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

My Lords, the Government welcome the fact that the European Commission is exploring ways of applying the Community's competition rules to air transport. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport will continue to press the Council of Ministers to adopt a regulation which achieves this.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that most acceptable reply. Perhaps I may ask him, as it would be useful to have legal options in the background and known to be there, especially as a number of countries do seem to favour restrictive practices, whether the Government could increase the excellent efforts they are making to secure bilateral agreements between countries both in the EC and outside? If that could be done might it not spur the European Commission to more speedy action?

My Lords, our preference is for the Council of Transport Ministers to make a regulation in this matter. That I think would be the swiftest and most effective resolution to this problem. We do not rule out the possibility of legal action in due course if that is not achievable, but for the moment at least we prefer to follow the other course.

My Lords, the noble Lord will be aware that deregulation in the United States has not been an entirely unmixed blessing. There is quite a story there of bankruptcies, litigation and redundancies, and so deregulation has not always been in the interests of the air transport industry. In view of the success of the Government in the bilateral negotiations with the Netherlands, would it not be preferable to pursue the problem along these bilateral lines without invoking Brussels laws?

My Lords, I agree that deregulation on the American model is probably further than we would wish to go. Of course the circumstances are different in the United States. That is a national market and we are facing an international question here in Europe. We have reached three agreements of a bilateral kind which offer the sort of improvements we are looking for: with the Netherlands, with Germany and with Luxembourg, although the last two are rather recent. Unhappily, some of the other European countries seem less willing to reach bilateral agreements than the ones which I have just mentioned.

My Lords, does the noble Lord agree with me that bankruptcies are not always a bad thing? Has he ever heard of any bankruptcies among the inefficient industries of Soviet Russia?

My Lords, that is an interesting reflection but probably not flowing from the Question on the Order Paper.

My Lords, in view of the fact that under the treaties the Commission itself is charged with interpretation of EC law, would it not be unfortunate if in the event of the Commission itself drawing up a regulation to eliminate restrictive practices in the European airways business, the Council of Ministers decided to overthrow that decision?

My Lords, the Commission produced last year some guidelines which we felt did not go far enough. We think that the right course now is for the Council of Transport Ministers to reach a conclusion on this matter, and I hope they will do that.

My Lords, am I correct in thinking that the Council of Transport Ministers is to meet here in the near future? If so, can the Minister give us the date?

My Lords, I am afraid that I do not have the date of the next meeting of the Council of Transport Ministers, but I shall certainly try to find out and let the noble Baroness have it.

My Lords, will the noble Lord the Minister bear this in mind? The Government have had success in these bilateral negotiations. Would it not be a mistake to drop the slogan, "Whitehall knows best", for one now fashionable, "Brussels knows better"?

My Lords, we are not proposing a slogan of the kind that the noble Lord suggests; nor indeed do we offer a slogan of the earlier type which he mentioned. There is a limitation to what can be achieved by bilateral methods. Although the noble Lord pointed to some successes, and rightly so, which we have achieved in that area, we have also discovered some failures in that area. I am not saying that we have gone as far as we can in bilateral negotiations. On the contrary, I hope there is more to be gained. But some countries within the European Community are very resistant to any change in the existing bilateral arrangements.

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

My Lords, this has yet to be determined.

My Lords, I am grateful for that non-answer. Bearing in mind that these people will be in post in the not-too-distant future after the passage of the Bill, what criteria are the Government using in looking at this position? In the most recent set of quangos created by Government legislation—I am talking about the chairmen of the water authorities—the lowest paid at present draws £20,000 a year and the highest paid draws £33,000. The salaries can be £34,000 and reach a maximum of up to £42,000 a year. I think the Minister will agree that those are very high salaries indeed. Are not noble Lords in this House entitled to a full explanation when we are talking about that amount of public money being spent?

My Lords, we are thinking of figures similar to those given to the chairmen of such bodies as new town development corporations; and in the local government field, appointments such as members of the local government Boundary Commission.

My Lords, can the noble Lord the Minister say to whom, when the decisions are made, the chairmen will be answerable? Will they be also answerable to the general public? Will that be made transparently clear? What will be the procedures if people wish to make representations to them, as this will now be almost an authoritarian society with very little democracy in it?

My Lords, the Question which I was asked to answer related to the remuneration of these people. If the noble Lord wishes to pursue the matters he has raised, I should think that the Bill which creates the posts would be an appropriate vehicle for him to consider.

My Lords, I appreciate the Minister's indication that nothing final has been determined. Bearing in mind that we are thinking of a possible five-year stint when these bodies might be in existence, and realising the enormity of the guidance that can be given by the residuary bodies in the period, can we have an assurance from the Minister that he will be flexible when looking both at the remuneration and at the number of days in the week on which the individuals may be called upon?

Yes, my Lords. The bodies to which I referred give remuneration to their chairmen on the basis of notional full-time salaries which of course reduce to the extent that the chairman does not work full-time.

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the Bill upon which these questions are based is not yet a statute and that it is still within the realms of this Parliament to discuss these matters in debate? Is it not wrong for questions to be asked on such detail which cannot possibly be answered when the Bill is in the process of going through the House?

My Lords, I never mind questions being asked so long as I am not required to answer them in inappropriate circumstances, which these would be.

My Lords, I wish to ask a question relating to that put by my noble friend. Would a condition of employment be that the appointed person should have local government experience?

My Lords, if the noble Lord will look at the record of the Answer that I gave his noble friend yesterday, he will find that that is already on the record.

My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord a final question? The main thrust of the Bill that has created these positions is to cut expenditure. Does the Minister not consider it odd that publicly-elected people in receipt of considerably less sums of money are to be dismissed from office in favour of very highly paid appointees to quangos? Does the Minister consider that such action is in accord with our reputation as the cradle of democracy?

My Lords, I do not think that it entirely relates to our reputation as a democratic country; but as an efficient country, I think it does. The noble Lord will find that when the work of these people is done, local government will be a good deal cheaper than it now is, and there will be a net and continuing saving.

My Lords, did not a former Prime Minister of this country from the party opposite once say that democracy was the least efficient of all forms of government, until one tried some other?

My Lords, I am not answerable for what was said by the leader of another government of a different persuasion from my own.

It was Sir Winston Churchill, my Lords.

My Lords, I have misattributed the quotation. I am nonetheless not answerable for general political philosophy in a Question concerning the salary of an individual appointee.

My Lords, is the Minister not aware that the only independent examination of the finances involved in this matter directly contradicts the reply that he has just made? It suggests that, on the contrary, what he is proposing to do is not only undemocratic but will also be extremely expensive.

My Lords, I do not agree with that analysis but this is not the occasion to debate it.

My Lords, does the noble Lord anticipate any difficulty in ascertaining and discovering what similar salaries are paid for similar responsibilities, to people working similar hours, and which will create a normal and acceptable precedent?

My Lords, I do not expect the arrangements to be beyond precedent.

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

My Lords, the method of determining pay must reflect the individual situations of the parties involved, but methods can and do change with circumstances.

My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that in their annual report for 1984 the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service offered their help and advice in dealing with the criteria to be adopted in determining pay in the public services and the procedures which might be followed in case of disagreement?

In view of the dissatisfaction and disruption caused by the increasing disparity between pay settlements in the public services and those reached in other areas of employment, will the Government discuss this matter with ACAS?

My Lords, I have a high regard for ACAS, and in previous ministerial incarnations I had quite a lot to do with the service. The fact is that the Government have a clear and persistent line themselves in respect of pay. All employers should pay what is required to recruit, retain and motivate within what they can afford. That applies in the total economy, whether private or public.

My Lords, is the Minister not aware that our people expect the Government to show an example as an employer—an example of the best? Where there is failure to agree wages, will the Government consider submitting the whole matter to pendulum arbitration? This is something of which we need experience.

My Lords, I consider that the Government do provide a model of good employment in this regard. I remind the noble Lord that one sector of the public services—the teachers—have, to my great regret, refused to go to arbitration. So it is not always that simple. As noble Lords will be aware, in the last week or so many of the recommendations of the review bodies have been implemented to a very considerable degree by the Government.

My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether the recommendations of the Megaw Committee have been completely buried? I ask this question as an interested party, having been a member of that committee, which provided a formula for dealing with the pay of non-industrial civil servants.

My Lords, the noble Baroness mentions a point that is very close to my heart as the Minister concerned with the day-to-day affairs of the Civil Service. My right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has proposed that discussions about longer-term pay arrangements in respect of the Civil Service should be resumed. I hope very much that it will be possible for those arrangements to be in place in time for the 1986 pay review.

My Lords, does the noble Earl not agree that market forces must operate in this connection? Pehaps an even more important point is that a non-trading sector of the public service might be more profitable than a trading sector, and would therefore be worthy of higher remuneration.

My Lords. I do not wholly dissent from that point of view, but the fact of the matter is that one can never escape the market for very long. In respect of the non-trading public sector, the market operates in relation to levels of employment. The point of cash limits is surely that the more goes in pay the less there remains for other purposes—including recruiting more people.

My Lords, as teachers have been mentioned, I will refer to their case. The teachers did not go to arbitration because the Secretary of State said quite categorically that there would be no more money. There was no point in them taking that course.

My Lords, as I understand it, the teachers were perfectly able to do so. My right honourable friend was not making an unreasonable point, because a 12.4 per cent. claim in the present climate is not an inconsiderable one.

My Lords, in view of the Minister's reply to the question of the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, is he saying that it is contemplated that there will be some well understood basis for settling pay in the public service coming from the discussions which are now taking place? Morale in the public sector is very low and unless there is agreement on some acceptable basis of settling pay, conditions will deteriorate, to the detriment of the Government.

My Lords, if we look back at the past 15 or 20 years of the history of this country, we will see that pay has never been an easy issue. There are various methods and techniques of trying to ease the difficulties which it causes. What we are trying to say is simply put in two sentences. First, recruitment, motivation and retention of personnel are key issues in respect of the determination of pay. Secondly, the more that goes out in pay, the fewer posts there will be.

My Lords, will the noble Earl then confirm formally that the fixing of arbitrary cash limits is, in the final analysis, the essence of the Government's wages policy?

My Lords, I agree with every aspect of that except the use of the word "arbitrary".

My Lords, will the new procedures that might be developed embrace parts of the old principle whereby comparisons were made between work done in the public sector and similar work done in the private sector? Can the Minister say also whether it is possible now, under existing procedures, for nurses, for example, who are not happy with an award to make further representations on the basis of the offer that has been made to them?

My Lords, the Government have gone a long way to implement the review body recommendations in respect of nurses. That fact has been very widely acknowledged. The fact remains that levels of pay are an important determinant of levels of employment. At the moment most people tell us, and I would certainly agree with them, that the major issue facing this country is the level of employment and not rates of pay.

My Lords, will the Minister bear in mind that motivation, which is part of his definition, does not depend on money alone? Will he also bear in mind that many of us feel that a little more open expression of appreciation of what the Civil Service does and a little less criticism would not come amiss from the Government?

My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, and I and my colleagues lose few opportunities to commend the public services in this country. One should not always take professional union representation as being a true indication of morale.

My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that it is all very well for the Government to say that they have met the review body and the nurses, but in point of fact what they have done is to give with one hand and to take back with another? The charges to nurses for lodging, and other expenses, are to be increased by 5 per cent., thus cancelling out what the nurses will get this year.

My Lords, as I have said, it has been widely recognised that the Government have gone as far as they possibly can in respect of the nurses, whose services we all so much appreciate. However, some staging is needed on grounds of cost if service levels are not to be substantially reduced, and I do not think that any of us want that, either.

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

My Lords, recent developments have not been helpful, but the United States-led negotiations continue.

My Lords, I am grateful for that cogent Answer—as much of it as I received. Cannot Britain take a more active part in the United Nations in urging South Africa to take a less draconic attitude towards the states on its borders? As long as there is this refusal to accept the independence of Namibia, SWAPO will go on with its guerrilla warfare. Can Britain take any action in the United Nations? No one expects Britain to accept all responsibility, but some action should now be taken to solve this problem in this neglected part of Africa.

My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Davies, that we take every opportunity to impress on South Africa the need for early implementation of Security Council Resolution 435, and that we have, with our contact group partners, intervened over the new internal administration arrangements to remind South Africans of their commitment to Security Council Resolution 435.

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness.

My Lords, will the noble Baroness confirm whether or not Her Majesty's Government have heard that the South African Government are to set up an interim government in Namibia on 17th June? Will the noble Baroness be good enough to confirm also that this is totally contrary to United Nations Resolution 435, to which she referred? Can the noble Baroness say that the Government are totally opposed to this action by the South African Government and that it will make an ultimate settlement infinitely more difficult? Therefore, can the noble Baroness say what action the Government propose to take on this and what action the contact group are taking on it?

My Lords, I should like to make it quite plain that the Government do not recognise the new administration. It has no standing under the United Nations plans. We have made our position quite plain to the South African Government on that matter. We believe that the new administration will not affect the negotiations towards the implementation of Security Council Resolution 435; nor does it alter South Africa's international obligations on that resolution.

My Lords, am I correct in saying that this issue is at present before the Security Council? While I realise that the noble Baroness cannot give information in advance of the United Kingdom vote at the Security Council on the resolution now being debated, can she indicate what the British Government's attitude is to the current debate in the Security Council on this issue?

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, is quite right: The debate on Namibia is at present continuing. But we hope to see a resolution which will contribute in a constructive way towards the implementation of Security Council Resolution 435.

My Lords, does the noble Baroness not agree that the United Nations is largely to blame for the present impasse, in that to describe SWAPO in a partisan fashion as the sole authentic representative of the Namibian people is much the same as describing the Labour Party as the sole authentic representative of the British people? Both are strong in the north of their countries but do not represent the whole nation.

My Lords, I think I have made quite plain the British Government's attitude to these matters in Namibia. We wish to see a resolution of this difficult problem. We hope that the United States negotiations will prove to be successful and that they will be based on the United Nations resolution, which we support.

My Lords, will the Government consult with the United States, the Commonwealth and the European Community on the practical measures which can be taken in the event of the South Africans proceeding with the plan mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn? Will the Government make it clear to the South Africans, in conjunction with our allies, that if they do proceed with this dangerous and illegal course we shall take more action against them than the mere words which we have used in the past?

My Lords, it is clear that the interim administration has been set up and will be inaugurated on 17th June. I have already expressed the Government's point of view about that; and the Community Foreign Ministers stated on 29th April that they consider the South African announcement on the setting up of an interim administration to be null and void and reaffirm the Ten's commitment to Security Council Resolution 435.

My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that what she has said so far is very encouraging and can be applauded on this side of the House? Is she also aware—I am sure she is—that the United Nations nine-man survey of internationalists and the Inter-Parliamentary Union examination of the United Nations survey both came to the same conclusion: that SWAPO overwhelmingly represented all tribes and peoples in Namibia? It is on the United Nations and IPU surveys, involving 20 people from different nations, that that basis was, beyond all peradventure, accepted by the United Nations and succesive British Governments.

My Lords, I do not know that I entirely follow the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, in all his arguments on this matter. I hope I have made plain to your Lordships the British Government's view over Namibia.

My Lords, in view of the fact that the Security Council has made its proposals for the independence of Namibia and that the South African Government has, for more than a decade, delayed that solution and is even now proposing its own constitution for Namibia, is it beyond the wit of man and the ability of the Security Council to reflect world opinion on this issue and find a means of enforcing the solution which it has itself proposed?

My Lords, I think I have made clear the position of the United Kingdom and the Community. Of course, the contact group countries have declared the interim administration arrangements null and void. The presidential statement of the Security Council on 3rd May also declared the interim administration null and void.

On taking further measures against South Africa, we do not believe that putting economic pressure on South Africa would be effective in securing an internationally acceptable settlement.

My Lords, it has been agreed through the usual channels that the Statement which is to be made by my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in another place this afternoon on the Agriculture Council on 11th and 12th June should, by leave of the House, be printed in the Official Report.

Following is the Statement referred to:

"I represented the United Kingdom, with my honourable friend the Minister of State, at the meeting of the Council of Agriculture Ministers on 11th and 12th June in Luxembourg.

"The Council resumed negotiations on prices for the 1985–86 season for cereals and rapeseed on the basis of a compromise which was before the Council on 13th to 16th May. The Commission submitted 10 draft regulations to give effect to this compromise, including the proposed reduction of 1.8 per cent. in common prices for these commodities. When the Presidency announced its intention to put these regulations to a vote, the German Minister said his Government were not prepared to accept the decrease in cereal prices. He formally invoked Paragraph II of the Luxembourg Compromise by saying that a very important national interest was involved for Germany and that negotiations must be continued until unanimous agreement was reached.

"I said in the Council that I had noted that the German Government supported the United Kingdom Government's view that where a member state declared a very important national interest, discussions in the Council should continue without a vote. Given the German Minister's statement, I said that, in accordance with our position on the Luxembourg Compromise, I had to object to a vote being taken and that I was not prepared to vote or abstain. The Ministers of Denmark, France, Greece and Ireland made similar statements. Nonetheless, the Presidency proceeded with a vote. These four member states, together with the United Kingdom, refused to record a vote. Germany also refused to participate in a vote. The regulations were therefore not adopted.

"I regret the fact that the Council has thus failed to take decisions on sensible price arrangements for cereals and rapeseed for the next season. This represents a serious setback to the progress which has been made in putting the CAP onto a more realistic basis. Careful thought will need to be given by the Agriculture Council and the Commission to the situation now confronting us.

"The rapeseed and durum wheat marketing years begin on 1st July and the marketing year for other cereals on 1st August. In the absence of agreement in the Council, the Commission will need to take decisions on how the markets should be managed.

"The Council failed to reach agreement on a draft directive covering intra-Community trade in heat treated milk. Nor was it able to resolve longstanding differences among member states on the authorisation of hormone growth promoters. However, agreement was reached on the text of a directive on control procedures for hormones. Its adoption was delayed pending further consideration of the substances to be authorised.

"Several other veterinary directives were adopted, including an important two-year extension of the special import arrangements which the United Kingdom, Denmark and Ireland are entitled to apply as a protection against swine fever."

My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that the Report stage of the Local Government Bill will be adjourned at approximately 7 p.m. for a short period, and that during this adjournment the Third Reading of the Representation of the People Bill will be taken.

My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.

moved Amendment No. 59A:

Before Clause 16, insert the following new clause,

My Lords, after that admirably clear introduction, I should perhaps say a word of further explanation by drawing attention to the fact that the second amendment to which my noble friend Lord Mottistone spoke, Amendment No. 59B, is, as it happens, not only consequential on his amendment No. 59A, it is also a paving amendment for the Government amendment, Amendment No. 63AA, to which I shall be referring again in a moment.

Amendment No. 63AA: Schedule 7, page 134, line 48, at end insert—

("(5) Each joint committee established by virtue of subparagraph (4) above shall before the abolition date co-ordinate the making by the councils represented on the committee of preparations for the transfer of the functions which by virtue of subparagraphs (1) to (3) above will be exercisable by those councils from that date.

(6) If after the abolition date it appears to the Secretary of State to be necessary or expedient to do so he may, after consultation with the councils of the districts in a metropolitan county, by order establish a single authority for the county to discharge from a date specified in the order the functions conferred on the councils by virtue of this paragraph.

(7) An order under this paragraph may contain such supplementary and transitional provisions as the Secretary of State thinks necessary or expedient, including provisions for the transfer of property, staff, rights and liabilities and provisions amending any enactment or any instrument made under any enactment").

Therefore, the fact that my name and that of my noble friend appear on an identical amendment does not necessarily give the full extent of the positions that we respectively occupy.

My noble friend's amendments would transfer responsibility for trading standards and related functions to the metropolitan county fire and civil defence authorities. They would thus create combined joint authorities for fire, trading standards and civil defence in those counties. I had hoped that in Committee I had persuaded my noble friend not to pursue these amendments. When trading standards were debated in Committee, I thought I had persuaded your Lordships that it was right that they should be devolved to the district councils. I need scarcely repeat yet again that maximum devolution of as many as possible of the functions which the metroplitan county councils currently perform is central to abolition policy.

It is argued that it is appropriate to transfer responsibility for those functions to the fire and civil defence authorities because so many shire counties have chosen to organise their committee structure around the public protection committees, and in some cases to provide common administrative support arrangements for the two services. I do not dispute that. Such arrangements are undoubtedly important. But they do not go to the heart of the function. As I understand it, there is only a very small core of related fire and trading standards functions. I am aware of that small core because for a time I was responsible in the Home Office for the fire service and I am now carrying out this reciprocal responsibility for the legislation at this Box in this debate in another department which is responsible for the trading standards inspectorate.

There is a far greater relationship between trading standards and environmental health functions. For instance, some 15 per cent. of the workload of a typical trading standards department relates to food authority functions, where that relationship is closest. I am not therefore convinced by the supposed close links between fire and trading standards as a sufficient reason for departing from our declared policy. Those links are to do with the provision of common support services. The districts are equally well equipped to provide such support services themselves.

I referred a moment ago to the close links between the trading standards and environmental health functions. I should remind your Lordships, as I did in Committee, that our proposals to devolve trading standards and related functions to the districts is strongly supported by the Institution of Environmental Health Officers. This clear view from an institution whose members work within the district councils, including the metropolitan districts, further convinced me that the devolution of trading standards functions to those districts is indeed viable and the right solution.

It has been suggested that the service will be more expensive and less effective if it is administered by the districts. I think my noble friend will forgive me for sweeping up now an argument deployed in Committee, although I am not sure that r heard him repeat it today. However, it may linger in your Lordships' minds. I acknowledge that the costs of providing the service are higher in London, where it is administered by the boroughs, than in the metropolitan counties. However, compare the levels of activity. In 1983–84, the last year for which we have figures, there were some 18,000 prosecutions and cautions in London. All the metropolitan counties, together with their much higher combined population, produced only 2,000 more. That must surely account for at least some of the extra cost and does not seem to me to reflect at all badly on the diligence of the service under the lower level of administration, or make me feel that it is unlikely to be properly conducted under similar arrangements elsewhere.

I recognise that in an earlier debate in Committee stage, noble Lords have referred to commendable specific initiatives by individual metropolitan county councils. However, as they have not been referred to again, I shall not repeat my reference to that.

My noble friend has said that he wants to secure uniformity of interpretation and enforcement by placing it at a higher than local level. In the course of advancing that argument, which rests on the need to have as few authorities as possible, he referred to the fact that the present arrangements involve no fewer than 47 shire counties. I have not yet heard it argued that there is an unacceptable variation in enforcement and interpretation as a result of that multiplicity, though my noble friend will have an opportunity to put me right when he replies to the debate.

We have always recognised the need for some co-ordination, especially of enforcement. That is why the Bill provides for joint committees of the districts in each metropolitan county, whose role it will be to co-ordinate enforcement and the use of specialist staff and equipment employed on enforcement work. Those committees were enough to persuade the Association of British Chambers of Commerce to support our proposals. I remind your Lordships of what they said about the proposals in a commentary on the Bill circulated during its passage in another place. They said:

"The main concern of industry and commerce relating to trading standards was the possibility that district councils would operate varying standards of advice and enforcement and that centralised units such as exist in West Yorkshire might be disbanded when control was passed to districts".

This is the important part:

"It seems to the association that Clause 15(4) of Schedule 8"—

and that of course is now Schedule 7—

"which establishes a statutory joint committee allays that fear and should be supported."

Since then, thanks to my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn, we have strengthened the role of the joint committees of which the Association of British Chambers of Commerce approved. That was the effect of the amendments moved by my noble friend that I accepted in Committee. As a result, the joint committees will now be established by 1st September 1985. They will have a statutory duty to co-ordinate the districts' preparations for the transfer of trading standards functions to those districts on abolition day, and they will have a stronger and more clearly defined duty to co-ordinate enforcement functions after abolition as well. Most significantly, there will also be a reserve power for my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, by order, to establish joint authorities for trading standards and related functions in any metropolitan county if it appears to him necessary and expedient so to do.

The precise form of the reserve power and the details of the joint committees' role before abolition day are the subject of a later amendment in my name. It may nonetheless help the House if I explain briefly how we expect that those arrangements would work. It is clearly important that your Lordships should be satisfied, as I am, that they will work effectively. The joint committees will have to be established by 1st September this year. The districts will therefore need to decide before then on the joint committees' constitution and membership and on the date and place of their first meeting. The districts will, of course, he free—I believe that this is something on which my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn places some store—to involve the metropolitan county councils in those joint committees before abolition if they so wish. Whatever arrangements the districts wish to make for those committees, I hope that they will begin to make them now so that they can begin work in earnest on 1st September.

The joint committees will be responsible between then and abolition day for co-ordinating the districts' preparations for the takeover of functions on abolition day. Noble Lords have stressed the importance of retaining the specialist knowledge and expertise of the metropolitan county councils and in particular of keeping the county analysts' laboratory teams intact. This is precisely the sort of issue that the districts will no doubt wish to discuss in the joint committees. If they wish to retain the existing facilities but are not able to make firm arrangements in time, the districts will be able to call upon the appropriate residuary body to take over the running of these facilities on their behalf for an interim period. They will not even have to go to the residuary bodies for this. The residuary bodies will go to them. Your Lordships will by now have seen Amendment No. 81C, which I said that I would table, and have tabled, in response to the concern of the Select Committee chaired by my noble friend Lord Cranbrook.

Amendment No. 81C: Schedule 12, page 150, line 8, at end insert—

My Lords, would the noble Lord agree that although long stops, I think I am right in saying, do not normally feature among the fielders on a cricket field nowadays, in the days when they did, in order to save runs, they operated rather closer to the wicket than the boundary?

My Lords, listening to the noble Lord the Minister, I felt that we should be at Headingley, where England would be sure to win because not only is he going to bowl the balls but he is also going to hit them and obviously act also as umpire. What he said, to be truthful, has not bowled this maiden over! What he has said falls short of what the metropolitan counties have been doing in the field of trading standards.

As the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, said, this is not a party issue. The protection of consumers never has been a party issue. The noble Baroness, Lady Burton, who is not at present in her seat but who speaks so strongly on behalf of consumer interests, speaks as a consumer without any political implications. I cannot therefore see, despite what the noble Lord says, that the joint committees will really carry out a job of work. In my view, the joint committees, will have no control over the operational policy of the service, which will still be subject to all the different priorities and political complexions of many district councils. I spoke on the last occasion about a quite famous district in the West Midlands called Solihull, which has said that it will consider trading standards as a necessary evil that it does not want to play with.

4 p.m.

Therefore, when we talk about a joint committee we must consider the political complexions of the many district councils. By restricting the committee's role to that of co-ordination the Minister has, in my view taken no account of the experience of trading standards in the London boroughs. Indeed, the noble Lord quoted the London boroughs and he must look seriously at what the London boroughs have been doing. The noble Lord quoted some figures which I was unable to note because of the rapidity with which he gave them. I do not intend to be rude to the noble Lord, because obviously he was trying to tell us as much as he could in a short space of time. It may be that because more prosecutions are brought in the London area, there are more sharks or more cowboys in the London area, than there are in the metropolitan counties, in the same way as if we look at the number of convictions, we always find a much higher proportion in London as opposed to the rest of the country. Therefore, I am not so sure that I accept the figures which the noble Lord gave us.

However, what is happening is that those areas of the country which really need the protection of trading standards have once again been denied them. We want to see trading standards kept as an entity within the authority which deals with public protection. One sympathises with the way in which the Minister has gone forward. Indeed, I must say that when we first spoke about residuary bodies I was under the impression that the Minister did not want anything to come under the residuary bodies apart from certain matters, such as pensions and financial implications and therefore he levelled the criticism against this side of the House that we were setting up these residuary bodies so that ultimately we had mini-metropolitan counties, but it seems that perhaps the Minister now thinks a little differently about the matter.

The important aspect of trading standards is that the service should be kept as an identifiable unit and of a viable size so that it meets the needs, as the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, said, of the trader, the consumer and the manufacturer. Consumer problems are only one aspect of trading standards. Trading standards, as Lord Mottistone said, are also of great importance to the manufacturer. Therefore, we need to look at the service as a regional service unaffected by inter-district rivalries over resources. We should ensure that there are sufficient funds to meet the needs of the trader, the manufacturer and the consumer alike.

The Government are constantly bringing in new legislation—not only their own legislation but also legislation which comes from the EEC regarding consumer protection. It is important that the laws of the country are enforced if they are not being obeyed. Therefore, I support the point of view which the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, expressed regarding the shire counties. The opinion, which the noble Lord the Minister expressed regarding the shire counties seemed strange. He said that there was no need to set up a similar type of system. If the Government were thinking about cost-effectiveness and efficiency, surely it must be right that there be one service, one body in operation. When the civil servants want to hold discussions, surely it is more sensible, more cost-effective and more efficient if they deal with only one group of people? If you are dealing with the shire counties in regard to these fire and civil defence services, surely it is logical that the rest of the country should be under the same type of umbrella instead of having a different service. For that reason I did not accept what the Minister said. It is important for the Government themselves, when they ask local authorities to be efficient, to look at effectiveness and efficiency.

I shall not weary the House with the names of people who have written in saying how important it is to have a joint body. The Minister himself quoted two examples, and of course he quoted two that were suitable to him. However, he completely ignored the half-a-dozen to which the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, referred. Therefore, on that score the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, wins in the game of cricket. I think that he wins by four to two, but I am never sure about cricket scores. Obviously if we take into account the number of supporters, he made more runs than the noble Lord the Minister.

I want to make quite sure that the House really understands what trading standards are all about, because it is important. It is not only a question, as some noble Lords think, of looking at a bottle of milk with a fly in it; it is not only a question of looking at perhaps the bandage that appears in a loaf of bread, as one noble Lord mentioned to me yesterday over lunch. That might be a task more suited to the environmental health officers. As the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, said, the trading standards officers are really a protection for industry. Indeed, I cannot see him here, but one of your Lordships is well aware of the lock trade—a very eminent industrial concern. That noble Lord knows about the lock trade in the Black Country which is part of the West Midlands. He knows how that trade has suffered severely from cheap foreign imports. Such imports have almost crippled the lock trade in the Black Country which was the prime manufacturer of locks and safes. Therefore, it is important to remember that this type of service is not only a protection for the consumer or the man in the street.

Another noble Lord who is not present today is involved in the production of jeans. Levi Jeans suffered dramatically and they had to take up, through the trading standards officers, severe prosecutions. In fact, one of the importers who was copying Levi Jeans was sent to prison for nine months. Trading standards are all about finding out the fakes, as the Government recognise in their legislation, and taking people to court so that the law is enforced. I could go on to deal with video tapes and so on. It is important that the Government fully recognise what it is all about. I am sure that that is not what they are concerned about in the London area. In cross-border areas different districts operate on their own little cabbage patch. Trading standards are a much wider field than that.

In conclusion, I think that the joint authority should retain these three services which provide protection to the trader, the manufacturer and the general public. What is important is that the service should be provided at the same level as it is now. I am afraid from what the Minister has said that the service will become less efficient and perhaps of lesser consequence. If that happens what the Minister is really saying is that the fair trading legislation which he brings in is perhaps not as important as it ought to be, which is a reflection on the Government's legislation.

I see no opportunity of the districts getting together, as the noble Lord suggests. I feel sure that the Minister has no idea of the real opposition to district councils working together. He should understand how district councils work. One would think that they go hand in hand, glove in glove, and are playing patball instead of the kind of ferocious cricket that he was talking about.

We ought to keep this in its entirety as it is now with the fire standards, and then if the noble Lord feels in five years' time that it is much more important, then obviously we should welcome it if he has a complete trading standards department standing on its own two feet without the fire service. I support the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone.

My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, and my noble friend Lord Mottistone that trading standards are not a party issue, but the principle of devolution lies at the heart of this Bill, and this has engendered a certain measure of political controversy. There are many ways in which this problem of trading standards to which my noble friend Lord Mottistone referred—high standards, uniform implementation, and so on and so forth—may be resolved.

However, Amendment No. 59A, which was moved by my noble friend Lord Mottistone, is open to objection on various grounds. First, there are other means of dealing with the problem. There are those proposed in the Bill as explained with great cogency by my noble friend Lord Elton. Secondly, the means proposed by Amendment No. 59A conflict with the principle of devolution. Thirdly, there is, generally speaking, a minimal connection with the fuctions of fire and civil defence authorities so far as trading standards are concerned, save a small core of activities which of course includes such matters as petrol stations.

But the Government on Second Reading—I shall be corrected if I am wrong about this—while holding firm to the principle of devolution accepted a substantial change of position. My noble friend agreed to create a special reserve power in the Minister in the absence of any agreement as to how these functions should be exercised. The establishment of joint committees, and the reserve power to establish joint authorities, are surely wholly sufficient. The only appropriate approach to trading standards in the context of this Bill is to make districts responsible and to ensure, by resort to reserve powers where appropriate, that adequate inter-district arrangements are made to maintain continuity of enforcement.

If one goes back to the amendment, the setting up or transfer of these functions to the fire and civil defence authority means a transfer to an authority established under Clause 27 of the Bill as a permanent authority under Part IV. True, such permanency is recognised in the police, fire, and civil defence, and under the Bill as it now stands, transport functions. But it is contrary to the spirit of the Bill to load up these joint authorities, which constitute a tier of government, with functions which are properly devolved to the boroughs.

4.15 p.m.

My noble friend Lord Elton has stated today, if I have it right, that the devolution of trading standards to the districts is strongly supported by the Institution of Environmental Health Officers.

They would, would they not?

That is the second source for, "They would say so, wouldn't they?" I am not sure that that is the correct objective approach to the problem to which your Lordships are invited to address yourselves. This, on any showing, is the thin end of the wedge sought to be driven into the process and principle of devolution of power to the boroughs. Under this set of amendments—Amendment 59A and the others to which my noble friend spoke—one is dealing with trading standards and putting them to the joint authorities. Under Amendments Nos. 60, 63 and 63A the same thing is proposed for the safety of sports grounds. Under Amendments Nos. 61 and 62 the licensing of public entertainments, theatres, cinemas and so forth is dealt with.

The proposal, and we have to face it during the course of today's debate, is that all these functions are to be transferred to a joint authority which is to discharge a hotch-potch of ill-assorted activities which will have no logical or natural connection whatsoever, other than a common concern with aspects of welfare, to which my noble friend Lord Mottistone referred. But with the greatest respect, that is a connection which is far too tenuous and insubstantial to warrant this conjoint, mammoth administration.

My noble friend Lord Elton referred, in antithesis, to food and health. Where does welfare begin, and where does it end? It is a wholly unsatisfactory basis upon which to seek to draw the nexus for joining disparate functions under one command or one administration.

My Lords, it may be appropriate if I intervene at this stage. I have the privilege of deputising for the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, who, as the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, has explained, is abroad and unable to be here today. The second privilege falling to me is that I follow, and strongly support, the brilliant way in which the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, moved and supported these amendments in his opening speech.

I was disappointed in the speech of the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Elton. As my noble friend Lord Rochester has pointed out, he got his positions on the cricket field rather mixed up. With all his experience, I should have thought that the noble Lord, Lord Elton, would realise that to call in analogies whenever making a speech on an important matter of this kind always leads to disaster, as it has done on this occasion. If he had been referring to a rugger match where a brilliant forward was intercepted by a Welsh fullback, I might have been able to have some sympathy with an analogy of that kind; but let me say at once that that analogy is hopeless for the purposes of the case I am presenting.

We are dealing this afternoon with important matters relating not only to the health of the community but to the safety and welfare and also the fair trading rights of the community. Similar arrangements to those proposed by the Government, at present in this Bill for the metropolitan districts, have not worked in London.

I support that proposition by a quotation from the CBI which reads:

"This experience (of Trading Standards in London) leads us to believe that devolving this service to the districts will not achieve the consistency we need and will increase costs".

Perhaps I may briefly outline the tremendous responsibilities which devolve upon the officers in the areas on this matter. They are dealing with questions relating to the Food and Drugs Act, the Weights and Measures Act and the Trade Descriptions Act. The noble Baroness, Lady Fisher of Rednal, also indicated certain instances where the Trade Descriptions Act was invoked in various areas for the assistance of industry. There is the Agriculture Act, the Consumer Credit Act, the Consumer Safety Act, the Unfair Contract Terms Act, the Sale of Goods Act, the Supply of Goods and Services Act. These are terribly important matters in the sense of the community with which they are dealing. It is impossible that we should ask for all the separate boroughs and shires to deal with these matters.

The European dimension has not been raised so far. The harmonisation of EC law, particularly the introduction of the concept of average weight and its implications upon manufacturing, trade and industry, has required a specialist expertise which is only viable in the large local authorities and could not be operated if dispersed to a large number of separate boroughs.

We then come to the main point made by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway. I cannot refer to him as my noble and learned friend in this place. His argument was that this amendment is in conflict with the basic principles of this Bill in regard to devolution. With the greatest respect to the noble Lord, that argument is wholly wrong because he has misunderstood the position in the Bill before your Lordships. The Bill has in it the amendments put forward in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, and accepted by the Committee. Therefore as a result of those amendments, which must be considered as being in the Bill few the present debate, the Government have conceded the case for a countrywide service by accepting the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, for a reserve power. Therefore these trading standard matters can be added to the Bill without in any way raising any constitutional issues.

It seems to us that it is appropriate to include trading standards with the fire and civil defence which are already well together in public protection committees in all 47 English and Welsh shire counties. Perhaps I may presume to emphasise that these arrangements have worked very well even in Welsh shires. If they work well in Welsh shires, that is a great tribute to that organisation. The Government have also conceded that the fire authority joint board can be shared by other services by accepting the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, for the fire and civil defence authority. So there is no question of any constitutional crisis arising in relation to these amendments.

The Government's report entitled, Burdens on Business, published in March 1985, calls for what is referred to in the report as the one-stop shop inquiry point for business: that is, to obtain comprehensive legislative service. As there are so many Acts involved this is the occasion where we should adopt the amendment so that this comprehensive legislative service can be given.

The other argument put forward by the Minister and supported by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, was that there were other ways of dealing with the problem. In brief, the suggestion made by the noble Lord is that there are the residuary bodies and all these important matters can be dealt with on the subsequent clauses dealing with residuary bodies. The noble Baroness, Lady Fisher of Rednal, dealt with this. It is totally unrealistic to think that there can be a co-operative spirit arising with all the boroughs and shires to achieve a unanimous or a reasonably joint view on these important matters. For those reasons I strongly support the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone. On behalf of these Benches, perhaps I may say that unless the noble Lord the Minister is to speak again and can move us further on this matter we shall find it imperative to take the opinion of the House on this matter.

My Lords, in my experience it is just as well to listen to both sides of the argument before coming to a decision. When I first listened to the amendment proposed by my noble friend Lord Mottistone I thought it was a good idea. These trading authorities deal with weights and measures, with the purity of substances and so on. They cover a wide field. Surely they should be brought together, not in little district councils but, as suggested here, with the fire and defence authorities. Having heard the arguments from the other side, which one ought always to do, I came round completely in favour of what my noble friend Lord Elton said.

These trading standards do not sit comfortably with fire and civil defence. They should be co-ordinated. They have specialist experts dealing with them and should not be put in great bodies. The specialist activities should be co-ordinated over an area so that they do not vary from one to the other with their prosecutions. As a result of the arguments and the proposals put forward by my noble friend Lord Elton for the joint committee, I think that is the preferable solution. Therefore after hearing the arguments I would not support the amendment. I agree with the Government.

My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, I am sure he will always listen to the evidence before coming to any conclusion, but does he really dismiss the arguments put forward based on the experience of 47 English and Welsh shire counties who have found that trading standards, fire and civil defence already work well together? That is a fundamental piece of evidence which the noble and learned Lord has forgotten.

My Lords, over mans years I have formed the view that if one had any doubt on a matter one should follow the judgments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning. I found that I could think consistently with that past practice this afternoon.

This matter goes a bit further than trading standards. If your Lordships have followed, as I have tried to follow, the fairly lengthy proceedings on this Bill, one will see that there has been a steady attempt from various quarters in your Lordships' House to contest the basic principle of the Bill, which is to confer wherever possible relevant powers and authority on the boroughs.

First of all, we had amendments to set up a separate authority; then we had amendments to confer all sorts of extraordinary functions on the residuary authority. Now we have—and when one looks at the Marshalled List, one sees it is not only trading standards but many other things—a proposal to confer them on the fire and civil defence authority. I think that this is where a real difference of opinion is held honestly and sincerely in your Lordships' House. There is a real conflict between those who, like me, believe that everything possible should be devolved to the boroughs and that we should trust the boroughs to discharge their functions correctly and efficiently, and those who take the other view, that anything which seems of importance to them should be conferred on a higher authority.

I am a little sorry that my noble friend Lord Mottistone has not seen his way to accepting the compromise at which your Lordships' House arrived in Committee on the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn. It seems to me that the action of the Government in accepting that amendment really should have prevented any serious apprehensions about any possibility of decline, under the provisions of the Bill, in this important service. I am very sorry that that compromise, which I thought had settled the matter at that stage for good, apparently has not been so accepted.

I must take up the rather extraordinary point of the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, when he said that acceptance of Lord Drumalbyn's amendment and the provision now in the Bill really amounted to acceptance of this amendment, too. There is all the difference in the world between saying, "We believe that this is a function which can properly be devolved to the boroughs, but, in deference to the apprehensions of those who have doubts, we will give the Secretary of State a reserve power so that if we are wrong and they are right and if it so proves in the event, the matter can be immediately corrected"—that is what has happened—and saying that you will not even attempt to devolve it to the boroughs but you will immediately from the beginning impose it on a higher authority. I really do not see, therefore, that the action of the government in seeking to meet apprehensions by this compromise involves, or could appear to involve, any acceptance of the principle of this amendment. Indeed, to my mind, it suggests the contrary.

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for allowing me to intervene, but, with great respect to him, I am sure that he has somewhat misunderstood my argument. My argument was directed to the proposition of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, when he said once again that in effect this amendment was raising a constitutional issue. It does not raise a constitutional issue because we must deal with the Bill as it now stands with Lord Drumalbyn's amendment; and we are adding to the Bill as amended by Lord Drumalbyn. Therefore, the constitutional issue does not arise.

My Lords, as the noble Lord will I think immediately recognise, I was not seeking to deal with the constitutional issue. My noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway can speak for himself on that and few people could do so better. I was dealing with what I understood to have been the argument of the noble Lord on the Liberal Benches, that because we had conceded Lord Drumalbyn's amendment, therefore it inevitably followed that we must accept this. That was the impression the noble Lord's argument left on my mind. If that were not so, then I am very happy indeed to acquit him of what I think he himself now accepts would have been a very erroneous and irrational line of argument.

I have only one final point. I understand—and, for the reasons I have indicated, understand only too well—the reasons for seeking to confer these powers on the fire and civil defence authority. I wonder if your Lordships have thought this thing through. Fire and civil defence are a coherent whole. They cover a very important set of functions closely related to each other, to the defence of the citizen against the dangers of fire and the dangers of explosions and the dangers of enemy action or of civil disturbance. Once you start adding to such a body what are basically very different functions—functions of great economic importance and of great importance to the consumer; I grant all that—you change its character. You make it not a specialised but a generalised body with the necessary staffing at the top, the necessary heads of departments and heads of divisions at the top—and you are a long way, particularly if you add the other things in the amendments on the Marshalled List today, towards reconstruction of the GLC or of the AMA. Whether that be the purpose of this it would be almost indelicate of me to speculate. I can only invite your Lordships' attention to the results.

Therefore, I suggest to my noble friend Lord Mottistone and to your, Lordships that the right thing to do is to go ahead as the Bill now stands, to trust that the boroughs—who are going to have many other very important functions—are going to prove themselves capable of discharging this function as they discharge very effectively their functions in respect of environmental health which is a very closely related subject; and to go forward on that basis with the confidence that, if for any particular reason this proves to be unsatisfactory, there are already in the Bill the reserve powers which would enable my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to intervene and put things right. I suggest to your Lordships that, at this stage of the Bill, that really is the sensible way to proceed.

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, he was compiling evidence in the same way as was the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning; I appreciate that. But does he completely refute the evidence which is in the London boroughs? His noble friend on the Front Bench will tell him quite emphatically that the co-ordination of the London boroughs is a nonsense. They tried it. I think it is true to say that the fact that now there is not one co-ordinating body of the London boroughs is surely evidence which is completely disregarded.

My Lords, I think that my noble friend on the Front Bench is about to do just that.

My Lords, what my noble friend will get emphatically from his noble friend on the Front Bench is the statement that this is not Committee stage and that he should not indulge in returning to the matter yet again. I shall be speaking later, but, with the greatest respect, I do not think that I would encourage my noble friend to enter into that ping-pong match at this stage.

My Lords, I rise to support these amendments. But I shall not detain your Lordships for very long. I have a personal rule that the older you get the shorter your speeches should be. In my opinion, the case for these amendments has been so well made that repetition for repetition's sake is not worthwhile. As I made clear when I spoke on this subject at Committee stage, I believe that enforcement of trading standards—and I speak as a semi-retired, or perhaps I would be better described as a fully-retired old retailer—is of extreme importance to a large section of the population.

The case for the establishment of a single authority has been fully made. As has already been pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, and others, fire, trading standards and civil defence work well together in the existing public protection committees of the shire counties. If these amendments go to a Division, I hope that, as this is not a political matter, Members of all parties will support them.

My Lords, I, too, should like to add a few words. Rather like the noble Lord who has just spoken, I think I can say that I do not speak at length, either. I am interested to see that this particular amendment—I am sure this has been explained, but I was not in the House earlier—seems to be in the name of Lord Elton, so perhaps we have some hope that on this occasion the Government are with us rather than against us. I am sure this will be explained as a misprint, which is rather unfortunate.

I should also like to interject on behalf of the retailers. One can hardly say that they speak with one political voice, but they have emphasised—and those of us who have worked in consumer affairs know it—the great importance of uniformity when you have enforcement provisions of this kind. It is most dangerous to assume that boroughs or district councils or separate authorities will have uniformity of performance or of enforcement. Therefore, this is another voice added to the necessity to see that we have genuine uniformity. One can only gain this by having one authority which is controlling these affairs. I should like to support this amendment.

My Lords, on a rough calculation the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, spoke for about a minute and a half, and I have eight-fifths of that length of time, which gives me about two minutes to speak, if we use his formula of weight for age.

The noble Baroness, Lady Fisher of Rednal—who suffered remarkably little from the absence of the three star witnesses to whom she referred—gave a very brisk and convincing, and I think reasonably accurate, description of the trading standards service. It was inaccurate to my knowledge in only one substantive fact in its generality. She appears to have overlooked the fact that what we are transferring from the metropolitan county councils is for them a statutory duty which the Bill will, however it emerges, transfer to the district councils or elsewhere. This is not a Bill to change functions. It is not a new legislative vehicle: it is a vehicle to change the discharge of existing functions. Therefore, the trading standards function will still by law have to be discharged by whomsoever the duty rests upon. That is the first point about which to be clear.

The noble Baroness may perhaps inadvertently have planted in your Lordships' minds the idea that the Government were somehow leaving all this to chance; that there were wicked districts in the West Midlands, whose names happily escape me, which had decided that this was an unnecessary evil which would not be done in future. That is a seed which should not germinate because in fact it will have to be done.

My Lords, with the leave of the House, would the noble Lord tell us how the London boroughs escape from performing these functions?

My Lords, I shall return to the legislative aspect of that in a moment. At this stage I shall only remind the noble Baroness of what I said. She has in fact planted an interesting question in my mind. I can tell your Lordships this exactly. She is not saying the boroughs do not do it: she is saying they do not do it in concert, I take it. She is not saying that any particular London borough does not conduct a trading standards service—

My Lords, they do not work together.

My Lords, no, they do not work together because the consortia are not statutory bodies, as the amendments would have them. They are therefore not discharging a statutory function. The statutory function rests with the boroughs in this case. But I shall get elucidation on that, to be entirely happy in my own mind.

Perhaps I may continue by saying that as a result of the Bill the statutory duties will not be able to lapse. I described the system in terms of cricket. I am sorry that cricket has moved on since the days when I became an oarsman, with the arrival not only of bodyline bowling and bumpers but also of moving closer to the wicket the position of longstop, which was the only place on the field where I ever felt remotely safe. I am sorry if my analogy broke down in that respect. I merely revealed my personal ineptness; I have not revealed any weakness in the argument, as the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, would suggest. The noble Lord added to an impressive list of legislation which the trading standards officers would be required to interpret. It was a list which the noble Baroness had already effectively begun. This merely illustrates that the job is not only important but difficult, and that is not in question.

4.45 p.m.

This is my second objection to the noble Baroness's speech. She said that what the Minister was saying in effect was that it does not much matter. The Minister thinks it matters very much; so do Her Majesty's Government. We are determined it shall be discharged. The question between us is not whether it shall be discharged but under whose aegis it shall be discharged. I wish I could begin to approach the succinctness of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, in addressing your Lordships. His speech bears out the formula that the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, put before you at the beginning of the debate, which I shall have to study when I get home because it begins to become frightening for me as I advance. The noble Lord has said that one could put it with the fire brigade, with whom it would not obviously be particularly comfortable although, as the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, pointed out on an interruption, it works in other places. Or one could have a specialist body without the dangers which my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter described, with the purpose of looking after trading standards as its sole function.

I have explained to your Lordships, and I shall not bore the House by repeating it ad nauseam, that there are three routes by which this result can be reached. Indeed, since it is a statutory duty I should add a fourth, which is, I suppose (if I am allowed to go back to my rather threadbare analogy), that of a rather helpful man in the crowd, because if it gets past longstop then by law it passes under the Bill already to the residuary body, so that the function will continue to be discharged at the level at which my noble friend who moved the amendment to which we are all speaking wished it to be discharged. It will be discharged by a body which is not concerned with conflagrations and incendiarism but only with trading standards.

I shall not prolong my speech by trying to read what I already see to be illegible. I can summarise this very briefly indeed. Your Lordships all want trading standards to be looked after efficiently. Your Lordships recognise they are important, that they are highly technical, that they affect not only the housewife but the manufacturer, that they are important to industry, and that they should be properly done. We are all agreed about that. The only difference between us is: should we have the elaborate system which we have proposed, which enables this to be done but by voluntary co-operation in a specialist body, or should it be done by compulsion in a multidisciplinary body of the sort your Lordships have found distasteful in the past?

My function has not been to pour cold water on my noble friends' ideas. I do not think one does that to one's noble friends. All I want to leave in your Lordships' minds is that what we have in the Bill and in the amendments already on the Marshalled List will do what your Lordships want, will do it better, and will feel more comfortable for those who are anxious about these mixed media bodies.

My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, and before I attempt to deal with this, may I ask him two questions? The first is that it seems to me that in Amendment No. 81C, which he will move later, the residuary body requires the agreement of the districts for what I would describe as the interim survival of trading standards at the local government level at which we seek to achieve it. The first question is: is it right that the residuary body requires agreement? My second question is: am I right, in looking at paragraph 15(4) of Schedule 7, to think that this does not require the retention of the schemes established at metropolitan levels?

My Lords, I followed my noble friend's first question; but I am not sure whether I understand the second one. If I may reply to the first, I gave a somewhat condensed account of Amendment No. 81C because I did not think your Lordships would want me to speak to yet another amendment. However, if I can allude to it briefly now, its effect is to require the residuary body to approach the relevant successor authorities—which in effect means all the district councils with which my noble friend is concerned—and ask whether they are likely to wish to enter into an agreement with it to take on that service temporarily because they think that they will need the service to be discharged later but have not yet got their act together, so to speak. It is an interim arrangement and a back-up to the joint committee. My noble friend, I think, wanted to ask another question and I am not sure whether I understood it correctly.

My Lords, that is quite right and I thank my noble friend for the answer that he has given. The second question was that in paragraph 15(4) of Schedule 7 there seems to be no requirement or obligation for the retention of the teams that are currently established at metropolitan county level.

My Lords, I apologise to your Lordships: I think I must trespass on your patience by speaking yet again, although this is Report stage. The effect of paragraph 15(4) is that there is a duty on the districts to form a joint committee. It is then for the joint committee to decide how to discharge the statutory function which they will be discharging on behalf of the constituent councils. If there is a difficulty about keeping the teams together, this brings us back to Amendment No. 81C and the debate which we shall no doubt have on what I have come to think of as "the Cranbrook group" of issues.

The residuary body is there to pick up both the teams that my noble friend has referred to and their equipment, together with the buildings in which they work: that is, staff and property. The Secretary of State has order-making powers. I fear I may get the clause references wrong, but I believe they refer to Clauses 51 and 95. The Secretary of State, as I say, has separate order-making powers for staff and property; and the residuary body, having established the need, informs the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State then makes orders under these two provisions so that the residuary body becomes the holder of an employer of the staff teams and the bodies for as long as is necessary, within reason—that is to say, until the districts have got their act together through the committee to which I have referred. I hope I have not made that sound too complicated: it is in fact quite straightforward.

The residuary body knocks on each council door and asks, "Do you want any of the following services?" One of those services will be the trading standards services that we have mentioned. "Have you got your act together? Will you be ready to take it on on the 1st April?" If the answer is, "No", they then say, "Very well then, we shall tell the Secretary of State to transfer the services to us until you need them." I hope that is clear enough for my noble friend.

My Lords, that last point is vital. I have listened with great care to all that has been said and I should like just to make a couple of remarks before I come to a conclusion. I take serious issue with my noble friend the Minister, though to a lesser extent than I do with my noble friends Lord Campbell of Alloway and Lord Boyd-Carpenter, that these amendments are contrary to the spirit of the Bill. But I do take their point that my amendment is very much spoiled by the existence of Amendments Nos. 61 and 61ZA.

Amendment No. 61: Page 13, line 34 at end insert—

("( ) The Secretary of State shall by order provide for the transfer on the abolition date of all the functions exercised before that date by the Greater London Council in respect of licensing of public entertainments, private places of entertainment, theatres, cinemas, children's entertainments and tracks for betting to the London Fire and Civil Defence Authority.").

Amendment No. 6IZA: Page 13, line 34, at end insert—

("( ) The Secretary of State shall by order taking effect on the abolition date make provision for the transfer to the appropriate residuary body of all records and archives held by each metropolitan county council before the abolition date including semi-current records.").

If those two amendments are accepted as well as this one, they would be against the spirit of the Bill. If only those amendments were not there, I would be in a much happier position! I have made those remarks just by way of introduction—

My Lords, perhaps I could intervene and help in some measure to put the noble Lord's mind at rest. I shall not be moving Amendment No. 61.

My Lords, that is a benefit. Regarding Amendment No. 61ZA, can we kill that too? I do not think I am getting any response. The most interesting speech—and perhaps the briefest—was that of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, in which he said he was totally convinced one way when I spoke earlier, and then he was convinced with others the other way when my noble friend the Minister spoke. I hope very much that I might be able to sway him back again now—because if you can sway one way you can sway the other.

The key factor here is to make sure that the existing teams of trading standards officers, their administration and their resources are not inadvertently broken up. My noble friend the Minister put the point very straightforwardly—and we will forget the cricketing analogy—that we have three stages of reserves, as it were. One is a joint committee set up under paragraph 15 of Schedule 7; the second level is Amendment No. 81C, allowing the residuary body to take things on; and finally we have the Secretary of State's reserve powers which are the subject matter of his second amendment which is to come later.

The problem is that, taking first the joint committee, I do not believe that, although there is a requirement for the committee to be set up, there is a requirement as to whom it employs. So that is a form of leak in that one. We come a step backwards and my noble friend says, "We have the residuary body; it can approach the districts and say to them: 'Would you agree to us taking on the trading standards resources (to give it a title which will cover people and things) at county level, to look after it until it can be sorted out?' ".

But of course that depends on the agreement of the districts. The districts and the boroughs at that level in London—and this has been referred to—have shown that it is very difficult to be sure of getting agreement on this from them. There are two reasons for that. One reason is that the late county, when it is wound up, may have had split political followings in different districts and so the districts may not want to work with each other and that will be a problem in any case. The other reason is that if a body (whether it is a local authority or anything else) is being offered a responsibility, that body tends to say that it wants to have it. Therefore I can see that quite possibly, particularly taking into account what has happened in London, we are going to get this second stage of the 81C solution not working.

My noble friend then said, when he was kindly replying to my question, "Then we have the Secretary of State's reserve powers". But if the first level has leaked—or has not worked—and the second level has not worked either, how can we be sure that the Secretary of State is going to spring into action fast enough before these unfortunate groups of people have been disbanded. I think there is enough doubt there for me to be convinced that this particular group of amendments—and I insist upon this—which are not contrary to the spirit of the Bill, are ones upon which it will be worth testing the view of the House.

moved Amendment No. 59B:

[Printed earlier: col. 1360.]

My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend for the way in which he has carried out his undertakings and I entirely endorse what he has said. I do not think that I need go into these matters in any detail. The only one I should like to refer to relates to the staff and not breaking up the teams. This is a very important aspect and was emphasised by the committee under the chairmanship of the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook. It would be very sad if the personnel, if I may use that nasty word, involved, who have done so much in the past 10 years to improve the handling of trading standards in the metropolitan areas, were to be broken up. It would be very bad indeed for the trading standards services and all they do both for export and inside this country itself. It would be very bad indeed and there would undoubtedly be, at any rate in an interim period, a decline in standards if that were done.

I believe that the machinery is there to prevent the break-up of the staff and I hope very much that my noble friend will be able to reassure me that methods will be found to prevent that from happening.

My Lords, perhaps I may thank my noble friend very much for his further reassurances on points that were still disturbing me when we dealt with the first amendment. I should like to think that these will be read with great care by all people concerned and that as nearly as possible we can achieve the ends which I think we all want. I thank him very much for them.

My Lords, in reply to my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn, I could refer him simply to the speech I made on the last amendment. But I can say that we recognise the importance of the teams in the services. What we cannot do is to instruct from central government that every member of every team shall remain in employment by the successor bodies. That is obviously not the role of central government and there would be great cries of totalitarianism and so on from the other side of the House if that were to be done. But all the machinery is there to retain them so long as their service is wanted, or it is thought that they may be wanted, after the 1st April next year if the arrangements are not made before.

With that assurance I hope my noble friend will be content. I am grateful to my other noble friend—we are noble friends again, I trust, after the last Division—for his kind remarks.

moved Amendment No. 60:

Before Clause 16, page 13, line 34, at end insert—

("( ) In section 17(1) of the Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975 for the definition of "local authority" there shall be substituted—"Local; authority" means—

(a) in Greater London and the metropolitan counties, the Fire Authority;

(b) in England outside Greater London and the metropolitan counties, or in Wales, the County Council;

(c) in Scotland, the regional or islands council.".")

My Lords, there is of course the special case of the licensing of sports grounds. It has been accepted by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister that there should be general legislation introduced in that regard. That legislation might extend to the licensing of public entertainments, and so forth. But all that calls for general legislation in another statute.

If the amendment now before the House is anything but a probing amendment, then as I have sought to show—and as even my noble friend Lord Mottistone was constrained to admit in respect of the previous amendment—the off-loading of trading standards onto joint authorities conflicts with the principle of devolution; and that, again, the off-loading of the safety of sports grounds is contrary to the spirit of devolution. This proposal is followed by that for the licensing pf public entertainments in Amendments Nos. 61 and 62.

We are returning to the situation where we will be saddling this body with amorphous functions which have no logical connection and no relationship, one to another. This amendment is open to many objections—and in particular, the practical objection so eloquently made by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter: what is the character of the body to be when one has loaded it with amorphous and unrelated functions?

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Graham, seeks to transfer the functions of the GLC and the MCCs in relation to the granting of safety certificates under the Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975 to the new joint fire authorities. I am most grateful to him for raising this issue. It is an important one. Sadly, and as the noble Lord hinted, it is also a rather topical issue.

In the shadow of the tragic events at Bradford, it is certainly more important than ever that the right safety measures should be properly enforced under the 1975 Act. It is particularly important that aspects of fire safety should be fully taken into account. But as I hope I shall convince your Lordships, transferring this function to the fire authority is not the best solution. I shall describe what we believe is a better approach.

The range of hazards which arise at sports grounds go well beyond fire safety alone. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Graham, recognises this; indeed, it was a point made also by my noble friend Lord Campbell. Crowd safety and crowd control, for example, are also very much the business of the Safety of Sports Grounds Act. The fire authority may be well equipped to deal with aspects of fire safety but it is not necessarily equipped to deal with the many other considerations which go into the granting of safety certificates.

Authorities requiring safety certificates already have to rely on expertise from a number of sources because the Act ranges so wide. At present a metropolitan county, for example, has to consult the chief police officer and the building authority, which is the district council, at the appropriate stages of its consideration of an application. I am, however, grateful to the noble Lord for his amendment because it draws to our attention the fact that the Bill as drafted does not formally require the certificating authority to consult the fire authority. To a certain extent, such a requirement could be regarded as superfluous, as the fire authorities will be made up of representatives of the authorities issuing certificates. Moreover, in the light of recent events I find it almost inconceivable that any authority would issue a safety certificate without the full involvement of fire safety experts.

It is, however, nearly always the case that memories of even the most tragic events eventually fade. The Government are therefore glad to rectify the omission of a reference to fire authorities by the amendment standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Elton. In brief, that amendment requires the successor authorities to involve the fire authority in the same way and to the same extent as the GLC and the MCCs now have to involve the lower-tier building authorities. We are concerned that it is the lower-tier authorities who are best able to exercise the function of issuing safety certificates. We have no reason to believe that they will not be fully aware of the need for consultation with the fire authority. Our amendment will however ensure that there cannot be even the slightest doubt that such consultations will take place.

I agree that this is perhaps half the cake which the noble Lord seeks. I hope it is better than nothing. We feel that this is an important aspect and I say again that I am grateful to the noble Lord for drawing this particular lacuna in the existing legislation to our attention. I commend the Government's amendment to your Lordships and I hope the noble Lord will not feel it necessary to press his own.

My Lords, the noble Lord is correct. In the light of what has been said, I shall not press my amendment. I was, however, slightly irritated by the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, when he said that in seeking to transfer powers to the fire authority, we were saddling them with responsibilities which were amorphous and unrelated. Our amendment can be criticised on many grounds, but it is a genuine attempt to establish that the fire authority is the appropriate body to have the function of ensuring that sports grounds are safe.

I recognise that matters other than fire safety are involved. However, we are meeting at a time when an inquiry is taking place into a recent tragedy, and without remotely trespassing onto the authority of that body we can recognise the fact that aspects which one would have considered unbelievable and impossible to disregard are in fact overlooked.

The Minister said some very wise words when he observed that one might assume many things but that one cannot, in the light of recent events, leave matters uncatered for in the statute. There are responsible people who have experience of these matters, and the Minister is right when he says that half a loaf is better than none; I would not even use that analogy. I am satisfied that the Minister believes the arrangement he proposes will substantially meet the fears and apprehensions of the general public. We are concerned as legislators, but the public want evidence of the fact that Parliament is well aware of their apprehensions.

I have no mandate from those outside this House, but perhaps they will read what has been said and offer further advice at a later stage. The Minister was honest enough to say that the Government's actions had been prompted by the initiative of this side of the House in putting down this amendment. To that extent that was a gracious and generous acknowledgement. So far as I am concerned I accept what the Minister said. What he proposes seems to meet the genuine concerns of a great many people without any party animus in it at all. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 61ZA:

[Printed earlier: col. 1360.]

My Lords, I think it would be in the interests of the House if I now moved the manuscript amendment which, as I think was explained, was an oversight and not that it was put down late in the Public Bill Office.

Amendment No. 61ZB: Page 13, line 34, at end insert—

("( ) The Secretary of State shall by order taking effect on the abolition date make provision for the transfer to the London Residuary Body of all records and archives held by the Greater London Council before the abolition date including semi-current records.").

The amendment does the same as the amendment moved by my noble friend but relates to London.

My Lords, perhaps the noble Baroness will allow me to explain that she cannot move Amendment No. 61ZB until Amendment No. 61ZA has been dealt with. However, she may speak to it at the same time.

My Lords, will the noble Baroness allow me to intervene? If she speaks to her amendment she will put me at a considerable disadvantage in supporting the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, on her amendment. I do not regard the two amendments as at all congruent. I am not in favour of the amendment which the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, proposes to move but I am very strongly in favour of the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, to which I have put down my name. I should have thought there was a case for debating them separately.

My Lords, it is in the hands of the House. The arguments are largely the same. I am not moving my amendment. I have my name down to the same amendment as the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, and my noble friend. I think that it would be clear if I just spoke to my amendment while at the same time supporting the amendment moved by my noble friend, unless there is any objection to that. The noble Lord, Lord Beloff, can then make his position, which he has already indicated, absolutely clear.

As I said, I have my name down to the amendment moved by my noble friend, and therefore I shall not go over the points which she has made so admirably and clearly and which I support entirely.

My Lords, I am in some difficulty. I wish to support the spirit of the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood. I have not yet made up my mind, not having heard the argument, whether I would support the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Birk. It would be so much easier if we could take them separately. I am only asking, of course. I am not even suggesting.

My Lords, this is a matter for the House, but the more my friends behind me say that they are thinking of supporting the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, unless the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, speaks to her amendment at the same time, the more I feel I should encourage her to speak to her amendment at the same time.

My Lords, I should have thought that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, would be in a better position to make up his mind on what he thinks about my amendment if both amendments are discussed together. This is not a party political matter, in my view, but if it is the wish of the House we can discuss the amendments separately. I just thought that it would save time. I think that noble Lords can keep clearly in their minds what they are supporting and what they are not supporting.

The Greater London Record Office looks after archives generated by the authority and its predecessors and archives deposited or presented by private individuals and corporate bodies. It also cares for the semi-current records of its authorities and has responsibility, with administrative and professional staff, for establishing a policy for the preservation of departmental records. Those are of course constantly needed by staff. If the Bill is passed those records will continue to be needed by officers taking over former GLC services, and on the same limb, those taking over the metropolitan county services, who also will need to have access to older records.

Making arrangements for consulting archives, records and files will be complicated. That applies both to the metropolitan counties and to the GLC services. The archives need to be readily available to a range of officers employed by different bodies and working in separate locations. As time passes the frequency and urgency of access will diminish and it will then be necessary to make decisions about selection for long-term preservation. As is known to anybody who has had anything to do with archives, that is a specialised job in itself. If, as the Government propose, the Greater London Record Office becomes the responsibility of the Corporation of London and the metropolitan county record offices become the responsibility of district councils, while the modern records and files are put in the care of the residuary bodies, a smooth transition, it seems to me, will be quite impossible.

5.45 p.m

To avoid chaos and loss it is essential that these groups of records are treated as the unified whole which they are. Otherwise the efficient operation of the successor authority—whether it be in regard to the GLC or the metropolitan county councils—will be unfortunately placed and future research on the GLC and the metropolitan county councils will be impeded. I am quite sure that the Government wish to transmit to posterity a full and honest record. Certainly the members of staff in all the authorities feel strongly about that, as I imagine do the elected members of the authorities.

It will be difficult to organise that when at least two independent and differently funded bodies are involved, when it may be impossible to achieve consensus and co-operation about the principles to follow and when there could be disputes about apportioning the cost involved. Informed professional opinion strongly advises that those collections should be administered on unified principles, even though they may for a time be stored in physically separate buildings, and this opportunity to ensure that a proper record is preserved for posterity should not be missed.

I agree with my noble friend about the vagueness of the amendment concerning the residuary body compared with the specific amendment on archives to which the Minister referred in Committee. In Committee on 9th May 1985 (at col. 828 Hansard) regarding the archives he said:

"we have regarded the residuary body in this capacity as being something of a passive body. But in view of your Lordships' concern, and ours, that this shall come to a successful conclusion, we intend that it shall act as a catalyst and that the residuary body shall actively seek to promote a co-operative scheme in the area within the five years".

I think that what the Minister and my noble friend were referring to was the rather passive attitude, but I think that when he used the word "catalyst" he meant something a little more vigorous.

The commitment to transfer archives to the residuary body is a reserve commitment only and relates not to London but only to the metropolitan counties. In London the transfer to the City is considered by the people now in charge of the records in London to be inadequate, since there are no safeguards on spending and it will split the record office from current files.

What I am asking for in this amendment is a direct transfer to the residuary bodies as a solution which is supported by the archivists not only in London but of the six metropolitan county authorities. I hope that my contribution has not upset either of the noble Lords opposite. I think that I have largely made the case for London. Nevertheless, I wanted to take the opportunity to support my noble friend's amendment on the metropolitan counties, and that is why I also put my name to that amendment.

My Lords—

My Lords, I do not wish to add to my noble friend's frustration, but it occurred to me that he and other noble Lords may wish to pick holes in what I say. There would be no opportunity for them to do that if I spoke after they did, this being the Report stage. If I expose myself to this treatment now it means that I have an opportunity to reply and, if it is possible to do so, to satisfy my noble friend at the end of the debate when I speak again by leave of the House.

Before I had seen the manuscript amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Birk—which I think we can in all honesty deal with separately—I intended to point out a number of shortcomings in the proposals to which she put her name regarding the metropolitan county archives, before explaining my sympathy with the thinking underlying them. In the case of the manuscript amendment which seeks to transfer the GLC's archives to the London residuary body I can, however, express no such sympathy. The reason why the Bill as drafted makes no specific provision for the GLC's archives is that none is needed. The borough councils and the Common Council already have archive powers. Many of them already deposit their records with the GLC's Greater London Record Office by voluntary arrangement. I see no reason whatsoever why those present arrangements should not continue after abolition. The future of the GLRO itself has already been provided for.

I think the noble Baroness is probably aware of the announcement to the House by my noble friend Lord Avon on 22nd February, to the effect that agreement in principle had been reached with the City of London for the corporation to take it over and run it on behalf of London as a whole.

I do not see why the noble Baroness wishes to disturb these arrangements. The corporation has considerable experience and expertise in archive matters and offers a most appropriate permanent home for this important collection. However, I should make it clear that if the permanent arrangements for the GLRO are not finalised in time, again provision already exists in Clause 61 for the archive collection to vest automatically in the residuary body, because we are dealing with a statutory function. Thus the noble Baroness can rest assured that we have already made a full provision for all eventualities in London.

I am not sure whether the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, will be able to help me on this point. Perhaps she can take advantage of my giving way. I am not quite certain that I have understood what she means by semi-current archives. If she means material which is from time to time needed for reference in the running of an office which is responsible for a function, then that material will remain in the office responsible for that function. If she means material which is historic material but to which it is necessary to refer to rather more often than the kind of material which results in learned papers, for instance, then I think it is proper for it to be in the care of archivists. Surely that is what we are talking about when we refer to the City of London and to the GLRO, which we intend shall be transferred to the City.

I am not sure whether there is a species in between the two, of which I ought to take note. I am very anxious that we get this matter right. If the noble Baroness is able to point a finger at it and to say, "These are what I mean", I should be happy to give her the opportunity of doing so and I shall sit down.

My Lords, what I was trying to say was that, as I understand it and as the Minister has said, there are current papers and current records. He is right. Then there are those papers to which one wants to refer from time to time, which are more modern than the antiquated or ancient archives to which one refers perhaps very infrequently. I think the position is as the Minister has said. It is because the archivists themselves feel that such archives should be placed with the residuary body rather than going to the City of London, and are very concerned about that, that I have spoken to that amendment.

My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness. She may be a little surprised, and I hope a good deal relieved, to know that the actual archives will stay exactly where they are. The GLRO will physically be where it is now. Therefore access will be no more diffcult than it is now. If it was the noble Baroness's idea that the London residuary body was to move it somewhere else, of course that would actually disturb what she is intending should be protected. Thus I hope that when she comes to read what I have said, she will find that reassuring.

I now return to the amendments for which my noble friends have expressed a sinister enthusiasm, if I may so express it. I am afraid that on a close examination they would mean a rather bleak future for archives. Your Lordships will see that they offer no permanent solution to the problems to which they address themselves. If existing collections of archives in the hands of the metropolitan county councils are transferred to the residuary bodies, and if the provision in paragraph 22 of Schedule 7, conferring archive powers on the metropolitan district councils, is deleted, as the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, would have it deleted, there will be no means of looking after archive services in the metropolitan county areas once the residuary bodies cease to exist in five years' time.

The Bill confers archive powers from the metropolitan county councils to the district councils. From the outset it has been our view that the districts should use archive powers in co-operation with one another to provide a satisfactory archive service for the metropolitan county as a whole. There is plenty of scope for this debate to start sounding like a re-run of the last one because all the safeguards to which I have referred, in the way of the residuary bodies, apply also to the archive service, as they do to the trading standards service.

The co-operative approach we recommend would enable existing archive collections in the hands of the metropolitan county councils to be preserved intact and to be developed. It would preserve the potential for co-operative archive services to be established where county-wide arrangements do not so far exist. Thus it is actually an instrument for improvement. That remains the policy underlying the Bill.

However, we have accepted that there are real fears among professional archivists, among people who care for archives. I shall listen most carefully to my noble friend Lord Beloff because I know he is a person well seized of their concerns and, if I may say so, with a sympathetic and informed ear with which to listen to them. They are concerned lest co-operative arrangements do not emerge as speedily or as easily as one would wish. For that reason we have suggested—and here I do join with the noble Baroness—that the residuary bodies can play a valuable part. If, therefore, a viable voluntary scheme is not going to be set up in a particular area by the date of abolition, the existing archives collection, the property in which it is housed and the staff responsible for it will be transferred to the residuary body. Indeed, as I have already made clear, since archives are property they would automatically go to the residuary bodies under Clause 61, unless transferred elsewhere under Clause 99. There is no gap for them to fall through.

The residuary body will have a duty to find a permanent home for the collection within five years. To that end it will actively seek to promote a co-operative scheme within the area. Here comes the danger of the amendment of the noble Baroness. If her group of amendments were accepted, the districts would be left without the power to look after the archives and so they would not be able to set up a voluntary scheme, even if they were persuaded by the residuary body that they did, after all, want one.

We thus propose a positive role for the residuary body to stimulate a satisfactory solution. In fact we are at one with the proposal in the amendment. As your Lordships know, we have tabled an amendment to Schedule 12 which brings out the more positive role of the residuary body to act in this way. It is to be found as Amendment No. 81 C on the Marshalled List. I wonder whether your Lordships have taken it on board, or at least whether the noble Baroness had taken it on board when she tabled her amendment. It relates to the general role of the residuary body in relation not only to archives but also to other matters. I fear that many of your Lordships will feel that unless the service in which they are particularly interested is mentioned by name on the face of the Bill, it somehow will not qualify. I should like to assure my noble friends and other noble Lords all round the House that it refers to services generally and that archives in this instance are embraced.

I should like to assure your Lordships that if and when we incorporate Amendment No. 81 C into the Bill there will be a duty on the residuary body to discover whether there is a requirement for the service, and if that requirement cannot be met by the abolition date then, as I said before in relation to trading standards, they will have a duty under the Bill, as amended, to tell the Secretary of State that that is the case. That will be with a view to his making orders to transfer the archives and the buildings and the staff to the residuary body. The only possible danger would be if none of the districts wanted an archive service.

I do not think that any of your Lordships believe that that could ever arise, because it would not be legally possible for it to arise. That is because we have taken care to ensure that the districts retain the legal duty to conduct an archive service. Thus it seems to me that my noble friend's concerns, and indeed the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, are met. However, I am now more than familiar with my inability to express matters sufficiently clearly at the first stage. That is why I have spoken at the beginning of this debate. If there remain doubts, I shall seek to reassure my noble friends. If they manage to sow a doubt in my mind, then I shall have to consider what to do about it. However, at the moment I am confident that what we have in the Bill will achieve what they want to achieve.

My Lords, the noble Lord the Minister, if I may say so, does himself an injustice. When he addresses the House, he makes perfectly clear his intentions, most of them in this respect very benevolent. The reason why the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, and others put down this amendment—I do not think that we would pretend that it does not carry some questions and disadvantages—was that when we looked at the Marshalled List, where we expected to find an amendment that would translate into legislative language the very clear language that the noble Lord the Minister used at the Committee stage, we did not find it. We did not find it in two respects. I realise that the noble Lord the Minister thinks that this is a minor point. But, first, we did not find it in a direct reference to the keeping together of the archives of the metropolitan counties. It may be that archivists think only of archives as cobblers think only of leather or nowadays mainly of plastic. But the fact is that they were very worried. They will continue to be worried—and not only the archivists themselves but the historical profession that depends upon them—unless they see the word "archives" very clearly at the relevant points in the Bill as it finally leaves your Lordships' House.

It is not really comparable with major functions of government, even major minor functions of government like trading standards. It is a very specialised, limited function. Those who are concerned with it would have expected to see direct provision, as indeed in other parts of the Bill there is direct mention of archives.

The second reason, much more important, is that the amendment to which the noble Lord the Minister now directs our attention, Amendment No. 81C, does not seem to me and did not seem to the noble Baroness, or to others, to convey the intention that was expressed in the speech of the noble Lord the Minister. Although it has been referred to before, may I, for the sake of clarity, read out again from Hansard what the noble Lord the Minister said:

"What I want to say that is new is that hitherto we have regarded the residuary body in this capacity as being something of a passive body. But in view of your Lordships' concern, and ours, that this shall come to a successful conclusion, we intend that it shall act as a catalyst, and that"—

these are the important words—

"the residuary body shall actively seek to promote a co-operative scheme in the area within the five years".—[Official Report, 9/5/85; col. 828.]

It may be that I and others are innocents in the language of statute. But when one looks at Amendment No. 81C, it reads under Clause 7A(2):

"Each residuary body shall before the abolition date ascertain from each relevant successor authority whether it is likely to wish to enter into an agreement with that body under this paragraph".

If that is the Minister's view of actively promoting something, I am really very surprised. Suppose that one were to ask a young man, "Have you proposed marriage?" and he said, "Yes, I sent a message to the lady in question to ask whether or not she would consider a proposition to this effect". One would not think that he was an ardent wooer. I do not think that the language of this amendment suggests the active concern of the residuary body which the noble Lord the Minister assured us at Committee stage would be there. If noble Lords disagree with me, they can of course voice this disagreement; but I must say that I find it very hard to see that. I do not think that there is a great difference or distance in substance. I am sure that the noble Lord the Minister believes that what he has done is to make residuary bodies really active in ensuring that an agreement between the districts is brought about and that he thinks that he has made adequate provision. However, if I was one of these fortunate people who got jobs for the boys, or jobs for the girls, as referred to yesterday, I would not think that I had imposed upon me a particular duty to try to make certain that these archives were preserved as a unit.

The noble Lord the Minister also said, in dealing with the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, that, in any event, being property, these are disposed of along the lines of the Bill. They cannot just fall through the ground. That of course we accept. But archives consist not only of property, not only of pieces of paper, parchment or even nowadays tapes, but they also consist of archivists. The important worry that we, in the historical profession, have, is that while the rather lengthy procedure that I suspect would come out of the amendment of the noble Lord the Minister is in progress, these teams may break up. People may seek employment elsewhere, and so forth.

For these reasons, I hope very much that the noble Lord the Minister will come forward, or offer to come forward, at a later stage not with anything new—we are not asking him to change his views or his intentions—but with something in language that simple-minded people like professors of history can readily understand. Until he does so, I am afraid that the discontent that I have expressed will remain.

My Lords, both amendments have served a very important purpose as an aid to clarification. I spoke in favour of the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, at Committee stage. I wholly supported the spirit of it, and I support the spirit of it today. The problem is that it is a complex structure. The question, I venture to suggest, is this. Does Amendment No. 81 C match up to the assurance given by my noble friend the Minister on this matter at Committee stage? It is suggested by my noble friend Lord Beloff that it does not—on two grounds, I understand; first, because there is no mandatory obligation built into the amendment: and, secondly, because in this particular regard, records and archives are a special case and the Government have conceded it as a special case. Yet there is no reference in Amendment No. 81 C, in any particular paragraph, treating it as a special case with the mandatory qualification.

If my interpretation of Amendment No. 81C is right—and I am not much good at this, either—it seems to be that my noble friend Lord Beloff has a point and that this is a matter that my noble friend the Minister should consider and take back with the simple objective of ensuring, as the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, said, that the amendment contains some specific assurance. It is not clear enough, the noble Baroness said. It is not strong enough. I agree with the noble Baroness. It is perhaps something that has come about by accident. But it does not truly reflect the assurance given by my noble friend the Minister.

Therefore, I of course accept that the assurance given would be honoured. However, until my noble friend the Minister speaks it seems to me that in error Amendment No. 81 C does not really match up with what he intended to give as an assurance. Perhaps that matter could be further considered.

As regards the London amendment, to which I listened with great interest, it was not until my noble friend Lord Elton rose to explain the matter and gave the assurance that full provision was made for all eventualities in London—and I listened with great care to the reasons which he gave—that my anxieties were met. Therefore, I cannot, with respect, see the need for the amendment of the noble Baroness, and if it were pressed to a Division I would be compelled to vote against it.

However, on the metropolitan county matter, there is an area of doubt which it would be preferable for the Government to clarify, if so advised.

My Lords, when my noble friend the Minister comes to reply I wonder whether he could deal with this matter. Under his Amendment No. 81C—following what my noble friend has just said—would it not be possible to insert "shall" instead of "may"? Would not that solidify the amendment?

My Lords, I have lost count of the number of debates which I have enjoyed in this House from both sides of the Floor on "may" or "shall" and, indeed, of the number of them precipitated by my noble friend Lady Faithfull. Indeed, I believe that she has another one elsewhere on the Marshalled List. My noble friend will find the word "shall" in subsection (2)—

My Lords, but not in subsection (1).

My Lords, I wonder if I may address myself to wider issues, but I shall certainly take my noble friend's point on board. I said that I thought that I might not convince my noble friends, and I said that I thought they would enjoy an opportunity to pick holes in what I had said. I was right in both respects. However, there was one hole which they did not pick in it but which they might have picked and which I must confess to now in order to put the record straight.

I understand that I referred to the metropolitan county councils, the GLC and their successor bodies having archive duties. I intended to refer to archive powers, and therefore I accept that that reduces the force of what I said about what might happen if an authority went berserk and decided that it no longer wanted an archive service. However, I still regard that as highly improbable.

I have listened with great care, interest and respect to what has been said. I remain completely convinced along with my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway that our approach to London is right and that the approach in the Bill is superfluous and, from the archive point of view, somewhat risky.

On the technicalities of the amendment which the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, has tabled, I should say as background that there is a direct reference in the Bill in paragraph 22 of Schedule 7 which gives archives to the districts. I dare say that that will be of some comfort to my noble friends. Paragraph 22 is on page 136 of the Bill. There is also Clause 61 which, while it does not mention archives, ensures that any property, including archives not transferred elsewhere, must go to the residuary body. There is no question but that archives are property and so there is a continuum of protection in the Bill on the property side.

I have to tell the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, that her amendment appears only to mention property and not staff. I pause for that point to sink in because I think that archivists are in our minds. I would not like to make a judgment between the importance of archivists and archives because either without the other is of very much reduced value. However, the fact is that the amendment is deficient in that respect. I do not say that in order to sour your Lordships to the noble Baroness's general perceptions, because I share them. What I am prepared to do, without commitment, between now and Third Reading is to see whether or not there is a way in which I can focus the language or the perceptions that the Bill evokes. I honestly believe that what we intend is in the Bill. However, I shall look at the Bill to see whether it can be made more explicit and whether any other way can be found in which to reassure my noble friends that what we have is the best that we can properly give and that it is sufficient. I cannot do more than that because in my heart I believe that we are in the right place, but we may not have properly expressed it. However, I undertake to do that between now and Third Reading if that is of help to your Lordships.

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Birk and to the noble Lords, Lord Beloff and Lord Campbell of Alloway, for their support. It seems from the Minister's response that we have convinced him that there is room for another look at this whole area. Therefore, I am grateful to him also for saying that he will have a look at the language to see whether it can be made more specific, perhaps to the satisfaction of Members on both sides of the House. It is a very complicated issue and I understand and appreciate some of the arguments that he put forward earlier in the debate. Therefore, with his assurance that, without commitment, he will look at the matter, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment at this stage, with a view to our having a further discussion at Third Reading when I hope that there will be mutual satisfaction all round.

My Lords, the next amendment is Amendment No. 63. In calling Amendment No. 63 I have to say that if it is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 63ZA.

moved Amendment No. 63ZA:

[Printed earlier: col. 1386.]

moved Amendment No. 63AA:

[Printed earlier: col. 1363.]

moved Amendment No. 63AC:

My Lords, may I simply say from this side of the House that we are grateful not only for what the Minister has said tonight but for the spirit in which it was recognised earlier that there was a genuine oversight. The Government have acted quickly in the spirit of the amendment.

I want again to draw the attention of the Minister to the mounting burden of responsibility on local authorities. If that is the way it is to be, that is the way it is to be. But I hope the Minister will recognise when wearing other hats at other times and looking at the finances and the resources that local authorities will need to carry out their responsibilities, that one has to be fair to councillor colleagues of the Minister and of ourselves. They may well not wish to have these responsibilities but are prepared to exercise them, and they will clearly need to have the resources to do it. The House should be grateful to the people outside who have read the Bill and recognised that something of value could be done in this way. To that extent, we are indebted to the Minister.

My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Ezra I endorse the words of the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, in this matter, and thank the noble Lord the Minister for what he has done and the way in which he introduced this matter.

My Lords, this is merely a round of "Thank yous". I have already said "Thank you" once. I take on board what the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, says. He will be aware that the district councils are fairly anxious to have significant work to do, and I do not think that they will find this particu- larly difficult. It is nonetheless important, and I am grateful to the noble Lord and his friends for putting it down.

moved Amendment No. 63B:

Page 14, line 33, at end insert ("pending the introduction within three years of an electoral system based on proportional representation.").

My Lords, one cannot help expressing admiration for the pertinacity with which, in and out of season, noble Lords on the Liberal Benches advocate various forms of fancy franchise. Indeed, there is the rumour that some noble Lords are running a book on the number of occasions on which noble Lords on the Liberal Benches will raise this issue, relevant or irrelevant though it may be to the Bill under discussion.

What one cannot congratulate noble Lords on the Liberal Benches on this evening are the comments on this House and its proceedings which were made by the Leader of their party in another place, Mr. Steel, in The Times on 11th June, contrary to what I understood was the convention, both here and in another place, that Members of one house do not comment adversely on the proceedings of the other. Mr. Steel, in The Times, was good enough to refer to the proceedings on this Bill—that is relevant—and to how noble Lords

"stood up to voice their doubts and criticisms and shamefacedly allowed themselves to be dragooned into the lobbies"

I find that a most offensive observation, and were Mr. Steel not so insignificant as he really is I think our resentment might have to take a practical form. I hope noble Lords opposite will feel with me on this, and perhaps will feel disposed at the end of this debate to offer some apology on behalf of their Leader, who must have been carried away by some enthusiasm or emotion.

On this amendment, the question which I asked at committee stage, and to which the noble Lord, Lord Banks, referred, remains unanswered: why pick out ILEA for this departure from our normal voting arrangements in this country? If one did so, would that not be confusing an electorate who are used to voting by the traditional methods of this country? No answer to that has so far been given.

Finally, as the noble Lord may appreciate, his amendment is completely defective. It merely says that something will happen:

"pending the introduction within three years of an electoral system based on proportional representation".

It does not specify what variant of proportional representation would have to be introduced. It does not legislate for its introduction. It simply leaves it in the air, and, frankly, is no more than a propaganda gimmick.

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that there are many kinds of proportional representations? Unless a statute which purports to introduce proportional representation specifies which kind it is to be, neither the authorities nor the voters would know what would happen.

My Lords, I am indebted, as ever, to my noble friend for amplifying and clarifying the point that I was putting with, perhaps, a brevity open to criticism.

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, has raised the question again: why ILEA? I have two points that I should like to make on that. It is quite clear that proportional representation is particularly suitable for areas where there are large minorities, as there are in London, minorities which, without this system, are likely to be unrepresented. The Government plan to make smaller units, not two per parliamentary constituency (as in the Bill) but one per half parliamentary constituency at a later date. In those circumstances it is going to be extremely difficult for any ethnic minority interest—and we know that the ethnic minorities represented in the case of some London schools are as much as 40 per cent. or 50 per cent.—to get elected.

The noble Baroness, Lady David, whom I shall be supporting on another amendment shortly but with whom on this occasion I disagree, said last time that this was an impossibly complicated system for the English elector to understand. I must say that I do not think that that is an argument which improves on repetition. I find that rather insulting to the intelligence of the people of London.

It seems to me that the last time round it was the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, who made almost the best speech. The noble Lord, Lord Beloff, had raised the question of the New York school board and he likened ILEA to the New York school board. What he did not tell us was that the New York school board employs what the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, called a "fancy franchise". It is not so fancy that it cannot be understood by the people of New York. I do not think that the arguments for this extremely sensible measure to depoliticise education in Inner London really improve on repetition. I think there is really no more to be said, and I await with interest the decision of my noble friend Lord Banks on whether to divide on this amendment.

My Lords, I have listened with care to what the noble Lords, Lord Banks and Lord Kilmarnock, have said. I think that the main point that I want to make is that this amendment is open to the same serious objections as that relating to the use of the single transferable vote which was rejected during the Committee stage of the Bill on 9th May. No matter how much one argues that proportional representation is fairer than the simple majority system there is no escape from the fact that it enormously increases the chance of coalition government at national and local level. Whether or not I thought (as the noble Lord, Lord Banks, said) that the term "hung council" was derogatory, it is far more likely to produce weak and ineffective administration.

I also think that it is worth pointing out, as has the noble Lord, himself, that, unlike its predecessor, this amendment carefully ducks the issue of the form of proportional representation to be used. As my noble friend Lord Renton pointed out, there are various systems of proportional representation and even those who favour it often disagree about the method to be used. However, this does not mean that we have failed to consider our position in the light of the comments made by those who spoke at our earlier deliberations in favour of the use of the single transferable vote system at ILEA elections. We noted that my noble friend Lord Chelwood—and this was repeated by the noble Lord, Lord Banks, this afternoon—considered that the use of such a system would increase the turnout at ILEA elections because it already resulted in a 75 per cent. turnout of the electorate in Scandinavian countries. The noble Lord did not refer to Scandinavia but this was the drift of my noble friend Lord Chelwood's comments last time about the Scandinavian countries voting in local elections.

However, we have no information to show that such high turnouts, where they occur, are directly attributable to the use of proportional representation. Moreover I do not think that in any way in any event it can be conclusively presumed that an effect observed in a foreign country with a particular approach to elections would necessarily be at all relevant in Great Britain where we have a long tradition of first-past-the-post elections with small electoral divisions. Nor are we aware of any widespread popular demand for the use of proportional representation at local elections in this country.

It was also argued on that occasion by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, that we should single out ILEA for the use of proportional representation as an experiment. Indeed, this was referred to just now. That suggestion did not meet with approval in your Lordships' House and, since the new ILEA will be very similar to a local authority, we remain of the view that it would be wholly inappropriate for ILEA's elections to be conducted under a system of proportional representation as long as all local elections in Great Britain are conducted under the simple majority system of voting. This is especially so because with an issue such as education it is most important to ensure that the elected representatives should have close contacts with those whom they represent. But such close relationships cannot, I think, occur in the large electoral areas required by the various forms of proportional representation.

6.45 p.m.

My final point is that this amendment is still open to the same practical objection as the amendment which we discussed in Committee; namely, that if it is carried we shall have to remove the provision to combine ILEA and London borough elections, thereby increasing the cost of holding ILEA elections. Such action will be necessary to prevent the risk of confusion among the electorate which would otherwise occur at polling stations. The advantage of the present provisions is that they enable the cost of ILEA elections to be significantly reduced by eliminating the otherwise unnecessary duplication of voting facilities already provided for London borough elections. If the elections were not combined, instead of paying roughly half the total cost of the combined elections under the simple majority system, the new ILEA would have to meet the full cost of separate elections under the chosen system of proportional representation.

I have deliberately kept my remarks short to avoid rehearsing in full our objections to the use of proportional representation at local and ILEA elections. I was supported (and I could not have put it better) by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter. The issues are familiar to us all. However, I would ask your Lordships particularly to bear in mind what I said this evening and what I said on 9th May about proportional representation invariably leading to coalitions and weak and ineffective administrations. That is not what any of us want for the new ILEA and it is the reason why we propose that its election should be held under the simple majority system as at all local elections in Great Britain.

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask whether he really feels that in the field of education it is a better thing that there should be the discontinuity which might result from a system under which, shall we say? a Conservative Government was in power and was then succeeded by a Labour Government, or vice versa, than it would be to have a system of proportional representation?

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I am not entirely clear what sort of discontinuity the noble Lord expects. We have said (and I said just now again) that we did not think it was right for ILEA particularly, because of the need to keep the elected representatives closely in contact with those whom they represent, to introduce the sort of measure which the noble Lord, Lord Banks, proposes.

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, referred to some article, I think by Mr. Steel, in a newspaper. I do not want to refer to that, I have not read the article in question. I think it is entirely irrelevant to the merits of the particular amendment before the House at the moment. I think it is important to consider the merits and I regretted very much that the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, did not do that.

The question has been asked: why should we pick out ILEA? Here we are setting up a new, elected body. Surely you could not have a better opportunity to put into practice a system which, if you accept the arguments put forward for the merits, will benefit the London community in the way I described earlier. It is a question of whether you accept those merits. It is not a question: why do it here, or why do it there. We have an opportunity to do it in one particular place at the moment. Is it a good thing to do? The arguments that I put forward earlier suggested that it was.

We are not introducing by this amendment the precise system nor the details. We are introducing a commitment which would clearly be followed by further legislation after a time to think. Either you do not want to take the system immediately—you want to think about it—or you do not. I have gained the impression that the House would prefer to think carefully about that and I can see no harm in doing that nor any reproach against those who suggest it. I think it is important to bear in mind that the House has given a Second Reading to a Bill which says that we should have proportional representation in local government elections.

The noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, returned to the question of coalition government. I think the phrase "coalition government" used in connection with the Inner London Education Authority is a little absurd. Why should it be so bad if it were possible to get agreement and to get people to work together on the Inner London Education Authority. The obvious benefits, which I shall mention very briefly, are fairer representation for parties, a fair representation of views within parties, more opportunity for women, ethnic, and religious groups to be represented, and more chance for independence. Whatever the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, says experience shows that you have a higher turnout where people feel that their vote will count and there is no fear of it being wasted.

The noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, has not detected any popular demand but whenever opinion polls are held on this issue there is no doubt that people respond favourably to the suggestion that members of elected bodies should be elected in proportion to the votes cast for the different bodies of opinion that there are.

Obviously from all the opinion polls that we see, there is a majority for that. I hope that what is felt by many in the country will be felt in your Lordships' House on this particular amendment this evening. I should like to test the opinion of the House on that particular point.