HC Deb 19 June 1973 vol 858 cc444-9
Mr. David Steel (Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles)

I beg to move Amendment No. 331, in page 44, line 18, [Clause 83], leave out 'lord-lieutenant' and insert: 'Provost or chaiman of Community Council'. The amendment contains two parts. The two—the deletion and the insertion—are not necessarily exclusive.

I move the amendment to probe the correctness of having either a lord-lieutenant or a provost or chairman of a community council, or both, in the clause. The clause provides that a local authority may, from money raised from the public through rates, contribute to a fund on behalf of which a public appeal has been made by a Lord Provost, a chairman of a regional, islands or district council, a lord-lieutenant or by a body of which any of these persons is a member. I deal first with the question whether we should include the chairman of a community council. I believe that for local community purposes, the chairman of a community council is the appropriate person to launch an appeal for funds for a certain event.

It is in line with my thinking—although I accept from the debates yesterday that it may be out of line with the Government's thinking—that it ought to be possible for a local authority to contribute to a voluntary fund for which an appeal has been launched by the chairman of a community council. The issue is simple, and needs no further argument.

My reason for tabling the part of the amendment concerning the lord-lieutenant is that apart from the new clause, which was added after a most unsatisfactory debate in Committee—it is now Clause 203—the only mention of lord-lieutenants is in Clause 83. It is certainly the only one that I have come across.

Clause 203 does not lay down the powers, capacities or authority of the lord-lieutenant. It deals merely with appointments and functions in relation to the new regions. As far as I can make out, Clause 83 is the only clause in which a lord-lieutenant is given any power—and that power is simply to receive moneys from the rate payers on behalf of an appeal.

Although I may want to intervene later on another amendment, the present amendment raises the question whether the lord-lieutenants of the future are appropriate persons to whom to give that power, bearing in mind their manner of selection and the fact that they may tend to be politically unrepresentative in Scotland.

I also question the definition in the last paragraph that I read out, that it could be an appeal by a body of which any of these persons is a member". I take it that that refers to a statutory body, for otherwise it could lead to a very odd conclusion. I have read in the Press that the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) has been made a deputy-lieutenant, and I am sure that we all wish to congratulate him. Does the reference to "lord-lieutenant in the clause also include a reference to his deputies? Could the hon. Member for Dumfries make a heart-rending public appeal on behalf of the Dumfries Conservative Association? I am sure that the association does not need the money, but he might be a member of it. The phrase a body of which any of these persons is a member could lead to peculiar results when applied to a lord-lieutenant.

I raise the matter without straying on to the question of lord-lieutenants, which we shall have an opportunity to discuss later.

Mr. Russell Johnston

I do not like the English in the last part of paragraph (c). I would prefer it to read: a body of which any of these persons are members". I underline the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) has made. I am not quite sure how far the paragraph goes—whether it is wholly confined to statutory bodies.

I also take the opportunity of asking whether the whole of subsection (3) extends the National Mod (Scotland) Act, which I introduced some time ago, and which enabled the current district authorities to contribute to the National Mod. It appears from the reference to contributions to charitable bodies that that power is now extended to both the new district and regional authorities.

7 p.m.

Mr. Younger

The hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) has made an important suggestion. Like him, I would take the amendment in two parts: first, whether it is right or wrong to leave out "lord-lieutenant", and secondly, whether it is right or wrong to add the chairman of a community council.

I do not think that it would be desirable to remove the right of the lord-lieutenant to be the head of an appeal for funds for a disaster or some other event. It is very much up to the discretion of local people who they think is the most suitable person, but it is very often found that the lord-lieutenant is highly suitable, in that he is not in the general run of political life or political controversy. That has happened on many occasions recently.

The hon. Gentleman's other suggestion is very good, although there would probably not be many occasions on which the chairman of a community council would be asked to be the head of an appeal. Such an appeal would probably be a fairly local occasion, although that would not necessarily always be so; on the other hand it certainly would be a good thing to add a power to include the chairman of a community council as the head of an appeal which would qualify for local authority support.

Therefore, if the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment I shall be glad to suggest to my noble Friend the Minister of State that he should make an amendment in another place to add the chairman of the community council as a person who could be included, but not to delete the lord-lieutenant.

Mr. Grimond

I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) will be grateful for what the Minister said. My question has nothing to do with that but concerns the lord provost's position. In our debate yesterday the Minister said, as I understood him, that the title "provost" and "lord provost" had no statutory force, and he implied that the chairman of a community council could call himself a provost or lord provost. That struck me at the time as odd. Would the hon. Gentleman care to consider the matter? Surely the words must have some definition or statutory force? Otherwise, there is no need for the amendment. All that would be needed is for every chairman of a community council to call himself a lord provost.

Mr. Younger

The right hon. Gentleman is nearly right, but we have written into the Bill the title of lord provost for the regions which include the cities. Therefore, it must be specified in that case. As I made clear yesterday, other bodies, such as districts and so on, have the right to call their head a provost or a lord provost if they wish.

Mr. MacArthur

When everybody is somebody, nobody is anybody. It is true that Clause 3 says that the title of Lord Provost in Edinburgh, Glasgow, Dundee and Aberdeen shall continue, but unfortunately, by an oversight which my hon. Friend has not yet corrected, a similar provision has not been made for the protection of the Lord Provost of Perth. Does the amendment mean that the Lord Provost of Perth would no longer have the right to propose a contribution of this kind, a right which would be preserved for the other four lord provosts?

If the title of Lord Provost of Perth were preserved as a result of a petition to Her Majesty, or in some other way, would the lord provost not be recognised as a lord provost statutorily? If so, that puts a new light on the whole lamentable exclusion by the Government of the Lord Provost of Perth from the protection of the Bill, and I would hope that the matter would be raised in another place.

Mr. Younger

What we are suggesting does not affect the position of my hon. Friend's constituent, the Lord Provost of Perth, which was discussed very fully in Committee. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept my assurance that it does not alter his status or position in any way.

I have already made clear the reason why the words "lord provost" appear here.

Mr. Maclennan

I must dissent from the line that the Minister has taken and express surprise at his desire to retain the reference to the lord-lieutenant. I do not fully understand why it is referred to in paragraph (c). The other officers referred to are all representative and elected. The lord-lieutenant, however important a person he may be in the community in which he lives, is not such a person. He is appointed.

The inclusion of the reference to the lord-lieutenant probably widens the clause more than the Government intended. Anybody to which the lord-lieutenant may belong is also involved. The lord-lieutenant might be a patron or a friend of the People's Dispensary for Sick Animals; he might belong to the Scientology sect, or to an organisation which is not charitable; he might be an enthusiast for the most bizarre causes. The cause in which a lord-lieutenant is interested may not be one to which it is suitable for the local authority to contribute.

The check provided in the requirement of representative election is valuable, and I support the amendment. The House should not be satisfied with the Minister's assurance.

Mr. Russell Johnston

rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert GrantFerris)

Order. We are having interjection upon interjection.

Mr. Younger

I give way to the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Russell Johnston).

Mr. Johnston

I always understood that by laying down certain things in a statute other things were automatically excluded. By including the lord-lieutenant we may be excluding a Member of Parliament, an archbishop, a cardinal and many other responsible people. Will the hon. Gentleman bear that in mind in re-phrasing the clause?

Mr. Younger

I shall bear in mind what the hon. Member for Inverness and other hon. Members have said, but we are only repeating the existing situation. No new provision is being made. New wording is mostly being introduced to bring the provision into line with the new local government set-up.

The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) is entitled to hie view on th question whether lords-lieutenant should be included. It has frequently been found that the lord-lieutenant is a suitable person to head a disaster appeal, and it is right to enable the local people to do so if they wish an appeal to be made in that way. We should bear in mind that all these provisions are brought forward merely to enable local authorities who wish to do so to give money to such an appeal. That is consistent with giving more power to local authorities to make their own decisions. All we are doing is making it possible for them to make those decisions.

Mr. David Steel

The hon. Gentleman has not dealt with bodies.

Mr. Younger

The word "body" does not refer to a statutory body. It might be, for instance, an appeal committee set up after a disaster. That has happened fairly frequently in recent years. The provision merely repeats the existing law, which has been found useful. I think we should leave it as it is.

Mr. Russell Johnston

I asked the hon. Gentleman about the National Mod (Scotland) Bill.

Mr. Younger

I am sorry, but I cannot give an opinion about the National Mod (Scotland) Bill. I do not think that the National Mod has charitable status, and I cannot give a legal opinion. I shall be glad to write to the hon. Gentleman about it.

Mr. David Steel

I do not want to be uncharitable when we have succeeded in getting a minute amendment to the Bill after an all-night sitting, but I am not comforted by the reply of the Under-Secretary of State on the virtue of retaining either the lord-lieutenant or the bodies of which he is a member. As we are making some headway, and as the Minister has undertaken to make an amendment in another place to include the chairman of the community council, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Forward to