LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL (Hansard, 22 October 1973)

HC Deb 22 October 1973 vol 861 cc836-936 836

§ Question again proposed, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

§ Mr. Robertson
We could perhaps have re-created some of the burghs that constituted Glasgow and built up the sense of community within the larger unit because the city of Glasgow disappeared.
Whether the new second-tier district authority, an authority with limited powers, will do anything useful, I do not know. The important authority will be the regional authority. Once again, we may well suffer from the lack of identity, the lack of community. My hon. Friend the Member for Provan well knows that one of the greatest evils in his constituency is the lack of any nucleus, and heart any sense of community or identity. To say that if one lives in Easterhouse one 837 belongs to Glasgow does not have much meaning.
Consequently, it is important that the district authority should be seen as a means of creating communities. Where there is a community in existence, such as Clydebank or Rutherglen, we should go out of our way to ensure that it continues. If we argue that communities should be out, they should all be out. If we say that there should be a Greater Glasgow including everyone, we cannot make fish of one and flesh of another. To suggest that Eastwood has a community, and Rutherglen has not, is so ridiculous as not to bear consideration.
I shall not comment on Clydebank or Milngavie. The distance between the boundary of Glasgow and Paisley is about three-quarters of a mile at its shortest. On the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Provan he must take Renfrew, Paisley and Barrhead into the Greater Glasgow area. Only a quarter of a mile away from Glasgow is Barrhead—it is no use swallowing the elephant and straining at a gnat—and there is East Kilbride. Why not take in Coatbridge and Airdrie and Hamilton? The distance between the boundaries of Glasgow and Coatbridge is very short.
Glasgow has one problem before it. Whatever its shape or size, it must try to recapture the sense of community that it has lost over the years. I do not blame 838 the people of Glasgow, but I wish that within the Bill we could have the kind of solution that London has found. Whatever the faults in the relationship between the Greater London Council and the London boroughs, at least in the London boroughs there has been recreated a sense of community. That is the opportunity we have missed in the Bill.
The Under-Secretary should carefully consider my suggestion. All his rebels have gone. None of the Tory Members who were against the Government in Committee and started spoiling the Bill from the Government's point of view is here. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman sent them away on holiday so that they would not vote against the Government. Perhaps they are in Turkey or Strasbourg.
Whatever the Under-Secretary does, let him be consistent. I hope that he will not deal with one burgh in one way and another in a different way. His amendments make nonsense of the Bill. I recommend to the hon. Gentleman that he take in the Lords division of the second-tier authorities. We must have a mixture of both. Let us have a wee bit of consistency just for once, then we might be able to know what we are voting for and what we are voting against.

839

§ Mr. John Smith
I shall be brief, as I know that some of my hon. Friends are still trying to speak. I disagree with some of my hon. Friends, and I disagreed with them in Committee, about the Glasgow district. I have always failed to understand the argument which many Glasgow hon. Members have put forward, and which the city of Glasgow has been putting forward to hon. Members in correspondence, for a greater Glasgow district. The argument of town and country is essentially a regional argument. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Hugh D. Brown) has believed sincerely and argued consistently in support of this proposition. I think that he is wrong.
The main function of local government will be carried out by regional authorities—namely education, social work and strategic planning, which will involve the disposition of housing. Those are important "gut" matters of local government. The districts will be very much a secondary affair. The only substantial power that the districts will have is that of housing. The more I think about it the more I wonder whether it is right that housing should go to the districts. However, it has been put there. Perhaps that was done to give the districts something to do. Perhaps when the Government considered what the districts had to do they realised that they had so little to do that they would get very few people interested in local government if they did not give them something like housing to do.
I am puzzled to know why, when we are reducing the powers given to districts, we should expand the boundaries of Glasgow. It has been said that the city of Glasgow has ceased to exist. I think that that is true. It is not appreciated but we have abolished cities and all-purpose authorites. We now have regions. There is one vast region for the West of Scotland. I do not agree with the concept of vast regions but we shall try to make the Strathclyde region work effectively. I am sure that everyone who has warred against it until now will stop doing so and will co-operate. We shall try to make the West of Scotland as good a place as we can. We must remember that the power will be in the Strathclyde 840 regional authority. The city of Glasgow, the county of Lanarkshire and everybody else had better remember that.
The power of the districts is a different matter. The districts will be dealing with matters that are closer to the people, such as community centres and local planning decisions. Individual planning applications do not have the highly charged political content which strategic planning might have. The districts will deal with matters which do not have much political content and which do not arouse much controversy.
I have always wondered why it was thought necessary to extend the boundaries around Glasgow for district purposes. If it were the greater Glasgow region I should follow the argument. I do not understand the force of the district argument. I am puzzled about the proposed boundaries. Why is it, as my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley (Mr. John Robertson) has asked, that some areas of Renfrewshire are included in the Glasgow district and others are not?
It has puzzled me that Glasgow did not ask that they be put in a greater Glasgow district. There are historical reasons for some of the boundaries to be so designated. One difference between the greater Glasgow district and other representative districts which my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Provan missed when he was talking about community interest is the democratic representation involved. The burgh of Bishopbriggs in my constituency has a town council of 12 councillors. There would be only one district councillor representing that burgh in the Glasgow district council and two-thirds of a regional councillor. It is not clear what it will now get on a regional basis. The burgh would have a community of 22,000 people and only one district councillor.
That is a valid point which some of my colleagues in Glasgow have not taken into account. There may be good or bad reasons for people not wanting to be in the city of Glasgow, just as there may be good and bad reasons for other people to want them in. One of the reasons which has been expressed forcibly to me in my constituency is that people do not feel that they are getting a proper basis 841 of representation. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Hugh D. Brown) realised that and said that he hoped that something could be done about it. The trouble is that nothing can be done about it if the district remains that size. There is a limit to the number of councillors one can have. They would have had 84 councillors under the old city of Glasgow and district arrangements, so there was a very difficult problem.
People who are used to having fairly local democracy feel perturbed about being thrown in to some huge area for purposes that do not demand a huge area. I do not see the purposes that require, at district level, the bringing in of all the peripheral areas.
I am not happy with what the Government propose, and I shall explain why. These are local matters which may not be of any great interest to people who are not connected with the area, but they are important. I have never understood why it was necessary to sub-divide the Strathkelvin region. I regret to say that my argument for it was soundly defeated in committee. The argument was that Bishopbriggs could be put into the Strathkelvin district and that the matter could be left there. I do not understand why the Government have chosen, after having executed that maneouvre, as it were, to sub-divide it further. There is no need. The Strathkelvin district would not be made too big by adding another 13,000 electors and a 22,000 population. It would be roughly on a par with other large districts in Lanarkshire.
Why it was necessary to sub-divide it I do not know. It has started off badly because two-thirds of the proposed Bishopbriggs Kirkintiloch district did not agree with its creation, namely the burgh of Kirkintilloch and the electoral divisions of Chryston and Stepps, which are part of my constituency. Both the councillors for the latter area have made it clear to me that they are vigorously opposed to it. It does not seem to make a good start to local government to start a new district of which two-thirds of the people do not want it. That is why I shall vote against that district when the House divides.
842 The way in which this was done was most unfortunate. None of the local authorities that have been juggled about knew what would happen to them. Glasgow had fair warning of the argument that some areas might come out. Glasgow probably thought that nothing would happen. Glasgow was entitled to think that, on the view that the Government took at the Report stage. There was then not the slightest chink in the armour. I was a disappointed man, from the point of view of the Government, at that stage concerning my area. Suddenly there was a volte face. I have checked with the local authorities. None of them heard anything about it. They received a communication from the Secretary of State saying that it had been done. They must be about the only newly created districts which have not had some consultation about the boundaries. This was done in such a rush that proper consideration was not given to the electoral boundaries. A covering letter from the Scottish Home Department was sent out later, which said that in view of the rush they would have to use existing boundaries.
There is something to be said for having a reasonably sized district. Strathkelvin made a lot of sense, and adding Bishopbriggs to it, while there was dispute about that, did not upset the apple cart too much. But having this other sub-division most certainly does upset the apple cart. The way in which this has come about is most unfortunate. The areas of Chryston and Stepps had no notice about this. It was never discussed, and they never considered their position in relation to it. Suddenly it landed in their laps.
I moved an alternative amendment in Committee but I did not include Chryston and Stepps. Indeed, I argued that there was a connection between them and Cumbernauld and other areas which form a corridor from the city of Glasgow.
I wish that the Government had stuck to the amendment that was carried in Committee in the other place, when Lord Hughes moved an amendment that Bishopbriggs should go into Strathkelvin. That is one of the amendments which was thrown out at an early stage.
I cannot support the Government in their sub-division. If I get the opportunity, I shall vote for an amendment 843 in my name to have the district of Bishopbriggs included in Strathkelvin.

§ 10.15 p.m.

§ Mr. McCartney
I want first to make it very clear that I do not oppose my Glasgow colleagues in their desire to see Glasgow benefit from reorganisation of local government, but it is distressing to me to hear my colleagues and at least one Glasgow Member on the Government side expressing the view that we should continue to look upon Glasgow as the important factor in any unit created under reorganisation of local government. I expressed that opinion in Standing Committee and on Report.
We are talking about the functions of a district authority. We are not concerned now with what a regional authority's function is. Nor are we concerned with the concept of Glasgow Corporation or Dunbarton County Council or Lanarkshire County Council, or of any burgh authority which exists under the existing Local Government Acts. What we are talking about is the creation of district authorities under a proposed new Act of Parliament.
I find it very disturbing indeed that at this stage the Government should come along with proposals to divide an area which, in Standing Committee and on Report, I and my colleagues, here and in another place, proposed should be the Kilpatricks district. I am disturbed that the Government should divide it into two separate districts in spite of the fact that during the whole course of this argument here and in another place the Government said that the Kilpatricks district as proposed was too small to be viable.
In Standing Committee, on Report, and in another place the Government argued that because of the community of interest between that proposed Kilpatricks district and Glasgow it was right and logical that it should be part of the Glasgow district. They now suggest that, just because they were defeated in another place, the district which they said was not viable in population, size, transport arrangements, industry, or inter-relationships with the Glasgow community and other communities in the area, should now suddenly be split into two separate areas which will be viable.
844 It is quite coincidental that at the same time they are proposing that an area which my hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Mr. John Smith) represents should be detached from Glasgow. It is also coincidental that they are suggesting that Eastwood should become a district authority. This is perhaps because of the influence of the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) who holds a very high office as Vice-Chairman of the Conservative and Unionist Party in Scotland.
In Standing Committee, it may be recalled when we detached the Kilpatricks district from the Glasgow district because of manoeuvring on the Government side, that area was put into limbo. The Government said there could be alternative arrangements for the creation of a district or districts on the periphery of Glasgow. At that time I accused the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire of gerrymandering for party political interests. It is evident now that that is what has taken place.

§ Mr. MacArthur
Will the hon. Member allow me?

§ Mr. McCartney
Let me complete what I am going to say. I know what the hon. Member is going to say.
One thing I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Hugh D. Brown) about is that the Government's volte-face has been determined by their party political interests in the areas of Eastwood, Bishopbriggs and Bearsden. There is no shadow of doubt about that. But it does not solve the problem for those in the areas that I represent who conscientiously and genuinely, across party boundaries, were seeking to create and devise a district authority which was viable in every sense of the remit to the Wheatley Commission.

§ Mr. MacArthur
Will the hon. Gentleman give way, as I suspect that he is referring to me? Perhaps I may correct the record which he has confused in his mind. As I recall, Eastwood was not put in limbo, as he said. I moved the amendment about Eastwood and lost it. Eastwood remained in the Glasgow district because my amendment was defeated.
On the general peripheral argument about which the hon. Gentleman launched wild accusations at me, I remind him 845 that I have been consistent throughout and I am very sorry that my consistency required me repeatedly to vote against my right hon. and hon. Friends in Committee. My argument has always been that I thought it right that the peripheral areas should be removed outside the Glasgow district. I voted consistently for that purpose and I am glad that latterly, and belatedly, the Government share that view. I welcome the grouping that the Government now propose.

§ Mr. McCartney
There is an old saying in the footwear trade that those who wear the shoes know where they pinch most. I take it that the hon. Member who has just spoken is the Vice-Chairman of the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Association, otherwise he would not have commented as he did. Secondly, I did not say that Eastwood was placed in limbo; I said that the Kilpatricks district was placed in limbo because of what the hon. Member did in Standing Committee.

§ Mr. MacArthur indicated assent.

§ Mr. McCartney
The hon. Gentleman is agreeing with me. There was no need for him to have risen.
What has been suggested to us now is dictated purely and simply by party-political needs in those three areas. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith) shakes his head. The one point on which I agreed with the hon. Gentleman was when he said that his colleagues were thinking about only one side of the coin. In shaking his head he is trying to protect those colleagues.

§ Mr. Galbraith
I am not trying to protect my colleagues. I am merely trying to protect myself against the hon. Gentleman's misrepresentation. I believe that Glasgow is big enough at its present size, and that the peripheral areas would be better on their own. That has been my view consistently. It has nothing to do with political gerrymandering. That may be the way the hon. Gentleman's mind works, but it is not the way my mind works.

§ Mr. McCartney
I am pleased to hear the hon. Member declare himself in those terms. However, I do not believe that it is necessarily true that the peripheral areas should be left outside Glasgow. When I continue to argue 846 for the Kilpatricks district, I do so not because it is a peripheral area but because, in my opinion, it is an area that constitutes, in the terms of the Wheatley Report, a unit which could operate as a district authority. My argument has nothing to do with whether it is within the Glasgow boundary. Does the hon. Gentleman wish me to give way again?

§ Mr. Galbraith
Could it be that the hon. Gentleman has that view with respect to that particular peripheral area because, to a large extent, he is its representative in Parliament?

§ Mr. McCartney
I like to hope that that is true. I receive great support from the burgh of Bearsden. The hon. Gentleman astonished me with that assertion. We are considering what would be effective district authority units. I have always argued that the Kilpatricks district would be an effective authority in the terms of our debate on the matter. The Government panicked by leaking their intentions to the Glasgow Herald. The Undersecretary need not shake his head, because what the Government declared a few days later was exactly what the Glasgow Herald had reported. The hon. Gentleman should not shake his head, indicating it was not leaked. This happens with every Government.

§ Dr. Dickson Mabon
It should be clearly understood that the matter was not leaked. The Secretary of State wrote a letter to the Glasgow Chamber of Commerce dated 1st October and released it to the Press. That letter was a bombshell to everybody, including the Glasgow Chamber of Commerce.

§ Mr. McCartney
Be that as it may, the Glasgow Herald was quite correct in reporting what it believed were the Government's intentions. One may guess how the Glasgow Herald got hold of it. Having done that, they panicked the local authorities into thinking that if they did not accept what the Government proposed they would not get anything. So they decided that they should indicate that, as an alternative to the Kilpatricks district, they would accept the Government proposal because it was a proposal which had been made by the Convention of Royal Burghs at the earliest stage of the debate about the reorganisation of 847 local government and had been withdrawn because it was indicated to them that it was not on.
Substituted for that was a proposal which it was generally agreed would be acceptable and which the Government opposed right down the line until they were defeated in the other place. Having been defeated, they returned with a suggestion identical to that which at that time was not acceptable. I suggest to the Government that because of the real hash they have made of the Bill, not only in regard to district authorities but to every element of the Bill, the honourable thing they should do is to abandon it.
With our experience of the English Bill and what has happened to it since, and our experience in the processing of this one, the Government should get down to producing a Bill with real meaning to local government reorganisation in Scotland. What we are being forced into accepting tonight is a complete mash-up that has nothing to do with the Wheatley Commission. I support the principles that came out of the Wheatley Report. I suggest, at this late stage, that the honourable thing to do is to abandon the Bill and let us discuss again using the experience gained.
The Government are not happy; nor are the Opposition happy about what is now going to happen in regard to local government reorganisation in Scotland.

§ 10.30 p.m.

§ Mr. Sillars
I hesitate to come in on the debate but I must because Amendments (m) and (n) relate to parts of the constituency of South Ayrshire. I waited as near to the end of the debate as possible so that the House could concentrate its attention on the question of Glasgow. The Under-Secretary knows that Amendments (m) and (n) deal with parts of the Kyle and Carrick district and part of the Cumnock and Doon Valley district in the southern part of Ayrshire. They refer specifically to Dalrymple, Rankinston and Coylton.
In Committee we had some difficulty in defining the boundaries between the two districts. We moved from Committee to Report to Third Reading and then to the other place in agreement that Dalrymple, Coylton and Rankinston would be part of the Cumnock and Doon 848 Valley area. That was changed unexpectedly in the other place by the Government, although the Minister warned me a few days before that it was to happen. I have always admitted to the Government that the villages of Coylton and Dalrymple posed a problem in relation to exactly where they lay and where the main pull exists between the town of Ayr and the rest of the Cumnock and Doon Valley area. A close scrutiny of the facts would indicate that both Coylton and Dalrymple were well within the Cumnock and Doon Valley area. I admit there is a commuter traffic from them to Ayr but there are considerable family and economic ties which take them back into the Cumnock and Doon Valley area.
I vigorously protested about the change in the other place and the Under-Secretary knows that I wanted Coylton as well as Dalrymple to be transferred into the Cumnock and Doon Valley area. He knows from the local Press that at the 11th hour the controlling Labour group on the Ayr County Council could not support me in my contention about the three villages. However, I have consulted the Under-Secretary and we spoke to other people involved and Amendments (m) and (n) produced a compromise. I am reluctant to accept a compromise but I have no choice, in view of the tight finish of the Bill. On my reading of the amendments, and I seek the Under-Secretary's confirmation here, Dalrymple and Rankinston are to go into the Cumnock and Doon Valley district and the village of Coylton is to be the sole casualty of this argument between myself and the Government and it is to remain in the Kyle and Carrick district.
The Under-Secretary should know that the majority of the people in Coylton and the three local authorities which will ultimately make up the Cumnock and Doon Valley district are bitterly opposed to Coylton being allocated to Kyle and Carrick district. They are prepared to carry on the argument.
I should be grateful if the Under-Secretary will confirm for me what the Secretary of State said on Report that the Government will refer the matter of the boundaries between Kyle and Carrick and Cumnock and Doon Valley immediately to the Boundaries Commission. If he will confirm that I can tell the people 849 of Coylton to prepare their arguments and if there are objective members on the Commission they can be sure that Coylton will go back to the Cumnock and Doon Valley district.

§ Mr. Carmichael
We have been making unnaturally slow progress for Scottish business. The problem of dealing with the Under-Secretary and with the Government's amendments is that we are never quite sure which of the Under-Secretary's brilliant speeches in Committee we should quote from. Those speeches were at such variance with what he said tonight that it makes him appear ridiculous.
I shall try to be brief. He said that we must come off the fence. That is very funny coming from him considering the number of fences he has been climbing over and falling off in the last two or three weeks. He speaks about the distances involved in the Rutherglen argument. We know that distance is relevant and a clear part of the argument he was putting up. We know his argument was tied up with the peripheral areas around Glasgow and, indeed, around all the conurbations in Scotland.
The real criteria were where the people really belonged—where they found work, where they found leisure, where they shopped, where they got their medical treatment and so on. But we come now to what, in terms of the Bill, is an obscenity—of all places Eastwood is to be taken out of the greater Glasgow area. Yet by none of these criteria, which were spelt out so fully by the Under-Secretary of State in Committee—does Eastwood qualify. There is little work locally; most of the leisure traffic comes into Glasgow; there is only very local shopping; there is no major medical treatment locally.
Yet now we are told that Eastwood is to be a district while Rutherglen is being refused. I agree with my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) and my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Hugh D. Brown) and have great sympathy with my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen (Mr. Gregor Mackenzie). If there is one area, apart from Clydebank—and I think I would even put Rutherglen ahead of Clydebank—that has a right to be a district, it is Rutherglen.
850 Rutherglen has ancient traditions. It was mentioned in Scottish history long before many of the larger burghs and cities. It is unique in Scottish history. To suggest that a place like that has less community spirit and less right to an individuality and a being of its own than a place like Eastwood is grotesque. The hon. Gentleman loses all credibility in putting forward such a case and I am deeply disappointed.
Some hon. Members queried the role of the city of Glasgow. As a Glasgow Member and as a Glaswegian, it has been pointed out to me that Glasgow was given three weeks as against something like four years for peripheral areas. Only three weeks ago did the bombshell fall on Glasgow. The concept of greater Glasgow was ably argued by Wheatley, Campbell and Younger plus all the might of St. Andrews House. Why should they decide to change a winning team? However, I have a sneaking suspicion that there may be a lot of changes on the Front Bench opposite when we return next Session.
The Government originally were doing what we all hoped would be done. Quite apart from what was said in Committee, the grapevine continually told us that the Government would continue greater Glasgow. On Report, the right hon. Gentleman said: The Government have looked at the various possibilities with care and have again come to the conclusion that what was originally in the Bill was the best solution for this area. …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th June 1973; Vol. 858, c. 263.] If that was so as late as 18th June, after 43 sittings in Committee, after three days on Report, after endless discussions in the corridors, after all sorts of other examinations of the situation, why have the Government, out of the blue, changed their minds?
Despite the protestations of the Vice-Chairman of the Unionist Party in Scotland, knowing a little about politics I do not believe that there was not a nudge or a nod or a wink in the right direction, because it is a curious coincidence that the areas taken out are areas which favour the Unionist Party.

§ Mr. Galbraith
Clydebank?

§ Mr. Carmichael
One can only get away with so much in taking out the no-man's land of Eastwood. One has to 851 make some propitiation of the god reason.

§ Mr. Galbraith
rose—

§ Mr. Carmichael
No. We have gone on a long time tonight. We are also left with a complicated situation for our voting. The situation, Mr. Speaker is unique. I am sure some of my hon. Friends with special interests and who have made themselves clear and frank all through will want to support their own particular areas. But I do not think that any of my hon. Friends on this side, or many of the people of Scotland—and certainly of the West of Scotland—think that the Government's belated solution is in any way satisfactory, and I can see from the face of the Minister who is to reply in sweet words that he does not think that it is very satisfactory either. I shall vote very solidly for the Bill as it left the Commons, which was the correct solution, and when we have reached this appalling impasse and mess that is the correct constitutional procedure. I hope that as many of my hon. Friends as possible, if they are not able to get exactly what they want—

§ Mr. McCartney
In stressing those remarks, will my hon. Friend indicate quite clearly that he is not speaking for the Opposition but is speaking on his own behalf, even though he is the last person from these benches to speak from the Dispatch Box?

§ Mr. Carmichael
I thought I had said that. My hon. Friend has worked on the Bill and I thought he would have realised that there has been a fair amount of independence. But while I am speaking for myself, I also believe that there are very few people apart from those on the Government Front Bench who accept the solution put forward by the Government. I do not say no one; I just say very few.

§ Mr. Younger
By leave of the House, perhaps if I may reply very briefly to this debate. It is very sad to see that one gets no thanks whatever for listening to people's arguments and deciding to make changes as a result. There were fine words spoken at the beginning. During the second sitting of our Committee upstairs on 30th January, my right hon. Friend said in starting off his first reply at column 80: 852 Let me also say—and this is perhaps most important of all—that the Government do not have fixed positions on all the matters before us. We intend to deal flexibly with all proposals put here. Then in the following column the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) said My enthusiasm for further sittings is not unconditional. It is no use sitting at all unless we have a certain measure of come and go and mutual persuasion in our discussions. If the Government are to be inflexible on major as well as minor matters it will be very difficult."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, First Scottish Standing Committee, 30th January 1973; c. 80–81.] I rather liked that attitude on both Front Benches. I have always felt that if the Scottish Committee has a fault it is that, in Bill after Bill, successive Governments have pushed their will through. I welcomed the thought that on a very non-political issue we were going to have real discussion, to listen to the arguments and were prepared to be convinced. But here are all the thanks we get. We not only have hon. Gentlemen objecting strongly in reaction to the Government's making some changes to try to take account of views expressed; we have complete illogicality in what everybody does. One would think that everybody on the other side had supported the Government right through in their previous views, standing shoulder to shoulder with the Government. There are two hon. Gentlemen who can say that they did that. One of them is the hon. Member for Glasgow, Proven (Mr. Hugh D. Brown) who has never wavered in his consistency and is very much to be admired for that. If we take the issue of whether or not Bearsden or Milngavie should be out of Glasgow, whom do we find supporting the Government? The answer is two hon. Gentlemen—the hon. Member for Glasgow, Proven, and the hon. Member for Glasgow, Woodside (Mr. Carmichael).
10.45 p.m.
What about all the others? Were they supporting the Government? Not a bit of it. Nine hon. Members opposite had no intention of supporting the Government at that time; yet they come along today and they are quite happy to take the opposite view to that of the Government and yet say that they have been supporting the Government all the time. 853 Six hon. Members voted for Eastwood not to be part of Glasgow, and about 10 voted against the Government on Kilpatricks.
The House should bear in mind that the picture that somebody might get from reading the report of this debate, that the Opposition have all along been supporting the Government until this change, is plain and simple nonsense, and hon. Members opposite cannot get away from it.

§ Mr. McCartney
What the hon. Gentleman is suggesting is that every hon. Member who has opposed him tonight and during the various stages of the Bill has been doing so solely in order to oppose the Government. Is it not true to say that at various stages, including tonight, there have been hon. Members who have opposed each other as well as supporting each other? In Standing Committee there were hon. Members who supported the Government, those who abstained from voting and others who opposed the Government. Would not the hon. Gentleman agree?

§ Mr. Younger
Absolutely, but I think that what has been forgotten is that both sides of the House are very much divided on these issues. There is no unanimity about it. The Government have tried to respond to the strongly expressed views of many Members in this House and in another place. If this is all the thanks we get, it is rather a depressing thought that we cannot expect Government of either party to try this game again. In the future it will be a case of putting through what the Government of the day want, and sticking to it at all costs.
I was grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith) for his support. He has been absolutely consistent. I was also grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward Taylor) who raised a number of very interesting issues. However, I suggest to him that it is a little early to look into the financial position of these new districts. All I can say on the point of finance is that in our opinion all of these new districts which we are proposing can certainly be financially viable, and this applies also to the previous districts which were discussed on other occasions; they too 854 were perfectly financially viable. I do not think that is in issue between us.
I was particularly interested to hear the hon. Member for Lanarkshire, North (Mr. John Smith). I appreciate that he is every bit as entitled as anyone else to have his views heard, not only as to whether or not his people should come out of Glasgow but also as to where they should go when they are out of it. He has a perfectly fair point of view. I accept his point of view about Stepps and Chryston. It is very marginal either way. But I must point out that his proposal for Stepps and Chryston would have made a very strangely shaped area about the area of Kirkintilloch, and I do not think it would be very satisfactory.
What has really been lacking in this debate is a real application to the two separate issues individually. The first issue is whether these areas, or each one of them, should or should not be part of Glasgow. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan was very clear about it. But I do not think enough attention was paid to these two different arguments.
It is not stretching the results of our debates too far to say that there is much more unanimity among Scottish Members about whether they should be part of Glasgow than about where they should go thereafter. A considerable number would agree, although I am not altogether happy with it, that these areas should probably not be part of Glasgow.
When we come to where they are to go thereafter and what the districts are to be, there is much less unanimity. It is necessary to see the issue in those two parts.

§ Mr. William Hannan
If that is so, and the Government were convinced of that when they restored these peripheral areas on Report, what are the reasons for their change of mind since, and their using an unrepresentative, undemocratic body to strike at the roots of Scottish local government democracy?

§ Mr. Younger
It is a matter of judgment. In putting through a controversial Bill like this, which is not party political, one must listen to what people are saying all the time. I accept that the hon. Gentleman has strong views on the matter, but we were defeated in Committee, the original provision was 855 restored on Report, but we were then defeated again in another place. If one is to pay attention to what is said in Parliament, there must come a point when the weight of evidence begins to turn one the other way. Not everyone will agree where it comes, but one must use one's judgment.
I am entitled to ask the House to take what we have done as a genuine attempt by the Government to take account of Parliament's views. If there is a fault that I could respectfully put to my Scottish colleagues, it is that some of them have perhaps been voting against such matters as these areas being in Glasgow without fully realising where that could lead. The Government must take account of those votes and other pressures.

§ Mr. Millan
This is all very impressive, but why did not the Government talk to Glasgow Corporation? Why did they refuse to meet it?

§ Mr. Younger
I have not come to that. I do not know what the hon. Gentleman means by "very impressive". Either the House wants the Government to pay attention to what it has said or it does not. We tried, and we have received scant thanks.
It has never been my case that the viability of the Kilpatrick district was in question. It could have been viable, and it could be viable. My complaint about it was that it perhaps did not have internal community of interest. One can argue either way, and the evidence is all on the record. My contention was and is that there is no natural community of interest between Milngavie and Clydebank. Other people may have different opinions, but that is our opinion, and we are as entitled to it as anyone else is to his.
On the Strathkelvin district there is an issue which the hon. Member for Lanarkshire, North mentioned, but which has not been touched on enough. Once it is accepted that the burgh of Bishopbriggs should be out of the greater Glasgow district, is the Strathkelvin district as proposed a good district? Does it have community of interest? I would not suggest that it would be unviable. I am suggesting that three different centres, each with its own strong life and 856 traditions, each reasonably large in size, are not likely to make for a district with a proper and easily identifiable centre which has a real community of interest.
I said in Committee that I was not at all convinced that there is large community of interest between Bishopbriggs, at one end, and Cumbernauld, at the other end. Again, that is a matter of opinion. It is the Government's opinion that there is not such a satisfactory community of interest between the two ends of the Strathkelvin district that we should recommend it as likely to be satisfactory. That is why we decided that it would make two more satisfactory districts with a community of interest within themselves if we put Bishopbriggs and Kirkintilloch into one and Cumbernauld and Kilsyth into the other. This again is a matter of opinion. But the Government are entitled to their view, and that is what I recommend the House to accept.
No one can fail to have great sympathy with the case put by the hon. Member for Rutherglen (Mr. Gregor Mackenzie). Through no fault of his he was not a member of the Committee. Perhaps he would have wished to be a member, because he could have raised the matter then. I accept straight away that it is very upsetting for those who live in the burgh of Rutherglen to find that apparently, among the peripheral burghs, they are not to get the same treatment. I cannot say anything which will be very cheerful or satisfactory news to those people except that I appreciate how they feel. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] That is not a satisfactory thing to say to them. But much as I might have sympathy in that way, I have to look as reasonably and as objectively as I can at the question whether Rutherglen is genuinely part of what we ought to have in the community of Glasgow. There may be misunderstanding between the hon. Member for Rutherglen and I about travel to work. I was not sure that I understood him correctly. For the record, the figures which I have quoted from the 1966 census, the latest that we have, are that from Rutherglen 45 per cent. of the employed population travel to work in Glasgow and 32 per cent. of the workforce in Rutherglen travel from Glasgow to work there. Those are the two figures which I gave.

857

§ Mr. Gregor Mackenzie
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would also like to tell us about the travel to work position vis-à-vis Eastwood, Bearsden and Milngavie. If the hon. Gentleman has been as sympathetic as he says, why is it that when I and my provost and council have approached the Secretary of State we have received the most discourteous brush off that I can remember from any Minister?

§ Mr. Younger
I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would be as sorry as I was to hear that there was any discourtesy either to the hon. Member or to his constituents. My right hon. Friend had to decide long ago that it was not physically possible for him to meet every local authority personally to hear what it had to say.

§ Mr. Mackenzie
This is only one.

§ Mr. Younger
Yes, but if the Secretary of State meets one authority he would have to meet them all.

§ Mr. Mackenzie
This is the only local authority which is being treated in this particular way. Even to this day the Secretary of State has not indicated to the local authority what is happening to it. The first that we heard of this was when we read about it in the Scottish newspapers.

§ Mr. Younger
I am very sorry if any discourtesy has been shown. That is the last thing that I would have wished. Even perhaps those hon. Members who disagree strongly with this will understand that it is not physically possible for a Secretary of State to see everyone on a matter such as this when so many authorities are involved. If it is looked upon as discourtesy I am extremely sorry. I am sure that my right hon. Friend would want me to say that no discourtesy of any kind should be interpreted and that he would greatly regret it if it was taken in that way.
11.0 p.m.
I feel that I should touch on the general point raised by the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars). I can confirm that what is proposed in the amendment does what he thinks it does. In other words, it removes from the Kyle and Carrick district the parishes of Dalrymple and Coylton, although they are 858 described in different language, and puts them in the Cumnock and Doon Valley district. Ayr Burgh is extremely anxious that both areas should be in the Kyle and Carrick district. Very strong views have been expressed on that point. Therefore, I could not agree at this stage that the village of Coylton should be taken from the Kyle and Carrick district. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will understand why that is so. I must stick to that one anyway. However, the other point is as he thought it to be.
I can also confirm that this boundary would not be satisfactory either way as it stands. Therefore, the matter will have to be referred to the Boundary Commission which I hope will make a sensible boundary which will take account of the views that have been expressed.
All these complicated matters being brought up together may create some difficulty for hon. Members to get clear in their minds what the situation is. Perhaps I can sum up the issues we must decide tonight, because this is the end of the matter.
First, we must decide which areas are not to go into the Greater Glasgow district or the Glasgow district as it now is. The amendments make it clear what those areas are.
Secondly, we must be clear about what I am recommending should be the pattern of districts for those areas which are to be excluded from the Glasgow district.
The pattern that I recommend is that there should be a Clydebank district and a Bearsden and Milngavie district, that the Bishopbriggs area should be added to a district comprising itself and Kirkintilloch, that the other half of Strathkelvin should become a district comprising Cumbernauld and the area about it, and that the Eastwood district should include Eaglesham. The Government also submit, with regret, that Rutherglen ought to become part of the Glasgow district. I hope to the mutual benefit of both although I fully understand the feelings of those concerned.
I hope that the House will accept that pattern as a reasonable compromise between many different views. This has been a genuine attempt by the Government to meet the criticisms that have been made. I am sorry that it should 859 get such scant thanks, but it is a genuine attempt to respond to the many views that have been expressed in both Houses and I hope it will be looked at in that light.

§ Dr. Dickson Mabon
Before the hon. Gentleman sits down, may I put one point to him? Several hon. Members have changed their minds once during the progress of the Bill, but the hon. Gentleman is commending a view which shows that he has changed his mind six times.

§ Mr. Younger
I do not think that is a fair statement. I could also do some bogus arithmetic about hon. Gentlemen changing their minds. I have no objection to hon. Gentlemen changing their minds. However, I regret that those who have changed their minds should not be prepared to say that they have done so. I have tried to adduce the reasons and the evidence to prove that these solutions are right. I hope that the House will now agree to accept the amendment.

§ Mr. Ross
I must express my thanks to the Under-Secretary for what he has said because we can now entirely unite in opposing this proposal.
My hon. Friends are perfectly right. One got impression that the hon. Gentleman was treating the matter as if it were on Report. In fact, we are seeking to amend a Lords amendment and, for the first time in either House, discussing a conclusion that the Government say they have reached after long months of travail.
We all know that every suggestion put forward has been objected to by the Government. Now they come forward with this sudden conversion. It is one we have never been able properly to examine. If it is suddenly decided to create three new districts in Strathclyde, one with a population as small as 36,000, this calls for a reconsideration of all the other decisions about Strathclyde. There are many places with a better claim for district status than Eastwood. Whoever considered that as a viable local government unit?
860 The Committee showed what it thought of it and the Government said what they thought of it. Then it disappeared. Now it has suddenly reappeared. These things cannot be isolated and considered separately. Once again we are searching, looking for communities in size, viability and everything else in the sense of Wheatley and they are not there. Why did the Secretary of State not accept the will of the Committee and the will of another place? Instead we have this absurd proposal.
The Government lost the way completely after a certain stage. Obviously the same thing happened in another place. If it was weak in Committee in this House the Scottish Office has wonderful reserves of incompetence in another place. All we have been trying to do is to salve something for the Government. They tried to buy another place by this amendment. It was never even discussed. If they have any respect for themselves they would have returned to the position of the Bill as it was when it left this House. We all want to get back to that position. That means that we must, unfortunately, agree with the Government on Amendments 75 and 76. Thereafter I suggest that we on this side and perhaps those whom we have persuaded on the Government side, vote against the Government on every amendment from (a) to (m) with the exception of the important one to leave out Cadzow and insert Hamilton.

§ Mr. Younger
Did the right hon. Gentleman mean to include the amendment dealing with Coylton and Dalrymple?

§ Mr. Ross
No. We agree to the last two—(m) and (n).

§ Question, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment, put and agreed to.

§ Subsequent Lords Amendment disagreed to.

§ Amendment proposed, as an amendment to the words so restored to the Bill: (a), in page 152, column 3, leave out lines 16 to 20.—[Mr. Younger.]

861

§ Question accordingly agreed to.

862

§ The House divided: Ayes 123, Noes 77.

861

Division No. 214.]	AYES	[11.10 p.m.
Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)	Gummer, J. Selwyn	Parkinson, Cecil
Astor, John	Gurden, Harold	Percival, Ian
Atkins, Humphrey	Hannam, John (Exeter)	Pink, R. Bonner
Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)	Harrison, Brian (Maldon)	Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Benyon, W.	Haselhurst, Alan	Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Berry, Hn. Anthony	Havers, Sir Michael	Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Biffen, John	Hawkins, Paul	Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Biggs-Davison, John	Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia	Russell, Sir Ronald
Boscawen, Hn. Robert	Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)	St. John-Stevas, Norman
Bray, Ronald	Hutchison, Michael Clark	Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)
Brinton, Sir Tatton	Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)	Sillars, James
Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher	James, David	Simeons, Charles
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)	Jessel, Toby	Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)
Bruce-Gardyne, J.	Jopling, Michael	Speed, Keith
Bryan, Sir Paul	King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)	Spence, John
Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N & M)	King, Tom (Bridgewater)	Sproat, Iain
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)	Kinsey, J. R.	Stainton, Keith
Campbell, Rt. Hn. G. (Moray & Nairn)	Kirk, Peter	Stanbrook, Ivor
Chapman, Sydney	Kitson, Timothy	Steel, David
Churchill, W. S.	Knight, Mrs Jill	Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)
Clark, William (Surrey, E.)	Knox, David	Sutcliffe, John
Clegg, Walter	Lambie, David	Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Cooke, Robert	Le Marchant, Spencer	Tebbit, Norman
Cormack, Patrick	MacArthur, Ian	Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)
Cricthley, Julian	McNair-Wilson, Michael	Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy
Crouch, David	Mather, Carol	Tilney, Sir John
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.	Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.	Tope, Graham
Digby, Simon Wingfield	Meyer, Sir Anthony	Waddington, David
Drayson, Burnaby	Mills, Peter (Torrington)	Ward, Dame Irene
Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John	Mitchell, Lt. -Col. C. (Aberdeenshire, W)	Warren, Kenneth
Eyre, Reginald	Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)	Weatherill, Bernard
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)	Moate, Roger	Wells, John (Maidstone)
Fortescue, Tim	Money, Ernle	Wiggin, Jerry
Fowler, Norman	Monro, Hector	Winterton, Nicholas
Fox, Marcus	Montgomery, Fergus	Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
	Morrison, Charles	Woodnutt, Mark
Gibson-Watt, David	Murton, Oscar	Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.
Gower, Raymond	Neave, Airey
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)	Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael	Younger, Hn. George
Green, Alan	Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Grieve, Percy	Osborn, John	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)	Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)	Mr. Kenneth Clarke and
Grylls, Michael	Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)	Mr. Hamish Gray.

NOES
Bennett, James(Glasgow, Bridgeton)	Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)	Marsden, F,
Brown, Robert C (N'c'tle-u-Tyne, W.)	Hardy, Peter	Mendelson, John
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)	Harper, Joseph	Mikardo, Ian
Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)	Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)	Millan, Bruce
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)	Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith	Miller, Dr. M. S.
Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)	Hattersley, Roy	O'Malley, Brian
Carmichael, Neil	Hatton, F.	Oswald, Thomas
Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)	Huckfield, Leslie	Palmer, Arthur
Coleman, Donald	Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)	Prescott, John
Concannon, J. D.	Hunter, Adam	Radice, Giles
Dalyell, Tam	Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)	Robertson, John (Paisley)
Davidson, Arthur	Jones, Dan (Burnley)	Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)	Judd, Frank	Skinner, Dennis
Dempsey, James	Kaufman, Gerald	Small, William
Doig, Peter	Kelley, Richard	Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)
Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)	Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)	Stott, Roger
Dunnett, Jack	Lomas, Kenneth	Strang, Gavin
Eadie, Alex	Loughlin, Charles	Swain, Thomas
Ellis, Tom	Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Evans, Fred	McBride, Neil	Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)
Ewing, Harry	McCartney, Hugh	Varley Eric G.
	McElhone, Frank	Wainwright, Edwin
Faulds, Andrew	Machin, George	White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)
Galpern, Sir Myer	Mackenzie, Gregor	Williams, W. T. (Warrington)
Gilbert, Dr. John	Maclennan, Robert
Golding, John	McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Gourlay, Harry	McNamara, J. Kevin	Mr. James Hamilton and
Grant, John D (Islington, E.)	Marks, Kenneth	Mr. Michael Cocks.

863

§ Amendment, proposed, as an amendment to the words so restored to the Bill: (b), in page 152, line 21, column 3, leave out from 'Lanark' to 'in' in line 29.—[Mr. Gregor Mackenzie.]

§ Question accordingly negatived.

§ Amendment made, as an amendment to the words so restored to the Bill: (c) in page 152, line 21, column 3, leave out "burghs" and insert "burgh".—[Mr. Gordon Campbell.]

864

§ Question put:—

§ The House divided: Ayes 36, Noes 121.

863

Division No. 215.]	AYES	[11.20 p.m.
Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)	Gourlay, Harry	Mackenzie, Gregor
Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)	Hardy, Peter	Maclennan, Robert
Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)	Hattersley, Roy	Marks, Kenneth
Dalyell, Tam	Halton, F.	Prescott, John
Davidson, Arthur	Huckfield, Leslie	Radice, Giles
Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)	Hunter, Adam	Skinner, Dennis
Dempsey, James	Hutchison, Michael Clark	Steel, David
Doig, Peter	Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)	Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy
Eadie, Alex	Kelley, Richard	Tope, Graham
	Lambie, David
Evans, Fred	Lomas, Kenneth	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Ewing, Harry	McBride, Neil	Mr. Dick Douglas and
Faulds, Andrew	McCartney, Hugh	Mr. John Smith.
Gilbert, Dr. John	Machin, George

NOES
Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)	Green, Alan	Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Astor, John	Grieve, Percy	Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Atkins, Humphrey	Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)	Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)	Grylls, Michael	Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)
Benyon, W.	Gummer, J. Selwyn	Parkinson, Cecil
Berry, Hn. Anthony	Gurden, Harold	Percival, Ian
Biffen, John	Hannam, John (Exeter)	Pink, R. Bonner
Biggs-Davison, John	Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)	Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Boscawen, Hn. Robert	Haselhurst, Alan	Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Bray, Ronald	Havers, Sir Michael	Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Brinton, Sir Tatton	Hawkins, Paul	Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher	Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.DamePatricia	Russell, Sir Ronald
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)	Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)	St. John-Stevas, Norman
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)	Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)	Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)
Bruce-Gardyne, J.	James, David	Simeons. Charles
Bryan, Sir Paul	Jessel, Tory	Small, William
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)	Jopling, Michael	Speed, Keith
Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N&M)	King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)	Spence, John
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)	King, Tom (Bridgwater)	Sproat, Iain
Campbell, Rt.Hn.G.(Moray & Nairn)	Kinsey, J. R.	Stanbrook, Ivor
Chapman, Sydney	Kirk, Peter	Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)
Churchill, W. S.	Kitson, Timothy	Sutcliffe, John
Clerk, William (Surrey, E.)	Knight, Mrs. Jill	Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)
Clegg, Walter	Knox, David	Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Cooke, Robert	Le Marchant, Spencer	Tebbit, Norman
Cormack, Patrick	MacArthur, Ian	Thomas. John Stradling (Monmouth)
Critchley, Julian	McElhone, Frank	Tilney, Sir John
Crouch, David	McNair-Wilson, Michael	Waddington, David
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.	Mather, Carol	Ward, Dame Irene
Digby, Simon Wingfield	Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.	Warren, Kenneth
Drayson, Burnaby	Meyer, Sir Anthony	Weatherill, Bernard
Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John	Millan, Bruce	Wells, John (Maidstone)
Eyre, Reginald	Mills, Peter (Torrington)	Wiggin, Jerry
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)	Mitchell, Lt. -Col. C.(Aberdeenshire,W)	Winterton, Nicholas
Fortescue, Tim	Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)	Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
	Moate, Roger	Woodnutt, Mark
Fowler, Norman	Money, Ernie	Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.
Fox, Marcus	Monro, Hector	Younger, Hn. George
Galpern, Sir Myer	Montgomery, Fergus
Gibson-Watt, David	Morrison, Charles	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Gower, Raymond	Murton, Oscar	Mr. Kenneth Clarke and
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)	Neave, Airey	Mr. Hamish Gray.

864

§ Amendment proposed, as an amendment to the words so restored to the Bill: (d), in page 152, line 22, column 3, leave out 'Bishopbriggs'.—[Mr. Gordon Campbell.]

865

§ Question put:—

Division No. 216.	AYES	[11.30 p.m.
Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)	Grylls, Michael	Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)
Astor, John	Gummer, J. Selwyn	Parkinson, Cecil
Atkins, Humphrey	Gurden, Harold	Percival, Ian
Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)	Hannam, John (Exeter)	Pink, R. Bonner
Benyon, W.	Haselhurst, Alan	Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Berry, Hn. Anthony	Havers, Sir Michael	Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Biffen, John	Hawkins, Paul	Reed, Laurance (Bolton E.)
Biggs-Davison, John	Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia	Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Boscawen, Hn. Robert	Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)	Russell, Sir Ronald
Bray, Ronald	Hutchison, Michael Clark	St. John-Stevas, Norman
Brinton, Sir Tatton	Irvine, Bryan, Godman (Rye)	Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)
Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher	James, David	Simeons, Charles
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)	Jessel, Toby	Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)
Bruce-Gardyne, J.	Jopling, Michael	Speed, Keith
Bryan, Sir Paul	King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)	Spence, John
Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus,N&M)	King, Tom (Bridgwater)	Sproat, Iain
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)	Kinsey, J. R.	Stanbrook, Ivor
Campbell,Rt.Hn.G.(Moray & Nairn)	Kirk, Peter	Steel, David
Chapman, Sydney	Kitson, Timothy	Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)
Churchill, W. S.	Knight, Mrs. Jill	Sutcliffe, John
Clark, William (Surrey, E.)	Knox, David	Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Cooke, Robert	Le Marchant, Spencer	Tebbit, Norman
Cormack, Patrick	MacArthur, Ian	Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)
Critchley, Julian	McCartney, Hugh	Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy
Crouch, David	McNair-Wilson, Michael	Tilney, Sir John
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.	Mather, Carol	Tope, Graham
Digby, Simon Wingfield	Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.	Waddington, David
Drayson, Burnaby	Meyer, Sir Anthony	Ward, Dame Irene
Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John	Mills, Peter (Torrington)	Warren, Kenneth
Eyre, Reginald	Mitchell, Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire,W)	Weatherill, Bernard
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)	Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)	Wells, John (Maidstone)
Fortescue, Tim	Moate, Roger	Wiggin, Jerry
Fowler, Norman	Money, Ernie	Winterton, Nicholas
Fox, Marcus	Monro, Hector	Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
Gibson-Wall, David	Montgomery, Fergus	Woodnutt, Mark
Gower, Raymond	Morrison, Charles	Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)	Murton, Oscar	Younger, Hn. George
Gray, Hamish	Neave, Airey
Green, Alan	Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael	TELLERS FOR THE AYES
Grieve, Percy	Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally	Mr. Kenneth Clarke and
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)	Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)	Mr. Walter Clegg.

NOES
Bennett, James(Glasgow, Bridgeton)	Harper, Joseph	Mikardo, Ian
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)	Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)	Millan, Bruce
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)	Hart, Rt. Hn Judith	Miller, Dr. M. S.
Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)	Hattersley, Roy	Oswald, Thomas
Carmichael, Neil	Hatton, F.	Palmer, Arthur
Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)	Huckfield, Leslie	Prescott, John
Concannon, J. D.	Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)	Robertson, John (Paisley)
Dalyell, Tam	Hunter, Adam	Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
Davidson, Arthur	Jones, Barn (Flint, E.)	Sillars, James
Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)	Kelley, Richard	Skinner, Dennis
Dempsey, James	Lambie, David	Small, William
Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)	Lomas, Kenneth	Strang, Gavin
Eadie, Alex	Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson	Swain, Thomas
Evans, Fred	McBride, Neil	Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)
Ewing, Harry	McElhone, Frank	Wainwright, Edwin
Faulds, Andrew
Galpern, Sir Myer	Mackenzie, Gregor	White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)
Gilbert, Dr. John	Maclennan, Robert
Gourlay, Harry	McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)	McNamara, J. Kevin	Mr. James Hamilton and
Hardy, Peter	Marks, Kenneth	Mr. Michael Cocks.

§ Question accordingly agreed to.

§ Amendment proposed, as an amendment to the words so restored to the Bill: (e), in page 152, column 3, leave

866

§ The House divided: Ayes 119, Noes 57.

§ out lines 33 to 35.—[Mr. Gordon Campbell.]

867

§ Question put:—

§ Question accordingly agreed to.

868

§ The House divided: Ayes 116, Noes 57.

869

§ Amendment proposed, as an amendment to the words so restored to the Bill: (g), in page 152, line 35, at end insert: 'Kilpatricks In the county of Dunbarton—the burghs of Bearsden, Clydebank, Milngavie; the

Division No. 218.]	AYES	[11.49 p.m.
Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)	Hatton, F.	Robertson, John (Paisley)
Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)	Huckfield, Leslie	Sillars, James
Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)	Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)	Skinner, Dennis
Concannon, J. D.	Hunter, Adam	Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)
Dalyell, Tam	Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)	Steel, David
Davidson, Arthur	Kelley, Richard	Swain, Thomas
Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)	Lomas, Kenneth	Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy
Dempsey, James	McCartney, Hugh	Tope, Graham
Eadie, Alex	McNamara, J. Kevin	Wainwright, Edwin
Evans, Fred	Marks, Kenneth	White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)
Faulds, Andrew	Mikardo, Ian
Gourlay, Harry	Millan, Bruce	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
	Oswald, Thomas	Mr. David Lambie and
Hardy, Peter	Palmer, Arthur	Mr. Harry Ewing.
Hattersley, Roy	Prescott, John

NOES
Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)	Grieve, Percy	Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Astor, John	Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)	Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Atkins, Humphrey	Grylls, Michael	Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Bagier, Gordon A. T.	Gummer, J. Selwyn	Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)
Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)	Gurden, Harold	Parkinson, Cecil
Benyon, W.	Hannam, John (Exeter)	Percival, Ian
Berry, Hn. Anthony	Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)	Pink, R. Bonner
Biffen, John	Haselhurst, Alan	Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Biggs-Davison, John	Havers, Sir Michael	Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Boscawen, Hn. Robert	Hawkins, Paul	Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Bray, Ronald	Hornsby-Smith.Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia	Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Brinton, Sir Tatton	Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)	Russell, Sir Ronald
Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher	Hutchison, Michael Clark	St. John-Stevas, Norman
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)	Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)	Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)
Bruce-Gardyne, J.	James, David	Simeons, Charles
Bryan, Sir Paul	Jessel, Toby	Small, William
Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N&M)	Jopling, Michael	Speed, Keith
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)	King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)	Spence, John
Campbell, Rt.Hn.G.(Moray & Nairn)	King, Tom (Bridgwater)	Sproat, Iain
Chapman, Sydney	Kinsey, J. R.	Stanbrook, Ivor
Churchill, W S.	Kirk, Peter	Sutcliffe, John
Clark, William (Surrey, E.)	Kitson, Timothy	Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)
Cooke, Robert	Knight, Mrs. Jill	Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Cormack, Patrick	Knox, David	Tebbit, Norman
Critchley, Julian	Le Marchant, Spencer	Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)
Crouch, David	Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson	Tilney, Sir John
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.	MacArthur, Ian	Waddington, David
Digby, Simon Wingfield	McNair-Wilson, Michael	Ward, Dame Irene
Drayson, Burnaby	Mather, Carol	Warren, Kenneth
Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John	Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.	Weatherill, Bernard
Eyre, Reginald	Meyer, Sir Anthony	Wells, John (Maidstone)
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)	Mills, Peter (Torrington)	Wiggin, Jerry
Fortescue, Tim	Mitchell,Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire,W)	Winterton, Nicholas
Fowler, Norman	Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)	Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
Fox, Marcus	Moate, Roger	Woodnutt, Mark
Galpern, Sir Myer	Money, Ernie	Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.
Gibson-Watt, David	Monro, Hector	Younger, Hn. George
Gower, Raymond	Montgomery, Fergus
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)	Morrison, Charles	TELLERS FOR THE NOES
Gray, Hamish	Murton, Oscar	Mr. Walter Clegg and
Green, Alan	Neave, Airey	Mr. Kenneth Clarke.

§ Question accordingly negatived.

870

§ district of Old Kilpatrick except the electoral divisions of Bowling, Dunbarton).—[Mr. McCartney.]

§ Question put:—

§ The House divided: Ayes 39, Noes 118.

871

§ Amendment proposed, as an amendment to the words so restored to the Bill: (h), in page 152, columns 2 and 3. leave out lines 36 to 47 and insert: 'Clydebank In the county of Dunbarton—the burgh of Clydebank; the district of Old Kilpatrick (except the electoral divisions of Bowling, Dunbarton, and that part of the electoral division of Hardgate lying within the parish of New Kilpatrick). Bearsden and Milngavie In the county of Dunbarton—the burghs of Bearsden, Milngavie; that part of the electoral division of Hardgate lying within the parish of New Kilpatrick. Bishopbriggs and Kirkintilloch In the county of Dunbarton—the burgh of Kirkintilloch; those parts of the electoral divisions of Twechar and Waterside

Division No. 219.]	AYES	[11.58 p.m.
Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)	Green, Alan	Noble. Rt. Hn. Michael
Astor, John	Grieve, Percy	Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Atkins, Humphrey	Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)	Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Baker, W. H K. (Banff)	Grylls, Michael	Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)
Benyon, W.	Gummer, J. Selwyn	Parkinson, Cecil
Berry, Hn. Anthony	Gurden, Harold	Percival, Ian
Biffen, John	Hannam, John (Exeter)	Pink, R. Bonner
Biggs-Davison, John	Haselhurst, Alan	Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Boscawen, Hn. Robert	Havers, Sir Michael	Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Bray, Ronald	Hornsby-Smith.Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia	Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Brinton, Sir Tatton	Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)	Russell, Sir Ronald
Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher	Hutchison, Michael Clark	St. John-Stevas, Norman
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)	Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)	Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)
Bruce-Gardyne, J.	James, David	Simeons, Charles
Bryan, Sir Paul	Jessel, Toby	Speed, Keith
Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N&M)	Jopling, Michael	Spence, John
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)	King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)	Sproat, Iain
Campbell, Rt.Hn.G.(Moray & Nairn)	King, Tom (Bridgwater)	Stanbrook, Ivor
Chapman, Sydney	Kinsey, J. R.	Sutcliffe, John
Churchill, W. S.	Kirk, Peter	Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)
Clark, William (Surrey, E.)	Kitson, Timothy	Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)	Knight, Mrs. Jill	Tebbit, Norman
Clegg, Walter	Knox, David	Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)
Cooke, Robert	Le Marchant, Spencer	Tilney, Sir John
Cormack, Patrick	MacArthur, Ian	Waddington, David
Critchley, Julian	McNair-Wilson, Michael	Ward, Dame Irene
Crouch, David	Mather, Carol	Warren, Kenneth
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.	Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.	Weatherill, Bernard
Digby, Simon Wingfield	Meyer, Sir Anthony	Wells, John (Maidstone)
Drayson, Burnaby	Wills, Peter (Torrington)	Wiggin, Jerry
Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John	Mitchell,Lt.-Col. C.(Aberdeenshire, W)	Winterton, Nicholas
Eyre, Reginald	Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)	Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)		Woodnutt, Mark
Fortescue, Tim	Moate, Roger	Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.
Fowler, Norman	Money, Ernie	Younger, Hn. George
Fox, Marcus	Monro, Hector
Gibson-Watt, David	Montgomery, Fergus	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Gower, Raymond	Morrison, Charles	Mr. Paul Hawkins and
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)	Murton, Oscar	Mr. Hugh Rossi.
Gray, Hamish	Neave, Airey

NOES
Bennett, James(Glasgow, Bridgeton)	Dempsey, James	Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)	Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)	Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)	Eadie, Alex	Hattersley, Roy
Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)	Evans, Fred	Hatton, F.
Carmichael, Neil	Ewing, Harry	Huckfield, Leslie
Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)	Faulds, Andrew	Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Concannon, J. D.	Galpern, Sir Myer	Hunter, Adam
Dalyell, Tam	Gourlay, Harry	Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Davidson, Arthur	Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)	Kelley, Richard
Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)	Hardy, Peter	Lambie, David

872

§ lying outwith the designated area of Cumbernauld New Town.

§ In the county of Lanark—the burgh of Bishopbriggs; the electoral divisions of Chryston, Stepps.

§ In the county of Stirling—The Western No. 3 district.

§ Cumbernauld In the county of Dunbarton—the burgh of Cumbernauld; the electoral division of Croy and Dullatur and those parts of the electoral divisions of Twechar and Waterside lying within the designated area of Cumbernauld New Town. In the county of Stirling—the burgh of Kilsyth; the electoral division of Kilsyth West; the polling district of Kilsyth East (Banton),'—[Mr. Gordon Campbell.]

§ Question put:—

§ The House divided: Ayes 114, Noes 55.

873

Lomas, Kenneth	Miller, Dr. M. S.	Steel, David
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson	Oswald, Thomas	Strang, Gavin
McCartney, Hugh	Palmer, Arthur	Swain, Thomas
McElhone, Frank	Prescott, John	Tope, Graham
Maclennan, Robert	Robertson, John (Paisley)	Wainwright, Edwin
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow. C.)	Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)	White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)
McNamara, J. Kevin	Sillars, James
Marks, Kenneth	Skinner, Dennis	TELLERS FOR THE NOES
Mikardo, Ian	Small, William	Mr. James Hamilton and
Millan, Bruce	Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)	Mr. Michael Cocks.

§ Question accordingly agreed to.

§ Amendments made to the words so restored to the Bill:

§ (j), in page 153, line 10, column 2, leave out 'Cadzow' and insert 'Hamilton'.

§ (k), in page 153, column 3, leave out lines 29 and 30.

§ (l), in page 153, line 30, columns 2 and 3, at end insert— 'Eastwood In the county of Renfrew—the First district.'

§ (m), in page 154, line 13, column 3, at end insert— 'that part of the parish of Ayr within the district of Dalmellington; the polling district of Coylton'

§ (n), in page 154, line 16, column 3, at end insert— '(except that part of the parish of Ayr within this district; the polling district of Coylton)'.—[Mr. Gordon Campbell.]