My Lords, it is with great sadness that I rise, as Leader of your Lordships' House, to pay tribute to the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, whose death during the Recess will, I know, have come as a personal shock to many of your Lordships from all parts of the House. His death is a particularly sad occasion because he only retired as a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary at the end of the summer term. At his last appearance on the Appelate Committee of your Lordships' House counsel paid fulsome tribute to his service to the legal profession and they expressed the hope that he would enjoy a long and well deserved retirement, and in view of his remarkable contribution to the work of this House we would all have liked to wish him the same.

Lord Dilhorne had indeed an outstanding record of service to this country, to this House and to his party. He was elected a Member of Parliament in 1943. He served the Government throughout the long period during which his party was in office, first as Solicitor General in 1951, and then in 1954 as Attorney General. In this position, the senior law officer to the Crown, Reginald Manningham-Buller served for eight consecutive years. He came to this House in 1962 and held posts of responsibility almost continuously until July of this year, first as Lord Chancellor from 1962 to 1964, then as Deputy Leader of the Opposition, and from 1969, in what was in some ways an entirely new and separate career, as a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary. His obvious and widely acclaimed ability to span the difficult gap between politician and judge is in itself perhaps the greatest tribute which we in this House can pay him.

My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has already, at a judicial sitting of the House last week, paid tribute to Lord Dilhorne's long and varied contribution to the legal world and to the profession of which he was so proud. I should like just to recall those qualities which we in this House will remember.

He was a vigorous and robust parliamentarian with an immense capacity for work. His political and legal acumen was formidable. He lived life to the full. His integrity and the strength of his convictions were beyond question. Behind the bluff and perhaps sometimes forbidding exterior there lay a deep sensitivity and a strong sense of humour. He was indeed an institution of this House, and even as a Law Lord, when of necessity he took but a small part in the proceedings of this Chamber, he still took a profound interest in the business and procedures of this House and more generally in the independent role of our parliamentary institutions. We shall remember him with admiration and affection, and I am sure that all noble Lords present today will wish to join me in expressing our sense of loss and our sympathy to his wife and family, who were such a constant source of help and encouragement to him.

My Lords, I rise to join in the warm tribute which the Leader of the House has paid to the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, and to express our sorrow at his sudden passing. His record of service in Parliament, in Government, in the life of the law and in his profession was indeed outstanding. Those of us who served with him in another place will remember always his tough robustness in the face of stormy parliamentary onslaughts, his immense industry and his full commitment to whatever political or legal task he undertook. I did not often agree with him politically, but this never affected our longstanding friendship which extended over a span of 40 years. Few men were kinder in personal relationships than he was.

As the Leader has said, he was a law officer for 13 years, and for eight of those years he was Attorney General, which in itself, if I may say so, is a triumph of endurance. After a briefer term as Lord Chancellor he continued to serve with distinction the House on its judicial side and the law. Those who sat with him will confirm the tribute paid to him last Thursday by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for his valued contribution as a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary, for his thoroughness, his clarity and his integrity. My Lords, in all he undertook he was sustained by his wife and family, and we extend our sympathy to them in their great loss.

My Lords, may we on these Benches also associate ourselves with the eloquent tributes paid to the late Viscount Dilhorne. As a lawyer his judgment was always deeply respected by every member of the Bar. Outside the narrow confines of the law—and I think perhaps of some of his speeches in your Lordships' House on the standards of conduct in public life and on various constitutional issues that were raised—he displayed a shrewd, vigorous common sense that carried vast influence in every corner of your Lordships' House.

Perhaps I may make but one personal observation. When I first came to your Lordships' House as someone immeasurably junior to the noble and learned Viscount in a vast variety of ways, his welcome was one of encouragement, kindness and assistance. I know that I was not the only Member of the House who had the privilege of being treated in that way. It is perhaps for that reason that not only will he be recalled with the greatest of esteem, but held as well in the warmest of affection.

My Lords, from these Benches on which Viscount Dilhorne sat for a period of over 10 years, it is surely right that full concurrence and association should be expressed with the warm and merited tributes which have been paid. He made very many notable contributions from this place to the business of this House, and I know that many noble Lords who sit in this part of the House would wish me to express on their behalf their gratitude for the very ready help and encouragement that he was always willing to give, very often with a twinkle in his eye, on matters of parliamentary procedure, tactics and legislation.

For those of us who sit here in a judicial capacity there are special feelings to be expressed. We have a very special appreciation of his work as our colleague—work to which tribute has already been paid on other occasions—and we have, in addition, a very personal sense of loss.

My Lords, I should be grateful if the House would allow me to add a few words to the tributes which have so rightly been paid to the late noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne. We were at Magdalen College Oxford, and we were called to the Bar within two years of one another by the Inner Temple and for years we lunched together every day at the same table in the Hall of that Inn. We differed on political matters. I was not much concerned with that, but he was obviously destined for political life to which I did not aspire. But the conversation at the table was certainly inspiring and many who sat at that table have since achieved eminence in various ways.

At a later stage we were two of four members of the Bar Council who visited the Benches of the four Inns of Court to try to persuade them to adopt a rather less hostile attitude to the Bar Council, although I do not know that it was very successful. But, in the years during which I was chairman of the Bar Council, as Attorney General, he was a member ex-officio. I was privileged to succeed him as Lord Chancellor when he was Deputy Leader of the Opposition, and inevitably we differed on measures both political and of law reform which I was bringing forward. However, what I think was not always clear to those who knew him only in public life was that in private life he was essentially a very kindly, amiable and friendly man with a great sense of humour, and one who never allowed party political differences to affect his friendships. It was later a pleasure for me to be able to recommend his appointment as a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary, a position to which I considered his merits clearly entitled him.

As recently as 29th July I attended a small party given by the Law Lords on his retirement and that of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Salmon. He was in his usual robust form and as amusing as ever and appeared to be in excellent health. It was as ereat a shock to me as I am sure to anybody, after very long personal association with him, to learn of his sudden and tragic death. I too would like to extend my deepest sympathy to his widow and family.

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

My Lords, there has been less progress than we would have wished. But following the South African reply of 29th August to the United Nations Secretary-General, the gap has been further narrowed. South Africa has agreed to receive a United Nations Secretariat team from 20th to 27th October in a further effort to reach agreement on early implementation of the United Nations settlement plan.

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. However, have the South African Government accepted the Security Council Resolution 435 which provides for United Nations control of a cease-fire and demilitarised zone and United Nations supervision of elections and independence? Secondly, are the Government satisfied that South Africa has given up any intention to declare unilateral independence based on, first, the executive authority which it has given to the Turnhalle Assembly, unrecognised internationally; secondly, its authorisation of an army under that Assembly; and thirdly, its announcement of a constitution for Namibia which includes second-tier, apartheid ethnic councils?

My Lords, most of the problems to which the noble Lord refers have indeed been settled. The main points in dispute now are the South African request for impartiality of treatment between SWAPO and the internal parties by the United Nations organs, together with the inclusion of internal parties in future consultations. We hope that a settlement can be reached on these outstanding issues.

My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that on this side of the House—indeed, I think, in most parts of the House—there is a feeling that the South African Government has delayed in this settlement beyond what is a reasonable time? Could we have an assurance that Her Majesty's Government will be pressing, both at the United Nations and in other ways which are open to them, to obtain a very speedy attempt at an agreement in what is a serious and dangerous situation?

My Lords, certainly South African consideration of some of these matters has taken longer than we would have wished. However, they have agreed to accept later this month the United Nations Secretariat team to which I have referred, and we hope that the outstanding difficulties can then be resolved.

My Lords, can the noble Lord the Minister say whether, during this protracted interim period since the five Western countries began negotiations, the British Government or any other of the five have made representations to the South African Government about the continued loss, particularly of mineral wealth but also of other economic wealth, which is going into the South African Treasury at the expense of a future independent Namibia?

My Lords, I am not quite sure to which economic wealth the noble Lord refers, but if he refers to the uranium mine which has been the subject of considerable press comment, then that is quite a separate matter.

My Lords, I should like to ask the Minister whether on 27th October, when there is to be this discussion, Her Majesty's Government, with the others, will seek to raise the question of political prisoners? Is he aware that there are 53 political prisoners in Robins Island and very many others under detention?

My Lords, the visit later this month, to which I referred, will be headed by the United Nations and not by Her Majesty's Government. In fact, it will be led by Mr. Urquhart who is the Deputy Secretary-General of the United Nations. British views on the question of political prisoners in Namibia are well known to the South African Government, and indeed to the Namibian authorities.

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

My Lords, Sir Alan Marre investigated this serious error very thoroughly and he made it clear that he did not criticise any one individual for what had occurred. The Government accept his report and his conclusion; and have decided, in the light of his inquiry, that there are no good grounds for further investigation or for taking disciplinary action against individuals.

My Lords, does my noble friend, whom I thank for that reply, recall that in his report Sir Alan Marre says that a main cause of the loss of this £130 million was inexcusable confusion within the office on the question of checking? If that finding is accurate, is it not at least possible that the senior officer responsible for the administrative arrangements of the office carries a degree of personal responsibility?

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for pointing out the passage in which Sir Alan mentioned the inexcusable confusion, and I certainly agree with my noble friend that it was inexcusable. But at that point Sir Alan went on to say:

"I do not criticise any one individual for this, but my inquiry has revealed the need for clarification and communication to staff of the extent of their responsibilities".

This, of course, has been carried out, as it is a matter of great gravity.

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that this office has been operating for nine years, and that an administrative set-up in which there can be confusion on this quite elementary point surely reflects remarkably little credit on those responsible for its organisation?

My Lords, I do not think that it is my job in any way to excuse this error which, as my noble friend has pointed out, was a very grievous one. Any error to the tune of £130 million is indeed grievous. But the fact is that it was a single error and, during that period of nine years of operation to which my noble friend referred, I think that it was the only error of any consequence whatever. But Sir Alan has no doubt that the error is inexcusable and, of course, we have brought the report very forcefully to the attention of the office.

My Lords, will the noble Earl bear in mind that there have been other occasions when very considerable errors of mathematical calculation have been made?—notably in the assessment of the public sector borrowing requirement by Treasury officials, which in one year was £4,000 million out and in the next year £3,000 million out.

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

My Lords, I understand that the Director General of Fair Trading has now completed his examination of competition in the marketing of optical appliances, and is giving serious consideration to making a reference to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission of the supply of reading lenses and spectacle frames in relation to restrictions on advertising. He has, however, decided that it would be sensible to defer a final decision on a reference to await the outcome of a review by the General Optical Council of its rules and guidance for the optical profession, which is expected later this year.

My Lords, I am greatly obliged to the noble Lord. But, as there have been deputations to the Government and continuous debates here and in another place about this matter, can he make a statement of Government policy on this matter? Do the Government agree that it is high time that some form of price competition should be allowed in this country in the retailing of spectacle frames? Secondly, do the Government believe that there is a strong case, or at any rate a case, for a free market in the sale of simple magnifying spectacles of varying strengths? If the noble Lord could say that the Government agree on both those points, I am sure that we should be giving sonic guidance to the industry on how to approach these problems.

My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord on both those points. We certainly believe that the present situation in the marketing of spectacles and their associated appliances is unsatisfactory, particularly with regard to the advertising provisions, to which I referred. We very much hope that the General Optical Council will see fit to change its rules.

My Lords, is the Minister aware that the whole history of this shows that there are delaying tactics?—and the sooner the Government are prepared to deal with those delaying tactics the better.

My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord. The situation is unsatisfactory and has gone on for too long. This matter first came to public attention in 1976 and the time is long overdue for a change.

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

My Lords, early warning intelligence about business projects supported by Community finance is monitored by the world aid section of the projects and export policy division of the Department of Trade. Most advance projects information is disseminated to British firms and trade associations through the Export Intelligence Service. Close contact is maintained with the office of the United Kingdom Permanent Representative in Brussels, whose staff provide assistance to businessmen and advise them on contacts in the Commission.

My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that there is a widespread opinion in industrial and commercial circles that the competitors of British industry in EEC countries have an undue advantage over them, in that when the projects are first mooted they seem to get, via their respective Governments, to their own traders and their own trade associations, and that, so far, we in this country seem to have adopted, possibly quite correctly, a policy of greater rectitude whereby only when the contracts are displayed is the information given to our trade associations and industrialists here? Will he agree that we really ought to be on the same basis, and that, since there is not very much security inside the European Commission itself, it might be wise to take steps to ensure that the British firms get the same advance warnings as Continental firms do?

My Lords, I believe that British firms are at no disadvantage compared with their Continental comptitors in this matter. As I said, the world aid section of the projects and export policy division of the Department of Trade monitors information about aid funded projects and disseminates this in good time to the Export Intelligence Service.

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that, whether it is true or false, there is a feeling abroad in Europe that we do not seem to get on as well in having our share of what is going in Europe as many of our competitor countries? When this point has been put on many occasions we have had the answer that the noble Lord has just given; but it would give a lot of satisfaction if he could say that they will look again, and continually, to see whether or not we are as alert as our competitors because of the important possibilities that exist in Europe.

My Lords, it is certainly the case that British firms are not always as successful as some of their European competitors in this matter. For example, I understand that we contribute about 18 per cent. of total funds to the European Development Fund, and to the period up to June, 1979, secured only 11·2 per cent. of the work that flowed from that fund. Ministers have, indeed, expressed concern about the lack of interest shown by United Kingdom exporters in pursuing EDF business, and they, and officials, take every opportunity to impress on businessmen the opportunities available.

My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that my original Question was not limited to aid funded projects, to which the noble Lord's reply was confined? I was dealing with the whole question of commercial contracts in Europe that are out under EEC auspices, and they go far beyond aided projects.

My Lords, it is true that there are certain categories of other business available to British firms from the Commission—for example, technical research projects—and these are promoted in this country at least by the sponsoring departments; namely, the Department of Industry and the Department of Energy, or such other department as may be appropriate.

My Lords, would the noble Lord please confirm that if Lord Bruce's friends had their way and we were to withdraw from the EEC manufacturers would then get even less information?

I fear that is true, my Lords.

My Lords, in my last Statement to the House shortly before the Summer Recess, I expressed the hope that we would be able to return to our usual Parliament Chamber in October. To my relief, this has indeed proved possible and I am sure that the whole House is relieved and thankful.

Technically, the project has so far gone well. The temporary ceiling which also provides a working platform is now installed and I think that the House will agree that the supporting scaffolding, while certainly visible, is not obtrusive or offensive. There is no interference with our usual layout, I am assured, both on the Floor of the Chamber and in the Galleries. The acoustics, air conditioning, and heating are, I am told, as good as they were, so I can but hope that the House will find that our working conditions here in the Chamber are back to normal and are satisfactory.

So far as the future is concerned, I can as yet, I am afraid, add little to my previous Statement. Now that the working platform is in position the Property Services Agency are commissioning a full investigatory report by consultants on the state of the ceiling, which should be in their hands by the end of the year. We can then expect that, after consultation with our Administration Committee, the PSA will thereafter put in hand the remedial action required—and it may indeed be substantial—to repair and restore the ceiling. I will of course keep the House informed.

My Lords, we shall all be concerned to know about costs and the time the job will take. But the Property Services Agency must first wait for the consultants' report before they can make any proposals to us. In the meantime, it is nice to be back again, and I think the House would like to join me in expressing our thanks to the PSA and the staff of the House for getting the Chamber ready for us in time for our return from the Recess.

My Lords, I thank the Leader of the House for his Statement. I am sure we can endorse that we are relieved and thankful that we are able to use the Chamber today. Those concerned have done a wonderful job. It has been mentioned to me in passing that for some acoustics problems may create difficulties. I hope not. I think they have done a wonderful job. All I can say is let us have good debates, because I would hate to go back to that other place—not "the other place"!

My Lords, from these Benches we should like to endorse everything that has been said. The Property Services Agency and the staff of the House have done a remarkable job and we ought to be very grateful to them.

My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that dinner will be available this evening at the usual time, and that is 7 p.m. It may also be for the convenience of the House if I announce that dinner will be available tomorrow, Tuesday, 7th October, Wednesday, 8th October, and Thursday, 9th October.

My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the Order of Commitment be discharged.

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into a Committee on the Bill.

My Lords, there is a matter of great importance which I should like to raise at this stage before we go into Committee, and that is to question the value of going through the charade of a Committee stage in this House when the Secretary of State has already acted on Clause 41 before this House has even considered, let alone accepted, it. I make no complaint about the conduct of the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, in the proceedings on this Bill—he treats this House with consideration and courtesy and with a due regard to its function as a second Chamber—but I must protest about the affront to the House by his Secretary of State. In utter disregard of the function of this House and its part in parliamentary procedure and constitutional rights, the Secretary of State has announced that 14 councils will have their grant cut for overspending.

I complained at Second Reading that this was retrospective legislation in that councillors would have legally fixed their rates in April and yet could be penalised when this Bill came on to the statute book in November. Questions were asked in this House in the course of that debate as to how the formula to deal with overspending would be worked out—whether the formula would be put to both Houses of Parliament, and what right of appeal would be available to local authorities. We expected to receive answers to these questions when we reached Clause 41 in Committee. Instead, the Secretary of State has acted in an unbelievably arrogant way by using this proposed retrospective legislation and pre-empting the decision of this House by taking unto himself powers not yet approved by it.

What could be more unconstitutional than that freely elected councils should be penalised because a Secretary of State disapproves of their perfectly lawful behaviour? The noble Lord's right honourable friend has acted in a highly unconstitutional manner. Before we proceed further with the Bill this House has the right to ask for an explanation from the Government.

The whole House will also be concerned about the reports in the national press last week to the effect that the Secretary of State had been entertaining selected Peers from shire counties and giving them figures to demonstrate, as he claims, how much better off their shire county would be next year under the arrangements proposed in this Bill and urging them not to oppose his proposals in this House. Is there any substance in this report? If so, I do not for one moment believe that noble Lords opposite will respond to this kind of pressure, since I know that they are more concerned with the principles involved than they are about their share of the kitty.

Equally disturbing are the reports in this morning's papers that an arrangement has been made between the Government and leading noble Lords representing the ACC. Should such reports be accurate we can see no amendments at this stage in the list which would justify a decision to abandon the long-held antagonism to both the principle and practice of the block grant which has been so regularly voiced by the leaders of the ACC and which was repeated so forcefully from all parts of this House during Second Reading. If these reports of arrangements are accurate then I should like to ask whether the noble Lords, Lord Sandford and Lord Greenwood, have also been approached about the possibility of similar arrangements with the ADC and the AMA.

At this stage I do not propose to ask the House to debate the rights and wrongs of Clause 41, or the way in which it will work, or which authorities are due to be penalised, or why. That we can do when we come to the transitional arrangements outlined in the Bill. But what this House is entitled to is an explanation as to why these objectionable steps were taken by a Government Minister without waiting for the views of your Lordships' House and also a statement as to whether the press reports about secret meetings and arrangements are correct. We are a legitimate part of Parliament—it comprises the Crown, the Lords and the Commons—and the whole House will be concerned at the way in which a Government Minister has acted in this instance. The House will not take kindly to such an affront to and disregard of the constitutional rights of your Lordships' House.

My Lords, once the words "retrospective legislation" are uttered it is quite inevitable that the ears of my noble friends on the Liberal Benches prick up. In those circumstances, perhaps I ought to indicate very briefly that it is our view that this does not amount at this stage to retrospective legislation, and that an indication given by a Minister that when a Bill on its way through Parliament is enacted he proposes to use powers given under it, is very far removed from being retrospective legislation, certainly of the sort to which we on these Benches would wish to take objection.

I am not in any way supporting what has happened. It may well be that there is a complaint to be made about the selection of the 14 authorities. It may well be that the choice has been arbitrary and difficult to justify on any rational basis. It may be that as a means of reducing public expenditure it will turn out to be totally ineffective. But those are matters that we can properly discuss as we proceed in Committee on this Bill.

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, for saying precisely what I would have said on the first of the three points which the noble Baroness makes. In my opinion there is nothing whatsoever wrong, nor can one possibly talk of retrospective action, when what we have said is precisely what we have been pressed to say for some time, not least by the supporters in another place of the noble Lords opposite—or should it be the other way round? I am not sure. The fact is that for some time now we have been pressed to say which authorities, if any, would come within the transitional arrangements when the legislation now going through Parliament becomes an Act. Until that time nothing can or will be done, and I see nothing whatsoever wrong in stating what we intend to do when that happens. That is the position on the first of the points that the noble Baroness has made.

Her second point was about people being shown confidential figures for next year's rate support grant. I am not sure that in this House we should have to defend newspaper articles, because when I read reports such as I read today I find that one paper says one thing and another paper says exactly the opposite about what we are supposed to be doing. I read them initially with some concern, happily finishing up with some amusement because one really does not know which to read next. So on that point I do not think I should have to say other than that I am very surprised that any Members of your Lordships' House should give credence to a suggestion that confidential figures would have been shown. In fact, there are no such figures. There are exemplifications, and those exemplifications are available to all the local authority associations, who have them, and nothing goes beyond that.

On the last point the noble Baroness made, I am absolutely satisfied that there has not in any way been the slightest impropriety. It has long been the normal practice for Government Ministers to be available at any time to anyone who wishes to come along and talk to them about what they may or may not like to see in Bills, by way of amendment or whatever. This, and no more than this, is what is done. Indeed, this has been done by Members of your Lordships' House, on all sides. I say again that I see nothing whatsoever wrong in that. Indeed, I should have thought it would be applauded by your Lordships. I am sorry that as we embark on the very long and arduous task ahead of us we should have to start in a rather unhappy way. But let us hope that we can discuss the many matters we have to discuss on their merits as they come along, and that we can do so in a spirit which is at least in accordance with what I understand is the way in which your Lordships' House always works.

My Lords, as my noble friend was so kind as to refer to me and to the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, of which I am president, perhaps I could assure your Lordships without any hesitation whatsoever that there has been no agreement reached or sought to be reached between the Association of Metropolitan Authorities and the Government on the lines to which my noble friend referred. But I think the point at issue is this, and this is the point which the Parliamentary Secretary did not touch on in his comments. It is not the propriety of having discussions, but what would be the impropriety if the Government had reached an agreement on how to conduct the Committee stage of this Bill in your Lordships' House without having discussed that proposal with the other local authority associations. That, I think, is the danger, and I very much hope that the noble Lord will be able to give us assurances on this point. One of the reasons why this issue has become so embittered has been the feeling of the local authorities, both Conservative and Labour, that the Government have not taken their points of view sufficiently into consideration.

My Lords, as my name has been mentioned as the president of the Association of District Councils perhaps I could make a short contribution at this point. First, in respect of the noble Baroness's point, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State made it crystal clear in his statement that the whole of these proposals were subject to the approval of Parliament. That is there in black and white and I think completely vindicates the position in that respect. As to deals and discussions behind the scenes, as described in the Guardian this morning, I would agree with my noble friend that when it comes to the press on this issue, their reporting is unreliable to the most extraordinary degree. I should have thought that we should follow his advice and pay very little attention to the press in these matters. If I were to find, however—and I have not yet done so—that there has been any negotiation with one association and not with the others, I should have to take an extremely serious view of it. I have no evidence to that effect, and I am certainly not going to believe the Guardian until my noble friend gives me some explanation to lead me to think that I should give some credence to it.

My Lords, I do not quite know what is meant in this context by the word "negotiations". If one could substitute "discussions" and "talks" for that word, then of course there have been discussions and talks with all the associations. The door has been and will remain open all the time for that to be done, and that will go on. Beyond that I can only repeat that I know of no reason in any way to consider that there has been any impropriety whatever, and on that basis I suggest we now proceed with the Bill and discuss on their merits the individual amendments and clauses as we come to them.

My Lords, may I ask the Minister to clarify one point to the satisfaction of the House? The statement has been made that there have been no negotiations with one local authority body as distinct from any other. Can he confirm that in the discussions that have taken place no invitations have been accorded in regard to those discussions to one association which have not been accorded to the other local authority associations? Can he also confirm that there have been no discussions in relation to the Committee stage of this Bill with one local authority association which have also not taken place with other local authority associations? If he could clarify that in simple language it would make many of us much happier.

I cannot do anything of the kind, my Lords. The position is absolutely clear. It is up to any association, or indeed any individual Members of your Lordships' House, to come along and talk, and they have done just that. They do not always come together—in fact, they usually do not do so—but come singly and discuss their points of view, and I see nothing at all wrong in that. Noble Lords cannot expect me to justify that which is in the press. I do not feel able to go beyond the explanation I have given. I have not tried to fudge words but to say what the position is, and that is what I seek to do.

My Lords, I apologise if I am persistent but the Minister must know that he did not reply to my specific question. I did not talk in terms of discussions, which obviously take place with a Minister if someone seeks discussions. I asked the noble Lord directly whether invitations had been accorded to one association which had not been accorded to another. I further asked whether, in the course of discussions, any arrangements in regard to the Committee stage of this Bill had been made with any one association which had not been made with the others. Those were clear questions and I ask the noble Lord with his usual courtesy to give a clear answer.

I want to be helpful, my Lords, but I cannot give the kind of answer that would apparently satisfy the noble Lord because I am not sure precisely what it is he is seeking to ascertain. I have tried in good faith to say exactly what has happened, namely, that discussions have taken place with the associations, with individual Members of this House and generally with people who have made suggestions about what they would like the Government to do. That is what it is all about so far as I am aware and I cannot go further.

moved Amendment No. 1:

Page 2, line 5, at end insert ("or police authority").

I strongly support my noble friend. As noble Lords will recall, the associations between them produced a list earlier last year of a total of 1,000 controls, which in their view could be dismantled, governing the relationship between central and local government. The Government in September of last year then produced a White Paper whittling that number down to 300 about which they were in agreement with the associations. The Bill provides an admirable opportunity to enact legislation dismantling those 300, but in fact the number here is far less than that. I strongly agree with my noble friend that we should take this opportunity to dismantle far more of the controls between central and local government than are contained in the Bill, and the amendment would be a useful addition.

I strongly support the amendment from these Benches and confess that I only wish I had thought of it myself because I have been a member of a police authority for many years and what has been said so far on behalf of the amendment is absolutely correct. It is difficult now to get people who seek prestige without power to serve on a police authority because as a body it is virtually toothless; it cannot even choose assistant chief constables, deputy chief constables or chief constables from an approved list drawn up by the Home Office. It can do virtually nothing. We in the Merseyside area have had a lengthy debate about the purposelessness of a police authority which has such extremely limited powers, and therefore if the amendment could do something to return some powers—not quite on the basis of the old watch committees perhaps—which police authorities used to enjoy, that would be welcomed.

I should like to support this amendment. The Bill supposedly relaxes a number of controls, but it is thought by many counties that the controls relaxed have been minimal and that the efforts to reduce expenditure by county councils could well be helped by reducing the controls further and reducing the staff at the Home Office itself. To my mind, there must surely be an enormous difference between maintenance of police houses and so on and the appointment of chief constables. I hope that the Government will look at this point and perhaps come back to it, in particular on Amendment No. 12 which, I gather, is being considered at the moment.

The power to provide, maintain and alter buildings, et cetera, is surely something that can be relaxed completely. Where I can see some advantage in having control from the centre, I do not think I personally would go along all the way with relaxing controls on the appointment of chief constables. I hope the Government will provide some good news about perhaps relaxing the power to provide, maintain and alter buildings.

I should like very much to support the noble Viscount and also the noble Lord who has just sat down. It is the view of the Association of Metropolitan Authorities that the Home Office should be involved in the actual management of the police as little as is consistent with the proper discharge of their responsibilities. That is clearly right. I think it is disappointing that, if I am correctly informed, not one single control over local jurisdiction over the police is removed in the current Bill.

I would like very briefly not to support this amendment. If I recall aright the Second Reading of this Bill, many objections were raised to the effect that it was really about six Bills in one. This is a deliberate attempt to extend the scope of the Bill, and I do not think it is the proper vehicle, whatever the merits of the case may be, and upon those grounds I do not think really that this amendment should stand.

Having spent four and a half years—an unconscionably long time—as a junior Minister in the Home Office, I find myself in some difficulty over Amendment No. 12, which is the crux of the matter. Before we surrender the Home Secretary's power to appoint chief constables of all the forces in England and Wales, I think we should bear in mind that although they are separate forces there is really only one career structure. It is in the national interest that there should be some kind of co-ordinating responsibility which only the Home Secretary can exercise to ensure that the best men reach the top, or the tops as it may be, of that career structure. Therefore, I would hope that the Government would not accept that part of Amendment No. 12 which applies to the appointment of chief constables and indeed the determination of the force establishment, because there we have a very large amount of central funds involved.

I have some sympathy with what has been said by the supporters of the amendment about the power to provide, maintain and alter buildings because local knowledge there could be regarded as essential. But when it comes to the position of the deputy acting as chief constable, when there is a vacancy either through promotion or retirement or death, I think it would be wrong for the local authority to prejudge the decisions which, as I have suggested, should be made by the Home Secretary. Therefore, I would have a very great doubt about that item in Amendment No. 12. As to the appointment of the deputy and assistant chief constables, however, there is not much in it.

May I ask the Minister whether this particular section—and various Scottish Peers may be speaking to it—applies to the police in Scotland? While I am not in it any more, I have been in local government a very long time, and I have therefore been on police committees and I should like to know, because very often the positions are quite different.

I wonder whether I might intervene at this point. It seemed to me, in listening to your Lordships, that my noble friend Lord Ridley and other noble Lords who spoke, before Lord Morris, were talking about the removal of controls over local authorities. But of course the effect of these amendments which we are speaking to together would not be simply to relax some central controls over local authorities. They would change the constitutional arrangements for the administration of the police embodied in the Police Act 1964, which followed the report of the Royal Commission in 1962. Your Lordships may remember that the Royal Commission set out the responsibilities of the three elements on which our policing arrangements are based; namely, the chief constables, the police authorities and the Home Secretary.

The Act of 1964 places each force under the direction and control of its chief constable and in this way his operational independence is set out. Secondly, the chief constable is appointed and his force maintained by his police authority. But that is an independent statutory authority composed of two-thirds county councillors and one-third magistrates. The recipient of expenditure of a police authority is the recipient of a specific grant from the Home Secretary. It is to his police authority that the chief constable is generally accountable. Thirdly, the Home Secretary has an essentially supervisory role which your Lordships know about.

May I just add that the Home Secretary's role reflects his responsibility for the maintenance of the Queen's peace—I think I can use that expression—which is one of the prime functions of central Government. This ultimately is the duty of the Home Secretary. I suggest to your Lordships that on this group of amendments it is essential that the Home Secretary should have and should exercise adequate powers to secure the efficiency of the police service. May I very quickly run through them? They are: the powers to approve the appointment of chief constables, to approve the number of police officers in a force, to approve the provision of buildings, to approve a deputy chief constable performing the duties of a chief officer for longer than three months and to approve the appointments of deputy and chief constables. These are only some of the many responsibilities placed on the Home Secretary by the Police Act.

May I at this point, in answer to my noble friend Lord Gisborough, say that the Home Office and the local authority associations have in a working party been looking at the scope for modifying or relaxing control over capital expenditure—it is not maintenance—on police buildings. But all those powers which I have just mentioned would be removed—the whole lot—if your Lordships agreed to the amendments which my noble friend Lord Ridley has moved.

May I detain the Committee for just a moment to say something specific about the three main powers in these amendments? It is of course quite rightly the responsibility of the police authority to appoint its chief officers and to determine the size of its establishment, but in order to ensure the efficiency of the police service the Home Secretary's approval is necessary. This is what we are arguing about this afternoon. Chief constables and their deputy and assistant chief constables exercise a large measure of independent authority. Neither the Home Secretary nor a police authority can instruct a chief constable on how to deploy his men or whether to institute proceedings.

I would add to what my noble friend Lord Renton said, that Parliament expects the Home Secretary, with the professional advice of Her Majesty's Inspectors of Constabulary, to be able to ensure that officers of the right calibre are appointed, and it is a general, supervisory role. Similarly, the determination of the number and rank of officers needed in each force is crucial to the efficient policing of a particular area. I again suggest to the Committee that Parliament expects the Home Secretary to be in a position, with the professional advice of the inspectorate, to influence those decisions. Moreover, I have not yet heard any of your Lordships mention that the duties given to the Home Secretary ensure that the police are finally accountable to Parliament.

The balance between the three elements in our policing arrangements—chief constables, police authorities, and the Home Secretary—is a delicate one. It may not be perfect—I am sure that it is not—but it is designed to try to ensure accountability without political control. My noble friend, with all his experience of local government, said in his speech that he affirmed his opposition to political control of the police. It strikes me that the effect of the proposed amendments would be to distort in a way that could be dangerous the balance that we have.

May I add a final point, a further reason why I am resisting these amendments. My noble friend knows that the present Government came into office with a commitment to the rule of law and to the morale of the police service, a commitment that I am sure we share on all sides of the Committee. At the moment recruitment to the police service is buoyant. In order to ensure an accountable police service that carries out its duties efficiently, there must be a system of checks and balances, and I am suggesting to the Committee that we have such a system and that it really cannot be tinkered with in a piecemeal fashion, which these amendments would represent. Therefore I hope that, in the light of what I have said, my noble friend Lord Ridley will not press his amendment, and that perhaps all of us can profit by afterwards looking again at what has been said during this debate.

I should like to say a few words following the speech of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary. I very much agree with the general thrust of his argument, and if the noble Viscount were to press his amendment, I should unhesitatingly vote against it. Having had the kind of responsibility that the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, has had in the Home Office, I am bound to say that the withdrawal from the Home Secretary of this form of power would in my view be highly disadvantageous to the public interest.

The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, has pointed out that it is highly desirable to keep a decent distance between political partisanship on local authorities—which is a perfectly proper element within local government, as we all know—and the kind of responsibilities that police authorities have. On the basis of an experience that I had in relation to one particular local authority, where there had been great anxiety relating to the relationship between a chief officer of police and certain members of a police authority—a problem which arose fairly recently, within the last few years—I am bound to say that the idea that a police authority should be able to appoint a chief officer without any approval being given by the Home Secretary would seem to me to be highly undesirable so far as the public interest was concerned.

It seems to me quite clear that it is proper that a member of Government who has a clear duty to be responsible for the maintenance of the Queen's peace, should have the right to make a judgment about whether an individual senior officer of police is a fit and appropriate person to be a chief constable. As the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, has pointed out, chief constables have very substantial powers—and rightly so. But I must say that the idea that the police authority should be able to appoint a senior officer without the Home Secretary of the day indicating that that officer is a fit and proper person to occupy that particular post seems to me highly undesirable, and I very much hope that as a result of this the noble Viscount will not press the amendment, because I simply do not believe that the passage of such a provision would do other than very substantial damage so far as the morale in the police service is concerned.

I should like to thank those noble Lords who have supported me and I wish to thank, too, my noble friend Lord Belstead for his very full reply. He produced what I thought was a perfectly marvellous case for 100 per cent. specific grant for the police force; in other words, if the Government have such total control over every single aspect of it, then why do they not pay for the whole of the service?—and that would make the block grant that much less necessary in the future.

However, I shall not press these amendments, but before we leave this matter I should like to ask the Minister whether perhaps at Report stage he would accept a minor amendment in order to free from controls the building regulations—the detailed interference with matters regarding police stations, police houses and so forth—which I believe most noble Lords would support. I would certainly withdraw the proposal regarding chief constables et cetera, but if what I now mention is acceptable, I should like to return to it on Report.

Of course, anything that my noble friend puts forward will be carefully considered by the Government in their reply at the Report stage, but I cannot give him an undertaking that we would agree to an amendment on Report about police buildings. I say that for the reason that I gave in my speech: namely, that this matter has been the subject of discussions between the Home Office and the local authority associations in a working party, and I feel that we ought to secure agreement from that working party before we insert a single amendment of that kind in a local government Bill. I trust that that is not too unhelpful a reply, and with that I hope that my noble friend will now withdraw this particular first amendment.

I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 2:

Page 2, line 7, leave out from ("to") to second ("to") in line 9 and insert ("a right of appeal").

moved Amendment No. 4:

Page 2, line 14, leave out ("any default powers") and insert ("power to require a local authority to make byelaws").

moved Amendment No. 5:

Amendment No. 6. I have to point out that if this amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 7.

moved Amendment No. 6:

Page 2, line 30, leave out subsection (5).

I should like very briefly to support my noble friend who has just spoken. As he said, during the Second Reading debate the noble Lord, Lord Broadbridge, raised this matter, and then, when it came to the winding-up, the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, said that because the noble Lord, Lord Broad-bridge, was not present he would write to him. Like my noble friend who has just spoken, I appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, had a great many points to which he had to reply. Nevertheless, a number of us would have been interested to see what was in that letter.

Just a few days ago I was opening a vegetable and flower show, most of the produce for which came from allotments, and I want to bring it home to the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, what a great deal of feeling there is about this matter on the part of the allotment associations. The people who spoke to me during the afternoon on which I opened the show were all asking me what the Government's intentions were, but I am afraid I had to say, as I had to say in my speech, that I did not know and I would not know until we got to the Committee stage of this Bill.

As my noble friend has said, there are far more allotment holders these days, and a great waiting list of those who wish to become allotment holders. This is due to two or three reasons, perhaps: first, the outdoor life; second, the high cost of vegetables these days; and, third, the increasing use of freezers, which means that those who have allotments or small gardens can freeze the produce to last them for many months ahead. The allotment holders and the associations feel that this Bill takes away something which they have had since 1925, and they would like to know whether anything is going to be put in the place of these powers which are being taken away. My noble friend has mentioned the Thorpe Report. Perhaps the Government are anticipating that they will take some action on this report, but, again, we do not know. Therefore, I would be very pleased indeed if the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, could give us the answer to some of these questions in order to try to allay the fears of the allotment holders, but if he cannot do that then at least to delay action until 1982, as my noble friend has suggested.

I should like briefly to support these amendments. The allure of the development of allotment gardens is very strong, and it happens over and over again. The value of the recreational effect of allotment gardens is well enough known, both from the point of view of growing vegetables and because of the very thriving pigeon clubs which there are throughout the country. They also provide an extremely valuable channel through which people can divert their energies, as well as providing a means by which people can use self-help in times of shortage. Two or three years ago, when there were great shortages, the value of allotments and the value of home-grown vegetables was very obvious. I hope that the Government will really look into this and make certain that this Bill does not do anything to reduce the provision of allotments, which would be disastrous.

I first want to say that I will not delay the Committee very long because the arguments are known on both sides of this Chamber. I sincerely believe that we should remember that twice in my lifetime there has been a rush back to the land so far as allotments are concerned, and that the great posters throughout Britain said, "Dig for Victory". I am sorry; I omitted to thank the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin. During the Recess he was kind enough to write me a long letter putting his point of view. He was, as he always is, courteous, succinct and cogent. Nevertheless, one can be cogent and the argument can be on the wrong hypothesis. One must always remember that. It depends on the hypothesis with which you begin, though the arguments may be absolutely brilliant—in fact par excellence in that respect.

As I have said, I will be brief, about three minutes, so do not worry, but I want to point out that during the Recess I have had numerous letters. My study table was about a foot high with letters from local authorities. Never in the history of Parliament has Parliament been so overwhelmed by Left, Right and Centre, non-Trotskyite and ultra-Right Wing councils pleading and begging both sides of your Lordships' Committee to do something to rescue the allotments of Great Britain. During the debate in the other place on 14th February 1980, during the Committee stage of the Bill, with reference to the London Society of Recreational Gardeners, Mr. Tom King, the Minister for Local Government and Environmental Services, said—and I do not want to quote him fully—that it remains a legal responsibility on the councils that their first priority is to use the proceeds of sale of allotment land in the first instance for allotment purposes.

In this amendment we are asking that the authority of the Minister should still be paramount in the case of these allotments. It is no good saying, "We are giving a freer hand to local authorities". Beggars have a free hand. You could say, "We cannot help the beggars; they are free to do well for themselves". It is the same with those who are sick and lonely. In other words, freedom can be true freedom only if there is something which will give you comfort and succour during that period of freedom, and one thing is to be fed. That is one of the necessities, despite the massive growth—and here is the 64,000 dollar point. Never mind the party politics; whichever party is in power, during the next four, five, six or seven years, may be, we shall have the shadow of unemployment over this country—and here is something which could help those people to produce their own produce. If people were not so "toffee-nosed" about keeping a pig and a chicken or a cockerel on an allotment it would be a better Britain. There is nothing to be "toffee-nosed" about: it is common sense so far as keeping an allotment is concerned.

All I want to say is that there is much more than pinpointing tiny arguments; there is the reality. Digging for victory and producing more food can save money on the overseas balance of trade. Goodness knows why we are loading the country with French apples! I myself can grow better cabbages than they import! Why are we doing this? Probably 40 per cent. of the households of Britain could produce the basic vegetables themselves, and could thus save overwhelming millions for the country. The argument is self-evident. I do not want to drop in my old-fashioned Latin, but there is a tag. The argument is self-evident; and I beg the Minister, who is a kindly Minister and who takes trouble to reply to us, to get back to the rock which is holding him down under the water and to shift from this argument—this sterile argument, lacking in reality—and think about digging for victory and the future of Britain.

After that spendid performance from the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, may I add a few temporate words from the Cross-Benches? I should like, in principle, thoroughly to support the amendment which has been so ably argued by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace. In my opinion, it is of extreme importance at a time of rising unemployment—and I am afraid that none of us can deny that unemployment is rising and is likely to continue to rise—that allotments should be available both for leisure purposes and, indeed, for the purposes of family food production at a time when the incomes of many families are liable to go down. All those propositions are in my view incontestable, and on those grounds I thoroughly support the amendment.

There is only one slight reservation that I have. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, referred to extortionate rentals for allotments. This is possibly the crux of the matter. If a fair rental policy for allotments could be found or a code of practice could become established, this might go a long way towards solving the problem. In an area with which I am familiar, half-acre allotments are being let at £5 a year. One of the local ratepayers complained to me this morning that he reckoned that this upped his rates by £36 a year. He was asking why he should subsidise these allotments. The parish council had added a fourpence or fivepence rate in order to make the new allotment development, of which I approve. Five pounds a year is little in the present day and age and I would suggest to most authorities who are interested in this matter that perhaps 50 pence a week would be a reasonable rent for a productive allotment, particularly when you have half an acre which would take you beyond the bounds of family production and bring you into market production. That is the only minor reservation that I have. I think that that should be studied and, with that reservation, I should like to support the amendment.

Since my noble friend Lord Avebury has added his name to this amendment, I should like to say a few words from these Benches. Everything in support of the amendment has been said and we all want to get on with the business. My only disagreement with the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, is that I myself would not think it a good idea to keep pigs on an allotment and I believe that the holders of neighbouring allotments also would not think it a good idea.

Apart from that, I am certain that allotments are of an immense value to the country, not only for what they produce but for the opportunities they give to people; and, if, unfortunately, we are going to have a number of unemployed people, that is an added reason to preserve the allotments. If the Government are going to tell us that they are contemplating producing a Bill next Session to put the whole question of allotments on to a new basis, that is a different matter. I should still think, with the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany, that in those circumstances it would be better to leave the law as it stands now and to start from there rather than make amendments which in the course of the Session might have to be altered once again.

In what appears to be in conclusion, I should like to support the noble Lord on this amendment. I wish to declare my interest as president of the National Association of Allotment Gardeners and I should like also to reassure the Committee that the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, did write to me; and I thank him for his letter.

I spoke at Second Reading on the general context into which fall the eight lines or so in this Bill which affect allotments; and I do not propose to go over that again. In allotment affairs, as in other aspects of our daily lives affected by this Bill, we have been told by the Government that they are motivated by their belief that local people know best. In this case, "local people" are the local authorities and, broadly, excepting the local authorities who are so stupid that they do not know anything—and there are some like that—they do know best. But it does not follow that they will do the best for their electors, particularly those electors who are not organised in such a way as to be able to make a loud and continuing noise if their interests are overlooked. It costs money to make a noise, and most allotment holders are fully occupied with facing the difficulties that nature throws at them. They are not militant in the commonly accepted sense of the word today and most do not have much money to spare. Such people consistently get the thin end of the legislative wedge and it is nonsense to say that every elector has a remedy at election time for the town hall.

I should like to reinforce the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany, that when we speak of allotments we are talking about a significant part of the lives of over half a million people of all ages, races, colours and creeds. One of the commonest and most constructive purposes of national law is the protection of the minority, the protection of the weak, the unfashionable and the poor. I would put most allotment-holders into all those categories.

As I said on Second Reading—and I see no reason to change my ground even after the letter from Lord Bellwin—I do not believe that the local authorities can be relied on to do what they may well know to be best. The law must provide for that. Such provision as we have is contained in the Allotment Acts, and the Government propose in this Bill to repeal most of them and to replace them with nothing. Clause 1(5) refers to nine repeals and to nothing new. "Repeals" is not a word that I apply subjectively. Reference to Schedule 5 to the Bill will show that the word "omit" is used in every case. The financial implications of the proposed repeals give me most cause for concern. This is the case particularly with the proposal to repeal Section 32(2) of the 1908 Act. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany, very clearly put the case for the retention of that legislation, and I should like to add my agreement.

The second principal concern that I have lies in the area which in recent years has come to be called "the desire for open government"—which I support. This concerns, first, the proposed repeal of Section 28(3) of the 1908 Act. Finally, consolidated in my mind with the removal of open government, is the proposal to repeal Sections 54 and 59 of the 1908 Act, which require local authorities respectively to keep separate accounts of receipts and expenditure on allotments and stipulate that they are to make an annual statement of their allotment receipts, expenditures and liabilities (I quote)

"to be deposited at some convenient place in the borough",

and require them to supply information on their activities to enable an annual report to Parliament to be made of proceedings nationally under the Act. If these repeals are made, the local authorities cannot be called on for an account of their stewardship so far as allotments are concerned and no one will be able to give any information as to the allotment situation nationally. It is difficult enough to do it at the moment, but it will become completely impossible. Now that the Minister has made a specific Statement in the other place that he has a new gardeners' Bill in mind, I really feel that gardeners' best interests would be served by holding our hand now. I support this amendment and I hope that many noble Lords here today will be able to do so in what surely is a field above party politics.

The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, said that my noble friend Lord Bellwin was a kindly Minister who listened to everything that was said. He is right; he does. Unfortunately, it falls to me to answer the noble Lord and I assure him that I am not nearly so kindly as my noble friend Lord Bellwin but that I have tried to listen to every word that has been said. I would say this. I find that to all the contributions which have been made so far it is impossible to take exception; because the main points made are that allotments are vitally essential to the well-being of the country and to the production of food, are essential for leisure and form a centre piece of our society.

With all that I am in total agreement. But I think that there is a misconception, and an understandable one. I say that with a great deal of respect, because the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany, is an expert on allotments—as I have had cause to know—as is the noble Lord, Lord Broadbridge; and anything I say would be subject to that respect.

The inference is—and I think the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, put this in his usual exciting and well understandable way when he said that we must rescue the allotments of Britain—that the Government are doing something terrible to the allotments of Britain and are actually sinking them. I can assure the noble Lords, Lord Davies of Leek and Lord Broadbridge, that that is not what is being done. All that we are doing is removing what we believe to be unnecessary ministerial powers over the local authorities; because we believe that the local authorities are those who know best how to run the allotments in their areas.

I recognise that the noble Lord, Lord Broadbridge, took exception to that. He feels that sometimes the Government know best. But our general philosophy is that, on the whole, the local authorities know best. There is one vital exception: Section 8 of the Allotments Act 1925 was going to be repealed, but in view of the pressure which was brought in another place we decided not to do that. That permits the Secretary of State to retain the power for consent for any dealings with allotment land. If any local authorities wish to dispose of their allotment lands, then they have to get the permission of the Secretary of State to do so.

I beg the noble Earl's pardon for interrupting but this is quite a point. We are delighted with what he has said; but the next thing is, once permission has been given to get rid of some allotment land what happens to the money? I hope the situation is not going to be like in Epsom or somewhere, where it is used to furnish the town hall or something. We want to know that the allotment money will go to further allotment lands.

Any money which is raised by the sale of allotment lands, which has to have the approval of the Secretary of State, then has to go towards paying off any liabilities which the local authority may have on the allotment holdings—not just on that which has been sold but on all their allotment holdings. Thereafter, any balance which is left is for the use of the local authority in such ways as they think fit. This is a cardinal retention which we are keeping in this Bill.

The local authorities are still obliged under the Small Holdings and Allotments Act to provide allotments where the local authorities are of the opinion that there is a demand for them, and it says that they shall provide them. So there is no destruction of the provision of allotments. All we are doing in this part of the Bill is to remove the Secretary of State's "interference" over what we believe is the right area for local authorities to deal with.

If I may give the Committee one or two examples, Section 28(3) of the Small Holdings and Allotments Act 1908 says that rules which are made by the local authorities for the management of their allotments are to be confirmed by the Secretary of State. We do not think that it is necessary for the Secretary of State to confirm rules which local authorities require to make over the running of their allotments. Section 39(2) refers to the Secretary of State's consent to local authorities making a grant or advance to a co-operative allotment society. At the moment if a local authority wishes to make a grant they have to get the Secretary of State's permission. We do not believe that that is necessary. All these things which are being repealed are relatively small but irritating involvements of the Secretary of State in areas which are best reserved to the local authorities.

The proposals in the Bill are designed solely to remove those central Government controls over local authorities' allotment activities which are no longer considered necessary. That does not imply that the Government regard allotment as unimportant or do not believe in people helping themselves by growing their own food. We feel they have an important part to play. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany, asked how one can get more land when one repeals the protective laws relating to allotments. Again, with respect, that is an exaggeration of the situation. We are not repealing the protective laws relating to allotments; all we are doing is repealing the exercise of the power of the Secretary of State over the local authorities.

The noble Viscount, Lord Simon, and the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, asked whether the Government were going to introduce a Bill incorporating the recommendations of the Thorpe Report. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, said that if we were doing this then it is a pity to tinker around with the position at the moment. I can only tell the noble Lord that we believe in the powers of a local authority to remove the "interference" of the Secretary of State, and that is why we are proposing to do this. We are considering, as my right honourable friend the Minister of State for the Department of the Environment and Minister for Local Government said, comprehensive legislation to take in the Thorpe Report. As the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, knows, it has been the background to the Government's thinking for some time to introduce a recreational gardening Bill. We are looking at this position but I cannot give any further commitment on it than that.

I think it is correct that at this stage we should remove the Secretary of State's powers; but that does not mean that we are harming, hurting or denigrating one little bit the influence of allotments or allotment holders. I hope that the noble Lord will be satisfied with that assurance.

Naturally we all agree with the Minister that unnecessary ministerial powers over local authorities should be eliminated wherever possible, and that government should reside as close to the people as is practicable. However, we are arguing in this amendment that perhaps some degree of ministerial control beyond what has been conceded by the noble Earl opposite is required, and that perhaps experience shows that local authorities may not be trusted entirely to exercise the powers that provide allotments as the Minister would advocate.

We have no figures from him of the waiting lists of people wanting to use allotments. I understand that those have been building up considerably. The standards of provision are not adequate in very many areas of the country. As the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, has just prompted me, the demand is likely to grow because in eras of high unemployment such as we have, unfortunately, today—and we can see no sign of an end to that—there is a considerable worsening in the number of people out of work, and there is a great incentive for people to try to grow their own food. They should be encouraged to do so, not only because it helps them to be self-reliant and gives their families the fresh foods that they would be unable to afford in the shops, but also because in general, and apart from the present economic climate, we want to encourage allotments for the recreational facilities that they provide. We also want to do this from the national point of view, because all sides of the House were agreed some years ago, when we debated the White Paper Food from our Own Resources, that it was a good idea to try to increase agricultural production generally. That includes the very substantial provision which is made by allotments.

It has been calculated that the potential of food production from allotments could be as much as £120 million. That money not only is in addition to the gross domestic product but it also means that £120 million worth of food does not have to be imported from overseas. Therefore we should consider very seriously whether we want to go as far down the road as the noble Earl suggested; whether we want in effect to retain the legal obligation on local authorities to provide allotments but to remove from the statute book all available checks.

I thought that the speech to which we have just listened was a little disingenuous because the sections from the Small Holdings and Allotments Act which the Minister quoted as being removed were indeed all the trivial ones. He left out those repeals which are of fundamental importance, such as Section 54 (1) under which local authorities have to obtain the authorisation of the Secretary of State before they transfer allotment funds to other purposes. Then there is Section 22(1)(b) of the Land Settlement (Facilities) Act 1919, under which the Secretary of State has to sanction the disposal of allotment land for other purposes. The danger which many of us foresee is that, in the present climate of restrictions on local authority spending, there will be a very serious temptation for local authorities with allotment areas in high-value parts of cities to dispose of them for developments and to use the proceeds to mitigate the effect on the ratepayers of increases in local authority spending in other areas.

To give one further example, there is Section 8 of the Allotments Act 1925 where, again, the Secretary of State not only has to give consent to the disposal of allotments, but, in addition, has to ensure that adequate provision will be made for allotment holders displaced by the action of the local authority, or that such provision is unnecessary or not reasonably practicable. So for those reasons, and others which have been advanced, I sincerely hope that the Committee will not accept the inadequate explanation which has been given by the Minister, but will press this matter to a Division.

I wonder whether I may say this to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. I find it very difficult to answer some of the points he has made, because it is rather like a person talking in one language and having a reply in another language. He said that he was concerned to see that there is proper production from allotments, that people are requiring allotments and that there is not enough provision of allotments. All that I agree with but, with the greatest respect to the noble Lord, that has nothing to do with the amendment. All that the amendment does is to remove the Secretary of State's powers in Schedule 5. All the points to which the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, referred are still being kept.

I said in my original speech that Section 8 of the Allotments Act requires local authorities to get the Secretary of State's permission before they sell any land. So that is a very severe restriction, and that remains. The Small Holdings and Allotments Act 1908 still remains and that puts an obligation on local authorities to provide allotment land where they consider that there is a requirement for it. The noble Lord said that I have not given any figures as to how many allotments there are, how many people are queueing up and so on. I am bound to say I cannot give the noble Lord that information, because I do not happen to have it.

I do not happen to have it, not because I have not done my homework, but because the figures are not available as it is not considered the normal kind of statistic which a Government would keep. But I assure the noble Lord that these important provisions for the protection of allotments are being kept.

Under Section 59 of the Small Holdings and Allotments Act 1908, the Secretary of State is supposed to be obliged to report annually to Parliament on the state of allotment provision, and the reason given by the Government for the abolition of this section is that it has not been invoked.

That is right. I think that was last done in about 1940. It has not been done since then, because people thought that they had better get on with fighting the war, as opposed to giving reports to Parliament about the situation of our allotments—

The war is over.

I know that the war is over and that we are 40 years ahead. But I do not see the advantage in the Secretary of State giving reports to Parliament, particularly when that has not been done. Of course, if the noble Lord and the party he represents like to go back 40 years, that is for them, but I cannot suggest that that would be a suitable course of action to take. One of the reasons why this is being repealed is simply that it is not being done now.

If your Lordships look at Schedule 5, you will see what is being repealed. I have referred to the management of allotments. We consider that that is a proper thing for local authorities to do, and is not something for the Secretary of State to be involved with. As regards the use of surplus money, I have explained that where a local authority sell their land after having had the permission of the Secretary of State, they have to pay off all their capital requirements with regard to their allotments before they use the money which they have obtained. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Ave-bury, referred to the Land Settlement (Facilities) Act 1919. That has been overtaken by the 1925 Act and therefore, although that part is being repealed, its provisions are retained in Section 8 of the 1925 Act.

Further down, the Allotments Act 1922 gives the outer London boroughs the right to have recourse to the Minister. It seems to us that it is perfectly reasonable for the outer London boroughs to be on the same principle as everyone else and to be responsible to the local authorities. Then there is the Allotments Act 1925. That leaves out Section 13 which enjoins local authorities to keep separate records of purchases. Local authorities will keep records of the land which they purchase, and we do not see any reason for telling them to keep additional records. So I hope your Lordships will realise that what we seek to repeal in subsection (5) are only small but, nevertheless irritating restrictions which at the moment the Secretary of State can impose on local authorities. We do not seek to remove the overriding right of the Secretary of State to approve or disapprove of the sale of allotment land.

Could the Minister say to what extent it will be possible for the Secretary of State, on allowing a council to sell allotment land, to demand that it is replaced by an equal amount of land?

That, of course, is a matter for the local authority. Once having sold some land if a local authority, under the Acts to which I have referred, consider that there is a requirement for more land and they desire to buy it, they can do so. They can spend their money as for any other purpose. That is a matter for the local authority.

I ought to try to put the noble Earl out of his misery, because, with all due respect to him, he has waffled—but with his usual charm. I cannot give him greater praise than that.

Try a little harder.

The noble Earl was skirting around first one thing and then another. He said that these are not very important repeals and that the local authorities can be trusted. I say to the noble Earl that I do not trust local authorities. I was almost fed on local authorities in my early days. One of the first committees that I was put on as a young councillor was the cabbages and greens committee, as the local allotments committee was called, and if there was ever a cinderella committee on a local authority it was that. The Minister knows that as well as I do. He had a magnificent record in local government. The allotments people were considered a damned nuisance, and that is why we are very fearful about giving more powers to local authorities.

Those of us who have served in local government, and who are keen on the spreading of gardening as a leisure pursuit, and for health and recreation, have had constant battles with local authorities. Yet here is Parliament proposing to give over completely its watching brief, particularly in regard to Section 54 of the old Act which deals with the annual report to Parliament on finance. This is not a small matter and Parliament should keep a watching brief. I am not speaking in a party sense or a Government sense. We have to set a lead and build up the provision in these councils which is urgently needed.

There is another point which I should like to make. The noble Earl repeated what was said in another Chamber, that the Government are thinking—that is a tremendous achievement, anyway — of bringing in new legislation. Of course, the noble Earl cannot commit himself completely because there is to be a State Opening on 13th November and we must not anticipate Her Majesty's gracious Speech. But if the Government intend to bring in legislation—and they say that they are—why on earth fiddle about with it in this Bill? Further amendments might be needed when dealing with this vital subject. About seven Acts are already confusing local authorities, the Government and everybody else.

It is about time that we had this legislation. In this case, as I have said, it is all right. To drop this subsection would please noble Lords. Anything that would diminish the size of this monster of a Bill would be more than gladly welcomed. I say that almost with tears in my eyes. We are repealing Parliament's watching brief. The Government say that they are to bring in consolidating legislation which has been awaited for at least 10 years, so why fiddle about with it in this Bill? If we give them two years to bring in the new Bill we will do all we possibly can to help the Government. Let us take this subsection out of the Bill. That would give us peace for the time being. Then we could come to the more

moved Amendment No. 7:

Page 2, line 31, after ("effect") insert ("but not before 1st January 1982").

The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany, is remarkably conciliatory, and I appreciate that very much. I thought as he was speaking that if one wanted to find somebody to sell a blind man a pair of spectacles one could find nobody better than the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, because really his whole argument is in effect "Don't bring it in now, let us bring it in in 1982".

Perhaps I may explain to the noble Earl that he has not quite got the point. This is hoping that the Government will seek salvation; they will bring in their legislation and say, "OK, we shall not need it in this Bill so we will take it out and we will have a new Bill". It gives them time to think. Obviously they have not had time to think over this Bill. I have not had time—I took some of my stuff away on holiday to Malta to write up and other noble Lords have suffered equally.

If I may make a personal observation, I think the noble Lord was very misguided to do such a stupid thing on his holidays. There was no point in going on holiday; he could have sat here. I am not so dumb as the noble Lord thinks, because I realise that the purpose of his amendment is to persuade the Government to come along and produce this amending legislation, but I cannot do more than I told him before and I would correct him in regard to one thing. He said that the Government had promised to bring in amending legislation. What the Government said was that they would consider it. Of course we will consider it and we will carry on considering it.

The noble Lord says that in this Bill we have not got it right so we want to make sure that in the next Bill we do get it right, to the satisfaction of the noble Lord. All I can say is that we are considering this and I cannot tell the noble Lord what will be the outcome of it, but I think that it it is right to get rid of these controls, which we believe is the correct thing to do, then we might as well get rid of them now and not in 18 months' time. This is really a delaying tactic, very craftily put by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, but that is all it is and I really suggest that the Committee should not accept it.

This is almost an attack on my character. This is not a crafty move. I am giving the Government time to sort themselves out. They have rushed into so much legislation that they have got themselves into a bit of a tangle. There is no evil intent whatever on my part and this is not a party political issue. All I am saying is, get the new legislation and in the meantime put this in suspense instead of putting

It occurs to me that if this amendment has come about as a result of the noble Lord's fortnight's holiday in Malta I hope he will be able to have a more refreshing holiday next time because I can assure him that it would be a great pity to accept this amendment and delay this alteration.

I must explain that the work I did in Malta was on another set of more complicated amendments that the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, will be dealing with later on.

moved Amendment No. 8:

Page 2, line 43, at end insert—

("(7) So much of the provisions in section 1 and the First Schedule to the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) Act 1946 as requires a compulsory purchase order authorising a compulsory purchase by a local authority to be submitted and confirmed by the confirming authority shall cease to have effect if no objections to the order are made by the owner, lessee or occupier or if all such objections so made are withdrawn, and any such order, instead of requiring the confirmation of the confirming authority, may be confirmed (but without any modification), as an unopposed order, by the local authority who made it.").

I should like to congratulate the noble Baroness on deploying the case as well as she has done. It is not surprising that it is a good case because it is derived from the brief to the noble Baroness from the Association of District Councils which is exactly the same brief as I have, which more or less clinches the matter. The only additional point that I should like to make—and this is one which surely would commend itself to my noble friend—is that the same proposal was put to the Secretary of State by Sir Derek Rayner and his team as part of the exercise in how to effect economies in public expenditure in central Government departments. That, I should have thought, would clinch the matter if the first argument did not do so. Anyway, I look forward very much to hearing what my noble friend has to say.

Before my noble friend replies, I am sure that the Association of County Councils would like to be associated with this amendment and I should like to support it too.

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for the way in which she so succinctly deployed a very persuasive case. As my noble friend Lord Sandford has said, he was speaking from the same brief as the noble Baroness, and therefore it is not surprising that they concurred. My problem is that I have a different brief and I shall do my best to explain to your Lordships why I believe that my brief possibly has the edge on theirs, however excellent theirs may be.

Of course, within the context of the Bill's very substantial relaxations as regards local authorities, this amendment does identify what appears to be a further suitable candidate for relaxation and therefore all our natural sympathies would be with it. It can, after all, be argued that if nobody objects to an order there is no need for ministerial confirmation. But, of course, most people regard the use of compulsory acquisition powers as a fairly draconian step for a public authority to take and in a very different light from that in which they view the other kinds of orders which local authorities make.

Under the present law people, and especially those who are affected by a compulsory purchase order—whether or not they object to it—are assured of an objective and impartial assessment of the reasons which a local authority may advance for taking land. That assurance derives from the fact that the order must be confirmed by a Minister who, in addition to being impartial in the particular case, is also answerable to Parliament. It puts upon local authorities, if one can so put it, a sharper cutting edge. For authorities to be given the power to confirm orders which are not opposed—and that would, of course, include the power to decide whether the objections which have been received have been properly made—would be a very significant step and would arouse all kinds of suspicions and fears.

For those reasons I think that it would be inadvisable to accept this amendment, particularly without further consultation and without serious consideration of the question whether the administrative advantages would be outweighed by the loss of protection to the individual. I shall, however, certainly ensure that the proposition on which the amendment is based is carefully considered, and if the results of that examination are favourable changes could be introduced at a later date, when a suitable legislative opportunity arose. But I feel sure that both the noble Baroness and my noble friend would realise that this is a fairly substantial step which at present, from the point of view of protecting the individual, we feel it would be better not to take.

I accept that this is a fairly substantial step to take and I accept that compulsory purchase orders are not very popular. But if the compulsory purchase order is not objected to, if there are no objections at all, why is it necessary to waste ministerial time and to waste staff in going into it with all the costs involved at present? If the noble Earl will say that he will take the matter back, look at it, talk to his advisers and perhaps consult with us before the next stage of the Bill to see whether it is possible to include it in the present Bill, then I think that perhaps we and the associations might be a little happier about it. But to leave it rather in the air and to say that when there is a proper legislative timetable we might do something about it, is really not very much of a promise.

The answer to the noble Baroness is that very often orders can be made when people do not realise that they will be affected. When a local authority knows that if it makes an order it must have the approval of the Minister—even though 50 per cent. of such orders may be unopposed—that makes the local authority certain that what it is doing is correct and proper and will have the scrutiny of the Minister. It also means that those people who may be affected, but who do not know that they may be affected, will know that it will have the scrutiny of the Minister. One can foresee problems whereby local authorities could make orders and if they knew that they would not have the scrutiny of the Minister they may possibly find it a little too easy to make such orders. People could find that certain purchases were made which affected them, but which they had not realised would affect them.

That is the reason why we think that it would be wrong to accept the amendment. Certainly I shall take it back and look at it again. I should be delighted to have discussion with the noble Baroness, and my noble friend as well, if they would like it. But I am bound to say that I think that at present it would be a fairly large step to take and we feel that it would be inappropriate. However, if the noble Baroness wishes to speak to me about it, she can, by all means, do so.

Will the noble Earl explain a little further? If there are no objections at all and the order comes to the Minister for confirmation, how will the Minister find out that there might be some people around who might be affected by the order, without going for a public inquiry or something of that kind? If he is to have any grounds for including people who have not objected in the first case, but who might object if it comes to the Minister, how does the Minister find out?

The Minister is, of course, an unaffected third party who can see the position dispassionately. The local authority is, of course, an interested party, and that is the reason why it is desirable to have somebody who is totally disconnected with the matter.

I think that the noble Lord, Lord Pargiter, is on fairly strong ground. These compulsory purchase orders are not made just like "that". They are made under the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) Act, 1946, and the code regarding the amount of advertising, notification, the intervals of time that must elapse and so on, is all fairly specifically laid down. The right way to deal with the point which my noble friend is making about the danger of orders being slipped through unobtrusively when no one is watching, is best taken care of by looking at that legislation and seeing whether it is firm and watertight—not by requiring orders to be submitted to the Minister if there are no objections. I am most grateful to my noble friend and I hope that he really will have the matter looked at before the next stage.

Like the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, I am not completely happy with the Minister's explanation and I cannot quite see the point behind it. I shall certainly read what he said in Hansard. If he will take the matter back and perhaps have some discussions with us before the next stage, then we shall see whether we should come back at the next stage and perhaps press it.

By all means; I am quite happy to do that.

In that case I am happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 9:

I would find it very difficult—indeed rather disagreeable—to disagree with my noble friend Lord Ridley in this fairly substantial amendment which he has put forward, because it has the effect of restoring parts of the No. 1 Bill which originally started in your Lordships' House. The proposed schedule would implement some of the proposals in the Government's White Paper which was published in September last year, and it would reduce bureaucracy and extend local authority discretion.

I am grateful to my noble friend for taking into account not only the White Paper proposals but also some of the proposals which my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport had agreed after considering the representations which were made in response to the White Paper. Because of the pressure of time we had intended to bring these matters forward not in this Bill but in a later Bill. They have been the subject of wide consultation. They are uncontroversial and I accept that they will relieve local authorities of burdens, inconvenience and limitations which they would like to see the back of sooner rather than later. I would be happy to accept the amendment.

I am deeply grateful to my noble friend.

moved Amendment No. 10:

Page 132, line 3, at end insert—

I am not at all happy with the full details of this amendment. I speak on this not only as an ordinary citizen. For five years during the war I served in the fire service, and although that is 35 years ago I believe that some of the points that arose then are pertinent to this amendment. I was one of those who welcomed the introduction of the National Fire Service. It introduced better training, standardisation, mobilisation, and I was heartily in favour of its introduction. Much as I would like to see as much abolition of bureaucracy from our administration and domination by central Government as possible, this is an issue in which we are looking at fire risk, fire hazards, and the protection of the lives of people.

The noble Viscount referred to the arrangements for mutual assistance. Surely this is an important matter, because although the establishment of one local fire authority may be satisfactory, the establishment may be such that it weakens the possibility of giving mutual assistance to an area in which there is considerable fire risk. It would appear to me that the Secretary of State must have some overall powers. There may be some case for relaxing Sections 5 to 9 concerning combination schemes, but surely the Secretary of State here also must see that these do not weaken fire cover. Therefore, he has an interest which must be carried through.

Section 12 proposes lifting the Minister's powers to ensure that the discharge of functions through other bodies is satisfactory. There could be false economy by a fire authority using, say, industrial fire services attached to works for general fire cover. It may be that that may be advisable in some areas but it may be that it would considerably weaken the fire cover and the protection of our people, or there may be further development of part-time forces. I shall come to that later.

In moving this amendment it was stated that the conditions of service laid down in the 1947 Act had been suspended by an Act of 1959. When we come later to deal with further points on this I should like to know whether this covers all the points laid down in the 1947 Act, which I understand deal with ranks, pay and allowances, hours of duty and leave, as well as the maintenance of discipline and appeals. I should like to know whether the 1959 Act has dealt with all those points.

Section 19 deals with the necessity for fire brigade establishments to be approved by the Secretary of State, and it is suggested that this should be taken away. I consider it essential that this power should remain. There must be an assurance that there is adequate fire cover for any area which can not only deal with the fire cover in that local fire service area but also give reinforcement assistance to other areas. We know that there has been agitation in some fire authority areas for weakening the establishment and taking on far more part-timers. It may be that that is not only of concern because it weakens the fire cover in that area; it may have a prejudicial effect on mobilisation in the event of a big fire over that authority area.

The 1947 Act provides that the Secretary of State shall make regulations prescribing standards of efficiency and training. I know what happened when the National Fire Service took over the old fire authorities and the improvement there was in training and efficiency all round. He was to make regulation also for the design and performance of equipment. We must keep in mind that in recent years there has been a number of appalling fires. Therefore, we are not just dealing with a simple question of relaxation of controls. If the Committee is to agree to this we must be satisfied that we in no way weaken fire cover or put people at risk in our areas.

The oversight of the Secretary of State could, I hope, include not only the number and type of appliances which should go to the various types of incident, because there are different incidents which require different types of pumps and different types of other auxilliary appliances, but also the number of firemen who should ride on the appliances. It should also cover whether or not in a particular area or combination of areas there are adequate turntable ladders, adequate chemical decontamination units, emergency units, and so on. I would urge that this question be given far more serious consideration to ensure that standards of efficiency are not reduced, and that there will not be a move in any area of an economy nature, without the Secretary of State having any power to interfere, which could increase fire danger and fire risk.

I should like to support this amendment in principle. It is probably true that on the formation of the National Fire Service there was a great increase in efficiency over the prewar system, but for 30 years since the reversion of the National Fire Service to local authority control the local fire authorities have responsibly exercised their duties under the 1947 Act. Many of the Home Secretary's controls, many of which have never been exercised, appear still to remain after this Bill, and it is highly questionable whether this continued control is necessary.

Advice has been very detailed on occasion. For example, there has been the case of the three separate Home Office circulars advising fire authorities on how to stitch the collars of their uniforms. If the Home Office have time to send out this sort of circular in triplicate it looks as though they have far too many people looking for something to do. I am sorry that the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, has put all this down in one single amendment because I think that some parts would be acceptable whereas other parts might not. I hope that the Government will give consideration to, if not the whole of the amendment, at least parts of it.

I find myself in great agreement with what the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, said but I was rather surprised that he broke off when he did. It seems to me that the most essential one of all is Section 21. If there is to be effective co-operation between neighbouring fire brigades it is surely essential that there should be a common standard of training and of equipment. If you do not do that there is a great danger that cooperation will not be effective. I should have thought that there is a strong case for retaining the powers of the Secretary of State to impose common standards of training and common standards of equipment.

Taken as a whole these two amendments to which my noble friend Lord Ridley has spoken propose a fundamental change to the Fire Services Act 1947, which has been the basis of the organisation of fire brigades since the 1939–45 war. If the changes proposed in the two amendments were made they would remove all the powers which the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Scotland have possessed in relation to the fire authorities since the days of the National Fire Service, about which the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, spoke.

May I look at these amendments in a little more detail. Three of the changes suggested in Amendment No. 10 have been the subject of discussions between my right honourable friend the Home Secretary and the local authority as- sociations for some time. They are the repeal of Section 17, of Section 18, and of Section 19 of the 1947 Act; those sections dealing with discipline regulations, appointments and promotions, and establishments of fire brigades. If this amendment were made the present regulations on discipline and on appointments and promotions would cease to have effect. May I just make it clear, because I did not think my noble friend was quite clear on that point, that as the White Paper on Local Authority Controls, Command 7634, made clear, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary is relinquishing his control of approval for the appointment of chief fire officers.

I think it is fair for me to say that the local authority associations are aware already of the view of the Home Office that we do not accept these proposals in their entirety. Many of your Lordships have said that they wish these proposals had been put forward individually, but I quite understand why my noble friend has put them forward en bloc. The objections of my right honourable friend rest on the fact that the fire service is a partnership. It is under local authority control but it is national in character in that, because of the work that the service has to perform and its contribution to public safety, the maintenance of common and acceptable standards is particularly important. I do not think it is really quite enough to say that the fire authorities would themselves maintain a national code of discipline and common entrance and promotion requirements. Because of the special place of the fire service, by reason of the nature of its work, these are matters in which national Government have a responsibility.

As to the size of fire brigades—their establishments—I listened very closely to what my noble friend Viscount Ridley said, but I did not feel that a case was made out to the effect that fire authorities are unreasonably restrained by the requirement to obtain approval for reductions in establishments. Indeed, I must say that as I listened to my noble friend I wondered whether fire authorities may not have overlooked the advantage to them of the present procedures. When fire authorities are faced with the need to make reductions, but also with understandable concern about the objections to those reductions, they can point to the fact that their own judgment has to be examined and confirmed by the Home Secretary, who is, of course, assisted by the professional advice of Her Majesty's Inspector of Fire Services.

Regarding the other changes suggested in the amendments, that is to say, the changes which are not to be found in Sections 17, 18 and 19 of the 1947 Act—changes which, incidentally, the local authority associations themselves have described as minor—I think I ought to say to your Lordships that these have been put to the Home Secretary, but only very recently; in fact, it was less than a month ago. Within my right honourable friend's department we have not yet fully assessed the validity of the case for doing away with them. Those controls which I am talking about now are not onerous in their effects but I think they are reasonable reserve powers. We will certainly look at each of them more closely, but so far as this Bill is concerned I do not think that this evening I could possibly accept the changes proposed. I should like to give just one example of why I am being so hesitant here in this lot of sections. For instance, my noble friend mentioned Section 101 of the Local Government Act, which enables functions of one local authority to be discharged by another local authority. That is not quite the same thing as forming a true combined fire authority, and it is matters of this kind which need to be looked at with some care.

In ending the reply which I am trying to give may I go back to the question of partnership. I really do believe that the Fire Service Acts provide a partnership between the fire authorities and Government. I also believe that the amendment would alter, and indeed could destroy, that balance. I am sure that that is the last thing which is the objective of my noble friend, and I have no doubt that the representatives of fire service organisations would deplore the effects of the amendment if it were made. Through the Central Fire Brigades Advisory Council, which is constituted under Section 29 of the 1947 Act, a working relationship is at present achieved between fire authorities, the Secretary of State and the staff interests, and is because of the harmony which is achieved in that body that some of the powers challenged in the amendments do not need to be used at all.

Incidentally, it is because the Central Fire Brigades Advisory Council exists that advice of a very detailed nature can be given to fire brigades. This was criticised by my noble friend Lord Gisborough as being evidence of too many people working in the Home Office. My noble friend is under a misapprehension there. The detailed advice which comes from the Central Fire Brigades Advisory Council is as a result of the three partners in the council getting together and deciding what is best for uniforms, for operations, for training or for something like that and then sending out that advice to individual fire brigades.

I do seriously say that I think it is not to be expected that the Central Fire Brigade Advisory Council, in which, as I say, there are the local authorities, the fire brigades organisations and also the Government, would continue to fulfil its present harmonious role of a working relationship if the background against which the council operates would be that the Secretary of State had virtually given up all his powers in relation to the fire service. It is for those reasons that I ask my noble friend to think again about pressing this amendment. We will certainly continue to give consideration to the points which have been put to us by the local authority associations, but I think this amendment goes too far and too fast.

I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. Can I comment briefly on what the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, said? I do not think he quite realised what an extremely efficient and skilled fire service we have, what tremendous improvements there have been since the 1947 Act came into operation and how much more sophisticated fire engines, for example, are than they were in those days. This is obvious when one thinks about it. I refuse to call them appliances because to me a fire engine is a fire engine and should be called such and not called an appliance.

Nor did the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, appear to trust local government to do what Parliament requires of it. Throughout his speech there was a definite line of not trusting the local authorities. I hope that will not be repeated too often in the nights in front of us. I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Belstead for his careful reply and careful consideration of the issues which I have raised. On the basis of the fact that some of this is still being discussed and in the hope that the points I have made have been taken by the Home Office, I have pleasure in withdrawing this amendment.

moved Amendment No. 10A:

Page 132, line 14, at end insert—

(". Section 131 (incorporation of default provisions of Public Health Act 1936)").

If this amendment were accepted it would remove the default powers from Ministers under the Food and Drugs Act. It is the objective of the Government to lessen ministerial control over local authorities but it is not the intention of the Government in this Bill to remove or repeal the default powers of the Minister. Amendment No. 4, which your Lordships considered earlier and which was accepted, makes it clear in Clause 1 that what is being repealed in Schedule 1 is the power to give local authorities general directions and the power to require local authorities to make certain byelaws. The amendment to Clause 1 specifically removes the repeal of default powers, and having deliberately excluded that in Clause 1, it would not be appropriate to insert it again in Schedule 1.

The amendment is of no great consequence and I therefore beg leave to withdraw it.

moved Amendment No. 11:

Page 132, line 22, before ("(requirement") insert ("(1)").

moved Amendment No. 13:

It seems that every amendment so far has required one to get into a different alliance; on this occasion I wish to encourage my noble friend to resist this amendment from the CBI. I say that because I think it can be fairly claimed that the pursuit of smoke control—and, after all, that is what we are talking about—by local authorities under the Clean Air Act 1956 has been one of their signal achievements, not an achievement by local authorities on their own but by local authorities and industry in concert, proceeding by the well-known British practice of achieving the best practical reduction of smoke at the least possible cost. For that to be done and to be sustained, the important thing to concentrate on is the partnership between local government and local industry, and all over the country there are partnerships of various kinds set up to deal with the various forms of pollution that occur.

Some forms of air pollution are so complex and the methods of dealing with them involve so much high technology and occur relatively rarely throughout the country that it is appropriate for the Government, in the guise of what was known as the Alkali Inspectorate, now part of the Health and Safety Executive, to be the body with which industry has to deal. But in this field of smoke control—and I fully agree that the technology for arresting smoke, dirt and grit is, and will become more, complicated—it is important for the expertise to reside in the hands of local industry and local government and not with central Government. My submission is that that relationship is served best if the division of responsibility between central and local government in this matter is clarified in the way the Government propose, and I urge my noble friend Lord Mottistone to put his trust in this case in local government.

I agree with my noble friend Lord Mottistone that grit, dust and arrestment are very complicated parts of the Bill, and I confess that most of us were not familiar with them until we came across the Bill. I am glad that, as my noble friend Lord Sandford moves round in a sort of Paul Jones on these amendments, he should find himself on this occasion allied with me. I assure him that is a good stance for him to be in and I suggest he repeats it throughout the remainder of the Bill.

The power with which the amendment is concerned has never been used—the Secretary of State has had this power for 25 years and has not used it—which suggests an argument for repealing it; and I am sure that that is an argument which my noble friend Lord Mottistone envisaged. I am sure that the objectives which my noble friend seeks will be adequately attained by the retention of the right of appeal to the Minister, and that right is not affected by the Bill, and thus anybody so affected will still retain a right of appeal to the Minister. I concede that this is not a great point. If the powers were retained, there would be no extra cost to the Government; but as they have not been used for 25 years—the whole of the time the Secretary of State has had those powers—and as it is part of the Government's philosophy to remove unnecessary powers from central Government, and as that is what the local authorities wish for, it seems on balance that it would be better for these powers to be removed in view of the assurance I have given that the right of appeal to the Minister will still be retained.

The fact that powers have not been used for 25 years may not mean that they have not been of value; for the reasons I advanced, it may well be that the fact they are there has made people reach agreement which they otherwise might not have reached. However, this is not a vital point. It is useful to have been reminded by my noble friend that the right of appeal still remains and, with that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 14:

Paragraph 10 of Schedule 2 relaxes the Secretary of State's regulation-making powers in connection with the condition and the use of receptacles for controlled waste. Instead the collection authorities will be able to serve a notice requiring the occupiers of premises to take action in respect of any of the matters that were to have been covered by those regulations. I do not anticipate that there will be many, or indeed any, unreasonable requirements imposed by collection authorities when they serve notices. But I fully accept that the occupier's right of appeal against unreasonable requirements should be protected and that is only natural justice.

I welcome my noble friend's amendment and commend it to the Committee. I would only add that in welcoming it I am bound to tell him that at the moment it is absolutely unworkable as drafted. But we shall be putting down some Government amendments in addition to make sure that at the Report stage it will be workable. I am grateful to my noble friend for putting down this amendment.

Before my noble friend behind me accepts that welcome development, I should like to say on behalf of the Association of District Councils that we should of course like to see not only this amendment, which apparently does not work, but the Government's which I hope will. I must reserve my position until we have had discussions on this.

I feel that with the ready acceptance by the Government of the principle behind my amendment and the fact that the Government have undertaken themselves to put down an amendment which I trust will appeal to my noble friend Lord Sandford as well, with pleasure I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

With the greatest respect to my noble friend, I had hoped he would not be too quick in withdrawing his amendment because I have just said I accepted it. What I said was that in addition to that we would put down some other amendments to make the totality workable. I would merely chide my noble friend Lord Sandford in this respect: he said he was speaking on behalf of the Association of District Councils. I would remind him that of course he speaks entirely for himself and that not even the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, speaks on behalf of anybody, even though he may have a brief for the Association of District Councils.

I do beg your Lordships' pardon for having misunderstood the intentions of my noble friend the Minister. I certainly do not wish to withdraw my amendment.

moved Amendment No. 14A:

Page 135, leave out lines 37 and 38.

We have moved with astonishing rapidity from grit arrestment to dustbin control. I welcome my noble friend's general thesis of trying to reduce bureaucracy, but this amendment would remove the duty on a collection authority to consult and secure the consent of the highway authority to its intention to serve a notice under Section 13 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 requiring the placing of a receptacle on the public highway.

I really cannot think there would be many instances where the placing of a dustbin in a suitable place for collection would be open to serious objection on road traffic grounds. But this is a case where the functions of two sorts of authorities overlap and the collection authority may wish to have a bin placed perhaps on the carriageway itself when, for instance, there is no pavement. This will affect the duties of the highway authority and it seems to me to be only sensible that its consent should be obtained in these kinds of cases. It will not place an onerous burden on the authorities, and I do not believe it represents an unreasonable or unnecessary fetter on the discretion of collection authorities to provide what they consider to be the most efficient service for their circumstances.

As the functions of the authorities overlap, I should have thought that they ought both to be involved. I am sure that they will devise suitable arrangements which will keep paperwork to a minimum for securing the consents which are necessary. For these reasons I hope that my noble friend will feel able not to press his amendment.

If I may intervene, before the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, deals with that reply, may I ask the Minister whether he does not consider that local authorities do a great many things as a matter of common sense which they are not obliged to do by statute? It would be quite a simple matter for the refuse disposal officer in the district authority simply to get to the telephone and talk to the person in charge of highways to make sure that whatever he proposes does not create a traffic hazard. This would occur in the normal course of events, whether he was obliged to do it or not. So why must we have a power in the statute compelling him to enter into those consultations and to obtain the formal approval of someone in the highways authority for him to do something which he is going to do anyway?

It is perfectly true that he can pick up the telephone, and no doubt he will do so. The only purpose of this is to say that where there is a conflict of interest between two local authorities it would be right that they should be consulted. That is all this seeks to do.

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for his help on this matter. I am sorry that my noble friend is not willing to assist me a little more in reducing bureaucracy, particularly as we could have got it through while my noble friend Lord Ridley was out of the Chamber, but there it is. I shall think about what the noble Earl has had to say and see whether I feel strongly enough about it to move any further amendments, but I rather doubt it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 14B:

Under Section 72 of the Public Health Act 1936 a local authority can make bye-laws enabling the authority to serve a notice requiring the occupier of premises to place his house refuse for collection at a point on the premises which can be conveniently reached from the street which is used for access by the collectors. This amendment seeks to enable a local authority to serve a notice requiring the occupier to place his dustbin at a point outside his premises and on the highway.

While I understand the reasoning behind the amendment, I am bound to say that I could not advise the Committee to accept it because it is defective in two respects. First, it is proposed that the amendment will lapse once Section 13(7) of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 comes into force. In fact, of course, Section 13(7) was implemented from 1st August 1978. Secondly, the proposed amendment is unsatisfactory because there is no provision for appeal, nor for obtaining the consent of the highway authority. For those reasons I am afraid that I would not find it possible to accept my noble friend's amendment.