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

My Lords, as was announced in another place on 7th May, the Government intend to introduce legislation at the earliest opportunity to privatise the British Gas Corporation. The opportunities for competition introduced by the Oil and Gas (Enterprise) Act 1982 for supplies to industrial consumers will be continued. It is also the Government's intention that competitors should be able to supply smaller domestic and commercial consumers in areas not already supplied by the British Gas Corporation.

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that reply. Does he recall not so long ago, according to Sir Denis Rooke, he was given a public rebuke by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer for calling for a private regulated monopoly company? Why was the public rebuke justified then, but apparently erased today?

My Lords, in any decision of this kind the Government consider a variety of solutions. I remind my noble friend that that was the case in this instance. It would, however, be rather unwise to put at risk a distribution system which has evolved over many years to split up what has proved to be a successful method of distributing gas. Therefore the Government took the view that it was more sensible to privatise the British Gas Corporation in its entirety. I think that my noble friend will agree in due course that this was probably the best solution.

My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that what he has said makes the case for the continued public ownership of British Gas? Is he not aware that the British Gas Corporation has been the most successful nationalised industry of all time and is making large profits, part of which go to Her Majesty's Government? Is it not a fact that the only reason the Government intend to privatise British Gas is not to introduce competition but simply to get additional money—about £8 billion—to finance their pre-election tax bonanza?

My Lords, I am afraid that the noble Lord has it absolutely wrong. Far from making his case, it makes my case. It removes from the British Gas Corporation the inhibition of Government interference and control. The noble Lord was a member of the party forming the Government between 1974 and 1979 when Chancellor Healey increased the price of gas through his interference by 12·3 per cent. in one year and 9·6 per cent. in another year. That was direct interference by Government. It has happened with a number of different Governments and this will remove this inhibition from the British Gas Corporation. It will give it the incentive that can only be achieved in the private sector, and if the management is as good as everyone maintains it is then those employed in the industry will have a chance to benefit from it.

My Lords, the noble Lord will be aware that his Government increased the price of gas by 10 per cent. over three years above the retail price. But is he now saying that the privatisation of gas will result in much cheaper prices for the gas consumer? Is he giving that promise now?

I am giving no such promise, my Lords, because it is not in my gift to give a promise. The noble Lord made my point when he suggested that this Government increased gas prices. That is further Government interference which should be removed and will be removed.

My Lords, is not this a very complex and extremely expensive way of doing what the Government could do so easily by keeping their mouths shut?

My Lords, on the basis that the noble Lord admits that the interference by his own Government inhibits private enterprise, would not the noble Lord advise his Government to get off the country's back and get out?

My Lords, I feel that that comment is not of the usual sophisticated class that we expect from the noble Lord. I think he could do better if he would like to try again.

My Lords, I find it difficult not to respond to an invitation of that kind. Is the noble Lord aware that the activities of his own Government are hampering not only British industry but are a gross infliction on the country as a whole? Will they now resign? I hope that puts it more moderately.

No, my Lords: I thought that the noble Lord could do better but I see he cannot. The answer obviously is no. The policies of this Government are working and will be seen to work. The noble Lord and some of his friends talk about the next election. His former leader once said that in politics a week was a long time; but two and a half years in politics is an eternity.

My Lords, can the noble Lord confirm that the best way of coupling free enterprise to a public monopoly is to require it to raise its capital borrowings on the open market? Is that provided for in future plans?

My Lords, we shall have to wait to see the future legislation. I am sure the noble Earl would not wish me to anticipate it; but it is the intention, as I said when I repeated the Statement the other day, that private capital should be introduced in as large a measure as possible.

My Lords, in view of the importance of gas now to domestic consumers as a service, similar to the telephone, water and electricity services, perhaps I may ask this question. Does my noble friend not think that is important to consider, among other things, under the new privatisation arrangements for the gas corporation, a much wider distribution of gas to domestic consumers in the countryside?

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his suggestion. I have no doubt that in due course the new company will look at this. Of course the legislation which we introduced in 1982 enables there to be competition as far as the supply of gas is concerned in areas which do not already possess gas. I have no doubt that the new company will build upon this.

My Lords, when the noble Lord the Minister says that the policies of the Government are working, does he include in that broad statement the fact that unemployment has increased very considerably in the last few months?

My Lords, I really should not be tempted along these lines because this has nothing to do with the Question. But I will say to the noble Lord that the policies in regard to unemployment will be seen to be effective in due course. But nobody can imagine that the problem of unemployment can be solved at a stroke. It will take time.

My Lords, is the noble Lord saying that the increase in unemployment of recent times is to be continued?

My Lords, if I may bring my noble friend back to my original Question for a moment, does it not concern him a bit that Sir Denis Rooke should have indicated over the weekend that he has not made up his mind what sort of regulatory agency he will be prepared to have to supervise his activities? And does it not concern him a bit that Sir Denis Rooke should be 'indicating his intention of seizing the earliest possible opportunity to cross-subsidise competition with the private sector out of the proceeds of his monopoly operations?

My Lords, I have no doubt that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Energy is keeping the closest contact with Sir Denis Rooke. I have little doubt that they will reach an amicable decision in due time. But at the end of the day, as my noble friend will appreciate, it is for the Government and not Sir Denis Rooke to make these decisions; and the Government will make them.

Next Question, my Lords!

My Lords, the noble Lord has completely avoided answering my supplementary question. I apologise for upsetting the Chief Whip, but I have to ask it again. Will the noble Lord the Minister say whether or not he considers it a very complex and expensive method of doing what it is within the Government's power to do; namely, simply to stop interfering—if that is what he said was the main argument fror privatising the gas industry?

My Lords, I do not think the noble Lord is being completely fair. What I would suggest is that he has put forward only one of a host of reasons for privatising the gas industry.

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

My Lords, the proposals have been drawn up in conjunction with the Hertfordshire County Council, which is responsible for the local road system in the St. Albans area. The city and district council are being kept informed.

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer, but I do not think that "being kept informed" really covers the situation. Is it not the case that the first that St. Albans City Council knew of this matter was a letter from the Departments of the Environment and Transport on 1st May, which was the day after the whole subject had been aired in the local press? Does the Minister consider that that is the proper way of keeping local authorities informed of something which is going to have a very serious impact on their city?

My Lords, first, as I said in my original Answer, we have been working very closely with the Hertfordshire County Council, which is the traffic authority for the area; and the district of St. Albans has been kept informed. As to the second part of the noble Lord's supplementary question, I hope that this will not have too serious an effect upon St. Albans city itself. We have no plans for diversion through St. Albans city. The lorry ban through St. Albans will not be lifted and we shall do what we can to discourage people from trying to go through St. Albans.

My Lords, may I ask the Government whether they have now learned the lesson from the building of the M.1 that the cheapest economies, both in widths of lanes and the standards of construction of the road itself, have all proved simply to be false economies?

My Lords, I think there is a certain amount of truth in what my noble friend says. I think that the original building of the motorway with two lanes has proved to be a very false economy. As regards maintenance, I may tell him that this particular piece of road has not been repaired since it was first built in 1959 and that the time has now come when we can avoid it no longer.

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the M.1 was orginally planned with three lanes and that it was only as a result of subsequent decisions that, disastrously, a section of it was reduced to two lanes?

My Lords, I was not aware of the subject of my noble friend's observation. I take note of what he has said.

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that on Saturday of last weekend I went up the M.1, which was cordoned off with cones on one lane, and came down on Sunday, and that there was hardly a hiccup in the traffic flow?

My Lords, I am glad that my noble friend was lucky. I am afraid that if she goes up during the first two weeks of July she may not be so lucky.

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

My Lords, the Government hope to publish their proposals for the future of social security in a Green Paper soon after the Whitsun Recess.

My Lords, I must thank the noble Baroness for that Answer. Does she appreciate that the people will be very much relieved if this means that the internal dispute in the Government on social security is at an end and if, therefore, there are no more of those alarming leaks about the hazardous future of earnings-related pensions? Furthermore, can she assure the House that after the publication of the Green Paper the Government will not rush into legislation but will leave ample time for the essential national debate on the future of the welfare state?

My Lords, the noble Lord has two parts to his question. On the first part, he asks me to pre-empt the outcome of the review, which has not yet been published, and I am not going to comment on press speculation. In answer to the second part of his question, as my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said in another place, there will of course be an opportunity for consultation about the Government's conclusions and proposals before we take steps to implement them. The detailed arrangements for consultation have not yet been decided. They will be announced when we publish our proposals. Any legislation needed to give effect to proposed changes will of course be subject to parliamentary debate in the usual way.

My Lords, will the noble Baroness give an assurance that the professional and trade union organisations will be fully consulted before the Green Paper is finalised?

My Lords, I am quite sure that if the trade unions wish to be consulted, they will be. Your Lordships may be interested to know that the review received a great deal of evidence from the public. Over 4,000 pieces of written evidence were received during the course of the review. Ministers held 19 public sessions, at which oral evidence was heard. In addition, informal oral hearings were held with interested organisations by the housing benefit team. The evidence covered a wide range of opinion, all of which has been carefully considered.

My Lords, notwithstanding that the noble Baroness says she is not going to reveal what the Green Paper will say and despite what she says about consultation, does she agree that there could not have been consultation about the state earnings-related scheme, because it was made clear by the Prime Minister, during the election, and by her right honourable friend, Mr. Norman Fowler, in announcing the reviews, that the state earnings-related pension scheme would not be part of the study? Does she not accept that if there were now to be changes in a national agreement reached in 1975 with all the parties and all organisations, that would be a gross betrayal not only of trust regarding national agreement but also of the interest of many millions of pensioners?

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, must wait for the publication date.

My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether I am not right in thinking that the whole purpose of publishing a Green Paper is to afford the opportunity for consultation and that to make a prophecy at this stage as to what it contains is probably more idle and more useless than many of the forecasts to which we are accustomed to listening, some of them in this Chamber?

My Lords, may I say that I entirely agree with what my noble friend has said. Mr. Meacher published his social security proposals, which would add to public expenditure probably by at least £15 billion. We do not know what the official Opposition thinks of those proposals. They will have to wait until our proposals are published.

My Lords, can the noble Baroness explain the role of the Social Security Advisory Committee in the consultation? Presumably the Green Paper will be submitted to that committee; but will the final proposals of the Government after consultation be submitted to it? That procedure, regrettably, was not followed in the case of the supplementary benefit regulations dealing with board and lodging.

My Lords, I feel sure that what the noble Lord suggests will come about.

My Lords, will the noble Baroness give an assurance that the expertise of your Lordships' House will be secured by consultation in the form of a debate on the Green Paper after publication?

My Lords, I have already said so.

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

My Lords, the events to which this decision relates took place before enactment of the Copyright (Amendment) Act 1983, when penalties for the copyright offences relevant to this case were very low. That Act substantially increased the penalties in relation to the making of pirated copies of films, so that further action in this regard is unnecessary.

My Lords, while thanking the noble Minister for his rather negative reply, may I ask whether he is aware that the Lord Chief Justice, in the course of his judgment in that case, referred to the profits of the film pirates as "enormous", and said that the legitimate trade in feature films was potentially crippled? Is the noble Lord aware that he also stated that the law has not yet entirely caught up with this type of offence? May I therefore ask the noble Lord the Minister whether he would accept that such offences, with the grave threat they pose to the feature film industry, go a great deal further than mere infringements of copyright, even though I accept that the penalties have been increased for those; that they amount to theft of intellectual property and that the law should so treat them?

My Lords, had the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Hampstead, been in your Lordships' House on Friday last when we were discussing the Copyright (Computer Software) Amendment Bill, I feel sure he would have enjoyed the dissertation given by my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross concerning the effects of the 1983 Copyright (Amendment) Act on the piracy of videos and films. Of course, we shall take careful account of the Court of Appeal's judgment in this particular case, to which the noble Lord refers. However, I have to say that in the light of the 1983 Act we have no immediate plans for changes in the Theft Act.

My Lords, are we to understand from the noble Lord, on the assumption that the Question does correctly paraphrase the decision that was reached in the courts, that the unauthorised removal of a film from a cinema for the purpose of piracy is not an offence of some kind?

My Lords, indeed it is an offence. It is of course not for me to give a view on what the Court of Appeal decided. Their decision is fully reported in The Times Law Report of the 29th April. The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, will recall that the events to which Lord Lloyd's Question refers took place before the enactment in July 1983 of the Copyright (Amendment) Act. I am given to understand that had that Act been in force at that time no doubt a prosecution would have been brought under that Act, with its very much heavier penalties. However, it was not; and the courts decided in the manner in which they did, in so far as the particular charge was brought under the Theft Act.

My Lords, does not the Minister recognise that the events which are referred to in the Question add greatly to the distress currently being suffered by the film industry? Will the Minister appreciate that the mood within the film industry is one of great anxiety, and it is not helped by the current legislation before Parliament?

My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, has quite the wrong understanding. My understanding is that the film industry are particularly pleased with the effects that the 1983 legislation has had. I would again refer to Hansard of Friday last, in which the figures were quoted. If my memory serves me right, the number of infringements—that is, of piracy of film—has been reduced by some 60 per cent. as a result of that Act.

Regarding the noble Lord's second point, I am quite sure that the noble Lord will allow your Lordships' House to have the benefit of his thoughts on this matter tonight when we debate the Films Bill.

My Lords, will the noble Lord agree that if his answer means that, in his opinion, if this offence were now committed, a conviction would very likely result, then in that respect the film industry will be reassured?

My Lords, I do not think I can add anything more to that which I have already said in this regard.

My Lords, while obviously the learned Lord Chief Justice is all knowing, is it not a fact that the provisions of the Copyright (Amendment) Act 1983 were not referred to him at the trial of this matter?

I cannot answer the noble Lord, but my understanding is that even if they were referred, the events took place before the enactment of the Copyright (Amendment) Act 1983. Therefore the case was heard under the Theft Act 1968.

My Lords, perhaps I may be allowed one moment. All I was saying was that when the learned Lord Chief Justice referred to the question of the possible disadvantages of the law at the moment, his attention was not, so far as I understand it, drawn to the fact of a later Act which made the current position rather better. That was my point.

My Lords, I would not quarrel with the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. If that is his understanding, again, I would not quarrel. I have to say that I do not have an understanding one way or another of what was drawn to the noble and learned Lord's attention.

My Lords, with great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, I would ask the noble Lord the Minister whether he is aware that the report of this case which has, so far as I know, yet appeared only in The Times, makes it quite clear that the noble and learned Lord Chief Justice was aware of the new Act and in fact expressly referred to it in his judgment.

My Lords, I have the Law Report, as printed in The Times on 29th April, and looking quickly through in these few moments I catch a note of a date which would suggest to me that his attention was drawn to it.

My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon, my noble friend Lord Glenarthur will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on football grounds—fire and disturbances. That will be followed by my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth who, again with the leave of the House, will repeat a Statement on British Aerospace.

It may be for the convenience of the House if I also announce that the Committee stage of the Local Government Bill will be adjourned at approximately 7 p.m. for a short period and that during this adjournment the consideration of the Commons Reason for disagreeing to a Lords amendment to the Films Bill will be taken.

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

moved Amendment No. 101:

Page 15, line 18, leave out subsections (1) and (2) and insert—

("(1) The Secretary of State may before 31st March 1991 review the exercise by the Authority of its functions relating to education.").

If this amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 102, 103 or 104.

When the Secretary of State accepted the principle of an elected body for inner London education, many of us rejoiced that the evident wishes of Londoners had prevailed and that a proper vehicle was on offer for giving them effect. The publication of the Bill, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London has said, dispelled that illusion, for what is proposed here is subject to so many controls and restrictions that the new body will be little more than an agency of central Government disguised under a democratic facade.

One can only conclude that the Secretary of State is taking these draconian powers because he fears that he will be landed with an elected body not to his political taste. This could have been avoided if the Government, aided and abetted by the Labour Party, had not voted on Thursday night against the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, to stipulate proportional representation for elections to the ILEA. I believe that a great opportunity was missed there to get a fair, balanced, representative and responsible authority and to take the politics out of education.

Despite the blindness of the Government and of most if not all of the Labour Party to the obvious virtues of proportional representation, particularly in this instance, I have put my name to this series of amendments because I believe that this is a bad clause. It is bad for parents, it is bad for teachers and it is bad for children. The right reverend Prelate has advanced many of the reasons why this is so, and I agree with all of what he said. The Government will no doubt argue that a five-year review period was built into the 1963 Act but this, as the right reverend Prelate has said, is not a similar situation.

There is now an effective existing authority although it is nominally a sub-committee of the GLC. Its administrative structure already exists and it has a great deal to get on with without constantly looking over its shoulder at Big Brother. It has the Hargreaves Report on secondary education to work on, as the right reverend Prelate said—that was very much welcomed by the Secretary of State—and the Thomas Report on primary education. I believe I am right in saying that Mark Carlisle, when he was Secretary of State for Education, was against statutory reviews for ILEA, also on educational grounds.

There will also be a new national examinations system to take on board and crucial decisions to be taken on provision for 16-to 19-year-olds. A statutory review within five years, followed by an endless series of rolling reviews, can be only a distraction and a hindrance to getting on with the job. It is also bad for teachers' and staff morale, which is already pretty low.

Finally, it is unnecessary. Every body created by statute is subject to the scrutiny of Parliament; and the Government can at any time repeal legislation or introduce amending legislation if they feel that an authority is getting out of hand or going off the rails. The only question that really matters here is: are the interests of the children of inner London and their parents going to be well served or not by this clause? I would say, definitely not. For that reason, I and my noble friends strongly support these amendments.

As a number of amendments have been grouped together I should just like to say a word about Amendment No. 107B, which is designed to clarify the Secretary of State's power under Clause 21. Not only is this a bad clause for the educational reasons already mentioned but it is also bad because—I have taken counsel's advice on this—it is open to differing constructions in a court of law. At Second Reading I asked the noble Viscount the Leader of the House to clarify what would be the position of an elected ILEA shorn of all or virtually all of its powers and functions. Not unsurprisingly—I make no complaint about this—in answering a debate with more than 50 speakers, the noble Viscount was unable to answer my question which I therefore have to ask again. Could the elected body be dissolved and future elections be cancelled merely by order? Is that the intention of the Bill? Nothing is said in Clause 18 about this and I suggest that Clause 21 is ambiguous on the point. That may be bad drafting or it may be deliberate fudging; either way, it is not good enough for important primary legislation.

One could, for example, envisage a case in which parents or governors brought a case against the Secretary of State for the dissolution of the Inner London Education Authority. The judge might rule that the Secretary of State's right to transfer functions also gave him the power under Clause 21(6) to wind up a functionless ILEA entirely, without further ado; or he might rule that having set up an elected body and made no explicit provision for its demise, he did not have the power under the Bill to abolish that body entirely and that he could not therefore after a review take away all of its functions without coming back to Parliament. I do not know, but we have a right to know the Government's interpretation of the Secretary of State's powers. The Government themselves in their own interests have to be clear about their own powers in case they find themselves in the dock. My amendment would clarify this dubious area and would make it quite clear to everyone concerned that, before depriving ILEA of all its functions and abolishing elections, the Secretary of State would have to come back to Parliament with amending legislation, as of course he should do.

It would surely be intolerable to your Lordships' Committee that an elected body should be abolished merely by an affirmative instrument on which your Lordships would by long established convention have no vote. If there is an element of doubt, as I strongly suspect there is, about the construction of the clause the Government should withdraw it both on these grounds and on the educational grounds that have already been argued. I hope that the noble Lord will be able to tell us that the Government will do just that.

I should perhaps preface my strong support for these amendments by declaring a personal interest in a secure and stable future for the ILEA in that I have four grandchildren currently being educated at an ILEA primary school and I myself am a product of the London education service. But perhaps more important and relevant to the issues which the Committee currently has under consideration is my direct experience of the nature, scale and complexity of the education service in inner London—ranging as it does from nursery schools and nursery classes through primary and secondary schools to further and higher education—as a result of my membership of the LCC Education Committee continuously over a period of some 13 years, followed by a further period of three years as vice chairman of the Education Committee of the Inner London Education Authority when it was first established in 1963.

Having lived through the upheaval of the reorganisation of London government in 1963—the creation of the GLC and of the ILEA in particular—I am only too well aware (and there are several noble Lords present today who share this experience) of the unsettling and at times traumatic effect of major reorganisations and reviews for everyone involved in providing and using local government services. Those first three years of the ILEA's existence were difficult enough and the prospect of a further review by 1970 which was provided in the 1963 Act, as the right reverend Prelate has just said, hanging over the service made for even greater insecurity and anxiety which was only dispelled when in 1967 the Local Government (Termination of Reviews) Act repealed the review provision.

However, in spite of all that experience the Bill as at present drafted goes even further in that, as at present drafted, the statute will provide for ongoing and seemingly endless reviews at any time covering all or part of the ILEA services and area without further primary legislation. As such, it can act only as a permanent threat to the unified service which two Governments—two Conservative Governments, I may add—have decided in the past 20 years should remain a unified directly elected service as a result of overwhelming public and informed support.

Such a constant threat will inevitably damage the quality of the educational opportunity offered to the children, to their parents and to students. It will destroy its stability, it will hinder long-term planning, it will certainly hinder staff recruitment and, above all, I believe that it will unsettle the existing staff. All concerned with the provision of the education service know that in the last resort it is the quality of staff at all levels that determines the quality of any service.

The roots and the branches of the London educational service have grown continuously together over the past 115 years; indeed, ever since the London School Board was set out in 1870. Any gardener will tell you that when you start cutting the roots and branches of, say, a mature oak and replace it with some 12 saplings, you destroy the environment and you certainly destroy a tree which will take another 100 years to replace. Some 3,500 London schoolchildren opt to attend secondary schools in boroughs outside their home areas when they transfer to secondary education. The mind certainly boggles at the thought, let alone the cost, of 12 sets of administrative arrangements which will be needed merely for claiming and making payments for children and students who are being educated in boroughs other than in their home areas if secondary education were ever to be devolved as a borough responsibility.

I could give the Committee many more practical examples in terms of specialist services which can only be provided effectively and economically on a London-wide basis, epecially in regard to the education of children with handicaps. Many Members of this House and indeed of this Committee have shown on numerous occasions their special concern for the handicapped, and particularly for the needs of handicapped children. There are 30 per cent. more handicapped children in inner London than nationally, and for those whose needs cannot yet be met in their local schools ILEA provides some 100 special schools to cater for the whole range of handicap: autism, mental handicap, physical handicap, maladjusted children, the partially sighted, and those with partial hearing. Indeed, some 30 of them are boarding schools not even located in London itself. I shall not detain the Committee further by detailing other examples of the unsettling effects of the present provisions of Clause 21 and the overwhelming case for the amendments which the right reverend Prelate so ably moved a few moments ago.

Perhaps I may at this point explain why some people who, like myself, were in favour of an elected ILEA replacing the present structure are nevertheless favourable to the proposals in the Bill and find it impossible to support Amendment No. 101. When we argued the case for an elected ILEA rather than some kind of joint board, we took on board the view, which has been powerfully expressed by the noble Baroness, that there are great practical considerations which would make the maintenance of a central focus for inner London's education desirable, all other considerations being equal.

What is important is the proviso. If the other considerations are not equal—that is to say, if one came to the conclusion that the damage done to the education of children of all or part of inner London was greater than the advantages to be derived from a single authority—one would have to look at this matter again.

The admiration for the work of the ILEA which has been expressed by the right reverend Prelate—and I bow to his authority in these matters—is not widely and certainly not universally accepted in the education world, when its performance is compared with authorities which also have responsibilities for difficult and deprived areas, for ethnic minorities and so forth. On the contrary, some of us believe that the present educational philosophy of ILEA is extremely detrimental in particular to children in categories of that kind, and that a philosophy which places more emphasis upon notions of sexism, racism and the other bees which circulate in Mrs. Francis Morrell's all-too capacious bonnet, is not a philosophy that is going to help the young people of inner London become full citizens, whatever their ethnic origin or home deprivation.

We therefore hoped, and still hope, that the process of direct election—and I pointed this out when dealing with the amendment on proportional representation moved when this Committee last sat—would produce not a monopoly of a single party or a monopoly of three parties but a proper representation of educational interests, both of the profession and of the parents, who are, in the last resort, the proper judges.

We felt that an elected body of that kind, which would not be connected to local government in general and which would not be connected through party ties to any particular version of educational philosophy but which would look at the scene as it is and do its best for the education of the children, would be the best resort. After all, one has only to pick up any daily newspaper on almost any day of the week to read of some new example of a new bee in the ILEA bonnet. There was the prohibition against little boys in elementary schools playing in football competitions; the desire, perhaps to create a nation of cissies. This is only the latest of many such examples. There are more serious examples than this. There is a denigration of intellectual effort and achievement. I know many people teaching in inner London schools who feel that the weight of the authority is against what they are trying to do for the chidren in their care.

So what does the amendment do? It allows or makes mandatory after a period of years a review of the situation to see whether the hopes that we had in a new, directly-elected body have been justified or whether the new body is merely a carbon copy of the old. The ILEA is being put on probation, and probation is usually reckoned a proper method of dealing with an offender. If the ILEA succeeds in the next five years, the Secretary of State's review can be perfunctory and may consist entirely of laudatory comments on the authority's achievements. But if the ILEA has not justified a case for maintaining it, it will, alas, have to be looked at again very seriously.

I fear that there is here a clash of interests. There are boroughs which probably could make a better job than the ILEA does of the education of their own children, although there are obviously considerable problems in relation to higher and further education, and so on. But in relation to schools, that is probably the case. That was the case which was argued for the devolution of this power to individual boroughs. If that were done, it might be that the children in the remaining boroughs would be even worse off than they are at present. There is a difficult question here to resolve. It would be resolved far better if the new ILEA did its work properly; and all of us must hope that this experiment with a directly-elected authority will prove to be something better than the ILEA's performance over the past few years.

I rise to support this amendment very strongly. It may be of interest to the Committee to recognise, first, that this is the creation of an ad hoc local education authority, the first in England. I started my career serving an ad hoc local education authority in Scotland. While I was still serving that authority, the ad hoc authority was abolished and Scotland was brought into line with England—always an unfortunate thing to happen. That is why I have spent my life coming to England—to try to get England's education service up to the standard that is to be found in Scotland. But that change brought the education committee under the county authority, and two things happened. First, the quality of the personnel dropped very badly; and, secondly, education became less important than party politics.

If I shared the views of the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, I would support the amendment. As he said, an ad hoc local education authority has the prospect of people being elected because of their concern and interest in education rather than their commitment to party politics. All experience in Scotland until 1929 confirms that that is the most likely thing to happen. If that happens and at the end of five years there is a review—which I think should be optional; the Secretary of State can see whether he thinks it necessary—why on earth is there provision thereafter to dismember the authority, to cut off a leg this year and an arm next year, and to take away primary or secondary schools? This makes administration impossible. The doctrine of the Department of Education and Science traditionally is the seamless garment of education. That is what would be destroyed.

I very much hope that this experiment will succeed. I believe that it will succeed if your Lordships' House and the Government show confidence in the experiment, in the belief that an ad hoc local education authority offers a new prospect to the education service. For myself, I hope it might be an example that will be followed throughout the country, because I believe that ad hoc local education authorities will provide a better service than under the present arrangements. Therefore, I support the amendment in that faith and I very much hope that the Committee will accept it. Otherwise, the Government are virtually saying to the country, "We made a decision, but we have so little faith in our decision that we are making provision to change our minds, not only if we are satisfied to leave the system there but also to take it apart piece by piece because we have no faith in our decision."

I think it is worthwhile looking at the reason why a unitary system of education in inner London has persisted ever since 1870. If one has an education authority that is very small, it is not able to make a variety of provision either, as my noble friend Baroness Serota suggested, for handicapped children or for the very varying demands not only of children but also of adults who use the education service for unusual pieces of knowledge—for the study of languages which only a few people want to study. If the education authority is too small, it cannot make that degree of variety of provision, but if the education authority is too large, it might be difficult for its members to know the whole area for which they are supposed, collectively, to be responsible.

The particular position of London was that one could have a large population in an easily manageable area. One had a population which now means, I believe, about 300,000 schoolchildren, about a quarter of a million doing further education and another quarter of a million adults pursuing evening education. Making provision on that scale enables the authority to provide variety in every sphere. At the same time, because of the geography and population of London all this can be done in an area through which one can travel by public transport in half an hour. That is to say, it is a manageable area from the authority's point of view.

Although my name is not with this amendment, it is with subsequent amendments along the same lines, and so perhaps I may have an opportunity for a few moments to occupy the Committee's time to speak in support of the amendment proposed by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London. In the last Session when we were discussing, I think it was, the paving Bill, I tried to express my concern that the arrangements being made for the future of education in London should not in any way affect adversely the efficient administration, and consequently the educational welfare, of the capital's 300,000 children. My noble friend the Leader of the House on that occasion did his best to meet the representations along those lines which were made by members of this House of all parties, and we were extremely grateful to him. I should like to say, if I may, to my noble friend the Minister that I very much hope that he will show the same flexibility in his approach to this subject as his noble leader did on that occasion. This is not a matter of party politics in any way but it is something which closely concerns not only the welfare of children but the interests of parents throughout the capital city.

This afternoon I return to the same theme. As I explained on the previous occasion, I do so on the basis of such knowledge as I have of a school which in some ways encapsulates the major social and educational problems of education in inner London—ethnic, social and environmental problems. I shall not repeat my previous arguments except to emphasise to your Lordships the importance, as has been stated by previous speakers, to the whole body of teachers in London schools, governors, and of course pupils and parents, of administrative stability and continuity, particularly at this present time when improvements in the standards of education within the area are urgently required and are not only planned but being put into operation.

It is difficult not to assume, as other speakers have done, from the wording of the clause that its object is to afford the Secretary of State an opportunity in five years' time or less to abolish ILEA and revert to the previous intention to divide its responsibilities among the boroughs. As the noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham, said, that is contrary to the opinions given by experts over perhaps 50, 60 or 70 years.

I must say that I was greatly disturbed by the contribution made by my noble friend Lord Beloff. This is not a matter of the philosophy of education. That is not the issue before us at the present moment. He talked about the best for the education of the children—provided, as the noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham, said, it is along the lines which he and others who think like him approve. I felt that that surely had an underlying taste, so to speak, of totalitarianism. It would be the Government of the day—not the elected representatives of ILEA, not the parents, not anyone except the Secretary of State representing the party political views of the Government of the day. I would remind some of my noble friends on this side of the Chamber, if I may do so without being too controversial, that the Government of the day before the end of this century or the middle of the next century may not by any means be the sort of Government of which they would approve. To establish situations which could be exploited by our successors, making precedents which will come back to our disadvantage at a future time, is one of the less wise things for any politicial party or any Government to do.

Most of us are gardeners. There is always a temptation to dig up a plant to see how it is growing. I am not a very good gardener and I do not know much about it; but I know very well that when I get impatient with a plant and dig it up it is never as good subsequently as I had hoped that it would be. ILEA, without the support of the GLC infrastructure, will be to all intents and purposes something new, having to equip itself with the many important services for which it at present relies on the existing central authority. If things are going all right administratively, leaving aside the question of educational philosophy, why dig it up? Why have an inquiry with all the expense and wasted effort which that would entail? But if things are not going all right, the Secretary of State has the power under this amendment—indeed, I think that he has the power in any case—to hold an inquiry at any time that he thinks necessary.

I cannot understand why the Bill seeks to make an inquiry mandatory before the end of five years unless the widespread suspicion that the Government intend at the earliest date possible to abolish ILEA is true. If it is untrue, and I hope to goodness that it is, surely there is no reason why my noble friend and the Government should not accept the amendment and set the suspicions which are generally felt at rest both in the interests of the Government and in the interests of education in London during the years ahead.

The noble Baroness, Lady Serota, speaks from a wealth of experience. Certainly none of the interests that she has declared in any way affect the value of her opinion. I also take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham—the elective point. But I would oppose this amendment not for all the reasons given by my noble friend Lord Beloff but because in the main the boroughs could make a better job of it. That, I appreciate, is a matter of opinion, and that surely is the crucial matter at the heart of our decision. It is perfectly legitimate to hold one opinion or the other without indulging in any form of rancour in expressing it. It is for that reason that I would urge your Lordships to oppose this amendment.

I find myself in some difficulty because the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London moved Amendment No. 101 and spoke to Amendments Nos. 105 and 106, and I find it difficult to deal with the ILEA group of amendments without dealing with them as a whole, and so in a sense this takes in Amendment No. 107, to which the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock spoke, and runs up to Amendment No. 109. With the leave of your Lordships, it is on that basis that I seek briefly to address the Committee.

I totally take the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Serota. This is not assuredly a wrecking amendment. It does not strike at the heart of the Bill. The position of ILEA does not affect anything else in the Bill and falls to be resolved on its own merits. It is, as one might put it, a one-off situation.

However, the concept of the Bill is to devolve power to the boroughs and to leave them to make the decisions. If, after five years, very substantial changes are required, such as abolition, which was mentioned just now by my noble friend Lord Alport, if that were to happen, that would have to be a matter for primary legislation. One cannot set education, or indeed anything, in a mould—

Perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to say this. I think that is not so, under the Bill as it stands at the moment.

With the greatest respect to the noble Baroness, as I see it, whatever should be the interpretation of the Bill, as a matter of construction as it stands—and I do not approach this on the basis that I fear the government of another party; I am saying this on the basis of any government—no government could abolish the ILEA without introducing primary legislation.

Will the noble Lord give way? If it be as he says, then what is the point of including the words in the clause which refer to all the functions being capable of being devolved to the boroughs? What is left? A body without any functions. It may be that technically it would still exist but I cannot conceive what it would do.

Perhaps I may assist the right reverend Prelate. With deference to him, as I see it, much depends on what is involved in the words, "transferred or divided" which appear in Clause 21. If that involves a very substantial change, such as abolition, I cannot conceive that that could be introduced other than by primary legislation. If it does not, then the transfer or division would fall within the ambit of the Bill and could be—and indeed would be—dealt with by the mandatory duty of the Secretary of State under Clause 21.

This amendment seeks to remove the power of the Secretary of State to make an affirmative order under Clause 21 and substitute for that mandatory duty this permissive power. I take the point mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady David, that to some degree transfer or division may import an ambiguity. However, I should have thought that in any circumstances where abolition were to be even contemplated, one would have to resort to primary legislation.

As the Bill stands, it is, broadly speaking, effective, subject to the qualification which I have conceded. If the boroughs within the ambit of devolved power cannot agree, then the mandatory reserve power ought to be implemented. It is wholly necessary, within the scope of the Bill as at present conceived, to have the mandatory review by the Secretary of State.

An affirmative order through the usual channels can always be effectively debated and one returns to the crucial point, which is a matter of opinion and a matter of judgment. Will the job be better done by the boroughs or by the centralised institution? Although I defer to experience of noble Lords who take a contrary view, I always feel that the smaller unit, especially in education, is preferable. For that reason, I shall oppose the amendment.

I think that this is the first time on the Committee stage that I have presumed to come in on anything to do with London. I have come in on matters concerning the metropolitan counties because I have had some experience of them and I am entitled to express a view on them. However, the reason I now come in on this matter is because I think there is a parliamentary consideration which has been raised.

The right reverend Prelate and the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, made the point that what is now in the Bill is unnecessary because the powers are already there; there are already the powers, so there is no need for this. Then they went on to find all kinds of good reasons for saying that things as they now stand are likely to be better. They paid great tribute to the standard and the quality of the things that are now emerging. Those were the two arguments.

In relation to the first point, if they are saying that the power is already there and then they go on to say how wonderful it is as it now stands, are they suggesting that it will be detrimental to good educational facilities in the future because the power will already be there, quite apart from this clause in the Bill? It is suggested by the noble Lord on the Cross-Benches that the general quality of the teachers and the general organisation will be affected if there is a fear that the position might be changed. That is what I gather the noble Lord said. He said that some certainty has to be given that things will continue, otherwise the uncertainty means that the teachers are less likely to concentrate on doing the right thing or to continue doing what they want. If there is any substance at all in that point, the very existence of the powers, which it has been admitted are already there, makes it rather surprising that they can use both arguments.

May I interrupt the noble Lord? With respect, I do not think that at any point in my speech I said what the noble Lord is suggesting that I said. What I said was this. The policy of the Department of Education and Science has consistently been a seamless garment. In other words, education from infants to further education should be administered as one. I made no reference to the teachers.

Thank you very much. I should not at all want to misrepresent the noble Lord. It may well be that his explanation of his first words will satisfy many members of the Committee. If I may say so, it does not altogether satisfy me because I received the impression that the whole point of his contribution was that one is more likely to obtain better results if there is certainty, if the knowledge that they are stabilised and firm, is there.

No, I think one is more likely to obtain results if there is an ad hoc educational authority; in other words, people elected for education and not for other purposes of local government.

Yes, I accept that and I am rather inclined to agree with it. That is why I adhere to what is in the Bill. What the Bill is saying is that although we have had a general look at all other facets of government, we have preserved for the time being the ILEA, which would seem to be what the noble Lord wants.

However, then the Government have to say this because it is true. No one can say for a moment that ILEA has been free from controversy. I do not think that any member of the Committee would be prepared to say that everybody likely to be affected by it are happy about the way ILEA has operated in the past. The general indications we receive from speeches and from general moods that are made public are that there is some doubt in the minds of many as to whether we will be right in the future. Therefore, as I see it, what this Bill is doing is this, and this is why, in parliamentary terms, I accept it rather than the amendment. The Bill is saying that we are setting up ILEA again, despite the present controversy over other areas of local government, but there are certain doubts, based upon various well-based experiences. My noble friend Lord Beloff was quite right to outline all kinds of matters which have caused considerable disquiet in many people's minds. If that kind of situation is repeated, there may well be a strong push to have the matter looked at.

Where the Bill as it stands has a great deal of strength is this. The people who from now on will be responsible for framing and organising the education for London will know that they will have to pass a certain test. They will have to pass the test five years from now or before that as to whether they have taken a route likely to create greater support for it than the route they have often taken in the past. I believe the very uncertainty which noble Lords are complaining about may well be the thing that would make [LEA much better than it would be if it had the near certainty that it is not likely to be put under the microscope. That is a pragmatic and very sensible way of looking at it, and it was brought out clearly by my noble friend Lord Alport, who gave us a graphic description.

I should not have thought that anyone needed to be told that if you dig up a plant and keep on digging it up to have a look at it, you will kill it; anybody knows that. When you look at a plant in your garden you do not look at it with the idea of digging it up but to see if it has greenfly and whether you can put on some spray that will remove the greenfly and allow the plant to be so much stronger and better as a consequence.

If I may say so, nor was I very disturbed at the threat of my noble friend as to what a future government might do. If, as he said, we leave the Bill as it is, there is a great risk as a consequence that other governments may do all sorts of things we do not like. I do not believe it needs this Bill or any other to take away from me fears of what other governments may do. Whether or not we have this Bill, other governments, with all the mandates that they can have, will do what they want, irrespective of this Bill. That is what elections are all about. If any government knew that they had not to pass the test of being examined every five years or less, the things they do may often be more horrible than they are now.

Although I am not an expert on how it affects London on day-to-day educational matters, from the point of view of parliamentary procedure and the general effect on the nation, and looking at it from a common-sense point of view, I think that the Bill as it stands is more likely to produce the sort of ILEA we would like than if it were left with the sort of freedoms which so often have been abused in the past. For that reason I can see that the fear—and there is a fear—of being found out may be one of the things which will cause the Government to do things which would not make them worry about being found out. I once saw on a calendar the words: "One of the advantages of speaking the truth is that you do not have to remember what you have said". I have always remembered that. In this instance, one of the advantages of knowing you might be looked at is as good a reason as I know for making it more certain that you will try to do what is right.

The noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham, brought up the point that my noble friend Lord Beloff wanted to preserve the Bill as it was because the ILEA as it is and as it may be did not fit into his political considerations. On that matter, one ought to be fair. Maybe some of us can say that the reason the noble Lord, Lord Stewart, likes the Bill as it is now in regard to ILEA is that the political things which flow from it fit in with what he considers to be right. This is as strong on one side as on the other, but the fact that it might be examined under mandate is more likely to make it not do things which would make you bother, whatever your politics, that there would be anything very damaging arising from the examination which this Bill insists be taken within the five years.

I should like to say a few words in support of the amendment. I shall be extremely brief, as I speak as a total layman. It seems to me to be unnecessary to make the first review a duty rather than an option and to provide for further reviews when the Inner London Education Authority has been the subject of several external reviews in the last few years, as well as having set up three independent reviews of its own position. The uncertainty created by the possibility of breakup or transfer in functions cannot make long-term planning easy, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London said so eloquently when moving the amendment.

I am concerned as to what will be the future for the child with special educational needs, something which the noble Baroness, Lady Serota, has already mentioned. We should now be moving towards a system of integrated education. The Education Act 1981 made this possible but not probable in that it allowed, but in no way compelled or even encouraged, local education authorities to educate children with special educational needs in ordinary schools. In any case, the change would be gradual. Always there will be a need for a mixture of provision of special schools, special units within ordinary schools, special classes alongside ordinary classes into and out of which children move, and classes in ordinary schools which children with special educational needs will attend full time.

This last year has been critically important in relation to the thinking of the ILEA on special education. The Fish Committee has been extremely receptive to forward thinking ideas, and it is no exaggeration to say that no other education authority is currently reviewing special education in its area to this degree. The next few years will be very important. If real progress is to be made towards integrated education and if children with special educational needs are to be given the opportunity of developing to their maximum potential, this will not come about in an atmosphere of unease and instability. This is why I support this amendment.

There is no doubt about where the weight of the argument has been in the debate on this amendment so ably moved by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London, who really said everything that needed to be said about it. I think that perhaps one could disregard the rather extraordinary outburst of the noble Lord, Lord Beloff. If I may say so, I think the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, was extremely ill-informed, which is not usually the case. For one thing, the noble Lord said it was a matter of opinion or judgment that the boroughs could take on the educational commitment. He did not appear to know that there have been a great many reviews—

I am very much obliged to the noble Baroness, Lady David, for giving way. With respect, I did not say that; and if I did say it, I did not mean to say it. I do not think I said it. We can see tomorrow what I did say. I shall not take up time now. The point was which could do it better—whether it could be done better under the amendment as proposed or under the Bill, "it" being education. That is what I was saying.

We shall be able to look tomorrow. I disagree very much with the noble Lord's reading of the Bill about primary legislation needing to be brought to Parliament before the ILEA can really be abolished or broken up entirely. I understand I have the support of the right reverend Prelate on that. We shall be interested to hear what the Government have to say in reply.

All we were asking for in the groups of amendments to Clause 21 is that the Inner London Education Authority should be treated in exactly the same way as any other local education authority. It should not have to be subject to this constant review. It is impossible for officers, with all their new responsibilities, the new set up without the back up of the Greater London Council, to go about their task if they are having to look over their shoulders the whole time and think about what the effect will be of what they are doing, and thinking the Secretary of State is looking at them the whole time. We are not going all that far in this amendment. We are asking that the review should be permissive, not mandatory. That seems to me to be not a great deal to ask.

I hope very much that in this case the Government can show some flexibility and perhaps agree with this amendment, which does not do any harm at all to the Bill and could do a great deal of good to the education service in London. I hope that all noble Lords in this Committee will be thinking today of the 291,000 children who are being educated in over 1,000 schools in the Inner London Education Authority. What we are doing today may have an effect on the way their education is provided in the next five years. I would ask very simply for the Government to be flexible and to think primarily of that education service and how best it can be provided with the least upset and interference in the next five years.

I would certainly hope to echo the noble Baroness Lady David in expressing concern for the 291,000 children in London, not least that none of them will suffer during the present teachers' dispute. I should also like to join with her in congratulating the right reverend Prelate on the way that he moved the amendment. I could not help but recognise—he will not in any way mind this—that he was using whole phrases from a recent article by the education officer for ILEA, Dr. William Stubbs. However, if a bishop may speak to a brief, so may a Minister. We are together on that.

I have listened with great interest to a very vivid and interesting, if perhaps a little complex, debate. I have tried to unravel for my own mind, and I hope for the benefit of the Committee, the main strands of the debate. It seems to me that three main strands have emerged. First, it has been argued that Clause 21 should include only a permissive power and not a statutory requirement to conduct a review of the new ILEA. That was the point made by the noble Baroness just now.

Why do the Government wish for a statutory review? The short answer is common prudence. The clause requires this new, indeed novel, structure for the administration of education in inner London to be examined critically after a reasonable period of time—after five years. A similar provision for a mandatory review was included when the existing ILEA was established by the London Government Act in 1963. The provision was never used because it was repealed in 1967. Our view is that, had the review taken place, we might have been spared much controversy in the past few years over the right structure for education in inner London. The White Paper made clear that the Government consider that a unitary education service administered by a single authority offers at present the best prospect of meeting the educational needs of inner London and of improving the standards and cost effectiveness of the service. Here, the Government stand four square with what the right reverend Prelate said. We stand by that judgment. We stand by it in expecting what is reasonable for us to expect—that the new authority should vindicate our judgment and our confidence. But the new ILEA will be responsible for very substantial sums of ratepayers' money. And the Government have an obligation to monitor its use of this money.

A sensible new ILEA which lives up to reasonable expectations that it should concern itself wholly with educational matters has nothing to fear from a statutory review. But the provision for a statutory review recognises the very widespread unease that has been felt about ILEA in recent years. This was the nub of the point made by my noble friend Lord HarmarNicholls. A statutory review also recognises the Government's duty to see that the new authority fulfils its functions within its means, as my noble friend Lord Beloff argued most eloquently. If it does so, both the noble Baroness, Lady Serota, and the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth) can be confident that there will be no need for any anxiety or insecurity over the watching brief which this clause provides. I would say to the noble Baroness, Lady Scrota, that the whole point, as I, perhaps imperfectly, remember it, of the story of the Sword of Damocles is that, as a result of the sword, Damocles became a more sensible and realistic fellow than he looked like becoming. It seems to me simply not good enough to argue, as my noble friend Lord Alport argued in response to my noble friend Lord Beloff, that the latter was trying to impose his or my politics on ILEA. That misses the point of the argument of my noble friend Lord Beloff when he showed that he believed, as I do, that ILEA should only very tenuously be a political body at all.

The second strand of the debate has questioned whether, even if there is a need for an initial review, there should really be provision for a second or subsequent reviews. That provision is intended to equip the Government to deal expeditiously with the need that may arise over time to make adjustments to the new structure which, after all, as many speakers have recognised, is an untried one. But the suggestion that the Government could use this power to influence ILEA's day-to-day running of education in London is surely absurd. Overall structures cannot be used effectively to respond to short term issues. The clause requires that a review should be carried out, a report on it then laid before Parliament and the approval of both Houses obtained before any reallocation of functions could be effected. This is not a tool that would allow the review provisions to be deployed to influence the ILEA in petty ways.

Another strand of the debate, it seems to me, has been real concern that it would not be appropriate for my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science to reallocate the new ILEA's functions by order, albeit subject to affirmative resolution. The 1963 Act contained a similar provision: as well as to review the existing ILEA, as I have said, to reallocate its functions if that was judged necessary in the light of the review and to reallocate them by secondary legislation. So there is certainly nothing odd in the idea that transfers of functions between public bodies may be made by secondary legislation, though I appreciate the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham, that this is inevitably controversial. I can perhaps therefore remind the noble Lord and the Committee of the significant safeguards built into the clause before any such secondary education can take effect.

First of all, a review must be undertaken. Secondly, the review must be capable of standing up to public and parliamentary scrutiny because a report of it must be laid before Parliament, which effectively makes the report a public document. Thirdly, any order proposing a reallocation of functions in the light of the review must be debated and approved in this House and in another place. I know that, by custom, such a debate lasts one-and-a-half hours but it would always be possible to arrange for a longer debate through the usual channels if the issue warranted it. I am sure that such an order would be subjected to careful scrutiny here and in another place and a longer debate would, in fact, occur. Anything to do with education in general or with the ILEA in particular is very seldom, it seems to me, passed over in a hurry on some wet Friday afternoon with or without, in the right reverend Prelate's words, serious public debate. The idea of serious public debate not taking place, as indeed it is taking place on this issue this very afternoon, is surely inconceivable.

Before the noble Earl leaves that point, he gave an unequivocal "Yes" to my question whether the authority could be abolished and the election suspended if all its powers were removed. However, that is not what I understood the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, to say. May we have clarification from the Government Front Bench that that is the case? Is it the case that if all the functions of the ILEA, which is elected in May 1990—because that will be the second round of elections—were removed, elections, could then be suspended by order?

The noble Lord asked me for clarification and I have just this minute given it; so I rest on the clarification that I have given. I believe that it is right and that it is common sense to provide for an initial statutory review of this untried procedure, structure and body. In my view it is also right and common sense to provide for subsequent reviews of the new ILEA, if they are judged necessary. In the light of a review, I do not find it in any way odd to provide for a reallocation of functions to be implemented by order, and I have cited the precedents for this. I do not think that the amendments are necessary. I think that they are alarmist, and I urge the Committee to reject them if they are pressed to a Division.

I am very grateful to the noble Earl for what he has just said. However, I must confess that I remain wholly unconvinced. I should like to make two points. First, I can appreciate, particularly in view of the additional burden and duties which will be laid upon the ILEA, that some sort of review should take place. However, that is provided for in the amendment. We are not denying the need for a review; we are not denying that it should take place. We are leaving it to the Secretary of State.

The noble Earl has asked us to interpret the Bill as it stands in a reasonable and intelligent way, and that is always a very good thing to do. Therefore, I ask him to assume that in future his Secretaries of State will also interpret the Bill, if amended as by us, in an intelligent and reasonable way. Of course, if the Secretary of State thinks that there is a need for review of the way in which it is working, he will take advantage of our subsection and will call for a review. We cannot have it both ways. Either we stick precisely to the wording of the Bill and its literal interpretation, or we do not. We cannot have interpretation in a reasonable and intelligent way on one side and not on the other. Whatever else one says about the Bill, if it does not contain the possibility of the ILEA being abolished after a period, then why is there included the phrase:

"those functions or any of them should be transferred"?

One does not use the phrase "any of them" unless by the first phrase one means "all of them". That seems to me to be quite clear. I do not think that I should ask leave to withdraw this amendment, and I must leave it to the judgment of the Committee.

This might be an appropriate moment to resume the House to take the two Statements. I beg to move that the House do now resume.

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

"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a Statement. The entire nation has been horrified and appalled at the terrible tragedy at Bradford City football ground on Saturday. I know that the whole House will wish to join together in expressing our deepest sympathy for the families and friends of the dead and of the many who were injured, some of whom remain critically ill.

"The fire started just before half-time, at about 3.35 p.m., under the floor at one end of the main stand.

"The stand was an old one made of metal and timber with a bitumen and felt roof, and the fire spread extremely rapidly. There were about 3,000 people in the stand. The majority managed to move down onto the pitch; but a number tried to escape through the exits at the rear and found themselves trapped in a narrow alley between the back of the stand and the wall of the ground. In accordance with long established practice at sports grounds, the gates were locked to prevent unauthorised spectators gaining admission. It was here that many people died.

"The Chief Constable of West Yorkshire has informed me this morning that 51 persons died at the ground. Two others have died in hospital. Four more people reported to the police as missing are still unaccounted for. The bodies of most of those who died at the ground have not yet been identified.

"In addition, over 200 people were injured, of whom 60 are still in hospital. Twenty-two policemen were injured, of whom two are in hospital; and three firemen were injured, none of whom is still in hospital.

"The cause of the fire has not yet been ascertained, but a team of detectives from the West Yorkshire police, assisted by forensic scientists and members of the West Yorkshire fire brigade, began sifting through the debris as soon as it had been made safe to do so. The police have asked for witnesses to come forward who might be able to give evidence about the possible cause of the fire, and it is essential that members of the public should give every assistance.

"I should like to pay tribute to the courage and professionalism of the police and fire services. No one who has seen the TV film of the events can doubt that as much as could be done was done to get people out of the stand, and then to deal with the aftermath of the fire. I should like also to express the warmest appreciation for the dedication and skill of the medical and pathological teams, the ambulance service and all the hospital and voluntary agencies who have since been working day and night, treating the injured and consoling the bereaved.

"Further, the House will be aware that at Birmingham on the very same day many people were injured and subsequently one spectator died as a result of serious crowd disorder at the match between Birmingham City and Leeds United, arising from violence by groups of fans from both clubs. There were repeated invasions of the pitch, missiles were thrown, and the police were attacked.

"In all, there were 125 arrests, 96 police officers required medical treatment, of whom two are still in hospital, and over 80 spectators were injured. Some of the injuries were caused when a wall collapsed following a surge in the crowd, and it was a boy of 15 who subsequently died of the injuries he received. All 125 persons arrested have been charged by the police with various criminal offences. This was a further example of disgraceful football violence, which illustrates the link between the problem of crowd safety and the problem of crowd control. With regard to this incident, inquiries are of course also being made by the Football Association.

"Investigations at Bradford are continuing and inquests will be conducted both there and at Birmingham. I shall expect to receive further reports in due course giving the conclusions of the police, forensic and fire brigade inquiries in Bradford and of the police inquiries in Birmingham. But over and above these particular investigations and hearings, the magnitude of these events demands that urgent steps should immediately be taken to examine what can be done to prevent such incidents. With my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland I have therefore asked Mr. Justice Popplewell to chair an inquiry with the following terms of reference:

'To inquire, with particular reference to the events at Bradford City and Birmingham football grounds on 11th May, into the operation of the Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975; and to recommend what if any further steps should be taken, including any that may be necessary under additional powers, to improve both crowd safety and crowd control at sports grounds.'

"I understand that Mr. Justice Popplewell will visit Bradford tomorrow.

"The inquiry's fundamental task will be to ensure that the demands of safety, on the one hand, and control, on the other, are not only each satisfied in themselves but also satisfied compatibly with each other. A subsidiary but important task will be for the inquiry to review what is known as the Green Code, that is the Guide to Safety at Sports Grounds, which provides guidelines for local authorities as to the conditions that they should require of clubs that seek certification under the 1975 Act. I shall ask that the inquiry should proceed with all possible speed, taking account of and supplementing, as necessary, the findings of the current police, forensic service and fire brigade investigations. I shall arrange for the chairman to be assisted by appropriately qualified assessors—for example, from the police and fire services—and to have available such technical advice and support as he requires. He will of course be able to make any further factual inquiries into what happened that he thinks necessary. If the chairman thinks it necessary or desirable, I and my right honourable friend will welcome any interim report or recommendations he wishes to submit.

"In addition, and in parallel with the work of the inquiry, I have decided to designate all grounds in the Third and Fourth Divisions of the Football League so that they become subject to the system of safety certification under the Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975. The effect will be to require such clubs to apply for certificates from the relevant local authority specifying in considerable detail what physical conditions and management practices—including as to fire precautions—must be followed. The Government announced only on 1st April that we should be extending designation to Third and Fourth Division grounds but starting with those with a record of club violence. It is plain, however, that the time for selective action has passed, and I shall accordingly be discussing with the football authorities immediately how universal designation may be implemented as soon as possible. It will, of course, be for the inquiry to recommend any changes in the present certification procedures or any other steps that should be taken to improve crowd safety and control. But I can see no reason why designating the Third and Fourth Division clubs or any of the other steps announced on 1st April should wait on their conclusions. It is clearly important that the public should be given all the protection that the existing law allows as quickly as possible, and that any measures to enhance safety and security that can be introduced speedily as a result of the work that has currently been proceedings should be implemented at the earliest possible date.

"To ensure that the measures I have announced of a swift inquiry and a new programme of designation do not leave gaps meanwhile in public protection, I am asking chief fire officers immediately to visit uncertificated sports stadia in their areas to advise management on what steps they should take to secure proper standards of crowd safety in their particular circumstances. They will no doubt wish to discuss amongst other matters the opening and locking of gates at sports grounds. Whilst I imagine such visits will be the more comprehensive if chief fire officers are accompanied by other members of the local authority safety teams, this work will brook no delay and, for that reason, I consider the duty to fall best initially on chief fire officers.

"I must stress that the measures announced today are additional to those announced on 1st April after the meeting at 10 Downing Street with the football authorities. That programme of measures agreed to combat football hooliganism goes ahead with renewed urgency.

"The events at Bradford and Birmingham were in their different ways both tragic and sickening. Nothing will wipe away the memory of that terrible afternoon. But our task now must be to take urgent steps to minimise the chances of recurrence. The measures I have announced today are designed to that end. I will report to the House in due course on their progress and outcome."

My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

My Lords, there are but three matters, following upon this tragic event at Bradford, which the House I believe would want to concentrate upon. The first is—certainly speaking on behalf of my noble friends but knowing that I speak on behalf of the whole House—that our hearts go out to the bereaved and the injured. Secondly, together with the noble Lord the Minister, to whom we are most grateful for repeating this Statement, we would want to say that we so much admire the action on this occasion of the police, the fire brigade and all those services who joined in to do what they could in this terrible tragedy. Perhaps I may also be allowed to mention in this context the reports that were definitely conveyed through the media of the nurses, off duty, who speedily rushed to the hospital and also many members of the public who at some danger to themselves immediately threw themselves into the task of a rescue operation, doing all that they could.

The third and last thing that all of us would concentrate upon is to see that such an event never happens again, certainly not from the same causes. Into those causes it is impossible and wrong to try to go today. There is a proper inquiry set up and, as the noble Lord the Minister has repeated, there is to be an inquiry which is headed by a notable High Court judge.

May I be forgiven on this occasion if, because of the seriousness of the event, I ask the Minister's attention to be drawn to the fact that there was a report issued in 1972 by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wheatley, called for by the then Home Secretary, Mr. Reginald Maudling, and the Secretary of State for Scotland into a somewhat similar incident, though not caused by fire? I should like to remind the House and the Minister, so that we do not ignore the reports that we call for, of some excerpts from that report. Were it not such a tragic national occasion, I should not keep the House, I assure your Lordships, by reading such quotations if I did not think that it was of some use. I say that particularly because of the reference in the Statement to the locked gates at which so much of this tragedy occurred. If I may first of all remind your Lordships, Lord Wheatley, in reporting, said:

"On 4th February 1971 you asked me to undertake an inquiry with the following terms of reference:"—

(not dissimiliar to those which Mr. Justice Popplewell is asked to undertake) —

"To make an independent appraisal of the effectiveness of existing arrangements for crowd safety at sports grounds in Great Britain, and of the improvements which could be brought about within the present framework of the law: and to consider the nature of any alterations in the law which appear to be needed."

"While the terms of reference extend to sports grounds generally, the immediate concern relates to soccer grounds".

The next quotation that I should like, if I may, to give to your Lordships, because it is so relevant, is this:

"My task was to consider the problem of crowd safety at the grounds. Clubs which charge the public for admission have a duty to see that their grounds are reasonably safe for spectactors. That is a primary consideration. It is accordingly necessary that some standards should be imposed and observed. This has been recognised by the football authorities themselves. Hence their introduction of the certificate procedure. That, in my view, has been proved to be deficient and requires to be replaced by some other system".

There was in fact a technical report, which said this, as an appendix to the recommendations:

"There should be no obstruction in an exit e.g. no threshold provided at exit doors … All exit doors should be manned at all times while the ground is used by the public … Facilities should be provided to enable people to leave the ground at any time. For this purpose a number of reversible turnstiles or doors so operated as to limit the openings to the passage of individual persons might be considered".

Lastly—I need not read the quotation—Lord Wheatley recommended that there should be phasing of a licensing system such as was brought into being by the 1975 Act. His first category in the phasing covered first and second division clubs and national football sports grounds. As a second category came all English third and fourth division football league grounds and all Scottish second division football league grounds. My Lords, I repeat that the report was made in 1972. The Act came in in 1975. Somewhat after that, first and second division grounds were brought in. Ought we not to ask the question: why was it only on 1st April of this year that the third and fourth division grounds were brought into this matter?—only on 1st April, and then they were to be selected.

My only other question, and it is a brief one, is this. I think we all welcome the fact that an interim report would be welcomed if Mr. Justice Popplewell thought that suitable. Ought we to delay any longer in seeing that by some method or other it is not just a question, as the Statement says, of the police indicating to football grounds in their areas which are unlicensed and undesignated that exit doors and exits generally should be open? Should not that be a requirement put into effect immediately? If the only object of closing those doors is to see that people who have not paid shall not get in, is not the lesson we have learnt today that there are greater considerations than that?

My Lords, of course we, too, would want to associate ourselves with the deep expressions of sympathy and indeed of horror at this appalling and quite unnecessary tragedy. We would want also to join in the expressions of admiration for the work done by the public services in their attempts to limit the scope of the disaster.

May I begin by querying the wisdom of joining the hooliganism at Birmingham with the fire at Bradford as the subject of the one inquiry? I am bound to express some anxiety as to whether that is going to assist in preventing a recurrence of the situation at Bradford. The hooliganism at Birmingham was really an offshoot of the whole vast problem of football violence, which in turn is an offshoot of the whole vast problem of juvenile delinquency. It is certainly not a question on which I would venture to embark in replying to a short Statement in the middle of our afternoon's sitting.

As to the matter at Bradford, perhaps I may first welcome the appointment of Mr. Justice Popplewell, who is not only a judge of distinction but also a sportsman of considerable distinction. At the same time, may I indicate a niggling doubt in my mind? I know that a judicial inquiry is the popular nostrum of politicians if ever a problem of this sort presents itself. However, I cannot help wondering whether a judicial inquiry is, in this case, the most expeditious or efficient method of dealing with the particular problem that has arisen at Bradford. The causes of the fire will be ascertained without a judicial inquiry by the police or the forensic scientists, or they will not be ascertained at all. The cause of the speed with which the fire spread is known: it was because of the structure of the stand. Perhaps the Minister can confirm that in fact the stand was something like 70 years old. The death toll was contributed to very substantially, as we know, by the fact that the exit gates were locked. In addition to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, may I ask whether there is any technical difficulty in having gates or turnstiles which will allow people to leave but will not allow them to enter?

Is not the real problem one that is very simple to express? It is that if the regulations which have been made and which apply to the first and second division clubs had in fact applied to third and fourth division clubs, this tragedy would never have occurred. If that is right, is not the next question: why were the regulations not extended to third and fourth division clubs? And is not the answer to that question quite simply: because of shortage of money?

Mr. Justice Popplewell, I fear, will be unable to assist as to how money might be forthcoming. Can the noble Lord the Minister confirm that something like £2 million would have been required at this one stadium alone in Bradford to ensure proper standards of safety? Is it not totally unrealistic to expect a small club in a low division of the Football League, in the middle of a depressed area with a local authority which itself is short of funds, to find anything like that amount of money in order to make its ground safe? If that is so, is it not for the Government to make some proposals as to how sums of this order can be raised so that grounds can be made safe? In the meantime, and as an urgent interim measure, could the Government make it quite clear that any grounds or any parts of grounds which are not subject at the moment to the highest safety standards will, without fear or favour, be closed down at once?

My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for their comments about the Statement and I, too, would like personally to be associated with the remarks which both noble Lords have made. All our hearts go out to the bereaved. It does not take me to add to anything that has been said about how awful it all has been.

The noble Lords raised a number of points and perhaps I may deal first with those raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, about the Wheatley inquiry. That inquiry did lead ultimately in 1975 to the Safety of Sports Grounds Act. As to the particular point about exits, I think the noble Lord will know that paragraph 6 of the Green Guide—that is the colloquial term for the Guide to Safety at Sports Grounds—covers safety measures and safety requirements in relation to the flow of crowds out of the ground. Paragraph 6.7 and paragraph 6.14.5 among others specifically refer to the need to keep exits clear of obstruction. But the point I have to make here is that it is for the local authorities when issuing the safety certificates to decide what formal requirements to include in the certificate.

The noble Lord asked whether or not it would now be possible for doors to be kept unlocked to prevent the sort of tragedy that occurred on Saturday. Referring him again to that document, the guide recommends that the exit doors be opened before the end of play; and paragraph 6.14.7 recommends that they be manned all the time in order to cope with emergencies. I repeat that these are matters on which local authorities can insist in the safety certificate. I cannot comment from where I stand now as to whether or not any are likely to change their practices, but I should have thought they would be unwise not to do so.

The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, did not suggest that I should go into the causes of the fire for very obvious reasons. Police investigations into the cause of the fire are continuing. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, is not under a misapprehension. I read out the terms of the inquiry. If the noble Lord studies them I am sure he will realise that that is one inquiry. The immediate inquiry into the cause of the fire is being dealt with by the police, the forensic scientists and the fire brigade. They of course will come up with a report as soon as they possibly can.

The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, is concerned about the phasing of the implementation of the 1975 Act. The first division football grounds were designated in 1976, and as he indicated the idea was that this would be done in stages. The 1976 designations were followed by a topping-up procedure. Then in 1979 the extension was made to embrace all second division football clubs. The noble Lord has himself described how this was to be followed, as announced in April by designation of the other grounds.

There were difficulties—not just those associated with expense in the way the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, indicated—that made it difficult to do this designation in the way that the noble Lord would have liked. There were decreasing attendance patterns; and a general agreement that it was more sensible to proceed in stages. It is always very easy to be wise after the event, particularly so perhaps when it is a very tragic event. But so far as expense is concerned, and Lord Wigoder's indication that perhaps the Government ought to support clubs who have to meet Safety of Sports Grounds Act requirements, I hope and expect that the Football Grounds Improvement Trust will for one, continue to aid clubs' expenses in this respect.

To turn to direct Government help, we shall be discussing with all concerned the details of proposals to extend designation under the Safety of Sports Grounds Act, but it is clear that clubs, like other entertainment businesses, have a responsibility for the safety of their clients. Of course, if one did this just for football grounds it would be putting them at an advantage over other sorts of sport. But these are all points which will have to be discussed in the light of the inquiry and the proposed extension of the scheme.

The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, praised, as I do, the nurses, the public who came to help, and others who so willingly rushed to aid at the scene. I can also tell him that I am sure that the hospitals and the health authorities are coping well. We should of course all pay tribute to the dedicated work in the emergency of doctors, nurses, ambulancemen and the ancillary workers. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services is in constant touch with the situation and all help necessary is being given. The noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, asked about the age of the ground. Yes, my Lords, it is about 70 years' old. I described its construction when I repeated the Statement. I think I have answered most of the points that have been raised. If there are any others on which I can usefully supply information, I shall of course do so as time passes and as more facts become known.

I wonder whether, before the noble Lord sits down—only because it is so important—I might mention this. He said that the guidelines that were affecting football grounds at the moment made it clear that exit doors should be kept open. May I remind him of the disconcerting statement made in the course of what he himself read out, which the Secretary of State has obviously given to another place:

"In accordance with long established practice at sports grounds, the gates were locked to prevent unauthorised spectators gaining admission. It was here that many people died".

Has not that guideline to be fulfilled immediately in order that this long-established practice cease now?

My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Lord. I imagine that it will. However, the point that I was trying to make was a fair one: that it is for the local authorities to enforce when it comes to the granting of the particular licence—if that is the right word to use—under this legislation. I am well aware of the difficulties and I deplore the fact that the doors were locked; but I can understand why that practice—to which I referred when I repeated the Statement,—has arisen. The noble Lord will be aware that it is because, sadly, people take risks which have been associated with a number of people who have tried to get into the ground. It has been established therefore for right or wrong.

If the Minister will allow me, he suggested there should be a single general inquiry. The whole nation has been absolutely appalled by what happened at Bradford. People want to know what happened. They want to know about it quickly and what can be done. If this were Scotland there would immediately follow a fatal accident inquiry; and then after that, as happened in 1972, the Wheatley Commission would go into the much more general points in respect of that.

I think it was very unwise of the Government to put the Bradford incident and the Birmingham incident together. One was a story of tragedy and of heroism. Football fans who got out went back in and were hauling other people out. I think some tribute should be paid to them. The other was of a different character altogether.

The Minister suggests that the Football Grounds Improvement Trust could look into this. It is a pity that the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, is not here; he is the chairman. The trust has been doing sterling work. But remember my Lords, that that money comes not from the Government but from the "Spot the Ball Competition" and the pools promoters. The people who make most money out of football are the Government themselves, through the football tax. They take millions upon millions, and they leave very little for the football clubs. Will the Government consider their fairness to football in respect of what moneys they take out of it and how little they put back? There are hundreds of such stands up and down the country. They would have been replaced years ago if the Government had left more money with the football clubs.

My Lords, I note the noble Lord's concern and that, in his view, it was wrong to combine the two inquiries. But although, emotionally, one can separate the two, in fact there are points about them which bear on one another. The fact is that as the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, will be aware, there has been some little discussion over the last few weeks about the very problem of crowd control at football grounds and how that could affect the safety of people who are in the grounds as well. In this particular case, if one is able to imagine what it would have been like if the ground had been fenced, I think the noble Lord will see that there is a conflict which is probably best resolved by the terms of the inquiry, which, as I said, will inquire, with particular reference to those events, into the operation of the Safety of Sports Grounds Act and recommend what, if any, further steps should be taken. I think that it covers both sides. That is why my right honourable friend has set it up in the way that it has been set up.

So far as expense is concerned, I note the noble Lord's comments. The fact is that these matters will be looked into in the way that I described just now to the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, and that we shall be discussing with all concerned the details of the proposal to make this extension. I can only repeat that clubs with sports grounds are in the entertainment business, so, so far as that is concerned, they themselves have a responsibility. It may seem rather an unpalatable thing to say, but it is a fact that they are in that position and I do not think one ought to let one's judgment be coloured in this instance by the tragic memories of 48 hours ago.

My Lords, I should merely like to say that the concern and sympathy shown from all sides of your Lordships' House today will be warmly appreciated by all those who have suffered and who have helped, and, indeed, by all the people in the Bradford district at this time.

My Lords, in supporting what has been said by other noble Lords may I, as a noble Lord who lives not too great a distance away from the scene of this tragedy, put a couple of points to the Minister before discussion on the Statement is finished? In response to other questions about expense, he referred to the fact that in the final analysis it is the responsibility of the football clubs concerned. He must be aware that if this designation that has now been extended to the third and fourth divisions is carried out on a short-term basis, it will mean the end of most of the third and fourth division clubs.

Despite what the Government and the Minister think, they are not in the business of making money. None of them has made money for years. It takes them all their time to keep their heads above water and, very often, it is only because they find a successful local businessman who decides to plough substantial sums of his own money into the club that keeps them going. Very often, they are not just the local football team; they are the one focal point of social activity in a small town. It think it reasonable to support my colleague and friend who spoke earlier in asking for the Government to give some direct help quickly. If action is to be taken quickly there will have to be Government funding. They draw enough in tax on football and in other ways to be able to respond in a positive manner.

My Lords, I note the noble Lord's concern and that he feels that without some sort of assistance this could spell the end of third and fourth division clubs. As I said, the further designation of these clubs that is to take place, and the discussion that surrounds it, must take into account the points that he made. I have nothing to add to what I said earlier to the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, and to the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, on that count. To ensure that this terrible tragedy is not repeated, the important thing is to get the results as quickly as we possibly can from the technical inquiries that are going on. That, I sense, is very much the mood of your Lordships and I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Ingrow for his helpful comment.

My Lords, I just want to ask one very short question. I think that the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, came as a great shock to the whole House when he reminded us that for the last 10 years successive Governments have been given repeated and authoritative warnings about the dangers which beset football grounds throughout the country and that no Government during those 10 years paid any attention to them. The noble Lord has not sought to excuse nor to apologise. It is a great reflection upon Whitehall!

My Lords, it is simply not the case that attention has not been paid to these reports. As I said a little earlier, the phasing of the designation was commenced in 1976 with the designation of first and then, in 1979, second division grounds and we were on the point, for a number of reasons which cover very many areas and different responsibilities, of extending it to third and fourth division grounds. I cannot accept from the noble Lord, although I share his concern, that no attention has been paid to it. That simply is not the case.

My Lords, can my noble friend give an undertaking that these inquiries will not be confined to football clubs? After all, there are old rugby league clubs, old racecourse stands and large numbers of other sports which attract very large numbers of spectators. The inquiries should not be confined to football just because this really ghastly tragedy happened at a football stadium and nowhere else.

My Lords, I note my noble friend's concern, and the inquiry will refer to the operation of the Safety of Sports Grounds Act. I am quite sure that, in looking into the conduct of the inquiry, Mr. Justice Popplewell will consider the sort of thing that my noble friend is concerned about. There are special aspects of rugby football of which I can certainly let my noble friend have details in due course. Other considerations apply to some other forms of stadia. Racecourses and so on differ quite considerably from football grounds. Dog tracks, for example, are enclosed and would come within the scope of the Safety of Sports Grounds Act, but not everything comes within its scope.

My Lords, does the Minister confirm the statement of certain chairmen of football clubs, that money derived from racing can be ploughed back into racing stands, but that is not the case with football? Is there not a case for an inquiry not just into what occurred at Bradford, but into the whole question of finance? It is no use the inquiry coming out with suggestions about what should be done to increase safety if, as my noble friend behind me has said, there is no possibility of the clubs in their present financial situation being able to implement those recommendations.

My Lords, the important thing is for the inquiry to get under way and in the light of that to determine what further steps ought to be taken. As I said when I repeated the Statement, my right honourable friend will report back to the House.

My Lords, may I support the point which has just been made by the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, and ask the Minister to take it rather more seriously than he appeared to do? As, for the past 60 years, as a player, referee, umpire and spectator, I have visited sports grounds of various kinds all over the country, I have been increasingly concerned for the safety of spectators at those grounds. This is not confined to soccer grounds and it is certainly not confined to third and fourth division soccer grounds. There are many soccer clubs in other leagues, in amateur leagues or in no leagues, which have stands which anybody visiting would see were fire hazards.

The noble Lord mentions the difference of rugby grounds, but how many noble Lords have been to Twickenham? Could not those two old stands which are built of wood very easily become much greater fire hazards than the Valley Parade ground, which I have known for many years? Is there not a case here for the Government to get in touch with local authorities throughout the country for a thorough examination and inspection of all accommodation, sporting or otherwise, where people gather together? Secondly, because, as has been observed by my noble friend Lord Dean, it costs money for safety, should not the Government look at the revenue which they receive from sport and decide that this is an issue sufficiently serious for Government money to be put into reducing the safety hazards in these arenas?

Thirdly, should not the Government bring to the attention of the inquiry the possibility, as is common in Europe, of municipalities owning the grounds on which these clubs play and leasing them back to them so that it is the municipal authorities which are able to take responsibility for the expenditure of money and for the supervision of safety requirements? I know that the noble Lord the Minister cannot answer directly, but will he bring this to the attention of his department and to the attention of the inquiry which is to take place?

My Lords, while noting the points that the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, has made, I have to say that I rather resent the fact that he suggested that I did not take seriously the comments of my noble friend Lord Onslow. I most certainly do take them seriously, and if the noble Lord had had to deal with this matter in the way I have had to deal with it today he would not feel in the least that it was anything other than an extremely serious matter; and anybody who feels otherwise would be quite wrong to do so.

The noble Lord may not be aware that Twickenham was designated in 1976. I shall study his other remarks. But so far as the term "sports ground" is concerned, I can tell him that the Safety of Sports Grounds Act applies to "sports ground", which means:

"any place where sports or other competitive activities take place in the open air and where accommodation has been provided for spectators, consisting of artificial structures or of natural structures artificially modified for the purpose".

My Lords, with the leave of the House and for your Lordships' convenience, I should like to repeat a Statement on British Aerospace which is being made in another place by my honourable friend the Minister of State for Industry and Information Technology. The Statement is as follows:

"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a Statement about the outcome of the joint offer of shares in British Aerospace by the Government and the company.

"Approximately 264,000 applications were received from the general public (excluding institutional priority applications) for a total of approximately 790 million ordinary shares.

"Preferential applications were received from shareholders for approximately 23 million shares and from employees for approximately 3 million shares. All the valid applications will be allocated in full.

"Valid applications from the general public for up to 20,000 shares will be allocated a minim um of 100 shares and a maximum of 275 shares depending on the number of shares applied for. No allocation will be made in respect of public applications for more than 20,000 shares. On this basis, allocations will be made to some 260,000 applicants for a total of some 40 million shares.

"As announced on 1st May, approximately 80·8 million shares, 55 per cent. of the total offered shares, have been allocated to institutional priority applicants.

"It is expected that dealings in renounceable letters of acceptance in respect of the offered shares will commence tomorrow."

My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord for having repeated the Statement made in another place. It is quite clear from the Statement—and of course a number of matters are not yet clear—that the Government are in very urgent need of the money. At the time that British Aerospace was privatised the Government pledged themselves, for what pledges from the Government are worth, that they would retain a 25 per cent. holding. They have now decided to retain a mere one golden share. It is very difficult to know from some of the statements that have been made over the past month when the disposal was originally decided, but quite clearly the Government could not wait until the troubles of British Aerospace were out of the way before they did it; and so now they have raised the money.

What the Statement does not say is how much money the Government received or are to receive gross as a result of the sale of their shareholding. One thing, however, is very clear—the issue was very considerably over-subscribed. It would be interesting therefore to know what was the cost to the British taxpayer of the sale of these shares which the Government are holding in trust on behalf of the general public. We should like to know the costs that have gone out in respect of this.

The Statement, in so far as it refers to the various percentages of the issue that are going to be held by various classifications, is not at all clear. It would have been far better to state the number of shares classified under the same terms, as I observe British Aerospace did at page 57 of its accounts for the year ending 31st December 1984, from which it was clear that at that date and prior to this issue ordinary individual shareholders held 4.85 per cent. of the total issue; institutions held 44 per cent.; and the trustees of the employees' shares held 1.78 per cent.

Will the noble Lord confirm—I am working on the basis of the figures that have been put in the Statement—that, after all the shares have been issued, the institutional shareholders will hold more than 70 per cent. of the company's reconstructed shareholding and that between 4 per cent. and 5 per cent.—and possibly even 4 per cent.—will be held by employees, with the balance being held by what are termed the general public, bearing in mind that as of 31st December the general public, in terms of individual shareholders, held only 4.85 per cent.?

Is it not clear that this is once again an exercise which is being carried out not for the benefit of British Aerospace itself; that all the talk about advantages to the shareholders is in comparative terms a lot of moonshine; and that all that has really happened is that the Government, as in so many other cases, are busy selling the furniture to pay the rent? Is not their real purpose to provide additional finance so that in due time, together with the proceeds that may possibly come from British Gas, the Government will be able to finance very large tax cuts as a run-up to the next general election?

My Lords, we, too, are most grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement. Although it is perfectly obvious and well established by now that the only possible advantage which can come from this exercise is to the Government's coffers, and that it follows on their well established procedure of scratching around for money wherever it can be found, nevertheless this is perhaps not the occasion to dwell on that aspect but rather on the aspect of the number of shares issued and applied for.

We are very glad that it has been decided that so far as employees' applications are concerned, those applications will be allotted in full. In regard to the institutions, I have one question to put, which I will come to in a moment. First, can the noble Lord say by how many times the offer has been over-subscribed? By that I mean the offer excluding those shares offered to institutions; that is to say, as to the 45 per cent. offered to the public at large, by how many times was that block of shares over-subscribed?

My question with regard to the institutions is this: inasmuch as the country will judge whether this offer was effective in a way that will improve the nation's interests, the public will want to know how the institutions come out of it. Can the noble Lord therefore say, first, what remuneration the institutions have received for the services they provided; and, secondly, what profit they stand to make out of the shares which have been allocated to them and which would seem to me to be no less than £40 million?

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Bruce of Donington and Lord Diamond, for their reception of this Statement.

I recall that the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, made exactly the same remarks in January of this year when I repeated a Statement in which we announced our intention to sell the remainder of our shares. I can do no more than remind the noble Lord of that exchange, rather than turn up Hansard and repeat exactly what I said in response on that occasion.

The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, will know that we dealt with the matter of the 25 per cent. shareholding in relation to the golden share. In 1981 we said that we were going to keep that amount of shares simply in order to ensure that the company would be retained in British hands. In the 1985 announcement we said specifically that we would hold no ordinary shares but would hold the special share especially to ensure the provisions of the company's articles in relation to United Kingdom control of the company. I repeat that the golden share should provide that no more than 15 per cent. of the voting shares in the company may be foreign held. Secondly, it will safeguard those of the company's articles requiring the directors to be British citizens. And lastly, it will retain the right relating to the nomination of the Government's director.

The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, asked me, as did the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, what the Government's gross receipts would be. At the selling price of 375 pence, which was the closing price less 5 per cent. on 30th April, it is estimated that the Government's proceeds will be a gross £363 million. It is not possible to pinpoint at this stage exactly the cost to the Government but it will be of the order of £14 million.

Both noble Lords asked also what good this will do to anybody, other than to add money to the Government's coffers. The Government believe that the normal pressures of the commercial market are the most effective spur to greater efficiency and competitiveness. British Aerospace has operated profitably and has competed successfully in international markets during the four years that it has been in the private sector. The retention of the Government's shareholding in these circumstances would serve no purpose. The restoration of the company to full private ownership can only give a further spur to its efficiency and competitiveness.

To underline that belief, I will mention four figures. Sales in 1980 were £1,423 million. After partial privatisation, sales rose in 1984 to £2,468 million. Profit before taxation in 1980 was £53 million, and in 1984 it was £120 million. There is no doubt in my mind nor in the mind of British Aerospace that it will continue unhindered in its pursuit of excellence and of profitability.

The noble Lord, Lord Diamond, asked specifically about the level of over-subscription in relation to the shares available to the general public. After 55 per cent. of the offer had been placed with institutions, and after the preferential applications from shareholders and employees have been satisfied, the issue was oversubscribed about 19 times.

I believe that I have now answered the questions raised by the noble Lords, Lord Bruce of Donington and Lord Diamond; if I have not done so I have no doubt that they will return to them.

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that many of us will feel that the manifest sourness of the observations made by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, derives from his disappointment at the manifest success of this share issue? Is my noble friend aware also that many of us on this side of the House fully share the views of the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, that it is enormously satisfactory that the applications made by employees for shares have been met in full? Many of us share the noble Lord's view that this is in any industry one of the most valuable aspects of good management and good morale.

Is my noble friend further aware that all of us would want to wish this great and important company success now that it is fully privatised and that we believe that, particularly with the HS. 146 aircraft, it is a winner?

My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter. I was aware of some of the points he made but I am most grateful to him for informing me of others. Certainly the over-subscription—particularly by the general public—indicates that the public have great confidence in the company. Indeed, it indicates that the general public are following the Government's philosophy of wider share ownership. It is of course a great pity that there could not have been made available even more shares to satisfy that market.

My Lords, may I ask the Minister—in all kindness, as I quite like him—not to repeat again the figures he gave for the sales of hardware? In this business, one does not sell hardware until three or four years after money has been put into design, research, and re-equipping. One cannot prove a political theory with the figures which the Minister gave to the House.

The noble Lord was trying to prove the success of a particular form of ownership by reporting an increase in sales. I am telling him that those sales were made possible by the investment, design and research which had taken place three or four years beforehand.

Having said that, I must say to the noble Lord that I draw a sharp distinction between the two lots of shares offered—the two sources of shares. There was a difference in the philosophy and in the purpose. But once those two lots of shares were put together, did we not see a completely different technique in marketing? I speak of the volume of advertising and of the commissions being offered. Did they not represent a new dimension in share marketing? If the Minister cannot provide any actual figures as to the cost of the operation, then can he say how it might compare with a normal sale of shares of a company?

My Lords, I had no wish to mislead the noble Lord, Lord Beswick; nor, indeed the House. I was merely illustrating a set of figures which is available in the report and accounts of the company showing what has happened since 1980 and what happened in 1984. I accept, of course, as will anybody who has any knowledge of business, that there is a long lead time from an investment and a design concept into profitability. I was seeking to establish that the company has gone along very successfully. There has been no drop in its endeavours, its sales, its exports or its profitability since it was announced that the company was to be privatised. If this proposal had been anathema to the stockholders, the employees, and management, one might have expected a drop, but there has not been such a drop. I expect the company to go from strength to strength and I am quite sure it will. Let me assure the noble Lord that the Government have no intention of withdrawing the close support that they have had with the company while the Government have been a shareholder.

The noble Lord suggested that because one-third of the shares were a new issue by British Aerospace—two-thirds being the Government's—there was something rather odd. It was certainly a joint venture. The company wish to increase its capital by an amount and the Government want to dispose of their shares. I explained this in January. It seemed a good idea that the two objectives should be joined. In so far as marketing is concerned, if we continued marketing companies, goods, and shares in the same way year after year, we would advance nowhere at all. I welcome the fact that the stock market is sufficiently flexible and alive to accept the new and differing opportunities that a share issue of this kind presents.

As regards my all-embracing figure of about £14 million worth of costs to the Government, I do not know what the British Aerospace costs are. That is their business, rightly and properly. No doubt the figures will appear in the annual report. If the noble Lord wishes me to identify certain areas in that £14 million, I will be pleased to do so.

My Lords, have any special precautions been taken to avoid the necessity of calling in the Fraud Squad, as in the case of British Telecom?

My Lords, certainly scrutiny has taken place to ensure that no improper applications have been made or been improperly dealt with. If we subsequently find that such improprieties have taken place, no doubt the normal course will prevail.

My Lords, may I briefly comment on one remark made by the Minister, as he would expect me to do? He said that this share issue was to the advantage of a proportion of the British people; the shareholders and the employees. He omitted to say that this success has been paid for by all the British people and that now the British people are being denied the fruits of their endeavours. In typical Tory philosophy only a few will gain any benefit.

My Lords, I cannot agree with the noble Lord, Lord Molloy. He turns things round, and has not asked a question. He has made a statement with which I thoroughly disagree.

My Lords, will the noble Lord please answer the question which I put to him? I asked whether he would confirm that when the issue was complete the institutions—and by institutions I mean those defined on page 57 of the last accounts—will hold over 70 per cent. of the equity and that the staff will hold under 5 per cent. of the total equity?

My Lords, I cannot confirm that because I do not have the necessary figures to do the arithmetic. If the noble Lord's figures are correct, I can see nothing wrong with either of them.

My Lords, Amendment Nos. 102 and 103 cannot be called following the agreement to Amendment No. 101. Therefore, I call Amendment No. 103A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone.

moved Amendment No. 103A:

Page 15, line 25, at end insert—

("( ) In conducting the review under subsection (1) above, the Secretary of State shall pay special regard to the needs of well established youth clubs.").

I am listening to my noble friend.

I shall continue. The particular point of referring to well-established youth clubs is that, as you Lordships know, over recent years a whole host of other charities have been formed which will be in competition with these well-proven bodies. It could well be that even if there are not the reductions which ILEA is forecasting, and which no doubt are reflected in the metropolitan county areas as well, there will be a problem for the well established clubs. They may find that they are reduced anyhow because of the competition of newly established charities.

I very much hope that my noble friend can give me quite strong reassurances not only for myself but more especially for the dedicated people who run these clubs and who need to be firmly reassured. I hope that the reassurances will be very strong. Alternatively, almost as a fall back, I hope that the reassurances may be underpinned by acceptance of the amendments which would give statutory provision for particular consideration when the various reviews or schemes, as the second amendment would call them, come about. I beg to move.

I think that I can give my noble friend and the Committee the reassurance that he seeks. I share his concern about the youth service. It does valuable work and makes a special contribution to the lives of a variety of young people in inner London, many of whom face uncommonly difficult circumstances.

There are other areas of activity which ILEA supports, or for which it is responsible, about which we might be equally concerned. A review under Clause 21 would look across the whole range of the new ILEA's functions, and proper regard would be paid to the circumstances and needs of all its functions in considering whether each was well discharged by the new body or might be better discharged by some other body. I would suggest to my noble friend that there is no need—and I would suggest also that it would not be appropriate—to pick out any one function for that attention.

My noble friend expressed concern in passing, so to say, about the funding of voluntary youth clubs and other bodies after the abolition of the GLC. I venture to suggest that that and some other points which he raised are matters which the Committee might debate when we come to Clause 47, which concerns grants to voluntary bodies generally. If a problem arises over the availability of grant aid, it will arise in 1986 and will have little connection with the review in 1991 to which my noble friend's amendment is primarily addressed.

Concern has been expressed about the ability of ILEA to support the youth services while subject to precept limitation. But precept limitation, as its name implies, does no more than set a limit and within that limit ILEA is free to decide how to deploy its expenditure. Again, this is a point to which, I would respectfully suggest to the Committee, we might return when we come to Clause 66 because Clause 66 concerns precept limitation. It and the important points that my noble friend raises have little connection, I venture to suggest, with the review under Clause 21, and it is Clause 21 to which this amendment is addressed. I am not trying to duck these issues in any way, I say to my noble friend, but I suggest to the Committee that they are more appropriately dealt with at a marginally later stage.

I am most grateful to my noble friend for the way in which he has replied to this amendment. I take fully the point that he makes about the need to delay real consideration of this matter until we get to Clause 47. With that in mind, I would propose at this stage to withdraw the amendment but to speak again and separately to my amendment, Amendment No. 135B, when we come to that so as to reopen the subject at that stage. I should like to have done it the other way around anyhow, but the Bill is written the way it is. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

I cannot call Amendment No. 104 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stewart.

moved Amendment No. 105:

I have to say to the noble Baroness that I, too, spoke to these amendments during the previous debate but they are not precisely the same thing. I have to warn her that if they are put, I shall ask the Committee to resist them.

I am very surprised by what the noble Earl says because by deleting subsection (1) the Secretary of State is prevented from determing:

"whether and, if so, to what extent those functions or any of them should be transferred to or divided between all or any of the inner London borough councils and the Common Council or any body on which those councils or any of them are represented".

The determination has gone. It seems to me that it is consequential that that one line in subsection (3) should be deleted. The Secretary of State is now prevented from splitting up the authority by the carriage of the amendment today.

moved Amendment No. 109EA:

After Clause 22, insert the following new Clause:—

(". (1) On the appointed day there shall be established for each metropolitan county which is a police area a body corporate whose purpose shall be to discharge the functions of metropolitan county police, fire, transport and waste disposal authorities and which body shall be known by the name of the county with the addition of the words "Joint Authority".

(2) On the appointed day there shall be established for the Metropolitan county of Tyne and Wear a body corporate to be known as the Tyne and Wear Joint Authority, whose purpose shall be to exercise the functions of metropolitan county fire, transport and waste disposal authorities.

(3) The metropolitan district councils in the county of Tyne and Wear shall appoint the same persons to be members of the Northumbria Police Authority and the Tyne and Wear Joint Authority.")

The noble Lord, Lord Molson, has moved on behalf of the noble Viscount, Lord Ingleby, Amendment No. 109EA. As this is a manuscript amendment, I must read it to the Committee. The amendment is, after Clause 22 to insert the following new clause:

(" . (1) On the appointed day there shall be established for each metropolitan county which is a police area a body corporate whose purpose shall be to discharge the functions of metropolitan county police, fire, transport and waste disposal authorities and which body shall be known by the name of the county with the addition of the words "Joint Authority".

(2) On the appointed day there shall be established for the Metropolitan county of Tyne and Wear a body corporate to be known as the Tyne and Wear Joint Authority, whose purpose shall be to exercise the functions of metropolitan county fire, transport and waste disposal authorities.

(3) The metropolitan district councils in the county of Tyne and Wear shall appoint the same persons to be members of the Northumbria Police Authority and the Tyne and Wear Joint Authority.").

I rise, metaphorically at least, to support this amendment so ably moved by my noble friend Lord Molson. In so doing, I should like to quote from the fourth report of the Select Committee of your Lordships' House on Science and Technology. Towards the end, at paragraph 75, it says:

"there is an obvious case on grounds of economy for replacing the multiplicity of joint authorities with a single joint authority in each metropolitan county and in London".

The report of your Lordships' House has said, "an obvious case on grounds of economy"; one bureaucracy instead of four; one precept instead of four, and most important, as my noble friend has just said, there would be some degree of self-discipline, some degree of self-determination at a local level of the priorities and the competing claims of the different services. I suggest that as much of this self-discipline as can be imposed locally is much better than having it imposed by Whitehall. These different services—fire, police, transport, waste disposal—are all surely different fingers of the same hand, and it would surely be much better if all the fingers were in the same glove.

I should have been content to remain silent during the whole Committee stage of this Bill were it not that my noble friend Lord Molson for the second time during Committee stage has designed an amendment which would conflict with the central purpose of the Bill. I am not concerned with whether we call it an overall authority or joint authority, or whether it is elected or appointed; though I am bound to say that if we are to have one I should prefer the former. But this surely runs counter to the intention of the Government, which is that there shall be no overall body for London or the metropolitan areas. As my noble friend says, this amendment quite simply proposes that there shall be. In this Committee, we have for many years accepted that when another place passed with a majority a Bill to which this Chamber of Parliament has given a Second Reading, it is not desirable to use the Committee stage to reopen matters of principle. I believe this amendment in fact is doing just that.

I am not sure if my noble friend appreciates the thought and care which have gone into the formation of our procedures and their adoption. I have sat in this noble House for a good many years now, in Government and in opposition. I can say categorically that during all that time amendments calculated to alter the kernel of the Bill under discussion were by common consent never moved; and I hope we shall not depart from that custom because I believe that if we do we shall get ourselves into grievous trouble.

Of course there were very good reasons for this convention. The lack of it would increase the chances of clashes between the two Houses and make it very difficult to conduct our Committees in an orderly and coherent way. If it is said that change is desirable in this respect—and one has to face up to the fact that sometimes change is needed—then let the matter be sent to the Committee on Procedure where we can all he properly advised of the full implications of moving amendments like this on Committee stage. Do not let us proceed by rather haphazard amendments moved by individual Peers; much better that we should all change our rules, know what we are doing and be properly advised if that is the decision.

I shall certainly have to vote against this amendment if my noble friend puts it to a vote. I hope a good many others of your Lordships on all sides will do so for this reason.

With great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel, as I read it, and as I think any other noble Lord reading it would agree, the amendment does not set up an overall authority. In my submission, it is not a matter of principle. As the noble Lord, Lord Molson, explained very thoroughly and succinctly—and the noble Viscount, Lord Ingleby, as well added to our knowledge on this—what it is doing is gathering together police, fire, and passenger transport authorities which are in the Bill, anyway.

Last week in this Committee your Lordships voted on highways and traffic being set up as a joint authority. On Thursday of last week, waste disposal was set up as a joint authority. So all that the amendment does is gather together these functional bodies. We are certainly not considering an overall authority. The noble Lord, Lord Molson, did not say that. If he had said it and the Committee did not like it, the Committee could obviously take action and turn it down. Nor did the noble Lord talk about elected or appointed authorities. What we are discussing, in my view, is purely a functional and management problem.

I only wish to ask the noble Baroness whether she is not playing on words. When, as she put it, you have gathered them together and when they are in the statute, you have set them up. What is the difference? You have gathered them together, and in the process of gathering them together you have set them up. It is therefore a play on words to say that you have gathered them together but not set them up.

No. I do not accept that at all. They are bodies that have been set up. We are not setting up new bodies and then gathering them together. They are bodies dealing with functional services. All that the amendment says is that these interlink. To continue the sentence when the noble Lord intervened, there is the obvious police-fire link which all of us must agree go together. There is then the link between highways and the policing of traffic control measures. As to waste disposal, the transport of waste and hazardous materials is very relevant. This is a purely functional matter.

If the Government are concerned, as they always profess to be, with efficiency and the understanding of local government by the electors, they must concede that one bureaucracy must be more efficient than four. Why quadruple something when it can be done, so to speak under one roof, particularly when this avoids duplication of essential support services like computing? The transitional arrangements from one county council to a single joint board carrying out most of the principal services will obviously be far more simple and, I would guess, far less costly than if a large number of bodies were involved. A district council joint board system of local government, as many noble Lords must agree, from their experience in local government, central government, in business and in management, would be far easier to understand than a multiplicity of different bodies. This has been pointed out by PA Management Consultants and the Institute of Local Government purely on the basis of the way the services have functioned.

To attempt to show this as some sort of nefarious and sinister trick to get these services into a political hold is, I would suggest with great respect, absolute nonsense. There is nothing hidden about this. These bodies are set up. Noble Lords can read what is on the Marshalled List. They can hear the arguments that are put. If the House divides, noble Lords will be able to act as they feel. I object to the implication that we are discussing something that is not in front of us. That is not so. We are discussing the amendment before us with the original amendment. Because it makes good sense, it should have the support of the Committee. It will certainly have the support of my colleagues and myself.

I hope that my noble friends will be prepared to consider seriously the warning given by my noble friend Lord Home a few moments ago. It is embarrassing to have to say this when I sit alongside him but your Lordships will know that his services to this House and to the country are incomparable. It would seem very rash to disregard the warning he has given.

I wish to say a word on the merits in reply to the noble Baroness. The noble Baroness says that it is all very simple. You have four functions. So you put them together and it is more efficient. I believe, however, that your Lordships should visualise the kind of authority that would be set up if the amendment of my noble friend Lord Molson was accepted. It would be discharging four very important and very expensive functions. It would therefore, in the nature of things, be a large body, equipped, I understand, with precepting powers and levying a substantial precept. It is surely the experience of all of us, whether in local government or central government, that if you set up a body of that width of function, discharging so many important functions, its nature is that it attracts to itself even further functions and duties. Public spirited men and women serving upon it have the natural feeling that they can do things better than they would be done, for example, by the district authorities. They feel that, with the backing of the substantial and no doubt highly paid staff that they will have, they will be able to do things better. There will be an inevitable tendency—this has been seen in the case of the GLC itself—to take on further functions as time goes by,

Although the noble Baroness, with a delightful air of innocence, says that this is a practical arrangement, I beg your Lordships to realise, as my noble friend Lord Home has warned us, that it would be setting up a very substantial body, whether you call it a metropolitan authority mark 2 or mark 3, of the very kind that it is the purpose of the Bill, as approved by another place, approved by this House on Second Reading and approved by this Committee at the beginning of the Committee stage, to abolish. We are on a very dangerous path.

I hope that the Government will remember that this amendment proposes a joint board that will not be directly elected. If it was to be directly elected, I grant that the fears that have been expressed that it would become an all-powerful authority over the separate districts might be well founded. It is not to be that. It will be formed of representatives from the districts themselves. Your Lordships have already agreed that there are certain functions that must be dealt with by joint boards. Why have three boards when one will do the job? As to the fears expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, I should have thought that it would be perfectly simple to limit on paper the powers of the joint board.

We have in the GLC a very good example of the weakness of that method of limiting activity. The GLC was expressly not given police powers. It has set up and is to this day operating a police committee.

That may be so. One cannot avoid, I suppose, certain things going wrong, as we are all human. I should have thought, however, that it would be perfectly simple to lay down exactly what powers the joint boards had, and that if they went beyond those powers they could be brought to task.

I hope sincerely that the fears of some noble Lords opposite that the amendment is not in accord with Government policy will not prevent them realising that Government policy is not invariably right. Even Governments, and even the present Government, have been known to make mistakes. Personally, I think that this is one of them.

It is with the complete agreement of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, that I speak. Of course we value, listen to and admire with affection and respect anything that the noble Lord may say; but he would be the last person to expect us to agree with everything that he says. The idea is insulting to him and ridiculous to us. I make no apology for wholly disagreeing with the noble Lord, and for saying that I think he is unexpectedly confused. The point at issue is that of an overall body. It is to deal with four areas: the police, the fire services, waste disposal—and I am afraid that I have forgotten the other one.

Transport.

They are functions which I think can be reasonably joined together. They are in no sense overall. My noble friends and I shall be moving some amendments to add some kind of body to deal with the arts, voluntary bodies and other matters, which are not in any way connected, and it would be ridiculous to tie them in with the police, the fire brigade or anything else. Therefore, the issue of an overall body, which is the point of the Bill, is not being wrecked, and with the greatest respect I think that the noble Lord is quite wrong in suggesting that it is.

My noble friend Lord Molson referred to this not being a mark 2 metropolitan county council. Indeed, I think that my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter said that it was probably a mark 3 metropolitan county council. However, in so far as it is not a replica of the earlier amendment, I ask: what indeed is it? The noble Lord, Lord Somers, said that it would not be elected, but that is left in some doubt in the new clause, which says that it will be "established".

I believe that the argument put forward by my noble friend was destroyed by his own eloquent speech. He referred to there being one precept instead of four, and that the joint body would decide how the levy from that precept would be allocated among these three separate functions. I ask noble Lords: what sort of arguments would take place in this joint board with one precept? How the people comprising this established body are nominated is something that no doubt we shall hear about later. But these joint board members will argue about how much should go to transport and highways, waste disposal and the police. Presumably they will be nominees of separate joint authorities, some having a direct interest in the police and having been nominated to the police joint board, and some with an interest in waste, and so on. How terrible it would be if they were ordered to dispose of one precept, which my noble friend suggests is the main advantage of this joint board.

I believe that there would be increasing bureaucracy. As my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter said, the joint board would add committees onto its joint organisation so that an empire would be built up, as indeed has happened with the GLC. I believe that this would be a very retrograde step, and I believe that it would be very close to the constitution that was suggested and put before this House on a previous occasion. My noble friend Lord Home has referred to the constitutional issue that arises from that, and therefore I hope that your Lordships will reject this amendment.

I think that it might be worth while underlining yet again what my noble friend Lord Home of the Hirsel has said. The noble Baroness, Lady Birk, is one of the most intelligent Members of your Lordships' Committee. She knows as well as I do what her plan has been in this regard. First, she tried to persuade noble Lords to have one joint board. She said "That is nice. Now, what about two joint boards?" We are now dealing with a third. The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, is to move some amendments setting up such bodies on the arts, and so on, and before we know it there will be many joint hoards and central authorities.

I am sure that the noble Baroness would infinitely prefer them to be elected rather than appointed. If they are elected rather than appointed then heigh-ho! by the wave of a magic wand we have a new GLC or a new metropolitan county council. That is exactly what the Opposition has asked for, and when we were in Opposition if we had behaved like that to major Bills which had been given Second Readings in another place and in this House then we would have been accused of wrecking the Constitution, and the noble Baroness knows it. She would have been the best and the most effective of our accusers. The noble Baroness is far too clever to—

Before the noble Lord sits down, although flattery will get him almost anywhere, it certainly cannot extend to trying to read my mind. The noble Lord cannot look into the future with or without his crystal ball. I was talking to the amendment, and it is the amendment before us. We are not talking about going back to a GLC or a metropolitan county council; we are not talking about them being elected.

If the noble Baroness—

We are in Committee. I would remind the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, that there is provision in the Bill itself for joint committees and I cannot see what all the big fuss is about. Evidently the Government's supporters are absolutely terrified that anything should be done to improve the Bill, which is our job—that is, to help revise it, to save the taxpayer money and to enable the Bill to work more efficiently. They just think that the word "abolition" applies to everything and everybody.

This is the Committee stage and interventions are permitted within interventions. As the noble Baroness says that my noble friend cannot read her mind, I am sure she will be kind enough to explain what is in it. Is the noble Baroness saying that she will not in any circumstances now move to make these bodies elected bodies at a later stage?

Certainly not—I shall not say that I shall or shall not do anything at all. This is just ridiculous; it is childish. I expect better of the Minister than that. We are not playing kindergarten games.

In the words of the lawyers, no further questions.

Can the noble Baroness categorically say that she would prefer this new joint body not to be elected?