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

My Lords, in the 12 months to September the retail price index rose by 15·9 per cent. and wholesale prices rose by 14·8 per cent. Nationalised industry prices included in the RPI have risen by 25·1 per cent. over the same period.

My Lords, do not those figures illustrate the fact that the private sector, through better use of manpower and higher productivity, has been substantially more successful in keeping prices down than the public sector?

My Lords, my noble friend draws attention to a point of great importance. Many of the nationalised industries are not subject to the same pressures of the market place as are industries in the private sector, and too often this has meant that their costs have increased and their prices have increased to a far greater extent than has occurred in the private sector.

My Lords, does not this show how very badly indeed the Government have looked after the nationalised industries during the last 12 months?

My Lords, I do not know whether the noble Lord is suggesting that the Government should intervene in the conduct of the nationalised industries. That is not our policy. We believe that the nationalised industries ought to be conducted efficiently and well, and it should be possible—indeed, there is a very heavy duty resting upon them—greatly to moderate the level of their price increases.

My Lords, is it not something of a contradiction in the Government's anti-inflation policy that monopoly industries should be allowed to pass on prices, which accentuate the squeeze on the private sector, where most people would think that they have gone far enough already?

My Lords, there is a great deal in what the noble Lord says. Many of the nationalised industries are in a monopoly position and, as with all monopolies, this enables them to pass on excessive cost increases and excessive price increases. It is the Government's policy to reduce the monopoly of the nationalised industries wherever this can sensibly be done; where the monopoly continues, it has been the Government's policy to refer some of these monopolies to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission for a report.

My Lords, will the noble Lord say that it is because of the Government's policy of non-intervention in nationalised industries that they have lost two highly capable chairmen of nationalised industries in the last few months?

My Lords, the present Question relates to the prices charged by the nationalised industries. I do not know whether the noble Lord is trying to suggest that the high level of these price increases is due to the loss of the two chairmen in question.

My Lords, does my noble friend recall that when the post-war Government nationalised these industries they did so on the grounds that they alleged that they were failing the nation? Do not the figures which my noble friend has just given to the House suggest that, applying that logic, they had better be very speedily de-nationalised?

My Lords, I would not go quite as far as my noble friend suggests, but where they can sensibly be privatised we are following that policy. But there may always be a residual core of industries which remain in the public sector, and we believe that it is in the interests of everybody—not least in the interests of the nationalised industries themselves—that they should be conducted efficiently, that they should restrain their cost increases, and that they should keep their price increases down to more reasonable levels.

My Lords, nevertheless, will the noble Lord accept that, in requiring the British Gas Corporation to bring the level of gas prices up to the price of oil, the Government are interfering in the conduct of a nationalised industry, and would they cease to do so?

My Lords, in regard to gas prices the noble Lord is not entirely on a good point. For the period covered by the Question and the reply, gas prices rose by just over 16 per cent., which is substantially less than the increase in other nationalised industry prices. Therefore, if we excluded gas prices the position would look worse and not better.

My Lords, can the noble Lord say what instructions the Government gave to the Gas Corporation on prices?

My Lords, that goes wide of the present Question.

My Lords, can my noble friend say by how much the prices of household goods, particularly those of food and clothing, supplied by the private sector have risen?

My Lords, food prices have risen by about 11 per cent. compared with an increase of 15.9 per cent. in the RPI. Clothing and footwear prices have risen by 8 per cent. and household durables have risen by about 9 per cent. The position is that shop prices generally have risen substantially less than the RPI.

My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that some of his replies went very wide of the original Question that was asked? Is he further aware that the main price rises which have already taken place and which are due to come have been due to the results of direct Government intervention?

No, my Lords, that is not true. There are of course some price increases which are due to factors outside the control of the individual nationalised industry. This is particularly true in the case of energy prices. But far too often the excessive rise in nationalised industry prices is due to the fact that their pay settlements have run at a significantly higher level than pay settlements in the private sector.

My Lords, will the Government intensify their references to the Office of Fair Trading to investigate the price of monopolies in general, and also in particular of the nationalised industries?

My Lords, I note the point that my noble friend makes.

My Lords, does the Minister agree that the directive that the Government have issued to the water industry to use current cost accounting next year will increase prices to the water user?

My Lords, current cost accounting itself goes somewhat wide of this Question but it represents a sensible advance in accounting methods.

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

No, my Lords. Her Majesty's Government have concluded from several reviews that the considerable expenditure involved in the necessary research, development and design of wind-assisted commercial ships is not justified at the present time. Should a commercial organisation decide to undertake the design and construction of a sailing ship of novel design, it could apply to the Department of Industry for support for the research and development aspects of the project.

My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that reply, may I ask him whether he is aware that our main maritime trading competitors, such as Japan, are giving serious consideration to the development of these ships as an alternative means of saving fuel? Further, as we are an island where large tankers and so forth come into deep water ports such as Milford Haven, could not the Government give serious consideration to the financial feasibility of developing smaller container ships and tankers for transportation of commodities from these large deep water ports to other destinations in the United Kingdom and the Continent of Europe?

My Lords, it is quite true that other countries are examining the question, as we have done, but, apart from a Japanese case, no owner or operator has been prepared to place an order for a wind-assisted ship. In Japan a shipping company has fitted a small tanker of 1,600 tons with unconventional sails controlled by a computer. It is estimated that a 10 per cent. fuel saving will be achieved. This has yet to be proved in practice, as has the efficient and effective operation of the sails. If I may go further, I would add that if there were such a ship then no doubt this method would be a great help in bringing such a ship into port, but as yet there has not been enough experimental work done in this matter.

My Lords, has the noble Viscount seen the papers as issued as pre-prints for the symposium on wind propulsion of commercial sailing ships which is taking place under the auspices of the Royal Institution of Naval Architects next month? Is he aware that on first sight it appears that the conventional sailing ship is never likely to return as a cargo carrier because her manning would be too costly; but that there is a considerable chance that by automation and with the aid of computers a sailing ship without a crew, or with a very small crew, might indeed be viable?

Yes, my Lords, there is to be a three-day symposium on sail and wind-assisted commercial ships to be opened by His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh in the early part of next month. It has been arranged by the Royal Institution of Naval Architects from the 4th to the 6th November and a wide range of papers will be presented. This will no doubt cause a flurry of interest in the press. It represents a serious attempt to examine a wide range of topics relevant to the use of wind assistance in the light of current technology. Your Lordships will see from the programme, however, that most of the papers are academic studies and that they are not presented by owners or operators.

My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that a sailing ship without a crew is my idea of ideal sailing in the North Sea in rough weather?

Yes, my Lords, I go along with the noble and learned Lord.

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

My Lords, the two Canadian Ministers came as emissaries of the Canadian Prime Minister to tell Her Majesty's Government of the intentions of the Canadian Government on this subject.

My Lords, does the position of Her Majesty's Government remain as stated by the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, on 25th July 1979, that if a request to patriate the Canadian Constitution were to be received from the Parliament of Canada it would be in accordance with precedent for the Government to introduce in Parliament, and for Parliament to enact, appropriate legislation complying with that request, as we have done on the 14 occasions since Confederation when the Federal Parliament has made such requests? Has the noble and learned Lord noted that the Canadian House of Commons voted by 156 to 83 in favour of the proposals presented to it by Mr. Trudeau? Would the Government publish a document setting out the basis on which the Canadian Legislature is asking us now to act?

My Lords, no request has been received as yet from the Canadian Legislature and I notice from the public prints that it is still going through that Legislature. So far as I know, there is no change in the constitutional position since 27th July. It so happens that the Parliamentary Answer I have was given in another place by my honourable friend Mr. Luce; it would surprise me if it were different from that which was given by my noble friend Lord Trefgarne.

My Lords, are the Government satisfied that Canadian Ministers are sufficiently alive to the embarrassment which might be caused to this Parliament if proposals which were controversial inside Canada were to be put forward?

I do not as yet feel any embarrassment myself, my Lords.

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

My Lords, the broadcasting authorities are responsible for the content of their programmes. It is for them to decide what programmes to broadcast and it would be contrary to long-established practice, endorsed by successive Governments, for Ministers to seek to influence their decisions. It is therefore for the BBC alone to decide whether to show "The War Game" on their television programmes.

My Lords, while thanking the Minister for that reply, may I ask whether he is aware that 12 years ago, when the BBC first suppressed this film, the director wrote to me saying that the impact would be so terrible that if they showed it, fathers would kill their children and mothers would jump out of windows? However, that did not prevent the BBC from selling the film to private societies for exhibition. Is the noble Lord aware that it has now been seen by perhaps half a million people, and no fathers have killed their children or mothers jumped out of windows? Is he further aware that it has been sold to the German education authorities who have made a German soundtrack, and every school now sees this film every year in Germany? Is it not the right of British citizens to see what a nuclear war would be like, if it is possible for German children to see it?

My Lords, I am aware that the noble Lord wished this film to be shown and I am also aware that the BBC have not shown it. I have not seen copies of correspondence between the corporation and the noble Lord. There are other ways than seeing this particular film that the people of this country can become acquainted with the possible effects of nuclear war.

My Lords, irrespective of the merits or otherwise of showing this film, do the Government realise that no effective civil defence against nuclear bombardment of this country is possible and that it is gravely misleading the public to suggest otherwise?

My Lords, we believe that to be seen to be as much prepared at home as possible, as well as capable of military deterrence and defence, will make war less likely, and that is the policy the Government intend to pursue?

My Lords, may I ask my noble friend to say whether his departmental officials have vetted the film for accuracy about civil defence, bearing in mind the great expertise in his department? Will he bear in mind that the BBC is not always accurate, as it was not on the one o'clock news when it announced that Parliament would reassemble today?

My Lords, I am not aware whether officials of my right honourable friend's department have either seen or vetted this film. I have myself not seen it.

My Lords, following the supplementary question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, may I ask the Minister whether he appreciates the widespread concern about the ineffectiveness of any civil defence against a nuclear attack, as illustrated yesterday by the largest demonstration there has ever been in this country? Is he aware that wherever "The War Game" is shown it is wanted to be seen not merely by crowded audiences but by hundreds who cannot obtain admission? Will the noble Lord at least send to the BBC the Official Report of these discussions so it may be aware of our desire to see that this matter of public interest is shown on the BBC?

My Lords, the noble Lord asks me whether I am aware of a variety of things. I am aware that since 1945 the peace of this country has been kept by the contribution which we have made to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. Part of that contribution means being prepared, so far as we can be, both at home and abroad. In answer to the second part of the noble Lord's supplementary question, of course I reply, yes; I shall indeed draw the attention of the BBC to the exchanges in your Lordships' House on this issue.

My Lords, if a new information film were to be made on the same lines as "The War Game", in colour and brought up-to-date with the most recent knowledge on the effects of a nuclear bombardment, would the Minister give an undertaking not to interfere with the making of such a film or the showing of it on television?

My Lords, the whole basis of all the answers I have given in the last few minutes is that the Government do not interfere with what is actually broadcast.

My Lords, in view of the Minister's reference to NATO, may I ask him to assure us that it is the Government's policy to continue to fulfil the pledge about the increase of our defences that was made to that organisation?

I think that is going very wide of the original Question, my Lords.

My Lords, with the leave of the House, at a convenient moment after 3.45 my noble friend Lord Belstead will be repeating a Statement on the prison officers' dispute. That will be followed by a Business Statement by my noble friend the Leader of the House.

It may also be for the convenience of your Lordships to know that dinner will be available this evening. It is expected that the Report stage of the Local Government, Planning and Land (No. 2) Bill will be adjourned at approximately 7 p.m. for approximately 40 minutes.

moved Amendment No. 43:

Page 15, leave out lines 19 to 22.

My Lords, we discussed most of the arguments involved in this matter when we were considering Amendment No. 41, which the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, moved to Clause 14. The Government's case is that we must prevent the risk of cross-subsidisation. We must therefore require authorities to calculate separately the rate of return that their DLOs are earning on the separate parts of their business. We must have information available in as clear a form as possible, so that councillors and ratepayers can see just where their operations are succeeding and where they are failing.

We have looked at the arguments so very well put by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, at this stage, and in Committee, too. We have looked at the arguments and have weighed the objections, and in the end have concluded that notwithstanding the points that he makes—and some of them have some validity in themselves—in the context of the totality of what we are seeking to achieve by these measures, we cannot accept the amendment. Clearly we could debate this question at greater length, but I fear that we should not get very far in so doing. Since the last stage we have discussed this matter with the institutes, the professional bodies, to which the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, referred earlier. While certainly they do not say that what we are requiring is easy, nevertheless, as the noble Lord himself has said, the view is that, yes, it can be done. We recognise the possible difficulties, but on balance we feel that the weight of the argument is such that we cannot accept the amendment.

My Lords, I very much regret that the noble Lord cannot accept the amendment. I feel that I must correct him ever so slightly; I do not think that he in any way sought to mislead the House. He referred to the professional bodies and I think that I ought to speak for my own Institute of Chartered Accountants in this particular respect. The institute said—and I have the correspondence—that segregation in this way, and the requirement of a rate of return on capital employed on each description of work, would produce a very considerable degree of approximation. I think that I ought to make that clear. My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

My Lords, before I call the next amendment, I should point out that if it is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 44.

moved Amendment No. 43A:

Page 15, line 38, leave out ("shall have power at any time, if he thinks fit, to") and insert ("may, if the rate of return on the capital employed is less than the required rate,").

My Lords, I wonder whether I may briefly support my noble friend Lord Sandford, and thank him for mentioning that I raised this matter at the Committee stage. I am thankful to say that I arrived here just in the nick of time. A point which I think should be stressed is that the Bill as originally drafted and the Bill as still drafted fails to carry out the intentions of the Government as declared in the Explanatory Memorandum. If noble Lords would turn to col. 251 of the Official Report, or, indeed, to the Explanatory Memorandum attached to the Bill as it came to us, they will find that paragraph 4 of that Explanatory Memorandum said, relation to Part III, that it:

"enables the Secretary of State to deprive authorities of the power to maintain direct labour organisations where a prescribed rate of return on capital has not been achieved …".

I would suggest, bearing in mind that that is clearly the purpose, that the purpose should always be stated where it is clearly the intention of the Government and of Parliament, and that should be done in this particular case; and that therefore this simple amendment—either my noble friend's or mine, which differ only to the extent that he has the word "and" in front—should be accepted. Accordingly, I am thankful to be able to support him.

My Lords, I think your Lordships will recall that at the Committee stage of the Bill the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, conceded, as reported in cols. 247, 248, 249 and 251 of Volume 413, No. 184, of the Official Report, that there was considerable concern about the Secretary of State's unrestricted and, some people would suggest, unprecedented powers in this clause, first, to call for a special report under subsection (4) and, secondly, to require cessation of operations of a direct labour organisation under subsection (5). As the noble Lord, Lord Renton, has said, it does not even carry out the wishes or the intentions as set out in the Explanatory Memorandum. I had hoped, and I am sure several of your Lordships had hoped after the encouraging words of the noble Lord the Minister, that there would have been some amendments put down to this Bill; but I hope that, in the absence of that, your Lordships will be willing to accept this amendment, which I think goes most of the way to settling the doubts, the problems and the reservations which were expressed at Committee stage.

My Lords, the powers taken by subsection (4) are very wide indeed. They provide:

"The Secretary of State shall have power at any time, if he thinks fit, to direct a local authority or development body to make and submit to him, within such time as he may specify in the direction, a special report …";

and then the remainder of the subsection covers that. These are very wide powers. Indeed, on the receipt of the special report required under this particular subsection he may, under the current drafting of the Bill, order the closure of all or any part of a local authority's direct labour organisations even if there are no irregularities in the accounts which are produced.

These are very wide powers indeed, and, if I may say so, they highlight the whole of the Government's attitude towards local authorities. Their attitude is based on the assumption that local authorities do not know what they are doing, that their electorates are not informed and that they are not subject to any of the ordinary democratic checks. This is a direct taking of power by the central Government on the basis that the central Government know best, and they can exercise it precisely as a matter of caprice or personal whim of the Minister and the local authority has got to come to heel.

I understand that, if Amendment No. 43A is carried, then Amendment No. 44, which is in the names of my noble friends Lady Fisher of Rednal and Lord Sefton of Garston and myself, will not be able to be called. I am bound to say on behalf of myself and my noble friends that we much prefer Amendment No. 44 to Amendment No. 43A, which has been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Sandford. Undoubtedly, however, the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, is much better than the existing wording of the section, and for my own part I am constrained to support it on those grounds—that it is better, and in politics it is sometimes better to have half a loaf than no loaf at all. So we shall wait to see what happens to the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, and shall reserve our rights accordingly.

My Lords, when we had quite a lengthy discussion on this in Committee I undertook to have another look at the drafting, but I hope I was careful to say that that re-examination would be limited to the wording and would not extend to the substance, because quite clearly there is a difference between the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, and myself as to the intentions of what we are proposing here; and I am not so sure that the same is the case in relation to the points raised by my noble friends Lord Sandford and Lord Renton.

The Government have always envisaged that it would be failure to earn the rate of return which would precipitate the call for a special report, and it was on that basis that the clause was drafted and the Explanatory Memorandum was drafted, too. Meanwhile, however, it has been pointed out that there are other circumstances where action might be necessary; for example, in relation to abuses of the tendering procedure. Thus, although the Explanatory Memorandum remains a substantially true description of our purposes, it is not necessarily an exhaustive one. There is, of course, no opportunity to amend the Explanatory Memorandum at this stage; it is not part of the Bill, and has served its purpose of giving a general description of the effects of the Bill. I understand very well the arguments put forward in support of this amendment, and, as I undertook at Committee stage, we have examined the drafting very carefully indeed. At that stage it was obvious on all sides that there was much concern over the words

"the Secretary of State shall have power at any time if he thinks fit".

At first glance, it could look like a very autocratic discretion. Both my noble friends in moving this amendment have done us a service in pointing out how little difference there is between this formula and the familiar phrase, "the Secretary of State may".

My noble friend's amendment as a whole, however, makes a real change in the meaning of the provision. It seeks to restrict the power of the Secretary of State to call on an authority to prepare a special report to those circumstances in which there has been a failure to earn the required rate of return. At earlier stages in the development of our policy I might have found it easy to agree with him. Certainly, a failure to make the return has been the trigger that we have always envisaged as the most important and likely occasion for a request for a report. I have no doubt that, in practice, the Secretary of State will be looking for that very thing.

It has been pointed out with some force that there are, as I have indicated, other circumstances in which it might be useful to be able to ask an authority to justify itself. For example, an authority might be tempted to comply with the letter of the tendering provisions but to avoid its merits. There is no requirement, and we do not seek to impose one, that authorities should always accept the lowest offer received as a result of the invitation issued under Clause 8. It would be open to an authority to continue to give work to its direct labour organisation in the face of the evidence of competition that there were cheaper and more efficient alternatives. It would be easy to fix direct labour organisation prices on this basis to ensure an apparently satisfactory rate of return, but such a case would cry out for investigation.

We have been persuaded that we need the power for this purpose as well as to look at the failures in purely accounting terms. I hope that my noble friend may feel that his amendment goes further than at first sight seems to be a simple and logical attempt to take away an autocratic power such as the words "as he thinks fit" would seem to indicate. If so, no doubt he will not pursue his amendment.

My Lords, it is certainly true that there may be circumstances other than a failure to achieve the rate of return required which may cause the Secretary of State to want to have a report submitted to him or to investigate a matter. If the situation is that with my amendment he could not do that, there may be a case for leaving these very wide powers in the opening sentence of subsection (4). To that extent my amendment goes further than the amendments of my noble friend, Nos. 47 and 48, which only restrain the power of the Secretary of State to the purposes set out in the Explanatory Memorandum and in the first subsection of the clause.

I think that the sweeping powers given to the Secretary of State to cause an investigation to be carried out or to call for a report need to be limited, as I have argued and as my noble friends and others have argued, before he is able to take the action prescribed in subsection (5)(b); namely, that of requiring a local authority to cease to operate a direct labour organisation. Before that happens, I think it is necessary for him to be satisfied that the rate of return has not been achieved.

Unless my noble friend wants to make any further comments, I would now propose to withdraw my amendment but to suggest to my noble friend that his rather more limited amendment should be discussed again when we reach No. 47. If he is disposed to press it, then I would certainly be disposed to follow him. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 44:

Page 15, line 38, leave out ("if he thinks fit") and insert ("where a local authority has failed to conform with the appropriate statutory provisions").

My Lords, I will do my best to answer the points the noble Baroness made when she referred to the different bodies. So far as I am aware, there is not in the Bill a definition of DLOs as such, but I think that what a DLO is will be obvious to most people. Here I am taking a chance in giving my definition, but it seems to me that it would be a unit of people employed directly by the local authority themselves to carry out certain works. We know that in practice what that usually means is either works of maintenance or, in some cases, of new building, or whatever.

It is quite true, as the noble Baroness said, that some authorities have departments which themselves employ a direct labour organisation. Some housing departments do it. They employ their own staff who do maintenance and so on. Certainly my former authority, which was only marginally smaller in terms of having a housing section, did not have a separate section at all. There was just the one organisation within the city. But there will be various types.

I do not think that what the Bill requires matters so much. Indeed, I think the noble Baroness made my case very well for the need for a separate return in the case of separate sections of a DLO, so that it will be possible to ascertain the facts. If I were a ratepayer in that authority I should very much want to know that one part of the organisation was perhaps doing badly. I might also be happy to know that another part was doing well. But the only way I could know would be if separate returns were required.

This amendment seeks to limit the power of the Secretary of State to call for a special report in those circumstances explicitly set down under the Bill or its orders or directions; but this is too narrow. As I think I indicated when speaking to the last amendment, there could be other circumstances where the spirit if not the letter of the legislation is being broken. I mentioned then the persistent failure to choose the lowest tenderer under Clause 74. To take another example, there could be such a margin of failure by a DLO that a special report became imperative before matters got out of hand. We are living in a world where waste cannot be allowed to go unchecked, and the Secretary of State must be given discretion to step in and at least ask for an explanation. That is the first such step, and I do not think many people quarrel with that as a philosophy on its own.

This is not an unfettered power. There is protection at all times in the courts. If it is found that the Secretary of State has exercised his power for an improper purpose or on legally irrelevant grounds, the courts can order such action to be quashed. I appreciate the concern on this matter, particularly from noble Lords opposite, but at the end of the day it comes back to the whole issue of everybody knowing, and knowing of the success or failure of the component parts, if I may put it that way. I see no harm at all in that; quite the contrary. I think it is long overdue.

My Lords, I should like to make one small observation. I myself was responsible for an organisation which, by comparison to those which have been mentioned was very small; nevertheless from my own point of view it was a very important part of the university of which I was in control at one time. The point which bore itself on me, time after time, was the appalling complexity involved in making realistic comparisons between costs of work done in different ways. If one had a works department one had to carry the overhead costs of it whether it was being employed or not. Very often it is more important, in the interests of the efficiency of the work, that the date at which the work begins should be convenient rather than that the actual total cost of the measured work should be low.

All of these points constantly obtruded on attempts made by accountants to assess the efficiency of our works department, and I came to the general conclusion that acccounting in not the precise, determinate enterprise that people think. It is arbitrary; it involves an enormous number of assumptions and it is very easy grossly to oversimplify the apparent costing concerned and come up with arguments which are most misleading. For that reason I hope that some form of amendment, which does not give the Secretary of State too sweeping powers to intervene in what may be a much more complicated matter than he has any reason to understand, will somehow be in this Bill.

My Lords, your Lordships will be grateful to my noble friend Lady Fisher of Rednal for having elicited from the noble Lord the fact that a direct labour organisation as such has been nowhere defined. My noble friend drew his attention to the fact that the provisions of the Bill might very well apply to the city engineer's department or that part of that department which was concerned with maintenance of schools. In short, it may well be that the application of this Part of the Bill goes far wider than would ordinarily appear from the contents of the Bill itself, together with its explanatory notes. It is all very well for the noble Lord, in the exercise of his usual personal charm, to indicate to the House that of course all these powers will be used very reasonably. In fact, he was talking in such modest terms that one would wonder whether it was likely they would ever be used at all, so amenable was his whole attitude towards this application.

Here we have to be concerned with the text of the Bill. It says quite clearly that

"The Secretary of State shall have power at any time, if he thinks fit …".

These powers cannot be mitigated, and certainly would not be mitigated in law, by any statement of the noble Lord that they will always be exercised reasonably and perhaps very rarely. The words are what they are, and we in this House must be concerned with them; and we must be concerned also with their consequences.

One of the consequences of allowing this phrase to remain in the Bill is that it will also enable the Minister's right honourable friend Mr. Heseltine to order the closing down either of a direct labour organisation as a whole or of that particular section which gives offence. He can do that, if necessary, without giving any reason. It is all very well for the noble Lord to say, "Well, if the local authority is aggrieved it can bring an action in the courts". In these circumstances, is it not better that the other side of the coin should be shown? If the Minister has any reason to believe, or the reports show, that the local authority has broken the law, then of course it is always open to the noble Lord's department to go to the courts and show due cause.

This is a matter of balance: what can be done one way can also be done by the other way. We are dealing with two democratically elected organisations. On the one hand, a Government deriving their responsibility from Parliament democratically elected; and, on the other hand, a local authority which is dependent on its local franchise. In regard to the affairs which it is actually administering under the very noses of its constituents, the local authority is much more closely linked with the people that elected it than Parliament themselves.

Therefore we think that it is very unreasonable that this power should remain. The noble Lord, in the course of replying to my noble friend, threw more interesting light on the operation of the clause as a whole. He mentioned that it would of course be possible to close down one department that was not paying its way in terms of yielding the rate of return, calculated on a current cost accounting basis, determined by his right honourable friend.

May I invite the noble Lord to contemplate the results of that? It would mean that if one type of work was closed down, it would no longer have any share in the assets of the direct labour organisation as a whole. Therefore if one department was closed down, and on the assumption that the direct labour organisation owned all the assets that were used—plant and machinery, cranes, bulldozers, joiners' shops and all the rest of it—then the remaining three descriptions of work would have to be reapportioned out. That would throw up the actual capital employed by the remaining three, so that one or two of the remaining three would then find their rate of return on capital employed diminished by the same proportion as that obtaining in the one that was closed down. In short, the noble Lord has revealed that if he took action in regard to one department, it would have a domino effect and would be very likely to put one, two or the remaining departments into the red so far as the rate of return is concerned.

I have said on previous occasions—and I will not weary your Lordships—that this part of the Bill is a hodge-podge. It is going to work with a degree of approximation that involves the undue use of astrology and crystal ball gazing. It is going to waste an enormous amount of time of the local authorities. If the various provisions of this clause are going to be checked thoroughly at the Minister's headquarters in Marsham Street, he is going to have to engage many more accountants and staff there. I would have preferred him to abandon this part of the Bill, which is largely irrelevant except that it seeks to protect local private building interests rather more than it does the actual ratepayer. However, he is not prepared to do that and, at this stage, I would not press him to do so. But he would be well advised to accept Amendment No. 44. If he does not, I am afraid that I must ask the House to divide upon it.

My Lords, may I follow one point that the Minister has made which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington: the right of the local authority to resort to the courts if they think that the Minister has not behaved reasonably. The words used by the Minister of Housing in another place were that the Minister would have to show good cause. The only way a local authority can challenge the Secretary of State in this is that he has acted either in bad faith or fraudulently. As I said in Committee, I do not believe that any Government would be likely to act fraudulently or unreasonably.

Several noble Lords—particularly noble and learned Lords—will tell your Lordships that unreasonableness is something that is very narrowly constructed by the courts. A local authority, in taking proceedings against the Secretary of State, will have to be placed in the position of proving a negative: namely, that the Secretary of State has not acted properly. That is an extremely difficult, onerous and almost impossible basis for a local authority to proceed upon.

What worries me—and I regard it as an unprecedented invasion of the liberty of local authorities—is that the procedure is activated by the Secretary of State calling for a report. All he has to prove is that he has considered that the direct labour organisation needs to be considered in depth. He cannot prove that it has been considered in depth until he has called for the report. Once he has the report, he can close the organisation down. This seems extremely arbitrary.

On those two grounds, I am concerned—as I am sure several other noble Lords are—about the arbitrary powers that this clause in its present form gives. I hope that the Government might be prepared to consider some form of amendment.

My Lords, I wonder whether I might present to the House a somewhat different angle although it leads to the same conclusion. As I understand it, this House has always been keen to prevent the use of dictatorial powers, from whatever source they may come. Therefore, this House—without regard to the political complexion that a Minister might have—is anxious not to give him too many powers over the citizen over which the Government have jurisdiction in so many respects.

Obviously, there is an even greater need to restrict that power when one is dealing with an authority that the citizens have elected regarding the decisions that they have made. Therefore I ask the House to consider carefully the words:

"if he thinks fit".

That is the sole discretion which the Minister has to exercise, if it be a discretion at all.

There is another principle that this House holds dear—indeed, we hold it dear as a nation; that is, no man shall be judge in his own cause. We are so careful in all our legislation, in all our provisions of justice, to see that the person who calls for a report, the person who has the power to decide, shall not always be the judge in his own cause; that there shall always be a right for a third party to look at his judgment and question it.

There is no right of appeal here at all. There are two principles which are very sacred to us which, in my submission, are very relevant to this matter. There is a third point and, having made it, I will sit down. The whole of the atmosphere of this Bill, we were told, was to create a better relationship between central and local government because restrictions on local government were in many cases being decreased. I do not ask the House to go into a dialectical debate at this moment—we have had it before—as to whether that is the effect of the Bill. But I do not have to go that far in suggesting to the House that the words

"if he thinks fit",

which enable him to close the department, are not only worsening the relationship between central and local government, but lead into a situation about which the noble Lord the Minister in this House and indeed the Minister of Housing in another place have said: "The local authority can go to the courts and challenge the decision of the Minister to close it down".

Are we looking at a Bill regarding the relationship of central and local government, and doing it as we should do, when we lead ourselves to the stage that if a Minister's power is to be challenged at all it has to be challenged in a law case where the local authority is the plaintiff and the Minister at the central Government is the defendant? Is that the way we are looking at this Local Government Bill?—because if so, if I may say so, we are looking at it in a myopic condition which is not worthy of us. That is why I ask the noble Minister to look very carefully at these three points and to see whether rather radical principles are not at stake. I hope that he would have valued all those principles, or if not all three at least one of them, and that he would find it possible to soften and therefore yield in some measure to this amendment.

My Lords, I think what we have to do immediately is to get this whole thing into perspective. What are we talking about? So far as this amendment goes, we are talking about calling for a special report. We are talking about the Secretary of State calling for a special report to consider the position in a direct labour organisation where, for the reasons we have talked about before or indeed for any other reason, he feels he ought to look at exactly what is going on in that organisation. With that as the basic fundamental point, everything else falls into place, because not only can I see no harm in that but I think it is eminently desirable and, indeed, long overdue, that there should be such an interest taken, in the interests of those people who are not always able properly to see that their interests in this way are looked after.

I think it is right and proper that there should be such a power to call for a report to highlight the position and see if there have been shortcomings in procedures, performance or anything else on the part either of a direct labour organisation in its entirety or indeed in any separate part of such an organisation.

Therefore, my Lords, although I subscribe to the generality of what the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said about principles as a whole, when we apply them to what we are talking about in this amendment, then I think that the case rests, and I think it is important that we should not accept this amendment and that we should not seek to diminish in any way that which the Secretary of State is trying to ensure is done on behalf of

moved Amendment No: 45:

Page 15, line 43, leave out ("three") and insert ("five").

My Lords, we agree that DLO performance must be judged over a reasonable period and we think that three years is a fair minimum. There is, of course, nothing to stop a local authority from preparing a report which covers a period longer than three years. But we must all remember that here we are speaking of ratepayers' money, which is tied up in a DLO—risk capital, one might say, involuntarily collected and applied. The period must be as short as is reasonably practicable. Shareholders in a company would be asking their directors to report if things went wrong over a much shorter time-span than that. In our view, three years is a generous minimum, in that light.

I recall discussing this point at some length in Committee and, if I said anything more now, I should have to go over those arguments once again. I understand exactly what the noble Baroness seeks to achieve by this amendment, but we feel that three years is a fair minimum.

My Lords, I think it ought to be on the record that I think three years is too long. If you want to remedy something that is going wrong, the sooner you know about it and can apply a remedy the better. The indication that something is going wrong is generally within two years and, in order to support my noble friend's reply to the noble Baroness, I would say that, if anything, he is being generous in the direction for which she argues.

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. The Statement is as follows:

"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall make a statement about the current dispute in prisons in England and Wales.

"I should like to emphasise that this is not a dispute about pay. It arises from a claim by the Prison Officers' Association for two allowances for meal breaks. The May Committee was set up by the right honourable Member for Leeds South to consider, amongst other things, the whole question of allowances for meal breaks. Its recommendations on pay and allowances were immediately accepted and implemented by the Government. This was, by any standards, fair and generous treatment for the prison service. A number of claims, including this present one, were examined but not supported by the May Committee. Having found the money to pay for what May did recommend, the Government cannot now accept and finance further and consequential claims built on the foundation of what was recommended and accepted.

"The Prison Officers' Association have asked for arbitration. As the Prison Officers' Association themselves recognise, the matter lies outside the terms of the Civil Service Arbitration Agreement. Nor could the Government agree to put to arbitration an issue which was considered by the May Committee last year.

"As I said in my statement to the House on 31st October last year, this country has been fortunate in the men and women it has secured to run its prison system. Their duty is to protect the public, to serve the courts and to care for the inmates in their charge. This duty is arduous, difficult and sometimes dangerous. I therefore regret all the more the action which the Prison Officers' Association have chosen to take in pursuit of their claim. This has included a refusal not only to allow contractors to work in prisons, but also to undertake certain other duties which are necessary to maintain conditions for prisoners, and to provide the facilities to which they are entitled.

"Even more seriously, prison officers at many establishments have refused to receive prisoners remanded or sentenced by the courts. This action amounts to a deliberate and unacceptable disruption of the criminal justice system. As a result, this morning about 3,500 prisoners who would otherwise be in prisons are now being held in police cells, many of which are unsuitable for this purpose. The police have coped magnificently with the additional demands which have been made on them, but the number of people in their custody is approaching the limit of the available accommodation. The police are also being diverted from their primary tasks. The inevitable result of this is to place the public at risk.

"The Government must do all they can to fulfil their responsibility to protect the public and ensure the functioning of the criminal justice system. The House will be aware that, following consultation with my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice, I arranged for a circular to be issued to magistrates' courts last Tuesday seeking their understanding of the problems we face.

"We need to do more than that, however. Measures will be taken to provide additional accommodation with the help of the Army. I am now arranging for the new high security prison which is nearing completion at Frankland near Durham to be brought immediately into use to provide emergency accommodation to relieve the pressure on police cells. It will have a governor, assistant governors and administrative and specialist staff from the prison service and a police presence to assist with security; but otherwise it will be manned by servicemen. We may also need to use military camps.

"For these and other purposes I shall need to ask the House to agree to immediate emergency measures to relieve the criminal justice system of some of the burdens placed on it by the prison officers' actions. I intend to present a Bill tomorrow. For the convenience of honourable Members I shall be arranging for typescript copies of the draft Bill to be made available later this evening.

"The measures I seek will include provisions to cover the approval of places other than prisons for the detention of prisoners. I shall seek provisions to cover the position of those who care for prisoners in these circumstances. Other provisions will be designed to provide relief for the police in the very difficult circumstances they face. In particular, I shall propose that the requirement that remand prisoners be produced regularly before the courts shall temporarily be suspended. I do not, however, propose to alter the normal requirement for the courts periodically to review remands in custody. I shall seek powers to order the temporary release on my authority, if it is absolutely necessary to do so, of selected prisoners who have been remanded in custody or committed in custody for trial or sentence. This is a power I would use, with every feasible safeguard, only to ensure that custodial places were available, in police cells and elsewhere, for dangerous offenders. I shall also need power, for the time being, to order the early release of sentenced prisoners nearing the end of their sentences. I shall ask for a power to restrict magistrates' courts, if necessary, in committing people to prison for such matters as non-payment of fines or rates.

"All these provisions will be temporary and will be allowed to lapse when the present dispute is resolved. In addition, the measures will include a permanent provision putting it beyond doubt that it is lawful for the police temporarily to hold people committed to prison custody, when it is for any reason not practicable to secure their admission to prison.

"I am satisfied that these powers, regrettable as they are, are necessary in the situation which has been caused by the prison officers' industrial action, which goes well beyond the limits of what is acceptable. But there is an alternative. I cannot look back; I want to make it very clear that I am determined to look forward. That is why discussions are far advanced between the Home Office and the Prison Officers' Association on a new duty system which would eliminate the anomalies which gave rise to this dispute. The early introduction of such a system would far better serve the interests of prison officers than the dangerous course on which they are now embarked.

"This industrial action by prison officers is all the more regrettable because it comes at a time when, following the May Committee, so much constructive work is going on to improve the prison service for the future.

"In view of all this, I invited the Prison Officers' Association, when I met them last week, to reconsider their action. I still hope that they will not persist in it while these negotiations continue. Of course, I remain ready to see the Prison Officers' Association at any time".

My Lords, I should like to thank the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, for repeating the Statement. It is a sombre statement and a very serious one indeed. I would say, first, that it is absolutely right for the Government to give priority to safety and to preserving and protecting the criminal justice system and, indeed, to give priority to the care for inmates. But it is of vital importance, first of all, to regard public safety as of paramount importance.

May I also ask the Minister to find some means of conveying thanks to the police for the way in which they are coping with their extra tasks in this very difficult situation? The Statement itself reflects the deteriorating situation in our prisons: people are not being allowed in on remand and police cells, as the Minister has indicated this afternoon, are being filled up.

So far as this particular dispute is concerned, as I think has been clearly indicated in the Statement, it is one which began concerning continuous duty credits—a matter which was fully and thoroughly considered by the May Committee of Inquiry, a most authoritative body, widely representative, and presided over by a most distinguished judge. There have been indicated in the Statement observations with which I can only fully agree as to the thoroughness with which this particular matter was considered, by the May Committee among others.

So far as the future is concerned, your Lordships will have noted the discussions which have been referred to in the Statement about a new system of allowances to replace the continuous duty credits system and other allowances. What I would ask the Minister to consider is this: why should those details not now be published? It would, I suggest, be of great public interest and, indeed, it would be appropriate to do so.

So far as the powers envisaged are concerned, and in particular the role of the Army, I would ask the Minister to accept, if not now then in the very near future indeed, that we would need to know precisely how they are going to be used, though clearly within the obvious limits of the need for security. What is their role going to be? And are any special instructions, particularly about training, to be issued to the Army, bearing in mind that they are hardly experienced, most of them, in dealing with a role of this particular kind?

Finally, I would ask the Minister to accept that I should certainly join in calling upon the Prison Officers' Association, who have over the years undertaken arduous tasks in the public interest and have, most of the time, received precious little thanks for the difficult duties that they perform—duties which I am sure we should not be very happy to have to deal with—to consider again very seriously indeed, in the public interest, their actions, and the course of those actions, and to decide where it is that their duty lies and where it is that the public interest itself lies.

My Lords, everyone in your Lordships' House must deplore the prospects of a confrontation between the Government and the Prison Officers' Association, a body of men and women who not only carry out a difficult, important and dangerous task but very often have to carry it out in wholly intolerable working conditions. Therefore I think it is for all of us to see whether it is not possible to suggest some way out of the present difficulties.

As I understand it, the prison officers' claims were examined by the May Committee. There were in fact 16 claims in all which related to meal breaks, continuous duty credits in one form or another, and it appears from the report that the May Committee came down against nine of those. In relation to three they found in favour of the Prison Officers' Association and the Government have implemented the findings on those three, but, as I understand it—and I may be wrong about this—the present dispute arises largely out of a disputed interpretation of one of the three in which the May Committee found in favour of the Prison Officers' Association.

There were a further four findings on which the May Committee clearly sympathised very strongly with the case put forward by the Prison Officers' Association and suggested that equity was on their side. I would respectfully agree that where the May Committee has considered these claims in such detail it would now be quite wrong to refer them to some other arbitrator. But there is (is there not?) something to be said for the suggestion that the May Committee might be asked to reconvene to clear up the matter of the interpretation of the one finding which at the moment is in issue and to make specific recommendations about the four claims where they clearly sympathised strongly with the case made by the Prison Officers' Association.

I suspect that if that course were taken it could be taken without any loss of face by the Government in the present situation and it would be sufficient to enable the Prison Officers' Association to abandon their present action while the negotiations for new terms of service were brought to a satisfactory conclusion.

I should like to make two other brief observations. First, the Statement refers to the circular sent round to magistrates by the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice, which has met with some criticism. May I venture to say that such criticism appears to me to be entirely ill-conceived and that the Government would be failing in their duty if they did not bring to the attention of the judiciary at all levels the purely practical difficulties which face everybody at the present time.

Secondly, there is a series of courses proposed towards the end of the Statement which might lead to some diminution of the prison population. In many ways this is the crux of the problem, because the conditions in which prison officers have to work are bound to encourage intransigence in claims of this sort rather than sensible, moderate, levelheaded negotiations. May I urgently ask that the Government should look again at the proposal which many of us have made on many occasions that the remission rate should be fixed at a half rather than at a third? This would immediately lead to a substantial reduction in the number of people in our prisons and would therefore make their working conditions far more tolerable for the Prison Officers' Association. The noble Lord will no doubt be aware of the recent research into these issues, which suggests that if that course were taken it could be done without any danger being created for the public.

My Lords, perhaps I may just reply to the two Front Bench spokesmen. The noble Lord, Lord Boston asked me if I would draw to the attention of my right honourable friend the desirability of thanking the police for the work that they are doing. My right honourable friend did indeed see the Association of Chief Police Officers in this regard last week and the Superintendents' Association and the Federation representatives this morning. I am grateful to the noble Lord, though, for what he said in that regard.

I am also grateful to the noble Lord for his confirmation from his Front Bench that meal break payments were thoroughly investigated by the Committee which his right honourable friend the former Home Secretary set up in difficult circumstances in 1978. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Boston, that the report of the May Committee is the final word on meal break payments, and of course the Government accepted immediately all the recommendations for improvements in pay and allowances which were made by the May Committee.

The noble Lord asked me whether details of the new duty system should not now be published. The discussions have been going on at official level between the Prison Officers' Association and the Home Office and, as I understand it, until now there has been agreement that the details should be published as soon as both sides feel that they are ready. My understanding is that that will be very soon.

The noble Lord asked me a specific question about the use of the Army, saying to your Lordships that of course soldiers are not trained for working with prisoners. So far as any of the plans for the use of Frankland Prison are concerned, at the moment the prison service will provide governors, assistant governors, administrative and specialist staff. I think that at the moment I should leave it at that, and no doubt I shall be reporting again to your Lordships about how that particular project is going to work out in practice.

The noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, asked me in essence about reconvening the May Committee in order to look at this aspect of Claim 16, and I hope the noble Lord will not think that I am being deliberately unhelpful if I say that I feel that I have answered that question in one of my replies to the noble Lord, Lord Boston. The claim which the dispute is about was put in as a claim to the May Committee. The May Committee considered it and did not recommend that meal break payments should be made for this particular aspect of what is known as Claim 16. As I have already reminded your Lordships, as soon as the May Committee reported, my right honourable friend accepted absolutely and in full the recommendations for the improvements in conditions and pay which the May Committee made.

I am grateful to the noble Lord for what he said about the circular which was sent out by the Home Office last week, and I should like to meet the point which the noble Lord made to me. Of course at the Home Office we shall be only too ready to look at the noble Lord's recommendations about remission, but I know that my right honourable friend always beats in mind the dangers of the executive action which he is now being forced, most regretfully, to take so far as the judiciary are concerned.

I shall end my first answer by repeating what my right honourable friend has said in another place. We believe that this can be solved by the new duty system and by looking forwards and not backwards, and we think that this is the way in which a resolution can be reached.

My Lords, the Minister has made a serious statement about a very serious position. Is it not the case that the tension in the prisons today is much deeper than this conflict with the Prison Officers' Association? Is not the tension also among the prisoners themselves and have they not suffered most from this conflict in being confined to their cells for 23 hours out of 24 in the prisons and by the intolerable conditions which there have been in many of the police cells? Therefore, in looking at this problem, will the Minister look at it rather more comprehensively than concentrating on this immediate conflict?

If I may ask the Minister first about this conflict, as the spokesman from the Liberal Benches said, have not the Prison Officers' Association doubted the interpretation of the May Report? I have listened to what the Minister has said about it, but surely, if the sensible men and women who are in charge of the Prison Officers' Association come to that conclusion, it would be reasonable for the Government to seek the view of the May Committee upon that problem.

May I also ask the Minister whether the Bill that is to be introduced tomorrow will give authority for troops to be used in prisons other than the new prison which is now to be opened? If so, would he consider that very carefully indeed? Has he seen the governor's report, which actually used these words: that with the use of troops there would be "the probability of both staff and prisoners being killed"? I hope that is an exaggeration, but it does indicate the situation.

My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord will forgive me, but I think questions and answers after a Statement should not go too far into the subject matter. I hope noble Lords will keep their questjons as brief as possible. A very good example was set by the noble Lord, Lord Boston.

My Lords, I take heed of what the noble Lord the Leader of the House has said. I put my last question very briefly indeed. In view of the necessity for shorter sentences—I welcome what the Minister has said—would he not, very generously indeed, seek to end the long sentences, in view of the fact that the Home Office inquiry has said that short sentences do not increase crime in the country?

My Lords, I agree with a great deal of what the noble Lord has said about prison conditions which have built up over the years. It is for this reason that we now have a realistic prison building programme, and this is another reason why it is most regrettable that this dispute is occurring at the present time. With regard to the noble Lord's point about the May Committee's reconvening, I have nothing to add to what I have already said. The noble Lord asked me one specific question about using places in other prisons. This was not exactly the form of words I used in the Statement. I suggest that the noble Lord, and I think all of us, would do well to wait for a short time until copies of the draft are available, and then I know it will be possible for this point to be debated in your Lordships' House

My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that we on this side of the House certainly give priority to the protection of the public and to ensuring the function of criminal justice in this very grave crisis in prison administration? The proposals mentioned in the Statement for the new powers to be given to the Home Secretary are unprecedented, and noble Lords will not be surprised if I indicate that we shall, of course, examine them in detail when the Bill is presented to the House on Wednesday. But may I make one general comment? Would this not be a good moment to examine the whole question of the fact that in this country there are more people per head of the population in prison than in any country in western Europe? Is there not now an urgent need to examine how many of the people in prison need to be there and to consider once again proposals of the kind the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, has mentioned about remission of sentences?

Of course, we must ensure that violent prisoners who have committed offences of violence must be kept in gaol and must be seriously punished. But now would be an excellent moment to examine the intolerable situation that has grown in the prisons. We may perhaps have been a little remiss in the last Administration, and so far in this one, in not looking at some of the deeper issues that underlie the present crisis in prison affairs.

My Lords, the noble and learned Lord has said that the proposals for powers to be taken in emergency legislation would be unprecedented. I do not differ from the noble and learned Lord's use of wording. But the proposal is that those powers shall be temporary and they are being taken for the public safety, and that intention is also being written into the draft legislation. The noble and learned Lord has made the point that now would be the moment to look also with the greatest seriousness at reduction of the prison population. I should like to put on record that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has, since he came to office, consistently sought ways of increasing the alternatives to imprisonment available to the courts and has not lost any opportunity to show his support for the use of shorter sentences for non-violent offenders.

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that all who have been involved in the prison administration in the past and have admired the prison service will greatly regret the nature of this dispute and the fact that such a narrow dispute should have such wide implications. Is he also aware that the Government will have as they have had in this House today, the full support, of people throughout this country when they find themselves forced, because there is no alternative, to seek the approval of Parliament for such wide powers as are now proposed? Can my noble friend say how soon he hopes to get the Bill on to the statute book?

My Lords, my noble friend, with his experience of these matters at the Home Office in previous years, has referred to a narrow dispute with wide implications. I have to say, with regret, that I regard the action which has been taken by the prison officers as going indeed far beyond the limits of what is permissible in the cause of an industrial dispute, let alone an industrial dispute on this particular subject, and wholly disproportionate to what is in issue. My noble friend asks when the Government would hope to get these proposals, if Parliament agrees, on to the statute book. I think this is the moment when my noble friend the Leader of the House would like to make a Business Statement.

My Lords, in the light of the Statement which my noble friend Lord Belstead has just repeated, it might be for the convenience of the House if I make a statement of the Government's intentions on the proposed Bill on imprisonment to which my noble friend referred in his Statement. Copies of the typescript of the Bill should be available in another place later today. I have arranged that further copies should be available in the Printed Paper Office tonight, I hope, from 7 p.m. onwards. It is expected that another place will complete their consideration of the Bill tomorrow. Depending on what time the Bill is brought from another place, it will receive a First Reading in your Lordships' House either tomorrow night or at the beginning of business on Wednesday. We would then intend to take the Bill through Second Reading and remaining stages in this House as first business on Wednesday.

The fourth day on Report of the Local Government, Planning, and Land (No. 2) Bill will, therefore, be taken on Thursday of this week and not on Wednesday as previously planned. The Report stage of the Broadcasting Bill, at present on the order paper for Thursday of this week, will now take place on Monday, 3rd November.

Any further changes to next week's business resulting from this alteration of business will be reflected on tomorrow's Order Paper. I would add that, in these exceptional circumstances, the Public Bill Office will accept amendments with reference to the Bill as printed in the Commons in the course of tomorrow, Tuesday. I regret very much any inconvenience which this alteration in business will cause Members of this House. I hope that the House will appreciate from my noble friend's Statement the urgency, as has indeed been reflected from the Opposition Front Bench, of the legislation which the Government propose.

My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord for explaining to the House how the business will be altered. Of course, this means a great upheaval, but we understand the emergency under the present circumstances. I believe that the House will accept the necessity for the change. I do not think I need go beyond that.

My Lords, we entirely accept the need for urgency in this matter, although clearly the Bill will need to be scrutinised with care. Can the noble Lord say when he anticipates the Royal Assent will be given?

My Lords, I think it is a little early for me to say that, but obviously from the Government's point of view it will be the sooner the better after the Bill has passed through both Houses.

moved Amendment No. 47:

Page 16, leave out lines 8 to 11.

My Lords, of course, following the discussions in Committee we have examined very closely the drafting of this clause to which my noble friend spoke in Committee. We agree with him that these two paragraphs look odd—they certainly do to me, as a layman. Nevertheless, having looked at it carefully, it seems that they do serve a useful purpose.

The Secretary of State, in directing an authority to prepare a special report, is obliged to set them a time limit within which to prepare that report. Subsection (4) does that. But, having set that time limit, must not both he and the authority be bound by it? In other words, the Secretary of State must be prevented from taking any further steps before that time has elapsed, or at least until the authority have effectively signalled their readiness by submitting their report. On the other hand, the authority must not be allowed to thwart the Secretary of State by more inaction. If they refuse to prepare the report in the time required, the Secretary of State must be allowed to proceed and that is what these two paragraphs do—they interpose a further step in the process to close down or limit. After the call for the special report, there must follow either the report, or the deadline for its completion, before the Secretary of State can consider exercising his powers to limit an authority's direct labour activity. This seems to us to be a sensible and, indeed, welcome safeguard. In those circumstances, I wonder whether as regards this at least, my noble friend may feel able to accept my explanation.

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. His fuller explanation on this occasion was less unconvincing than the previous one. In the circumstances, I would not divide the House, but would beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 48:

Page 16, line 11, at end insert—

(" ( ) the rate of return on the capital employed is less than the required rate.").

My Lords, I rise to support my noble friend—which will not surprise the House—because, as he said, I have tabled an amendment in almost similar terms. Like my noble friend—although my interest in them is perhaps greater—I do not rise to defend direct labour organisations. In fact, I should like to preface my remarks by saying that I agree with the Secretary of State in the purposes which he seeks to achieve in this part of the Bill; because I think that there are direct labour organisations which need to be improved, controlled, curbed and made subject to the requirements imposed on them in the Bill.

However, my reason for supporting this amendment is not precisely the same as that of my noble friend. I think that he made a cogent legal point that this Bill is defective if an amendment to this effect is not moved into it. I moved an earlier amendment, Amendment No. 43A, which went rather further than these amendments because it fettered the otherwise unfettered power of the Secretary of State to interfere in the affairs of local authorities and their direct labour organisations in particular, to the extent of requiring him to investigate matters or call for reports only when it was clear that the prescribed rate of return on the capital employed was not being achieved.

But in this part of the Bill—over the page as it were—we come to the Secretary of State's "ultimate sanction", to use the phrase employed in the Notes on Clauses. He seeks the power to use the "ultimate sanction" of requiring local authorities to close down and cease operations with their direct labour organisations. I rise to defend local authorities, and in particular district councils, against the use of this undifferentiated and unlimited power of the Secretary of State to interfere in their affairs.

If we have, established by statute, local authorities with particular functions, duties and powers to perform, so far as possible they must be left free to exercise those powers in accordance with their discretion. If Parliament decides that there are circumstances in which the Secretary of State has a right—indeed, a duty or a power—to interfere, those must be carefully prescribed. At the present moment the point at which he exercises his ultimate sanction of closing down an organisation within a local authority is not so prescribed. It is for that reason—in order to defend local authorities from an unfettered power by the Secretary of State—that I join my noble friend in supporting this amendment.

If by any chance my noble friend cannot accept this amendment as it stands, I have to say that for my part he will have to give us a very firm assurance that this time, when he takes the matter away, he will return with some further amendment or have something to say to us which will go a good deal further than he was able to go in Committee, when he raised our hopes, and further than he has so far gone today.

My Lords, on this side of the House we support the amendment so ably moved by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, in a very concise and cogent manner. It qualifies an arbitrary power given under this subsection to the Secretary of State. It lays down an essential qualification before the Secretary of State acts to direct a local authority that it shall cease work with its direct labour organisation. Your Lordships will see that we have tabled Amendment No. 49A, which argues the whole case. It is not my intention at this stage to argue the case for that amendment. However, the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, will well fit in with our amendment, Amendment No. 49A. Therefore, for the reason that it limits the arbitrary power of the Secretary of State, we will support Amendment No. 48.

My Lords, I fully support my noble friend Lord Renton in this part of his tireless crusade for the better drafting of legislation. I yield to no one in my admiration for him over that. But certainly I could not support this amendment as it stands, as, although he indicated that he did not care one way or the other whether its effect would be to restrict the powers of the Secretary of State to cases in which the return on capital was below the prescribed rate, I am bound to confess that I do. I should be very disappointed if at this stage we sought to limit the Secretary of State solely to acting on that consideration. There may well be other cases in which it would be right for the Secretary of State so to act. One obviously would be if a direct labour organisation was riddled with corruption. Another, and perhaps more likely, case is where the tendering policies of the local authority concerned, by way of favouring the direct labour organisation, were such that there was a perfectly adequate return on capital, but very gross unfairness to the private sector of the building industry with which it competed. I do not believe that cases of that kind would be at all frequent. However, I think it would be valuable for local authorities, which might be tempted so to act in respect of their direct labour organisations, to know that this ultimate sanction lay in the hands of the Secretary of State.

I should be very interested—as I think will be my noble friend—to hear from my noble friend the Minister what is the intention. It certainly appears that the wider interpretation, which I hope is right, seems to be inconsistent with the Explanatory Memorandum attached to the Bill as originally presented to us. But that obviously is not conclusive. Indeed, we had a case earlier this afternoon in which that situation had arisen. Therefore, I rise particularly to ask my noble friend whether it is the Government's intention to exclude all possibility of action, save where the prescribed rate of return on capital is not achieved, and—if that really is their intention—to argue why this power, which is being taken, should be so restricted. Until I hear some argument that convinces me, I shall be very much against my noble friend's amendment if it has the effect of that exclusion.

My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter said, whenever my noble friend Lord Renton speaks on these matters one has to listen particularly carefully because of his obviously great expertise and, indeed, interest and background in all such matters. Because of that, I say that not only have I listened carefully to what he has said now, but I also listened carefully in Committee the other week, as indeed I did when my noble friend Lord Sandford was moving his amendments both on this and on past occasions. In other words, this was the amendment to impose the same restriction on the Secretary of State's power to call for a special report.

I have looked again at ways of reducing the Secretary of State's discretion in these matters while at the same time preserving his right to intervene in the public interest if things are going sadly wrong and public resources are being wasted and misapplied. I have had to conclude that the public interest cannot be measured merely in accounting terms, which is the point to which my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter referred, and that therefore the discretion cannot be fettered strictly to a failure to earn a specified rate of return. There are wider considerations. I mentioned earlier possible tendering abuses. There are others. The key to this is that this must all be seen in the context of the legislation as a whole. These intentions in this clause as regards direct labour organisations must also relate to such matters as efficiency, fairness or competition—and tendering policies I have mentioned. There may indeed be other things of which I do not know readily.

I take the point that my noble friend Lord Renton makes as to the unsatisfactory nature of the vagueness, if you like. Is it too wide a power. I am asking him to consider it within the context of what the legislation seeks to achieve, with what the intentions are. It may be that that is not enough in strict terms. It may be that that is too wide, and he will have to decide if that is so.

My noble friend Lord Sandford asked whether I would give a firm assurance more clearly than I had done before that we will come up with something more specific, narrower, perhaps better, to meet the points raised. I cannot say that I am able to do this. The only thing I can say, because I have such respect for the great knowledge of my noble friend Lord Renton and for the views of my noble friend Lord Sandford, is that I cannot accept this amendment, and indeed we must stand on it, for the reasons I have given.

I do not want to make another speech about the principles underlying what we are seeking to do with this section of the Bill as regards direct labour organisations, or why we consider it is so very necessary that there should be material changes. If we divide on the issue, well then, so be it, and I can do no more. If we do not divide, all I can do is to say that of course we will look carefully at everything my noble friends have said, and not least on the point of vires, which I think must be always something which should concern us carefully. That of course I will do. But I should also not want to mislead. After all, we are coming now to the last stages of this Bill and I do not want to give any wrong, impression that I am going to go away and come back at Third Reading with something else. I cannot promise that. I undertake, because I consider it so important, that we will look closely at the wording, and I will discuss it again and do all that I can to take advice, but, as it stands at the moment, I would have to say that I could not accept the amendment.

My Lords, before seeking leave to withdraw the amendment, may I thank my noble friend for his offer of further consideration? As I said, when I moved the amendment, I do not mind very much what the powers are so long as they are clearly stated. I entirely take the point made by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter that there might well be other circumstances justifying the exercise of the power, but the whole tenor of Part III is such as to lead at the moment to a wrong climax in subsection (6). If we could have the climax more clearly stated, then I should be happier. In these circumstances, I think the right thing for me to do is to withdraw my amendment, by leave.

moved Amendment No. 49A:

Page 16, line 12, leave out from ("that") to end of line 17 and insert ("the local authority or development body shall conduct a comprehensive review of the Direct Labour Organisation and publish the report of such review").

My Lords, the ultimate sanction against an authority which fails to get its DLO operations under firm continuing control will be an intervention by the Secretary of State to remove or restrict its powers to use direct labour. Such action can come only after the submission of a special report required under subsection (4) and cannot therefore happen until the authority has had an opportunity to explain itself. Closure or restriction will not follow automatically. There may be special circumstances which explain an unsatisfactory performance, or there may be a need to retain a small direct labour force to deal with certain sorts of work—for example, winter highway maintenance in remote areas—for which no contractors can be found, and the decision of the Secretary of State will be able to take account of those factors. Furthermore, the close-down or restriction will not necessarily take even immediate effect. The subsection allows the Secretary of State to set the effective date so that authorities would have time to make the necessary alternative arrangements to enable them to fulfil their statutory duties by means other than through their own directly employed labour force.

But at the end of the day the Secretary of State must have power to act, to end the wasteful use of ratepayers' money and the nation's resources if failure persists. We expect public opinion to play its part. Local democracy is important in this respect and Clause 15 provides for information to be publicly available. Without an ultimate sanction, and when all else has failed, an awkward DLO might still

My Lords, I am sorry the Minister cannot accept the amendment because we want to give an opportunity for local public opinion to play its part. The Minister says this will happen when all else has failed, but there will have been no opportunity for all else to fail; no consultation, no opportunity for representation, only the demand for a report, and on that report the Secretary of State will take this arbitrary power. It is not a weapon of last resort but of second resort, the first being to demand a report and the second to act—without any conditions, not even an attempt to state in the clause that there must be opportunity for consultation and representation by the local authority.

A similar amendment was tabled in Committee, and withdrawn because the Minister said he wished to reconsider the wording of subsections (4) and (5) and we have heard the Minister's argument today. But this matter has never been tested in your Lordships' House. In our view, this arbitrary power should not be given to any Secretary of State of any Government, and for that reason we must press the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 50:

Page 19, leave out line 6.

My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, has said, there was a short but comprehensive debate on this matter in Committee. Your Lordships will recall the interesting exposition given by the noble Lord, Lord Ross, during that stage, and you might also well recollect the perfectly adequate explanation given by my noble friend Lord Bellwin. The point is that this provision does not in any way reflect adversely upon the SSHA, nor is there any criticism of the SSHA. As the noble Lord, Lord Ross, said in effect in Committee, the Secretary of State can obtain information on the SSHA's DLO activities by means of the existing arrangements under the terms of its formal agreement with the Secretary of State for Scotland.

However, that is not the point of this provision, and it is not the reason why the clause is to extend to the SSHA. The main purpose of this part of the Bill is to improve the efficiency and accountability of all public sector direct labour organisations. The SSHA is part of the public sector, and in the interests of equity I could not agree with the noble Lord that it should be excluded from this part of the Bill. In other words, we want to make it plain that the same tests of efficiency and the requirements of responsibility shall apply to the SSHA as apply, for instance, to the Scottish local authorities. So there it is. It is a matter of policy and equity as to why the SSHA is treated in the way that it is under the Bill.

My Lords, that reply was very disappointing indeed. There is no equity or equality involved in respect of the treatment of local authorities and the Scottish Special Housing Association. As I pointed out, the association is the creature of the Secretary of State. He appoints the members, he can sack them, he can direct them. He sits down with them every year and decides which programmes should go on. If he is not satisfied with their efficiency, he just says, "You will not build this, you will not build that".

With regard to the point about cornpetitiveness—and this is part of the so-called efficiency test—one reason for the association being set up was so that it could build in places where there were no other builders. That was the job that it was given, to build in the Highlands and in other areas. In those days when there were local authority areas which formed small borough a penny rate would produce perhaps £500, and in many cases less than that. Those boroughs had housing powers, but they could not possibly build, and so the association was created by a Tory Government to do that, and to introduce an clement of competition in some areas.

The association was told to go in and build, and so it set a standard. The Act that set up the association also contained a provision to enable it to build with experimental materials; to use Highland materials in the Highland area. Think of the cost of building in the Highlands and Islands—in many cases building perhaps only three or four houses in a rural area where no private builder wants to look at the job. I do not know whether the Minister of State realises it, but where possible private builders are used. There is simply no justification for this proposal. There is no logic in comparing the association with the local authorities; there is no comparison whatever. The Scottish Office should think again. Has there been any single complaint regarding the building efficiency of the Scottish Special Housing Association?

moved Amendment No. 50A:

Page 20, line 11, leave out ("less") and insert ("other").

My Lords, the Government have recognised that there is a point at which the full benefits to be gained from the Bill will not be realised. It is a matter of judgment to decide where that point comes. We believe that point is reached when an authority employs 30 or less in its direct labour organisation. By building industry standards, an organisation employing 30 operatives and with an annual turnover of about a quarter of a million pounds is quite big. The clause will permit those organisations which are genuinely minimum-level DLOs to escape the rigours the Bill imposes. We should not wish to see a higher figure. I recognise that what my noble friend suggests gives a certain discretion; but we have been assailed on all sides for precisely the opposite reason. I do not think that at this moment we should depart from the path on which we have embarked. Therefore, perhaps he may not feel so deeply about it as to wish to press the amendment.

My Lords, I cannot press the Secretary of State to take powers if he does not want them. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 51:

After Clause 19, insert the following new clause:

My Lords, I should like to support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill. It does not seem that there can be any political or philosophical reason why the Government should not give the direct labour organisations a wide discretion to carry out new work and maintenance, unless they are saying that they want to reduce direct labour organisations to mere emergency services, which I gather they do not. It seems to me, for the reasons the noble Lord has given, that for convenience and flexibility the only way a direct labour organisation can become competitive is if they can commercially tender for a wide variety of jobs and public and various works for the list of bodies mentioned in the amendment. I think it is a valid point that, from the experience of many noble Lords, a road or something like that would pass in and out of two or three local authorities. It would be more convenient and cheaper if one direct labour organisation was allowed to deal with that, rather than that two, three or four different bodies should deal with small pieces of the work.

Finally, and probably most importantly, your Lordships will remember a certain Friday morning not long ago when we had a very rumbustious debate about the Greater Manchester Bill. It was an occasion when I saw angry passions rise to a higher point than I remember and where a number of noble Lords on the Government side voted in favour of this very principle being enshrined in the Greater Manchester Bill. As this Bill is drawn, it seems that the Local Government, Planning and Land (No. 2) Bill could overtake the Manchester Bill and undo all the work that was done by your Lordships on that occasion. Therefore, I should have thought that on grounds of flexibility, of economy and of logicality this amendment should be supported.

My Lords, I must say that I do not quite know what to make of what the noble Lord, Lord Evans, has just said, but I think I should put him right on one point. The debate on the Greater Manchester Bill was not on this issue at all; it was on the issue of constitutionality—as to whether or not something which has been decided by a Select Committee of your Lordships' House should later he reversed. It was not at all on the merits or otherwise of the particular point. I wonder also if the noble Lord quite appreciated what he was saying when he said that only if this amendment is approved can direct labour organisations become competitive. We have been hearing talk for so long now telling us how competitive they already are. I have no wish to attack direct labour organisations as such, but I hope that they have not had to rely on this type of possibility to be competitive in all they have been doing over the years.

My response to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, is to ask what are the basic objectives? Why are direct labour organisations set up in the first place? Surely it is to carry out a function within their own authority, using their ratepayers' money, as I have said more than once, willingly subscribed as risk capital. Here we are contemplating their going into speculative ventures in competition with the private sector. I just do not see how that does other than destroy the whole argument to justify direct labour organisations being set up by an authority. They are not there to go into business as such. They are set up for a specific purpose, and if we accept, as I accept, that certain functions that they carry out are special to them—emergency situations, certain other maintenance work, and so on—then provided they are competitive, provided they fulfil the requirements of this Bill, I accept them and think there is a place for them. Noble Lords are contemplating widening this whole area of operation in this way. I must say, without going on about it, that we find the amendment quite unacceptable.

My Lords, it really is not extending the Bill in any way. It is putting into the Bill what local authorities have been doing for quite a long time. Many local authorities, on what one might call the periphery of their area, have need for something to be done when it would be quite expensive for them to put it into operation because it is perhaps 10 or 12 miles from the base at which they normally operate, and so they ask the adjoining authority to take on the task for them. This weekend I was travelling in a part of the country and I came across a big hoarding which said, "Road improvement scheme being carried out on behalf of such and such county council". It gave the name of the local authority. This is the kind of thing that local authorities are doing. All we are asking is that it should be legalised by putting it into the Bill.

My Lords, I want to refer to the underlying concern, perhaps the unspoken concern. We are talking about the capacity to be competitive; we are talking about direct labour organisations. In truth, whether they are or are not competitive is always going to be open to question. That is the underlying concern, because if one has six competitors and five can go broke by reason of their irresponsibility, and one cannot, that is not competition in terms that business understands it. I think it is best to out with these truths. We might try to rest upon return on capital employed and our accountants might like to finesse and say, "Do you mean return on capital employed? Do you mean return on assets employed? Do you mean return on assets managed?" We all know that in large organisations—not merely local authorities but large businesses—there are vested interests who commit themselves to an activity because it creates managerial status, managerial salary and privilege. Therefore, one sets up a situation which is full of inequality and which cannot, beyond all reasonable doubt, satisfy the test that it is competitive, because it lacks the ultimate sanction.

My Lords, I am grateful for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Claughton, and of my noble friend Lady Fisher. I believe they have put forward common-sense arguments as to why this amendment should be carried. It does seem so much common sense. A local authority may say, "Look here, you can do this job better for us; you are nearer or you have got a more effective organisation. Do it for us". Leaving out the public bodies, that would appear to be a commonsense argument for approving this amendment.

I should like to give my impression of what took place on that Friday morning on the Greater Manchester Bill. If your Lordships will recall, your Select Committee was given instructions to look at a particular clause which was inserting similar powers in the Greater Manchester Bill. It was told to look carefully at this clause to see whether or not the provisions were unfair to the private sector. Your Committee reported that they were not unfair to the private sector. Admittedly there was a constitutional argument on the floor of this House, but there was also an amendment moved to delete that clause. The House refused the amendment to delete that clause; therefore in the Greater Manchester Bill there is this provision, approved by Parliament, and we were asking this afternoon for its extension. I think we are in a situation where, unless the building is almost going to fall down, we are not going to get amendments accepted by the Government, who seem to be in this situation because of the timetable and do not have regard to the common sense and the sensibility behind any amendment. It is not my intention to divide the House, but a principle is involved here and I will ask that the amendment be negatived.

My Lords, before the House negatives the amendment, I think noble Lords will want to note the quite extraordinary argument used a moment or two ago by the noble Baroness. She said that at present DLOs were doing jobs which required legalisation. If that is true, it seems to me the worst possible argument for extending their powers.

My Lords, I think the words were taken out of context.

moved Amendment No. 52:

Page 21, line 7, leave out from ("to") to end of line 8 and insert ("an affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament").

My Lords, it is quite true that I promised the Committee that I would examine this provision and look into the procedures. I assure your Lordships that I have done exactly that and very carefully. But I have to advise that I see no case for it. Before I say anything else, I ought to say that I have been impressed by exactly what is involved in the Negative Resolution procedure. I have heard it diminished in its importance so often in your Lordships' House that I assumed, in my ignorance, that only the Affirmative Resolution procedure could be the real safeguard. But the more that one looks at exactly what is involved, the more one realises that it is indeed very much a safeguard. I think it was my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter who said something on those lines not long ago. Having had a look at it, I endorse that.

This clause is very much a reserve power. It will allow the Secretary of State to repeal any part of a local Act of Parliament whose provisions are inconsistent with this one. This provision is a standard one. There is nothing unusual about this. It is a perfectly proper way of ensuring that new requirements determined on by Parliament prevail over inconsistent provisions which may exist in local Acts. I have examined the precedents and there are many. The Administrations of both parties have provided recent examples. Section 262 of the Local Government Act 1972 is one. Section 81 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 is another. There is in the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 a power of this kind which is subject to no parliamentary procedure at all.

In the clause before us now the orders will be used to amend or repeal local Act powers which are inconsistent with the provisions of Part III of this Bill. They will not remove any power to carry out work which may exist in local Acts, but simply ensure that when carrying out such works, the financial requirements of this Bill bite just as they do on "works contracts" and "functional work".

I said that before the Secretary of State could make an order, he would be required under subsection (3) to consult the local authority concerned. I repeat that again because I think it is important. With this safeguard, and Parliament having signalled its approval of the requirements for competitive tendering and proper accounting set out in this part of the Bill, we believe that it is unnecessary to require specific parliamentary approval of every application of these principles to individual authorities. To do so we feel would not be an appropriate use of Parliament's time. With my other observations on the Negative Resolution procedure, I ask the noble Lord not to press the amendment.

My Lords, the noble Lord said that it is a reserve power; but then he said that he could not ask that Parliament shall waste its time on all the applications. Therefore, there is a possibility that there may be a number of applications, not merely just a reserve power. I can recall the arguments at Committee stage about the difference between Negative and Affirmative Resolution procedures by noble Lords with far greater experience than I who came down in favour of using the Affirmative Resolution procedure in a case like this. I have looked through the Bill and there are numerous examples of where the Affirmative Resolution procedure is being proposed by the Government, and I should have thought that this is one which is of great importance. It affects the repeal or amendment of legislation. The Minister has made his position quite clear. Therefore, I will not withdraw, but I will ask this amendment to be negatived and will not call for a Division.

moved Amendment No. 53:

Page 21, line 23, at end insert—

("Provided that no such order shall specify a date prior to 1st April 1982".).

My Lords, I again rise to support this amendment, as I did in Committee and as did my noble friend Lord Ridley on behalf of the Association of County Councils, because it is perfectly true that all the associations feel that this part of the Bill is being thrust upon them. On the other hand, I have an amendment of my own shortly to be considered and I should like to speak to that now, because it seeks to apply this delay in respect of this Part of the Bill in connection with one or two items. As my noble friend said at Committee stage, it is true that the authorities know what is to be contained in the regulations to control tendering, as set out in Clauses 5 and 7. I still think the time is short to get all this into operation, but the Government have made that clear.

On the other hand, when we turn to the accounting and financial side of the matter, my noble friend said in Committee that the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accounting is developing, with the Department of the Environment's support, a standard computer system to enable authorities to meet the requirements laid down in the Bill. That may be so, but I am advised that it will not be ready in time to meet the requirements of the Bill that come into force in April 1981. It may be ready at some time after that and will then be useful, but it is certainly not going to be available and put into effect by the introduction date of April 1981. Although it is true to say that a draft code of practice prepared by the same Chartered Institute has been available since July, a draft is not the same thing as a settled set of regulations approved by Parliament. Therefore, for those two reasons I think there is a case to be made for considering delay in introducing the accounting parts of this procedure, even if there is not quite such a strong case for delaying the tendering arrangements. I shall be interested to hear how my noble friend justifies the introduction of the accounting and financial side of this matter when the preparations are at this early stage.

My Lords, the county councils have only a small number of direct labour organisations, but we have done a survey of our members and this shows that this part of the Bill will result in the need for 331 new technical officers and 54 new accountants. These will be required regardless of when it comes into force, but in the first year it is obviously going to be that much more difficult to get the organisation going. I should particularly like to support my noble friend Lord Sandford, who says that the CIPFA computer accounts programme will not be ready until probably next year. The noble Lord, Lord Bell-win, said that we had had lots of warning, but when you are talking of this number of staff, surely you cannot employ them in advance of a code of practice which has not yet been approved and the form of which you do not exactly know. Most local authorities do not have surplus manpower.

My Lords, I do not know where this figure of 331 technical officers comes from and, with great respect to my noble friend, I just do not accept it at all. I should want a lot more information (a) as to exactly how the figure is arrived at, and (b) how this work would fit into the existing work which such officers already carry out; because time and time again when new requirements have been put upon local authorities and when so many of them have said: "That's going to need so many extra staff" I have heard them go on to say, "How are we going to absorb this with our present staff"? It means everyone pushing up; it means looking again at the distribution of work; it means considering doing exactly what a private business would do, faced with extra work imposed upon it. So while I do not for a moment say that my noble friend is wrong—and indeed how can I, when I do not even know the basis of how he makes it up?—I must nevertheless put a reservation on it as such.

I fully understand the local authorities' wish that the implementation of this part of the Bill should be delayed. On the other hand I am equally conscious of the strength of the concern in the building industry and among ratepayers who foot the bills for DLOs that we should act as soon as possible to ensure that no further public money is wasted by inefficient building departments. In saying that, I do not mean all of them. The noble Baroness and I had a little interchange on that point the other day and I think we probably agreed at least upon this point between us: that they were not all inefficient and that they were not all efficient. How could they be?

But, my Lords, we have to strike a balance. We believe that the authorities have had time to put their houses in order, though not, as my noble friend Lord Digby said, to be able to look at the nuts and bolts of exactly what is required: that is understandable. But the fact is that we are going back in time to August of last year, and I should have thought that responsible local authorities would have started moving in the right direction. Indeed I am sure that most of them have, and that implementation is still possible. We have made concessions to ease the burden of starting the new system, with easier tendering requirements—particularly the freeing of all maintenance work below £10,000 and of all highway authorities' winter maintenance programmes from compulsory tendering, together with de minimis exemption for the smallest authorities.

There have been concessions also in one or two other minor ways. But we really cannot offer further relaxations. Whenever the time comes, it is always at that moment that you have to get to it. I believe this is what local authorities will do, because in matters of this kind the track record is a very good one. I have seen so many things brought in that had to be taken on board, and were taken on board. My goodness me! I pay a tribute to many of them for the way they have done those things. I am sure they will do this the same way.

My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord for a little information? Having declared a moratorium on all building, where is the opportunity for all this wastage that is somewhere in the lost horizon? What would it do to the Government to delay the implementation, as asked for by a number of experts, and give the local authorities a chance to think about how to get the increased staff they will need? There will be a need for increased staff, and I sincerely ask him whether he can say if the moratorium on housing has altered the meaning of this clause and its implementation and purpose.