HL Deb 15 July 1965 vol 268 cc373-83

Constitution of the Board

3. The majority of the members of the Board, including in particular the chairman thereof, shall be engaged whole-time in the service of the Board.

9.27 p.m.

LORD DRUMALBYN moved, in paragraph 3, to leave out "The majority of the members of the Board, including in particular the chairman thereof" and to insert "The Chairman of the Board". The noble Lord said: The hour is late and we had better not discuss the Amendments in the Schedules. If I were to say we should do so, my noble friend Lord Strathclyde, who sat until after ten o'clock on the Committee stage waiting to speak, and who has been sitting all this time waiting to make a speech to-day, would probably not forgive me. At any rate, I hope that he will forgive me if I say something.

The purpose of this Amendment is quite simple. It is to replace the words The majority of the members of the Board, including in particular the chairman thereof … by the words The Chairman of the Board shall be engaged whole-time. I did not move this on Committee stage for lack of time, and I am well aware that this Amendment was moved in another place in deference to the wishes of Back-Benchers on both sides. I personally believe that the Chairman should be whole-time, or nearly so, for he needs to live in the Highlands and be in constant touch with opinion there. I am not so certain about whether the other members should be whole-time or not. If they are to be executive members with particular functions there is something to be said for it, but apparently that was not what the Government originally intended. They did not wish to tie themselves down to any particular pattern until they were obliged to do so by Back-Benchers on both sides. I followed the debates in another place, but I am bound to say that I thought the Government agreed to this for no very clear reasons.

I should like to put three questions to them. First of all, do they intend full-time members, other than the Chairman, to be functional and executive? Secondly, if so, what do they envisage their functions are likely to be? Thirdly, do they expect to be able to find three or four women with the necessary qualifications ready and willing to abandon all their other interests and confine themselves solely to this work and to live in the Highlands? Unless the answers are that they are expected to be functional and that the noble Lord expects to be able to get such people with the necessary qualifications to live in the Highlands, I fail to see why it should be prescribed in the Bill that a majority of the members must be whole-time. That is the purpose of the Amendment. My Lords, I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 12, line 10, leave out from beginning to ("shall") in line 11 and insert ("The Chairman of the Board ").—(Lord Drumalbyn.)

9.30 p.m.

LORD STRATHCLYDE

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn is going beyond what I intended. I do not intend to make a speech; I intend to make one or two observations in regard to this Amendment. As the paragraph in the Schedule stands, it seems that the Secretary of State is left with very little discretion, for, as I read it, out of a Board consisting of a chairman and six members, three of those members must be whole-time, and the chairman also has to be whole-time. I think it would be much better if it were left to the discretion of the Secretary of State to decide by himself what was most suitable for the purpose he had in view. It is for that reason that I am supporting that part of the Amendment which would appear to me to free him from the necessity of appointing three whole-time members.

In so far as the chairman is concerned, I should also like to give the Secretary of State discretion. It seems to me that by insisting on a whole-time chairman you very much reduce the area of choice which is open to the Secretary of State; and this appointment of chairman is of the greatest importance. If this Board is to get off to a good start and is to have a chance of succeeding, as we all hope it will, then the chairman must be a man of the highest quality, and he must be chosen as the best man the Secretary of State can find out of the widest possible field available to him. This restriction is, to my mind, really deplorable, because I honestly cannot see any man of proved ability in any field, whether it be trade, industry, commerce or the professions, between the ages of 40 and 55, let me say, accepting an appointment of this kind, which means that he severs all the connections that he has, and takes himself, his wife and his family possibly to Inverness on an engagement which may be of only a few years' duration. I think that narrowing the field in that way is to put a brake on the whole of this operation. I repeat, in my opinion the greatest discretion should be left to the Secretary of State in choosing the gentleman who is to be the chairman of this Board. I support the Amendment in this connection, by reason of the fact that I understand my noble friend was speaking to both Amendments, 30 and 31.

LORD DRUMALBYN

My Lords, I am quite prepared to join the two Amendments, if that is for the convenience of my noble friend.

LORD STRATHCLYDE

My Lords, I think it would be for the convenience of the House, but it would certainly be for my convenience, because the onus on the Secretary of State will be eased, and he will be allowed at least a certain measure of discretion. It is for that reason that I support this Amendment, and I hope that the Minister will be able to accept it.

LORD AIREDALE

My Lords, if we are talking about Amendment 31 as well, may I just raise one small point on that Amendment which appears to raise the question of the meaning of the expression shall be engaged whole-time in the service of the Board. I take it that all this means is that the Board member will be expected to give his services to the Board during the times that the Board normally expects his services. If the Board does not require his services on a Saturday afternoon, and if he wishes to take other paid employment on a Saturday afternoon, such as a stipendiary steward at a sporting fixture, or something of that kind, I take it that he would not be precluded from doing that by reason of the wording of this Schedule.

LORD HUGHES

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, for agreeing to the suggestion of his noble friend Lord Strathclyde, that Amendments Nos. 30 and 31 should be taken together, because they carry different arguments. I regret that I have to ask your Lordships not to accept either of these Amendments. As to the first one, I have no difficulty in saying this because, for a variety of reasons, I do not think that it would be a good thing to make it possible for the chairman of this Board to be a part-time member, in the possible connotation of what a part-time member could be.

When I come to the second Amendment, quite honestly, I find myself in greater difficulties—

LORD DRUMALBYN

Just for the Record, the Amendments are not that the chairman should be part-time, but that all the other members of the Board may be part-time, or need not be whole-time. The Amendments would make the Bill read: The chairman of the Board shall be engaged whole-time or substantially whole-time in the service of the Board".

LORD HUGHES

I see. As it stands at the present time, of course, the chairman of the Board is to be whole-time, so it does not need any Amendment to give effect to that intention. So far as the other members of the Board are concerned, the Bill makes it obligatory for the majority, including the chairman, specifically, to be engaged whole-time in the service of the Board and "whole-time", of course, must take its ordinary meaning—I say this in reply to the pertinent point made by the noble Lord, Lord Airedale. It does not mean that they must be engaged on the business of the Board for 24 hours of the day, seven days a week. It is to be the normal whole-time meaning. It does not preclude persons from doing, in what would normally be regarded as their own time, things which people in other whole-time spheres of activity would be permitted to do. The sort of thing they obviously would not be either permitted or encouraged to do would be to take on such other jobs, nominally in their spare time, which obviously could be carried out only by their devoting a fair amount of their activities or their thought to it when they were supposed to be doing the work of the Board. It is quite easy to draw a clear distinction between these two types of operation.

I should have liked to accept the second Amendment because, quite frankly, it would have given the Secretary of State a freedom which would have been desirable; but, in fact, the discussions which have taken place since an Amendment was accepted in the other place have made it perfectly clear that the Secretary of State is not (as, quite frankly, we feared) going to be frustrated in his ability to get the right sort of man for the job by this wording. I may be wrong (because all that I know of the debates in another place is what I have read of them after they have taken place, so one can put a wrong interpretation on what people might have accepted), but I have a feeling that if an Amendment in this form had been moved in another place it might well have been in the Bill to-day. I am pretty certain that my colleagues would have felt happier with it. But the fact is that what went into the Bill is something which goes beyond this; and it went into the Bill in circumstances which make it quite unrealistic to expect for one moment that another place would agree to going back on what has been decided.

I would remind your Lordships that in the Bill as it was first drafted there was complete freedom to the Secretary of State. There was no obligation on him, even the less onerous obligation in these Amendments; but, as a result of pressure from all three Parties in another place, the Government accepted that they would not be adhering to the wishes of the House if they did not give way on an Amendment of that kind. While I know that I cannot quote what honourable Members have said, I think it would be fair to say that no one pressed this point of view more strongly than the former Secretary of State for Scotland, Mr. Noble; or the Liberal Member for Inverness, or the Labour Member for the Western Isles. They had these very varied people whom my noble friend prefers to call "an unholy combination"—and I think that is a perfectly proper description of that triumvirate.

Having conceded the whole of the demand in another place, to attempt to take one-quarter back is something which just will not work. I should have risked—and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, I am sure, would have risked—having to argue this if he could have gone back honestly and said: "Inquiries I have been making in regard to membership of the Board have convinced me, since accepting this Amendment, that you have given me a task which is unworkable." But the inquiries which have taken place would not have enabled the Secretary of State in truth to say that. So it is not necessary to take this provision out of the Bill to get the people on the Board whom the Secretary of State would wish to have on the Board. I suggest that that is the only justification which really could weigh with me now at this late stage in seeking to withdraw from the Bill a major concession of this kind made by the Government, against, at the time, their own better judgment, because of pressure from all sides of the House in another place. I think, for these reasons and for these reasons only, I must ask your Lordships not to press these Amendments.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS

My Lords, may I offer an invitation to the noble Lord, Lord Hughes? If at any moment there is the slightest difficulty in staffing the Board with the proper people because of the restrictions of this particular Schedule (though I have no doubt he will have plenty of volunteers to put down very quickly a Private Member's Bill to set the matter right) I should happily volunteer myself to do it for him.

LORD DRUMALBYN

My Lords, I think I speak for all noble Lords when I say we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, for what he has said. I know he has not dealt with the point regarding the other members being whole-time and what he expects their functions to be. I hoped that he would be able to say a little more about that. I do not know whether he can do so; but I realise that this is a matter likely to be one for discussion with the Chairman of the Board when he is actually appointed. I am bound to say that I think it was a mistake for the Secretary of State to commit himself to having whole-time members on the Board before he knew what they were going to do; and, with due respect, I think it was perhaps rather a mistake for people in another place to think that he should do so. But there it is. I think we must accept the arguments the noble Lord has put before us. He has said he anticipates being able to get the right man for this important job. That being so, I think we have explored this as far as we can; and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule 2 [Provisions as to the Highlands and Islands Development Consultative Council]:

9.44 p.m.

LORD DRUMALBYN moved, after paragraph 1, to insert: . No member of the Board shall be entitled to serve as Chairman of the Council, but any member of the Board other than the Chairman and any deputy Chairman may serve as a member of the Council.

The noble Lord said: I hope I shall not delay the Committee very long on this. My own personal view is that the Consultative Council will function properly only if it has the maximum independence. Only thus will it do the best possible work and he able to give independent advice of real value. I know very well that there are such things as an advisory committee where the chairman of the body that it advises takes the chair of the committee. I think it could work only where the Committee is appointed by the Board which it advises. In this case we have a body nominated by the Secretary of State broadly to represent the area.

My Lords, if the Council were to be presided over by the Chairman of the Board, without question he would dominate it. The same would apply if the Chairman were a member of the Board. It may be an advantage to have a member of the Board, particularly a part-time and not a functional or executive member, sitting as a member of the Council. That is something which Parliament could well leave to the Secretary of State, but I believe that Parliament should say clearly and firmly that the chair of the Council should not be occupied by a member of the Board. In the past there have been unfortunate examples which are too well known to need mentioning. I think that we should learn from these examples and make sure that the same thing does not happen again.

Amendment moved— Page 14, line 37, at end insert the said new paragraph.—(Lord Drumalbyn.)

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

My Lords, I support what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn. I have had personal experience of one of those unfortunate incidents which he mentioned. I will not enlarge on that. I think that to have a full-time Chairman on the Board would not be a good set-up and I ask the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, to accept the Amendment.

LORD HUGHES

My Lords, I am sorry, but I cannot accept the Amendment. I sympathise with the reasons advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn. I think it most unlikely, and only the most remote possibility, that the Chairman of the Board would also be the Chairman of the Council. It is almost as unlikely, but not completely impossible, that the Chairman of the Board would be a member of the Council. I think that he would have far too much to do without involving himself directly in the membership of the Council. I agree that one could not rule it out entirely.

I am not so certain that the same may be said of the Deputy-Chairman. It may be an advantage to have complete freedom in this matter. It may be found desirable to have some common membership. When the Council were discussing matters they might well wish to have someone who could give direct information about the views of the Board. It may well be that the Council would prefer that this be someone with seniority, such as the Deputy-Chairman. It is more likely that it would be a member of the Board—that is provided for in the Amendment, and I should not like to rule out the possibility of what is the normal pattern in consultative councils, although I recognise that the circumstances of their appointment are different. I am not sure that it is likely to happen, at any rate at the beginning, but it ought not to be possible for the Chairman of the Council to be a member of the Board.

This is to be a small body with a considerable job to do and probably the job will be done more easily and the Council work more effectively if they are separate bodies, but it would be a mistake to put this into the Bill in such a way as to inhibit the Board, the Council and the Secretary of State from doing the job in what would appear the best possible way. We are determined that the composition of the Council should clearly be such that no one would be able to say that they were a body of "yes-men" for the Board. Obviously that must limit considerably the direct participation of the Board by a number of members in the functioning of the Council. We think it is important to ensure that. But I do not think that it would be wise to do what is suggested in this Amendment, although it may well be that in practice everything which the Amendment seeks to make mandatory will be carried out.

LORD DRUMALBYN

My Lords, I do not think that I can press the noble Lord any further on this. He has explained the likelihoods—indeed, the inclinations—of the Scottish Office on this and I am satisfied with that. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD DRUMALBYN moved in paragraph 6 to leave out "Board shall appoint a person employed by them" and to insert "Council shall appoint a person". The noble Lord said: This is the last of the Amendments. Reference has been made to the need for the Council to be independent. We recognise the convenience of having a secretary who is appointed by the Board and is a member of the Board. The paragraph says: The Board shall appoint a person employed by them to act as Secretary to the Council". The Amendment would make this read: The Council shall appoint a person to act as Secretary to the Council". The factors are these. There is a Council nominated by the Secretary of State, with a secretary employed by the Board. This seems to me to be an untidy arrangement. Admittedly, the secretary will know what is going on in the Board and will have many jobs on the Board, apart from being secretary of the Council. Equally, my Amendment does not say that the Council shall appoint a person to act as whole-time secretary. It would probably be better, as the Council is to consist of members nominated by the Secretary of State, if it is to have a secretary foisted (as it were) on it that it should be done by the Secretary of State and not by the Board, the more so as there are likely to be assessors from the Scottish Office attending meetings of the Council.

I think it is essential that some words should be in this paragraph to make certain that the Council shall have a secretary that is acceptable to them, and if the Council are not to appoint their own secretary, I would rather have the Secretary of State appoint a person acceptable to the Council. I think there is something wrong with this paragraph, and if the words suggested here are not right, it may be possible to put it right before Third Reading. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 15, line 8, leave out from ("The") to ("to") and insert ("Council shall appoint a person")—(Lord Drumalbyn.)

Lord HUGHES

I wish to invite the noble Lord not to press this Amendment. The procedure in the Bill is a common one, which has been followed with complete satisfaction in a number of cases. It simplifies questions of salary, staffing, pension and so on. The Secretary of the Advisory Council on Civil Aviation is appointed by the Ministry of Aviation. The Secretary of the Highland Panel, to come nearer home, is provided by the Secretary of State's Department of Agriculture, with complete acceptance to the Highland Panel.

Lord DRUMALBYN

My Lords, this was the alternative I suggested. If the Council is not to have its own secretary appointed by itself, then I said that I thought the Secretary of State should appoint him, and not the Board.

Lord HUGHES

Yes. I was only giving the best examples of secretaries appointed by bodies other than themselves. I was going on to say that for consultative councils, such bodies as the Highland Board provide perfectly acceptable secretaries. Obviously, the secretary must be acceptable to the Council for whom he is to work. I think it would be an insult to the Board and to the Council to put in wording of this kind, because this is implicit in it. But it does make certain that they have an official who will do the job properly, and whose first priority will be to the Council. I invite the noble Lord not to press the Amendment.

Lord DRUMALBYN

In view of what the noble Lord has said, I willingly withdraw the Amendment. I would conclude by thanking him for the way in which he has conducted these proceedings.

Amendment, by leave withdrawn.