Source: https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/lords/1985/jul/15/lords-amendment-1
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 17:48:07+00:00

Document:
§ ("Highway and Road Traffic functions.
(l) that the Body shall be able to assist, by way of grant or loan, the provision of transport services by a voluntary organisation for the benefit of the public or am class of persons.").
§ Because they are inconsistent with the principle of the Bill to transfer most of the functions of the Greater London Council and the metropolitan county councils to the local authorities in their areas.
(l) that the Authority shall be able to assist, by way of grant or loan, the provision of transport services by a voluntary organisation for the benefit of the public or any class of persons.
§ The noble Lord said: My Lords, perhaps I should explain for the convenience of the House that if the House agrees to my Motion 4A I shall move formally Motions 5A, 8A and 21A, since they are consequential.
§ 5A That this House do insist on their amendment No. 5 to which the Commons disagree for the Reason numbered 21.
§ 21A That this House do insist on their amendments Nos. 9 to 20 to which the Commons disagree for the Reason numbered 21.
§ On the other hand, should the House disagree with my Motion 4A, I will not be moving those consequential amendments.
§ If I may turn to the substance of the amendments, the Commons have disagreed with your Lordships' amendments which transfer some highways and traffic functions to the residuary body in London and to what were the passenger transport joint authorities in the metropolitan counties. The reason is that these 508 amendments are inconsistent with the principles of the Bill to transfer most of the functions of the GLC and the metropolitan authorities to the boroughs and the districts. We accept the criticism regarding the residuary body made both here and in another place, and my Motion No. 4A regularises the position by setting up a joint authority for London as well. In fact, these amendments not only meet the basic criticisms of the other place but also offer unfettered and meaningful devolution of functions to the London boroughs and the metropolitan districts free of any interference from central Government.
§ Perhaps I may refer to the words of the Secretary of State for Transport when speaking to the Bill, at column 202 of the Commons Official Report of 7th November 1984. He said: Those joint boards are not quangos. They will consist of district councillors directly responsible to their own councils, and so, in turn, to the ratepayers".
§ As such, the amendments are more consistent with the principles of the Bill and with the Government's original manifesto commitment than the Government's own proposal. Let me remind your Lordships of the precise wording of that manifesto: The metropolitan councils and the GLC have been shown to be a wasteful and unnecessary tier of government. We shall abolish them and return most of their functions to the boroughs and districts. Services which need to be administered over a wider area, such as police and fire and education in inner London, will be run by joint boards of borough or district representatives".
§ The need for highway and traffic functions to be administered over a wider area is acknowledged by everyone. This point has been conceded by the Government in the Bill and in consultation documents. The Minister of State in the other place stated at the Report stage of the debate that, there has to be overall planning for roads and for traffic control".
§ However, the Government completely depart from their own stated principle since they take upon themselves the role of overall planning for roads and traffic by issuing mandatory traffic guidance to the boroughs and districts and by reserve powers to take over the sophisticated urban traffic control systems which are powerful tools for enacting traffic policy. Additionally, in London the Secretary of State proposes to extend the trunk road network and designate roads over which he will have control of traffic policy. To my understanding, this is an absolute reversal of the commitment to return highway and traffic functions to the boroughs. Where is the real devolution that the Government claim and the Government proclaimed as being the desire in their manifesto?
§ On the other hand, the amendments now before the House would place the responsibility for highways and traffic planning, apart from existing trunk roads, solely in the hands of the boroughs and districts. The county-wide area element of responsibility for the main road network for which the Government admit that a consistent and coherent approach is necessary would be the responsibility of the authority through elected members appointed by the individual borough and district councils. Highway and traffic matters and all other local roads would become the direct responsibility of the separate boroughs and districts; moreover, in London the authority would undertake a 509 review of the metropolitan road network within one year. The borough representatives would in this case therefore decide themselves, subject of course, as always, to the Secretary of State's agreement, the most appropriate division between local and strategic aspects of highway and traffic planning in London.
§ These amendments thoroughly transfer highway and traffic functions to the boroughs and the districts. They do not erode local democracy by placing overall control in central Government hands. They also, in line again with the Government's manifesto commitments, ensure that those services which need to be administered over a wider area will be run by a joint board of borough or district representatives. The two sets of authorities in London and the metropolitan counties would have broadly similar sets of powers and responsibilities, bearing in mind the historic differences between them.
§ Each authority would, as required by order of the Secretary of State, produce a London or a county-wide highway and traffic plan which would be related to land use policies. It would assess London or countywide priorities on the main road network and be able to allocate investment where it was most needed. It would be able to maintain specialist services and staff required to plan, design and construct major highways and bridges and underpasses and tunnels. It would provide an organisation with sufficient breadth and budget to sustain specialist teams with sophisticated computer back-up and data collecting systems to enable them to implement London or county-wide programmes in an effective and economic way. It would integrate teams of highway and traffic planners, highway designers, traffic management engineers, traffic signals engineers and accident prevention experts under one umbrella organisation, thus providing cross-fertilisation of ideas and promoting imaginative, cost-effective solutions to the complex problems of large conurbations.
§ All these advantages have been noted in the report on the consequences of the abolition by the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology, under the chairmanship of the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook. Indeed, the main recommendation of that report, particularly in respect of London, was: to establish a joint authority for highways and traffic in Greater London".
§ This amendment complies with that recommendation. The placement of strategic highways and traffic functions into the new passenger transport authorities in the metropolitan counties also complies precisely with the report's recommendation, to make provision in clause 27 for strategic transport authorities in place of passenger transport authorities".
§ The Coopers and Lybrand study into the financial implications of the abolition of the Greater London Council stated quite unambiguously that transport and land use were important services which are best carried out on a London-wide basis. I shall quote briefly from their report: The integration of London and a large number of residents who work in one part of London and live in another suggests a need to plan and deliver transport on a London-wide basis. Our review identified strong linkages between public transport planning, 510 highways planning, traffic management and enforcement and development planning and control. The need for Londonwide—and possibly wider still to incorporate parts of the South-East of the country—transport planning is generally accepted".
§ These amendments meet the commitments of the Government's manifesto. They maintain local democratic control over roads and traffic. They are consistent, I firmly believe, with the principles of the Bill and comply very closely with the recommendations of the Select Committee on Science and Technology. They have many positive and practical advantages over the Government's proposal, and the House would be failing in its duty if it did not grasp this opportunity substantially to improve this Bill, which I believe is the major function of this House. Therefore, I beg to move.
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, has proposed an amendment in lieu of Amendment No. 4 and consequential amendments, Amendments Nos. 6 to 8, which sought to require the transfer of certain GLC highways and traffic functions to the London residuary body. The noble Lord has also urged the House to insist on their Amendment No. 5 and the consequential amendments, Amendments Nos. 9 to 20, which sought to require the transfer of certain metropolitan county council highways and traffic functions to the metropolitan county joint passenger transport authorities.
The noble Lord's amendments in lieu, however, do no more than substitute a new indirectly elected joint London highways and traffic authority in the place of the London residuary body. They thus share all the disadvantages of the original amendments with which the Commons have disagreed on the grounds that: they are inconsistent with the principle of the Bill to transfer most of the functions of the Greater London Council and the metropolitan county councils to the local authorities". For that reason I disagree with the proposed new clause of the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael. I should like to explain more fully the thinking behind our reasoning.
The proposals in Clause 7 of the original Bill were quite clear: to transfer the highways and traffic management functions of the GLC and the metropolitan county councils to the borough and district councils. Those were in keeping with the overall principles of the Bill: to devolve functions to the lower-tier authorities and so remove an unnecessary tier of local government. The proposed additional clauses are clearly inconsistent with that principle.
In the Government's view it would be wrong to perpetuate three tiers of highway and road traffic authority in London and even more counterproductive to introduce a third tier in the metropolitan counties where there are only two at present. We regard it as a recipe for confusion and delay to have three tiers of highway and traffic authority. Under the provisions of the original Bill, there would be two tiers of responsibility in all metropolitan areas. Moreover, borough and district councils would only have to consult their neighbours where cross-boundary traffic 511 effects arose, while proposed clauses would result in their having to consult the London highway and traffic authority or the joint authority about almost every traffic management decision.
The argument for a third tier of highway and traffic authority is based on the assumption that a strategic authority is needed to co-ordinate highways and traffic on the roads within a metropolitan area. I shall return to that point in a moment. However, highway authorities have always made joint arrangements and ensured co-ordination with each other where necessary. I do not understand why there should be such pessimism about boroughs and districts making the necessary arrangements in future. We are confident of the ability of boroughs and districts to develop and carry through large schemes where they are needed. Indeed, boroughs are already the highway authority for nearly 7,000 miles of London's 8,000 miles of roads. They already undertake some major schemes. They demonstrate the competence of local authorities in such matters.
Moreover, there will be ample opportunity for the boroughs and districts to consider the overall planning and development of the road network in their areas. One forum will be the joint planning committee we have provided for London, and elsewhere the regional conferences. The preparation of transport policies and programmes for submission to the Secretary of State will provide another opportunity.
Two main concerns underlay the debate on these two clauses. One was whether the new arrangements proposed by the Government would cater effectively for the day-to-day co-ordination of county-wide highway and traffic issues. The other was about the future of expert teams supporting the main statutory functions. I will take the two issues separately, to explain why I believe that the arrangements proposed by the Government are effective and more appropriate than those contained in the two clauses.
To take first the question of county-wide highway and traffic issues, we understand the fears about whether there will be effective co-ordination where this is needed. We believe that those fears have been exaggerated. Most traffic and highway issues are only local in nature, or at most concern neighbouring authorities. Only a very small proportion affect every borough and district. Why do I say most highways and traffic issues are local? I ask noble Lords to consider whether they regard painting yellow lines, siting pedestrian crossings, providing parking spaces, or banning right turns as county or local issues? We do not need a separate tier for those matters. Such issues are best dealt with at district or borough level. That will bring decisions closer to local people, and will enhance accountability by making local councillors responsible for local decisions. That must be good for democracy.
Noble Lords may ask whether the new arrangements will cater for those few occasions when wider area highway and traffic issues do arise. We are confident that they will. Paragraph 6 of Schedule 5 places a duty on borough and district councils to consult other councils if their traffic and parking proposals would directly affect traffic in other councils' 512 areas, and in the event of an unwithdrawn objection from such an affected council the proposals will come to the Secretary of State for a decision. Schedule 5 also provides powers for the Secretary of State to issue guidance on traffic management to local authorities in order to ensure consistent standards. If the guidance is disregarded, with the likelihood of adverse consequences for traffic over a wider area, there are powers for the Secretary of State to intervene.
I should mention that important tool of traffic management, the urban traffic control systems. The Government are fully committed to ensuring that those systems are kept functioning efficiently, and the Bill provides reserve powers for the Secretary of State to ensure that this will be done. If boroughs or districts were unable to reach satisfactory agreements to operate the systems themselves, the Secretary of State would exercise his reserve powers to take over responsibility for urban traffic control systems. My noble friends Lord Cranbrook and Lord Kaberry, the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, and other noble Lords have expressed concern about the future of the systems in our previous debates. I can assure your Lordships that the Government are clearly committed to ensuring that the UTCs continue.
Of course the specialists working on urban traffic control are not the only centres of expertise in the fields of highways and traffic management, and I should like to turn now to the question of the future of the other various expert teams. This has been a question that has gone wider than just highways and traffic. During the passage of the Bill through this House we debated at some length whether the arrangements made for specialist services and teams were sufficiently explicit, and we had the advantage of being informed by the interim report by your Lordships' Select Committee on Science and Technology, produced under the chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Cranbrook.
The Government took note of noble Lords' concern on this point and we concluded that noble Lords had identified an area where the provisions of the Bill needed to be strengthened. That is why the Government brought forward amendments at Report and Third Reading to impose an explicit duty on the residuary bodies to review the technical and professional services provided by the GLC and the metropolitan counties. The services may include those provided by the teams maintaining urban traffic control systems, by engineering design teams—such as for bridges—and teams for data collection and analysis, including accident statistics and traffic modelling. The residuary bodies will have a duty to approach successor authorities to determine which of those services any of the authorities want the residuary bodies to maintain for their use while long-term arrangements are being made. The residuary bodies will then have a duty to report to the Secretary of State, who will make the necessary orders.
My noble friend Lord Elton made it clear that that does not mean all professional and technical services will necessarily be transferred to residuary bodies. The successor authorities may wish to make alternative arrangements immediately rather than use the residuary bodies as a temporary home. I am convinced that most local authorities will come to an agreement 513 among themselves, and it is very important for them to have the opportunity to do so.
In London, useful discussions with a number of boroughs have led to significant progress being made on working out future arrangements for services such as urban traffic control, data, and bridge engineering. The new duty on the residuary bodies will ensure that all services will be carefully and fully considered. For traffic and highways, this will ensure that urban traffic control systems, teams for collating and analysing data, and specialist engineering teams, will not disappear.
The thought I would like to leave with noble Lords is that the Government have recognised the concerns that led to these two amendments being passed and have since introduced amendments to the Bill designed to meet the concerns of noble Lords. The Government do not believe that the amendments now under discussion provide a satisfactory solution for handling London or county-wide issues, or for ensuring that the necessary expertise remains available to all highways and traffic management authorities in any area.
I have concentrated my remarks on what I see to be the fundamental issues underlying the amendments. I believe that the provisions of the Bill are not only in line with the transfer of powers to the boroughs and districts but also provide a more satisfactory framework for the future handling of traffic and highway functions. Noble Lords have played a valuable role in improving that framework. In the light of amendments that have been introduced at the instigation of noble Lords, I urge that the House do not insist on their amendments and resist the amendments in lieu proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael.
My Lords, in rising to support this amendment perhaps I may say that I am far from reassured by what has just been said by the noble Lord the Minister. It may be that your Lordships consider that the amendment that has been put before you by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, is a better amendment than the one we had last time, in that the authority would consist of elected members of constituent borough councils and would be responsible for a London-wide view on strategic highway and traffic issues, while at the same time local needs would be catered for at the individual borough level.
The noble Lord the Minister said that he could not understand the pessimism there was about the ability of borough or district councils to get together. History tells us that that is what is likely to happen. The political diversity between the people who are asked to co-operate simply leaves one to believe that, on an historical basis, it will not happen. The Government have obviously seen the need for integration on a London-wide basis and have stated this in their leaflet, After the GLC, but the abolition proposals provide no specific mechanism for such integration to occur. This omission has been criticised on all sides by professionals and by statutory and academic authorities. A joint authority would plug that gap.
Secondly, it is important that there is strategic planning for London's main road network. As I said, 514 the idea that 33 individual boroughs will, by voluntary co-operation, get their act together at some unspecified time in the future is simply not good enough. The Government seem to have ignored to a degree the importance of London's metropolitan road network. The noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, has said before, and said again today in different words, that the metropolitan network forms only 10 per cent. of the total mileage of roads in London and therefore can easily be absorbed into the individual boroughs. But the Government must be aware that the metropolitan network carries 40 per cent. of vehicle miles and consumes 55 per cent. of the total GLC and borough expenditure for highway construction. Therefore it is imperative that the network is planned in a coherent way.
I now turn to my third point, which to me is the most important and, I am sure, more on the minds of the many people who supported it on all sides at earlier stages in our proceedings; that is, the importance of keeping these teams together, with their expertise in highway and traffic management. The noble Lord said that reassurance has been given in relation to urban traffic control, and of course we are grateful for that. It is very important that the urban traffic control systems should be kept together because, as we have said previously, they can save an enormous amount of cost in terms of new road construction, as has been seen both in the GLC and in the metropolitan counties.
However, the way of doing this is to reserve powers to the Secretary of State, and it seems to me that the Secretary of State is going to be a terribly busy man in the next few years, in view of all the powers that are being given to him. Surely it would be better to have somebody on the ground in Greater London and the metropolitan counties who perhaps has more knowledge than the Secretary of State can bring to bear.
I also take note of what the Minister said about the other teams: the highway planners with the experience of London's special needs and with knowledge of the cost-effective solutions for them. I refer to the teams of highway design engineers who are backed with the most sophisticated computer programmes in the world; the teams of maintenance engineers with special experience of large structures; and the teams of traffic specialists who have so effectively dealt with many of London's traffic problems, bad though they still are. But again the back-up is the Secretary of State. I repeat: I simply do not believe that the Secretary of State is capable of handling the mass of work which is being given to him.
If that is in my mind, what, in the interim period, is in the minds of the individuals with these great skills? Will they not be looking for jobs elsewhere? I am certainly aware of a number of people both here and in the metropolitan counties who are already taking up other posts in private industry and with other lower-tier authorities outside their own areas. These teams are already breaking up, and in a sense the proof of what we are saying is already before our eyes.
The London highways and traffic authority would provide a structure to ensure continuity. It is essential that these key teams should be given a clear indication of a secure future. They cannot be left with an 515 uncertain future; otherwise they will disperse and a great strategic resource will be lost to the country. I believe that this amendment improves the Bill. I believe that we were right on the previous occasion to pass the amendments that we passed. As I have said, I believe that this amendment may even be an improvement, and I hope that your Lordships will sustain it.
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, has such a beguiling method of speaking that he tends to lull the House—he certainly tends to lull me—into a feeling that this amendment really is not much of a change. However, your Lordships will recall that it is an amendment which goes against the whole spirit and purpose of the Bill, which has now been through both Houses, that wherever possible functions shall be transferred to the boroughs. It proposes to take these very important—I do not underrate their importance—traffic management problems into the second tier of a three-tier structure, and in that way to frustrate the general purpose of the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, was, I thought, unusually pessimistic. He said that the boroughs will not co-operate because, among other things, of political diversity. I wonder whether the noble Lord was being quite fair to the boroughs. On issues of this kind, which are largely technical and practical, I think the noble Lord will find that the boroughs, whether Conservative or Labour controlled, will try to act responsibly to carry out the functions which Parliament has conferred on them. They will not let the fact that they happen to disagree with the politics of the majority party in either of them frustrate them from doing their duty by their citizens.
My Lords, will the noble Lord allow me to intervene? This is surely the problem—that there may be a conflict of interest between the electors in their own particular borough and the good of the conurbation. It is in those areas that conflict arises which is irresolvable save only by the Secretary of State.
My Lords, if there is a conflict of interest in this kind of matter it is not a conflict of interest on general party lines. It will be the obvious and natural thing on the purely practical aspect of whether or not you want trunked a road which goes near your home. That is a very important issue to local people but it is not an issue which raises party political differences.
I think it is unfair to the boroughs, to those of all parties who serve on them and to their officials to say that, because some boroughs have a majority of one political colour and other boroughs have another, they will not co-operate. The argument goes much further than that if the noble Lord is right. This idea of cooperation between the boroughs is fundamental to the whole Bill. If the noble Lord is right on this point the same arguments apply against all the other provisions in the Bill as they have been worked out and enacted after prolonged debates in both Houses of Parliament.
My Lords, the noble Lord is perfectly honest about it. He agrees with me. It is contrary to the whole spirit of the Bill. There is no justification, I suggest to your Lordships, for picking out traffic management and treating it separately from the way in which Parliament in its wisdom has decided all the other functions at present exercised by the GLC or the metropolitan counties are to be exercised under the Bill. Whatever your view on a particular aspect, your Lordships must see that to introduce this one separate element of this overall authority will cause considerable confusion in practice and be thoroughly damaging to the general approach of the Bill.
Your Lordships will not underrate what is proposed, which is to have a three-tier system in respect of traffic: the boroughs, this body corporate, and then the Secretary of State. Is there any justification for a three-tier system? Is there really any justification for the delays, the bureaucracy and the mass of correspondence to and fro which will result from that elaborate system? If there is, then I say to your Lordships that that is a criticism of the whole Bill.
The Bill, if it is to work properly—as I think all your Lordships want to make sure it does, whatever the doubts that some of your Lordships opposite may have—must be consistent. If you erect this body corporate as an all-London authority which I understand would have precepting powers on the boroughs, you will create something completely out of line with the rest of the Bill. Therefore I think that the onus of proof falls on those of your Lordships who suggest that traffic management is so different from every other aspect of local government that it must be separately and differently treated, because Parliament in its wisdom has decided that the other functions, with the exception of waste disposal—and we will come to waste disposal in a moment—must be so treated.
At an earlier stage of the Bill there was an obvious strategy by noble Lords opposite, who wished to preserve as much of the Greater London Council as possible, to pile functions on to the residuary body, no doubt with a view to saying ultimately that if the residuary body had so many functions if must become permanent and perhaps elective. That was the form in which the amendment, which another place dismissed, dealt with traffic. Perhaps prudently, after the failure of that exercise and that strategem, the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, comes forward with this new proposal for a new corporate body. But it is really very hard to see anything other than confusion and expense coming from imposing this middle tier on to this one particular area of the government of Greater London and the metropolitan counties.
In regard to Greater London, there is a further difficulty. The boundaries of the present Greater London Council area are quite arbitrary. Nowadays they do not even coincide with the limits of the built-up area of London, and it is of course essential that the London traffic system should be geared in properly to that of virtually the whole of the south-east of England. It is no use having fine access roads up to the London perimeter unless they fit into access roads beyond it. In this amendment it is not proposed, and indeed without a crude intervention in the affairs of 517 other local authorities outside London it could not be proposed, that this corporate body should have such powers. The only person who can take the view as to how you are going to fit together all the traffic of south-east England, which is what we are really concerned with, is the Secretary of State. Only he can take an overall view. Introducing a middle tier into the other two tiers of traffic control in local government in London will simply produce a mess. Therefore I hope your Lordships will reject the amendment.
My Lords, I should have thought that the proposals of my noble friend Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, despite what the noble Lord who has just spoken has said, are so congruous with what the Bill is trying to do that they really result in a better idea than we have yet had to make this Bill work. Indeed, it would not be wrong to say that without this amendment the Bill will create difficulties. It would possibly be fair to say that because of this amendment it will be a better Bill than it is at the moment, and that is what I believe noble Lords opposite have to consider.
We have been through all this before. I can remember, as a leader of the Fulham and Hammersmith councils, when transport was our major problem, that the boroughs simply had to liaise with each other. You cannot have a transport policy for Fulham by itself, for Hammersmith by itself or indeed for Westminster by itself. It you try to do that you will arrive at the absurd situation of having agreed with the noble Viscount the leader of the Conservative Party in this House. I think that this is something which we have to take seriously.
As I said initially, we have been through this before. For example, there were problems when we had the LCC and it was realised that people were not quite sure when they had left Chelsea and were in Kensington, or when they had left Kensington and were in Fulham, and so forth. It was fundamental that the London boroughs knew precisely the last—or the first—street in their boroughs, and the only way to have a sensible and intelligent transport policy was not to have one for any individual borough but to have a policy which covered all London as a whole—and it worked. I had the privilege, being a representative of those boroughs as a Member in the other place, of seeing both Conservative and Labour Ministers of Transport, with leaders or deputy leaders of councils and members of both parties, work out the changes that were necessary to get a reasonable and cohesive policy for Greater London. The problems of the City of Westminster are still enormous, but the problems ease out as you go further down towards the south, as has been said.
The next issue that caused us grave apprehension was when it was decided by the Conservative Government of the day that the LCC would be abolished. This caused great worries and there were many improvements put into that Bill later, because of debates in this House as well as in the other place, that made it a good Bill. When representations were made to him, Sir Keith Joseph agreed that you had to have some central force of organisation—of course it would be best if it were made up of elected councillors, with 518 one or two specialists to assist them—to be able to run a sensible, intelligent, cohesive policy for the new body. He was converted. I do not think that anyone would say that Sir Keith Joseph did not stand by the proposals of his party and his Government. He was sensible enough to know when they could be improved upon, and he accepted improvements when they were proposed to him by councillors of all parties from London.
There is one other point that I shall ask noble Lords to bear in mind very strongly in considering when this new Act will come into force. The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, mentioned that we are losing men and women of high calibre, who in some instances have already devoted half their lives to transport problems in the metropolitan boroughs as well as in the Greater London Council, and this would be one move to ensure that these talents are not lost.
In short, I take the view that the amendment moved by my noble friend keeps within the object and design of the Bill. In parenthesis I ask noble Lords in all parts of the House this question: could there exist in Britain a Government who could introduce a Bill proposing massive change and then have the audacity to say that not one single amendment is needed to make it a better Bill? That is the challenge this afternoon. That is what we must consider. It is not a political issue. Conservative councillors, and indeed some former leaders of Conservative councils, also believe that this is sensible. The amendment would improve the Bill and cannot be viewed in any way as political, but it represents good sense and good judgment. I disapprove of the Bill, but I believe that this is a typical British attitude: one can improve another party's Bill. If the Government have good sense they will accept that, as long as the amendment has no political slant.
I do not believe for one moment that the amendment has even surreptitiously any political intent or content. The amendment is designed so that when the new organisations are created, in the first place, we shall not lose the men and women of high calibre who will be needed to make a success of this part of the Bill when it becomes law. At the same time, approving the amendment would be a response by this House to the desires and intentions of councillors of all parties to see that the Bill is improved in the manner indicated by my noble friend.
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, spoke with great conviction, as he always does, although at the end of his speech I felt a little doubtful as to what it was he was being so convincing about. One point emerged. He felt that the amendment was completely contrary to the spirit of the Bill. Does that make it wrong?
The spirit of the Bill is not, as one might say, of divine authority; the spirit of the Bill may be entirely wrong. I am not saying that all through it is, but after eight weary days of the Committee stage and five equally weary days of the Report stage, we came to the conclusion that certain things in London must be under overall control. After all, London is a whole. One cannot divide it into a lot of boroughs without considering certain things which must apply to the whole of London. Traffic and road control is most certainly one of those. I think that any idea as to 519 whether it is contrary to the spirit of the Bill to accept the amendment should be put on one side and one thought should occupy our minds solely: is it an improvement on the original provision?
My Lords, I hope that it is in order respectfully to remind the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, in view of something that he said, that, as I understand it, no fewer than 75 out of 98 of your Lordships' amendments were accepted in another place. Had he attended throughout the debates on the Bill, he would perhaps have appreciated the measure of concession from my noble friend the Minister.
The Motion moved by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, as I understand it, covers two amendments. The first is Amendment No. 4B, which seeks to set up the third tier in yet another form, to which the boroughs, as I read it, "shall have regard", with consequential amendments, Amendments Nos. 8A and 21A. It also covers Amendment No. 5A, which seeks to insist on Amendment No. 5, which was disagreed to. The effect of that is inevitably to engender possible conflict with another place—a conflict which at this stage of our proceedings, for all one knows, could well end up with the dissolution of Parliament and a killed Bill.
It is certainly not my purpose to reopen the arguments on the merits which have been dealt with already. Some of your Lordships may feel that we have already indulged—indeed, over-indulged—in the arduous toil of extravagant repetitions. Many of us, however, irrespective of where we choose to sit and of such reservations as we maintain, would prefer to avoid such a conflict between the two Houses at all costs, perhaps with a sprinkling of indigenous give and take—in other words, compromise—in the higher purpose of avoiding further dispute.
In this, if ILEA is to serve as the bartered bride to highways, traffic, and waste disposal, your Lordships are entitled—no more, no less—to be satisfied that the dowry arrangement is fair and reasonable; a dowry arrangement seen as a whole and not any particular item or aspect seen in isolation. As to reasonableness, surely that has to be seen in context not only with the concessions made by my noble friend the Minister throughout the passage of the Bill but also with the vast measure of agreement in another place to which I have already referred.
As to the issue of conflict between the two Houses, surely that has to be seen in context with the reason for disagreement given in the other place—Reason 21—which was "inconsistent with the principle of the Bill". There is not only that; there is the sheer impossibility of the task of the revision entailed in the time available before the end of this Session of Parliament.
Of course there is ample constitutional precedent for shuttlecock. There are even established rules of the game. But even if we play that game according to the rules, we shall be seen not only to thwart the will of another place but to introduce wanton turmoil and confusion into the administration of local government.
520 A reasonable compromise is proposed by the elected Chamber. To what end shall the non-elected Chamber now importune the gods and presume to tempt the fates with measures of all but immutable preconception?
My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask him whether he will be gracious enough to examine Hansard, where he will discover that I have not missed a single debate on the Bill? This is the first time that I have spoken, but I do not think that I have missed any Divisions. Perhaps he will be gracious enough to check those points.
My Lords, since the noble Lord mentioned my name, perhaps I may be allowed to say that if he was present, I am all the more surprised at what he said a few moments ago.
My Lords, I wish very briefly to comment on only two remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, in his interesting earlier speech. He said not once but I think twice that Parliament in its wisdom had made certain decisions. That is not quite right. Parliament in its wisdom has not yet decided. One part of Parliament and one part only in its wisdom has made a decision. Another place had made certain proposals in the Bill which came to this House where these proposals were examined and in part amended. The amendments went back. They have been criticised and sometimes rejected. We are now considering what another place has made of our proposals.
My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord will give way?
My Lords, the point that I was seeking to make, and which I hoped the noble Lord had understood, was that over the greater part of the Bill Parliament has concluded its discussions. The only issues open are those that arise on those of our amendments which are sent back. The point of my argument was that the main pattern of the Bill has already been decided upon by Parliament.
My Lords, yes, that must be true, but I thought it was hardly worth mentioning today. The part of the Bill which is before us is the part upon which we have not decided. Thus the noble Lord's remark was inessential. We have not decided. Parliament has not decided, and Parliament is now deciding. There is no reason why we should not dissent from the other House, whether we are elected or nonelected.
The other part of the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, which I noted—and I hope I shall not irritate him this time—came when he said that the principle of the Bill was that, wherever possible, functions should be passed to the lower authorities. However, that is not the principle of the Bill. Nor is the principle of the Bill that which another place states it to be in its Reason No. 21. That Reason 521 does not include the phrase "wherever possible" but states merely that most of the functions should pass from the Greater London Council to lesser authorities. If the amendment of my noble friend Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove is accepted, most of the functions will pass and the principle of the Bill will be totally intact. Therefore that question does not arise.
I have only one more thing to say in conclusion. It is that those who propose this Motion and those of us who support it have no intention of thwarting the will of the elected Chamber, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, put it. That is not our intention at all. The situation is quite a simple one. After a lengthy period of discussion, debate, consideration and consultation with all kinds of outside bodies a situation has arisen in which this noble assembly takes one view, or has taken one view, and another place has taken a somewhat different view. The proposal before us today seems to me a very sensible and a very sound one; namely, that we should seek as far as we can to reconcile these two differing views, to seek some kind of compromise between them. I think that reconciliation and compromise are absolutely central to the Motion proposed by my noble friend Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove. I hope that this House will pass it.
My Lords, we have this afternoon had a short, important debate about the merits of this issue. My noble friend Lord Brabazon has given what I believe to be a powerful account of the reasons why the Motion in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, is unacceptable. Your Lordships will not wish me to go over that same ground again.
However, before I come to something else that I wish to say to your Lordships, naturally I shall seek briefly to deal with some of the main points raised during the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, moved his amendments in a most reasonable way, as I, through a long association with him in another place, have come to expect. I have to say to the noble Lord that so reasonable was he that he might very easily, had he gone on, have converted simple souls such as me. It was not until I heard my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter that I realised that I must come back from my simplicity and look at what was really behind his proposals. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter for that. It was important.
I have to say this to the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael—and I want to come very specifically to the important point made by the noble Lord, Lord Somers. I would not necessarily refer to the "spirit" of the Bill, but I think that now, as the Bill stands—and we are considering the amendment against the background of where the Bill now stands—the noble Lord's proposals would be inconsistent with the method of dealing with a good many of the other proposals.
This House may have made mistakes. The Government may have won on some of the issues when perhaps noble Lords think that they should not have won. However, they did, and the Bill now stands 522 in that regard. If one changed this particular proposal, I believe it would indeed be inconsistent with what else is in the Bill. That is a very important point which was made also by my noble friend Lord Brabazon.
I should like to turn to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff. First of all, he fears that the specialist teams might be upset. He makes a very important point. It is one which I certainly believe has been dealt with, is being dealt with and, as my noble friend Lord Brabazon made perfectly clear, will be dealt with. Of course, in a situation such as this a great deal of understanding and compromise will be necessary, but I do not think that the noble Lord should be so pessimistic about that.
I believe, too, that the noble Lord was overworried about the position of the Secretary of State. As the Secretary of State is responsible for very major matters covering the whole country, the area covered by highways and transport in the London conurbation must be something which is bound to concern him. Matters concerning the overall position in that very large area are bound to come to the Secretary of State. I think that that will be inevitable.
The noble Lord, Lord Molloy, seemed at one stage to be coming to my aid, and I am very grateful to him. He seemed to be doing so in two ways. I shall come to the second one later. On the first one he was powerfully coming to my aid. He said that when he was conducting these matters—and I am sure that if he told us that it was when he was conducting them, that would be right—when, from another place, he was co-ordinating between the boroughs, all worked very well. Well, if it worked so well before, and if all the planning worked and the co-operation was so satisfactory when organised by the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, why should it not continue in the future? It seemed to me that the noble Lord was encouraging us to believe that if the boroughs would get together and co-operate as they did with him, all would be well. I rather think that that makes the case that I was making.
My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Viscount the Leader of the House for giving way. The point I was making—and I am glad that he agrees with me—was that I represented the nucleus, the idea—which is now part of the amendment moved by my noble friend—which later became a reality.
Do not let us spoil this sudden friendship. I did not quite understand the noble Lord to have said just exactly that. However, perhaps that was my lack of recognition of his arguments.
My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter made the point that I have re-emphasised—that this proposal, coming as it does at this time in the Bill, would not be consistent with many of the other proposals for other matters which we have already passed. I do not think that proposition really can be successfully disputed.
The second point that he made is that we were going to impose a three-tier system. And why should we, in this case, impose a three-tier system? Again, that is a very powerful point that is hard to dispute. My noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway and the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, both covered some ground to which I think it would be appropriate for me, as 523 Leader of your Lordships' House, to refer now. Before doing so, I want to show, as I think I can show, why I believe that there are important considerations which your Lordships should consider in coming to your very proper decision in resolving how to act on these particular amendments this afternoon. My remarks concern both of the amendments and the treatment of both.
In winding up the Second Reading debate, I accepted on behalf of the Government the important part that your Lordships' House had to play in the process of getting right the detailed aspects of this much needed change. I said then that my colleagues and I on this Bench were very ready to listen closely to the views of this House on such matters, although I also said—and I think many noble Lords would accept this as unarguable—that the Government must stand on matters of principle on a Bill to which they were so clearly committed. That was exactly three months ago. Since then, your Lordships have subjected the Bill to as thorough a scrutiny as any Bill has received in this House for many years.
This is the nineteenth day on which the Bill has been before your Lordships. I hope that your Lordships in all parts of the House will agree that, throughout the course of your Lordships' consideration of the Bill, my noble friends and I have honoured my undertaking that we would listen to the views of this House. Indeed, I have been very pleased to hear the many tributes paid to the patient and understanding way in which my noble friend Lord Elton has handled the Bill.
During the hard-fought proceedings on this Bill, the Government suffered four defeats. Your Lordships will have noticed that the Government advised another place to accept the decision of this House on two of these, that concerning reports on the countryside and the power to make changes to the Inner London Education Authority by order. I would suggest to your Lordships that the latter was a most important concession to the House.
On the defeat concerning waste disposal, the Government made amendments in another place designed to go some way to meet anxieties expressed in your Lordships' House. From what I read in the Order Paper, this conciliatory move does not appear to have been wholly accepted, but I must stress, and stress again, that it was made in good faith. Only on this one amendment which we are now discussing did the Government seek and obtain powerful support in another place for standing on their original position—certainly, as a matter of principle to this Bill.
No fair-minded person could even pretend to regard such an attitude as that of a dictatorial Government with a large majority in another place riding roughshod over your Lordships' House. On the contrary, it represents a co-operative and understanding approach, not always, or even often, followed by Governments in the past on highly controversial measures. But, my Lords, that is not all. I would remind the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, that a large number of amendments were made to the Bill in this House, a good number of them introduced by the Government to meet points made by noble Lords. As the noble Lord says that he was here all the time, no 524 doubt he observed that some of these amendments, indeed a very large number of them, were made during the passage of the Bill. 4.15 p.m.
Among the principal of these was provision for a joint committee of representatives from the London boroughs to consider matters of common interest as regards planning and development in Greater London. Provisions were also included to smooth the transition to the new arrangements for trading standards, with a reserve power to establish joint authorities if necessary. The co-ordinating committees and residuary bodies are to have a role in safeguarding valuable expertise and specialist teams—a matter very properly referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, on this amendment.
On the position of charitable organisations, I believe your Lordships welcome the steps to extend the transitional aid for them, to endow a trust, and to augment the duties on those making collective schemes so that they must have regard to the needs of the whole area and keep the arrangements under review. These are all matters on which we have listened, and indeed acted. In our response, the Government have surely demonstrated that we have fully respected the traditional role of this House as a revising chamber.
In addition, on the two disagreements before us today, this House has given another place the opportunity to think again, a further important part of its traditional role. On this amendment that other place has reinforced its original position, I repeat on a matter of firm principle in the Bill. On the next one, concerning waste disposal, it has made a change in an effort to meet your Lordships' anxieties.
It is no part of my case to suggest for one moment that those of your Lordships who still feel strongly opposed to these amendments would be acting in any way unconstitutionally or even against the precedents if they decided to press their objections. I am sometimes not so unwise as I seem. On this occasion, I have not neglected a study of exchanges and votes in the past with Governments and Oppositions of all parties.
But, my Lords, I do feel that the results of the Government's constructive attitude which I have outlined entitles me to ask your Lordships at this stage to recognise what this House has already achieved and so not to press any objections further. For these reasons, therefore, and because, as my noble friend Lord Brabazon so fully explained, the Motion proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, is wholly inapproprate to the scheme of the Bill, I ask your Lordships to reject it.
My Lords, it is a long time since the noble Viscount and I wound up the debate on the Second Reading of this Bill. It seems even longer, as those who have taken an active part in the Committee and Report stages would agree. It was clear on Second Reading that there were profound disagreements about practical aspects of the Bill. These were shared by noble Lords in all parts of the House. We all recall that these doubts came to the surface time and time again as the Bill progressed, and some sensible and necessary changes were made by 525 this House. Personally, I should like to have seen more changes. But we can be satisfied that we carried out our function as a revising chamber. I shall return to this in a moment. I believe I can say, however, that the noble Viscount the Leader of the House shares this view; namely, that this House did no more than its duty during the Committee and Report stages of the Bill.
We are grateful to the noble Viscount for explaining the Government's reaction to the four major amendments carried by this House. There were, of course, other substantial concessions which the Government made in the course of the debates and the noble Viscount has referred to them—for example, planning, housing, trading standards, civil defence, the arts, voluntary grants and so on. I think that, in all, some 90 amendments to the Bill were made in this Chamber. That is a remarkable tribute to those who took part in the debates from all sides of the House.
However, we are now concerned with the four major changes. Here again, I welcome the fact that, as indicated by the noble Viscount, the Government have accepted two of them; namely, those on education and conservation. However, the Government have reversed the decisions of this House on highways and on waste disposal.
At this stage there are two points to be considered and they are of great importance. First, on the merits of the argument, are the Government justified in resisting the two changes in question, and, secondly, would this House be justified in insisting that the Government should think again about the two issues? The noble Viscount touched on the two points, but I want to deal with them in a rather different way.
My noble friend Lord Carmichael has made a powerful case for adhering to the decision of this House on highway and traffic functions. I believe that the Government have been in a muddle on this matter since the start. What my noble friend now proposes in his new amendment is far closer to the Government's own manifesto. In fact, these amendments maintain the local democratic control of roads and traffic. They have very real advantages over the Government's own proposals. Furthermore, as my noble friend has said, his amendment very effectively met the criticism about the distinction between the highways and traffic amendment for the GLC and the MCCs.
The message from the other place, that the amendment is inconsistent with the principle of the Bill—and this has been repeated again today by more than one speaker on the other side—really does not hold water. Joint boards are one of the central ingredients of the Bill. They are extolled and defended by Mr. Nicholas Ridley, and the noble Viscount himself said in Committee that the establishment of strategic highway authorities is not a fundamental change in the Bill. I think that the case is unanswerable and, despite his undoubted skill, the noble Viscount has not been able to answer it. The noble Viscount has great qualities which we all admire, but he is not "the simple soul" that he described himself to be. In these circumstances, therefore, it would be against the public interest if we were to concede the case to the Government, and that public interest has been fully described in the report of the Select Committee of this House.
526 My second point—and the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, referred to this in his speech—is that we are told that we shall be resisting the will of the Commons. I am very sensitive to this point. The Commons is the elected Chamber and it is the primary Chamber, and we must not forget that. On the other hand, the Parliament Acts ensure that, with their majority in the Commons, the Government can prevail in the end. We are asking the Government to pause and to think again in the light of the argument and the new amendment moved by my noble friend.
The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, supported this view on more than one occasion, and he had the total backing of noble Lords opposite. He said: In our system we have hitherto taken the view that the will of the elected House must in the end prevail, but that there should be a second House which has the opportunity—in rare cases, perhaps—to enforce a delay in which there can be a reassessment by Government, by Parties and by the people of this country of the rights or wrongs of an issue. If now we decide to use that very limited power, we are not thwarting the will of the people for, in so far as it is represented by the House of Commons, it will and must prevail in a comparatively short space of time".—[Official Report, 11/11/75; col. 1742.] Indeed, it is because during the last few years this House has carried out those very duties in that spirit it is more respected in the country than it has been for many decades past. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and also with the noble Viscount himself when he said on 6th November last that he believed that this House has the duty to make the Government think again. If the Government wish to curtail the powers of this House still further and to amend the Parliament Acts accordingly, that must be a matter for them to decide. However, under the Constitution as it stands, I believe that we also have the duty and right to urge the Government to think again.
Finally, let me say this. We do not like this Bill. We do not like the way in which the Government have handled this Bill from the start. Nevertheless, we recognise that it will be on the statute book very soon. We also strongly believe that these and the following amendments would improve the Bill significantly in the interests of the people of this country, and we therefore ask the House to support them in the Lobby.
§ On Question, That this House do not insist on Amendment No. 4, to which the Commons have disagreed, but propose Amendment No. 4B in lieu thereof.
§ Their Lordships divided: Contents, 153; Not-Contents, 217.
Ardwick, L. Boston of Faversham, L.
Beaumont of Whitley, L. Caradon, L.
Bernstein, L. Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.
Birk, B. Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.
Crawshaw of Aintree, L. Milford, L.
Darcy (de Knayth), B. Milner of Leeds, L.
Darling of Hillsborough, L. Mishcon, L.
Davies of Penrhys, L. Monson, L.
Dean of Beswick, L. Morris of Kenwood, L.
Denington, B. Morton of Shuna, L.
Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L. Mulley, L.
Elwyn-Jones, L. Murray of Epping Forest, L.
Fisher of Rednal, B. Plant, L.
Galpern, L. Ritchie of Dundee, L.
Gladwyn, L. Robson of Kiddington, B.
Gormley, L. Ross of Marnock, L.
Graham of Edmonton, L. Russell of Liverpool, L.
Harris of Greenwich, L. Sefton of Garston, L.
Henderson of Brompton, L. Shackleton, L.
Houghton of Sowerby, L. Silkin of Dulwich, L.
Howie of Troon, L. Simon, V.
Irving of Dartford, L. Stedman, B.
Jacobson, L. Stewart of Fulham, L.
Jenkins of Putney, L. Stone, L.
Kinloss, Ly. Taylor of Blackburn, L.
Kirkwood, L. Taylor of Mansfield, L.
Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B. White, B.
Lloyd of Hampstead, L. Williams of Elvel, L.
Longford, E. Wilson of Rievaulx, L.
McIntosh of Haringey, L. Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.
Mais, L. Wootton of Abinger, B.
Airey of Abingdon, B. Beloff, L.
Alexander of Tunis, E. Belstead, L.
Arran, E. Brabazon of Tara, L.
Balfour of Inchrye, L. Bridgeman, V.
Belhaven and Stenton, L. Brougham and Vaux, L.
Bruce-Gardyne, L. Home of the Hirsel, L.
Buccleuch and Queensberry, D. Hood, V.
Caithness, E. Kaberry of Adel, L.
Cameron of Lochbroom, L. Killearn, L.
Campbell of Alloway, L. Kilmany, L.
Campbell of Croy, L. Kimball, L.
Carnegy of Lour, B. Kinnaird, L.
Constantine of Stanmore, L. Long, V.
Cowley, E. Lucas of Chilworth, L.
Craigmyle, L. Mackintosh of Halifax, V.
Craigton, L. Macleod of Borve, B.
Cranbrook, E. Macpherson of Drumochter, L.
De Freyne, L. Marsh, L.
De La Warr, E. Massereene and Ferrard, V.
Dundee, E. Monk Bretton, L.
Elibank, L. Murton of Lindisfarne, L.
Elliott of Morpeth, L. Nugent of Guildford, L.
Elphinstone, L. O'Brien of Lothbury, L.
Fanshawe of Richmond, L. Peel, E.
Fisher, L. Peyton of Yeovil, L.
Fraser of Kilmorack, L. Radnor, E.
Gray of Contin, L. Rotherwick, L.
Greenway, L. Ryder of Warsaw, B.
Grimthorpe, L. St. Aldwyn, E.
Haig, E. St. Davids, V.
Hailsham of Saint Salisbury, M.
Marylebone, L. Sanderson of Bowden, L.
Harvey of Tasburgh, L. Sempill, Ly.
Stanley of Alderley, L. Trenchard, V.
Stodart of Leaston, L. Trumpington, B.
Sudeley, L. Vaux of Harrowden, L.
Swinton, E. [Teller.] Vivian, L.
Thomas of Swynnerton, L. Wigram, L.
Tranmire, L. Young of Graffham, L.
My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 4 to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 21. I hope that this Motion will be agreed to formally.
§ Moved, That this House do not insist on their Amendment No. 4, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 21.

References: § 5

§ 21
 V.

 V.

 V.

 V.

 V.

 V.

 V.

 V.