, Tim
    Kellett-Bowman, Mrs ElaineRhodes James, Robert

    Rhys Williams, Sir BrandonTaylor, Teddy (S'end E)
    Ridsdale, Sir JulianTebbit, Rt Hon Norman
    Rifkind, MalcolmTemple-Morris, Peter
    Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)Terlezki, Stefan
    Robinson, Mark (N'port W)Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.
    Roe, Mrs MarionThompson, Patrick (N'ich N)
    Rossi, Sir HughThorne, Neil (Ilford S)
    Rost, PeterThornton, Malcolm
    Rowe, AndrewThurnham, Peter
    Rumbold, Mrs AngelaTownend, John (Bridlington)
    Ryder, RichardTracey, Richard
    Sainsbury, Hon TimothyTrippier, David
    Scott, NicholasTrotter, Neville
    Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)Twinn, Dr Ian
    Shelton, William (Streatham)van Straubenzee, Sir W.
    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)Vaughan, Sir Gerard
    Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)Viggers, Peter
    Shersby, MichaelWaddington, David
    Silvester, FredWainwright, R.
    Sims, RogerWakeham, Rt Hon John
    Skeet, T. H. H.Walden, George
    Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)Wall, Sir Patrick
    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)Wallace, James
    Soames, Hon NicholasWaller, Gary
    Speed, KeithWard, John
    Speller, TonyWardle, C. (Bexhill)
    Spencer, DerekWatson, John
    Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)Watts, John
    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)
    Squire, RobinWheeler, John
    Stanbrook, IvorWhitfield, John
    Stanley, JohnWhitney, Raymond
    Steel, Rt Hon DavidWiggin, Jerry
    Steen, AnthonyWolfson, Mark
    Stern, MichaelWood, Timothy
    Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)Woodcock, Michael
    Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)Wrigglesworth, Ian
    Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)Yeo, Tim
    Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)Young, Sir George (Acton)
    Stokes, John
    Stradling Thomas, J.Tellers for the Ayes:
    Sumberg, DavidMr. Carol Mather and
    Tapsell, Sir PeterMr. Donald Thompson.
    Taylor, John (Solihull)


    Abse, LeoConlan, Bernard
    Anderson, DonaldCook, Frank (Stockton North)
    Ashton, JoeCook, Robin F. (Livingston)
    Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)Corbett, Robin
    Bagier, Gordon A. T.Corbyn, Jeremy
    Banks, Tony (Newham NW)Cowans, Harry
    Barnett, GuyCox, Thomas (Tooting)
    Barron, KevinCraigen, J. M.
    Beckett, Mrs MargaretCunliffe, Lawrence
    Bell, StuartDalyell, Tam
    Benn, TonyDavies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)
    Bennett, A. (Dent'n & Red'sh)Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
    Bermingham, GeraldDavis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
    Bidwell, SydneyDeakins, Eric
    Blair, AnthonyDixon, Donald
    Boothroyd, Miss BettyDobson, Frank
    Boyes, RolandDormand, Jack
    Bray, Dr JeremyDubs, Alfred
    Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)Duffy, A. E. P.
    Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
    Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)Eadie, Alex
    Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)Eastham, Ken
    Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)Edwards, Bob (W'h'mpt'n SE)
    Buchan, NormanEvans, John (St. Helens N)
    Caborn, RichardEwing, Harry
    Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)Faulds, Andrew
    Campbell, IanField, Frank (Birkenhead)
    Campbell-Savours, DaleFields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
    Carter-Jones, LewisFlannery, Martin
    Clarke, ThomasFoot, Rt Hon Michael
    Clay, RobertForrester, John
    Clwyd, Mrs AnnFoster, Derek
    Cohen, HarryFraser, J. (Norwood)
    Coleman, DonaldFreeson, Rt Hon Reginald

    Garrett, W. E.O'Brien, William
    George, BruceO'Neill, Martin
    Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr JohnOrme, Rt Hon Stanley
    Godman, Dr NormanPark, George
    Golding, JohnParry, Robert
    Gould, BryanPatchett, Terry
    Hamilton, James (M'well N)Pavitt, Laurie
    Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)Pendry, Tom
    Hardy, PeterPike, Peter
    Harman, Ms HarrietPowell, Raymond (Ogmore)
    Harrison, Rt Hon WalterPrescott, John
    Hart, Rt Hon Dame JudithRadice, Giles
    Hattersley, Rt Hon RoyRandall, Stuart
    Haynes, FrankRedmond, M.
    Heffer, Eric S.Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)
    Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)Richardson, Ms Jo
    Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)Roberts, Allan (Bootle)
    Home Robertson, JohnRoberts, Ernest (Hackney N)
    Hoyle, DouglasRobertson, George
    Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)
    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)Rogers, Allan
    Hughes, Roy (Newport East)Rooker, J. W.
    Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)Rowlands, Ted
    Janner, Hon GrevilleRyman, John
    John, BrynmorSedgemore, Brian
    Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)Sheerman, Barry
    Kaufman, Rt Hon GeraldSheldon, Rt Hon R.
    Kilroy-Silk, RobertShore, Rt Hon Peter
    Kinnock, Rt Hon NeilShort, Ms Clare (Ladywood)
    Lambie, DavidShort, Mrs R.(W'hampt'n NE)
    Lamond, JamesSilkin, Rt Hon J.
    Leighton, RonaldSkinner, Dennis
    Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)Smith, C.(Isl'ton S & F'bury)
    Lewis, Terence (Worsley)Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)
    Litherland, RobertSnape, Peter
    Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)Soley, Clive
    Lofthouse, GeoffreyStott, Roger
    McCartney, HughStrang, Gavin
    McDonald, Dr OonaghStraw, Jack
    McKelvey, WilliamThomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)
    McNamara, KevinThompson, J. (Wansbeck)
    McTaggart, RobertThorne, Stan (Preston)
    Madden, MaxTinn, James
    Marek, Dr JohnTorney, Tom
    Marshall, David (Shettleston)Wardell, Gareth (Gower)
    Mason, Rt Hon RoyWareing, Robert
    Maxton, JohnWeetch, Ken
    Maynard, Miss JoanWhite, James
    Meacher, MichaelWigley, Dafydd
    Meadowcroft, MichaelWilliams, Rt Hon A.
    Michie, WilliamWinnick, David
    Millan, Rt Hon BruceWoodall, Alec
    Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
    Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)Tellers for the Noes:
    Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)Mr. John McWilliam and
    Nellist, DavidMr. Allen McKay.
    Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

    Question accordingly agreed to.

    MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER then proceeded to put the Questions on the remaining Lords amendments to be disposed of at that hour.

    Lords amendment: No. 3, in page 3, line 38, at end insert—

    "() The Secretary of State shall before the abolition date lay before Parliament a report on the steps he will take to secure the full adoption by metropolitan district councils and the London borough councils of those facilities, services, and responsibilities for the protection and enjoyment of the countryside and areas for urban nature conservation which serve the continuing needs of the wider county areas and neighbouring populations."

    Read a Second time.

    Amendments made to Lords amendment, (a) in line 4, leave out 'metropolitan district councils and the London borough councils' and insert

    'the councils to which functions are transferred by this section in Greater London or a metropolitan county'.

    (b) in line 8 leave out 'the wider county areas' and insert 'Greater London or that county'.— [Mr. Patrick Jenkin.]

    Lords amendment, as amended, agreed to

    Lords amendment No. 2 agreed to.

    Lords amendment: No. 4, before clause 7, insert the following new clause — Highway and Road Traffic functions

    " . The Secretary of State shall by order taking effect on the abolition date make provision for the London Residuary Body to exercise the following functions relating to highways and road traffic in London to the extent and in the manner that such order shall provide—
  • (a) that the Body shall have a duty to prepare, in consultation with the borough councils, plans relating to highways and traffic in Greater London and the Body and borough councils shall have regard to such plans when exercising their statutory functions;
  • (b) that it shall be a duty of the Body to establish and maintain an organisation for the purpose of assembling, disseminating and keeping up to date, information on road traffic and other transport in Greater London and that the Body may commission such research and carry out such surveys as they think fit in fulfilment of this duty;
  • (c) that the Body shall have the functions of the highway authority under the Highways Act 1980 in relation to metropolitan roads;
  • (d) that not later than 1st April 1987 the Body shall, in consultation with the borough councils review the existing network of metropolitan roads and prepare and submit to the Secretary of State for his approval proposals for the revision of that network;
  • (e) that, as respects metropolitan roads, the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 shall apply to the Body (for the purposes of traffic management and parking control) as they now apply to the Greater London Council;
  • (f) that the Body shall be a local authority for the purposes of section 38 of the Road Traffic Act 1972 (power of local authorities as to giving of road safety information and training);
  • (g) that the Body shall be authorised, for the purpose of regulating traffic on metropolitan roads, to exercise the powers of a borough council under the said Act of 1984 as respects roads communicating with or adjacent to metropolitan roads in accordance with procedures to be prescribed by the Secretary of State;
  • (h) that, for the purposes of ensuring that the exercise by the London borough council of their powers under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 does not have any adverse effect on traffic on roads for which they are not the highway authority, the Body shall be given reserve powers similar to those given to the Secretary of State in Part 1 of Schedule 9 of the said Act;
  • (i) that the Body may exercise the powers of a London borough council or the Common Council under sections 6 and 9 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 for the purposes of prohibiting or restricting such use of heavy commercial vehicles as the Body considers expedient for preserving or improving the amenities of Greater London or some part or parts thereof;
  • (j) that the Body shall have a duty to control, manage, maintain and, where appropriate, develop and extend the system of urban traffic control through traffic light signals established by the Greater London Council;
  • (k) that the Body shall be a 'London Authority' within the meaning of section 50 of the London Regional Transport Act 1984 (travel concessions on journeys in or around Greater London);
  • (l) that the Body shall be able to assist, by way of grant or loan, the provision of transport services by a voluntary organisation for the benefit of the public or any class of persons."
  • Read a Second time.

    I beg to move amendment (b) to the Lords amendment, in line 26, at end insert

    'provided that, if such revision contains proposals for the designation of existing metropolitan roads as trunk roads, a public enquiry shall be held before any such road shall be so designated by the Secretary of State.'.

    With this it will be convenient to take the following: amendment (c) thereto, in line 26, at end insert

    'and the Secretary of State shall not direct that a highway or proposed highway shall become a trunk road until he has considered the proposals submitted to him under this subsection.'.
    Lords amendment No. 5, before clause 7, insert the following new clause—

    Strategic Highway Functions In Metropolitan Counties

    " . The Secretary of State shall by order taking effect on the abolition date make provision for the authority established by section 27 of this Act for each metropolitan county to exercise the following functions relating to highways and road traffic in that county to the extent and in the manner that such order shall provide—

  • (a) the functions of the highway authority under the Highways Act 1980 in relation to principal roads within the county;
  • (b) the functions of a county council and a highway authority for the purpose of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 in relation to principal roads within the county;
  • (c) issuing guidance as to the manner in which in relation to non principal roads the councils of metropolitan districts should exercise their powers under the 1984 Act, for the purpose of ensuring that the exercise by such councils of those traffic powers in relation to non principal roads does not have an adverse effect on traffic or any class of traffic using principal roads within the county or any traffic or class of traffic in any area other than the area of the district council, as the case may be;
  • (d) the functions relating to the construction and maintenance of bridges within the county which on that date are the responsibility of the highway authority;
  • (e) the functions contained in the Road Traffic Acts 1972 and 1974 in so far as the same relate to road safety within the county; and
  • (f) the collection, examination, analysis and dissemination of data required for the discharge of those functions."
  • Lords amendment No. 6, in page 4, line 3, leave out from first "to" to end of line 7 and insert

    "give effect to the transfer of functions relating to those matters—
  • (a) from the Greater London Council—
  • (i) in part to the London residuary body; and
  • (ii) in part to the London borough councils and the common council; and
  • (b) from the metropolitan county councils—
  • (i) in part to the metropolitan county strategic transportation authorities; and
  • (ii) in part to the metropolitan district councils."
  • Lords amendment No. 7, in page 4, line 13, leave out from second "the" to "and" in line 15 and insert "metropolitan county strategic transportation authorities and London residuary authority."

    Lords amendment No. 8, in page 4, line 19, leave out from" metropolitan" to end of line 23 and insert

    "county strategic transportation authorities and London Residuary Body;"

    Lords amendment No. 24, in clause 27, in page 18, line 18, leave out "Passenger"

    Lords amendment No. 25, in page 18, line 19, leave out "Transport" and insert "Strategic Transportation"

    Lords amendment No. 26, in page 18, line 20, leave out "passenger"

    Lords amendment No. 27, in page 18, line 20, leave out "transport" and insert "strategic transportation"

    Lords amendment No. 28, in page 18, line 21, leave out "passenger"

    Lords amendment No. 29, in page 18, line 21, leave out "transport" and insert "strategic transportation"

    Lords amendment No. 30, in page 18, line 23, leave out "passenger"

    Lords amendment No. 31, in page 18, line 23, leave out "transport" and insert "strategic transportation"

    Lords amendment No. 32, in page 18, line 27, leave out "passenger"

    Lords amendment No. 33, in page 18, line 27, leave out "transport" and insert "strategic transportation"

    Lords amendment No. 40, in clause 38, in page 24, line 17, leave out "passenger"

    Lords amendment No. 41, in page 24, line 18, leave out "transport" and insert "strategic transportation"

    These amendments deal with the vexed subject of the trunking of the south circular road. As many Members will know, this road is a scar through the middle of an otherwise beautiful constituency. The level of traffic on it is totally unnecessary for the local area, and the road itself was not designed to take the level of traffic now on it. It is an unnecessary road, following the completion of the M25, and is totally inadequate.

    There is no point in trying to upgrade the road, because, following what I hope will be improvements after a possible west London relief road has been constructed, this part of the south circular road will be rendered redundant. The main argument of my constituents is that under this Bill the trunking procedures required by the Highways Act 1980 are being abolished in the case of the south circular road. One can have public inquiries at any time up to the effective date of the Bill and at any time after the effective date of the Bill, but on the date the Bill is passed the rights of my constituents with regard to trunking will be removed.

    6.15 pm

    One of the other worries of my constituents is that the south circular road just shovels in the problem front somewhere else. The headaches and miseries my constituents suffer as a result of the traffic, especially lorries, are totally unacceptable and before the road is trunked they would like to express their total opposition to the whole subject of trunking. As a result of the effective abolition of the Highways Act by this Bill, the rights of my constituents will expunged.

    I am grateful to the Government for building the M25, which will take a considerable amount of lorry and car traffic out of the south circular road areas. But the M25 will take only approximately 18 to 20 per cent. of that volume. In any event it is not yet finished, and we do not know what will be its exact effect. The democratic rights of my constituents ought to be enshrined in public inquiries before trunking takes place.

    I cannot speak too highly of the Minister of State for the way she has tried through public meetings and through letters and interviews with local journals to put her side of the story. She has assured my constitutents that there will be public inquiries prior to any road widening schemes. She also says that no road widening schemes are planned at the moment, but, without prejudice to the assessment studies being carried out at the moment, if there is any widening later there will be public inquiries.

    My constituents are somewhat jaundiced about Government assurances following the abolition of the 275,000 aircraft movement limit at Heathrow recently, and therefore wish to have the opportunity of a public inquiry so that the inspector can properly hear the views of people in this area.

    One of the things my hon. Friend the Minister does not fully appreciate, but I believe that her officals do, is that there is a basic difference between public inquiries into trunking proposals and public inquiries set up for road widening proposals following this legislation.

    A trunk road inquiry differs substantially from an inquiry into a local authority road proposal, because whereas a local authority requires a compulsory purchase order and then a side road order, line orders are not made for local authority roads. Unlike a trunk road, planning permission is required for the construction of a new road by a local authority and where an inquiry is needed into the refusal of planning permission or a called-in application for a new road it will normally be held concurrently with the inquiries into the CPO and the SRO.

    The promoting local authority at a public inquiry will be required to prove its case up to the hilt. Before objections are considered it will have to call evidence establishing the need for the road and justifying the scheme as being the best way of meeting that need. By contrast—and this is where constitutionally the people of Richmond are getting a raw deal—the purpose of a trunk road inquiry is not to enable the Secretary of State's case for building the road to be tested in public, but to inform the Secretary of State of the weight and nature of objections to the scheme. The key tasks of the inspector are to take account of objections from people affected by the proposals, to report on those objections and to make recommendations on the proposals. But perhaps the most controversial aspect of road trunk inquiries is that questions on Government policy are outside their scope. The procedural rules specifically require the inspector to disallow any questions which in his opinion are directed to the merits of Government policy. We believe that any inquiry before trunking would give full protection to my constituents. They demand that right.

    I can do no better than quote some of the demands made by an organisation called Richmond Residents Against the A205 Trunking. That group has acted non-politically and in a completely non-partisan way. It has worked hard to try to bring to public attention the constitutional disaster that trunking under the Bill produces. I agree with every statement that the organisation makes. It stated:
    "We want to cross the main road with no more difficulty than now. We do not want to have to use bridges and tunnels. We want to be able to take our children to school and to shop without being buffeted by vehicles of all sizes or weights. We do not want pavements narrowed in the shopping areas. We want to be able to shop freely on both sides of the road."
    Communities are otherwise destroyed.

    "We do not want our main road run by a Whitehall department that sees it as a through route to somewhere else, attracting traffic through our constituency. We want the Government to accept any changes made by the House of Lords aimed at keeping London's roads under London control."
    The organisation wants a public inquiry.

    My final worry is that, even if we had a public inquiry after the road had been trunked and were able to put forward the environmental matters that we believe should be considered with regard to any widening proposals of the south circular road, an inspector might have to resort to the Trunk Roads Act 1936, which describes trunk roads as:
    "the principal roads in Great Britain which constitute the national system of routes for through traffic".
    In the face of that definition, an inspector would have to say, "I hear the environmental considerations put forward by the local community but, because it is a trunk road, in the national interest I shall order it to be widened." Our ability to complain has been eroded by the Bill.

    I understand the worries of my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley), because he has expressed them time and again, as is his right. While I fully agree that conditions on the south circular road are completely unsatisfactory and have every sympathy with those who live, work and shop nearby, the road cannot be altered without a public inquiry. The distinctions that he drew between a local road inquiry and a trunk road inquiry are theoretical. Government policy will always be discussed at a trunk road inquiry. There has never been one where that has not occurred. In practice, therefore, the Secretary of State for Transport must justify his case fully. I cannot accept what my hon. Friend was saying about the difference between the two types of inquiry.

    Amendments (b) and (c) which my hon. Friend has tabled have problems. First, amendment (b) is incompatible with the power contained in schedule 4 for the trunking of some metropolitan roads on abolition date. Amendment (c) would stop any trunking order anywhere in the country between now and April 1987 at the earliest, because, as my hon. Friend is aware, the power to trunk contained in schedule 4 has been debated and approved by both Houses.

    I tabled amendment (b), not (c), which is in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.

    The hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) spoke to amendment (c), not (b).

    I thought that I heard that mentioned before. I am asking the House to resist amendments (b) and (c), for the reasons that I have given. Amendment (c) would stop any trunking order anywhere in the country between now and April 1987 at the earliest. Given the correspondence which I frequently receive in which I am asked to trunk some roads, that would be in no one's interests.

    We have debated the power to trunk contained in schedule 4, and it has been approved by both Houses of Parliament. Any proposals to trunk roads in London after abolition date would have to follow the procedures laid down in the Highways Act 1980. In other words, even if the residuary body conducted a review of metropolitan roads for 1987, any trunking proposals would still be subject to the provisions of the Highways Act 1980.

    My hon. Friend is aware, and I repeat, that the ownership of GLC roads will be transferred to the appropriate successor authorities at abolition date. I resist amendment (b) because if we were to use the powers contained in the Highways Act 1980 there would be a long period of uncertainty, not just about the A205 in my hon. Friend's constituency, but about all the other parcels of land in the metropolis covered by that provision. It would impose upon local ratepayers the cost of maintaining those major roads in the meantime. I do not believe that that is fair.

    It is right for me and the Government to make clear what the transfer of ownership at abolition will mean. Similar transfers of ownership have been made through legislation before—in 1936, 1946 and in 1963 when the GLC was established.

    My hon. Friend asked about improvements. He said, "When?" I say, "if'. While we are seeking to improve the environment along the south circular road and in other places, there is no certainty that any of the matters which he and his constituents fear will occur. As he correctly said, we have no plans to improve the road. If there were any proposals to improve the road, they would all follow the normal procedure of public consultation and inquiry, and the full provisions of the Highways Act 1980 would bear upon the handling of the improvement proposals. The power contained in schedule 4 gives the Department no authority to carry out improvements. I hope that that is clear once and for all.

    I repeat what we said in Committee, on Report and in the other place, that we shall not revive the ringway road and motorway box ideas. Those plans are long since dead and buried. Those who say that there will be concrete in various places across London which today are the city's lungs are merely scaremongering. They have been financed through the GLC to act in that way.

    My hon. Friend said that there are no plans to revive the motorway box around London. Will she remind herself and others that the originator of the motorway box idea was the Labour-controlled LCC and not the Conservative party?

    My hon. Friend is correct. Many of those living in the area which would have been affected by the proposal were devoutly opposed to it then, and we have never changed our position.

    Why was the Conservative administration at county hall between 1971 and 1973 so much in favour of the motorway box?

    The hon. Gentleman knows that not every member of his party agrees council to council. I should have been surprised if after public inquiries those plans had then gone ahead. I am speaking for a large number of people, of whom I am one, living in the area. When the LCC proposed those plans, we knew what would happen if they were allowed to proceed. There are no proposals for a ringway road and a motorway box.

    Amendment No. 4 seeks to transfer the GLC highway and financial responsibility to the London residuary body. I sympathise with some of the objectives of the clause, but it is unworkable and inconsistent. Perhaps I can tell the House why it is inconsistent with the general policy underlined in the Bill. The clause would retain a three-tier structure for highway responsibilities in London. It would introduce a new three-tier structure for traffic responsibilities, and it would run counter to overall policy on streamlining embodied in the Bill. It would greatly reduce — perhaps even completely do away with — those benefits which we expect from that streamlining. The residuary body is not a satisfactory body to run these responsibilities. The new clause envisages the GLC's highway and traffic responsibility for metropolitan roads going to the residuary body, and that would be unsatisfactory, because it is only a temporary organisation for major functions such as highways and traffic, because they are permanent functions, and because the residuary body is only an appointed body.

    6.30 pm

    Both Houses have rejected amendments to establish directly or indirectly elected authorities for metropolitan roads, and therefore metropolitan roads would go to the boroughs, when the residuary body would be wound up. The boroughs are competent to take on the responsibilities for these roads and they are suitable authorities to do so. They are also directly elected. The new clauses are unworkable because they are completely inimical to sensible transport planning for London.

    It is true that the residuary body is given certain responsibilities, but these are not set within the wider framework of traffic and highway or London-wide planning duties. Even with the amendments to the Bill which the House has passed tonight, that would not be so. The provisions envisage, in certain cases, dual responsibility for traffic management for the same roads between the residuary body and the boroughs, and I see that as a recipe for trouble indeed. They also create duplication of the reserve powers, with both the Secretary of State and the residuary body having some, but there is no clear division of responsibility for exercising them. They also envisage dual responsibility for prohibiting or restricting the use of lorries, but not for making it clear whether the borough or the residuary body has the final say. They also give the residuary body powers to make grants to any group, as its fancy takes it—goodness knows what they might be—but they do not establish the duties or the systems of accountability in relation to such grants.

    The clause does not make proper financial provision for the exercise of highway and traffic functions proposed for the residuary bodies. These are major flaws and they are not the only ones. It is not a matter of tinkering to put these matters right. If the House were to agree with the amendment, substantial parts of the Bill would require major revision. This is not justified when the residuary body is only temporary and when appropriate and competent alternative authorities stand ready and are qualified to take on the responsibilities.

    We recognise the need to maintain expert teams, specialist equipment and information gathering. We have always recognised that from the earliest planning days of the Bill. One of the most important things is to maintain the UTC system in London. That is exactly why there is reserve power in schedule 5. We recognise the importance of maintaining data collection and analysis, including accident statistics. We are already discussing with the boroughs how best to maintain the systems and we see the residuary body as providing a home for such systems and staff until permanent arrangements are settled with the boroughs. We do not need a separate strategic body, because our proposals make effective provision for handling the London-wide issues. I can go through those in detail, but the House knows full well what they are.

    My hon. Friend is touching on important matters of great interest to our constituents. Can she give any assurance that these matters, when they pass to the boroughs and also to her own Department, will be regularly debated by the House?

    In so far as the boroughs have responsibility, these matters will be debated in the council chambers of those boroughs, but in so far as the Department has responsibility, just like any other responsibilities where the Department is answerable, we shall be answerable in the House. That is exactly the way it should be.

    We are against the policy embodied in the new clause proposed by amendment No. 4 because the streamlining functions are there and we do not want duplication of administration and costs. The residuary body is not appropriate for these functions because it is only temporary and is only appointed. The detailed provisions are unworkable, wholly inadequate and, as I have said, would require major revision to remedy the defects. In any case, the highway and traffic responsibilities proposed to be transferred to the boroughs are primarily local in nature and are best handled at local borough level. The wider issues can be handled elsewhere where necessary. Those are the suitable arrangements about which I spoke.

    The Government ask the House to disagree with the Lords amendment on the situation in the metropolitan county council areas because the clause also makes the arrangements proposed unworkable. It is particularly wrong to introduce into the metropolitan counties the three-tier structure of highway authorities which has already proved unsatisfactory in London. The strategic transportation authority was given a whole host of extra jobs to be done which should best be done at district level, such as traffic management guidance, taking over construction and maintenance of highway bridges, road safety and data collection—all things which can be done adequately at district level.

    The provisions of the clause are attractive only to those who believe that everything should be integrated. There is scope in the clause for regiments of staff to produce plans to co-ordinate public transport and traffic across the metropolitan counties, but the real needs of those districts are very different. Road systems in the metropolitan counties consist of interlinking networks of principal and other roads. Almost every journey involves travel on a principal and other road. It is wrong to have separate highways and traffic management responsibilities. Opponents of abolition have made much of the cross-boundary problems, but under the clause district councils would have to consult not only their neighbouring districts, which they should do anyway, but the joint authority, about almost every traffic problem, even down to double yellow lines.

    There is no need for a further tier of highway and traffic authorities in the metropolitan areas, and the district councils will talk to each other, as they do already, about the small proportion of highways and traffic management work which requires their co-operation. I do not believe that the great city authorities, like Coventry or Leeds, cannot manage their roads and traffic in sensible co-operation with neighbouring districts.

    Nor do I believe that the boroughs cannot manage. They are highway authorities already and co-operate across boundaries, as the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), the chairman of the GLC, knows well.

    My point about the roads in the metropolitan county council areas is this. We understand that some traffic problems and some road problems need to be considered over a wider district, and that is true of the boundaries of any local authority anywhere in the country. At professional level authorities have good working relationships and joint working arrangements are well precedented, so while I am confident that sensible co-operation will usually prevail, as I have said before, from time to time, just as between other unconnected authorities, problems will arise. For this reason the original provisions provide a framework within which those districts can operate to ensure that wider considerations are properly taken into account.

    The Minister has just made the point that in most counties there is one authority. That is because in most counties the travel-to-work area is within one shire county boundary. Does she accept that some at least of the metropolitan areas, archetypically Merseyside, have at present a county area which encompasses one travel-to-work area? Therefore, for example, people do not suddenly cross the Wirral boundary, the Sefton boundary or the Knowsley boundary to Liverpool. They go in and out within that county, and for that county, if not for anybody else, to have no strategic authority higher than district level authority goes against all the logic and all travel patterns and movements.

    I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is not quite right. The travel-to-work area in my region of Merseyside happens to be Wirral and Chester. Chester is in the Cheshire county council area and Wirral remains for a few months yet in Merseyside. Therefore, we continually cross between two county areas with no difficulty and good co-operation. However, that co-operation happens at local level. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that people observe where the boundary is most of the time, he is in difficulty, because, unlike the French, we do not have signs showing when one is going into or leaving an area.

    Schedule 5 contains powers for the Secretary of State to issue guidance to local authorities on traffic management. If the guidance is disregarded, with the likelihood of adverse consequences for a wider area, then, but only in that case, would the Secretary of State intervene if he thought it necessary. Similarly, occasion other local authorities object to a traffic scheme affecting their areas, and if objections cannot be resolved the Secretary of State will, subject to consultation, be able to determine the issue.

    One of the most important area-wide traffic management task is the operation of the urban traffic control systems. The Government are fully committed to ensuring continuity in London and the metropolitan counties, and the Bill provides reserve powers for that. If the districts are unable to reach a satisfactory agreement, the Secretary of State can take over such responsibilities. I do not believe that it will be necessary for the Secretary of State to do so, because I believe that in order to carry out their new functions districts will need specialist staff and facilities from the metropolitan county council. A Government amendment from the other place, which we shall consider later, requires residuary bodies to consult successor bodies about likely needs. The residuary bodies can then take over special manpower facilities, and that will ensure a smooth transition on abolition day.

    It is time for districts to get down to considering the ways in which they will meet their highway and traffic responsibilities. They are ready to do so. They do not need strategic authorities, which would simply perpetuate some of the worst features of the metropolitan county councils, and even add to them. That would not be a recipe for improved conditions. Therefore, I hope that the House will disagree with Lords amendment No. 5 as well.

    I found the Minister's explanation singularly unconvincing, and I think that my hon. Friends will agree. I am the first to concede that the hon. Lady normally deals well with her brief. This was one of the rare occasions on which I have seen her reading the whole brief through from beginning to end.

    I agree with my hon. Friend. I was just about to say that I do not think the Minister believed a word of her brief. She did not appear to convince too many of her hon. Friends, but then again she does not have to. As we saw in Committee, those Tory Members who bother to say anything about the legislation are few and far between, and those who do not bother to say anything vote for the Government anyway, so the Minister does not have too much to worry about.

    It will be a sad day for the House when this undemocratic legislation goes through virtually on the nod, as it will by midnight tonight. It will destroy a tier of local government that, whatever its faults over the past 10 years, has proved, particularly in traffic functions, to have been exceedingly valuable and done much good work. The Minister's unconvincing explanation was an illustration of the fact that what the Government are doing tonight they are doing as a result of a Prime Ministerial afterthought in the drafting of the 1983 general election manifesto.

    The Government are carrying through abolition without any consideration of the invevitable chaos that will follow when it will fall to those who are at present doing this work in local government to try to make some sort of order out of the chaos — they will try, as they always do. I shall come to the point made by the hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) in a moment.

    6.45 pm

    Lords amendment No. 4 deals specifically with London. During the passage of the Bill through the other place, numerous amendments were tabled with the aim of transferring the strategic highway traffic problems to an appropriate single authority to replace the GLC. Directly and indirectly elected bodies were proposed, with obvious local democratic advantages, as well as the London residuary body. In the many hours of debate on this important issue, cogent arguments from both sides of the other place overwhelmingly supported the need for London-wide co-ordination and for integrated solutions to London's complex problems.

    Integrated solutions are necessary even though, these days, the Minister sneers at such solutions. Not long ago she was a fervent and passionate advocate of them. She now has to follow a doctrine, but most people, including a majority of the other place, feel that integration for traffic functions is necessary. The Minister may have picked up her boss's habit of sneering at the word "integration", but nevertheless a majority of her party in the other place felt that integration of these functions was called for, and voted for it.

    The way that the Minister read out her brief shows that perhaps she should spend some time in private discussons — we shall not embarrass her by urging her to make them public — with some of her political colleagues at the end of the Corridor, because on this occasion they have proved to be more progressive than she is. She normally likes to be thought of as the progressive, warm and humane voice of the Department of Transport and it must be a real problem for her to have to come to the House to read a brief that was more suitable for the abrasive tone of her boss the Secretary of State for Transport.

    The Minister has failed to produce any sound arguments to explain how two Departments — [Interruption.] The hon. Lady has a patronising air. I know that she loves to see herself as the Marjorie Proops of the Government Front Bench. She dispenses advice such as fasten seat belts, do not drink too much, do not be naughty. That is her general philosophy. Tonight she has a brief that does not enable her to do that. She has to read something saying that integration and all the things in which she used to believe, and which she used warmly to endorse and recommend to the nation, if they would take the trouble to listen, are all in the past. These days, to keep her job, she has to prove that she is just as nasty, hard-line and Right wing as the Secretary of State for Transport.

    The hon. Lady dismissed all the arguments for integration and for a London-wide authority for highways. The fact that she has said that it will not work does not make it so. The majority of the other place, and therefore the majority of the Conservatives in the other place, has decided that it will. For once, we have to believe it.

    Does my hon. Friend agree that the performance of the Department of Transport in redirecting traffic from the M1 into traffic jams elsewhere makes it admirably suited to run every traffic scheme throughout London and the metropolitan counties?

    We had exchanges on this point as recently as last Monday. Once again, when the Minister's inherent goodness was called in question by Labour Members, she stamped her foot and said that such criticism was terribly unfair. However, I do not wish to debate the M1 motorway now.

    It is for the Minister of State to convince her hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes that she is not about to turn his constituency into a motorway. I do not know how convincing she was; no hon. Member will know until the hon. Gentleman comes to a decision at the end of the debate. However, I found the Minister of State's reply to her hon. Friend singularly unconvincing. It was as unconvincing as the rest of her speech.

    The other place believes that there are considerable advantages in the amendment that the Government are seeking to remove. I am not allowed to refer directly to what was said in the other place, and I would not dream of doing so, but it is possible to paraphrase what was said by those Conservative Members of the other place who participated in the debate. With one exception, the Government had no supporters. Some of the speeches should leave the Minister of State in no doubt about the lack of support that their proposals command and about the widespread concern that is felt in both Houses about their inherently undemocratic nature.

    The Opposition believe that there are numerous advantages in amendment No. 4. The advantages that were incorporated by the other place mean that the substantial though negative powers of the Secretary of State have been removed. The old fashioned Conservative party would have supported their removal. It professed not to like over-centralisation. If Conservative Members believe that the Secretary of State is hardly the person to leave in charge of a whelk stall on a wet Whit Monday, never mind being in charge of London's strategic highways and planning functions, they ought so to indicate when they have the opportunity to vote.

    Amendment No. 4 retains economies of scale arising from the handling of large-scale programmes. The Minister of State was singularly unconvincing about the fragmentation of these functions if the Lords amendment is rejected. The amendment retains a degree of centralised leadership regarding the assessment of priorities and there would be central funding of projects where that is most needed. Is there to be competition between the boroughs? That would mean that those who shouted the loudest, or put in their bids first, would get the financial wherewithal to carry out their role, instead of sensible, centralised planning for highways.

    The amendment would provide the body concerned with sufficient breadth and a sufficiently large budget to sustain specialist teams with the computer back up and data collection systems that were referred to in Committee. Few hon. Members who heard the Committee debate would doubt the need for capital-wide planning for these functions.

    As for amendment No. 5, the Government were found to have few friends in the other place for their metropolitan county council proposals. The other place made it clear, to say the least, that it was very unhappy about the Government's proposals, particularly about the proposal to devolve highway and traffic functions to district councils. Lord Molson referred to the unsatisfactory nature of the Government's proposals. Although the Minister of State is pulling a face at me for referring to Lord Molson, I think that it is in order for me to mention in passing what he said. Let me try the Earl of Cranbrook on the hon. Lady. He was the Chairman of the Select Committee which had some harsh words to say about the Government's proposals. It is no use for the Minister of State to hide her face and whisper. If she is cross with the more senior members of her party in the other place, that is a matter for her. The Earl of Cranbrook referred to bridge and highway design, major road schemes, urban traffic control, data gathering and travel demand forecasting and said that all such matters ought to be dealt with by a strategic transport authority.

    It is significant that the Government's proposals for the metropolitan county councils have been found to be completely unsatisfactory. The Select Committee of another place has also published a report on the Government's proposals. I assume that a majority of Conservative party members serve upon it. The noble Earl to whom I have referred is the Chairman of that Committee and at column 62 of the Select Committee's report he said:
    "voluntary joint committees appear unlikely to be to resolve the inevitable policy conflicts, or lead authorities to resolve the conflict between their service role and their policy interests."
    The report then said that a more practical option would be a joint authority. It is remarkable when the, in our view, undemocratially appointed members of another place lecture an elected Conservative Government about local democracy. If somebody had said to me a decade or so ago that this would happen, I should have expressed great surprise. The Government have no friends for these proposals.

    Amendment (b) was moved by the hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes. It is a wondrous thing, having the smallest Conservative majority in England—

    No, I have not finished yet. The hon. Gentleman had a fairly good run. I think that I am on fairly safe ground if I say that he has the smallest Conservative majority in any London constituency. The hon. Gentleman appeared on television, which gave him the opportunity to explain the difficulties that his Richmond constituents will face if the Government's proposals are accepted. I ask again: Has the Minister of State fully satisfied her hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes? If so, he will let the House know, but I shall be surprised if he has been satisfied by the Minister of State's explanation. She said that if the powers contained in the Highways Act were used, her hon. Friend's constituents would face long periods of uncertainty. That was the Minister of State's phrase; I wrote it down.

    I hope that the hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes will agree with me that uncertainty is exactly what his constituents are facing now. One of the reasons why they have written to him is to demonstrate that they are already suffering because of the long period of uncertainty caused by the Government's proposals. If the hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes is satisfied by the Minister of State's explanation, he will say so, but, if not, he will not complain if I exploit that fact. He has had a good run this evening, even though there was insufficient time to debate the matter in Committee because of the appalling, undemocratic guillotine procedure to which the Government have had to resort to get the legislation through this House.

    If, like me, the hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes is denounced for scaremongering — that is what the Minister of State will say about him if he refuses to accept her explanation — he will have to live with it. Some of us will make sure that the Minister's comments receive fairly wide circulation not only in the hon. Gentleman's constituency but in the other parts of London where people are worried about these proposals.

    7 pm

    The author of the Bill — the Secretary of State for the Environment — is not here. The man who builds the Boeing 747 aircraft has to fly one, but the right hon. Gentleman has disappeared. The Bill's pilot — the Minister for Local Government — sits beside the Minister of State, Department of Transport. The right hon. Gentleman has had a fairly good run during the Bill's passage. In his humorous way, he has convinced many of his colleagues that the Bill's proposals are totally innocuous.

    He has persuaded some and frightened others. Normally, he tries not to be too frightening. If there were ever two strong favourites for the political guillotine in October, it is the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Secretary of State for Transport, although the Secretary of State for Transport appears to have been temporarily reprieved. If the Minister for Local Government fulfils his ambitions and enters the Cabinet in October, it will, no doubt, be seen as a suitable reward for this appalling legislation. Like the Minister of State, the right hon. Gentleman knows that he would not reject this proposal if he were really master of his own Department—

    —or master of his own ambitions, as my hon. Friend has reminded me.

    I admire the Minister's sartorial elegance. His tie reminds me of a British Rail adverisement about black dots and red dots. In his case, the red dots are all the lies that have been told during the past 12 months or so about expenditure in local government and the democratic nature of the Bill's proposals. The black dots are some of the promises that have been made during the passage of the legislation, which will prove to be as worthless as other Government promises. Although the right hon. Gentleman might well receive his reward in October, it is likely to be short-lived. In the opinion of everyone concerned with the functions of local government, he has done local government no service.

    Whilst I agree with the principle of abolition and the Bill's main provisions, I believe it right to consider whether there are better ways of preserving some local centres of great excellence. My constituency, which is on the boundary of west Yorkshire and north Yorkshire, falls within Leeds and the urban traffic control area of the west Yorkshire metropolitan county council. I accept the arguments that have been advanced by my hon. Friend the Minister of State that an area on the border of different traffic authorities — the problem is exacerbated in my constituency as the Al goes through the middle of it — emphasises the importance of consultation and of working together. Nevertheless, I am concerned that the centre of excellence represented by west Yorkshire's urban traffic control system should be effectively preserved.

    The system in west Yorkshire is one of the most advanced in this country, if not in the world. It is highly integrated and inter-active between a complementary range of services. Many of its ideas for road construction and embankments are especially innovative. The system is a considerable source of pride to the people of west Yorkshire.

    It is possible for my hon. Friend the Minister of State to say that, with such a centralised system, a lead authority such as Leeds where the central computer is situated could be an effective way of running the system. However, when dealing with urban traffic control a number of priorities have to be balanced and local jealousies between different district authorities might preclude the effective working of the system, particularly if the lead authority is especially large.

    How will the Government ensure that that system is not broken up if the district authorities are not able to agree?

    The expertise of the west Yorkshire team is very impressive. I have seen the team in operation. It is right that we should safeguard that expertise. That is where the residuary body can supply the temporary home. The officers of the west Yorkshire county council have said that they believe that they have a role to play. They have formed a company and could use their expertise as a privately run centre of expertise on offer to all districts in the area. That is exactly what we would expect them to do. The co-ordinating committees would have the duty to consider joint arrangements.

    I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that comment.

    I am especially worried about the time scale on which change will occur. The people who work for the urban traffic control system in west Yorkshire have very marketable skills. Many of them have been approached by consultants and other companies outside the public sector seeking to snap up their services. These people are highly motivated. They want to work within west Yorkshire's integrated system. Obviously, if they see an uncertain future, they may be tempted by some of the offers. Indeed, I understand that some have already gone to work elsewhere.

    I am seeking a clear commitment from the Government that, if the district authorities are unable to co-operate to preserve the urban traffic control system in west Yorkshire, they will step in and ensure that this centre of excellence, which is so highly prized by the people of the area, is retained. The Lords amendment provides one means of doing this. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister of State can give sufficiently firm assurances of another.

    We are discussing one of the principal parts of the Bill. The other place took the view that transport planning should be "integrated" with the running of transport services. Two large amendments are being considered — the first concerns London and the second concerns the metropolitan authorities. I do not think that the Minister of State admits to understanding why we are so keen to persuade her that it would be better to agree with the Lords, so I shall remind her.

    No one would say from choice that a body called the "London residuary body", which is a collective of people appointed by the Secretary of State, is the best organisation to take on the co-ordinated planning functions of transport in London. There are not many options available if the Government get rid of a directly elected strategic authority—the option of no co-ordinating body, or the option of something that is better than nothing.

    The measure is strongly supported because many people, including most experts who have given evidence, would rather have a co-ordinating body that can consider the problems of London traffic and strategy as a whole. They do not want it to be a Minister.

    To give a practical example, outside my street door there is a small road with a wall beyond it, and on the other side of the wall is a large open space that could well become a main road. I would far rather that the people making decisions about what happens to that space, and whether it ever becomes a through road from the Bricklayers Arms down to Woolwich or anywhere else, were a group of non-elected people with special responsibility for all London. I would prefer that body — which could eventually, because it might survive a bit longer than the Government, be converted back into a group of elected representatives — to make the decision rather than that the Secretary of State did. I trust a group of people, and preferably a group of elected people, far more than I trust the Secretary of State to make a decision about the strategic planning of roads in London and what should travel on them.

    Do I understand that the Liberal party is now in favour of quangos rather than directly elected authorities to look after planning in London, or is the hon. Gentleman in favour of centralising power? I think that the country needs to know, and the SDP needs to be told.

    The SDP and the Liberal party will tell the hon. Gentleman — he now knows it because he has heard it often — that we entered into the debate on the Bill knowing our policy for London and not having to announce it this morning, as did the Leader of the GLC on the radio and elsewhere. Our policy has always been that London needs a regional authority directly elected which should cover these powers and many others. The new super-expanded GLC, for which the present GLC chairman and others will be fighting, is a concept that they have adopted from us, and we have been arguing it for a long time. I am sorry they are so slow at reaching the right conclusion, but that is not unusual. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about quangos?"] We do not want a quango, but we do not want the Secretary of State deciding what should happen in London transport in strategic planning terms.

    As regards outside London, according to the amendment, the strategic highway functions which are now governed by the county councils should go to the passenger transport authority which is being set up under the Bill. In the course of debates, it has become clear that some very popular services are being produced by local government in the metropolitan counties. The Tyne and Wear Metro service is one, the public transport service in south Yorkshire is another. They are popular because they are good services, well used, and cheap and because expertise is co-ordinated in running them and in planning for the future. They link the number of people who want to use transport with the transport provided, be it roads or rail lines.

    I ask the Minister to say that it is appropriate, as we proposed in the other place, to accept that in the metropolitan areas we, too, co-ordinate to avoid this muddle. The Government are asking us to believe that, in a series of discussions, the districts can agree on some of the most controversial issues. Such issues cannot be reconciled if one district believes that there should be a road while the other does not, and the two districts are adjacent.

    I wish to comment on the amendment of the hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley). He has been under a lot of pressure from his constituents, quite rightly. We all know the effect of a power which allows the Secretary of State to make decisions about the trunking of roads in London and all the implications on the hon.

    Gentleman's constituents and all the people who live along the south circular road, in the borough of Southwark and beyond of trunking in London. Given the Minister's intention that many roads like the south circular will be trunked, the result will be roads which have more traffic, more disruption and more environmental problems for the people who live and work alongside them.

    The amendment is a modest one, and I am surprised that the Minister does not accept that the hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes needs her support. However hard the hon. Gentleman will have tried, he will have had to tell his constituents that I and others have argued the case that there ought to be a public inquiry before roads in London are trunked, but it fell on deaf ears — Tory deaf ears, Tory Government deaf ears and even the deaf ears of the Minister, who has her home not all that far from the south circular.

    If the Government do not think again, the Lords may well stand by what they said last time and the Government may risk losing the Bill as a whole instead of enacting it with amendments that come from sane and sanguine proposals made by people who are trying to improve an appalling piece of legislation.

    The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) is not alone in being worried about the accumulation of power to the Secretary of State which is the basis of the matters that we are now discussing. Due to a quirk of our procedure, amendment (a) tabled by the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) cannot be discussed in this section because it has already been debated.

    There are obviously grave shortcomings about the residuary body for London. I am concerned about Lords amendment No. 4 only, and not about the other metropolitan counties. I had hoped that the Government would say that, because the other place has looked at the matter carefully, considered the various implications of what is proposed and decided that there should be a Londonwide body to carry out these functions, they would pay respect to that and, if we do not like the residuary body, would find some other way of operating this overall power.

    7.15 pm

    As someone who has had a certain amount of experience of local government at county and district level, I cannot see how matters will work out in practice when we get down to the nitty-gritty of planning roads in London in future with the various traffic aspects involved, even if it is only a system of traffic lights. I cannot see how that will be worked voluntarily by the boroughs.

    The power going to the Secretary of State will be considerable, and can be exercised only with an increased number of staff. I know this is rather like twice cooked meat — we have been round this course so often in the past in relation to the Bill. It is a question of how one views local government and forms one's ideas on that basis. None the less, I think it is sad that the Government are to resist the Lords amendment.

    The need for an integrated countywide authority is very great in an area like Merseyside. I am surprised that the Minister does not recognise the true needs of Merseyside and how these are likely to be jeopardised if the Bill—and particularly this part of it — is enacted.

    On Merseyside, the principal road network takes up 10 per cent. of the total network in the area. Although the principal roads represent only 10 per cent., they carry 50 per cent. of the traffic. Most of the business traffic and heavy goods vehicles cross the boundaries between the various districts. Fifty per cent. of car drivers commute across district boundaries in Merseyside. I cannot accept the point that the Minister made in reply to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). The travel-to-work area for most of those people who live in the built-up parts of the Wirral, the old constituency of Wallasey and Birkenhead is undoubtedly across the river Mersey into the rest of the conurbation, and particularly into Liverpool.

    If one looks beyond the highways, one finds that 80 per cent. of traffic signals on Merseyside are under central computerised control. Therefore, a countywide operation is essential, for which the districts are not automatically prepared. Urban traffic control cannot be managed in isolation from all the other traffic and highway functions such as the collection and analysis of data traffic management, road improvements and route signing, all of which are closely bound up with urban traffic control.

    There are many specialist services which must be shared for economic reasons. It is clear that they are too costly to duplicate. I cannot conceive that Sefton, the Wirral, Liverpool, St. Helens and Knowsley will be able to provide services to provide urban traffic control, research and development, bridge inspection and maintenance, engineering laboratories, geo-techncial surveys and materials testing and development. All these services are highly costly.

    It can be argued that it is possible for such services to be provided by someone else, and I think that the Government have someone else in mind. They are not concerned with replacing one democratic countywide authority with another such body, which might be elected indirectly by the people of Merseyside through their district councils. All the evidence would seem to point in the other direction. The authority that the Government have in mind is the Secretary of State for Transport. Heaven help us if he were to take control. One example of his control is the shambles of the Transport Bill that is before Parliament.

    Districts do not necessarily have coincidental interests. There may be many conflicts between district councils over the need to provide, maintain or restore certain roadways. A district council could downgrade a vital strategic route either explicitly or by neglect at the expense of essential traffic that is generated elsewhere.

    The real reason for the introduction of the Bill, and the reason why no adequate democratically elected control of authorities is envisaged within it, is that the Government dislike the present political control of the metropolitan counties. That is the sole reason for the Bill being before us. If Merseyside were run by the Conservative party, for example, the Bill would not be with us.

    If the Minister of State is suggesting that the district councils will be able to afford to provide the services and functions that we are discussing, I believe that she is quite wrong. New clause 8 would forestall the real danger of continuing central Government encroachment on local responsibility for principal roads. That is why the House should approve it. It obviates the need for the reserve powers that the original Bill sought to give the Secretary of State.

    There are those who say that the Secretaries of State for Transport and for the Environment genuinely envisage the district councils having more power over highways, that they are democratically elected and that there is nothing sinister about the Bill. A real sign of the Department of Transport's intentions on strategic highway issues is to be found in a guidance note that the Department issued recently to district councils to assist them in planning for their enhanced transport responsibilities. The existing strategic functions of the metropolitan county councils is scarcely mentioned and there is no reference to the relevant manuals and advice notes. Against that background, and with the reserve powers that are contained in the Bill being directed specifically at matters of more than local significance, it seems that the Department rather than the districts will be the de facto highway authority for principal roads under the Bill's original provisions.

    A provision for a countywide highway authority would impede the covert increase in Government power and responsibility. That is why new clause 8 is essential even to support the Government's argument, which I do not think they believe in themselves, that there must be co-operation between the districts to obtain a countywide integrated highway system.

    I invite the Government to issue a new guidance note. I suggest that they refer to the competent manuals on the subject. Let them ensure that there is democratic control and that the expertise of the teams of workers in areas such as Merseyside is maintained. The Minister of State has told us that she has been to west Yorkshire and has spoken to the experts in that area. She commends what they have done. I hope that she has visited Merseyside as well, whose experts are at risk of being thrown to the winds. They are people of substance and the enactment of the Bill could oblige them to seek employment in other areas. If we are to allow Liverpool, Sefton, the Wirral, St. Helens and Knowsley to have the same expertise as has been available in those areas and built up since 1974, the hon. Lady should examine closely the contents of new clause 8. I hope that the Government will adopt the clause, but I appreciate that I am entering into a dialogue with the deaf.

    Unless there is a sign in the Government's response to these amendments that their intention is to keep local government local, it is inevitable that we shall be presented with a national network that will involve more bureaucracy from the centre.

    It has always seemed to me that roads, especially local roads, involve issues that become personal. Roads and associated considerations arouse strong sentiments when they are discussed by those who live near them. The Government have recognised that by providing that in the main the highway authority should be the local council. I do not dispute the views that have been expressed by my hon. Friends the Members for Elmet (Mr. Batiste) and Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley). I do not dispute the views that we have heard from the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) because I do not know the facts.

    However, I am only too well aware of the story of two roads. I live close by the south circular road, which is notorious in London. I have knowledge also of a road that is yet to be born, we hope, which is the Kingston relief road, which is within the royal borough of Kingston upon Thames. This road will have a serious effect on my constituents who are business men in Kingston.

    The south circular road has been under the strategic control—I use the term loosely—of the Greater London council. The road is well known as a collection of signposts. It weaves its way across south London. If I had a pound for every time someone has stopped me in one of our suburban highways off the so-called south circular road to ask me whether they were still on it, I should be a very wealthy man. The south circular road is a positive disgrace and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes will confirm that. Over the years the GLC has failed completely to maintain a proper highway for those who want to cross south London. As a local resident, I would rather that the road fell under the control of the Department of Transport than under the GLC. I would prefer the local authority in my area, the excellent borough of Wandsworth, to deal with local matters.

    7.30 pm

    The Kingston relief road is a classic case of how this fag-end Greater London council is behaving in a particularly partisan way. The GLC secured money from the taxpayer for some of the strategic road schemes in London by using various cases. One of the cases involved the Kingston relief road which, as is well known, is required in Kingston upon Thames. The GLC has that money from the taxpayer in its coffers, yet it refuses to hand it over to the council of the royal borough which is to take on the construction management of that road. It has instead, quite deliberately in my opinion, handed over the money to local authorities controlled by the Labour party in various parts of the GLC area.

    That is the way that the strategic authority, the GLC, manages affairs, as far as I can see. I think that it will be better for the people of London, for whom I speak in part, if the responsibility rests with their local authority and, thereafter, with the Department of Transport. I support the Government recommendation that we should disagree with the Lords amendment.

    When the Minister was telling us why the Lords amendment should be opposed, she said that the reason was that it was not consistent with streamlining. I did not feel that she could say that without cracking into a large smile and then a big belly laugh because she cannot believe that the Bill streamlines anything in terms of either transportation or other services.

    I ask the Minister to look carefully at the Bill to see how many successor bodies will inherit the powers of the GLC and the metropolitan county councils. I do not have the time to read through them, but they include joint boards, residuary bodies, co-ordinating joint committees and quangos — a total of 62 bodies. Then there are the Government Departments — the Department of the Environment, the Department of Transport, the Office of Arts and Libraries, the Department of Education and Science and the Home Office. That is another five. Then there are approximately 127 other local authorities. The grand total is 195. Has the Minister ever studied how many bodies will inherit from the GLC and the metropolitan county councils?

    I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, the chairman of the GLC, for giving way. He is speaking specifically about London so I shall confine my remarks to that. Has he considered how many times the requests of a London borough have to be rubber-stamped or gone through again by the GLC? Why does a borough that needs double yellow lines to make a turn-out from a service road safe have to go to the GLC transportation committee? That is the duplication that we are getting rid of. That is the streamlining that we are doing.

    That is an interesting point. Has the Minister read the Lords amendment? The hon. Lady will see that the amendment that the Government now seek to overturn was careful to devolve traffic responsibilities on borough roads to the individual boroughs. They would become responsible for traffic signing, signals, parking, pedestrian crossings and speed regulation on the roads. That would considerably reduce duplication.

    Whatever the Minister thinks about the GLC, she should not be opposing the Lords amendment. It gives her precisely what she just argued for at the Dispatch Box. She has not read the Lords amendment, and does not understand the consequences of the Bill with regard to streamlining. It is nonsense, and the hon. Lady knows it.

    I am surprised that the Opposition should be so vehemently opposed to greater powers being transferred to the boroughs. After all, they have been trying to criticise the Government in our long debates on the Bill, saying that not enough power is being given to the boroughs, that we are not devolving enough power, and that what Conservative Members have been arguing, which is that the whole purpose of the Bill is to give local people a say in local matters, is rubbish. Once they have an opportunity to see real powers being given to the boroughs, the Opposition oppose that.

    From my point of view in the London borough of Enfield, it makes sense that the borough should be the responsible authority. It is already responsible for all but very few roads in the borough. The Bill will increase efficiency and reduce costs if the borough is responsible for the few remaining roads in the borough—

    I shall not give way because I think that some of the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends still wish to speak.

    The GLC's behaviour on road matters has been extraordinary. It uses partisan tactics to stop boroughs that want to go ahead with road schemes in the interests of the local citizens from doing so. There is an example in the borough of Enfield, where the Barnet and Enfield lorry ban has been held up by the GLC, so that the local citizens will not benefit from relief from heavy traffic in the area. We have seen the same example in south London where the GLC, despite the advice of its friends in Southwark and Lewisham, has tried to stop the relief road from the Old Kent road being developed.

    The local boroughs need to have those powers so that we can develop roads and road policy in London that are to the advantage of local citizens.

    My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) hit the nail on the head. It is patently obvious that the Minister of State either has not read the Bill or has not read the Lords amendment. She said that there was duplication, but the contrary is the case. I have heard her speak on several occasions, and there are only two conclusions that the House can come to tonight — either that she had a poor brief or that she did not believe that brief. I think that it was both—she had a poor brief and she did not believe it.

    The hon. Lady did not make a logical or reasoned case against the amendment when, having changed her mind, she said that those who supported the amendment were those who supported integration. She is perfectly correct. She used to he one of our number, but she has changed. May I drag her, kicking and screaming — it is a frank offer — into the real world?

    I think that the hon. Lady has to come into the real world. She will realise that after I have finished.

    There was a Bill on local government in 1972. Being adaptable, local government conformed to the Bill. One of its requirements was that local government should integrate. Was it surprising that it did just that? That was the wish of the Government of the day. The unreasonable argument, "It was like that in the past, and the old county boroughs had those functions," is so naive that Opposition Front Bench spokesmen should not have to expose it. It assumes that nothing happened until the county boroughs became county boroughs. However, the contrary is the case. Because the metropolitan county councils and metropolitan districts were set up under the remit of a Conservative Government in the 1972 Act, services were centralised and systems integrated, such as the Tyne and Wear Metro, many bus services, the central control of traffic movements, and specialised teams to co-ordinate their areas of responsibility. It is no surprise that that happened, but it is surprising that the Minister does not believe that it happened.

    If the Lords amendment No. 4 is not accepted, local authorities will be required quickly to dismantle everything that was set up under that Conservative Government. Many Conservative Members seem to favour the Bill so long as it does not affect their constituencies, and where it does affect their areas they have asked the appropriate Minister to make concessions and deviate from the Bill. They must also come into the real world, because that cannot be done.

    Does my hon. Friend agree that it is significant that the Minister seeks to rush through the proposal to trunk 65 miles of London's roads without any public inquiry precisely because she has no answers to the type of objections that hon. Members have been raising on constituency grounds because of the obvious implications of trunking, widening those roads and further taking control of transport planning matters from local people in London?

    I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I shall return to that relevant point.

    I was talking about specialised teams. They are already starting to break up and, not unnaturally, to look elsewhere. The Minister is on record as saying that the Government recognise the specialised teams and would like to keep them, but they leave it to God and good neighbour and do nothing themselves to ensure that those teams continue to exist.

    I now come to the point of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn). Apart from integration, the Government believe that there is a strategic role, and that there should be overall planning and control in large areas. The basic difference between us is that the Opposition believe that there should be local democratic control. The Government have set themselves up in London as a de facto strategic body and, therefore, they obviously believe in overall planning and control. They believe that they should be in control and that the local voice should not be heard.

    The strategic body in London for transport will be the Department of Transport, and it will have powers, to which it can add ad nauseam at any time. Even the Government's friends in the other place see through that kind of argument. On the Select Committee—I shall not quote from its report because I have no time — the Government do not even have a friend of their own persuasion. Time and time again professional people, hon. Members and their Lordships have rubbished the Government's arguments.

    The Government have tried to hide the arguments by bringing the Bill back to the Floor of the House, and pushing it through at the speed of light. There is no substance behind anything that the Minister has said because integrated systems already exist. If we do not pass the Lords amendment, we shall leave overall control to voluntary co-ordination. I have news for the Minister — there is no such animal.

    The Government want to ensure that the specialised teams continue to exist, but that will not happen. In the past where joint organisations have been set up and failed to agree, it has been to the detriment of those whom they serve.

    I remind the Minister of the content of her speech. She spent 14 minutes on the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley), seven minutes on amendment No. 4, which dealt with London, and the glorious sum of five minutes on a major alteration—

    It being fifteen minutes to Eight o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the order this day, to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

    Question put, That the amendment be made:—

    The House divided: Ayes 198, Noes 304.

    Division No. 257]

    [7.45 pm


    Abse, LeoBrown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
    Alton, DavidBrown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)
    Anderson, DonaldBruce, Malcolm
    Ashdown, PaddyBuchan, Norman
    Ashton, JoeCaborn, Richard
    Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)Callaghan, Rt Hon J.
    Bagier, Gordon A. T.Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)
    Banks, Tony (Newham NW)Campbell-Savours, Dale
    Barnett, GuyCarter-Jones, Lewis
    Barron, KevinCartwright, John
    Beckett, Mrs MargaretClark, Dr David (S Shields)
    Beith, A. J.Clarke, Thomas
    Benn, TonyClay, Robert
    Bennett, A. (Dent'n & Red'sh)Clwyd, Mrs Ann
    Bermingham, GeraldCocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
    Bidwell, SydneyCohen, Harry
    Blair, AnthonyColeman, Donald
    Boothroyd, Miss BettyConlan, Bernard
    Boyes, RolandCook, Frank (Stockton North)
    Bray, Dr JeremyCook, Robin F. (Livingston)
    Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)Corbett, Robin
    Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)Corbyn, Jeremy

    Cowans, HarryMcKelvey, William
    Cox, Thomas (Tooting)McNamara, Kevin
    Craigen, J. M.McTaggart, Robert
    Critchley, JulianMcWilliam, John
    Cunliffe, LawrenceMadden, Max
    Dalyell, TamMarek, Dr John
    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)Marshall, David (Shettleston)
    Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)Mason, Rt Hon Roy
    Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)Maxton, John
    Deakins, EricMaynard, Miss Joan
    Dewar, DonaldMeadowcroft, Michael
    Dixon, DonaldMichie, William
    Dobson, FrankMillan, Rt Hon Bruce
    Dormand, JackMitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
    Dubs, AlfredMolyneaux, Rt Hon James
    Duffy, A. E. P.Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
    Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
    Eadie, AlexNellist, David
    Eastham, KenOakes, Rt Hon Gordon
    Edwards, Bob (W'h'mpt'n SE)O'Brien, William
    Evans, John (St. Helens N)O'Neill, Martin
    Ewing, HarryOrme, Rt Hon Stanley
    Fatchett, DerekPark, George
    Faulds, AndrewParry, Robert
    Field, Frank (Birkenhead)Patchett, Terry
    Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)Pavitt, Laurie
    Fisher, MarkPendry, Tom
    Flannery, MartinPenhaligon, David
    Foot, Rt Hon MichaelPike, Peter
    Forrester, JohnPowell, Raymond (Ogmore)
    Foster, DerekPrescott, John
    Fraser, J. (Norwood)Radice, Giles
    Freeson, Rt Hon ReginaldRandall, Stuart
    Freud, ClementRedmond, M.
    Garrett, W. E.Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)
    George, BruceRichardson, Ms Jo
    Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr JohnRoberts, Allan (Bootle)
    Godman, Dr NormanRoberts, Ernest (Hackney N)
    Golding, JohnRobertson, George
    Gould, BryanRobinson, G. (Coventry NW)
    Ground, PatrickRogers, Allan
    Hamilton, James (M'well N)Rooker, J. W.
    Hancock, Mr. MichaelRoss, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
    Hardy, PeterRowlands, Ted
    Harman, Ms HarrietRyman, John
    Harrison, Rt Hon WalterSedgemore, Brian
    Hart, Rt Hon Dame JudithSheerman, Barry
    Hattersley, Rt Hon RoySheldon, Rt Hon R.
    Haynes, FrankShore, Rt Hon Peter
    Healey, Rt Hon DenisShort, Ms Clare (Ladywood)
    Heffer, Eric S.Short, Mrs R.(W'hampt'n NE)
    Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)Silkin, Rt Hon J.
    Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)Skinner, Dennis
    Home Robertson, JohnSmith, C.(Isl'ton S & F'bury)
    Howells, GeraintSmith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)
    Hoyle, DouglasSnape, Peter
    Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)Soley, Clive
    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)Steel, Rt Hon David
    Hughes, Roy (Newport East)Stott, Roger
    Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)Strang, Gavin
    Janner, Hon GrevilleStraw, Jack
    John, BrynmorThomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)
    Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)
    Kennedy, CharlesThorne, Stan (Preston)
    Kilroy-Silk, RobertTinn, James
    Kinnock, Rt Hon NeilTorney, Tom
    Kirkwood, ArchyWallace, James
    Lambie, DavidWardell, Gareth (Gower)
    Lamond, JamesWareing, Robert
    Leighton, RonaldWeetch, Ken
    Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)Williams, Rt Hon A.
    Lewis, Terence (Worsley)Winnick, David
    Litherland, RobertWoodall, Alec
    Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)Wrigglesworth, Ian
    Lofthouse, GeoffreyYoung, David (Bolton SE)
    Loyden, Edward
    McCartney, HughTellers for the Ayes:
    McDonald, Dr OonaghMr. Jeremy Hanley and
    McKay, Allen (Penistone)Mr. Simon Hughes.


    Adley, RobertEvennett, David
    Aitken, JonathanEyre, Sir Reginald
    Alexander, RichardFairbairn, Nicholas
    Alison, Rt Hon MichaelFallon, Michael
    Amery, Rt Hon JulianFarr, Sir John
    Amess, DavidFavell, Anthony
    Ancram, MichaelFenner, Mrs Peggy
    Ashby, DavidFinsberg, Sir Geoffrey
    Aspinwall, JackFletcher, Alexander
    Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.Fookes, Miss Janet
    Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)Forman, Nigel
    Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
    Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)Forth, Eric
    Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)Foulkes, George
    Baldry, TonyFox, Marcus
    Batiste, SpencerFranks, Cecil
    Bellingham, HenryFraser, Peter (Angus East)
    Bendall, VivianFreeman, Roger
    Bennett, Rt Hon Sir FredericFry, Peter
    Benyon, WilliamGale, Roger
    Best, KeithGalley, Roy
    Bevan, David GilroyGardiner, George (Reigate)
    Biffen, Rt Hon JohnGlyn, Dr Alan
    Biggs-Davison, Sir JohnGoodhart, Sir Philip
    Blaker, Rt Hon Sir PeterGoodlad, Alastair
    Bonsor, Sir NicholasGow, Ian
    Boscawen, Hon RobertGower, Sir Raymond
    Bottomley, PeterGrant, Sir Anthony
    Bottomley, Mrs VirginiaGreenway, Harry
    Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)Gregory, Conal
    Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)Griffiths, Sir Eldon
    Braine, Rt Hon Sir BernardGriffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
    Brandon-Bravo, MartinGrist, Ian
    Bright, GrahamHamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
    Brinton, TimHamilton, Neil (Tatton)
    Brittan, Rt Hon LeonHampson, Dr Keith
    Brooke, Hon PeterHannam, John
    Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)Hargreaves, Kenneth
    Bruinvels, PeterHarris, David
    Bryan, Sir PaulHaselhurst, Alan
    Buck, Sir AntonyHavers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
    Budgen, NickHawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)
    Burt, AlistairHawksley, Warren
    Butcher, JohnHayes, J.
    Butler, Hon AdamHayhoe, Rt Hon Barney
    Butterfill, JohnHeathcoat-Amory, David
    Carlisle, John (N Luton)Heddle, John
    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)Henderson, Barry
    Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
    Carttiss, MichaelHickmet, Richard
    Cash, WilliamHiggins, Rt Hon Terence L.
    Chalker, Mrs LyndaHind, Kenneth
    Chapman, SydneyHogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
    Chope, ChristopherHolland, Sir Philip (Gedling)
    Churchill, W. S.Howard, Michael
    Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
    Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
    Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)
    Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)Hubbard-Miles, Peter
    Clegg, Sir WalterHunt, David (Wirral)
    Cockeram, EricHunt, John (Ravensbourne)
    Colvin, MichaelHunter, Andrew
    Coombs, SimonIrving, Charles
    Cope, JohnJenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
    Corrie, JohnJessel, Toby
    Couchman, JamesJones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
    Cranborne, ViscountJones, Robert (W Herts)
    Crouch, DavidJopling, Rt Hon Michael
    Currie, Mrs EdwinaKellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
    Dickens, GeoffreyKey, Robert
    Dicks, TerryKing, Roger (B'ham N'field)
    Dorrell, StephenKing, Rt Hon Tom
    Dover, DenKnight, Greg (Derby N)
    du Cann, Rt Hon Sir EdwardKnowles, Michael
    Dunn, RobertLang, Ian
    Durant, TonyLatham, Michael
    Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)Lawler, Geoffrey
    Eggar, TimLee, John (Pendle)
    Emery, Sir PeterLeigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

    Lennox-Boyd, Hon MarkRowe, Andrew
    Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)Rumbold, Mrs Angela
    Lightbown, DavidRyder, Richard
    Lloyd, Ian (Havant)Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
    Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)Scott, Nicholas
    Lord, MichaelShaw, Giles (Pudsey)
    Lyell, NicholasShelton, William (Streatham)
    McCrindle, RobertShepherd, Colin (Hereford)
    McCurley, Mrs AnnaShepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
    Macfarlane, NeilShersby, Michael
    MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)Silvester, Fred
    MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)Sims, Roger
    Maclean, David JohnSkeet, T. H. H.
    Madel, DavidSmith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
    Major, JohnSmith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
    Malins, HumfreySoames, Hon Nicholas
    Maples, JohnSpeller, Tony
    Marland, PaulSpencer, Derek
    Marshall, Michael (Arundel)Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)
    Mates, MichaelSpicer, Michael (S Worcs)
    Maude, Hon FrancisSquire, Robin
    Mawhinney, Dr BrianStanbrook, Ivor
    Maxwell-Hyslop, RobinStanley, John
    Mayhew, Sir PatrickSteen, Anthony
    Merchant, PiersStern, Michael
    Miller, Hal (B'grove)Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)
    Mills, Iain (Meriden)Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
    Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)
    Mitchell, David (NW Hants)Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)
    Moate, RogerStokes, John
    Montgomery, Sir FergusStradling Thomas, J.
    Moore, JohnSumberg, David
    Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)Tapsell, Sir Peter
    Moynihan, Hon C.Taylor, John (Solihull)
    Mudd, DavidTaylor, Teddy (S'end E)
    Murphy, ChristopherTebbit, Rt Hon Norman
    Neale, GerrardTemple-Morris, Peter
    Neubert, MichaelTerlezki, Stefan
    Newton, TonyThatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.
    Nicholls, PatrickThompson, Donald (Calder V)
    Norris, StevenThompson, Patrick (N'ich N)
    Onslow, CranleyThorne, Neil (Ilford S)
    Osborn, Sir JohnThornton, Malcolm
    Ottaway, RichardThurnham, Peter
    Page, Sir John (Harrow W)Townend, John (Bridlington)
    Page, Richard (Herts SW)Tracey, Richard
    Parkinson, Rt Hon CecilTrippier, David
    Parris, MatthewTrotter, Neville
    Patten, J. (Oxf W & Abdgn)Twinn, Dr Ian
    Pattie, Geoffreyvan Straubenzee, Sir W.
    Peacock, Mrs ElizabethVaughan, Sir Gerard
    Percival, Rt Hon Sir IanViggers, Peter
    Pollock, AlexanderWaddington, David
    Portillo, MichaelWakeham, Rt Hon John
    Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)Walden, George
    Powell, William (Corby)Walker, Bill (T'side N)
    Powley, JohnWall, Sir Patrick
    Price, Sir DavidWaller, Gary
    Proctor, K. HarveyWalters, Dennis
    Pym, Rt Hon FrancisWardle, C. (Bexhill)
    Raffan, KeithWatson, John
    Raison, Rt Hon TimothyWatts, John
    Rathbone, TimWells, Sir John (Maidstone)
    Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)Wheeler, John
    Renton, TimWhitfield, John
    Rhodes James, RobertWiggin, Jerry
    Rhys Williams, Sir BrandonWolfson, Mark
    Ridley, Rt Hon NicholasWood, Timothy
    Ridsdale, Sir JulianWoodcock, Michael
    Rifkind, MalcolmYeo, Tim
    Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)Young, Sir George (Acton)
    Robinson, Mark (N'port W)
    Roe, Mrs MarionTellers for the Noes:
    Rossi, Sir HughMr. Carol Mather and
    Rost, PeterMr. Tristan Garel-Jones.

    Question accordingly negatived.

    MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER then proceeded to put the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.

    Motion made, and Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment — [ Mrs. Chalker.]

    The House divided: Ayes 285, Noes 200.

    Division No. 258]

    [8 pm


    Adley, Robertdu Cann, Rt Hon Sir Edward
    Aitken, JonathanDunn, Robert
    Alexander, RichardDurant, Tony
    Alison, Rt Hon MichaelEdwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
    Amess, DavidEggar, Tim
    Ancram, MichaelEmery, Sir Peter
    Ashby, DavidEvennett, David
    Aspinwall, JackEyre, Sir Reginald
    Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)Fairbairn, Nicholas
    Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)Fallon, Michael
    Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)Farr, Sir John
    Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)Favell, Anthony
    Baldry, TonyFenner, Mrs Peggy
    Batiste, SpencerFinsberg, Sir Geoffrey
    Bellingham, HenryFletcher, Alexander
    Bendall, VivianFookes, Miss Janet
    Bennett, Rt Hon Sir FredericForman, Nigel
    Best, KeithForsyth, Michael (Stirling)
    Bevan, David GilroyForth, Eric
    Biffen, Rt Hon JohnFowler, Rt Hon Norman
    Biggs-Davison, Sir JohnFox, Marcus
    Blaker, Rt Hon Sir PeterFranks, Cecil
    Body, RichardFraser, Peter (Angus East)
    Bonsor, Sir NicholasFreeman, Roger
    Bottomley, PeterFry, Peter
    Bottomley, Mrs VirginiaGale, Roger
    Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)Galley, Roy
    Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)
    Braine, Rt Hon Sir BernardGarel-Jones, Tristan
    Brandon-Bravo, MartinGlyn, Dr Alan
    Bright, GrahamGoodlad, Alastair
    Brinton, TimGow, Ian
    Brittan, Rt Hon LeonGower, Sir Raymond
    Brooke, Hon PeterGrant, Sir Anthony
    Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)Greenway, Harry
    Browne, JohnGregory, Conal
    Bruinvels, PeterGriffiths, Sir Eldon
    Bryan, Sir PaulGriffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
    Buck, Sir AntonyGrist, Ian
    Budgen, NickGrylls, Michael
    Burt, AlistairHamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
    Butcher, JohnHamilton, Neil (Tatton)
    Butterfill, JohnHampson, Dr Keith
    Carlisle, John (N Luton)Hannam, John
    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)Hargreaves, Kenneth
    Cash, WilliamHarris, David
    Chalker, Mrs LyndaHaselhurst, Alan
    Chapman, SydneyHavers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
    Chope, ChristopherHawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)
    Churchill, W. S.Hawksley, Warren
    Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)Hayes, J.
    Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)Hayhoe, Rt Hon Barney
    Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)Heathcoat-Amory, David
    Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)Heddle, John
    Clegg, Sir WalterHenderson, Barry
    Cockeram, EricHickmet, Richard
    Colvin, MichaelHiggins, Rt Hon Terence L.
    Coombs, SimonHind, Kenneth
    Cope, JohnHogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
    Corrie, JohnHolland, Sir Philip (Gedling)
    Couchman, JamesHoward, Michael
    Cranborne, ViscountHowarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
    Crouch, DavidHowarth, Gerald (Cannock)
    Currie, Mrs EdwinaHowell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)
    Dickens, GeoffreyHubbard-Miles, Peter
    Dicks, TerryHunt, David (Wirral)
    Dorrell, StephenHunt, John (Ravensbourne)
    Dover, DenHunter, Andrew

    Hurd, Rt Hon DouglasRhys Williams, Sir Brandon
    Irving, CharlesRidley, Rt Hon Nicholas
    Jenkin, Rt Hon PatrickRidsdale, Sir Julian
    Jessel, TobyRifkind, Malcolm
    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
    Jones, Robert (W Herts)Robinson, Mark (N'port W)
    Jopling, Rt Hon MichaelRoe, Mrs Marion
    Kellett-Bowman, Mrs ElaineRossi, Sir Hugh
    Key, RobertRost, Peter
    King, Roger (B'ham N'field)Rowe, Andrew
    King, Rt Hon TomRumbold, Mrs Angela
    Knight, Greg (Derby N)Ryder, Richard
    Knowles, MichaelSainsbury, Hon Timothy
    Lang, IanShaw, Giles (Pudsey)
    Latham, MichaelShelton, William (Streatham)
    Lawler, GeoffreyShepherd, Colin (Hereford)
    Lee, John (Pendle)Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
    Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)Shersby, Michael
    Lennox-Boyd, Hon MarkSilvester, Fred
    Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)Sims, Roger
    Lightbown, DavidSkeet, T. H. H.
    Lloyd, Ian (Havant)Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
    Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
    Lord, MichaelSoames, Hon Nicholas
    Lyell, NicholasSpeller, Tony
    McCrindle, RobertSpencer, Derek
    McCurley, Mrs AnnaSpicer, Jim (W Dorset)
    Macfarlane, NeilSpicer, Michael (S Worcs)
    MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)Squire, Robin
    MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)Stanbrook, Ivor
    Madel, DavidStanley, John
    Major, JohnSteen, Anthony
    Malins, HumfreyStern, Michael
    Maples, JohnStevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)
    Marland, PaulStewart, Allan (Eastwood)
    Marshall, Michael (Arundel)Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)
    Maude, Hon FrancisStewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)
    Mawhinney, Dr BrianStokes, John
    Maxwell-Hyslop, RobinStradling Thomas, J.
    Mayhew, Sir PatrickSumberg, David
    Merchant, PiersTapsell, Sir Peter
    Miller, Hal (B'grove)Terlezki, Stefan
    Mills, Iain (Meriden)Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.
    Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)Thompson, Donald (Calder V)
    Mitchell, David (NW Hants)Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)
    Moate, RogerThorne, Neil (Ilford S)
    Montgomery, Sir FergusThornton, Malcolm
    Moore, JohnThurnham, Peter
    Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)Tracey, Richard
    Mudd, DavidTrippier, David
    Murphy, ChristopherTrotter, Neville
    Neale, GerrardTwinn, Dr Ian
    Neubert, Michaelvan Straubenzee, Sir W.
    Newton, TonyVaughan, Sir Gerard
    Nicholls, PatrickViggers, Peter
    Norris, StevenWaddington, David
    Osborn, Sir JohnWakeham, Rt Hon John
    Ottaway, RichardWalden, George
    Page, Sir John (Harrow W)Walker, Bill (T'side N)
    Page, Richard (Herts SW)Waller, Gary
    Parris, MatthewWard, John
    Patten, J. (Oxf W & Abdgn)Wardle, C. (Bexhill)
    Pattie, GeoffreyWatson, John
    Peacock, Mrs ElizabethWatts, John
    Percival, Rt Hon Sir IanWells, Sir John (Maidstone)
    Pollock, AlexanderWhitfield, John
    Portillo, MichaelWhitney, Raymond
    Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)Wiggin, Jerry
    Powell, William (Corby)Wolfson, Mark
    Powley, JohnWood, Timothy
    Price, Sir DavidWoodcock, Michael
    Proctor, K. HarveyYeo, Tim
    Raffan, KeithYoung, Sir George (Acton)
    Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
    Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)Tellers for the Ayes:
    Renton, TimMr. Carol Mather and
    Rhodes James, RobertMr. Robert Boscawen.


    Abse, LeoGodman, Dr Norman
    Alton, DavidGoodhart, Sir Philip
    Anderson, DonaldGould, Bryan
    Ashdown, PaddyGround, Patrick
    Ashton, JoeHamilton, James (M'well N)
    Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)Hancock, Mr. Michael
    Bagier, Gordon A. T.Hardy, Peter
    Banks, Tony (Newham NW)Harman, Ms Harriet
    Barnett, GuyHarrison, Rt Hon Walter
    Barron, KevinHart, Rt Hon Dame Judith
    Beckett, Mrs MargaretHattersley, Rt Hon Roy
    Beith, A. J.Healey, Rt Hon Denis
    Benn, TonyHeffer, Eric S.
    Bennett, A. (Dent'n & Red'sh)Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)
    Benyon, WilliamHolland, Stuart (Vauxhall)
    Bermingham, GeraldHome Robertson, John
    Bidwell, SydneyHowells, Geraint
    Blair, AnthonyHoyle, Douglas
    Boothroyd, Miss BettyHughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)
    Boyes, RolandHughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
    Bray, Dr JeremyHughes, Roy (Newport East)
    Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
    Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
    Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)Janner, Hon Greville
    Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)John, Brynmor
    Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)
    Bruce, MalcolmKennedy, Charles
    Buchan, NormanKilroy-Silk, Robert
    Caborn, RichardKinnock, Rt Hon Neil
    Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)Kirkwood, Archy
    Campbell, IanKnox, David
    Campbell-Savours, DaleLambie, David
    Cartwright, JohnLamond, James
    Clark, Dr David (S Shields)Leighton, Ronald
    Clarke, ThomasLewis, Ron (Carlisle)
    Clay, RobertLewis, Terence (Worsley)
    Clwyd, Mrs AnnLitherland, Robert
    Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
    Cohen, HarryLofthouse, Geoffrey
    Coleman, DonaldLoyden, Edward
    Conlan, BernardMcCartney, Hugh
    Cook, Frank (Stockton North)McDonald, Dr Oonagh
    Corbyn, JeremyMcKay, Allen (Penistone)
    Cowans, HarryMcKelvey, William
    Cox, Thomas (Tooting)McNamara, Kevin
    Craigen, J. M.McTaggart, Robert
    Cunliffe, LawrenceMcWilliam, John
    Dalyell, TamMadden, Max
    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)Marek, Dr John
    Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)Marshall, David (Shettleston)
    Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)Mason, Rt Hon Roy
    Deakins, EricMaxton, John
    Dewar, DonaldMaynard, Miss Joan
    Dixon, DonaldMeadowcroft, Michael
    Dobson, FrankMichie, William
    Dormand, JackMillan, Rt Hon Bruce
    Dubs, AlfredMitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
    Duffy, A. E. P.Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
    Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
    Eadie, AlexMorrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
    Eastham, KenMoynihan, Hon C.
    Edwards, Bob (W'h'mpt'n SE)Nellist, David
    Evans, John (St. Helens N)Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
    Ewing, HarryO'Brien, William
    Fatchett, DerekO'Neill, Martin
    Faulds, AndrewOrme, Rt Hon Stanley
    Field, Frank (Birkenhead)Park, George
    Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)Parry, Robert
    Fisher, MarkPatchett, Terry
    Flannery, MartinPavitt, Laurie
    Foot, Rt Hon MichaelPendry, Tom
    Forrester, JohnPenhaligon, David
    Foster, DerekPike, Peter
    Fraser, J. (Norwood)Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
    Freeson, Rt Hon ReginaldPrescott, John
    Freud, ClementRadice, Giles
    Garrett, W. E.Randall, Stuart
    George, BruceRedmond, M.
    Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr JohnRees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)

    Richardson, Ms JoStott, Roger
    Roberts, Allan (Bootle)Strang, Gavin
    Robertson, GeorgeStraw, Jack
    Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)
    Rogers, AllanThompson, J. (Wansbeck)
    Rooker, J. W.Thorne, Stan (Preston)
    Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)Tinn, James
    Rowlands, TedTorney, Tom
    Ryman, JohnWallace, James
    Sedgemore, BrianWardell, Gareth (Gower)
    Sheerman, BarryWareing, Robert
    Sheldon, Rt Hon R.Weetch, Ken
    Shore, Rt Hon PeterWhite, James
    Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)Williams, Rt Hon A.
    Short, Mrs H.(Whampfn NE)Winnick, David
    Silkin, Rt Hon J.Woodall, Alec
    Skinner, DennisWrigglesworth, Ian
    Smith, C.(lsl'ton S & F'bury)Young, David (Bolton SE)
    Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)
    Snape, PeterTellers for the Noes:
    Soley, CliveMr. Frank Haynes and
    Steel, Rt Hon DavidMr. Robin Corbett.

    Question accordingly agreed to.

    Lords amendment No. 4 disagreed to.

    Lords amendments Nos. 5 to 8 disagreed to.

    Lords amendment: No. 9, leave out clause 8.

    I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.

    With this we may take the following: Lords amendment No. 10, on page 4, line 35, leave out subsection (1) and insert—

    "() On the appointed day there shall be established in Greater London and each metropolitan county a body corporate to be known by the name of the London Waste Disposal Authority or by the name of the county with the addition of the words "Waste Disposal Authority", as the case may be.
    () Each authority shall consist of members of the constituenct councils appointed by them to be members of the Authority.
    () The constituent councils in relation to the London Waste Disposal Authority shall be the London borough councils and the Common Council.
    () The constituent councils in relation to a metropolitan waste disposal authority shall be the councils for the metropolitan districts comprised in the county.
    () Each authority shall be a joint authority within the meaning of Part IV of this Act and the provisions of that Part shall apply to this section as if this section were included in that Part.
    () The functions specified in subsection (2) below shall be discharged by the authority in respect of the area for which it is established."
    Amendments thereto: (a) in page 4, line 37, leave out 'authorities' and insert 'councils'.

    (b) in page 4, line 42, after 'purpose', insert 'before 15th November 1985'.

    (c) in page 5, line 3, leave out 'that' and insert 'the Abolition'.

    (d) in page 5, line 4, leave out `may, after consulting the authorities concerned' and insert 'shall'.

    (e) in page 5, line 8, at end insert—
    '(1A) For the purposes of subsection (1) above the Secretary of State shall have particular regard to the need for satisfactory arrangements in respect of hazardous waste.
    (1B) No person shall be a member of an authority established by an order under subsection (1) above unless he is a member of one of the councils for whose areas the authority is established; and any such order may make provision for enabling the Secretary of State to require the authority established by the order to submit to him a scheme for the winding-up of the authority and the transfer to those councils of its functions, property, staff, rights and liabilities.'.
    Lords amendment No. 11, in page 5, line 13, leave out subsections (3) to (5).

    Lords amendment No. 73, leave out Schedule 6.

    When the Bill left this House it provided for the responsibility of the GLC and the MCC for waste disposal and regulation to be devolved to borough and district councils. It also provided a reserve power so that if my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment was not satisfied that the boroughs and districts had agreed on adequate voluntary joint arrangements for the discharge of those functions he could impose statutory authorities for some or all of those functions in all or part of any metropolitan area. As amended in the other place, the Bill now provides for waste regulation and disposal functions to be transferred to a single joint authority in each area, without any opportunity for the boroughs and districts to put forward proposals themselves to assume those functions on abolition.

    The other place was concerned in particular that there should be certainty about future arrangements for waste disposal, and especially for the disposal of hazardous waste. These concerns are shared by hon. Members in all parts of this House. The Government have always recognised the need for adequate arrangements for waste disposal after abolition. With regard to hazardous waste, the guidance note issued to authorities by the Department on 28 March made it clear that we wished to see the creation of a separate unit in each metropolitan area to coordinate these and other non-operational functions. These units could house the specialist staff and facilities which are necessary for these functions and about which there was particular concern in another place.

    We do not accept that joint authorities need to be the only or necessarily the best means of achieving adequate arrangements and it is right that the Government should take account of the strong concerns expressed both in this House and in another place.

    I believe that the boroughs and districts are in the first instance best placed to judge the most appropriate arrangements for their areas. The Conservative boroughs to which I have spoken take that view. I have also spoken in an unofficial capacity to several of the Labour-controlled districts outside London and they tell me that they take the same view. I appreciate that the Labour-controlled districts have some difficulty in expressing their full opinions on this issue. We propose, therefore, that waste regulation and disposal functions should be devolved to the boroughs and districts. If, however, my right hon. Friend is satisfied that joint arrangements could, with advantage, be made for the discharge of some or all of those functions in the whole or part of any metropolitan area, and adequate joint arrangements have not been made by 15 November 1985, he will have a duty — I stress that it will be a duty — by order to establish a statutory authority to discharge those functions.

    Why have the Government retreated from the September deadline in the earlier draft stressed in another place as being the time limit for the Secretary of State to be satisfied?

    In the continuing discussions there is considerable co-operation between many of the Conservative boroughs and the Liberal boroughs in London and in Conservative boroughs in the districts, but the Labour boroughs in London have not joined in any discussions, and in the metropolitan counties the Labour districts have not formally engaged in discussions. We have every reason to believe that they have well developed plans, particularly in the constituency of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw). In many areas outside London it is clear that some subterranean planning has been carried out. I understand that the Labour leaders of the district councils have been unable to come out officially because it is still their policy not to co-operate before Royal Assent. The Government therefore thought it appropriate to extend the deadline to 15 November as the latest date by which the Secretary of State will have to exercise his duty.

    As the right hon. Gentleman formerly represented a constituency next to mine, he knows the problems of north-west London. How does he envisage the 32 London boroughs being able in any way to come to separate arrangements without massive joint arrangements, especially north and south of the Thames? There will have to be at least two, or even four, separate organisations. If it is intended to wait for some agreement between the different political complexions, how can the practical problems be solved by November?

    The hon. Gentleman represents an area which is part of the "West Waste" group of boroughs, and plans for dealing with the disposal of waste in that area are far advanced. He will appreciate that the powers that my right hon. Friend will have under the Bill as amended will allow the imposition in parts of London of a joint arrangement if such an arrangement is not arrived at voluntarily. I suspect that in that area an arrangement will be arrived at voluntarily.

    8.15 pm

    The five southern boroughs — Bromley, Croydon, Sutton, Merton and Kingston upon Thames — have had extensive discussions among themselves as to how they will co-operate, and I believe that they will be able to come to a voluntary a rrangement. A great deal of disposal is carried out on a geographical basis. The refuse that arises from the western parts of London will be disposed of out towards the west, that from the south to the south, and so on around London. The hon. Gentleman should not underestimate the interests of the boroughs themselves to co-operate voluntarily to provide this service.

    Taking London as an example, my right hon. Friend said that he could envisage circumstances in which if there was not co-operation in certain boroughs a joint authority would be set up under the instruction of the Secretary of State to look after the remainder of the boroughs which have not co-operated. Can my right hon. Friend hazard a guess whether if arrangements made by some boroughs collectively, including the letting of contracts, and so on, do not appear "satisfactory", the Secretary of State will have powers to overrule those contracts?

    The Secretary of State will have powers which he has a duty to exercise by 15 November and which will allow him to set up a joint authority for the whole of a particular conurbation or for parts of it. In the southern part, the northern part, or wherever it may be, the various district councils may have come together to work in a positive way. One of the factors which my right hon. Friend will have to consider is the way in which existing contracts are honoured. The contracts may be with the private sector or with the surrounding county councils.

    In making his decision the Secretary of State will be required to have particular regard to satisfactory arrangements for hazardous waste. The Secretary of State will also retain the discretionary power to establish a statutory authority if initially satisfactory voluntary joint arrangements subsequently break down. To ensure, however, that there remains a real prospect of the devolution of functions even if statutory authorities are established under these arrangements, the authorities would be required within a reasonable time, probably 12 months, of their establishment to submit proposals to my right hon. Friend for their functions to be devolved to their constituent councils.

    It may help the House if I explain in some detail the types of voluntary arrangements which my right hon. Friend would be prepared to consider and the steps which would precede his decision on whether to establish a statutory authority in any metropolitan area. The guidance note issued in March set out the types of arrangement which it seems to us would be sensible in each metropolitan area. As I have already made clear, we envisage special arrangements for hazardous waste. Those arrangements will generally need to be countywide, unless it can be clearly demonstrated that they would be satisfactory on some other basis. With regard to operational functions, some districts can probably operate in isolation, and they may well be Labour districts, but in other areas it will make sense for the districts to group together. It may even make sense in at least one county for all the districts to come together in an operational group. Where boroughs and districts produce proposals for groupings they can be either non-statutory or be enshrined in an order made under the reserve power. I emphasise again that we want to see arrangements made which are appropriate to each area, but we have to be assured that they are satisfactory arrangements.

    We shall invite those boroughs and districts which have not already done so to submit to us, by 30 September, their detailed proposals for voluntary joint arrangements, in particular for hazardous waste. As soon as possible, and ideally within 10 days of that deadline, we shall — following discussion with those authorities as necessary — let them have our reactions to their proposals. We shall then invite them, as soon as possible, to work up those proposals, modified as necessary in the light of our comments, into the draft terms of a mutually binding agreement between them. If the terms of those draft agreements seem to us satisfactory, we shall then ask the boroughs and districts to submit signed agreements by early November. My right hon. Friend will then be able, in the light of those signed agreements, to reach his final decision by the statutory deadline of 15 November on whether the arrangements embodied in those agreements are, in his judgment, satisfactory. If he judges them to be satisfactory, he need do nothing.

    Does the Minister identify excess water as hazardous waste? Does he intend to refer to excess water?

    Excess water may have an effect upon hazardous waste if there is seepage. It is probably more directly connected with that part of the Bill concerned with drainage.

    Surely it is a matter that comes under the items which the Minister has mentioned.

    If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to raise a particular point, I shall, of course, deal with it.

    This is my first opportunity to tell the right hon. Gentleman how sorry I was to hear that he intends to resign at the next election.

    The Minister must not say that. I do not intend to resign. I do not intend to seek re-election. There is a difference between resignation and retirement. One is the more elegant way of expressing oneself.

    I do not want to intrude into the niceties of what is happening in the Labour party. I was lucky to serve under the right hon. Gentleman, when he was a Whip, on my first Committee in 1968 on the Finance Bill. There was a historic moment when he was half inside and half outside the door for a Division, and I understand that it is so recorded in Hansard. I return now to the question of waste disposal. The functions will be devolved to the borough and district councils to be performed in accordance with those agreements on abolition day. If, on the other hand, my right hon. Friend judges those arrangements not to be satisfactory, he will be under a duty to establish statutory authorities to discharge those functions. We shall issue detailed advice to the boroughs and districts on the steps in that process, and on the criteria against which my right hon. Friend would judge the adequacy of their proposals for joint arrangements, immediately after Royal Assent.

    I believe that the amendments we have now tabled represent a considerable strengthening of the reserve power. I am confident that, by placing my right hon. Friend under a duty to establish statutory authorities if he is not satisfied by 15 November 1985 that the voluntary arrangements are adequate, they provide the guarantee of satisfactory arrangements on abolition which, legitimately, both Houses have sought. At the same time, we have retained the flexibility to enable us to take account of the wishes of the boroughs and districts. The requirement for my right hon. Friend to have particular regard to the need for satisfactory arrangements for hazardous waste will secure the future of those vital functions. I believe that the provisions will ensure that satisfactory arrangements for waste disposal are in being on the appointed day.

    The House of Lords, quite rightly, debated hazardous waste at some length. We are at one with Lord Cranbrook on the importance of maintaining existing centres of expertise and scientific advice, especially for hazardous waste. We are most grateful to him and to a Select Committee of another place, which he chaired, for their valuable advice on these aspects. We also recognise and appreciate the contribution of Lord Gregson both in the 1981 report with which he was associated and his subsequent actions. However, we consider that their concerns are fully met by our proposals.

    I wish to deal with two points of some concern. The first is the concern of the home counties about the waste arrangements for London. I am, of course, well aware of the views of the home counties, and in particular their common concern to see close co-ordination of the boroughs' arrangements for the disposal of London's waste. I have met representatives of the home counties on two occasions during the past eight months, and the proposals which we are now making in respect of waste regulation and disposal are intended to try to meet those concerns. Clause 9, as now proposed, would provide the certainty of stable voluntary arrangements, underpinned by binding contractual commitments, which were sought by the home counties. I have offered to meet the home counties' representatives again later in the summer when a more detailed picture of the arrangements proposed by the boroughs will be available.

    I wish now to deal with the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Horrichurch (Mr. Squire) about guarantees for the private sector companies which have waste disposal contracts with the GLC and the metropolitan county councils. It will, of course, be important to ensure that the major contractors which actually dispose of most of the waste in London and the metropolitian counties do riot suffer as a result of abolition.

    I am conscious of the importance of the role played by those contractors, and the heavy investment involved. We have made it clear to successor authorities that any large-scale abandonment of existing contracts would be unacceptable, and I am glad to have the opportunity this evening to reassure the House that this remains the Government's position.

    In asking the House to disagree with the Lords in the said amendment, and to agree with the amendment that we are proposing, I believe that that will provide adequate and appropriate arrangements for waste disposal in both London and the metropolitan counties. I ask the House to remember that we have had representations, both officially and unofficially, from many of the London boroughs and district councils saying that they can co-operate voluntarily, one with the other, or in groups of three or four. The functions of disposal of waste can be properly devolved and delegated.

    I wish to emphasise again that it is important that hazardous waste is dealt with on a wide basis.

    8.30 pm

    I shall be as brief as possible as we now have only 18 minutes before the guillotine falls.

    The Minister is a master in the art of soft soap. His praise for the noble Lord Cranbrook would be rather more credible had he accepted — and accepted in full — the advice of the Select Committee that the noble Lord chairs. Speaking on behalf of the Select Committee, the noble Lord pointed out that it was evident, and had always been evident, from the Government's reserve proposals that they lacked confidence in the system of devolution. They believed that it would take two months to take a step that we believe should have been taken now. The nettle should have been grasped and it should have been acknowledged that waste disposal, as opposed to waste collection, could not possibly be handled on a borough-by-borough basis.

    The Minister accepted that in his speech today. He said that he thought that in one county — he did not say which, but he may intervene to tell us — all the districts could make up one group. That is a countywide function He suggested that in other counties and the GLC there might be a number of groups. It is extremely unlikely, even with his political desire to devolve waste disposal, that there will be more than a handful of boroughs that will handle disposal themselves. The Government should have recognised that the counties and the GLC have a great success story. No one has criticised them in their efforts to improve and co-ordinate waste disposal since they were established 10 years ago.

    It is quite unacceptable political vandalism to embark on proposals such as these and then bit by bit, and extremely reluctantly, to back off. The Government only back off when they have lost the vote, not the arguments. If my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) had intervened, he would have pointed out that we put forward amendments in terms similar to those put forward in the other place in respect of hazardous waste. They were brushed aside in Committee and in this place because of the Government's majority.

    The Minister presents his change as a concession to the Lords amendments. I am unconvinced. It is true that, in place of a general reserve power, the Secretary of State now has to be satisfied about the district-wide arrangements or to trigger the countywide proposals. That is on the plus side. But, on the minus side, he has moved the deadline by some six weeks. If Labour-controlled authorities were co-operating as the Minister suggests — I do not claim much for myself but I do claim to be more in touch with Labour leaders than he is — that would be an argument for advancing the deadline from September, not for extending the deadline to November.

    By November, four months after Royal Assent, if Royal Assent is received this side of summer, what will happen to the staff who run those county authorities? Faced with such uncertainty, many of the best staff in those units will seek other employment. That is the nature of the world. If the Minister leaves it until 15 November to attempt to establish joint arrangements or to satisfy himself that the district-wide arrangements are satisfactory he will find that the good staff are not available. I very much doubt that the Minister has taken account of that.

    Waste disposal has always been the subject of music hall jokes, but the truth is that it is an efficient and effective system of collection and disposal and is one of the buttresses to civilisation. Without effective waste collection and disposal we would have no public health, and no decent cities and towns in which to live.

    We believe that these arrangements are ill thought out. They will cause administrative chaos and may well cause disruption in the disposal of waste. The other place had it right when it proposed that there should be countywide arrangements, and we shall support those arrangements tonight.

    This is another area in which all the expert opinion is against what the Government are proposing. The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) quoted the report of the Select Committee of the other place. In June of this year the Department of the Environment's hazardous waste inspectorate reported on the matter of hazardous waste in the United Kingdom. The report concluded that only the GLC and the West Midlands county council were dealing successfully with the problem, largely because of their size and their expertise. These officials, the Government's own officials, said:

    "The HWI would view with alarm any prospects of these experienced hazardous waste management teams being disbanded upon abolition of the GLC … The HWI attaches great importance to the retention of these experienced waste management teams and considers that any other action would result in chaos in hazardous waste management."
    That is the expert view of the people who were doing the job.

    The Government's amendment does not inspire a great deal of confidence. It gives the Secretary of State authority to require the winding up of any of the new bodies which may be created. That hardly gives us great faith that they will last long. It certainly leads to the view that the Government are hankering after giving these powers to borough and district councils.

    The date of 15 November 1985 is only the most recent of a long line of final dates from the Government on this issue. We were originally told that everything would be ready by July 1984. It was then December 1984. In Committee, the Minister told us that he was prepared to stay his hand until the end of February 1985. On Report, he told us that everything would have to be settled by September 1985. That date was given again in another place. We now have a further slippage to 15 November 1985.

    If the hon. Gentleman had heard what I said earlier, he would appreciate that I invited proposals until September. I have said that there must be contractually binding agreements by 15 November. At that stage obligations with the home counties or private contractors will have to be explained. Extra is being required.

    The Minister is a past master when it comes to command of English prose but, on Report, he said that he would have to have settled on a future set of arrangements by the beginning of September 1985. That does not seem to be the receipt of proposals, but something much firmer than the Minister is now suggesting.

    There must be some doubt whether 15 November 1985 allows enough time for a statutory joint authority to be created. As the hon. Member for Blackburn said, it will have to consider key staff, sort out budgets and prepare for the imposition of a precept. Are we to believe that all that can be done in four months? Those of us who have some experience of these problems have reason to doubt it.

    We are being offered a choice not between a voluntary and a statutory system, but between a single strategic authority with the benefits of technical expertise, economies of scale and efficiency that that offers and a hotch-potch of groups of boroughs with some voluntary and some imposed functions. Faced with such a choice, the only intelligent and reasonable thing to do is to support the Lords amendment.

    I should like to express my appreciation to the Minister for wishing me all the best for the future.

    I have trotted around the Chamber for quite a while and I have often thought that hon. Members were considered to be out of order for no reason that I could discern. As a Back Bencher, I find that whatever subject I raise, I am out of order. I therefore consulted my Front Bench to see if I would be in order talking about water and drainage. They said, "Oh, no. The debate is on waste disposal and the rest." The Minister gave way to me and allowed me to talk about water. When I thought of hazardous waste, I thought of what comes up the toilet instead of going down, which is what happens when there is flooding. Does that get in order, Mr. Deputy Speaker? I have been in Wakefield for some time. I consider the matter to be in order and would like to enlarge.

    Thanks very much. I am anxious to cover matters that will not be debated again — flooding and drainage. Wakefield is flooded almost yearly. I have pleaded with the Lords and at least 12 Ministers and asked many questions about flooding but I am not getting much nearer a solution, as the matter is dealt with voluntarily. Even the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food's Green Paper said that the Government are considering two possible options. What will happen when the Government get rid of the metropolitan councils? A previous Tory Administration delegated authority but forgot to include provision for land drainage. In the 1974 local government reorganisation, the Tories denuded my county, metropolitan district councils and my local water authority of power. They are having to go around with a begging bowl. The begging bowl gets 33 per cent. for a feasibility study from the Wakefield metropolitan area; 25 per cent. from the county; 10 per cent. from the quango Yorkshire water authority; and 32 per cent, from MAFF. If it had been two years later there would have been no percentage agreement, because in 12 months MAFF has dropped from 45 to 32 per cent. Which designated authority will deal with land drainage and flooding problems that will exist in my constituency if something is not done?

    There may be people listening to me with whom I have pleaded in another place. They will not give me a copy of the feasibility study report which I could give to Wakefield metropolitan council. I have been refused a copy and I would be helped in my endeavours to try to solve the problems of flooding in Wakefield if I had a copy. Will the Minister look into this matter so that on this occasion the Government do not compound the mistake they made in 1974 on the reorganisation of local government?

    I have had a strong feeling from the beginning of discussion on this Bill that Opposition Members do not have their hearts in this amendment. That has been confirmed by what my right hon. Friend told the House, that behind the scenes, as so often happens, Labour authorities are keen and willing to take on these arrangements because they can see very distinct benefits. In the view of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), my right hon. Friend is a master of soft soap. Of course, the hon. Member for Blackburn is well known as a dramatic and very often melodramatic speaker. I do not object to that, it is often very entertaining, but it does not necessarily add up to much.

    We had a further example of that tonight when he sought, and he has just sought again through a sedentary intervention, to say that Labour authorities are very happy with the amendments they are putting forward and they are not at all happy with the Government's proposals. That remains to be seen, but so far I have not been able to put my finger on much evidence from the Opposition Benches that they are serious about the amendments. The hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright) gave us a detective story of dates in seeking to prove that the Government were up to foul deeds behind the scenes on exactly when these arrangements were to be made. The point seems very clear. The people of this country, of London and the metropolitan counties, are concerned that their dustbins are emptied efficiently and that the waste is carted off to whatever multiple resource is there to burn it, dump it or bury it. The arrangements for London, for which I speak with a certain amount of authority I hope, amount to the Greater London council entering into contracts with certain large enterprises to dispose of the waste well outside the boundaries of the capital. It seems ridiculous that we should need a joint board simply to finalise a contract to do such a thing.

    I am very short of time so perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to continue. The local authorities could just as well finalise that contract on their own joint arrangement as can this joint board. There is great scope for the local authorities to be able to finalise contracts for greater cost-effectiveness, just as happened with Southend's local council and in various boroughs in London, including the notable example of Wandsworth, so often a forerunner in these matters. Surely that is what we are seeking here. The Government are very wise to seek to disagree with the Lords amendment, and I fully support what my right hon. Friend has said.

    The House knows my concern with public health and hazardous waste. We have a system which is working and fully monitored and it is irresponsible suddenly to cut that up and destroy it. I accuse the Government of playing with the health of the people in all the county boroughs concerned.

    Amendment (b) negatived Lords amendment No. 9 disagreed to.

    Clause 9

    Joint Arrangements For Waste Disposal Functions

    Lords amendment: No. 10, in page 4, line 35, leave out subsection (1) and insert—

    "() On the appointed day there shall be established in Greater London and each metropolitan county a body corporate to be known by the name of the London Waste Disposal Authority or by the name of the county with the addition of the words "Waste Disposal Authority", as the case may be.
    () Each authority shall consist of members of the constituent councils appointed by them to be members of the Authority.
    () The constituent councils in relation to the London Waste Disposal Authority shall be the London borough councils and the Common Council.
    () The constituent councils in relation to a metropolitan waste disposal authority shall be the councils for the metropolitan districts comprised in the county.
    () Each authority shall be a joint authority within the meaning of Part IV of this Act and the provisions of that Part shall apply to this section as if this section were included in that Part.
    () The functions specified in subsection (2) below shall be discharged by the authority in respect of the area for which it is established."

    Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

    The House divided: Ayes 301, Noes 194.

    Division No. 259]

    [8.45 pm


    Aitken, JonathanAncram, Michael
    Alexander, RichardAshby, David
    Alison, Rt Hon MichaelAspinwall, Jack
    Amess, DavidAtkins, Robert (South Ribble)

    Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
    Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)Forth, Eric
    Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
    Baldry, TonyFox, Marcus
    Banks, Robert (Harrogate)Franks, Cecil
    Batiste, SpencerFraser, Peter (Angus East)
    Bellingham, HenryFreeman, Roger
    Bendall, VivianFry, Peter
    Bennett, Rt Hon Sir FredericGale, Roger
    Benyon, WilliamGalley, Roy
    Best, KeithGardiner, George (Reigate)
    Bevan, David GilroyGardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)
    Biffen, Rt Hon JohnGarel-Jones, Tristan
    Biggs-Davison, Sir JohnGlyn, Dr Alan
    Blaker, Rt Hon Sir PeterGoodlad, Alastair
    Body, RichardGow, Ian
    Bonsor, Sir NicholasGower, Sir Raymond
    Bottomley, PeterGrant, Sir Anthony
    Bottomley, Mrs VirginiaGreenway, Harry
    Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)Gregory, Conal
    Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)Griffiths, Sir Eldon
    Braine, Rt Hon Sir BernardGriffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
    Brandon-Bravo, MartinGrist, Ian
    Bright, GrahamGrylls, Michael
    Brinton, TimHamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
    Brooke, Hon PeterHamilton, Neil (Tatton)
    Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)Hampson, Dr Keith
    Browne, JohnHannam, John
    Bruinvels, PeterHargreaves, Kenneth
    Bryan, Sir PaulHarris, David
    Buck, Sir AntonyHaselhurst, Alan
    Budgen, NickHavers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
    Burt, AlistairHawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)
    Butcher, JohnHawksley, Warren
    Butler, Hon AdamHayes, J.
    Butterfill, JohnHayhoe, Rt Hon Barney
    Carlisle, John (N Luton)Heathcoat-Amory, David
    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)Heddle, John
    Carttiss, MichaelHenderson, Barry
    Cash, WilliamHickmet, Richard
    Chalker, Mrs LyndaHiggins, Rt Hon Terence L.
    Chapman, SydneyHind, Kenneth
    Chope, ChristopherHirst, Michael
    Churchill, W. S.Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
    Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)
    Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)Holt, Richard
    Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)Howard, Michael
    Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
    Clegg, Sir WalterHowarth, Gerald (Cannock)
    Cockeram, EricHowell, Ralph (N Norfolk)
    Colvin, MichaelHubbard-Miles, Peter
    Coombs, SimonHunt, John (Ravensbourne)
    Cope, JohnHunter, Andrew
    Corrie, JohnIrving, Charles
    Couchman, JamesJenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
    Cranborne, ViscountJessel, Toby
    Crouch, DavidJones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
    Currie, Mrs EdwinaJones, Robert (W Herts)
    Dickens, GeoffreyJopling, Rt Hon Michael
    Dicks, TerryKellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
    Dorrell, StephenKey, Robert
    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.King, Roger (B'ham N'field)
    Dover, DenKnight, Greg (Derby N)
    du Cann, Rt Hon Sir EdwardKnowles, Michael
    Dunn, RobertLamont, Norman
    Durant, TonyLang, Ian
    Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)Latham, Michael
    Eggar, TimLawler, Geoffrey
    Emery, Sir PeterLee, John (Pendle)
    Evennett, DavidLeigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
    Eyre, Sir ReginaldLennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
    Fairbairn, NicholasLightbown, David
    Fallon, MichaelLloyd, Ian (Havant)
    Farr, Sir JohnLloyd, Peter, (Fareham)
    Favell, AnthonyLord, Michael
    Fenner, Mrs PeggyLyell, Nicholas
    Finsberg, Sir GeoffreyMcCrindle, Robert
    Fletcher, AlexanderMcCurley, Mrs Anna
    Fookes, Miss JanetMacfarlane, Neil
    Forman, NigelMacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

    MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
    Maclean, David JohnScott, Nicholas
    McQuarrie, AlbertShaw, Giles (Pudsey)
    Madel, DavidShelton, William (Streatham)
    Major, JohnShepherd, Colin (Hereford)
    Malins, HumfreyShepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
    Malone, GeraldShersby, Michael
    Maples, JohnSilvester, Fred
    Marland, PaulSims, Roger
    Marshall, Michael (Arundel)Skeet, T. H. H.
    Maude, Hon FrancisSmith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
    Mawhinney, Dr BrianSoames, Hon Nicholas
    Maxwell-Hyslop, RobinSpeller, Tony
    Mayhew, Sir PatrickSpencer, Derek
    Mellor, DavidSpicer, Jim (W Dorset)
    Merchant, PiersSpicer, Michael (S Worcs)
    Miller, Hal (B'grove)Squire, Robin
    Mills, Iain (Meriden)Stanbrook, Ivor
    Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)Stanley, John
    Mitchell, David (NW Hants)Steen, Anthony
    Moate, RogerStern, Michael
    Montgomery, Sir FergusStevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)
    Moore, JohnStewart, Allan (Eastwood)
    Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)
    Moynihan, Hon C.Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)
    Mudd, DavidStokes, John
    Murphy, ChristopherStradling Thomas, J.
    Neale, GerrardSumberg, David
    Needham, RichardTapsell, Sir Peter
    Neubert, MichaelTaylor, John (Solihull)
    Newton, TonyTebbit, Rt Hon Norman
    Nicholls, PatrickThatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.
    Norris, StevenThompson, Donald (Calder V)
    Osborn, Sir JohnThompson, Patrick (N'ich N)
    Ottaway, RichardThorne, Neil (Ilford S)
    Page, Sir John (Harrow W)Thornton, Malcolm
    Page, Richard (Herts SW)Thurnham, Peter
    Parris, MatthewTownend, John (Bridlington)
    Patten, J. (Oxf W & Abdgn)Tracey, Richard
    Pattie, GeoffreyTrippier, David
    Peacock, Mrs ElizabethTrotter, Neville
    Percival, Rt Hon Sir IanTwinn, Dr Ian
    Pollock, Alexandervan Straubenzee, Sir W.
    Portillo, MichaelVaughan, Sir Gerard
    Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)Viggers, Peter
    Powell, William (Corby)Waddington, David
    Powley, JohnWakeham, Rt Hon John
    Price, Sir DavidWalden, George
    Proctor, K. HarveyWalker, Bill (T'side N)
    Pym, Rt Hon FrancisWall, Sir Patrick
    Raffan, KeithWaller, Gary
    Raison, Rt Hon TimothyWard, John
    Rathbone, TimWardle, C. (Bexhill)
    Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)Watson, John
    Renton, TimWatts, John
    Rhodes James, RobertWells, Sir John (Maidstone)
    Rhys Williams, Sir BrandonWhitfield, John
    Ridley, Rt Hon NicholasWhitney, Raymond
    Ridsdale, Sir JulianWiggin, Jerry
    Rifkind, MalcolmWolfson, Mark
    Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)Wood, Timothy
    Robinson, Mark (N'port W)Woodcock, Michael
    Roe, Mrs MarionYeo, Tim
    Rossi, Sir HughYoung, Sir George (Acton)
    Rost, Peter
    Rowe, AndrewTellers for the Ayes:
    Rumbold, Mrs AngelaMr. Carol Mather and
    Ryder, RichardMr. Robert Boscawen.
    Sackville, Hon Thomas


    Abse, LeoBarron, Kevin
    Alton, DavidBeckett, Mrs Margaret
    Anderson, DonaldBeith, A. J.
    Ashdown, PaddyBenn, Tony
    Ashton, JoeBennett, A. (Dent'n & Red'sh)
    Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)Bermingham, Gerald
    Bagier, Gordon A. T.Bidwell, Sydney
    Banks, Tony (Newham NW)Blair, Anthony
    Barnett, GuyBoothroyd, Miss Betty

    Boyes, RolandHughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)
    Bray, Dr JeremyHughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
    Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)Hughes, Roy (Newport East)
    Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
    Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)Janner, Hon Greville
    Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)John, Brynmor
    Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)
    Bruce, MalcolmKaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
    Buchan, NormanKennedy, Charles
    Caborn, RichardKilroy-Silk, Robert
    Callaghan, Rt Hon J.Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
    Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)Kirkwood, Archy
    Campbell, IanLambie, David
    Campbell-Savours, DaleLamond, James
    Carter-Jones, LewisLeighton, Ronald
    Cartwright, JohnLewis, Ron (Carlisle)
    Clark, Dr David (S Shields)Lewis, Terence (Worsley)
    Clarke, ThomasLitherland, Robert
    Clay, RobertLloyd, Tony (Stretford)
    Clwyd, Mrs AnnLofthouse, Geoffrey
    Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)Loyden, Edward
    Cohen, HarryMcCartney, Hugh
    Coleman, DonaldMcDonald, Dr Oonagh
    Conlan, BernardMcKelvey, William
    Cook, Frank (Stockton North)McNamara, Kevin
    Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)McTaggart, Robert
    Corbett, RobinMcWilliam, John
    Corbyn, JeremyMadden, Max
    Cowans, HarryMarek, Dr John
    Cox, Thomas (Tooting)Marshall, David (Shettleston)
    Craigen, J. M.Mason, Rt Hon Roy
    Dalyell, TamMaxton, John
    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)Maynard, Miss Joan
    Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)Meadowcroft, Michael
    Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)Michie, William
    Deakins, EricMitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
    Dewar, DonaldMorris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
    Dixon, DonaldMorris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
    Dobson, FrankNellist, David
    Dormand, JackOakes, Rt Hon Gordon
    Dubs, AlfredO'Brien, William
    Duffy, A. E. P.O'Neill, Martin
    Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
    Eadie, AlexPark, George
    Eastham, KenParry, Robert
    Edwards, Bob (W'h'mpt'n SE)Patchett, Terry
    Evans, John (St. Helens N)Pavitt, Laurie
    Ewing, HarryPendry, Tom
    Fatchett, DerekPenhaligon, David
    Faulds, AndrewPike, Peter
    Field, Frank (Birkenhead)Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
    Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)Prescott, John
    Fisher, MarkRadice, Giles
    Flannery, MartinRandall, Stuart
    Foot, Rt Hon MichaelRedmond, M.
    Forrester, JohnRees, Rt Hon M. ("Leeds S)
    Foster, DerekRichardson, Ms Jo
    Fraser, J. (Norwood)Roberts, Allan (Bootle)
    Freeson, Rt Hon ReginaldRoberts, Ernest (Hackney N)
    Freud, ClementRobertson, George
    Garrett, W. E.Rogers, Allan
    George, BruceRooker, J. W.
    Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr JohnRoss, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
    Godman, Dr NormanRowlands, Ted
    Golding, JohnRyman, John
    Gould, BryanSedgemore, Brian
    Ground, PatrickSheerman, Barry
    Hamilton, James (M'well N)Sheldon, Rt Hon R.
    Hancock, Mr. MichaelShore, Rt Hon Peter
    Hardy, PeterShort, Ms Clare (Ladywood)
    Harman, Ms HarrietShort, Mrs (Whampt'n NE)
    Harrison, Rt Hon WalterSilkin, Rt Hon J.
    Hart, Rt Hon Dame JudithSkinner, Dennis
    Haynes, FrankSmith, C.(Isl'ton S & F'bury)
    Heffer, Eric S.Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)
    Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)Snape, Peter
    Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)Soley, Clive
    Home Robertson, JohnStott, Roger
    Howells, GeraintStrang, Gavin
    Hoyle, DouglasStraw, Jack

    Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)White, James
    Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)Williams, Rt Hon A.
    Thorne, Stan (Preston)Winnick, David
    Tinn, JamesWoodall, Alec
    Torney, TomWrigglesworth, Ian
    Wainwright, R.Young, David (Bolton SE)
    Wallace, James
    Wardell, Gareth (Gower)Tellers for the Noes:
    Wareing, RobertMr. Lawrence Cunliffe and
    Weetch, KenMr. Allen McKay.

    Question accordingly agreed to.

    Amendments made in lieu of Lords amendment No. 10:

    (a) in page 4, line 37, leave out 'authorities' and insert 'councils'.

    (b) in page 4, line 42, after 'purpose', insert before 15th November 1985'.

    (c) in page 5, line 3, leave out 'that' and insert 'the abolition'.

    (d) in page 5, line 4, leave out 'may, after consulting the authorities concerned' and insert 'shall'.

    (e) in page 5, line 8, at end insert—

    '(1A) For the purposes of subsection (1) above the Secretary of State shall have particular regard to the need for satisfactory arrangements in respect of hazardous waste.
    (1B) No person shall be a member of an authority established by an order under subsection (1) above unless he is a member of one of the councils for whose areas the authority is established; and any such order may make provision for enabling the Secretary of State to require the authority established by the order to submit to him a scheme for the winding-up of the authority and the transfer to those councils of its functions, property, staff, rights and liabilities.'.—[Mr. Kenneth Baker.]

    Lords amendment No 11 disagreed to.

    Clause 10

    Land Drainage And Flood Prevention Functions

    Lords amendment No. 12 agreed to.

    Clause 20

    Consultation With Inner London Boroughs And The City

    Lords amendment No. 13: In page 15, line 9, leave out "or as the Secretary of State maydirect"

    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science
    (Mr. Bob Dunn)

    I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

    With this may we take the following Lords amendments: No. 14, in page 15, line 18, leave out subsections (1) and (2) and insert—

    "(1) The Secretary of State may before 31 March 1991 review the exercise by the Authority of its functions relating to education."
    No. 15, in page 15, line 32, leave out from "section.' to "and" in line 34.

    No. 16, in page 15, line 34, leave out "the first".

    Amendment (a) thereto in lieu of the said Lords amendment, in page 15, line 34, leave out 'first such'.

    No. 17, in page 15, line 36, leave out subsection (4).

    No. 18, in page 15, line 43, leave out subsections (5) and (6).

    Amendments thereto:

    (a) in page 72, line 11, leave out '21'.

    (b) in page 72, line 16, leave out '21 or'.

    On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We have just debated amendments about waste disposal. West Midlands county council handles 40 per cent. of this country's hazardous waste. It should be put on the record that an hon. Member who represents the area, who is a county coucillor for the area and who has served on a waste disposal committee was the one hon. Member not called in the debate.

    9 pm.

    Amendment No. 13 deletes from clause 20 the power for my right hon. Friend to direct the new ILEA to provide specified information to the inner London boroughs or the City for the purposes of the consultation required by this clause between the new authority and those councils. As my noble Friend, Lord Gowrie, made clear in introducing this amendment in another place, the power for my right hon. Friend to direct the new ILEA to provide specified information is of a different kind from his other powers under the clause. If the new ILEA does not comply with a reasonable request for information, the councils will be able to seek effective remedy through the court. The involvement of my right hon. Friend is therefore on reflection unnecessary.

    The amendments to clause 21 delete the requirement for my right hon. Friend to undertake an initial review of the new ILEA by 31 March 1991 and his discretionary power to undertake subsequent reviews. They also delete the provision for any reallocation of the new ILEA's functions to be achieved by order. The amendments substitute a discretionary power to undertake a review by 31 March 1991 but make no provision for the implementation of any changes in the light of that review. Such changes would therefore require fresh primary legislation.

    The strongest objection to clause 21, both in this House and in another place, has been to the proposal that there should be a power for my right hon. Friend to reallocate the new ILEA's functions by order. We have listened carefully to the arguments, put very strongly in another place, that, if the new administrative structure which we are establishing for education in inner London needs adjustment in the light of experience, then that adjustment should be made by primary legislation. We have been convinced by those arguments.

    I am not, therefore, asking the House to disagree with the amendments made in another place. On two points, however, further amendments are necessary to give them full effect. First, amendment No. 16 retains a reference in the clause to "such report". There is now only provision for one report. We propose that the clause should refer to "the report" and this is achieved by our substitute amendment. Secondly, although amendment No. 18 deletes my right hon. Friend's order-making power, reference to that power remains in clause 100. Our consequential amendments delete those references.

    I must make clear that our acceptance of these amendments does not mean that we are any less concerned by the policies of ILEA which result in its spending between 29 per cent. and 59 per cent. more per school pupil than the inner city partnership authorities outside London, which have similar problems, spend without achieving results that are proportionately better. We remain no less determined to improve ILEA's cost effectiveness. We are confident that the new elected ILEA offers the best prospect for improving standards and cost effectiveness and we shall look to the members elected next May to vindicate our expectation. But, if experience shows that further structural change is required, the need to secure primary legislation will not deter us from taking the necessary steps.

    We on the Opposition Benches welcome the Minister's conversion, although I am not absolutely certain whether it is genuine. He spoiled his speech by his attack on ILEA. He would have shown more grace had he accepted all the arguments for ILEA. As the Chairman of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, I welcome the Government's backing off from the idea that something as important and as substantial as ILEA can be abolished as the result of a statutory instrument after 90 minutes' debate.

    The cynic in me wonders why the Government left such a provision in the Bill in the first place, and comes to the conclusion that they did so that it could be left out at this point as a token concession to the other place. It is noticeable that this is one of the few concessions that the Government have made, and it does not have much substance.

    The real concession was made at the start when the Government agreed to abandon their idea to abolish ILEA. From that point, the Government wanted a face-saving device, having led some of the London boroughs to believe that they might take on education powers. The Government wanted to put something in the Bill instead, so that the idea of a review and a possible later devolving of powers remained. I hope that the Government will make clear that they have abandoned any idea of carrying out a review, because the new body should be allowed to get on with its job without the continued threat of blackmail from the Government that if it does not do just what the Government want it will be abolished.

    The Government are retaining massive draconian powers over ILEA. Not only are there the rate-capping provisions of other legislation but there are staff control and review provisions. It is sad that the Minister returned again to cost effectiveness. No one has managed to show that ILEA does not do a better job than some of the other authorities that spend less money. He trotted out the exam results but he and the Secretary of State would agree that exam results are not the only criteria by which to measure success. If one uses exam results, one has to look at other factors such as the social background of the children.

    It would have been far better if the Minister had reduced some of the controls over ILEA, recognised the first-class job that it is doing and also acknowledged that it should be responsive to local democracy. The people of London are justly proud of the services that ILEA provides. I am sure that in the first election to the new body there will be a resounding vote of confidence in Labour representatives who want to go on providing a first-class education service. Sadly, they will get a mandate from the electorate but the Government will have the veto over sufficient resources to carry out the policies.

    The Government should stop continually sniping at ILEA, and proudly tell the country what a first-class job ILEA does. The Minister said that other inner-city authorities were more cost effective than is ILEA. He should remember that the HMI report said that only 11 local education authorities were providing a satisfactory standard of education and that ILEA was one. It seems that the Government are determined to remove ILEA from that group by restricting its resources.

    Although I welcome the Government's removal of the obnoxious bits of this Bill, there will be a continuing campaign from Labour Benches to ensure that ILEA has the resources to continue to do a first-class job.

    I join with my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) in welcoming the death-bed conversion of the Government to the arguments put repeatedly by the Labour party over the past five years. I am not sure that they were as convinced by the arguments mounted in the other place as by the outcome of the Division, in particular on the amendment moved by the Lord Bishop of London, somebody who does not normally command much support from the Labour party.

    We welcome the removal of one of the innumerable threats and worries that the Government have posed to ILEA over the past few years. As the parent of three children who attend ILEA schools, I am as conscious as anyone of the genuine shortcomings of that authority. Those who run the authority, both the elected members and the people who work for it, are also aware of the shortcomings.

    One of our major criticisms of the Government is that at all times from 1979 until now the effort of all those in inner London who want to improve the standard of education has had to be diverted time and time again from the schools to protecting the existence of the authority and fighting for sufficient resources with which to carry out a difficult job. When he was the hon. Member for the City of Westminster, St. Marylebone, the right hon. Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker) played a prominent part in seeking to undermine ILEA. His fatuous Baker report called for the break-up of ILEA and for its duties and powers to be devolved to the constituent boroughs. He will not receive a prize for consistency by urging the House to support the Lords amendment. The right hon. Member for Mole Valley no longer represents the City of Westminster, St. Marylebone. He had to do a bunk to Mole Valley, presumably because he was frightened of the parents of children attending ILEA schools in his Marylebone constituency.

    All hon. Members who represent inner London constituencies want ILEA to be provided with a period of stability and certainty so that the teachers, the other staff of the authority, the children and the parents can concentrate upon improving the standard of education. They want the Government to provide sufficient resources to enable them to carry out that job. ILEA is being denied those resources. Rate capping will damage the standards of education in inner London. The constant sniping, bickering and mean-minded malignancy of the Secretary of State and his hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) have severely damaged the morale of all concerned.

    If the Government do not resign shortly, the best thing that they could do would be to turn their attention to that London organisation which, compared with other organisations, is by far and away the most expensive and the least competent, the Metropolitan police. The only problem is that if they turned their attention to that expensive and incompetent body, they would find that the Home Secretary is the responsible authority. It would be better if the Government did something about the Metropolitan police for which they are directly responsible and allowed ILEA to get on with its difficult and important task.

    I, too, welcome the Government's admission of the strength of the arguments that have been advanced both in this House and in another place. Their recognition of the truth of the arguments comes, I suspect, not just from the force with which they were put but from their recognition of the enormous strength of feeling among parents right across inner London about the value of the education that their children receive from the Inner London education authority. That is true of my constituents, many of whore have written and spoken to me about the subject since the Bill was introduced.

    The Opposition wish that in taking this first step in the learning process the Government had taken some further steps. ILEA will still be affected by the vicious rate-capping proposals that have been imposed upon it this year by the Government. If further designations are to be announced in the next few weeks, ILEA might be rate capped next year.

    The Secretary of State has also taken powers to interfere in the sensible running of ILEA. He has not taken similar powers to interfere in the running of other education authorities. When Her Majesty's Inspectorate says that of all the education authorities in Britain only six —one of which is ILEA —are providing, anything like an adequate standard of education it ill behoves the Government to start interfering with and intervening in that authority and not look at the standard of education that is provided elsewhere. The Government should direct their attention to that aspect, not to the excellent work that is done by teachers, staff and everyone who works in and for ILEA. That work is deeply valued by parents and other people in my constituency and throughout inner London. I welcome the Government's conversion. I hope that it will be the first of several in the right direction.

    It being a quarter past Nine o'clock, MR. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order this day, to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

    Lords amendment No. 13 agreed to.

    MR. SPEAKER then proceeded to put the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.

    Lords amendment No. 16 disagreed to.

    Amendment (a) made to the Bill in lieu thereof.

    Lords amendments Nos. 24 to 33, 40 and 41 disagreed to.

    Lords amendments Nos. 14, 15, 17 to 23, 34 to 39 and 42 agreed to.

    Government amendments (a) and (b) to Lords amendment No. 18 agreed to.

    Clause 47

    Grants To Voluntary Organisations

    Lords amendment: No. 43, in page 30, line 12, at end insert—

    "() Each constituent council in Greater London or a metropolitan county shall exercise its functions under this section, and under any scheme made under this section, with due regard to the needs of the whole of Greater London or that county, as the case may be, and each scheme shall provide for those needs to be kept under review."

    I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

    With this we may take the following: Lords amendment No. 44, after clause 47, insert the following new clause—

    Grants By Residuary Bodies

    —(1) The Secretary of State may by order provide for the making of grants to eligible charities out of money received from the disposal of land by the residuary bodies established by Part VII of this Act.

    (2) In this section "eligible charity" means, in relation to a residuary body, a body of persons or trust established for charitable purposes only, being purposes which are wholly or primarily for the benefit of the area for which the residuary body is established."

    and the amendments thereto:

    (a) in line 2, leave out 'may' and insert 'shall'.

    (b) in line 3, leave out 'eligible charities" and insert `voluntary organisations'.

    (c) in line 6, leave out subsection (2) and add

    (2) And order under subsection (1) above shall provide that so far as is practicable the total expenditure of each residuary body under this section shall be no less in real terms than the total expenditure on grants to voluntary organisations of the Greater London Council or a metropolitan county council as the case may be, in the area of that residuary body in the financial year 1985/86.

    (3) In this section "voluntary organisation" has the same meaning as in section 47 above.'.

    Lords amendment No. 57, in page 67, line 7, at end Insert—

    "() consider whether it is desirable that a scheme under section 47 or (Research and Collection of Information) above, or schemes under both those sections, should be made by those councils and, if of that opinion, promote the making of such a scheme or such schemes;"

    The provisions in the Bill dealing with support to voluntary bodies have developed and have improved during the Bill's passage. I am grateful to those voluntary organisations that have come to discuss with Ministers in my Department the provisions of the Bill. We are indebted to them for many of the improvements that we have now introduced.

    In this House we revised clause 47 extensively to meet the points that had been put to us. In the other place the additional change provided for by amendment No. 43 was a response to further suggestions that were put to us by the voluntary sector. There has been concern that, in the absence of the GLC and, to a lesser extent, the metropolitan counties, grant-giving by the local authorities would operate in what would be seen to be a policy vacuum. The Government did not wholly share that fear. It seemed to us that it would be no more than normal local authority practice to operate arrangements for grant-giving under arrangements that would take account of the priorities and needs of the areas concerned. We had to recognise, however, that the concern of the voluntary sector was acute on this point and thus, when an amendment was put forward on Report in another place seeking to have annual reviews made of the needs of the whole area involved in schemes under clause 47, my noble Friend undertook to consider that point. This he did, and amendment No. 43 was put forward by the Government and agreed to on Third Reading in the other place.

    I believe that this change to clause 47 has been warmly welcomed by the voluntary sector because it provides two useful additions to the operations of clause 47. First, it ensures that in all aspects of operating the scheme all the constituent councils have to have regard to the needs of the whole area. That is a strong reinforcement of what we had always intended should happen. Secondly, it requiresd each scheme to contain provisions for those needs to be kept under review. This is not a mechanical annual review, as some have sought, but a continuing obligation to respond to changes and developments. I hope that the House will welcome the amendment in the same way that it was welcomed in another place.

    Lords amendment No. 57 meets a concern expressed by the voluntary sector in the metropolitan counties. The London boroughs have been very quick off the mark to start making arrangements for funding the Londonwide organisaions. Richmond council has taken the task of acting as lead borough, and has already been in touch with over 800 such organisations. In the metropolitan counties, the districts have, unfortunately, not been quite so quick to get going.

    Specifically at the request of the Manchester council for voluntary organisations we have included a provison that will require the joint organising committees to consider the desirability of setting up collective arrangements. This will give the districts a prompt, if they need one. Assuming that they agree that the scheme is a good idea, they will then be required to promote its setting up. I hope that the House will join me in supporting what is another useful addition to the provisions for the voluntary organisations.

    I sent the Secretary of State details of the concern felt by voluntary organisations in Greater Manchester. They are looking for a clear guarantee that they will be protected. The Minister knows that there are daunting difficulties facing voluntary organisations in Greater Manchester not least because the statutory organisations find it increasingly difficult to carry out their legal duties. What guarantee can the hon. Gentleman give voluntary organisations in Greater Manchester tonight?

    I am very grateful to Mr. Henry West, who has visited Ministers in my Department on several occasions to relay exactly the concerns outlined by the right hon. Gentleman. I hope that the district councils will avail themselves of the transitional funds that the Government have made available to help local organisations, which at present receive funding from the Greater Manchester council. It is precisely to meet their needs that we have increased to £20 million the amount of transitional funding. I hope that the district councils in the Greater Manchester area will get together soon to decide their priorities for next year. If they want to bid for the £20 million, they should not lose too much time in so doing. The Government are aware of those concerns. They have been forcefully put to us by Mr. Henry West and others, and the Government have increased the transitional arrangements to safeguard the well-being of the worthwhile organisations in Manchester.

    Lords amendment No. 44 is the other provision relating to grants for voluntary bodies. The Opposition have tabled an amendment, but first I wish to explain the intention of their Lordships. The amendment introduces a new clause designed to enable funds to be provided for endowing a new trust for London, but the provision is not limited to London alone; it would allow similar arrangements to be made in the other metropolitan areas if there were sufficient surplus assets arising in those areas. The unallocated assets of the GLC will pass to the London residuary body on 1 April next year. From the proceeds of disposing of those assets the endowments will be made. The Secretary of State will make orders providing for the making of payments by the residuary body to charitable trusts whose purpose is to benefit the area concerned. This endowment for the new trust for London will be new money for the voluntary sector in London. Initially, we estimate that £10 million could be transferred from the GLC's surplus assets, and we intend that this should be added to by corporate and other private contributions.

    However, the funds made available to the new trust will build up over time. Depending on the rate and scale at which the London residuary body is able to realise the surplus assets, the clause will enable the Secretary of State to provide by order for payments to be made to the trust. Needless to say, the proposal was welcomed by everybody who has an interest in the future of London's voluntary bodies.

    The Opposition have tabled a number of amendments to these proposals, but I must say that I cannot advise the House to accept them, first because they would require the Secretary of State to provide for as much grant-giving as the GLC and the metropolitan counties are providing in 1985–86. That would be on top of the arrangements for collective grant-giving by the boroughs already provided for in the Bill; it would be on top of the Government's special programme of £20 million of grant aid for local groups and it would be on top of whatever else the boroughs individually decided to spend. That is an unrealistic proposal.

    Other parts of the Opposition's amendments would require the Secretary of State to order money to be transferred to voluntary organisations. We have already made it clear that we shall do this in London. The metropolitan counties will have to await a proper assessment of the size of surplus of ex-MCC assets. The surplus may be small and it would be wrong to promise what could not be delivered. The authorities have been in existence for only a comparatively short time, but we do not rule out altogether the possibility of a surplus. The clause has been drafted to allow provision to be made in the met areas if it emerges that there is a basis for so doing.

    The Opposition seek to change the definition of the groups that are eligible to receive the proceeds of ex-GLC or ex-MCC assets from the residuary bodies. That amendment would make almost any non-profit-making body eligible. It is our intention that large capital sums — I have mentioned £10 million — that have been accumulated at the expense of ratepayers in London or elsewhere should be paid over only to properly established trusts that have been set up to meet the needs of the area concerned. I am sure that we should retain the requirement that their Lordships have proposed.

    The trust, when it is set up, will be able to fund voluntary organisations as more broadly defined by the amendment, but in the first instance we think it right that the funds should transfer to a body as we have defined it in the amendment. We shall listen, of course, to what Opposition Members have to say about their ideas but it seems that they want to turn the residuary body into a substitute general purpose grant-giving body under the direction of the Secretary of State. That would be inappropriate.

    I think that it is generally acknowledged that when we introduced the Bill many voluntary bodies were disturbed. They saw the councils that funded them being demolished and they were uncertain about who would fund them after 1986. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and other Ministers in the Department are aware of the voluntary organisations' fears and uncertainties because we have indulged in lengthy consultations with the NCVO, the LVSC and other voluntary bodies. We have met them on many occasions and from our discussions with them, and our understanding of their fears and anxieties, we have been able substantially to reassure them. We have taken on board many of their suggestions for improving the Bill. We have provided for encouragement and assistance, such as the large increase in transitional support from the £5 million we proposed originally to the £20 million that is now on offer.

    Equally importantly, the voluntary sector has been able to learn more about what we, the Government, propose. We have been able to explain to voluntary organisations what we are doing to see through our commitment that good voluntary projects should not lose out as a result of abolition. Two significant proposals will ensure that successor authorities can take over the funding of the voluntary bodies. There will be collective funding by districts and boroughs for county and Londonwide groups with £20 million more of local projects to receive aid via the districts. Over and above that, the trust for London will be endowed with at least £10 million. There are possibilities of others in the mets being so endowed if resources allow.

    Will the Minister explain to the House that £20 million of Government money will not be handed over? That is the impression that he tends to give when speaking on this subject. The Government will be giving permission for the boroughs and districts to spend £20 million of their own money, which they will be hard put to raise anyway because of rate capping.

    It is £20 million of projects that are funded by voluntary oranisations that are eligible for transitional funding. Support from the Government will be phased from £75 per cent. tapering over four years. If the hon. Gentleman reads the reports of what I said in Committee and on the Floor of the House, he will see that I have always been open about the degree of assistance and support that the Government will provide.

    Our exchanges with the voluntary bodies have been fruitful and it is my distinct impression that the voluntary organisations in London and in the mets are now much more confident about the future. Such uncertainty as still remains stems almost entirely from the attitude that has been taken by the Labour party, which has refused so far to take part in the preparations for the London collective scheme. It is still striving to ensure that information that is needed desperately to allow grants to be made to voluntary organisations next year is not available. Only last month, when asked by Wirral and Sefton to release such information for Merseyside, councillor Keva Coombes got solid Labour support for continued refusal to discuss that issue.

    The true friends of the voluntary sector are on the Conservative Benches, and voluntary bodies will not be deceived by the superficial show of concern on the Opposition Benches. I hope that the House will support the Lords amendments and resist the Opposition amendments.

    9.30 pm

    I should like to discuss our amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 44, and I hope that we shall be able to vote on it at the end of the debate.

    If the Minister believes that the voluntary sector has welcomed what the Government did in the other place, and honestly believes that the voluntary sector has been substantially reassured, I can assure him that he is talking to a different voluntary sector from the one that has talked to me and my right hon. and hon. Friends. People in the voluntary sector are still disturbed and concerned. Indeed, many are till angry about the Government's proposals, despite the amendments in the other place. If the Government claim that there is adequate money in the arrangements that have been made to replace the grant-giving powers of the GLC and metropolitan counties, they are not deceiving Opposition Members, they are not deceiving the general public and they are certainly not deceiving the voluntary sector.

    Let us look at exactly what happened in the other place and at what the amendments do. First, there is the trust that the Government are establishing. It will receive money from the residuary bodies, which have been set up to sell off the assets of the metropolitan counties and the GLC. That is the vindictive part of the Lords amendments. The Government are obsessed with getting rid of County hall, and selling off the assets that belong to the GLC and the metropolitan counties. They especially want to get rid of County hall as the London symbol of democracy throughout the capital, a symbol that has existed for many years.

    In trying to pretend to the voluntary organisations that the sale of assets will produce a large amount of money that can be handed over to the trust to be used for the voluntary sector, the Government do not say where the 32 of the 42 functions, which will be run on a countywide basis under the legislation, will be run and administered from. If County hall is sold—which I doubt will happen — where will ILEA go? ILEA has done its sums, and has estimated that it would cost at least £100 million for it to move out and find other premises. There will not be the bonanza from asset selling by the residuary bodies because all the joint bodies and other quangos that the Government are establishing will need to be housed in not less but more office space than is used at present by the metropolitan counties and the GLC.

    The Government envisage that £10 million will be given to the trust at first. That will be invested, and 10 per cent. interest a year will give £1 million. That is mere chicken feed compared with what the GLC and the metropolitan counties now give to voluntary organisations. It does not allay any of the fears that have been expressed.

    Let us look at what the trust is. It will not be democratically accountable. It may not have representatives of the voluntary movement on it. Who will the Minister appoint to the trust? There are rumours that existing foundations such as the City. Parochial Foundation might be given the job; that would reassure the voluntary sector to some extent. Will the trust be established by the Government, and appointed by a body of do-gooders to ensure that no controversial grants are given? That is where the prejudice comes in. I was in the Committee on the Bill, and the only argument from Conservative Members in favour of abolition—because they could not prove their case on the basis of cost—was prejudice, particularly against the controversial grants given by the GLC and the metropolitan counties. Will the trust be an anodyne group of Conservative do-gooders, specially appointed to do the Government's bidding?

    In our amendment we substitute the phrase "eligible charities" for "voluntary organisations". The fears of many voluntary organisations, which receive grants from the GLC and metropolitan counties but which are not charitable bodies, have not been allayed by the Government's proposal. The GLC and metropolitan counties do a great deal of work in unemployment centres, but those centres do not qualify under the Lords amendment because they are not charitable bodies. Many co-operatives and women's organisations will not qualify. The Minister referred to the Richmond scheme. Its proposals have already been published in draft form and exclude grants to women's groups. That sort of thing is already beginning to happen.

    With the amendment the Government vindictively seek to force the sale of assets. It is clever conservatism to be vindictive towards metropolitan authorities, and to take their assets and show care by giving those assets to the voluntary sector. In that way the Government are trying to get the voluntary sector to go along with them, and to see some advantage in being vindictive towards the metropolitan authorities. However, people in the voluntary sector know that those authorities are their genuine friends because those authorities have given them cash, money and support, and the Government have given them nothing but false promises.

    I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would tell me what he considers a voluntary body to be. Is it a body which receives money from the Government to do the Government's bidding, or one which is doing work for the community, and which, in my view, should not be paid anything by the Government?

    My definition of a voluntary body is a non-statutory, non-profit making body which contributes to the welfare of the community, such as many non-charitable women's groups, black groups and groups that work with the unemployed. This includes many groups against which Conservative Members are prejudiced. They are voluntary groups, but not necessarily of charitable status, just as some voluntary housing associations are of charitable status and some are not.

    Will my hon. Friend comment on what the Minister said about the Tories being the friends of the voluntary sector, when in 1984–85 the GLC is providing grants totalling about £60 million to voluntary organisations? How does that compare with the sum that the Government are prepared to provide?

    The Government are providing chicken feed compared with the GLC, and the same story is true throughout the metropolitan counties.

    The Minister made great play of the increase in the transitional money, as though the Government were providing a great deal of money for that four-year period. When the Bill was first published the Government were to provide £10 million or, to be exact, £7·5 million, and the remainder was to come from local authorities. Then, because of the pressure of the voluntary sector, the figure was increased to £20 million. We can draw a picture of the municipal bill run up by the Conservatives— from £10 million, to £20 million, and closing at £40 million. That is their last offer. What does that mean? In the first year the Government will provide £15 million for the GLC and the metropolitan counties, and the local authorities must find £5 million. In the second and third years both the Government and local authorities must provide £10 million. In the fourth year both the Government and the local authorities must provide £5 million. That is not exactly a windfall for local authorities, nor is it a great deal of money for the many voluntary organisations operating in those areas.

    My hon. Friend put an important point in making it clear that our concern is not only with voluntary organisations—properly so-called. The Royal Exchange theatre company in Manchester has made clear to hon. Members from the Greater Manchester area that, without the £548,000 which it receives this year from the Greater Manchester council, the theatre will have to close. What kind of guarantee can we give the company about its future?

    Of course, the Government cannot provide guarantees. They have studiously avoided providing guarantees while mouthing platitudes about how they are trying to assist voluntary organisations.

    The district councils and London boroughs are already rate capped, and will have to take over many functions after abolition, for which the Government will not provide extra rate support grants, yet they must find part of the transitional £40 million. They will be unable to meet all the needs, and will certainly be unable to meet the many requirements of the voluntary sector unless the Government undertake to provide the necessary money.

    Another minor amendment tabled by the Government —many of them were probably drafted by the Minister —related to the concession that, in the first year of the collective scheme—the Minister praised the Richmond initiative—if two-thirds of the boroughs agreed to grant money to a countywide voluntary organisation, all the boroughs must contribute to it. However, the Government placed a ceiling on the amount that could be given, although for the first year they said that they would not use their powers to impose such a ceiling. That is not reassuring, because the Government are retaining their draconian, ministerial powers, as they have done throughout the Bill, to set ceilings and to control the amount of money that even the so-called democratically liberated London boroughs and metropolitan county councils will be able to give to voluntary organisations.

    The Minister made much of Lords amendment No. 43, but it is extremely vague. It asks the boroughs to set up a review of social needs with due regard for the entire metropolitan county and GLC areas. What will be the result of such a review? The Minister rightly referred to the criticism from voluntary organisations they they will be unable to operate within comprehensive political or strategic frameworks. At present, the GLC and the metropolitan counties meet representatives of the voluntary movement and thrash out a set of policies, in relation to funding the voluntary sector, which operate within the terms of reference of each local authority's strategy. The trust cannot do that, because it has no other functions or powers. Many local authorities will come together to review social needs, but they all have differing views. I assure the House that Sefton council has a different view of the social needs of Merseyside from the views of Liverpool city council and Knowsley council. The trust will be no substitute for the present system.

    We said in Committee that their Lordships said that the Government have failed to prove that administrative savings can be made in services by getting id of bureaucracy. We were told that many services, including waste disposal, firemen and file police, would cost more. However, we now know that the cuts will be made in the voluntary sector. The Government were motivated to attack the GLC and the metropolitan counties because they wanted to cut the amount of money given to voluntary organisations. They did not like the way in which local government was setting new trends in encouraging community activity, bringing people closer together, working closely' with the Labour local authorities to improve conditions in their communities and pioneering in the traditional local government way. They knew that the spin-off would be support for the Labour party, and that is why they are so vindictive against the GLC and the metropolitan counties. That is why they are attacking the voluntary sector.

    These Lords amendments are prejudiced and spiteful. The Government's abolition proposals are based on prejudice and spite, and this attack on the voluntary sector is a prime example of it. Although Ministers try to put on a pleasant face, Conservative Back-Bench Members show their prejudice every time we mention the GLC, the metropolitan counties, or the giving of grants to the voluntary sector. I urge the House to reject the Lords amendments, which will not provide adequate support for the voluntary sector, and to accept the Opposition amendments.

    9.45 pm

    We debate the amendment against the background of an extraordinary expansion in Exchequer and other public support for the voluntary sector. Gradually the partnership between the voluntary sector and the Government is becoming a genuine third force. Many of us who have worked in the voluntary sector have hoped for that for many years.

    Such a partnership involves enormous difficulties. The whole point of the voluntary sector—whether charitable or non-charitable — is that it should be free to move where it will and to do those things which it sees are needed, particularly if the statutory sector does not recognise a paramount need. Too much of the voluntary sector is being sucked into the statutory sector simply because the money is made available to it and it therefore follows the money.

    That is not necessarily bad, but I hope the Minister can reassure us that, after the long, constructive and hard-working sessions with the voluntary sector, he will ensure that we have a much clearer idea of those activities which the Government of the day believe appropriate to be done by the voluntary sector. Let us make no mistake. The voluntary and charitable sectors can take on able staff to operate under a Government grant which is often taken away after only a short time because of changes in political control or in the ability of the statutory sector to meet the need. I hope that as a result of the current painful discussions a more coherent strategy for the future will emerge.

    If that third force does not receive funds from the public sector, where will the funds come from?

    An enormous amount of public money is spent in that direction through tax concessions and other means. Increasingly, money is provided through a wide range of other sources, including the private sector, which in many ways is a healthier source of support than the state. What is more, the changes in the law governing covenants by the present Government have resulted in an increase in the amount of individual contributions, which I welcome.

    The Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts), gave the show away because, although much of the money spent by the metropolitan authorities and the GLC has been spent in a pioneering way, too often it has been spent in such a way that pioneering has taken precedence over responsibility. Some pioneering groups have been incompetently managed and have been unable to perform the tasks which they were paid to perform.

    Local authorities have always spent money on publicising their policies and ideas. The Government object, not to that, but to the fact that the metropolitan counties and the GLC are publicising their ideas successfully. That is why they object to their grants policy. The objection is not that they have failed, but that they have been successful.

    That is not why I object. I do not object to some of the experiments that have been carried out, but I do object to frantically increasing expenditure for no purpose other than to bind groups of diverse kinds and activities to the Labour party. That is the nub of the question. Many of the groups that have been funded had worthy aspirations and may derive from areas in which, because there are difficulties, they may have been able to appeal to sympathy or shame to get funding. When they have failed to deliver the goods, the result has too often been a desire to give them more money because the poor things failed to deliver the goods last time as they did not have sufficient money. In the budget for 1984–85 the GLC in particular delivered a cynical exercise in trying to bind to the Labour party the support of a wide variety of groups, some of which were undoubtedly worthy of support but many of which were not.

    I support the Government amendments, but I urge the Government to take pains to build on the hard work that they have done so far to ensure a much more predictable pattern of partnership between the Government and the voluntary sector.

    Because time is short I shall concentrate on the amendments proposed to Lords amendment No. 44. In the prevailing atmosphere of impending doom, I welcome the Richmond initiative to get the two thirds rule. My experience of district co-ordination in the voluntary sector is not encouraging. The two thirds rule will not breed harmony and light among the districts because those who are not party to the two thirds but are part of the one third or some smaller proportion, will not contribute willingly or with a warm heart.

    The crux of the matter is the definition. If one restricts the definition to charitable organisations, one excludes a whole area of the voluntary sector which in some respects has been the most innovative, experimental and beneficial in recent years. To restrict matters entirely to those who fulfil the definition of "charitable" will exclude new groups which cannot, at the beginning of their lives, achieve charitable status. It will not be easy for the Government to discover a means of determining whether a group is charitable or not, in law short of registration with the Charity Commissioners. Those who have been involved in this area for many years will know that it is a legal minefield. It is not easy to determine whether a group is charitable or not, and the Charity Commissioners have great difficulty in doing so. There are many organisations which I believe are charitable but which do not have charitable definition and registration with the Charity Commissioners. In the past I have managed to get tax relief for many bodies which are not registered with the Charity Commissioners but which the Inland Revenue regards as charitable.

    Another area which will be deprived is that of co-ordination of voluntary work. The councils of voluntary service which facilitate collaboration between voluntary and statutory bodies often find it difficult to achieve charitable status because the Charity Commissioners are loth to give that status to bodies that simply co-ordinate the activities of other voluntary organisations. A whole area with which many Conservative-controlled authorities are happy to work will be cut out from this definition and they will find their work extremely constricted.

    Any attempt at such restriction runs counter not only to local government tradition and to the work that the local authorities have done for many years in endeavouring to pump-prime and to assist experimentation and innovation by not confining themselves to the use of charitable bodies. It also runs counter to central Government intentions and central Government tradition. An examination of grant-giving patterns under clause 64 from the DHSS or from the voluntary service unit of the Home Office and the urban programme and the partnership authorities, shows that most of those grants which are beneficial and accepted as such by Conservative Members do not go to those bodies which are deemed in law to be charitable. I cannot understand why the Government wish to cut off from grant aid under this heading those bodies to which they had willingly and voluntarily given support for many years.

    The sums of money involved that have been quoted sound large but, for many reasons, the sums of money going through this third arm is extremely large. The sums being quoted are nowhere near enough to accommodate what is happening. For example, there is a housing project in Bradford with which I was associated when I was involved in the voluntary sector there which is costing £2 million. The turnover of some large city bodies is beyond the sums being quoted.

    My experience suggests that the Government's policy will seriously harm the voluntary sector. Innovations and experiments will inevitably be deprived. It is not so much whether Conservative or Labour Members are the friends of the voluntary sector—from what I have heard today, the Government want to constrict local authorities and Labour wants to control them. Neither is the right approach. The proposals of the Government and the other place are defective and I urge the House to accept the amendments to the Lords amendment.

    Through rate-capping and penalties, the Government have hit local authorities hard, and feeding cash into voluntary organisations will be ever more difficult. Local people are proud of Tyne and Wear metropolitan county council because it has helped and funded voluntary organisations. However, it now seems that there will be a distinction between Conservative-controlled shire counties and Labour-controlled metropolitan authorities.

    Under section 137 of the Local Government Act 1972, district and county councils can each raise 2p with which to fund organisations and projects. Metropolitan counties are also able to raise a 2p rate for the dame purpose, so in an area covered by a metropolitan county council 4p is raised under section 137. If Tyne and Wear county council is abolished, however, only 2p will be raised for that purpose. Because the shire counties, which are predominantly Conservative controlled, will continue to exist, areas covered by them will continue to exist, areas covered by them will continue to levy 4p under section 137. In other words, Conservative-controlled areas will have much more money with which to fund voluntary organisations. If that is not political vindictiveness, I do not know what is. The Minister and the Secretary of State should reconsider and let boroughs in metropolitan county areas raise a 4p rate under section 137.

    Question put and agreed to.

    Lords amendment: No. 44, after clause 47, insert the following new clause—

    "Grants By Residuary Bodies

    .—(1) The Secretary of State may by order provide for the making of grants to eligible charities out of money received from the disposal of land by the residuary bodies established by Part VII of this Act.

    (2) In this section "eligible charity" means, in relation to a residuary body, a body of persons or trust established for charitable purposes only, being purposes which are wholly or primarily for the benefit of the area for which the residuary body is established."

    Read a Second time.