LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND MISCELLANEOUS FINANCIAL PROVISIONS (SCOTLAND) BILL (Hansard, 23 July 1958)

§ Mr. Ross
There may well be a change of scene, but there is no great change of subject, because we are dealing with the provision of adequate facilities for physical recreation in respect of education for both children and adults in Scotland.
I had more or less covered the points with which I wished to deal before we were interrupted by the trials and tribulations of Manchester, but it is only fair to the Joint Under-Secretary rapidly to repeat them.
It is suggested in paragraph 2 of the new Schedule that the words with the approval of the Secretary of State as they appear in Section 3 of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1946, shall cease to have effect. That Section relates to the duty laid on education authorities to provide for primary, secondary and further education adequate facilities for recreation and social and physical training. I stress that the Section starts with the words: It shall be the duty … so that Parliament has laid a specific duty upon local authorities.
I remind hon. Members that in October, 1956, on exactly this plea of administrative efficiency which is behind this new Schedule, the Government wiped out the responsibility of the Secretary of State to require local authorities to present to him schemes to show that they were carrying out that specific duty which we have laid upon them. I have always considered this aspect of formal education, this provision of playing fields, camps, holiday schools, swimming baths and so on, to be an essential part of a good education. Equally, I am concerned that many local authorities do not think very much of it.
When we objected to what the Government did in 1956, the then Joint Under-Secretary, the hon. Baronet the Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Henderson-Stewart) said that we were worrying unnecessarily and said that the Government thought 542 that this matter was important and that they could put their fingers on the information necessary because when a local authority acted in respect of Section 3 it had to get the approval of the Secretary of State. Earlier, I quoted the words with which we were lulled into thinking that the Government were merely making an administrative change which left them in close contact with local authorities about an important duty which we had laid upon them.
Now that bastion, that link which was thought so important is one which the Government wish to cut. What is the point of laying a duty on local authorities if we cut the threads of contact between the Government and local authorities? Joint Under-Secretaries should be careful of what they say. What they say is apt to be remembered and brought up. If it was important to answer our arguments of two years ago by saying, "We have this", pointing to the words "The Secretary of State shall approve", how will the Government answer us tonight and justify deleting those words which were then said to be so important?
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Fife, East is not here to come to the aid of the Joint Under-Secretary, but we should be told whether the Government believe that these things are an essential part of education.
9.15 p.m.
We are concerned here not with adult education alone but with the provision of adequate facilities for recreation and social and physical training, in respect of primary and secondary education. So long as the Government insist on leaving Section 3 as it is, beginning with the words It shall be the duty how is the Secretary of State going to carry out his function of ensuring that the will of Parliament is met? How will he ensure that this duty is properly fulfilled, if he now makes this second stage of link-cutting by removing the words: with the approval of the Secretary of State"?

§ Mr. Willis (Edinburgh, East)
I beg to second the Amendment to the Lords Amendment.

§ Mr. N. Macpherson
The hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) has expressed some doubts about the wisdom 543 of dispensing with the approval of the Secretary of State, as proposed in paragraph 2. As he has rightly said, the paragraph deals with Section 3 of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1946, which lays a duty upon an education authority to secure that the facilities for primary, secondary and further education provided for their area include adequate facilities for recreation and social and physical training. To enable it to execute that duty the Section gives a power to the education authority to establish, maintain and manage, or assist the establishment, maintenance and management of various recreational and other facilities with the approval of the Secretary of State. It makes the exercise of that power conditional upon obtaining the approval of the Secretary of State to the plans.
In practice, what has been been happening is that for capital projects approval in principle could be sought under this Section, but capital authorisation has had to be given under provisions relating to borrowing if the project was not being provided in connection with the school, or if it was an adjunct of the school, under provisions relating to the approval of schemes for primary and secondary education, under Section 7 of the 1946 Act. There will be no change in the Secretary of State's control in that regard.
In regard to maintenance and management expenses, where the work is done or is assisted by the local education authority that authority submits a yearly estimate of its expenditure under Section 3, and the Secretary of State approves the amount. It has not been considered necessary to submit these estimates in great detail; indeed, I am told that the control has not been very closely exercised and that even where an estimate has been exceeded no action has been taken in general. The working party considered this control, through an educational sub-committee, and recommended that in the circumstances of the general grant the Secretary of State's approval should be dispensed with in this case, and the local authority associations concurred.
The power to establish, maintain and manage, or to assist in the establishment, maintenance and management of various 544 recreational and other facilities is not likely to be exercised to a lesser extent simply because the Secretary of State's approval is no longer necessary. It has always been up to the education authority to put up the proposals. Moreover, the duty to secure that the facilities are adequate remains, and is quite independent of the Secretary of State's approval. This is a sphere in which, as we have discussed previously, it is particularly difficult to prescribe standards—and none has been prescribed. Indeed, there is a very wide variation in the expenditure of different authorities in relation to population.
Nevertheless, if an education authority fails to maintain reasonable standards in carrying out this duty under Section 3 of the 1946 Act, Clause 3 (1) enables the Secretary of State to bring the matter to Parliament and to apply financial sanctions.

§ Mr. Ross
How will the Secretary of State know?

§ Mr. Macpherson
The hon. Member knows very well that the functions of the Inspectorate will cover this point.

§ Mr. Ross
Oh.

§ Mr. Macpherson
There are the eyes and ears of the Secretary of State. He will certainly get to know in that way. There is no doubt that the mere removal of the approval of the Secretary of State to plans will in no way reduce the provision of facilities under Section 3 of the Act.

§ Mr. Woodburn
Is the Joint Under-Secretary explaining that this is a meaningless Amendment and that it makes not the slightest difference? Clearly, if an education authority is to be sure that it gets a grant, it cannot be sure that it is not falling below what the Secretary of State wants. How is it to know whether it is the meeting what the Secretary of State thinks will be an adequate provision? Who tells the authority? Is it the inspector? If so, is not that, in effect, giving the approval of the Secretary of State? How does the local authority know that it will incur financial penalties unless it has some idea of what are the standards of the Secretary of State, and has knowledge that it is living up to them? Otherwise, a local authority may incur this penalty quite inadvertently. There must be some standard 545 below which a local authority must know that it will incur penalties.

§ Mr. Macpherson
With the permission of the House, I will answer that question. We have gone over this ground at length when discussing previous parts of the Bill and it has been said that it is only in the event of a manifest failure that the sanction would be applied. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman has quite understood that the point here is, in the words of Section 3 of the Act, that For that purpose"— that is the execution of the duty— an education authority with the approval of the Secretary of State, may establish, maintain and manage, or assist the establishment, maintenance and management of, these facilities and the way in which this is carried out. So far, the way in which the approval of the Secretary of State has been obtained for the maintenance and management has been through the submission each year of plans, and, in the context of the general grant, it is clear that it is no longer necessary to submit those plans.

§ Mr. Ross
In view of the explanation of the Joint Under-Secretary, and realising full well that the damage is not done by this Amendment, but by the Amendment on which the Government insisted in 1956, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

§ Mr. Ross
I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, to leave out paragraph 5.
I wish to hear from the Joint Under-Secretary a justification for not securing what I think is a collection of quite useful information which could be passed on to this House regarding school exemptions. Section 34 (5) of the 1946 Act, as I recollect it, lays a responsibility on the Secretary of State to call on local authorities to give him a list of exemptions granted annually to children over 14 years of age but who have not yet reached school leaving age. I have always felt this was something upon which the Secretary of State should keep a watchful eye. After all, it is no easy mater to justify giving a child permission to be absent for six months or for even a year, as may well be the case, 546 and I think we require some explanation about why the Secretary of State thought this a power he should forgo.
I do not think it calls for a great deal of clerical work to compile such a return from the local authorities. I can think of other things relating to exemptions where the right hon. Gentleman insists on having power over the local authority, for example, in relation to harvesting potatoes, where he insists on overriding the local authorities. I am sure that the local authorities would rather have freedom in respect of that, and carry on making this return referring to ordinary and normal exemptions. I should be grateful for an explanation.

§ Mr. Lawson
I beg to second the Amendment to the Lords Amendment.

§ Mr. Macpherson
The hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) is quite right in saying that Section 34 of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1946, provides that an education authority may grant exemption in cases of exceptional hardship to children over 14 years of age to give assistance at home. Subsection (5) authorises the Secretary of State to call for a return of children to whom exemption has been granted, and, if he thinks that it should not have been granted, to require the authority to recall the exemption or to improve or to take steps to improve the attendance.
Of course, the Secretary of State has no power to compel an education authority to grant exemption if it does not want to do so.

§ Mr. Ross
In this case?

§ Mr. Macpherson
I am referring to the Section as it is now. That is the reverse of the picture.
The Secretary of State has power to call for the return, and if he thinks the exemption should not have been granted, to require the authority to recall the exemption and to take steps to improve the attendance in the future. The hon. Gentleman seems to fear that if this power were withdrawn, there would be no power to call for the reports. I can assure him that that is not so. The Lords Amendment removes the power of the Secretary of State, where he thinks the grant is unjustified, to require education authorities to recall exemption or to take steps to improve the attendance. But he 547 will still have power to call for reports or returns from them under Section 93 of the 1946 Act.
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Secretary of State will continue to publish statistics of the number of exemptions. I will go further and say that if the exemptions in any area so reported were to show an unusual and a disproportionate increase, no doubt an inquiry would be made. But the actual power to recall a particular exemption is withdrawn under the Amendment.

§ Mr. Hoy
This seems to me just a little unsatisfactory. What the hon. Gentleman has just said is that the Secretary of State may call for a report, but that, even if he gets a report and feels the thing is wrong, there is nothing that he can do in the matter. Even if the position becomes so serious that the Secretary of State sets up an inquiry about it, the Joint Under-Secretary says that there is nothing that his right hon. Friend can do—even if the report bears out the very worst fears.
The Under-Secretary must go a little further than that. Surely, he must be able to tell us that if, on investigation, it is found that this privilege is being abused, the Secretary of State would have some power left to correct it. If not, there does not seem to be very much purpose in having a report and calling for an inquiry. I think that the House would be grateful to the hon. Gentleman if, even at this stage, he could give us some satisfaction that, on the findings of the special report, the Secretary of State would have some power to see that the privilege was not being abused.

§ Mr. Woodburn
Before the hon. Gentleman replies, may I ask him if he would not accept this Amendment? There does not seem to be any point in the Secretary of State giving up this power. He is not bound to use it. He can call upon an education authority for a return of the children to whom exemption has been granted, and he obviously would not use this power unless his inspectors reported that something was amiss. As it is, if his inspectors report that something is amiss, what is the point in not having the power to take some action about it?
548 The power lies completely dormant unless the Secretary of State has some purpose in using it, so it seems quite unnecessary to leave out this power. It is purely optional, and at the discretion of the Secretary of State. As far as my experience goes, the Secretary of State does not go about looking for trouble. It will be because some trouble exists that he will intervene in such cases. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman should accept the Amendment, and leave the power in the Bill.

§ Mr. N. Macpherson
By leave of the House, may I say that I think that hon. Members will recognise that the local authorities have exercised this power with great circumspection, and are to be relied upon. As hon. Gentlemen will see from the Annual Report, the number of exemptions is fairly small—only about 500 a year—and four-fifths of that number relates to girls in the special circumstances of looking after special cases at home. We think that this power should not be retained, because we believe that we can trust the education authorities to perform this function properly—and that they have shown that we can trust them to do so.
The Secretary of State can always inquire through his inspectors, and he can exercise powers of persuasion through his inspectors, but the real sanction here lies in public opinion; in the fact that Questions can be asked in the House. We do not believe for one instant that there is any point in retaining this power, for which it is quite clear there has been no use in the past, and for which we do not believe there will be any use in the future.

§ Mr. T. Fraser
It seems quite ridiculous that the Under-Secretary should insist upon the Secretary of State being denied this power, which he possesses under Section 34 (5) of the 1946 Act, and, instead, to rely on the pressure of public opinion and on hon. Members raising these matters by Question in this House. That is really ridiculous.
Has the hon. Gentleman no power to make a concession? We are discussing this for the first time in the Bill which has come back from another place. It has nothing to do with giving the local authorities more freedom, or reducing the amount of paper work between local authorities and the central Government. The hon. Gentleman has said that one of 549 the reasons for this Amendment, part of which my hon. Friend seeks to delete, is that the power has not been exercised by the Secretary of State. Therefore, there has been no paper work passing between the local authorities and the central Government at all. The hon. Gentleman has told my hon. Friend that though the Secretary of State will not have the right to call for a return, he can call for public inquiries, and do this, that and the other things. He has got this ultimate sanction of penalising—

§ Mr. N. Macpherson
I did not say that he could call for public inquiries. I said that he can inquire.

§ Mr. Fraser
How does he inquire?

§ Mr. Macpherson
By asking the inspectors.

§ Mr. Fraser
The Secretary of State cannot insist upon getting a return because he is giving up the powers for calling for a return.

§ Mr. Macpherson
He has powers under Section 93 of the Act to call for returns. The only question is whether he should retain the power in the case of a particular exemption to say to a local authority "No, you may not exempt that person" or "You must send that person back."

§ Mr. Fraser
The Under-Secretary surely said that the Secretary of State can, if he is so satisfied, take steps to inquire. I said "By a local public inquiry?" and he said "No, he can ask the inspectors." But it is only because he has got that knowledge that he would begin to inquire. So he would ask the inspector to inquire—about what? He already has the knowledge.

§ Mr. Macpherson
I said that if there was a disproportionate number of exemptions in a particular area the Secretary of State would inquire into the reasons why.

§ Mr. Fraser
If he inquires through his inspectors and finds that there is a scandalous number of exemptions in an area, what does he then do? Does he then invite hon. Members to put down Questions in the House to call attention to the matter? That was the remedy suggested, that public opinion should be free to play by having matters raised in the House. The Secretary of State, having 550 ascertained that there has been a scandalous number of exemptions in an area which are not justified having regard to the provisions of the 1945 Act as consolidated in 1946, then does nothing about it—except that the Under-Secretary will encourage back benchers to put down Questions in the House so that the matter can be aired and public opinion may be allowed to play.
Surely the two Joint Under-Secretaries must have some power to make a concession to the House. The House of Commons has been treated pretty shabbily over this Bill. We are here considering Amendments from another place, Amendments which were not considered and not discussed in another place. This Amendment was not discussed in another place. This proposed Schedule is being discussed for the first time. This discussion has gone on for some time and the whole weight of argument is in favour of leaving Section 34 of the 1946 Act alone. Will not the Under-Secretary make one small concession to the arguments advanced in the House of Commons and accept the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock? If he does not do that, surely we have been reduced to government by decree. We are not legislating in a manner that is expected of a Parliamentary democracy.
Here we have this Lords Amendment which has not been discussed elsewhere, and the Under-Secretary is resisting for hopelessly inadequate reasons an Amendment moved from this side of the House. It has nothing to do with the amount of paper work flowing between local authorities and St. Andrew's House. I beg the hon. Gentleman to make this small concession to the arguments advanced in the House of Commons.

§ Mr. Rankin
Surely the Under-Secretary will agree that Parliament has laid an obligation on the citizen to see that his child is educated, and the Secretary of State is the instrument of that authority in Scotland. The duty devolves upon him to ensure that every child receives an education up to a certain defined age. The State provides the means for doing that.
Would not the Under-Secretary agree that here he is introducing an element of contradiction in the function of the Secretary of State, because while he has the 551 authority and the power to see that the child is educated, he is giving to another body the power to allow that child to be exempted from school attendance? Does not it seem a contradiction that while he keeps the power for ensuring attendance, he resigns the power of allowing exemption? Apparently he cannot exercise both powers as he ought to do, especially now when there is great pressure on schools to release children in view of the very high wages which can be paid to children.
An employer of labour who has a job available is known in many cases—indeed, I have known cases myself—to call on a headmaster and say that he has a job available for a suitable pupil. Very often the job is available before the pupil can leave, in which case the job cannot be accepted, though sometimes it is kept open. But this is where the pressure comes in to try to have that child away from school two or three months earlier than it would normally leave in order that a job may be taken. It is quite possible that that kind of pressure will now increase, and many good reasons could be advanced to secure the exemption of a child. Although there might seem to be an immediate advantage, in my view, such a step would be detrimental to the child's future.
While all our thoughts are concentrated upon prolonging the period at school, we are here introducing a method whereby, in particular cases, the period at school may be reduced, without the Secretary of State, who is responsible for securing education, having any say in the matter apart from an inquiry, so the Joint Under-Secretary of State told us, if there is widespread abuse in certain areas. This attitude is completely wrong.
The Under-Secretary of State must realise that, if we had had the opportunity of discussing this matter in Committee, there would have been a very strong debate. It would not have gone through as it is going through tonight because we are circumscribed by the procedure which the Secretary of State himself has adopted. We are not asking for very much. The Secretary of State is merely being asked to keep his existing power, in the interests of the long-term welfare of the pupils. That is not a great concession to ask for.
552 9.45 p.m.
These Amendments have come from another place which itself can have no future in the legislative set-up of this country. This is a reactionary move, coming from another place the future of which many of us in this Chamber, on both sides, believe ought to receive some attention from the country and from this House. I hope that the Joint Under-Secretary will pay close attention to the strong plea which has been put to him that the Secretary of State shall not resign the power which he presently has.

§ Mr. N. Macpherson
May I say another word or two, because I feel that the Opposition are pressing the Amendment on the basis of some misunderstanding? Perhaps I should have made clear beforehand—I thought it was fairly obvious—that the returns which are put in are annual returns. The exemptions which are granted are granted only up to the beginning of the next term, and no longer. The power which is being dispensed with, as I understand it, is merely the power in individual cases, to require the education authority to recall such exemptions.
It must surely follow that there is quite good reason, at any rate, why this power has not been used so far. It has been impracticable. In the second place, there has been no need to use it. Experience has shown that it has been unnecessary. There is a duty on the education authority to secure the attendance of the child, a duty which the authority itself can enforce by court action. It is up to the authority, under Section 34, to grant exemption. Section 34 (1) provides: When after due inquiry an education authority are satisfied that by reason of any circumstances existing at home it would cause exceptional hardship to require a child over fourteen years of age to attend school, they may grant exemption"— it is permissive— from the obligation to attend school to enable the said child to give assistance at home upon such conditions, if any, as to the amount and manner of further attendance at school until the child reaches the upper limit of the school age as the authority think fit. There are then further safeguards.
I really do not think that it is necessary to maintain this control. If there should be widespread abuse by any particular authority, there are general powers of enforcement under Section 66 553 of the Act. The Secretary of State has, ultimately, adequate powers in the case of widespread abuse. What he obviously cannot do is to call for the withdrawal of a particular exemption. It has not worked in that way. The local authorities have shown that they have been completely responsible in the way they have exercised this power.
We have had over ten years' experience of the exercise of the power. It has been shown that the power is not necessary, and I do not feel that the House would be wise to insist upon the Secretary of State retaining the power in face of the recommendation of the education subcommittee of the Working Party, representing both education authorities and the official side, and the concurrence of the education authorities themselves.

§ Mr. Rankin
Would the hon. Gentleman say what he means by "assistance"? Does the word mean assistance in looking after the home, or can it also mean assistance to the home by supplementing the wages earned in the home?

§ Mr. Macpherson
The hon. Gentleman is asking for a legal interpretation of a particular word. I can only give him my experience of practical application. From my experience, it is not interpreted as financial assistance. It means practical assistance where there is illness or something of that kind in the home.

§ Mr. Ross
I should like to ask one direct question. The hon. Gentleman said that the Secretary of State had power under Section 93, which reads: Every education authority shall make such reports and returns and give such information to the Secretary of State as he may from time to time require. Is it the right hon. Gentleman's intention to ask education authorities to make a return of exemptions annually?

§ Mr. Macpherson
Yes. I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance.

§ Mr. Ross
On the assurance that we have been given, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

§ Mr. Willis
I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, to leave out paragraph 14.
I think that it would be for the convenience of the House if we discussed with 554 this Amendment the Amendments to leave out paragraphs 15 and 16. The principle is the same.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker
Yes.

§ Mr. Willis
The Lords Amendment abolishes the statutory obligation of local authorities to appoint certain committees. We should like to have some information on the reasons that have led the Lords to make this suggestion. This obligation was, of course, laid down in the 1947 Act. It seemed to be a good thing at that time to make it obligatory for local authorities to appoint certain committees, and on the face of it it certainly would not look as though there were any less necessity for doing this eleven years later. I should have thought that this was particularly true with regard to roads. The work of local authorities in connection with roads has increased enormously since 1947. If there was reason for a local authority to appoint a committee in 1947, I should have thought that it was even more clearly a necessity at present.
I do not know what representations have been made about this matter. Are there any local authorities who do not wish to appoint committees? I see that the reason given in the White Paper for this innovation is that it will enable a local authority to combine the functions of two existing committees in one committee. I hardly think that that is a good argument in view of the increased amount of work that is being put on local authorities, particularly in connection with roads. Neither could I see when I looked at the list of matters with which it was proposed to deal, namely, allotments, health, planning, police, roads and welfare, how a committee dealing with roads could easily be combined with one of these other committees, because the functions did not seem to go together.
The other reason given in the White Paper for these changes is that it might be advantageous to leave the administration of some of the functions performed by these committees with the local authority. But if the work is increased, I should have thought that that argument was less tenable than the other. If there was a case for a committee before with an increase in work surely there is more of a case now for leaving the matter to the local authority.
These changes might be good, but we do not know much about them. We have 555 not been told anything. What are the experiences of local authorities? Which of them are having difficulties about this? What are the difficulties that the local authorities are meeting? Are these services made difficult to administer by being compelled to appoint these committees? That surely cannot be the case. There must be other reasons which have led the Government to put forward these proposals in the Lords Amendments, and we should like to know some of them before we accept the provisions contained in the new Schedule.

§ Mr. McInnes
I beg to second the Amendment to the Lords Amendment.

§ Mr. Speaker
I would suggest that if any other hon. Member wishes to speak in favour of the Amendment it would be tidier from the point of view of the House if he spoke now and let the Joint Under-Secretary reply at the end.

§ Mr. Ross
We can speak only once.

§ Mr. Macpherson
I agree with much of what the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) has said. He began, however, by saying—I think by a slip of the tongue—that the Lords Amendment would abolish the committees. Clearly, that was not what the hon. Member meant to say.

§ Mr. Willis
I meant the abolition of the statutory obligation to appoint the committees.

§ Mr. Macpherson
That is what the Lords Amendment would do. The Lords Amendment removes the mandatory requirement that county councils must have separate committees for the purposes of their roads functions, their police functions, their health functions, and so on. This is the logical application of the Bill. We are making available in the form of general grant a sum of money to the local authorities to spend and administer in their own way. The general case for dispensing with this requirement is that, in the Government's view, if local authorities can be trusted to spend the general grant amounting to millions of pounds a year they may also be trusted to make their own arrangements for the discharge of particular functions.

§ Mr. Ross
Surely the hon. Gentleman realises that the police are quite outwith the general grant. The local authorities are not to be trusted in relation to that; it is still to be a specific grant. The hon. Gentleman's argument, therefore, is not related to the point.

§ Mr. Macpherson
It is related, because local authorities are still free to spend these millions of pounds. Therefore, they can be trusted to run their affairs in the most efficient way.
If this requirement is removed, as the Lords Amendment provides, it will be open to a local authority, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East said, to decide on one of three courses. First, it can retain existing separate committees, and in many cases local authorities will no doubt do so. Secondly, it can refer more than one service to a combined committee. The hon. Member asked how the functions could be combined. The answer is that that is a matter for the local authority to decide if it considers it appropriate to do so. The third way in which local authorities can proceed is by keeping the administration in the hands of the full council. But whatever choice a local authority makes, the matter is one for local decision. It may well be that the present committees will continue.
This is a logical consequence of the whole principle of the Bill. The Lords Amendment should therefore be adopted. This is a matter which can safely be left in the hands of the local authority.

§ Mr. Speaker
I ought to say that I have received notice of a manuscript Amendment from the Secretary of State for Scotland which seems to affect paragraph 17. Perhaps I had better read it before we embark on the discussion, as the two Amendments may go together. The Amendment proposed is: Paragraph 17, line 20, at end insert: or of the town council or a county of a city. I think the proper course would be for the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) to move his Amendment and the Question will then be put in a way that will save this Amendment if the House agrees to it, and we can consider the two together.

§ Mr. McInnes
Do I understand you, Mr. Speaker, to have read the words of the Manuscript Amendment as … the town council or a county of a city."?

§ Mr. Speaker
I think that it refers to a county council in the original. Perhaps I had better read the Manuscript Amendment again. It is: Paragraph 20, at end, insert: or of a town council of a county or a city.

§ Mr. N. Macpherson
I think that it reads in that copy, or of a town council of a county of a city.

§ Mr. Speaker
I will put it in that way. The manuscript Amendment is: Or of a town council of a county of a city.

§ Mr. Ross
If I were permitted to word the manuscript Amendment, I could make it a great deal simpler. All that is required is the deletion of one word, that is "a county."

§ Mr. Speaker
We had better hear the discussion on the matter.

§ Mr. Ross
I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, to leave out paragraph 17.
I do not know the origin of the manuscript Amendment, but I have a fair idea. In future, I shall be more careful as to with whom I discuss my Amendments or in whose hearing. We are dealing with Section 114 of the original Measure, the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1947, which dealt with the constitution of sub-committees of committees which were functioning under administrative schemes. They were ordinary sub-committees of a committee which were allowed to have in their constitution up to one-third non-elected members, but an exception was made in the case of a sub-committee of an Education Committee which was allowed to have up to one-half of its members non-elected. Now we are being offered an Amendment which wipes out that part of Section 114 which relates to the constitution of a sub-committee appointed by a committee which exercises these functions of a county or a town council. The important point on which the draftsmen or whoever instructed them slipped up is that this leaves out that part of the Section 558 relating to the constitution of a subcommittee of an Education Committee.
Only certain authorities in Scotland have education committees, and those are the county councils and the town councils of the cities, but if we are to apply the changes made in the Amendment to these we shall discover that they wipe out about seven lines of the original Section and make it read: Save as otherwise provided in this Part of this Act. … And then the next seven lines are wiped out and the next four lines are shifted down below the remaining part of the Section with the exception of one word, making it read: Save as otherwise provided in this Part of this Act, a sub-committee appointed by a committee of the council … That has worked satisfactorily, but we are now told "of a county council". I want to know what will happen to the cities because they are not county councils. I think they are town councils. If this is a real difficulty, I suggest we revert to the original words and instead of saying "county councils and the town council of a county of a city" we should delete the first "county".

§ Mr. McInnes
Is my hon. Friend of the same mind as myself, namely, that Mr. Speaker has accepted a manuscript Amendment to that effect?

§ Mr. Ross
I think Mr. Speaker was in the same difficulty as the rest of us in not understanding what really is the manuscript Amendment of the Government. I suggest that all we have to do is to remove the word "county" from the Amendment coming from another place.
I want to know exactly why this considerable change has been suggested. What is the implication of it? Is this some move made by St. Andrew's House going to war with the City of Edinburgh? I believe that the City of Edinburgh's Education Committee has co-opted representatives from the university, from the Established Church of Scotland, from the Episcopal Church, from the Roman Catholic Church. If this Amendment passes, as it might have passed, but for the unfortunate conversation I had last night, it will mean that there might be some doubt as to whether the cities would be given the same freedom to appoint non-elected members as the county councils.
559 I would like to have an assurance from the Joint Under-Secretary that no such strange scheme has entered the mind of the Secretary of State for Scotland and that some mistake has been made which will be put right. I am sorry that the Lord Advocate is not here because he could put us right. Indeed, I am sure that all this trouble has started because the Lord Advocate has not been in his place. This would not have happened if we had been getting proper legal advice. I hope we shall get an explanation of why this has been found necessary and why we are getting into this complication because of the great carelessness in relation to the legislation for the subcommittees of the education committees of Scotland.

§ Mr. McInnes
I beg to second the Amendment to the Lords Amendment.

§ Mr. N. Macpherson
We are grateful for the conversation of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) and for his speech. I noted that, in effect, he made the same speech as he intended to make anyway, but I will proceed to answer it in the spirit in which the hon. Gentleman made it.
This is a complicated matter and I ask the indulgence of the House because it is rather technical. Section 114 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1947 contains provisions for the membership of sub-committees appointed by committees whose functions are the subject of administrative schemes. Now the education administrative scheme is the only one which will remain mandatory in future. The education committee will remain mandatory, so will the finance and children committees but, as things are, already they are not subject to administrative schemes.
Paragraph 17 of the Schedule simply provides that these provisions would in future apply only to education, and it rewrites and replaces subsection (1) of Section 114 in very much simpler terms. With the abolition in paragraphs 12 and 24 of the mandatory requirements as it applies to the other committees which are subject to administrative schemes, that is to say, roads, health and valuation committees, the provisions of Section 114 will in future be reguired only for education, and that is why this Amendment 560 has been put down, in order to make a simplification.
Considerable doubt has been expressed on whether the term "county councils" can be held to cover the counties of cities and we have put down a Manuscript Amendment to remove any possible doubt and to put the matter right.

§ Mr. McInnes
On a point of order. I am not conscious that Mr. Speaker indicated his intention to accept a Manuscript Amendment. If he did, I apologise for not having heard him say so.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles Mac-Andrew)
I understood from Mr. Speaker that he has accepted that Amendment.

§ Mr. Willis
On a point of order. Before your arrival in the Chair, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, it was pointed out that my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) proposed a Manuscript Amendment to the same effect as that of the Government, but in much better terms. Mr. Speaker then said, "We will see about that when we get to it." I think that those were his exact words. We do not now know where we are.

§ Mr. Woodburn
Further to that point of order. Is it not normally the case that an Amendment is discussed before we move to the Motion, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill"? Would it not have been better, as is done in meetings outside, for the Amendment to be cleared out of the way and for the Clause as amended, or not amended, then to be discussed on its merits?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker
Of course, we do not have a Motion, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill" on the Lords Amendments and I put the Question, "That paragraph 17 stand part to the end of line 20," so that the Government Manuscript Amendment could be included. I have had no instructions about the other manuscript Amendment, and therefore I cannot accept it.

§ Mr. N. Macpherson
I beg to move as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, in paragraph 17, line 6, at end insert: or of the town council of a county of a city.

§ Mr. Ross
I want to know whether this is quite necessary. The original wording of Section 114 has had the words the county council or town council deleted and the part relating to a subcommittee said: Provided that—a sub-committee of the education committee of a council … Why do we need to put in all these words when all we needed to do was to remove the word "county", which should not have been there in the first place? If there is a ham-handed way of doing things, the Scottish Office will find it.
We have to accept this Amendment because no other Amendment will be accepted, and on that issue we have had a Ruling from the Chair. However, to safeguard the cities of Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen and Dundee and to enable them to ensure that their non-elected members will be legally entitled to sit on the education sub-committees, we have to accept the Government's Amendment. What an Amendment! What a performance!

§ Mr. N. Macpherson
By leave of the House; one has to accept the views of the draftsmen on this matter. If the hon. Member for Kilmarnock will refer to Section 108, he will see that it deals specifically with education committees and begins with the words: Every county council and the town council of every county of a city … The present drafting of Section 114 refers to town councils besides town councils of a county of a city, but in future it will not do so. When it comes to the mere reference to a council, that is a reference to what has gone before. The hon. Member will find that the draftsmen are right in this case.

§ Mr. McInnes
I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment as amended, to leave out paragraph 18.
This paragraph provides for the addition of a new subsection to Section 115 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1947. The effect of that new subsection is to repeal the statutory obligation upon local authorites to appoint committees to deal with functions under the Allotments (Scotland) Act, 1922; the National Health Service (Scotland) Act, 1947; the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act, 562 1947, and the National Assistance Act, 1948. It leaves local authorities free to determine for themselves whether they continue such a committee, combine the committees or leave the administration of the committees entirely in the hands of the full council, without the necessity of appointing any committee to carry out any of the functions under the four Acts which I have mentioned.
The proposed new subsection goes a stage further and deals with a matter which I regard as vital, namely, the question of the membership of these committees. The law at present provides that the allotments and welfare committees are mandatory and the health and planning committees are permissive. By introducing the proposed new subsection local authorities will be allowed to co-opt on to these four committees, to an extent not exceeding one-third of their memberships, persons who are not elected members of the council and who are qualified simply by reason of their special knowledge and experience.
I know that the principle of co-option is not commencing with this Bill: I realise that it probably commenced in 1929, or even further back. But what I am alarmed at is the continued extension of the principle of co-option. That principle seems to be influenced by the desire to secure the expert advice and service of individuals who are qualified by reason of their ability or experience or their expert knowledge of a subject, such as education, allotments, health or National Assistance. We are told that this co-option is necessary because the democratic process by which councillors are elected has failed to produce the proper material which is necessary for the wise, efficient and effective administration of a local authority.
I have never accepted that point of view. I do not believe that co-option always results in securing the expert. I have already indicated that there is a growing tendency to co-opt people who are regarded as experts, but my experience is that they are co-opted not because they are experts, or have a specialised knowledge of a certain subject, or have an economic or even a spiritual interest in certain aspects of local government, but very often as a consoliation prize for having been defeated in an election a year or so before. That has frequently happened in Scotland.
563 I need hardly remind this House, and certainly not the Under-Secretary of State, of the serious consequences that occasionally arise as a result of co-option. There are dangers about co-option when it comes to a local authority with a narrow political majority. In Glasgow we had the experience of the co-option of one individual resulting in his vote determining whom should be the Lord Provost against the will of the majority party of the council. That individual was actually flown home from Paris to be present at the council meeting to vote for the person who was elected Lord Provost.
I feel that there are dangers about this question of co-option which will become even greater the more we extend the practice. I regard co-option as a sort of back-door method of getting into local government. Co-opted members have no financial responsibilities to the electorate. They have little or no responsibility of any kind to the electorate, because the electorate are not able to make overtures to them regarding social problems.
I regard local government as an essential part of the framework of our democracy. If there are experts who are able to offer something to the community, I suggest that they should display their civic pride and stand for election so as to give the community the benefit of their expert knowledge. I am content, indeed I am convinced, that local authorities, through their own officials, have all the expert knowledge and experience necessary to guide them. People who are alleged to possess all the wisdom and experience, and who desire to accept public responsibility, should do so in the correct way by going through the gateway of democratic election. I am vigorously opposed to the proposals in the Lords Amendment.
In the case of town and country planning committees, while I recognise that co-option is permissible to the extent of one-quarter of the membership, under the Lords Amendment that would be extended to one-third of the membership. Other committees which local authorities are obliged under Statute to appoint and on which there was no co-option are now included, and so we have the situation that co-option is being extended still further. In a previous Amendment co-option on the education committee of a county council is extended considerably.
564 I regard it as an alarming position that 50 per cent. of the members are co-opted.
I wish to hear the real reason behind this Amendment. Who drafted it? I cannot pay tribute to those in another place for being capable of thinking out Amendments of this kind for themselves. I feel sure that the suggestion to extend the principle of co-option emanated from another source altogether, and I hope that the Joint Under-Secretary will enlighten us.

§ Mr. Ross
This is a serious matter. I do not wholly agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes) on the question of co-option. On many sub-committees it has been possible to co-opt people with a specialised interest and they have done good work. But I can appreciate his feelings when a co-opted member, or an ex-officio member of the council, who did not stand for election, was able to sway the destinies of the City of Glasgow and decide who was to be its chief citizen.
There is no doubt that in some areas there is difficulty about obtaining the services of the right people. There are many people who would be prepared to serve upon a specific committee but who have not the time to serve as full-time members of a local authority. It is a question of whether one-third or, in the case of an education committee, one-half is the right number. It is up to a local authority to decide and that is something which makes me inclined to leave it in that way.
I am not entirely convinced of what is happening here. We are now drawing up rules in relation to committees, and, if I may say so, we have never had that before. Some people may say that there is no change—that it is still one-third—but that is not so. For certain committees, one-third can now be non-elected members.
10.30 p.m.
By accepting an Amendment to Clause 114 we wiped out altogether the subcommittees, which, with all due respect to them, are much smaller things. The possibility of sub-committees with one-third of non-members being created by committees exercising their functions under administrative schemes is all wiped out. The only one left is the education sub-committee. That is left more or less as it was.
When we come to Clause 115, I would point out that we are laying down a constitution in relation to committees and 565 sub-committees, and here we are asked to pass a new subsection that limits co-option to committees—and to particular committees. That is how I read it, but I may be wrong. If so, I shall be very glad to have my fears allayed.
The proposed wording is: Section one hundred and fifteen of the Act of 1947 (which relates to the appointment of committees and sub-committees of county councils, town councils of burghs and district councils) shall have effect with the addition of the following subsection, that is to say— '(3) Any committee appointed by a local authority under subsection (1) of this section for the purposes of the authority's functions under the Allotments (Scotland) Act, 1922, the National Health Service (Scotland) Act, 1947, the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act, 1947, or the National Assistance Act, 1948, may to an extent not exceeding one third of its membership consist of persons, not being members of the local authority, who have special knowledge or experience… As far as I can judge from that, the only co-option, apart from that to the education sub-committees, will be to these committees and not to any others. Indeed, would question if these committees themselves will have sub-committees apart from the committee, because it says that the sub-committee of any committee appointed by the local authority cannot contain any non-elected member. Are my fears right? As I have said, we deleted from Clause 114 the part that related to the appointment of sub-committees, and we are here putting in something that relates only to committees, and only to committees in respect of allotments, National Health, town and country planning and National Assistance, and there is nothing said about sub-committees.
It is no good telling me that a sub-committee is part of a committee, because we go out of the way, first of all, to give powers to a local authority to appoint a committee, and then, quite separately, powers to the committee to appoint a sub-committee. It may well be that there will be no sub-committees of these committees—that is not for us to judge but, probably, for the local authority.
This is all part of the stupidity of this proceeding, whereby the House of Commons sees this at the last minute and we can make only one speech. The Government themselves cannot amend it, except by manuscript Amendment. This is the first and the last time that we see it, and, indeed, our speeches are made only for information, and we cannot press 566 the Government to the point of changing the legislation—beyond wiping it out, which, of course, nobody really desires.
Is it the case that sub-committees even of these committees will not be able to have any non-elected members? I shall be very glad to have my fears about this allayed.

§ Sir J. Henderson-Stewart
I intervene in the debate for a moment to indicate that there is at least one person on this side of the House who agrees with the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) in defending the principle of co-option and who disagrees with the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes).
We have all had experience of this matter in different ways, and I must say that my experience, stretching over a long time, is that local government and public life generally have benefited enormously by this principle of co-option. I am sure that we all know of cases of individuals who are not interested in public life generally and who are not prepared to go through the trouble of the hustings and the criticisms that follow, but who have a real talent for one particular subject or another and who are willing to undertake public duty in that narrow field.
If we do not use those people we lose all the value of their service and loyalty in these affairs. It would be disastrous for our public life if we were not to make it clear that the principle is one that Parliament supports. Therefore, I hope very much that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central does not represent the majority view of his party in the matter.

§ Dr. Dickson Mabon
With all respect, I think that the hon. Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Henderson-Stewart) is a little confused on the point. He argued as if we were objecting to the principle of co-option. My hon. Friend did not argue that. He argued the fact that we were extending the use of co-option. It was a quantitative rather than a qualitative argument which he put forward, so I hope that the hon. Member for Fife, East will agree that my hon. Friend was not arguing the principle.
Part of the argument for the Bill was that it would attract into public life people who would see that the vast frustrations of local authority work were no longer present. I do not subscribe to that argument, but I understand that it is the premise on which the Government have argued.
567 The reason why I support the Amendment is that I see a very considerable danger, even accepting that premise, to the success of the Bill if it is suggested that people can come into local government life and participate in only one particular avenue, and that we should encourage this. I think that a person interested in education, health or any other aspect of local government work should be encouraged to come into public life as an elected representative. He ought to see the balance of local government rather than only one aspect of it.
The fears of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes), which are shared by many, are that this Clause will stimulate the participation of co-opted members more and more and that if local government is going to become dependent in the last analysis on the work of co-opted people it is not going to be good government. It is going to be government influenced by experts. Experts are not always right. They often lack common sense because they do not have the balance of the interests they represent.
The first argument against the Amendment is that it undermines the public spiritedness which is supposed to be the intention of the Bill. The hon. Gentleman also touched on the arguments of political abuse in this matter. That can apply to both parties, or even to independents as such. He said that it will stimulate, where there is a slender majority, the party of that slender majority to seek to put its own men into these positions. I do not believe that party government is always identified in local government circles as being party government by label. It can often be by outside agreement, by friendship even, and, alas, by vested interests. That is an argument which this Amendment seeks to undo.
The argument in which I am interested is the functional one. The National Health Service is referred to in the paragraph. I feel that the trouble with the National Health Service, as we have seen in the Guillebaud Report, is that so many representatives of the Health Service are appointed members of local management committees and so on who often are not in complete contact with the people whom they seek to serve. We are extending this number of the detached, unresponsible man in public 568 life who has no direct electorate to answer to but who sits there trying to do his best, and at the same time there is no power of recall, save the power of appointment by a party caucus. That is wrong, and I wholeheartedly support the Amendment to delete this paragraph.

§ Mr. J. N. Browne
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes) went very wide in his speech. He referred to the powers of co-opted members voting in the full council.

§ Mr. McInnes
I only gave an illustration of what could happen under a system of co-opted membership if we continued this extension.

§ Mr. Browne
I was going to tell the hon. Member that this had nothing to do with the provisions covered by this Amendment. I agree with the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) that there are experts and experts, but I would tell the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central that I could find one exceedingly valuable expert for every so-called "passenger" that he can find for me. I disagree with the hon. Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) who said that he does not like experts. I think there are cases where experts can be of very great value. But these agreements and disagreements underline the value of this provision; the local authority can now reflect its own opinions because this paragraph is not mandatory. The members "may" be co-opted, not "shall" be co-opted.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Central asked why we should do this at all. I think I can explain it to him. Paragraph 18 is a necessary corollary to paragraphs 1, 15, 20 and 23 of the Schedule which abolish the mandatory committees dealing with allotments, health, planning and welfare. As these committees are no longer mandatory, so we have to make some provision about their membership. But, as the local authority can, if it wishes, now combine the two committees—say, health and welfare—we can no longer retain those statutory conditions under which at present in these four instances the composition of the non-elected members resides. We can no longer, as I say, make any committee subject to a statutory direction that there shall be non-elected members.
I should answer the hon. Member for Kilmarnock by saying that what we are 569 doing is retaining in mandatory form what is now statutorily in mandatory form as far as the membership of non-elected members in these four committees is concerned—

§ Mr. McInnes
I cannot follow the logic of the hon. Gentleman's argument. He says in the first place that the Lords Amendments are taking away the statutory obligation of local authorities to appoint the committees. But when we come to the question of the membership of the committees, in some instances they were mandatory and in others they were permissive. The argument of the hon. Gentleman is that we must make some arrangement to provide for co-option. There is no need to do that. We can still provide for the membership of the committees without providing for co-option.

§ Mr. Browne
It is impossible to provide for one-third elected members. If a local authority combined two committees, it would be forced to have two one-thirds.

§ Mr. McInnes
In following out the logic of the Lords Amendment, if a local authority decides that there shall be a combination of committees, obviously the membership of the committee shall be left to the discretion of the local authority, without any necessity for co-option.

§ Mr. Browne
But a local authority does not have to co-opt now, when this paragraph becomes law. It is purely permissive.
As regards sub-committees, which the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) mentioned, the local authorities did not desire that there should be any statutory force to the co-option of non-members on sub-committees, and, in fact, there are none now except in the case of education. So that by making no reference to non-members on sub-committees we are retaining the status quo.

§ Mr. Ross
The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. Section 114 provides: Save as otherwise provided in this Part of this Act, a sub-committee appointed by a committee whose functions are functions to which an administrative scheme relates may, subject to the provisions of the scheme or to any standing orders or any directions by the county council or town council, consist in part of persons not being members of the committee, so however that at least two-thirds of the members of any such sub-committee shall be members of the council". 570 That is the provision as it now stands. The Committees covered by comprehensive schemes are not just those concerned with education; they cover valuation, roads, local health, amongst others.

§ Mr. Browne
These are powers regarding sub-committees which have not been used.

§ Mr. Ross
That is a different matter.

§ Mr. Browne
So we are not making any fresh legislation on that point. To the hon. Gentleman for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes) I would say that we are not breaking fresh ground at all. At present, there are broadly similar statutory provisions, though they are different in detail, covering the membership of all the committees concerned. Paragraph 18 replaces by a single provision the existing powers of a local authority, if it wishes, to include in any relevant committee up to one-third of non-councillors, provided that they have special knowledge and experience. This is a very sensible course, and it has been welcomed by the local authorities.