Lords Sitting of 17 July 1973

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR On the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Chichester.

LORD ASHBY
Sir Eric Ashby, Knight, having been created Baron Ashby, of Brandon in the County of Suffolk, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Hacking and the Lord Todd.

TAXATION EXEMPTION: BRITISH SUBJECTS ABROAD
2.47 p.m.
LORD HALE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what is the most recent estimate of the number of British subjects domiciled abroad and claiming substantial exemption from British taxation and what is the estimated loss of revenue involved.
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: My Lords, this information is not available.
LORD HALE: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that when I asked the same Question 20 years ago the information was then not available? While no one wants to penalise these people living abroad is he aware that since then there has been a series of financial scandals of great magnitude involving fraudulent banks and fraudulent companies; that we have now joined a Common Market which is so uncommon that there are Associate countries in which our writs of extradition do not run, and that the world is being made extremely safe for the unacceptable face of capitalism?
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: My Lords, without wishing to detract from the noble Earl's eloquence I think that he should
1002
admit that to deliver the same answer 20 years later is a remarkable case of consistency in government.
LORD HALE: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that of course the same answer could have been made by Canute had he lived long enough; that there has been progress and that there is very deep public concern at this moment about a state of things in which bribery, corruption, financial fraud, financial jugglery, is becoming almost an acceptable aberration and the sort of conduct that one expects from millionaires who seem to be increasing?
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: My Lords, I am not quite sure what area of malpractice the noble Lord has in mind. However, we are to have a chance to debate finance affairs next Tuesday, and if he wishes to bring to my attention any particular malpractices I will do my best to comment.
LORD HALE: My Lords, I am sorry to press the noble Earl, and I apologise for asking a further supplementary question. Is he aware that over the last 18 months I have with some regularity brought to the attention of the Government notice of these malpractices, and have raised questions about them; that the areas of non-extradition now include even part of the old British Commonwealth of Nations in Uganda and certainly in Rwanda Burundi; that the Cayman Islands have been mentioned in the House before; that even the Virgin Islands are not so intact as they were some years ago; that these areas are well known, and that as recently as last week there were Questions put, possibly in his absence, about Luxembourg and its peculiar rules about companies?
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: My Lords, if the noble Lord will put his concern—and I appreciate his concern—in the form of slightly more precise questions, or if he wishes to raise these matters in slightly more precise terms in debate, I will do my best to accommodate him.

DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY: TELEPHONE DELAYS
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question

1003
which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware of long delays in obtaining a reply when telephoning the Department of Trade and Industry and what steps they will take to increase the number of operators, and, if need be, telephone equipment.
'THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD DRUMALBYN): My Lords, I regret these delays. There have recently been intermittent faults in equipment serving the Department's headquarters in Victoria Street and at Export House. It may well be these faults which have delayed some incoming calls. New equipment is being installed at 1, Victoria Street, which will enable callers to dial direct to the extensions they require. This equipment should be introduced starting in the spring of next year. The possibility of introducing similar facilities at Export House will he kept under review.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, in thanking my noble friend for that full Answer, bespeaking yet further delay in the improvement to which we look forward, may I ask him whether he is aware that these complaints reach back not a matter of months or days, but certainly for the past year? Is he aware that it has become necessary for Members of either House of Parliament to seek out the private line to the Private Office of the Secretary of State in order to get a message down to somebody at quite a moderate level in the Civil Service hierarchy of the Board of Trade, just because six minutes' waiting for an answer is not good enough?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am aware that about two years ago, or more, complaints were justified because at that time new equipment was then being installed. I would also explain that some of the delays are due to the fact that the design of the apparatus is such that it does not necessarily present calls to the operators in the same sequence in which they are received.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, can my noble friend assure the House that the reorganisation of Govern
1004
ment heralded in 1970 will at last lead to the reorganisation of telephone communications with one of the most important Departments of State?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am quite certain that that is the object of the changes which are being made, and I hope that they will prove successful.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, would the Minister agree that another way of helping the problem would be to reduce the number of incoming calls? And would he further agree that that might be achieved if the noble Earl accomplished his previous objective of getting a speedy reply to letters written to this Department?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, the communications with the Department of Trade and Industry are very definitely two-way.

HIJACKING OF AIRCRAFT
2.53 p.m.
LORD JANNER: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what is the present position with regard to steps to be taken in respect of the hijacking of aeroplanes.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, stringent security measures continue to be maintained at our airports and the noble Lord will know that the House will be resuming consideration of the Protection of Aircraft Bill next week. Among other things, the Bill will enable us to give effect to the Montreal Convention on acts of sabotage against civil aviation. We have already ratified the Tokyo and Hague Conventions dealing with other crimes against civil aviation, particularly hijacking.
A special Assembly of the International Civil Aviation Organisation is to open in Rome next month where the United Kingdom/Swiss proposal and a French proposal will be on the agenda. We have now agreed with the French and the Swiss Governments that we should put forward a joint proposal which will incorporate the relevant parts of the Hague and Montreal Conventions within

1005
the Chicago Convention and thus bring them within the discipline of the International Civil Aviation Organisation. We have been doing our best to get international support for the joint proposal and for the strengthening of the IcAo's powers to suspend air services to defaulting States.
LORD JANNER: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that reply, may I ask whether the Government are taking any steps to see that those who harbour hijackers shall not have available to them the air services which they are reducing by retaining the criminals who are carrying on their activities in that particular direction? Will the noble Lord ask of the next Convention that is held whether steps will be taken internationally to implement such measures as are decided upon?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I think the main problem here is that one can act only by international agreement. If we were to take action on our own, no doubt it would be quite easy for hijackers and States that harbour them to get away with the matter: the hijackers could find some safe resting-place. The object of our proposal is to make certain that IcAo will have the means to deal with these matters; but at the end of the day sanctions are a matter for the United Nations.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, while agreeing with the noble Lord that the provisions of the Protection of Aircraft Bill will be of little avail unless they are ratified internationally, can the noble Lord say whether any attempt has been made to get agreement, at any rate within the members of the E.E.C.?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, we have come fairly close to it, because, as I said, France and ourselves, together with Switzerland, have separate amendments to propose to the Chicago Convention: and now we have got together with them, and we are doing our best to get the widest possible acceptance in Europe and elsewhere.
LORD JANNER: My Lords, will the noble Lord take into consideration the fact that it is most important that the proposals that were put forward, for example, by Canada and America on a previous
1006
occasion should be supported by us? Are we taking any steps ourselves in order to alter the Chicago arrangement; and, if so, what are they? And shall we take further steps to stop those who harbour hijackers from having the facilities to which they are not entitled?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, the proposal that we are putting forward is designed to achieve that object. It will incorporate the first 11 Articles of the Hague Convention and the 13 Articles of the Montreal Convention, which deal with hijacking and sabotage, into the Convention. If our proposals are accepted, it will be possible for IcAo to recommend the withdrawal of rights or over-flight by airlines of defaulting States. This is covered, I think, by Article 87 of the Chicago Convention.

EGYPTIAN STAMPS: DISTRIBUTION BY CROWN AGENTS
LORD JANNER: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they are now prepared to take to prevent the Crown Agents from distributing such vile and horrific stamps as were issued recently by the Government of Egypt against Israel and whether they regard the abuse of the postal services involved in any such distribution as tolerable.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE): My Lords, I am informed that distribution of the stamps by the Crown Agents has ceased and that no more will be distributed by them. The question of abuse of the postal services does not appear to arise in this connection.
LORD JANNER: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Baroness for that Answer, which will give considerable satisfaction to those who were really horrified by what was being done.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that while I greatly sympathise with the noble

1007
Lord's Question, the form of the Question on the Order Paper is objectionable in terms of Rule 31 of our Rules of Order, and that the noble Lord's Question would be more effective if he put it in proper terms?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, no doubt the noble Lord, Lord Janner, will take that into account.
LORD JANNER: My Lords, I have already had an intimation to the effect that procedure is rather different in your Lordships' House from that in the other House during the 30 years' experience I had there. It takes a little time to change from the one kind of procedure to the other.

NORTH WALES HYDRO-ELECTRIC POWER BILL
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): My Lords, Private Bill Standing Order 91 provides that the Chairman of Committees may direct the attention of the House to any special circumstances relevant to any Private Bill which may appear to him to require it. The North Wales Hydro-Electric Power Bill (I apologise to your Lordships for the mistake in the Title of the Bill as printed on the Order Paper) confers on the Central Electricity Generating Board powers for the construction of a generating station and works in the County of Carmarthen and the acquisition of land for that purpose. There were four Petitions against the Bill in the other place, but there is none in this House. I have, however, received a letter from the North Wales Hydro Electricity Protection Committee, who petitioned in the other place, to the effect that in their opinion there remain issues which go to the heart of the Bill and are still unresolved, and that it is only the absence of sufficient funds which prevents the Committee from depositing a petition against the Bill in this House.
I thought it my duty to inform the House of these facts before the Second Reading of the Bill, which is down for next Thursday. These, in my opinion, are special circumstances which noble Lords may wish to take into account before the Second Reading.

ENDOWED SCHOOL ACTS (AMENDMENT) BILL [H.L.]
LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to amend the powers of the Secretary of State for Education and Science to frame Schemes under the Endowed Schools Acts 1869 to 1874. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1ª.—(Lord Clifford of Chudleigh.)
On Question, Bill read 1ª.and to be printed.

CROMARTY FIRTH PORT AUTHORITY ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Considered on Report.
ULLAPOOL PIER ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Considered on Report.
GLASGOW CORPORATION (PARKS ETC.) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Considered on Report.

EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL
3.3 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (LORD POLWARTH): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The main purpose of the Bill is to make clear that the Secretary of State has power to make regulations requiring education authorities to employ only teachers registered with the General Teaching Council for Scotland. The position is that the Court of Session have recently declared such a regulation, made in 1967 by the previous Administration, to be ultra vices, at least so far as it purported to apply to certain teachers. The regulation was one of a series of measures taken to implement the policy of the Teaching Council (Scotland) Act 1965, which set up the General Teaching Council with functions more or less analogous to those exercised in

1009
another professional field, to take one example, by the General Medical Council.
The 1965 Act itself did not contain any requirement that all teachers had to be registered with the Council. Instead, as was explained during the passage of the 1965 Bill, the intention was to use the Secretary of State's powers under the Education (Scotland) Act 1962 to restrict certain employment to teachers registered with the Council. Accordingly, the Government of the day—that is, the previous Administration—prescribed by regulation that from April 1, 1968, only registered teachers might be employed in education authority and grant-aided schools. This meant, in effect, that anyone who wished to take up or continue in such employment had to register. This requirement was imposed equally on new entrants to the profession and on teachers who were already in service. As was only natural, at the start of this arrangement there were teething troubles. Some teachers already in service objected for one reason or another to the new system and unfortunately a small number took their opposition to the point of refusing to register, with the result that they made themselves no longer eligible for employment and were dismissed by their employers.
Although there was much controversy over these events, I think your Lordships should note that the regulation to which I have referred was not then challenged. It was, in fact, only quite recently that the Court of Session decided that the Secretary of State's powers under the 1962 Act were not sufficiently specific to enable him to make registration a condition of employment for teachers already in post at April 1, 1968. It is this deficiency that subsection (1) of Clause 1 seeks to repair. Without this subsection, the entire apparatus for the control of the profession contemplated by the Aot of 1965 would be ineffective, as some 30,000 certificated teachers in employment since before 1968 would be under no obligation to register or to have registered with the Council.
Turning to the other provisions of Clause 1, subsection (2) clarifies the Secretary of State's power to prescribe registration in the grant-aided sector. This power has not in fact been challenged: hence the expression, "for the avoidance of doubt". Subsection (3) deals with the
1010
interpretation of the amending regulation which requires teachers in schools to be registered. Apart altogether from the issue of vires, a question was raised as to the proper meaning of the regulation. The Court decided that, as had been intended, the regulation applied to certificated teachers in post at April 1, 1968, and not only to teachers appointed subsequently. It is perhaps unlikely that this decision could be challenged in further litigation but the clause is intended to put the matter beyond doubt.
I am sure that noble Lords will agree with the general purposes of the Bill as I have explained them. There is, however, one feature which I know calls for further explanation. That is, of course, the retrospective application of Clause 1 and especially that of the first subsection. I need hardly assure noble Lords that this application was decided upon only after most careful consideration of the possible effects of doing without it, thus making the provisions of the Bill effective only from the date of enactment. If the Bill were not to have retrospective application, public bodies—that is to say, education authorities and the General Teaching Council in particular—would be left at risk of legal proceedings in respect of actions taken by them in good faith and under statutory rules, the validity of which had not then been challenged. I would emphasise that I am speaking not only of the dismissal of teachers who had declined to maintain their eligibility for employment by registering with the Council; I also have in mind the many thousands of annual renewals of registrations that have been effected by deduction of the fee from salary.
The Bill is therefore intended to safeguard public bodies from the possible consequences of acts done in perfect good faith and to place beyond doubt the validity of past registrations, and for these purposes a measure of retrospection is required. I would emphasise, however, that this merely involves restoring the law to what successive Administrations and the public authorities concerned had thought it to be. In other words, the Bill does not impose any new requirement with retrospective effect and teachers affected by it will therefore remain precisely in the position they have assumed themselves to be in since 1968. None the less, some teachers did lose their jobs

1011
by virtue of a regulation which was later found to be defective. The House should not, I suggest, overlook the fact that these people deliberately sought dismissal as a form of protest. But, that said, the Government recognise that some account should be taken of the flaw in the regulations and accordingly we propose that any dismissed teacher who has suffered loss of income should be compensated by an exgratia payment from his previous employing authority who will be reimbursed in full by the Exchequer.
My Lords, I hope I have made it clear why this short Bill is necessary. Its purpose is limited and it contains no new requirements. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª. —(Lord Polwarth.)
3.10 p.m.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I wish to speak briefly in support of the Second Reading of this Bill, the need for which the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, stated the case very clearly, and without in any way exaggerating any of the circumstances. As I understand it, the scheme for the registration of teachers was part of what the teaching profession wished. As the noble Lord said, they wished to improve the status of their profession. It is a complaint of teachers—and, most of us will agree, a justified one—that over the years their position in the league o; professions has fallen back; and teachers, in comparison with other professions, are generally poorly paid. The belief was that by improving the status of the profession, by giving them a degree of control in the same way as other professions, their case would be helped, if not in the immediate future, certainly in the long run. I know of no suggestion that this scheme should be abandoned. If, therefore, retrospective effect were not given to it, we should almost certainly have to go back to square one and start all over again. This would be a considerable waste of time and money; and most of the money wasted would be that of the teachers themselves.
There is no deception involved here; we are not seeking to change the law retrospectively. I do not think the teachers were in opposition because they were certain of winning a legal action,
1012
but because they disagreed with the idea. They have proved through the courts that the regulation was defective. Whether they sought dismissal to pursue their case or because of strong conscientious feelings on the subject, is immaterial. The Minister has given the undertaking that they will not lose as a result of the action they took. If it had not been for that undertaking I would have wished to have put down or, alternatively, to support an Amendment to make that decision clear. It is not necessary to do so, and therefore we are entitled to pass this Bill in exactly the same form as it reached us from another place.
3.14 p.m.
LORD WADE: My Lords, a debate on education in Scotland is not something in regard to which I would normally venture to take part, but, as your Lordships have been made aware, the Bill raises a principle in that it is retrospective in nature. That the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, has acknowledged. In my view the Bill is clearly retrospective in its effect and intention. One has only to read part of the Explanatory Memorandum to get the gist of the point. I will read an extract:
"…the Secretary of State's power to make regulations…includes and is to be deemed always to have included on and after November I, 1965 power to prescribe that only teachers registered with the General Teaching Council for Scotland shall be employed in the educational establishments to which the regulations apply."
If it is necessary for me to make an excuse for daring to take part in a debate on Scottish legislation, may I say that this is not the first time that I have raised the issue of retrospective legislation. I can claim to be consistent in this matter as I spoke against the War Damage Act of 1965 which dealt retrospectively with the claim by the Burmah Oil Company. I spoke against a retrospective element in the Immigration Act of 1971, and I now find myself speaking on a somewhat similar subject to-day. In this case I think the protests by certain teachers in Scotland, by others concerned about legal principles, and by Members of another place, are fully justified.
Legislation of a retrospective nature is from time to time brought forward for various reasons. Sometimes the Government of the day wish to alter the law to

1013
what certain people thought the law to be, and to do so retrospectively. That is always bad in principle. Sometimes a Government may wish to alter a decision of the courts retrospectively for the convenience of the Government. Both those grounds are objectionable in principle.
It is interesting to compare this Bill, although so different in many respects, with the War Damage Act of 1965. Your Lordships will remember that the point at issue was the claim for compensation by the Burmah Oil Company. There are several similarities, although broadly the circumstances are different. In both cases proceedings were started in Scotland. In the case of the Burmah Oil Company the issue was fought out up to the House of Lords as the highest court in the land. The House of Lords decided that compensation was payable. The Government of the day then introduced a Bill to alter the law retrospectively. The House of Lords was put in an invidious position because the Lords, in its legislative capacity, was being asked to overrule the decision of the Lords in its judicial capacity and to do so retrospectively. The legal circumstances here are slightly different. The issue came before the House of Lords and doubt was expressed as to whether regulations were ultra vires. It was the decision of the Court of Session that led to the introduction of this Bill.
But there is another respect in which a comparison is interesting. In the case of the Burmah Oil Bill it was not thought fit to throw out the Bill on Second Reading; but an Amendment was introduced on Committee stage to reject the main clause in the Bill. I suggest that that course might be considered here. I am conscious of the point which the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, has made about compensation, and that of course must be taken into account. It seems to me in this case it would be appropriate to consider the matter further, by way of amendment in Committee. Some of my noble friends have this point in mind in order that it might be considered further on the Committee stage. I realise that there may be other arguments relevant to the merits and de-merits of this Bill; but I believe that the retrospective nature of the Bill should not go unchallenged.
LORD HANKEY: My Lords, I would hesitate to intervene in this debate if I
1014
were not a real admirer of Scottish education. I think the Scots really have got something which I should like to see copied in England. I should like to ask for one or two explanations as we let this Bill have its Second Reading. When we say "registered teachers", do we mean registered in Scotland? Are they necessarily Scottish teachers registered in Scotland, or are teachers registered in respect of the whole of the United Kingdom? Are we in this Bill forming a sort of closed shop for Scottish teachers in Scotland, and would there be any danger of the same thing happening in England?—because I should regard that as a great disaster. Secondly, I have a serious philosophical doubt as to whether the appointment of teachers should be restricted to registered teachers, because I believe that the enthusiastic amateur on some strange subject like teaching languages with tape decks may have something quite particular to contribute. After all, in these days when we are trying to make our people more internationally minded may it not be desirable occasionally to get a French teacher or a German or an Italian or someone else? Is it sufficient to enable that to be done under the exceptions clause, and do we think that is a complete let-out? My Lords, I am only asking for information; I hope I have not prolonged the debate unduly but I think it is a good thing to express an occasional philosophic doubt.
THE EARL OF BALFOUR: My Lords, may I make just one or two points here? First of all, as a member of a local authority I was firmly convinced, until this Bill was produced or until that importation took place, that only teachers registered with the General Teaching Council of Scotland should be employed by the educational establishments. The very fact that this Bill has removed any doubt will remove a lot of worries from local authorities, councillors and officials, and I am grateful that this doubt has been removed. As to its being retrospective, I think that if it had not been made retrospective all sorts of problems could have crept up in regard to the carrying out of functions by local authorities which they thought in any case were according to the law.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I do not take quite such a strong view against

1015
retrospective legislation as does the noble Lord, Lord Wade, although I think that what one might call the prima facie case is totally against it. However, when it comes up I think one wants to judge it on its merits, and I should have thought that in this case there was quite a strong argument in favour of retrospection. What I am not quite clear about is how far the reinstatement of those teachers who were in effect dismissed under what was thought to be the law is going to be carried. The noble Lord, the Minister who introduced the Bill, said that they will be compensated. That is rather a vague expression. Compensated monetarily, no doubt, in respect of the time during which they were off work, so to speak; but is it perfectly clear that they will be restored to their jobs, which seems to me to be very much more important? Before I am converted to this Bill I feel that that ought to be made clear.
3.24 p.m.
LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, I am grateful to those noble Lords, led by the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, who have supported me in the view that this legislation is necessary. I fully accept the sincerity of the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Wade, speaking as a legal man, and I should hate to join issue with him on the legal implications of this matter. This problem of retrospection was set out extremely ably and fully in another place by my honourable and learned friend the Lord Advocate in a brilliant and cogent speech covering a considerable length of time. He set out the arguments in a way in which I have not the ability to do; nor, I am sure, would your Lordships have the patience to listen. I would simply say, recapitulating the reasons for the need for this small element of retrospection, that Parliament is seeking to establish what has always been understood to be the legal position. The Bill seeks retrospectively to correct a technical defect in a statutory provision which has only recently come to light and in the face of which significant actions in good faith have already taken place—action by successive Secretaries of State, by local authorities and by the General Teaching Council which, if they were called in doubt now, could lead to considerable disturbance, expense and interruption of all kinds.
1016
One or two specific points were raised. The noble Lord, Lord Hankey, asked whether this was a closed shop of the General Teaching Council. My Lords, the answer is that it is not a closed shop. The General Teaching Council, so far as I know, will admit any teacher from anywhere in the world who satisfies certain criteria of experience and ability which I am not qualified to go into in detail here. It is certainly not a closed shop for Scots, but it relates only to teaching within Scotland; it has no effect on teachers outside Scotland. He also raised a question about what he called the "enthusiastic amateur", perhaps from overseas, who had something special to contribute or who had some special skill. Here again the fact is, as I understand it, that registration is required, but the General Council will take into account the specific abilities. They are not hard and fast about what the teacher can offer. I am well aware that a great deal of what I learned at school probably came from teachers who would not have begun to satisfy the qualifications required at the present day.
My Lords, on the final point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, about reinstatement, may I say that I do not think there can be any question of requiring a local authority or other employer to reinstate one of the handful of teachers who were dismissed; their places would undoubtedly have been filled. They are not eligible for reappointment as teachers in Scotland unless and until they seek registration. But if they will seek registration with the General Teaching Council, then I should envisage that there would be little difficulty in their qualifying to find another place in the teaching profession. With those remarks, my Lords, I hope that your Lordships will agree to give the Bill a Second Reading.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, from what the Minister has said it is quite clear that there would be no victimisation—that is what I should like to know.
LORD POLWARTH: I can assure the noble Lord that that is so.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, if the teachers were to be given the opportunity of further employment they would, of course, have to do what at present they have declined to do; that is, to register.
LORD POLWARTH: Yes, my Lords, I thought that was what I had made clear. It is up to them to seek registration.
On Question, Bill read 2ª, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL
3.30 p.m.
LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, that the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Polwarth.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [New local government areas in Scotland]:
On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD HUGHES: Clause 1 starts off the principle which governs the whole of this Bill, which is that local government in Scotland will be reorganised in regions and in districts. The regions and the districts are then defined in Schedule 1 to the Bill. A considerable number of Amendments are proposed to that Schedule, and it will not have escaped the notice of your Lordships that by far the majority of these Amendments to Schedule 1 relate to the Strathclyde region. I said—and I think I exaggerated—on Second Reading that the Strathclyde region had no friends. I admit that that is probably an exaggeration. I do not think anyone would accuse me of exaggeration, however, if I said that the Strathclyde region had few friends, and these are probably confined to those people who do not realise that what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wheatley, produced was the Report of a Commission and not a new, fifth Gospel: we are not living under Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Wheatley.
It is not surprising that there should he this criticism of the Strathclyde region. First of all, it covers a very great amount of land. But, much more im
1018
portant, having regard to what local government is about, it has to do with the life of a very great number of people. Nearly two and a half million people are to be within this region, and even more disturbing is the extent to which almost half of them—I think approximately 1,200,000—are going to be in one particular district: the district of Greater Glasgow.
I suggest that over the years is has been demonstrated without any contradiction that the government of a small burgh is probably the finest example of practical democracy we have seen in this country. Because burghs were small, both the councillors and the residents were able to take an active interest in a community—not just people living in a particular street or in a particular ward but in a community as a whole—in matters which in larger communities must he regarded as being completely trifling. In the larger cities, we have been amused sometimes at the long debates one could have in, say —but I will not name any particular town in case I am regarded as criticising it, but in the small burgh of X, about whether or not a lamp post should be at a particular place. That is of course inconceivable in a large burgh, and it is impossible in a city or a large industrial county. But the way in which people immersed themselves in the problems of the community in the small burgh was not confined to trivial matters such as that; occasionally there were issues of real importance over 'which the council would be divided.
We have the kind of situation where perhaps a swimming pool was being contemplated and there were people for and people against it. There may be a council of, say, nine members, three of them seeking re-election at the annual election, two of whom were on one side and one on the other. It became quite clear where people's views were if the two lost their seats and were replaced by opponents. That sort of situation obviously cannot happen on any scale in a much larger community. So it is not nearly so easy to demonstrate what people want in a large community.
Why therefore, if that is the case, are we abandoning this system? I think we must abandon it because, even though the small councils have the merit of being

1019
the closest approximation we can obtain to real democracy in local government, the extent to which local government functions have changed over the years has placed many of them in the position that they cannot adequately carry out their task because they do not have sufficient funds at their disposal. We therefore have the situation that residents in one part of the country can have provided for them by their local authority the range of services which they would like to have and for which they were willing to pay, but in other, smaller communities it was quite impossible for this to be done because it was totally beyond the resources of the council to do it. That therefore is the justification for seeking larger units of government.
It is perhaps easy to believe that a council, which has had full control of the affairs of its own community in the hands of, say, nine or 12, or 15 councillors, will accept, albeit reluctantly, a situation where they become part of a larger council and they have only a third or a quarter of the membership of the new body. I do not know at what point in going down the scale the acceptable becomes the unacceptable, but I would certainly suggest that there is ample justification for finding it unacceptable when you find, for instance, that the burgh of Clydebank when it goes into Strathclyde will have approximately one-twenty-eighth of the membership of the council; the burgh of Bearsden will have about one-fiftieth of the composition of the council, and the burgh of Milngavie will have about 1 per cent. of the composition of that council. In these circumstances it needs the illness of just a single councillor to mean that a burgh can be totally unrepresented at a time when something of great importance might be coming up. And it is difficult to believe that in this very large council the interests of what, until the passing of this Bill, has been an authority with which the bulk of the councillors have had no concern at all, will receive the kind of consideration that it merits. I believe that in course of time it may be that this will prove not to be the case, but there are very genuine doubts about it just now.
I have not the slightest doubt that if we got together a team of a town planner, a psychiatrist, an educationist, a traffic engi
1020
neer and all the kinds of experts who go into this sort of matter they could claim beyond doubt in even the minds of the most sceptical that the system of government which they were proposing was the most logical and the most effective that could be devised, and that it could create the ideal kind of system for local government. I think we would all accept that if we were all ideal people; if we all wished to live under an ideal kind of Government. But that is not so. We all have our own particular likes and dislikes.
THE EARL OF BALFOUR: I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, will forgive me for interrupting him but even with the people he has just mentioned, I should be very surprised if they agreed.
LORD HUGHES: Well, with the facility which they have of keeping their differences behind doors we should never learn the extent of the disagreement; we should be presented with something having all the appearance of unanimity. However, many people might say, "Well, Clydebank—I wouldn't want to live in Clydebank", and there may be many people in Clydebank who would say, "I wouldn't like to live in Milngavie," or, "I wouldn't like to live in Bearsden". But people's lives are not just organised on the sort of things which have governed these proceedings, things like the pattern of travel to work. People live in a community, whether it is Clydebank, Milngavie, Eastwood, Bishopbriggs—many of the places which are seeking to keep out of Glasgow.
If they live there and are in an unfit house, the vast majority of them want to obtain a fit house in that area; they do not want to be offered a house in another community altogether; and it does not matter whether they work in another community. If they live there, they want their shopping facilities; they want schools for their children; they want churches, and all the other facilities which are common to small communities as well as large to be within a reasonable distance of where they live. I suggest, therefore, that to the average individual the most important part of life, when he considers who is going to be running his local affairs, is where he works. The other aspects are, I suggest, much more appropriate to regional government than to district government.

1021
Therefore, in anticipation of the discussion of the Amendments that are coming forward, I believe that we ought to recognise that the best form of local government is not necessarily the ideal from the theoretical point of view but the best that is acceptable to the majority of the people who are going to live under it, and if that turns out from a theoretical point of view to be a second best or a third best, so be it. It is the people who will have to live under it and the extent to which they will feel that they will have a say in it that is important. If I lived in Milngavie, the knowledge that I should be participating in the election of two-thirds of a councillor would not be much consolation for me when I discovered that out of the 80-odd councillors in Glasgow my interests seldom appeared to be looked after.
Therefore, I feel that there is a strong case for hiving off a considerable amount of the areas which it is proposed should be added to Glasgow. But I will go further than that. On the Second Reading of the Bill I said that I was unhappy about the Strathclyde region and I hoped to table an Amendment on that subject. Since then I have examined exactly what was discussed in another place. An Amendment was tabled there to break up the Strathclyde region into four regions, with a non-elected Metropolitan tier with functions which were not very detailed superimposed on it. That Amendment was rejected. I said in my speech that it was not my desire to re-table anything which had been properly discussed and rejected in another place. I said then—and I am still of the opinion—that generally speaking I would accept their decision unless we could approach it from a different point of view or with more detail than another place had been able to consider.
I believe that it is possible to make a better job for this half of the country than the present set-up, but while I am satisfied in my own mind (as are those with whom I have discussed the matter) that it is possible to do something better and without in any way setting up any new principles other than those which are in the Bill at the present time, my Amendments will follow the pattern which the Government themselves have laid down within the Bill or followed in
1022
other parts of the country. But I did not feel justified in the short time at my disposal in putting down Amendments of so wide-ranging a character without consulting those concerned to find out if this was what was wanted and if it was acceptable to them. I have discussed matters with some of the local authorities; with the noble Lord, Lord Ballantrae, who had a deputation from Ayrshire about their misgivings on the Bill, and I have spoken to people in Glasgow. As a result, at some time in September there will be a meeting of those who seek to have something other than this done; to find out whether we can get a common measure which would be acceptable to everyone. I think that is unlikely.
What we shall then try to find out is whether there is any alternative which could command the support of a majority of people, and if that is the position then I hope that those who are taking part in these discussions will table Amendments for consideration at the Report stage. If, however, on the other hand it appears that the measure of disagreement is that many people would merely consider that we are changing one wrong thing for one which was equally bad, then I will not be a party to the tabling of any Amendments but will let the situation with regard to the regions stand as it is. In this matter the most important thing is to find out what the people concerned want and to try to give effect to it if it is practicable.
In conclusion, I would say that whether Strathclyde remains as a single region or becomes a number of regions, the Amendments which are tabled to Schedule 1 are equally valid. If there should be a region of Greater Glasgow that would be very appropriate for covering the functions in which all these communities can be regarded as having a common interest, but it will not be an occasion for including them all in a district of Glasgow. The case for them being out-with has exactly the same strength, or lack of strength according to one's point of view, as it has if it remains a single region. So having made it quite clear that I am not abandoning the idea of trying to improve on the present situation, provided I can get agreement, I then want to go on to say that at this stage we ought to be looking carefully

1023
at the districts in Strathclyde and deciding whether or not it should remain as it is in the Bill or whether a number of new districts should be created.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, has made a very important suggestion to us this afternoon. He speaks with unique authority on local government affairs in this House and I welcome what he has said. I believe that there is a great deal of uncertainty in Scotland about what we are doing and a great many doubts have been expressed. The simple proposition is that in this Bill the Government are dividing Scotland into two: Strathclyde and non-Strathclyde. They are then dividing Glasgow into two: Glasgow and non-Glasgow; and in order to make it quite equal they have increased Glasgow to nearly double its size and about 25 per cent. of the population. I really think that this must be looked at very closely indeed.
The noble Lord has drawn attention to the burghs which have been the strength of Scottish local governmment for many years. I entirely agree that they have done a first-class job of work within the spheres within which they were able to operate, and one must not underestimate what they have done. What we are doing here—and I must put it quite bluntly—is not really local government, because local government means something that people know about. Certainly in the region it will be quite impossible for more than one or two of the councillors really to know the subject that they are speaking about. I think we should look at this very carefully indeed to see whether or not we can do a better job.
LORD BELHAVEN AND STENTON: I agree. I do not know whether I am in order in speaking on Clause 1, but I see in the Schedule that Kirkcudbrightshire, in which I lived for twenty years, is described as the county of Kirkcudbright. It is not a county, it is a stewartry. This is not a matter for amendment; it is a matter for correction.
3.48 p.m.
LORD POLWARTH: The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, has raised the point that has probably caused us the greatest concern in putting together this new frame
1024
work for local government; namely, the problem of this vast conurbation of West Central Scotland and the resulting proposal for a Strathclyde region. We went over this ground thoroughly on Second Reading and I do not think it would be profitable to rehearse all the arguments again at this stage.
On the question of Glasgow and the Glasgow district, perhaps I may reserve my remarks until we come to the first of the Amendments dealing with this. On Strathclyde itself, vast efforts have been made to find something approaching the ideal solution, and I am the first to admit that we have not found an ideal solution, nor shall we ever find an ideal solution. One of the great problems in all this is that we say we want to find out what people want, but the difficulty is that so many people want so many different things. How are we really to discover what is for the greatest benefit of all concerned? Often what people want turns out to be the obverse of the coin and they are identified by what they do not want. I can only say that I admire the determination of the noble Lord to continue further in search of the crock of gold at the bottom of the rainbow, or however we might describe it—this ideal solution. Of course if he were to find it, or one more ideal, nobody would be happier than myself.
LORD HUGHES: If I may interrupt the noble Lord, he is completely misrepresenting me. I am not looking for an ideal solution. I think perhaps he has the ideal solution, but as almost nobody likes it we must find something less than ideal. What I am looking for is a better solution, not an ideal one.
LORD POLWARTH: I apologise for having misrepresented the noble Lord. I though he was looking for a more likeable solution, if I may so term it, and I think all I would say is that if his discussions in the meanwhile appear to be pointing towards some improvement, or something which he feels is an improvement, perhaps he will keep me in touch as he feels he can, so that we may keep in step. Noble Lords will appreciate that when the Bill comes before us on Report after the Summer Recess, there will not be a great deal of the Session left for any of our changes to be considered in another place. Of course, this is a very

1025
fundamental change, if we decide to make it, so I make the plea to the noble Lord that if there are signs of discovering anything which he is intending to put up, the sooner we are able to examine it, the better.
I do not know that I can deal with the point raised by my noble friend Lord Belhaven. I know that Kirkcudbright has always enjoyed this unique designation of the Stewartry, as Fife has enjoyed the designation of the Kingdom. Whether it has a statutory force I am not in a position to say. May we leave the position of Strathclyde? We will deal with the greater Glasgow area in the definite Amendments.
LORD HUGHES: I am quite happy to take up what the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, has said about keeping in touch. I would suggest to the County Clerk responsible for convening the meeting that the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, should be invited to attend the meeting.
LORD BELHAVEN AND STENTON: In answer to what my noble friend said on my interjection about the Stewartry, may I say that if my noble friend looks at the Treaty of Union, he will see all the Counties and Stewartries of Scotland, and at the time there was only one Stewartry. I think it would be more acceptable if it were put in the Schedule as the Stewartry of Kirkcudbright, and not as a County. I do not think it is a suitable subject for an Amendment; it is a correction. It was put in incorrectly, I think.
LORD POLWARTH: May I finally draw the noble Lord's attention to the fact that the title of "Stewartry" is to be perpetuated in the name of a district under the Bill?
Clause 1 agreed to.
Schedule 1 [New Local Government Areas]:
3.55 p.m.
LORD BALERNO LORD BALERNO moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 146, line 42, leave out ("Central") and insert ("Fourth").
The noble Lord said: This is the first of over 200 Amendments. We have had a magnificent overture already and I therefore propose to be reasonably brief.
1026
My point is that the name "Central" is applied to the proposed region which includes Clackmannan and Alloa on one side of the Firth of Forth, Grangemouth on the opposite side, the conurbation of Falkirk and the Burgh of Stirling with the hinterland, the country places, behind them—that is the area we are considering, and I submit to your Lordships that the name "Central " is inappropriate. It is an unseemly name and I think it is the last resort of the unimaginative. I understand that it was chosen because the various local authorities in that area—and if you knew them you would understand this—could not or would not reach agreement on something that was respectably euphonic or more correctly descriptive.
Since the Second Reading of the Bill I have made a little inquiry and have discovered that the natives themselves appear to have no alternative to offer. Indeed, I understand now that the local authorities in that area were given the opportunity of taking the name "Forth", which is what I suggest in my Amendment, when that name was no longer required for what the Bill now calls the Lothian. There comes a time when people must be saved from themselves, and this, I submit, is such a time. We have to think of the future, and I ask your Lordships whether we can contemplate posterity's being doomed to living in and having their letters from all over the world addressed to "Central, United Kingdom". The whole of this region drains into the River Forth. The Kilsyth area, which was formerly part of Stirling-shire, has been deliberately removed into the Strathclyde region and part of the district of Strathkelvin, so that even that part which might not have been draining into the Firth of Forth has been taken out and goes, with its neighbour Cumbernauld, into Strathclyde.
There is another and I think completely overriding reason why this region should not be named "Central". For at least a hundred years it has been the habit to refer to the "central industrial belt of Scotland"—and it is a very convenient description; so convenient that it certainly will continue to be used whatever this so-called "Central" region is to be called in the future. This central belt of Scotland includes not only Stirling and Falkirk but Cumbernauld, Motherwell, Wishaw, Coatbridge, Airdrie and

1027
Hamilton. My noble friend Lord Polwarth has already spoken in this debate about the use of the phrase "the West Central areas", and if the Government are already talking about the West Central areas there must be other central areas. Are we not getting into a lovely state of confusion? To use "Central" for a region in which only three out of the 11 large burghs or conurbations in what is normally called "Central" are situated, is to invite confusion. I think it is downright ridiculous. I beg to move.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: I should like to support my noble friend's Amendment. I agree with every word he said. I think it is a confession of failure on the part of the area and also of the Scottish Office to allow the word "Central" to appear as though it had some particular point of its own. It has not. It would be a great pity if we did not change the name, and I appeal to my noble friend, Lord Polwarth, to adopt the suggestion made by my noble friend and myself that the worth "Forth" should be the region described in Schedule 1 as "Central".
LORD POLWARTH: The noble Lord who proposed the Amendment and the noble Baroness who, as it were, seconded it, made a most convincing case. I particularly enjoyed the opening contribution. I am bound to say that I am myself not in the least enamoured of the designation "Central", but when we sought suggestions from the local authorities in the area that was the name that came up with the greatest degree of support. Even when we went back to them after the name "Forth" became available, as it were, they still came back. To be precise, eleven authorities opted still for "Central", four for "Forth Valley" and thirteen did not reply. I have in my office a map of Scotland, one made in 1714, which hangs opposite my up-to-date map, and looking at this we find that in the pattern of the new region we have followed almost exactly the area designated on that map of 1714 as Menteith. I do not think that sufficient people are familiar with that historical name; but in fact that area is very similar in size and shape to the region proposed to-day. I think "Menteith" would have been a very good name, though it is possibly
1028
not familiar enough. In the circumstances, I would suggest to your Lordships that we should accept this Amendment, always subject to the reservation that if there is a storm of protest from the "Centralists" in the neighbourhood we must have the right to raise the matter again at a later stage. Meanwhile I am happy to recommend your Lordships to accept this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
4.2 p.m.
THE MARQUESS or AILSA THE MARQUESS or AILSA moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 147, line 9, at end insert ("except the Burgh of Girvan, the District of Girvan").
The noble Marquess said: May I ask that Amendments Nos. 16, 17 and 20 be discussed together with this one as each one is consequential on the others. This refers to the Burgh and District of Girvan, a community of about 9,000 voters, the majority of whom live in the town of Girvan and are administered to by the town council of Girvan, a town council which has been very successful in its endeavours to promote the prosperity of that town by ensuring that Girvan continues to be a very successful holiday centre and also that it has sufficient industry to ensure that it is not wholly dependent on the holiday trade. In the Government's White Paper, The Reform of Local Government in Scotland (Cmd. 4583), the Burgh and District of Girvan was placed in the South-West region. When this Bill started its passage through another place it was proposed that the Burgh and District of Girvan should be in the Merrick district of the South-West region, a region of about 157,000 and a district of 30,000. Under these arrangements the Burgh and District of Girvan would have three representatives on the regional council out of a council of 38, and six district councillors out of 20. These proposals were repeatedly discussed by the Girvan Town Council and were repeatedly accepted by them, finally by a majority of eight to four. During Committee stage in another place Ayr County Council, a council which has never at any time accepted the proposals for Ayrshire in this reorganisation, endeavoured to have Ayrshire created a region on its own, or more correctly a sub-region on its own. While they were not successful in achieving this, they were successful in

1029
getting the Burgh and District of Girvan taken out of the South-West region and brought into the region of Strathclyde and into the newly formed district of Kyle and Carrick. At no time prior to this had there been any discussion between the county council and the town council of Girvan, a council which had repeatedly stated that they were satisfied with the Bill as it was when it started its passage through another place. So, without a "by your leave" or "thank you", Girvan and surrounding districts were removed from the South-West region, where they had a regional representative for every 4,000 voters and a district councillor for every 1,500 or so, and brought into the Strathclyde region, a region of nearly two and a half million, and into a district of over 79,000. As the Burgh and District of Girvan would have only two-fifths of a representative at regional level out of a representation of about 100, it would be very doubtful whether much notice would ever be taken of what happened to them, and with three councillors out of 24 on the district council they would not be much better off.
It is in an endeavour to rectify this situation that I am moving this Amendment, and if it is accepted, as I am very anxious that it should be, it will have the effect of returning Girvan and district into the South-West region and the Merrick district, thereby giving back to this community the opportunity of playing a leading part in the development of their local government both at regional and district level. While I fully accept the need for the reform of local government in Scotland, and I am also prepared to accept the method by which the Government propose to do this, I am very concerned lest local government should become too remote from those whom it is intended to serve, and I feel that in the Strathclyde region this situation is greatly emphasised. As I have said, it has a population of nearly two and a half million; a number of those are concentrated in and around Glasgow, and I think that, with the best will in the world, Glasgow and the surrounding area will dominate that region.
A similar situation occurs when considering the districts. In the district of Kyle and Carrick we find that we have two burghs, Ayr and Prestwick, adjoin
1030
ing; they have between them an electorate of over 47,000, more than half the total electorate of the district. They have 13 councillors out of a total of 24; they have three representatives on the regional council. The outlook of these representatives, both at district and at regional level, will tend to be what I would term of an urban nature. They are not very accustomed and attuned to deal with the problems of a rural district or a rural area. By returning Girvan and the surrounding district to the South-West all this would be rectified. No-one in that region is in a position to dominate somebody else. The same applies to the districts, and from my own experience Dumfries and Galloway are more accustomed to dealing with rural areas than are Ayrshire and those counties further North. Recently a friend of mine had occasion to drive from New Galloway via Newton Stewart to Girvan, and he could not help commenting upon the sharp deterioration he found in the roads and countryside once he crossed out of the Stewartry into Ayrshire.
A NOBLE LORD: Shame!
THE MARQUESS OF AILSA: I agree it is a shame. That is why we must amend this Bill and try to improve it. I am aware that there is tremendous loyalty in Ayrshire and that many people wish to stay in Ayrshire. I cannot see, though, that by being in the South-West region and the Merrick district the ability of those who live in Girvan to shop in Ayrshire will be in any way interfered with. Farmers will continue to sell their produce at whatever market will give them the best price for it on that occasion, be it at Ayr, be it at Newton Stewart or be it at Castle Douglas. Similarly, fishermen will continue to land their catches at whatever port they find to be the best market. I have never yet found anyone who ever thought about what region or district they were in when they bought or sold their wares. Possibly Strathclyde may be going to declare U.D.I. and close its borders.
I am aware that there has been concern over the hospital treatment of people in Girvan and surrounding districts, but this question has now been settled and there is no doubt that people from this area will continue to get their treatment, when they so need it, in the

1031
Ayrshire hospitals. With regard to the various regional services, social services, et cetera, there is every indication that some regional offices will be set up within the districts, possibly in Girvan. But with the representation that Girvan and district will have at regional level—that is, three representatives—they will be in a position to ensure that their community gets the service that they feel it should have, something that the two-fifths of a representative in Strathclyde will have little hope of doing. I hope that the Government can see their way to accepting this Amendment. By doing so, they will show that they are really anxious that everyone can participate in local government. I beg to move.
4.12 p.m.
THE COUNTESS OF LOUDOUN: I should like to support the noble Marquess in his Amendment. Girvan's main economic strength is in tourism, but it has always been excluded from the Clyde Tourist Association and is referred to as the "Gateway to Galloway". As a founder-member of the South-West Consultative Economic Planning Group, it has become in the last decade a principal growth point in the South-West area. It has also been established that the travel to work pattern of the area is into and not away from Girvan. Whereas in the past nine months Girvan has had no consultation whatever with Strathclyde, it has, during the same period, gone a long way towards a smooth and satisfactory integration with the Dumfries and Galloway region and Merrick district. Girvan's inclusion in Strathclyde adds nothing to that region but size. However, its exclusion from Dumfries and Galloway reduces the viability of that region significantly and creates an unacceptable imbalance. I hope that your Lordships will support this Amendment.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: I rise to oppose this Amendment and to support the Government's views in this matter. The suggested Amendment puts Girvan in the wrong area. It is contrary to the geographical, social and administrative experience of that area. To the South of Girvan there are very large mountains and wild country and it is not at all easy to go South, with the result that nearly all the people
1032
going from the burgh go to Maybole and to the North. The division, if the Government accept this Amendment, in my opinion would be in quite the wrong place. The historical boundary is between Carrick and the rest of Ayrshire. If the region were to contain the whole of Ayrshire that would be a different matter, but at the moment it does not. It would create the greatest difficulty if we were to put the Burgh of Girvan into the South because its looks North, and its people who travel travel to May-bole and the North.
The question of tourism has been mentioned, but as a matter of fact the area of Ayrshire in general is a fine tourist area and one that it is not necessary to divide up at all. If the tourist area is to be developed, it should be the whole of that part of Ayrshire. It would be a mistake if we were to put Girvan into the Southern area. Its interests are not in that area, and I hope that the Govern-will not support the Amendment.
THE EARL OF BALFOUR: This is a great case of complete division. I have had communication with a number of people in the District and Burgh of Girvan, and I have had as many letters for this Amendments as against it. If it is possible to put the matter in a nutshell, the Burgh of Girvan seems to be for it and the District of Girvan seems to be against it. So as there is such a division from every walk of life, with all due respect to my noble friend Lord Ailsa and the noble Countess, Lady Loudoun, I would support my noble friend Lady Elliot and ask my noble friend the Minister to reject this Amendment.
4.18 p.m.
LORD TANLAW: I should like to support the Amendment of the noble Marquess, and for this reason. Every single speaker in the Second Reading debate on this Bill was worried, and expressed anxiety, about the size of Strathclyde, and the arguments so far about retaining Girvan in the Strathclyde district could also apply to Stranraer, Newton Stewart, and they have already applied to Oban. I do not see why it should stop at Girvan; Strathclyde could go on absorbing burghs indefinitely under the arguments now put forward.

1033
As noble Lords will recall, what was called the "Sillars Amendment" in the Standing Committee swayed the judgment of everybody to include Girvan in Strathclyde. At column 580 of paragraph 3, Mr. Sillars, the Member for Ayrshire, said in support of his case:
"There are fishermen at Ballantrae, the Maidens, and Girvan. They all fish out of Ayr. The make their main landings at Ayr, and the organisation tends to start from Ayr and to organise itself from Ayr and not from anywhere South."
This is utter balderdash. Mr. Sillars may not have visited the fishermen who fish out of Girvan or verified with any of them the truth of this statement, but the noble Lord, Lord Ballantrae, and I have been out to these men and know perfectly well of the catches landed at Girvan, and know that the fishing grounds moved further South to Portpatrick and further South still. It is this aspect, the harbour aspect of Girvan, that I am most concerned will be lost in the maw of Strathclyde. For instance, the problems of the development and expansion of Girvan Harbour will get little change from the very large authority to which they will be applying.
I feel also that all along the coast, from the harbour problem at Cairnryan to the use of Portpatrick, it has always been the projected developments of these harbours that has been snuffed out from the central authority at Clyde even before the Strathclyde authority is formed. I would hate to see the lack of development of Girvan harbour being brought about because people were under the impression that everything happened from the harbours further North of Girvan because this is not true. I am sure that the alginate industries further South will also be demanding more use of Girvan harbour in preference to Ayr. The encouragement of tourism and the yachting boom, which I am sure the Minister will appreciate is of growing importance, shows that there should be extra facilities provided in Girvan harbour for the future. Therefore I strongly support the Amendment of the noble Marquess, and I hope that other noble Lords will also do so.
4.20 p.m.
LORD BALLANTRAE: It is with great regret that I feel bound to oppose both the noble Marquess and the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw. I have known the noble
1034
Lord, Lord Tanlaw, for over 20 years, and the family of the noble Marquess and my family have been friends and allies for almost five centuries; but I express my opinion with all the force and eloquence that I have at my disposal. I must not repeat what I said when we last discussed this matter but, as the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, has said, there is no question that we look Northwards and that geographically there is a boundary between us. Only three roads run out of Carrick into Galloway, and most of them are usually blocked in the winter. Geographically, and in every other way, travel statistics really support the Sillars Amendment, as it has been called, very strongly.
Two years ago there was a survey of 112 people in Girvan, chosen at random, who were asked where they went for reasons other than business. Of those 112, 28 per cent. went to Ayr not less than once a week, and 62 per cent. went to Ayr not less than once a quarter. The noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, mentioned alginates. Under the present division, the alginates factory, which is closely linked to Girvan, will go to Strathclyde while Girvan will go into the South-West region. I endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, said about fishing. Most of the fish is landed at Girvan and Ayr, although some is landed at other ports: but fishing knows no boundaries and it does not matter very much which region they are fishing out of. They will land their catches at the most convenient place, wherever they are put geographically.
My second point is about the local feeling. In the last debate, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, made the point that since Girvan wants to go into the South-West region, why not let them? I dispute that. I believe that I can count on the fingers of my two hands —and perhaps have one thumb left over —the people who want to go into the South-West region. I am sorry, but I had forgotten the noble Countess. The vote in the Girvan Burgh Council was eight to four, as the noble Marquess said, and I must confess that those figures included the present Provost, the last Provost and one of the more effective members. But, of that majority, some in the middle are swithering. The local paper is owned in Galloway and has come out in favour of going into the

1035
South-West region; but that paper was established only a year ago, when it looked as if Girvan was going into the South-West region. There are nine members on the district council and they voted unanimously in favour of sticking to Ayrshire, wherever Ayrshire may go.
THE MARQUESS OF AILSA: May I ask the noble Lord when the district council ever discussed or voted on this matter?
LORD BALLANTRAE: I have a sister-in-law on that distinguished body, and my information is that it has done so almost incessantly. I believe that there is one switherer on the district council, but I think she has been told to shut up.
With the greatest respect to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, I think he has been misinformed about the strength of the feeling in Girvan, and among the people to whom I have been talking almost incessantly over the last couple of months I have found very little support indeed for the notion that we all want to go into the South-West. There are, I must concede, two big arguments for going into the South-West. The first is that it would strengthen the South-West region. However, as I said on Second Reading, we love the people in that region, we love the place and we have nothing against it; but we do not want to join it. The second argument is that Strathclyde is much too big, and that fact is acknowledged by everybody.
I hope for two things this afternoon. First, I hope that this Amendment will not be passed in a hurry. All of us would be happiest if it were possible to retain Ayrshire as the entity which most of us feel it to be, and I believe that the noble Marquess, the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, and perhaps also the noble Countess, might be happier, even though much of Ayrshire is industrial. As I said earlier, we are industry, we are fishing, we are agriculture and we are pits. I have been having discussions with the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, and on Saturday the county chairman, the county convener, the county clerk and the county clerk depute all came to my house, begging me to do my best to see that this Amendment was rejected and to see that some measure of independence is retained
1036
for Ayrshire. I think we should all be prepared to see some metropolitan overlord for planning and strategic purposes put over us, but I would beg those noble Lords who moved this Amendment to hold their horses and wait to see what the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, can come up with during the discussions which I am so glad to hear he is to hold. I beg that this Amendment be rejected.
LORD BELHAVEN AND STENTON: I find myself in the rather odd position of being in sympathy with the Amendment and with the noble Lord who has just spoken. I do not think we have reached the stage in Scotland where we need to have a referendum, but I lived in the Stewartry for 20 years until just over a year ago, and I must confess that already I have very little connection with Ayrshire. We went through Ayrshire to get to Glasgow, and I had a very dear and old friend who lived near Girvan. When I went to visit him I had to allow about four hours' driving time, because, although the roads in the Stewartry and Wigtownshire are quite good, the roads in that part of Ayrshire are so bad that one never knows how long a journey will take.
LORD BALLANTRAE: I think the noble Lord must have got lost.
LORD BELHAVEN AND STENTON: I must disappoint the noble Lord: I did not get lost, but I sat behind a lorry for 15 miles on that stretch of road between the Ayrshire border and Girvan, and the journey took a very long time. If anyone was liable to seasickness if he happened to be a passenger, it was not a bad idea to take a dramamine because there were so many bends in the road.
The present idea of the Strathclyde region is a perfect abortion. If we are going to reform local government in Scotland, it seems almost worthy of Gilbert and Sullivan that we should have five or six regions in one half, and then have half the population in one region. In spite of what the noble Lord, Lord Ballantrae, said, I can understand why there may be some people in the Girvan area who would rather come in with us, with the South-West, merely because they want to keep out of Strathclyde. There is no other reason. If I had anything to do with local government in Galloway, which I do not, I should be perfectly prepared

1037
to see Girvan given back to Ayrshire, if the idea of the noble Lord, Lord Ballantrae, came true and Ayrshire remained Ayrshire, as I think it should. I shall now be slightly irrelevant and say that I cannot understand why the Stewartry of Kirkcudbright has been cut up in the way it has. It seems to be perfectly absurd and there is no reason at all for it. We have been brought up in our own counties. I think I sympathise with the noble Lord, Lord Ballantrae. I do not think that this new region in Scotland—and I may be unique in not liking this Bill—will command the sort of loyalty which the old counties and Royal Burghs commanded in the past. If we could get some sort of statement from the Government that they will look at this Amendment and think about what my noble friend Lord Ballantrae said, I would support his Amendment. If the Government are prepared to look at it and come back on Report stage with something that would make Ayrshire more viable and more of a region than it is now, then I think the Amendment should not be pressed.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: This Amendment seems to be particularly relevant to the short discussion we had on the Question, That the clause stand part. I did not want to prolong that discussion because it was clear that we could not come to any decision this afternoon on the suggestions put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Hughes. I was very grateful to my noble friend Lord Polwarth for his readiness—I think I could say his willingness—to discuss the point raised by Lord Hughes. As he said, we have very little time—and he was right to stress that aspect—but he did not seem to rule out the possibility that he might do what the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, wanted; which was to try to find out in the short time available what the people want.
If that is done, and if Ayrshire is going to ask to be allowed to become a separate region then Ayrshire will have a very strong case indeed, because the Government have already given way in respect of Fife which has a smaller population than Ayrshire. If we find that there is a large majority of people in Ayrshire who want to be separate, then it will be difficult for the Government to resist it. In that event, from what I have gathered from the discussion on this Amendment,
1038
people in the Girvan area would no longer want to leave Ayrshire and to go elsewhere. That being so, I would suggest that noble Lords should not press this Amendment now but should wait to see what happens about the plea of Ayrshire to be a separate region.
LORD BALLANTRAE: What I wish to achieve is precisely what the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, has just proposed: that the Amendment be withdrawn pending what Lord Hughes is able to establish of the wishes of the population generally.
4.33 p.m.
LORD HUGHES: Perhaps it would be appropriate for me to intervene now. I had hoped to be able to keep out of the discussion. I want to join with the suggestion of the noble Marquess that he might withdraw these Amendments to-day but immediately this stage is completed to re-table them for consideration at Report stage. The reason why I suggest that is that if we could find a different set-up for Strathclyde which could be put into the Bill, there might be neither the need nor the desire to do anything about this area. When I had the responsibility for these matters I was a supporter of putting this area into the South-West—but only for the reason of trying to make the South-West a little more workable and to give it a little more population and area. I cannot think that there is any stronger reason than that, unless it is that the people in the area want to go into the South-West. That would be the deciding consideration for me. If we are to have Strathclyde as it stands, then, if I were persuaded that the people want to go into the South-West, I would support it. If the evidence was the other way, that they wanted to remain in Ayrshire and not Strathclyde, I would support that.
But that may not be the choice. I have checked on whether or not I should be "doing down" the noble Marquess by suggesting that he should withdraw and re-table these Amendments. I think I would not. If there are to be Amendments about new regions they will come up before the Amendments that he would re-table. His Amendment is to page 147, line 9. If there were an Amendment to change the region of Strathclyde it would be to page 147, line 2. So if the

1039
proposal to break up Strathclyde is not submitted, or is not successful, he would still be left with the opportunity as the next Amendment then to come back on the present one. It would be most unfortunate if he were to carry his Amendments to a Division to-day, and succeed, only to discover, if Strathclyde were broken up, that he had carried an Amendment that people no longer wanted. I think it is a second best to being part of a more acceptable region. I think therefore that, without withdrawing any of the arguments relevant to the present circumstances which might be equally relevant to any future circumstances, he would be justified in not pressing these Amendments to-day.
LORD TAYLOR OF GRYFE: This discussion on the position of Girvan has raised the more fundamental issue of the size of Strathclyde. I live in the Strathclyde region and I should like to say a word or two in defence of it. Despite all the ingenuity and skill of my noble friend Lord Hughes, I do not believe that it will be possible to come up with some alternative scheme. This subject has been discussed at great length in another place; it has been discussed in the Press, and so far no one has come up with a scheme, apart from the fragmentation and dismantling of Strathclyde which seems to be proceeding in this House.
First, it is suggested that Girvan be detached and put into another area. Then it is suggested that Ayrshire be detached and put into another area. All the arguments about Girvan's being a centre of tourism can be applied to many other parts of the Strathclyde region. If we follow the logic of the contributions made here to-day we shall have a complete dismantling of the Strathclyde region and we shall finish with its being equivalent to the Glasgow district in the district schemes. I suggest to my noble friends who are much concerned about Strathclyde and its power and authority resting in the urban area that it is not doing a good service to good government to try to detach these areas which would add an element of variety to the government of Strathclyde region and perhaps retain in this centrally dominated area of local government a degree of balance between
1040
agricultural interests, tourism interests and countryside interests as well as city interests.
Before this debate perhaps we should all have read Wheatley, because the Government in this case are to be commended in bringing forward local government reform. There are no prizes for this. Everyone who has an interest in local government is offended; everyone feels upset. All of us who have had some connection with local government have a certain affection for institutions as they are; but I do not think this Committee will be acting properly by simply holding on to institutions which have passed their period of relevance. We all like the associations which we enjoy and I hope that in this scheme of district councils as well as of community councils some of these traditional loyalities will be encouraged and nurtured by the Government. I think that local government would be poorer if it did not attract that degree of local interest and if people felt that it was all being run by some vast bureaucracy.
Why is this Bill introduced? Not out of sense of devilment on the part of some legislator; but simply because local government in Scotland had become irrelevant to the kind of economy and environment in which we now live. We are living in a period when a vast change is going on in transport and communication compared with the period when these local government institutions served the community well. We are living in a period when we have to consider large areas for the planning of industrial development; when we have to look at large areas in terms of forecasting planning; and when we have to look at large sums of investment in the new areas. In large local authorities decisions are rarely made now which do not involve very large sums. So it is important, when we are thinking in these large terms, to have political institutions that can discharge these substantial responsibilities.
There is one other respect which makes it essential to have, and where we can justify, large local government institutions. To-day, because of the vast expenditure in local government—and I believe this is a sphere where economies can be made through efficiency—we have to attract top management in these areas, and we shall not do that in small,

1041
scattered, diversified local authorities with limited authority in their own area. We shall perhaps achieve it if we cast our vision of local government in terms of larger areas. These are the kinds of things, I presume, which prompted the Government to encourage this new scheme; and so far as I am concerned I can see considerable justification for it, keeping in mind, of course, that in the discharge of local government—
LORD STRATHEDEN AND CAMPBELL: I do not want to interrupt the noble Lord, but would he not agree that his is rather a Second Reading speech, and could he tell us what he really feels about the District and Burgh of Girvan, the subject of the Amendment which we are discussing?
LORD TAYLOR OF GRYFE: I am sorry; I thought that the discussion on Girvan had really gone on to a much wider field. I had the impression that it was suggested that the Amendment might be withdrawn in order that we should be able to look again at the Strathclyde region with some of the ideas that the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, had in mind. I am sorry if I have digressed a little from the main point. I would say, therefore, that the argument for fragmentation is, in my opinion, not well established, and I should not like the Government to feel that the whole weight of opinion is in favour of some scrapping of the ideas that they have put forward.
LORD HUGHES: Before the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, gets up—because he will want to be last in this debate, and we are allowed to speak more than once when we are in Committee—may I say that I think that the speech which my noble friend has just made would have been much more appropriate on the debate that we had on the Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?, when there was the opportunity to look at the whole principle. The only reason why the question of Strathclyde has arisen is because the whole argument about these Amendments could take on a different light altogether if something else were being done. The noble Lord said that he thought that before we went into this discussion we ought to have read Wheatley. I hope
1042
he is not under the misapprehension that at least some of us have not done that. As a matter of fact, I can think of one noble Earl on the Benches opposite whose name appears regularly in the Marshalled List of Amendments who probably has been through it even oftener than Lord Wheatley himself. That is the first point.
To talk about the detaching of this small part on the tip of the Strathclyde region as in any way approaching fragmentation of Strathclyde is, I think, a complete misuse of language. It is not going to matter in the slightest to Strathclyde whether the Girvan area is in or out. It will make a substantial difference, perhaps, to the South-West Region, but that would not be fragmenting that region: it would be adding to it. I am not suggesting that when we come to the discussion on Strathclyde what may be put forward may be fragmentation. I would only suggest to my noble friend that before he says that Wheatley is the only thing to be considered in this area, and before he condemns any alternative, he should at least do us the justice of waiting to see whether we can come up with any alternative. He can condemn it then if he likes; but to tell us in advance that we are attempting something which is impossible just because nobody has accomplished it up to the present is, I think, defeatism of the greatest order.
Nobody has been involved in this matter at greater length—not even the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth—than I have myself been, because it is no secret that the previous Administration spent more time trying to find an alternative to Strathclyde than over all the rest of Wheatley put together. The previous Administratiton did not find it. Nor did the present Government spend so much time trying to find an alternative because they liked the Strathclyde region. The reason why everybody spent so much time trying to do something about it is because so few people like it. If that is the position it is our business, as members of a legislative body, to try still further to find out if there is a better way in which to deal with it. If there is not a better way in which to deal with it, then these Amendments which the noble Marquess has put forward are obviously ones which are worthy of the consideration of the Committee; and it was only because of that

1043
that I suggested, in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Ballantrae, and the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, that there was merit in deferring them until we saw what happened to the major proposition.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: We have a very long way to go on this Bill, and while I agree with everything that the noble Marquess has said, I would suggest to him that in view of what the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, said in his previous speech to us he might consider it wise at this stage to withdraw his Amendment.
LORD BALERNO: May I assist your Lordships in coming to a decision on a matter of fact? This question depends upon the views of the people of Girvan—the Burgh of Girvan and the District of Girvan. My noble friend (if he does not mind my calling him that) Lord Ballantrae told us that the Burgh of Girvan voted 8 to 4 in favour of Girvan going into the South-West Region, and that the District of Girvan was unanimously of the opposite view. I think the mistake was a very easy one to make in view of certain Press reports at the time, but the facts are that the meeting of the Girvan District Council which took place on Monday, March 19, was discussing a recommendation that they should support Ayr County Council in their fight to retain Ayrshire as a separate unit. Now that, of course, did not take place. That was the only issue involved at that meeting; and to quote the words of the district clerk himself, "The question of supporting the South-West or the West was not at issue at all, despite later reports".
4.48 p.m.
LORD POLWARTH: This contest has gone a good few rounds, and if it were to be decided on rounds the balance would be fairly even. I would submit that on points the opponents of the Amendment have it. I will not be drawn into the wider discussion, into which this has developed, on Strathclyde—there will be a later opportunity for that—but I would submit to your Lordships that there really are rather convincing reasons why Girvan should remain where we have suggested it in the Bill, whatever may happen about Strathclyde. I appreciate that there are very divided views—
1044
this is quite clear—from those who know the area, and I would place considerable weight on the personal knowledge of the noble Lord, Lord Ballantrae, living where he does. I think that a great deal of the opposition to the present situation arises from what we have referred to before; namely, the motivation of wanting not to be in somewhere rather than to be in somewhere. I am all for considering, within reason, the wishes of the people in the communities, but we must think of certain other considerations.
We must agree, I think, that the main links, the main community of interest, of the Girvan area is to the North rather than to the South. Whether you look at it in transport links and public services or in the pattern of travelling to work, 17 per cent. of the working population of Girvan district on a recent count work in the rest of Ayrshire and less than 1 per cent. in Wigtown and Kirkcudbrightshire. There are strong connections with Ayr for shopping and other services, and in administrative links with regard to the hospital, police, fire and electricity services. While one can understand a fellow feeling as between Girvan district area—a rural fishing area—and its neighbours to the South, I submit that that is not a good reason to attach it for administrative purposes to the Dumfries and Galloway region.
I think that the noble Lord, Lord Ballantrae, put this clearly on Second Reading and he reinforced that view to-day. With great respect I thought that the noble Countess, Lady Loudoun, did Girvan less than justice when she said that the only "addition" that Girvan would bring to Strathclyde—I think that was her word—was nothing but size. On the contrary, it would bring to Strathclyde a flourishing and vigorous community and one which I am sure would have an influence in the Strathclyde region, for all its size and whatever its final form. The noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, raised one specific point about harbours. Here again, there is the feeling that by being in a larger authority your institutions will receive less attention. I do not believe that this is the case when a new larger pattern is established. What is more, the larger authority will have larger resources at its disposal for the various institutions, be it harbours or anything else, and we shall give every

1045
encouragement to devolve the administration, on harbours for example, to the localities even though the urban power is retained.
May I hark back again to my map of 1714, because then they were fairly sensible over the division of the country. On that map the boundary between Carrick and Galloway follows not exactly the line we propose, but very slightly to the North. It follows the line of the river Stinchar with which the noble Lord, Lord Ballantrae, will be familiar, and that is well to the South of Girvan. At that time Girvan was clearly a province, area or whatever it was called, of Carrick. I would therefore recommend your Lordships, in all the circumstances, not to accept the Amendment.
THE MARQUESS OF AILSA: I have listened to the pleas that I should withdraw the Amendment but I do not understand the procedure. I have seen no, Amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, by which he would effect what he is proposing to do, and therefore I am reluctant to withdraw my Amendment at this stage. We should have something or nothing, and so far I see nothing. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, can enlighten me.
LORD HUGHES: I have made clear that I am not guaranteeing to produce any Amendment, but I am attempting to do so. I have also pointed out that that does not deprive the noble Marquess of his opportunity. I have suggested that he re-table the Amendment for Report stage. If he is going to carry his Amendment on a Division to-day he could equally well be able to do so on a Division on Report stage. Even more so, because some of us who would not vote for his Amendment at this stage would do so on Report, should it become the only course available. I would not vote for his Amendment to-day but I might at the next stage, should it become necessary.
THE DUKE OF WELLINGTON: Your Lordships may wonder what an English Lord has to do with this debate, but I had the good fortune to marry a girl from the Girvan area and therefore I have taken a great interest in this matter. If I have by any chance missed the point
1046
I must apologise to my old friend, the noble Lord, Lord Ballantrae, because I missed half of his speech. I know from correspondence with him that unfortunately we do not see eye to eye in this matter, although we live very close to each other at certain times of the year.
There are two points I wish to make. First, I have had considerable correspondence with the town council of Girvan, the elected representatives of the people of Girvan, and they have undoubtedly, on 35 occasions, talked about this and they have agreed that they wish to remain, as under the original Government proposal, in South-West Scotland. Why are all these arguments advanced now for the alteration, that Girvan district should go to Strathclyde, when obviously there were originally very good reasons in the Government's view for putting it into Galloway? The fact remains that they have voted, as has been said, eight to four to go into Galloway. My own view, as one living on the Stinchar at certain times of the year unfortunately, not very often—is that that part of the world has far more in common with Galloway than it has with the great and amorphous mass of Strathclyde.
In my view, the best solution of all is Lord Ballantrae's solution, that the whole thing should be looked at again, and that Ayrshire should remain in its present position as a county on its own with a balanced population. After talking to a great many people I am quite sure that this would give the most satisfaction to those who live in that area. But failing that—I admit this matter is evenly balanced—if Ayrshire cannot be retained, I, and I believe a great many other people, would like to see it go into South-West Scotland. I should like the whole matter to be examined again; otherwise, I say unequivocably that I shall support my noble friend Lord Ailsa's Amendment.
THE MARQUESS OF AILSA: Having listened to what has been said, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment so that I may wait to see what happens; and I will, if necessary, table the Amendment again on Report.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD BALERNO: This matter has been discussed. I beg to move Amendment No. 4.
Amendment moved—
Page 150, line 46, leave out ("Central") and insert ("Forth").—(Lord Balerno.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
4.58 p.m.
THE EARL OF LAUDERALE THE EARL OF LAUDERALE moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 151, line 21, column 2, leave out ("Ettrick Forest") and insert ("Ettrick and Lauderdale").
The noble Earl said: This Amendment is moved at the instance of the Member of Parliament for Berwick and East Lothian in another place and is supported by his predecessor in that Office, my noble friend Lord Kilmany. It arises simply upon the motion not only of the Royal Burgh of Lauder but also of many district folk, more than 500 of whom have in the last couple of weeks either written letters or signed petitions. It is also supported by local authorities representing a substantial majority of the population of the proposed new district. As far back as 1845 Sinclair's statistical account of Scotland read that:
"The vale through which the Leader water flows has from time immemorial been termed Lauderdale."
Back in 1662, Blaeu's Atlas—the whole eleven volumes of which may be consulted in the Library of another place—which was published in Amsterdam in that year, gave this description of Lauderdale, and I take leave to try to translate it into English—unless noble Lords would prefer me to read it in Latin. The translation reads:
"On the East, Lauderdale has its border with the Merse; on the South, with Tweed-dale, which also closes it in on the East. The Lothians provide the border to the North."
Camden's Britannia, earlier still, in 1607, had something to say about Ettrick Forest. Camden equates Ettrick Forest simply with the sheriffdom of Selkirk and no more, and he confirms that the Ettrick Forest lies South of the Tweed, not North of it.
In our own Library, Nos. 69, 70 and 63 of the One-inch Ordnance Survey, maps currently to-day show Selkirkshire as Ettrick Forest (that is in No. 69) and Lauderdale as the area—
LORD POLWARTH: Perhaps I may interrupt my noble friend for one moment. It may be of help to him, and save him time in developing his argument, if I say that it is my intention, subject to one later remark, to recommend your Lordships to accept this Amendment.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: With those words, let me merely thank my noble friend heartily on behalf of the people of Lauder and Lauderdale, who have a tremendous community spirit; who have shown immense interest in this matter; who have rallied—but in view of what has been said, I need not weary your Lordships with all the material. I have pages of petitions and letters which I had intended to read out only to demonstrate. Let me simply say to my noble friend how grateful I am to remark that, just as flags are the symbol of nations, names are the cornerstone of history. This case is supported by public opinion. I beg to move, and I thank my noble friend at the same time.
LORD POLWARTH: I have no wish to anticipate any other noble Lords who wish to express views on this Amendment, as of course they are entitled to do; but perhaps, in view of the amount of work remaining before us, I should just explain our position on this. Admittedly, when we had our original consultations with the local authorities on names in the Borders the majority were in favour of a name related mainly or solely to the name "Ettrick". As one well acquainted with the area, I agree entirely with what my noble friend who moved the Amendment has said; namely, that "Ettrick Forest" is restrictive in this context. It does not technically and in the historical sense include a large area of this proposed new district.
I would recommend your Lordships to accept the Amendment, subject only to the proviso that if the authorities in the area concerned should register strongly their disagreement with this change of name between now and a further stage of the Bill, we may ask your Lordships to think again.
LORD KILMANY: I think it was Mr. Churchill who said that when you have a thing where you want it, it is a good plan to leave it where it is. That would

1049
be my contribution, adding my own thanks to my noble friend who has spoken for the Government.
LORD HUGHES: May I just add that I hope the sentiment which the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, has just expressed about accepting this subject to alteration only when he knows what the people concerned want, is a principle which is going to run through the Bill and will not apply just to Ettrick and Lauderdale.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
5.3 p.m.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD moved Amendment No. 5A:
Page 151, line 39, column 2, leave out ("Merse") and insert ("Berwickshire").
The noble Baroness said: This Amendment refers to the alteration which has been requested by various people in this venture to change the district title of "Merse" to "Berwickshire". The title "Merse" applies to only a small part of Berwickshire, and not to the whole country. The name is well-known in the Borders, but it is not so well-known outside. It is a very rich part of the county, but it is a limited part of the country. "Berwickshire" is the name of a county of long standing. Everyone knows where it is. People coming through Berwickon-Tweed arrive in Berwickshire, and it is a very recognisable area of the Borders. I have been asked by the Convener of the county, by the Lord Lieutenant and one or two others, to put forward this alternative name for the Merse district, and I very much hope that the Government will accept the Amendment. I beg to move.
LORD KILMANY: In rising to support this Amendment perhaps I should apologise to my noble friend on the Front Bench for its late arrival on the Marshalled List, but I assure him that that is not due to any lack of feeling on the matter in Berwickshire. I, too, have been asked by the Convener of the county, who has the unanimous support of all the provosts of the burghs concerned, to make every endeavour to persuade the Government to meet their wishes and to retain the well-known name of "Berwickshire"—weal kept and of good repute. Why not retain it? Perhaps I may add one point, which I believe would have appealed to my noble friend Lord Ballantrae had he not left the
1050
Chamber. When I was Member for Berwick and East Lothian on more than one occasion I had the opportunity of travelling to Australia. Again and again I was introduced to people who told me: "Oh, my father was born in Scotland." And when I said "Where?", quite often the answer was: "He was born in Berwickshire." This may be a far cry, but maybe there is something to it. I am not saying that anyone who goes from the Merse in Berwickshire to Australia, New Zealand or Canada will not know very well that he came from the Merse, but I do say that his children and grandchildren may not be aware of the fact. What they will know is that they came from Berwickshire. We have not too many ties in keeping the Dominions and the old country together. Let us not abandon even this small tie.
LORD STRATHEDEN AND CAMPBELL: Just in case my noble friend the Minister feels that he has been going too far in agreeing, I should like to support strongly my noble friend Lady Elliot in her reasons. The term "the Merse" is used, but in a rather specialised way, as being that very fertile strip of land along the Tweed, and does not really include all the upland country of Berwick- shire. I was told by the Convener that the district advisory council, which met two days ago, asked that the name should be changed back to "Berwickshire".
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: I wonder whether this is just a Scottish method of capturing Berwick back for Scotland!
LORD STRATHEDEN AND CAMPBELL: Berwickshire!
LORD POLWARTH: I think I should begin by declaring an interest, in that my title stems from a village within Berwickshire. That said, and the local authorities, apparently, having had this change of heart about their future designation, I would gladly recommend your Lordships to accept the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
5.10 p.m.
LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 152, leave out lines 16 to 20.
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 6. If one looks at it,

1051
one finds that it is taking certain parts out of the City of Glasgow—the burghs of Bearsden, Clydebank, Milngavie, and the district of Old Kilpatrick, except the electoral divisions of Bowling and Dunbarton. I do not intend to make a long speech on this Amendment because I think that fairly few and simple remarks are all that are necessary to meet the case for this alteration. I should like to refer to what I said earlier regarding the general principle. There is no doubt that together these communities fulfil the requirements of a district of the size and resources adequate to carry out the functions which are to be the responsibility of districts. In the papers which this group of burghs in this county district submitted to many of your Lordships, they pointed out that in size they would be eighteenth in the whole of the districts in Scotland; so more than two-thirds of the districts which are in the Bill would be of smaller population size than this one.
I hope that I am not going to misquote the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, but I believe that on Second Reading he said that the part of the argument which most impressed him was the question of representation. That is the only one to which I now wish to address myself. If these burghs and this district remain part of the district of Glasgow, they will have altogether something like six or seven councillors to look after their interests. On the other hand, as a separate district they will probably have perhaps 15 or 20, or something of that order.
The principles which animated Wheatley—and they are referred to in documents which we have received—were that where the interests of a district can be better served by joining them up with a larger area, that is the right thing to do. I am, of course, paraphrasing; but I can see no reason to suggest that the interests of Bearsden, Milngavie and Clydebank would be better served by being an appendage of Glasgow. The same arguments apply to at least some of the proposals to detach areas from Glasgow. There is probably an overwhelming case in any regional set-up for them to be associated with part of the region in which the City of Glasgow lies. On regional functions there is no doubt of the com
1052
plete unity of interests between these and still more of the surrounding areas. But on district functions—and it is districts we are talking about in this Amendment, together with the associated Amendments further down: I think Amendment No. 11 is the second part of this series—we are talking about a district which is perfectly capable of carrying out the job which districts are supposed to do.
I have said more than once that I am willing to accept decisions arrived at in another place in these matters, but I should like to recite the history of this one. In Committee in another place it was decided by a majority that these parts should be detached from the City of Glasgow. There, as here, there had to be two Amendments: one to take them out of Glasgow and another to put them somewhere else. By a majority, they were taken out. But the second part of the operation—to put them into a separate district—was in fact, if I remember rightly, the first Business on a succeeding day and the proposal was defeated by a small majority on that occasion. What would have happened if all those who had taken part in the earlier procedure to take them out of Glasgow had been present, I do not know.
When the Bill went on to the Floor of the House, the Government were faced with the situation that, on the one hand, these districts had been taken out of Glasgow and, on the other hand, they had not been put anywhere else. So we had a situation which would lead to almost perfect local government—these people were going to be left to their own devices! The Government did perhaps the only thing that could be done in these circumstances, faced with an anomaly of this kind—they adopted the method of restoring the Bill to what it had been before, rather than moving a second Amendment which would have the effect of setting up a separate district. There was a majority in favour of the situation which is now before us. I think that decision was wrong and the right decision was the one which would undoubtedly have been made in Committee if both parts of the procedure had been voted on at the same time. I therefore beg to move Amendment No. 6 and, if it is carried, I promise that I shall not speak to Amendment No. 11.
THE EARL OF CROMARTIE: I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, on this Amendment. I think that it is fundamental in considering the words, "local government" to remember particularly the word, "local". This vast area of Strathclyde makes a nonsense of that word. That is all I have to say.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: I rise to support the Amendment which has been so ably moved by the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, following, let me say, a most notable speech which he made on Clause 1. I discover from the White Paper (Cmnd. 4583) that district authorities—and I quote:
"… will concentrate on caring for and improving the local environment."
Also, that in regard to planning they should deal with the day-to-day development control and prepare local plans. In regard to housing we are told they will be able to maintain and improve the quality of house-building for local needs. Then one learns that local health and amenity will be an important part of the responsibility of district authorities. If I then turn to Wheatley, I learn that local government exists to provide services locally. That means that services are to be, in a real sense, locally controlled. There must be an element of choice exercisable locally.
From all that, it seems that one has to consider what "local" really means. In terms of the Bill, it embraces in the Glasgow district a huge area from the very northernmost point of the Old Kilpatrick district to the most Southern point in the first district of County of Renfrew; from Clydebank in the West to the Eastern boundary of the Carmunnock electoral divisions in the East. To use the word "local" in connection with an area of that size is really somewhat nonsensical, and I should like to ask my noble friend Lord Polwarth to consider what community of interests can possibly exist between, let us say, Bearsden and the Gorbals. What have they in common in relation to planning, to housing, or in fact to many of the other district services which, according to Wheatley, should be locally controlled? Here perhaps I may be excused for elaborating on certain of the matters referred to by the noble Lord opposite. What voice will the burghs of Bearsden, Milngavie and Clydebank have in relation to district policy with reference
1054
to any of the services allotted to the district council?
Like the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, I understand that the proposed Kilpatricks district will under the Bill be represented by seven district councillors on the Glasgow Council, out of a total of 84. Their influence will be proportionate to their number—in fact they will be of little or no account. The problems of the City of Glasgow are so great, particularly in relation to housing and planning, that matters of concern to the proposed Kilpatricks district, to Bishopbriggs, and indeed Eastwood—to which we shall come later—will, in comparison, though of great importance and interest to those places, be so trivial as to receive little, if any, attention.
Wheatley states that local government should bring the reality of government nearer to the people. In so far as the Dunbartonshire burghs are concerned it is doing nothing of the kind; and that applies also to Bishopbriggs. It is putting the people further away from the reality of government. To-day they provide all the services proposed in the Bill for a district. The people are in close touch with their 61 councillors. They can speedily have their views and their grievances investigated and considered. How different will be their position when everything of importance to the citizen is to be Settled by a district council of 84 members, representing places miles apart, with very little, if any, community of interest!
Let me return to Wheatley. He says:
"In enlarging the city boundaries only those parts of the hinterland should be included that would be better served and more effectively administered from the city than from the centre of any other district authority."
The people in Kilpatricks are fully satisfied with the manner in which their affairs are looked after. Can anyone say, would anyone even suggest, that they would be better served and more effectively administered under the Glasgow district council? The people wish to be a district apart from Glasgow. In number and resources they make a viable unit. The Scottish Standing Committee, as the noble Lord has said, excluded the Kilpatricks from Glasgow, but the Scottish Office made use of the Government's majority in the other place to overturn the Committee's decision and thereby deny to the people their wish to continue

1055
to be independent. I ask your Lordships to restore to the Kilpatricks the position which the Standing Committee accorded to them, and to support this group of Amendments.
5.34 p.m.
THE EARL OF BALFOUR: This is a matter to which I have given serious consideration. In weighing up a position like this one has to balance carefully as to whether the City of Glasgow would lose some benefit because the burghs of Bearsden, Clydebank or Milngavie were taken out; whether that district, if it is to be a separate district, is big enough and viable enough to work, and whether it will be of real benefit to the region of Strathclyde. On all these points I am certain that the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, and the other noble Lords who have put their names to this Amendment, have come up with the right answer. They have weighed up the position very carefully and I am certain that this is a big enough area to make a satisfactory district. It will, if I may quote my noble friend Lord Balemo, reduce the power of the second "Pope", the Lord Provost of Glasgow, without weakening Glasgow as an entity. Equally, I am certain that, whatever happens to Strathclyde, this extra district will be a benefit.
LORD TAYLOR OF GRYFE: I intervened earlier in the debate to-day in defence of the region of Strathclyde on the grounds that there were certain controls and certain responsibilities which can be discharged effectively only by a large regional authority. I want your Lordships to realise that that is not at all inconsistent with my support now for the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Hughes. What we are discussing now is district responsibility, with limited responsibilities and powers for districts. As has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, what is essential in district government is a feeling on the part of people that they can influence the decisions of the district, and for the elected councillors to be responsive to the needs of the district. Over the years, like the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, I have watched the city of Glasgow and its government. One thing that stands out is the deterioration in the interest in local government in the city of Glasgow, which is responsible for a population of around
1056
a million. During that same period, and quite recently, Bearsden was detached from the large local authority with which it was formerly associated. I have observed at close hand, by family connections, the liveliness of elections in the Bearsden Burgh. Here you have a smaller area feeling that they have some responsibility for local government.
On questions relating to the environment, I believe it is important that there should be an intimate connection between the elected councillor and his constituents. This may be lost in putting Bearsden, Milngavie and this group into the larger Glasgow area, and I suggest that local government might suffer. The local authority best understands the local services required by the local community, and I would regard this Amendment as not at all inconsistent with anything I said in defence of Strathclyde or anything that was written by the Wheatley Commission.
LORD BALERNO: I have one point to add to the excellent arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, and, more especially, of my noble friend Lord Strathclyde. By removing periphery parts from the city of Glasgow you are left with a smaller Glasgow; therefore you can have a greater representation of councillors in Glasgow per head of population and a better proportion. Therefore you will get not only better local government in the districts which are detached from the present proposals for Glasgow, but better representation within what remains of the city of Glasgow.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I should have thought the people of Bearsden and this area had made their case very well. We have all received letters from them and they are very keen about it. The noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, has said that he wants to do what the people want. Here is a splendid example of being able to do that. My second point is that I should like to underline what the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, said: the sharp distinction between what might be necessary as strategic planning at a higher level, and the work of a district council, which is of an entirely different character. It deals with district matters, and if your Lordships wish it I will read them out. They are all matters within the district concerned. There is no

1057
reason why they should not be carried out on a very much smaller scale.
5.30 p.m.
LORD POLWARTH: I should like to start by correcting a remark of the noble Earl who has just sat down. He said that I had stated that everything should be decided according to what everybody wanted. I do not think this is quite the case. In referring to nomenclature, I said we had taken consultations to see what the majority wanted and tried to act on that. But I also, I think, made the point that in fundamental matters there were other considerations than, not necessarily what people want but what they think they want, and very often what they do not want—which is, I suspect, what largely underlies this series of Amendments for the removal of parts of the proposed Glasgow district on the periphery. I think that these communities are not so much seeking an identity of their own but rather are afraid of "Big Brother", and are probably afraid of "Big Brother" in its present form. One point which I should make here is that we are not simply looking forward to a continuation of the Corporation of the City of Glasgow as it is at present. This is how I think so many of the surrounding communities are looking at this question.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: On that point would the noble Lord say what the representation of the City of Glasgow will be in relation to the other parts to be included in the district?
LORD POLWARTH: I could probably produce that information, given a little time. I cannot give it immediately, but I can say that the so-called dominance in terms of representation of the City is perhaps not quite as substantial as may be imagined. I will endeavour, if it is possible before I finish, to have the figures for the surrounding district. Of the proposed Glasgow district council there will be 84 members of the new area proposed in the Bill. The present membership of the Corporation of Glasgow within the present City boundary is 111 members, which is considerably larger than the proposed membership in the future. I do not deny for a moment that the communities proposed in the Amendment to form the district of Kilpatricks are not, on the strength of numbers and area, able to be
1058
viable as a district. I think it is clear enough that they could.
There are other considerations basic to Wheatley, who has been cited, not always absolutely fairly, by some noble Lords in their remarks. The question is: what is a community? The principle of community of interests is very much underlying the whole of the set-up, whether in regard to districts or regions. Is a community to-day what it used to be in the past, with slower methods of transport, much less communication, much less mobility? Can we really say that the present boundaries of the City of Glasgow (because this is virtually what noble Lords in these Amendments are seeking to retain) are a satisfactory designation of a unit of a community of interest? I think the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, asked what Bearsden has in common with the Gorbals. Equally one can ask: what does Knights Wood or Anniesland have in common with the Gorbals?—both within the boundaries of the present City.
This question of community is a moot point. Is it not a fact that these surrounding areas have the great majority of their links not with each other, not with other outer areas of the country, but with the City of Glasgow and its centre. I could go into the details of them in relation to each single Amendment in due course, but if one turns to the first one finds that virtually all the main communication links are radial from the City to these communities. There is very little direct public transport or travel to work between any of them. The travel to work pattern is between the communities and Glasgow. It is a remarkably two-way traffic; it is not by any means all commuting into the City. Seventy-one per cent. of the resident population of Bearsden and 26 per cent. of those in Milngavie travel to work in Glasgow, to take only one example. And as for two-way traffic, the situation with Clydebank is very interesting. Twentyeight per cent. travel from Clydebank to Glasgow; 34 per cent. travel in the reverse direction. It is a two-way ebb and flow of traffic, and there is a great community of interest, I suggest, established on that basis.
There is no doubt that these peripheral communities rely largely on the

1059
City of Glasgow in relation to entertainment, for their major shopping requirements and for other purposes. I am not as pessimistic about the disappearance of influence on the terms of the number of representatives that these communities will have in the new set-up as opposed to their being left on their own. If we carried this process to its logical conclusion we should have every community that was going to have a lower ratio of representation per head wanting to be put in a position where this was not the case, and one would have to try to even out all Scotland so that there was parity throughout. That of course would be quite impossible to achieve. Might there not be some advantage in not always thinking of being the big frog in the little pond; that sometimes one can play a more useful part in the opposite direction? Might it not be a good thing for the City of Glasgow that many of those who work in it and travel home to these peripheral communities should be able to have a say and play a part in the administration of the affairs of the City of Glasgow? I believe that we shall secure a much more effective and efficient local government authority if there is this greater freedom. Increasing the calibre of representation is of immense importance, and at least this would help to bring it about.
There are other factors here, but I am bound to say that the Government's view in relation to these peripheral communities is that they are part of the total community of the Greater Glasgow area. Many of them are virtually attached by built-up areas. Certainly if we take these separate communities which it is proposed should constitute the new Kilpatrick district we find that they are much further from other centres and have very little community of interest one with another. I have much sympathy with those who want to be detached and to be on their own, who want to be part of a smaller entity; but nevertheless I submit to your Lordships that it is contrary to the principles of Wheatley that we should detach these peripheral areas.
I can now give some figures. The 84 members of the proposed new district authority of Glasgow will be spread as to 62—roughly three-quarters—from what is the present City of Glasgow area, and
1060
22—just over one quarter—representing the peripheral communities covered in this series of Amendments; namely, Clydebank, Bearsden, Milngavie, Bishopbriggs, Rutherglen, Eastwood and Giffnock. So I think it is not fair to say that these peripheral communities will not have a substantial influence in the affairs of this Greater Glasgow district which we are proposing, and on the basis of those arguments the Government submit that what is proposed in the Bill is the correct and best course and recommend to your Lordships not to support the Amendment.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I do not want to prolong the discussion, but as I have my name down to this Amendment may I just suggest to your Lordships that the affinities which my noble friend has been describing between these peripheral areas and the City of Glasgow, movements from one to the other, roads, transport and so on, are relevant to the functions of the regional authority, but not, I think, to the functions of the district authority; and that is a point which may arise again on subsequent Amendments.
THE EARL OF BALFOUR: Perhaps I may say just a word here. My noble friend referred to "Big Brother" in its present form. One of the problems is that that is exactly what worries me: that "Big Brother" is that big. Secondly, he referred to the boundaries in their present form. This is the other problem. If the boundary extended to green fields, then I should be all for Glasgow's having the opportunity to expand. But it cannot expand, so far as I can see, into the burghs of Bearsden, Clydebank and Milngavie because they are so heavily built up—unless even the school playing fields are to disappear. May I furthermore say that while I think that the burghs of Bearsden, Clydebank and Milngavie can make a satisfactory district, on the other hand, I am not satisfied with the evidence produced that anything in the county of Lanark should be taken out or could make a separate district. They are two very different points. In other words, I would say at this stage that I am prepared to support Amendment No. 6 but not Nos. 7, 8 and 9.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: Before we decide on this Amendment, I should like

1061
to make it clear that both the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, and myself have served for many years on the city council in the City of Glasgow. Not only that, but we were members of that great city, that great community, and we ask my noble friend the Minister to believe that we know something of what we are talking about.
5.42 p.m.
LORD HUGHES: I am sorry that the Minister has chosen this point to stop agreeing with what seems to be the majority of your Lordships' Committee so far as it is present. It was rather interesting to have the figures which he gave in reply to his noble friend Lord Strathclyde, and he said that the "Big Brother" that we know is not going to be the "Big Brother" of the future. I should like to make it perfectly clear that in proposing this Amendment, and in supporting other Amendments to keep these authorities out of Glasgow, I do not in any way wish to denigrate what the City of Glasgow has done under one Party or another over many years. But its problems are very great. Some of them are peculiar to Glasgow as it is, and I agree with those who have said that, by adding these areas to it, they can see nothing which will help Glasgow in the solution of its present problems. If one had been seeking, in terms of the sort of situation we have had in the past, to enlarge boundaries by annexing large parts of the surrounding country to give land on which to build houses and so on, I could understand it; but what in fact is being done is to add built-up area to built-up area to no useful purpose so far as I can see in the terms of district government. As has been said, particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, when we come to regional problems they are something else altogether. Obviously there must be a greater area than the present city of Glasgow taken into consideration.
To come back to the figures, somebody quoted the number of councillors there are in these three burghs at the present time. I believe the number was 60. Glasgow as it stands is to be reduced from 111 to 62. In other words, their future representation will be approximately 60 per cent. in numbers compared to the figure at the present time. That is not such a terribly difficult thing to
1062
accomplish. Each man will have a slightly bigger area, will represent a slightly larger number—40 per cent. more—of electors than at the present time. But the burghs which we are speaking about in these Amendments are going to be reduced from 60 to 7—little more than one-tenth of the number they have to look after their interests at the present time.
The Minister said that this is all very well, but if we wanted to do this we should have to apply it throughout the country and this would make nonsense. We are not suggesting it. In my earlier remarks I said that if a community was being reduced to, say, a third or a quarter of its present strength then they would perhaps accept it; but to be reduced to just a fragment, a small portion, of one's present strength, and then to have that just becoming an even smaller proportion of a very much larger body of councillors, is the sort of thing which makes the proposition totally unacceptable. In so far as district functions are concerned, this is not local government; this is annexation, and there is no reason why we should do it. After all, if one were looking at it from a purely political point of view, one wonld say, "Yes. Make Glasgow more and more powerful." But this is not what local government is about. Local government is not just politics; local government is looking after the interests of the local people. I suggest that if two burghs such as Bearsden and Milrgavie agree that they would be better governed by an association with Clydebank, rather than joining together as part of the City of Glasgow, obviously they have gone into the matter fully.
Reference has been made (I think by my noble friend Lord Taylor of Gryfe) to the voting position in Glasgow. When these particular proposals were discussed and voted upon in these burghs they had over a 70 per cent. poll. This is the measure of interest, and I therefore regret that the Minister is sticking to what was Government policy in another place, rather than accepting the facts of life.
THE EARL OF PERTH: I have listened to the whole of this debate, not knowing very much about it before the Committee stage. The noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, made a considerable point about the number of people who went to these

1063
areas, from the district or from the burghs to Glasgow. In no case was it the majority. So far as I am concerned, what is interesting is the number of people who stay behind, not those who go to Glasgow, because those who stay behind are really concerned with what happens in the daily life of the area. The second point the noble Lord made was to the effect that the district or the burgh really had no affinities. But if they become one on their own, I think they will very soon discover their affinities. So, in the light of I think the unanimous expressions that have been made by your Lordships, I hope that the noble Lord will think again before deciding to remain where he is at the present time.
LORD POLWARTH: I was impressed by the plea of the noble Earl who has just sat down, who spoke from the vantage point of a certain degree of detachment from these issues which raise such high emotions for those who are more closely connected with them. I would take the view, after hearing what I think it would be fair to call the unanimous view of those who have spoken in favour of this Amendment, that I should be prepared, if the noble Lord would agree to withdraw his Amendment, to take this matter back to my right honourable friend and report to him the strongly held
views of the Members of your Lordships' Committee who have shown themselves interested in this business, and see whether we can reach an accommodation on this matter. I cannot, it will be appreciated, give any undertaking in this place. I must therefore leave it to the noble Lord whether he wishes to press his Amendment or whether he will allow me to act on that basis.
LORD HUGHES: I try to be accommodating with the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, but in this case I think it would be a mistake to do so. The best way in which he can impress his right honourable friend with the strength of feeling in the Committee is to go to him and say, Well, once again Milngavie and company have been taken out of Glasgow. I think we should just let the matter rest there." I doubt whether the Government would feel that Wheatley is going to come tumbling down if all of these areas are taken out of Glasgow. This is one case where I think another place and the Secretary of State for Scotland will be perfectly content to abide by the decision at which we arrive.
5.50 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 6) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 71; Not-Contents, 27.

CONTENTS

Aberdeen and Temair, M.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Rankeillour, L.

Ailsa, M.

Gainford, L.

Rusholme, L

Allerton, L.

Gaitskell, B.

St. Davids, V.

Archibald, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L. [Teller.]

Saint Oswald, L.

Atholl, D.

Selkirk, F.

Balerno, L.

Hall, V.

Sempill, Ly.

Balfour, E.

Henderson, L.

Shackleton, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Hoy, L.

Shinwell, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Hughes, L.

Sinclair of Cleeve, L.

Beswick, L.

Janner, L.

Slater, L

Blyton, L.

Kilmany, L.

Somers, L.

Brockway, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Stocks, B.

Burton, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Champion, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Stratheden and Campbell, L.

Chorley, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Tanlaw, L.

Clancarty, E.

Loudoun, C.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Coleraine, L.

Lyell, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Conesford, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Vivian, L.

Crawshaw, L.

Maelor, L.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Cromartie, E.

Mar, E.

Williamson, L.

Crook, L.

Margadale, L.

Wise, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Merrivale, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

de Clifford, L.

Northchurch, B.

Wright of Ashton under Lyne, I.

Dundee, E. [Teller.]

Perth, E.

Dundonald, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, B.

Daventry, V.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Craigavon, V.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Drumalbyn, L.

Merthyr, L.

Sandford, L.

Ferrers, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller.]

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Gowrie, E.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone,L. (L. Chancellor.)

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Polwarth, L.

Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, B.

Limerick, E.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Windlesham, L. (L. Privy Seal.)

Lothian, M.

St. Helens, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Mancroft, L.

St. Just, L.

Young, B.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Resolved in the Affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD MERTHYR): In calling Amendment No. 7 may I remind the Committee that if this Amendment is agreed to Nos. 8 and 9 cannot be called.
5.59 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 152, line 21, leave out from ("Lanark") to end of line 32 and insert ("The Burgh of Rutherglen").
The noble Earl said: If I may relieve your Lordships of embarrassment I may say that I do not propose to divide the Committee on this Amendment, and therefore if it is desired to carry the subsequent Amendments, that can be done. I am raising here, in the fullest sense, the question of what is the Government policy in regard to the existing boundaries of Glasgow. If I may say so, I hope the Government will try to give us some more convincing reason for the policy with which they are proceeding. The districts were laid down by Wheatley as 50,000 to 150,000. We now have 900,000 in Glasgow, and the Government are solemnly intending to increase that by 25 per cent., and, subject to the last Amendment, want to double the size of area which Glasgow is to occupy.
What policy has the noble Lord behind this? He said first of all that Glasgow is an anachronism. I would not call it an anachronism. It is doing a wonderful job in its policy. The noble Lord also said that Glasgow must expand. If there is anything that town planners have ever agreed on since the 1931 Ribbon Development Act it is that we do not want urban sprawl. That is precisely what the noble Lord is advocating here. So far as I can see that is what he is encouraging, and I cannot see the justification for this policy. We have something here which is pretty well the size of a large number of nations sitting in the United Nations. It is about five times the size
1066
of the Bahamas to which we have just given independence. This is the area which we are dealing with at present. I think the Government must produce some reason if they want to keep and extend the area as it is. One could metropolitanise it, but I am against that. I would agree with Wheatley, that to metropolitanise it would not be a particularly good thing.
The area I am concerned about is the area lying to the East of Glasgow in the Northern Eighth, Ninth and Tenth districts of Lanarkshire; I will not talk about Bishopbriggs which some of my noble friends wish to talk about. This is an area which suffered heavily in the Industrial Revolution in the middle of the 19th century. It is an area in which coal-mining has stopped, and in which subsidence has stopped altogether. It is an area which the noble Lord knows has been the scene of the most enormous development. This is an area which has always been rather on the periphery of Glasgow and on the periphery of Lanarkshire. It is an area which wants to develop something of its own individuality, which it is capable of doing, and which it has done, in spite of not really having the strength to do so.
Why has not Glasgow previously spread in all directions? Because burghs have been set up. What would be the position to-day in the South-West of Glasgow if one had not got Paisley, Johnstone, Renfrew and Barrhead? Glasgow would have gradually spread out, bit by bit, in that direction, and Renfrew and Paisley would not have been there if there had not been set up some kind of municipal government. To take an example, I know the noble Lord knows Sydney, Australia. That is a town of two million people. Every planner would say it ought to have been made smaller, and every time the decision comes up the city council gives way and the town gets bigger and bigger. Every Australian will tell you it is a mistake. I have a high regard for the Scottish Office, and I know they would do their

1067
best to stop Glasgow getting bigger and bigger, but I do not believe they can do it. The only people who can do it is Parliament, by providing in an Act of Parliament that Glasgow shall not get bigger. This is an integral part of what we ought to do in this Act.
From the point of view of administration, too, I believe that we put the Glasgow councillors in a totally impossible position. They must consider developments in Bridgeton, which are urgently needed, and compare that with other development in Cambuslang. It is a difficult comparison for them to make. This area could perfectly well have individuality. The noble Lord put all this down to a statement, "the designation of a community of interest". First of all, North Lanarkshire has a community interest with Glasgow University. Not long ago I went to see someone at Stewarts and Lloyds when they moved to Corby. People liked it there but someone told me, "I cannot send my son to university". In that sense the community of interest is very wide. But to take the other side, what community of interest is there for someone living in Cambuslang as compared with Glasgow? It is a separate community. If the noble Lord could find two natives of Cambuslang who will say they are Glaswegians, I will give him a champagne dinner. These people do not regard themselves as Glaswegians. They are people of entirely different character.
There are really three different ways in which this matter could be tackled. One could either set up a separate district which would be, roughly speaking, Rutherglen, Cambuslang, Baillieston and Carmyle. One could add the area to the Cadzow area, or to the East Kilbride area. The East Kilbride area has an enormous area to the immediate South-West. What I ask the noble Lord to do is, if he thinks he really must allow the urban spread to take place, to give us the reasons why it is worthwhile; give us the reasons why it will improve local government and why it will develop the area industrially, and give us the reason why it will make people happier. If he will do that I can vote with him, otherwise we must try and keep the boundaries to a reasonable size. I beg to move.
LORD HOY: One thing which has surprised me this afternoon is the number of people who do not want to be associated with Glasgow. This has appeared in speech after speech. Glasgow is a great city. There are many noble Lords and others who have earned a very good livelihood in the City of Glasgow. Glasgow people are a warm and kindhearted people. I do not know why everyone wants to make a case and to ask, "Why should we be associated with Glasgow?" There is great pride in the Glaswegians. We are proud to sing, "I belong to Glasgow."
LORD BELHAVEN AND STENTON: Is it not a fact that the City of Glasgow is very nearly bankrupt? I am not sure.
LORD HUGHES: I do not think there is any question of that. The finest thing that Glasgow could get out of this is that an Edinburgh man has got up in your Lordships' House to praise Glasgow. The noble Lord may well find himself in future very welcome in Glasgow, but I do not know what his Edinburgh friends will have to say about that. Years ago, the then Lord Provost of Perth used to say the only good thing that came out of Dundee was the last train to Perth, and I thought this was still the relationship which existed between Glasgow and Edinburgh. It is not that Edinburgh people do not like Glasgow. After all, there are many men who can admire many women, but they do not necessarily want to be married to them. This is all that is the case here. People like Glasgow; they like to go to Glasgow, and like Glasgow people to come to them. But they do not want to be with them all the time in the same house—in the next street perhaps, or a little further away; but not in the same house. This is basically the argument for all the surrounding burghs. The only thing that is wrong with the Amendment which the noble Earl has just moved is that he has left in Rutherglen.
LORD POLWARTH: For one moment I began to have a glimmer of hope that I had at last found a friend over the matter of Glasgow; but in the event it turned out that Glasgow found an Edinburgh friend. I am delighted. The noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, speaks with enormous experience in this area of local government as well as national government, and I have much sympathy with

1069
much that he said. But I feel that he and so many other noble Lords have been basing all their arguments on the assumption that local government will in fact be going on just as before, on the same pattern and with the same functions; that all we are doing is merely a reshuffle of boundaries. That is not the case. We are creating a totally new structure, in two tiers instead of the present mixed one, with separate allocation of functions. The intention is to create local authorities of much greater strength and with much greater resources.
I do not see that the extension of this area to create a new large Glasgow district under the new system is automatically going to lead to total urbanisation, as the noble Earl seemed to fear. This will be a responsible body; it will be the more responsible with the addition of representatives from peripheral areas to it. I should have thought we should wish to see powers of decision over matters of the locality—and I consider that this does form a locality—in the hands of local people and not just subject perpetually to control from St. Andrew's House. We are so often told that St. Andrew's House exerts too much control: here is the opportunity to allow local interests to control their destiny to a greater extent than previously. They will have greater resources and to that extent will be better able to provide facilities for incoming industry. That is all I think I can say on my side of the argument raised by the noble Earl with regard to Glasgow.
LORD HUGHES: All I wish to add is that if these people had to choose between St. Andrew's House and Glasgow they would undoubtedly choose Glasgow; but that is not the choice before them.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: I want to make it abundantly clear to your Lordships that I have no grievance with my native city of Glasgow. I am very proud to be a citizen of the city of Glasgow, as indeed my forebears have been for many generations; indeed, we have lived within 18 miles of Glasgow for some six or seven hundred years. So I know what we are talking about and the people with whom we are dealing. The point is not, as the Minister said, the setting up of a new local authority concern. What we want is to have local government, and it
1070
is not local government that we shall be getting under this tremendous district. The people are going to be ruled by the majority in the city of Glasgow, whether they agree with them or not, and they have no choice at all. I think the Government are absolutely stupid in this regard.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: If I said anything which appeared even remotely discourteous about Glasgow, I withdraw it immediately. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, for what he said. I have the greatest possible regard for much that Glasgow has done and for the way it conducts its business. The noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, has not attempted to answer the central question, and I am rather sorry about this. We are dealing with a district and it was supposed (this point was made by Lord Wheatley) that it should have proper autonomy, have a pride in itself and be able to manage its own affairs locally. This point has not been dealt with, and I find it very hard to understand from what was said in Committee in another place (and I regret that we have not seen the Report and Third Reading debate in the other place) why there should be this extension of a district from 900,000 to one and a quarter million or thereabouts. If I may say so with great respect, the noble Lord seems to be living in the world of the past. He said that of course Glasgow has not expanded for 30 years—as if every burgh had to expand. I understood that one of the purposes of this Bill was to make the distinction between the burghs and the towns and the country disappear. Therefore, Glasgow does not need to expand. Had it not been for this Bill, at least five separate Private Acts of Parliament, each of which would have had to go through private legislation procedure and be proved, would have been required. This is not the case here; no-one has proved anything. I am not going to press this Amendment now, but I have given the noble Lord a choice of either a separate district or joining with the other districts. He has not even considered the possibility; he just says that Glasgow is the supreme answer to everything. I find this very unsatisfactory. I shall make a more precise recommendation at Report stage. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.16 p.m.
LORD KILMANY LORD KILMANY moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 152, line 21, leave out ("burghs") and insert ("burgh").
The noble Lord said: In rising to move this Amendment, which is supported by noble Lords on both sides of the Committee, I take it that it would be convenient to discuss Nos. 8 and 9 together, since No. 8 is purely drafting; but would it not also be convenient to discuss No. 12, which is in the name of the same noble Lords and myself?
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: I can only call the Amendments in the proper order, but it is perfectly in order to debate several Amendments after I have called one of them.
LORD KILMANY: I am much obliged to the noble Lord. I beg to move Amendment No. 8. My reason for proposing that Bishopbriggs should not be included in the Glasgow district is not just that I had the privilege of representing that part of Lanarkshire for some 14 years from 1931 to 1945, because I do not think one can rely on that old experience to keep one straight. But in common with, I am sure, a great many other Scottish Members of this House. I have been kept informed of local opinion and very well briefed in the situation by those who dwell in Bishopbriggs, and I am left in no doubt whatever that the people of Bishopbriggs do not want to be put into the Glasgow district. There is no nonsense about not liking Glasgow in this matter, as the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, attempted to say, largely in jest, a minute or two ago. The point is, as Lord Hughes so truly says, that we want democratic representation, and the situation at this moment is that Bishopbriggs is a burgh of 12 councillors and it has its provost; it has been properly elected and it is representing its people—some 22,000 people; it is governing those people in local affairs.
Under the Bill as it now stands this town council is to be swept away and pushed into the vast Glasgow district, where the Bishopsbriggs people will be represented by no more than one councillor in a total council of 86. The point has been made before, and I need not repeat it, that that really is no adequate representation. The man gets
1072
the 'flu, or is run over by a motorcar and sent to hospital, and then Bishopbriggs is left with not a single representative in the Glasgow District Council. I am sure that the Government agree that this in itself is unsatisfactory. May I quote to my noble friend Lord Polwarth what he said in our Second Reading debate:
"I admit that the Glasgow district is extraordinarily difficult. Views have been expressed mainly on the side that these peripheral areas…do not have a community of interest with Glasgow. I thought that the most valid argument was advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Hughes; that their proportionate representation, as it were, within the Glasgow district would be much weaker than if they were outside. I think that is the strongest argument in favour of their detachment"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3/7/73, col. 223.]
That is the argument that I seek to put to my noble friend on the Front Bench, and I hope that it will not fall upon deaf ears.
May I turn for a moment to the other side of the picture? If we take Bishopbriggs out of the Glasgow district, or rather resist the suggestion of putting it in, will it hurt the Glasgow district? I do not think that it will. On the contrary, I believe, as do so many of my noble friends and noble Lords opposite, that the Glasgow district is going to be much too big. I have taken note of what the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, said in our debate on March 23, 1971, at column 821:
"In the West, it is a big disappointment to see that Glasgow is to be as big as 1,107,000."
I hate to take my lead necessarily from the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, so may I turn to a more respectable source—I hasten to say that is politically, not personally—namely, to the words of my noble friend Lord Selkirk. In the Second Reading debate on July 3, at column 182, he said:
"I shall certainly support any Amendment to reduce the size of the Glasgow district."
I put to my noble friend on the Front Bench that these are the principles that I believe to be right. You want districts to have adequate representation, and one member of the council is not adequate representation. I do not think that you want Glasgow to be too big, because in that case people on the periphery do not get fair consideration of their wants and needs.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: I wish to support the noble Lord who moved this Amendment. The arguments here are exactly the same as those that have been put forward in relation to the Kilpatrick district. Here we have a burgh which runs its own affairs, and runs them very well. There is little, if any, community of interest between it and the city of Glasgow—not even in transport. In regard to housing, the waiting list there is of such a length that it satisfies an applicant for a house within 18 months. You have only to compare that with the situation in Glasgow, where the housing situation is so desperately acute. Of the total electors in the burgh, 75 per cent. have stated that they do not wish to go into Glasgow, and a great majority of them have stated that they wish to be included in the Strathkelvin district. I hope that the Committee will agree with the mover of the Amendment and that it will be accepted by the Committee.
LORD POLWARTH: The noble Lord who has just sat down has truly said that the arguments are exactly the same as previous arguments, and this is where I find myself in the same position, in that it appears that there is a great gulf fixed between the views of Scottish noble Lords in general and the views of the Government on the whole question of Glasgow and the peripheral areas. It would be tedious of me to recite the arguments again, but I would come back to one point: it was clear from what my noble friend Lord Strathclyde said that noble Lords do not appear to accept that we are ready to have any reform of the pattern of local government. He spoke about Bishopbriggs being a burgh and being perfectly capable of handling its own affairs, and he wants to hold on to Bishopbriggs.
My noble friend Lord Selkirk said that Glasgow had done a splendid job, but was implying that it must remain within its present identical boundary. The logic of what he was arguing was that Wheatley recommended populations of 100,000 to 150,000 for districts. Well, that is all right in the normal run of parts of the world, but if you apply that to the Glasgow area you would have to break down the present city of Glasgow into half a dozen component parts before you obtained this so-called optimum
1074
populus. Glasgow is a different situation from anywhere else in Scotland. Simply to constrict it to its present boundary, over which development has split through the years, does not seem to me the right solution when we are looking at a reform of local government which we agreed to in principle in giving a Second Reading to this Bill. I feel that we are in danger, in these individual pleas, of harking back all the time to an existing system and trying to make assumptions based on the existing system of local government, which in fact we have agreed to change in its general pattern. I cannot recommend your Lordships to accept this particular Amendment about Bishopbriggs.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: The noble Lord talks about the existing system; that is exactly what I am asking for. He is saying that Glasgow is in a special position. It is in a way, but he is making it more special, and that is what I do not understand.
LORD HUGHES: The noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, in this context remarked upon what is an acceptable size of district and said that Glasgow was different from everything else. He went on insisting that these areas should remain in, which would thereby make certain that it is even more different than it has been in the past. May I pick up the point—the rather unfortunate point—put by the noble Lord, Lord Kilmany, on the subject of respectability? It seems to me that all that the Minister is left with in these matters is the fig leaf of political respectability; otherwise he is completely naked.
6.26 p.m.
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD MERTHYR): The Question is, That Amendment No. 8 be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say "Content"; to the contrary, "Not-Content". I think the "Contents" have it. Clear the Bar.
I understand that no Tellers have been appointed for the Not-Contents, and I declare that the Contents have it.
6.31 p.m.
LORD KILMANY LORD KILMANY moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 152, line 22, leave out ("Bishopbriggs").
The noble Lord said: the substance of this Amendment has been debated, and I assume that it is agreed in the same way as the other Amendment. I beg to move.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE THE EARL OF DUNDEE moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 152, leave out lines 33 to 35.
The noble Earl said: With this Amendment I would ask your Lordships to consider Amendment No. 15, which is on the same subject. Perhaps I ought to mention that this morning I tabled a Manuscript Amendment to page 153, to leave out lines 29 and 30, because I was advised that that would be consequential if these Amendments were accepted. On a previous Amendment I was glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, refer to the fact that we ought to pay attention to what has happened in another place, and to be careful not to correct them too bluntly without good reason. I think that is very true. There is a very strong case indeed for this Amendment which would have the effect of making the present district of Eastwood into a district under this Bill—and for several reasons which are beyond most people's control, this case has probably not received the attention which it deserves in another place.
The honourable Member for East Renfrew, at whose request I am moving this Amendment, is in another place Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means which prevents her from speaking on behalf of her constituents. Then in Scottish Standing Committee in another place this Amendment was moved only a few minutes before the Standing Committee adjourned on the last sitting day of the week, so that my honourable friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire in another place was obliged somewhat to curtail his remarks. When the Committee met again on the first sitting day of the following week, my honourable friend the Member for Glasgow, Hillhead, in another place, Mr. Galbraith, having composed a very powerful and most convincing speech in favour of the Amendment, found to his dismay that he had left his spectacles at home and was unable to deliver it.
LORD HUGHES: If I may interrupt the noble Earl, is that not the best argu
1076
ment against writing speeches that one has ever heard?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I was about to add that since my noble friend Lord Strathclyde has been kind enough to add his name to this Amendment, he may later repair this deficiency.
The community of Eastwood has a very strong sense of its individuality in the manifesto which has been presented to both Houses and to the Government. They declare, on the historical authority of the late Sir Ludovic Mann, that they were an identifiable community in the year 3,000 B.C. and that in the first century A.D. they took a leading part in resisting Roman invasions under the Roman General Agricola, and later under the Emperor Septimius Severus. I do not know how many district councillors they had at that time—they do not say—but at this moment they are certainly a very thriving and progressive community. They have, among other things, what I believe is the finest community centre in Scotland. I mention this in particular because so many of your Lordships have stressed the need under this Bill for district councils to provide community centres, and I should like to tell you what this community centre in Eastwood consists of.
It has an open space of 40 acres of grass, and it has converted one of the Weir mansion houses into a social centre with provision for every kind of social recreation and activity. There is a theatre which seats 300 people, and a large, general purpose hall which is equally suitable for large dances, large concerts or large public meetings. There are also Turkish baths and a swimming pool of considerable size. This new centre was opened last January by my honourable friend Mr. Hector Munro, who is one of the Under-Secretaries of State for Scotland, and he is reported as having said on that occasion that this is much the best community centre in Scotland and it ought to be repeated all over Scotland, and that he wished he had it in his own constituency. The offices of the Eastwood District Council are in the centre of the area, conveniently accessible to all the councillors. They have 180 employees and some 10 ratepayers' or residents' associations, seven old people's clubs, and over 300 youth and other voluntary societies.

1077
I submit to your Lordships that these are the kind of local government activities which it is the duty of Parliament to encourage and preserve, and not to destroy. If we are going to abandon them and say that they must be merged with something greater, then we must ask ourselves: are they going to be better, or worse? I do not think in this case there is any doubt at all about the answer.
There are many affinities with Glasgow but, as in other cases, those affinities—moving in and out, going in to do your shopping—are all relevant to functions of the regional authority and are good reasons for their being in the same region as Glasgow, but they are not relevant to the functions of a district authority. Since the district authority has now been provided with the duty of housing as well as other things, I have taken some trouble to find out whether Eastwood or Glasgow could derive any mutual benefit from combining together for the purposes of housing policy. I am informed that the whole of Eastwood is by this time either already built-up or else acquired for future building development purposes, and that there is no scope at all for new development schemes which might be decided on by a larger district authority.
The only effect of combining this area with Glasgow would be to destroy true local representation and individuality. The population of Eastwood at the present time is something like 55,000. As the average age, of the population is somewhat younger than the average age for the whole country, it is expected that in the near future they are likely to be more prolific than the average for tile whole country, and that in five years the total will probably have risen to 65,000 people. The only effect of combining them would be that their representatives on the more distant Glasgow District Council will consist of four members—that is, about one to every 13,000 people in Eastwood—whereas at present they have 24 of their own district councillors, which is one to about every 2,000, which I think is generally about right. In some areas it is a good deal less. They point out that in the Secretary of State's constituency of Nairn there is one to every 500, which is a bit below the average. The only result of doing this would be to destroy local touch between the electors and their district council representatives.
1078
I think it a sad thing that we should wind up this very progressive and flourishing authority which has achieved so many progressive and leading performances—things which were acclaimed by a Minister of the Crown only a few months ago as an example to the whole of Scotland. We have this already in existence. Surely wise statesmanship demands that we should make the best use of what we have, and not unnecessarily substitute something else for it. We have this organisation; we have this district authority; we have this small (but sufficiently large for its purposes) democratic community which wants to carry on, which has the means to carry on and which is appealing to us to allow it to do so. I beg to move.
LORD STRATHEDEN AND CAMPBELL: I put my name down to this Amendment and rise to support my noble friend Lord Dundee in moving it. I do so not because I have any personal interest in the area but because of the general principle of reasonable and proper representation of people in local government. Here, I would say very strongly to my noble friend Lord Polwarth, I am not looking back into the past. I think I am on record from the very beginning, from the very earliest stages of the Wheatley Commission, and before that, as being very strongly in favour of proper reform of local government, but of doing it in, as far as is conceivably possible, a reasonable way. In this case I think that the district of Glasgow has become quite unreasonable, and that it is of great benefit to everybody, including Glasgow itself, that these peripheral areas should, wherever it is reasonably possible (I keep using the word "reasonable"), go into the counties to which they originally belonged. When I say "counties", I am again not looking back in the past, but I think they should go so that they fit into the same type of environment as that in which they have always been. I do not want to repeat all the arguments put forward so very ably by my noble friend Lord Dundee, but I wished to speak in strong support of his Amendment.
LORD POLWARTH: This Amendment has attracted a somewhat different combination of proponents from the earlier ones, but of course the fact remains that the principle involved here is exactly the

1079
same as in the previous Amendments concerning the Glasgow peripheral districts. Frankly, I think it would be tedious for your Lordships if I were to redeploy the arguments in favour of the larger Glasgow district at the time we have now reached, and I will simply leave it to your Lordships to dispose of this Amendment as your Lordships think fit.
LORD HUGHES: I beg to move Amendment No. 11.
Amendment moved—
Page 152, line 35, columns 2 and 3, at end insert:

("Kilpatricks…

In the county of Dunbarton—the burghs of Bearsden, Clydebank, Milngavie; the district of Old Kilpatrick (except the electoral divisions of Bowling, Dunbarton).").—(Lord Hughes.)

LORD KILMANY: I beg to move Amendment No. 12 standing in my name and in that of other noble Lords.
Amendment moved—
Page 152, line 42, at end insert ("the burgh of Bishopbriggs").—(Lord Kilmany.)
6.47 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 153, line 10, leave out ("Cadzow") and insert ("Hamilton").
The noble Earl said: I beg to move that the name "Hamilton" should replace that of "Cadzow". I must declare a personal interest here because I am a Freeman of Hamilton. That is a honour which I hold very high indeed, but it has nothing whatever to do with the Amendment. There are really two reasons why I am moving this Amendment. The first is because the Government gave misleading information when they replied at the Committee stage in the other place. They said that most of the local authorities preferred the name "Cadzow" to "Hamilton". What are the facts? Practically half the local authority is Hamilton, and they to a man wanted the name "Hamilton". There are three pieces of district which have proved themselves into the new district. They collectively
1080
make three, but they are only small pieces of it. I think it is therefore fair to say that one should not be overwhelmed by considerations of local thought. There may have been a certain amount of local rivalry. I suppose Bothwell may have thought that it ought to be more important; or Blantyre, the birthplace of David Livingstone.
Cadzow is the most charming place, as anyone can see. It has everything that one place should have: it has a castle, it has a gorge, it has trees planted at the time of David I and it has some white cattle. It has only one serious disadvantage: it is not on the map. It is true that probably in some Celtic period it may have been the name of a district. Probably the "z" is a transliteration of the "y" in "Cadyow" or something like that. Your Lordships may remember the distinguished Member for Central Edinburgh named Gilzean (pronounced "Gillean") who bristled with fury when he was called "Gilzean". There is also that distinguished international footballer who used to play centre-forward for Scotland and when the B.B.C. calls him "Gilzean" it sends cold shivers down my back. It is not wholly irrelevant, for it illustrates the difficulties that some Southern gentlemen have in pronouncing the names of Scotland.
I want to put it to my noble friend Lord Polwarth that it is rather important in developing an area to have a name which is known. If you ask someone to build a factory in some place it is no good giving him a name which is not there. He may think it is somewhere in the Outer Hebrides. This name of Hamilton is thoroughly well known. I am told that the people who run the new town of Stonehouse (who are the same people as those who run East Kilbride) want to be in this district of Lanark. But that is a kenned name. They do not want to be in the district of Cadzow, which nobody has heard of; and that is so.
There is one other point. We are changing a great number of names in Scotland. Practically every county in the South of Scotland is being removed or made obscure. I think we ought to think seriously about it and when it is not absolutely necessary to make a change we ought to keep to the name that is well known. I beg to move.
LORD BELHAVEN AND STENTON: May I intervene and say a word or two in favour of Cadzow? My family was in that part of the world for some 600 years. It is about 25 years since I left it. Unless people have changed very much, I do not agree with the noble Earl. The name Cadzow is very well known. It is normally pronounced "Cadzow" whereas my family pronounce it "Cadyo" and because of an old tradition I think it ought to be pronounced that way. In fact, Cadzow is an older name than Hamilton which is my family name. As I understand it, Hamilton is one of the less respectable names in Scotland. It derives, undoubtedly, from Hambledon in England. The first Hamilton came to Scotland just before Bannockburn and, according to some authorities he fought on one side and according to others he fought on the other side. I should not like to guess which side he fought on; but at any rate he made his stand with Robert Bruce after Bannockburn. Cadzow was there when the first Hamilton arrived in Scotland. From that point of view, although I would not fight about it, I think the name Cadzow for this district is quite acceptable. There are a number of people in the area who have the surname of Cadzow. I knew two or three of them. Such a thing is not altogether unknown. I do not know what local opinion would be. Hamilton is a big burgh and they might prefer the name "Hamilton"; but I would not fight about it.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: Whenever there is mention of the less reputable names in Scotland I wonder what is coming next. This time it is not "Lauderdale" of the Cabal—still less the one who witnessed the storming of the Bastille, was a friend of Murat and who came into this House calling himself "Citizen Maitland" and wearing the uniform of the Jacobins. As a former Member of Parliament for Lanark, I have a certain interest to declare. One of the interests is that the pronounciation of Cadzow is by no means uniform. The noble Lord, Lord Belhaven, pronounced it differently from the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk. There is a place written in the
1082
map as Kilncadzow which is known to everybody as "Kilkaigie". The argument is a simple one. Hamilton is known, Cadzow is less known and Kilkaigie is not known at all. This is a highly reputable name, Hamilton. Therefore let one reputable name support another. I am happy to support this Amendment.
LORD POLWARTH: I think that the almost total unanimity that appeared on the last few Amendments has been slightly broken. The noble Earl who moved the Amendment is on his own stamping ground. I can say I know it fairly well, having done innumerable drills in Hamilton drill hall during the 12 months preceding the last war, teaching, rather surprisingly, miners and steel workers to ride horses. I have a certain degree of sympathy with this Amendment, but I must say I cannot accept that the Government gave misleading information. It may be a question of the interpretation of the information. Hamilton Town Council are much the largest authority concerned here, and my information was that while they, naturally I suppose, pressed very hard for this name, there was also a strong weight of opinion in favour of Cadzow. The majority decision at a meeting of elected representatives supported it and it was also supported by the fourth District Council of Lanark. I do not think the Government feel strongly one way or another on this Amendment. On the other hand, I do not think I am ready to accept it here and now, because we might be stirring up something of a hornets' nest in the district. I will gladly undertake to reconsider the matter and take further soundings if the noble Earl is prepared to withdraw the Amendment.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I will accept the noble Lord's offer on this Amendment. I think we must take a commonsense view about this matter. I do not feel strongly about it personally, but I think that in a developing area it is important to have a known name. It is a matter which should not be entered into lightly. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: Amendment No. 14A is a manuscript Amendment consequential on the Amendment just accepted by the Committee. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 153, column 3, leave out lines 29 and 30.—(The Earl of Dundee.)
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I beg to move Amendment No. 15.
Amendment moved.
Page 153, line 36, at end insert—

("Eastwood…

In the county of Renfrew —the First District.")

—(The Earl of Dundee.)
LORD POLWARTH LORD POLWARTH moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 154, line 13, column 3, at end insert ("; the parishes of Coylton, Dalrymple; part of the parish of Ayr within the district of Dalmellington.")
The noble Lord said: These Amendments have the intention of adjusting the boundary in South Ayrshire between the proposed Kyle and Carrick and Cumnock and Doon Valley districts. The Bill as introduced adopted the pattern of two district authorities for Ayrshire, as recommended by the Wheatley Council. In another place, Amendments were made in the Scottish Standing Committee providing for four districts in Ayrshire. While the Government accepted this in principle, it was indicated that we should want to consider the detailed boundaries a little further.
At the final stage in another place an Amendment was tabled similar to those proposed, and was accepted. We have now had an opportunity to look at the boundary between the two districts more fully and we feel that the community of interest in South Ayrshire which centres on the main centres of Ayr and Cumnock would be more accurately reflected by transferring the parishes of Coylton and Dalrymple in the existing Dalmellington District Council area from the Cumnock and Doon Valley District to the Kyle and Carrick District; that is from the easterly one to the most westerly one. While Coylton and Dalrymple have something in common, through the mining industry, with Cumnock their predominant connections
1084
are with Ayr to the West. This is borne out in the figures of the population; 31 per cent. of the population of the Dalmellington district as a whole, many of them from Coylton and Dalrymple, work in Ayr Burgh and district and only 4 per cent. in Cumnock Burgh and district. The adjustment would not produce a substantial change of population. It would reduce that of Cumnock and Doon Valley to about 47,000 and increase that of Kyle and Carrick to 111,000.
I understand that the majority of local authorities support these Amendments. Ayr Town Council has suggested that the boundary between these two districts should be further East than originally proposed; that is, further from the Burgh of Ayr, and that is achieved by this Amendment. Admittedly, Cumnock Town Council are, I believe, still opposed to this. Dalmellington District Council have said that they are content with the boundaries in the Bill as it stands, but they will perhaps understand the considerations which prompted the Government to suggest this change. I think that the resulting division between the two districts will be a more logical one. It gives more room round the Burgh of Ayr and reflects the community of interest and the working pattern of those in the area concerned.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: I have received a letter from the town clerk of Cumnock suggesting to the Government that this is a decision to which, as the noble Lord has already said, they are not entirely agreeable; and that, although they agree that there may be some adjustment to the boundary between the two districts they consider that to take a decision now would be rather precipitous. They suggest that the matter ought to be referred to the Boundary Commission. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, has thought of that or whether it is possible, but obviously the town council is very doubtful. The letter states:
"The removal of the Coylton and Dalrymple areas from Cumnock and Doon Valley District will seriously upset arrangements for representation, not only on the new district authority, but for representation on the new regional authority."
I thought that in the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Ballantrae, I should draw the attention of the Minister to

1085
the fact that this is a somewhat controversial matter in the area. I would not be able to say which is the fairest way to deal with it, but they request that the decision be referred to the Boundary Commission.
THE MARQUESS OF AILSA: I support the Government in this Amendment. For one thing, it will save me having a district boundary literally running across my front door. It is bad enough having a parish boundary, as from time to time I find Ministers of the Cloth encroaching on one another's parishes and it is embarrassing to have to explain that to them. I also support the Amendment because I think that as the boundaries were originally drawn they were going far too close to the Burgh of Ayr which is constantly expanding. I am aware that it was suggested—and it has been suggested again by the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood—that this matter should be considered by the Boundary Commission. When we start electing various representatives of various districts people want to know to whom they will belong. We should not elect representatives for one district and find maybe in seven years' time that they have to change their thinking. We should make up our minds now where the boundary should be and then people will know where they stand.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: I wish to ask whether it is still suitable to call the second of these districts Cumnock and Doon Valley. I think we are removing quite a bit of Doon Valley from out of it, but I may be wrong.
LORD POLWARTH: I should require a little time to study the map before I could give a definite answer on the point raised by the noble Duke, the Duke of Atholl. Perhaps I could take his point and consider the matter. I could not give a quick answer on it. I would simply say that while I appreciate the natural wish of any particular area to remain in a particular place as, for example, Cumnock to which the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, referred, I think that the majority of opinion is definitely in favour of making this change. It seems to me the logical one in terms of geographical pattern, travel to work and so on. I am grateful
1086
for the support of the noble Marquess, Lord Ailsa, and I hope that the Committee will accept the Amendment.
House resumed.

INTERNATIONAL COCOA AGREEMENT BILL
7.7 p.m.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I understand that no Amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript Amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move, pursuant to Standing Order No. 45(2), that the Order of Commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the Order of Commitment be discharged.—(Earl Ferrers.)

REDUNDANT MINEWORKERS AND CONCESSIONARY COAL (PAYMENTS SCHEMES) ORDER 1973
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: My Lords, I beg to move that this Order be approved.
Moved, That the Draft Redundant Mineworkers and Concessionary Coal (Payments Schemes) Order 1973, laid before the House on July 4, be approved. —(The Earl of Gowrie.)
[The Sitting was suspended at 7.8 p.m. and resumed at 7.35 p.m.]

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL
7.35 p.m.
House again in Committee.
LORD POLWARTH: I beg to move Amendment No. 19.
Amendment moved—
Page 154, line 16, column 3, at end insert ("(except the parishes of Coylton. Dalrymple; that part of the parish of Ayr within this district".")—(Lord Polwarth.)
Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 [Constitution of councils of regions, islands areas and districts]:
7.37 p.m.
THE EARL OF BALFOUR THE EARL OF BALFOUR moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 2, line 22, at end insert—
("(3) "The Regional Council", "The Islands Council", or "The District Council" as the case may be, shall have powers to acquire Armorial Bearings which shall be duly matriculated in the Public Register of all Arms and Bearings in Scotland under the Privileges of the Office of Lyon King-at-Armes Act, 1672.")
The noble Earl said: I beg to move Amendment No. 21 so that the procedures for local authorities can be properly established. With the introduction of this Bill there will be many new administration local authorities in Scotland, some of which may not be familiar with the procedure for acquiring Armorial Bearings. Therefore this Amendment is designed to draw attention, in this position of prominence, to the necessity for Armorial Bearings to be properly assigned and recorded. This would tend to avoid any error, misunderstanding or wasted effort on their part, and would reduce the burden of ensuring that there is no infringement of the status relating to Arms or the avoidance of Exchequer dues practically chargeable in such cases, because all fees exigible in a Lord Lyon's Court fall to the Treasury.
LORD DRUMALBYN: As I think my noble friend is aware, this Amendment is not strictly necessary. Existing local authorities are not specifically authorised by Statute to acquire Arms, but no question has ever arisen to their right as corporate bodies to do so. I am sure that my noble friend has done a service in bringing forward this Amendment so that the new authorities will be in no doubt whatsoever that they will have to go through the correct procedure for acquiring Arms. It is also possible for the Scottish Office to bring this need for following the correct procedure to the attention of the new authorities by means of a departmental circular. I do not think it will be necessary to put this in the Bill.
THE EARL OF BALFOUR: With that assurance, I ask leave from the Committee to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.41 p.m.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 2, line 23, clause 2, at end insert—
("(3) Every member elected to the Highland Region will automatically be a member of the District Council in which his electorial division lies.")
The noble Baroness said: I wonder whether I shall be in order in moving this Amendment on behalf of my noble friend? I should like to say a word in support of the Amendment because I think it is most important to have a representative of the region on district councils. At the present moment those serving on the county councils—I believe this applies everywhere; certainly it is the fact in my own area—are members of the district council. The district councils as we know them are being done away with and in their place will be the very much larger district councils. I think the liaison between the district and the region is of the greatest possible importance. While at the present time all county councillors are members of their own district council, in the new set-up I gather this will not necessarily be the case. I personally think it would be an extremely good plan, if the councillors on the regions were not going to be so very numerous, for them to be members of the district council: perhaps this might be made mandatory. That would keep the liaison between the two which, as I have said, I feel is so extremely important.
The noble Lord, Lord Burton, has put down this Amendment for the Highlands. I have no doubt that in so widespread an area it is every more important; but in an ordinary area or region I believe that close association between the regional councillors and the district council is vital. I should like, if I may, to move this Amendment and to give it my support.
LORD BURTON: Now that we have disposed of some of the "frills we can come on to the actual Bill itself, rather than be concerned with names, armorial bearings, and so on. I hope we shall get the same treatment from the Minister as we have had up to now and that we shall get some of these Amendments passed. It is very good of the noble Baroness to support this Amendment—
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: I had to move the Amendment because the noble Lord was not in his place. I did not want the opportunity to pass; so I moved the Amendment for him.
LORD BURTON: I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, because we had not heard in the Dining Room that the Committee had resumed. We had our county council meeting last week and the councillors were unanimous on this point. They felt that because in the past the county councillors have sat always with their district council 'this has created great unanimity between the two councils. It is really very important that this unanimity should continue. With the advent of the increased political atmosphere which may well occur, perhaps it is even more important that the two councils in the same area should pull together. One of the ways in which this could happen is with the regional councils in their area—and I do not think it would necessarily apply in the large conurbations such as Glasgow, but in the rather more scattered areas where the district councils have not got great powers, such as the Highlands, the Borders, Galloway and Dumfries, this is going to be very important. It will avoid friction, and will not make much difference to the numbers on the district council. It will mean there are a few regional councillors present to keep the district councils advised as to what the regions are thinking.
THE EARL OF BALFOUR: Although I feel this Amendment is somewhat limited in approach because it specifies only the Highland regions, it raises a point I should very much like Her Majesty's Government to take into consideration, which is the cross-representation between the region and the district —possibly both ways. Possibly the chairman of a district council might be an ex officio member of the regional council; but I certainly feel that some provision should be made for the regional councillors to be ex officio—if I may use that word, because it is most commonly used—members of a district council in exactly the same way (although I have never managed to find this particular point in the Statute Book) that the county councillor is an ex officio member of the district council. Without this cross
1090
reference, I feel that in so many provisions of this Bill the left-handed regions will not know what the right-handed districts are doing. If some such provision as this could be inserted then I believe the Bill would be very definitely improved.
LORD POLWARTH: I think we appreciate the motives of the noble Lord, Lord Burton—or perhaps I should refer instead to the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot, since she moved the Amendment even though it stands in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Burton. I think the analogy which has been drawn between the present county councils and the district councils in the new set-up is not a correct one. The new system will be totally different. There will be two separate tiers of local government, each independent in its own right. I believe it is right that they should be independently elected and be independent of each other. The Wheatley Commission took the view that the two tiers of local government should be separately elected, and one of the by-products of this system was that the elections should be staggered so that the elections to one tier of the authorities should take place halfway through the term of office of councillors to the other tier. In this way, the separate duties and functions of district and regional councillors would be clearly presented to the electorate at different times. If we had the arrangement proposed in the Amendment there would be a considerable complication because horses would be changed, as it were, halfway through the term of office of the district authority. The principle here has been that the elections are whole council elections instead of the previous system of electing a part of the council in different years. Again this system was recommended by the Royal Commission on the ground that it would enable the council to put forward a four-year programme which would not be subject to disruption at annual elections.
The other point is this: we must remember that the load of duties falling on regional and district councillors in the new organisation will be fairly substantial, particularly in the case of regional councillors. I do not think it is comparable with the present position, where the present district councils meet much less frequently than the new councils will

1091
be expected to meet. It is quite possible under the existing system, of course, for the county councillors to sit upon these district councils in their present form; but under the new set-up the weight of the duties involved in regional councillors sitting on district councils would be really far too much to demand of them.
I believe that the right answer is that the two bodies should operate independently. They have very different functions, and I do not think the problem of communication is one that is insuperable. I would envisage close co-operation and communication between the regions and the districts which go to make it up. While appreciating the motives of the noble Lord in moving this Amendment, I do not feel it is compatible with the fundamental system we are introducing. It would land councillors with excessive burdens. It is right that they should give their full attention to the council of which they are elected members. That being so, I ask your Lordships not to accept this Amendment.
LORD BURTON: I appreciate this position where it is the intention that they should be separate, but the district council is an extremely valuable advisory body. When in difficulties on a committee—I know as chairman of a roads committee—one frequently sends down to the local district council to ask for their views. If we send something down to the district council and there is no one there to explain what we are sending down, if there is no regional councillor to explain what has been sent down, the district council may well get the wrong end of the stick. It is important that someone should be there who can explain the situation. The noble Lord said that the duties will be considerable. One of the objections in the Highlands and equally in the Borders, Dumfries and Galloway (though I am not competent to speak for them) was that the duties of the district council were inadequate and one would not get the proper standard of councillors to stand for the council because they had not sufficient duties. I do not think the argument that work would be too onerous on the regional councils is a valid one. If we had this provision a great many more duties would be sent to the district and they would be con
1092
suited much more often than they are likely to be as things stand in the Bill at the moment.
THE EARL OF BALFOUR: I must ask my noble friend to think about this matter again. Take the question of housing as one example. The Government have been absolutely right in bringing down housing to the district level; but all the ancillary services connected with housing, such as drainage, water, roads, street lighting—you name it, it is there—are being handled by the regions. This is one case where I should have thought that consultation between the district and the region in the placing and building of houses was almost essential. This is where I feel that there are not enough provisions in this Bill to provide close cooperation between the two authorities. I do not wish to waste the time of the Committee, but I would ask my noble friend to think about this matter again.
THE EARL OF CROMARTIE: There are considerable difficulties over this matter. Having been a county councillor for more years than I like to think about, and convenor of my own county for some time, I believe there are definite difficulties in this matter. If the regional representatives are doing their job properly they are going to be doing nearly a full-time job. But I still think, as my noble friend Lord Burton said, that we must try to help establish a channel between the regional council and district council. At the moment it is not very obvious how that is to be done. I hope the Minister will consider this point because it is an important one.
LORD HUGHES: I should like to join the noble Earl, Lord Cromartie, in that plea. I sympathise with what the noble Lord, Lord Burton, is seeking to do, but frankly I doubt whether this is a workable way of doing it. It certainly could not be exported from the Highlands, the South-West and the Borders. For instance, it would be impossible in Tayside, where, as I understand it, the Dundee District Council will have 44 councillors, and 22 will be elected to the region. If this principle were to be applied throughout Scotland we should have 66 people entitled to sit in the Dundee district—44 elected and 22 sitting by right.
To a certain extent the noble Lord, Lord Burton, has been misled by the

1093
title. The district council, as it is at the moment, is a useful body but one with extremely limited direct functions. Those counties which have made use of the district council, as in his own, have undoubtedly helped themselves considerably and made the district councillor's job one which is much more worth while. I hope that something of this kind will be carried on, because although there is a separation of functions to a large extent there are a number of functions which are being carried out by both bodies: parks, recreation and sporting activities, for instance. This is an area where consultation is necessary. The noble Earl also made the point that if housing is to be dealt with properly there will have to be a clear linkage between the two bodies. I doubt very much whether the most effective way to do this will be to rely on some regional councillor conveying to the district council the views of his body. These elections are going to be fought on increasingly political lines all over the country. I can well imagine in a body where there were two district councillors from one Party and one from another the putting forward of contradictory views as to what the views of the regional council were on the matter. It is much better, therefore, that the channel of communication should be at official level, but ensuring that there is maximum co-operation.
I hope that in those fields of concurrent responsibility the district councils will regard themselves as free to offer advice on matters where the region should be acting in this field or, alternatively, to seek advice from the region if they think that that is the better way to do it. The machine will work, but it will go through a number of teething troubles. I like the way that the noble Lord put it forward; it is one of those things which look attractive at first glance but as you go into it the difficulties seem to be greater. I am certain that, having heard what the noble Lord, Lord Burton, wants, it ought not to be beyond the ingenuity of the denizens of St. Andrew's House, other than the Ministers, to find some way of implementing it.
7.59 p.m.
LORD POLWARTH: I am grateful to the noble Lord. Lord Hughes, for his remarks because they anticipate to some
1094
extent what I would otherwise have said Communication between the regional and district level is a management function. It is as in a company, or in a business, where the regular conveyance of information is a matter for management level rather than director level. The directors (that is, the councillors) have other preoccupations. They may have the political problems that were mentioned. Normal communication will be a matter for management level, and to that end we are proposing machinery that will provide advice on management structures, and so on, for the local authorities to help them to do just this kind of thing.
The comparison with the old district councils, and seeking their advice, takes us right into the field of the community councils which we propose to set up. These are the bodies who will be eminently suited to give advice on these local matters to the district councils and, indeed, up to the regional councils. I am sure they will not be slow to provide it. I hope that the authorities will be ready to seek that advice. I am entirely in sympathy with the motive of the Amendment; but I feel that the method proposed is not the right one.
LORD BURTON: I am most grateful to noble Lords who have spoken to this Amendment because I think it appears that there is unanimous feeling that there is a need for something on these lines. There are very strong feelings among our own local councillors in the North, most certainly in Inverness. Indeed our county council were absolutely unanimous in asking me to press this Amendment here. One comment I should like to make in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, when he mentioned the question of politics, is that in the North we are most anxious that politics should not enter into this. That is one of the reasons why I mentioned only the Highlands—I do not know what happens on the Borders—and also one of the reasons why I felt that it probably would not work in some of the areas which the noble Lord is more interested in—areas such as Dundee. I am most grateful to noble Lords for what they have said, and also that the Minister has appreciated the need for this. I hope that if I withdraw the Amendment the Minister will look at it very carefully again before Report stage.
LORD HUGHES: The noble Lord cannot withdraw an Amendment which he did not move—I am getting in quickly before the noble Baroness does so. The noble Lord referred to the political aspect. I would hope that he might be right, but I think he may be wrong in assuming that the Highlands will continue to be a one-Party State.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Chairman.]:
8.2 p.m.
LORD BURTON LORD BURTON moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 2, line 28, leave out from ("be") to end of line 35, and insert ("until immediately preceding the first meeting after the Election").
The noble Lord said: The problem here is a comparatively small one but in election year there is a hiatus. The files are left almost invariably on committees on the regional council or the district council, for the chairman to act while the council is not sitting. Until the time when the new council meets for the first time there is a hiatus, and it is important that there is someone on the elected side who is able to answer for the council on such things, for instance, as approving the lowest tender of a contract and so on, otherwise there is a hold-up and nothing can be done until the new council and committees have been appointed. In the Highlands—or certainly in Inverness—we had a hold-up in the county council for quite a considerable time at the county council elections because the district councils had to meet and appoint the councillors to the various committees. In view of what has been said on the last Amendment it may be that there will not be the need for such a long hiatus, and the difficulties which I foresee here could perhaps be overcome by shortening the period of, I think 21 days, by which the new chairman and the committees have to be appointed. If that period were reduced to 14 days the problem might not arise. This might be the answer rather than altering the Bill to give the chairman power to carry on until the new chairman has been appointed. I beg to move.
LORD POLWARTH: Certainly the noble Lord is referring to a point that may occasionally cause difficulty but the position under the Bill remains unchanged, as I understand it, from what it is at present. Certainly it has not come to our notice that any great difficulties have arisen through the present position. We talk about the outgoing chairman holding office until the meeting when his successor is appointed. As I am advised, it would be difficult, even under Statute, to provide for this because the chairman only derives his authority from the body which elects him and the outgoing body will have "outgone", as it were. I think it would be difficult even to write into this Bill a provision that the chairman, who would have ceased really to have any position, could continue to have some authority until the new body had appointed one. It is really too complicated altogether and I do not think we could do it. Most points that arise in such circumstances I would have thought could be dealt with by senior officials of the authority in the interim period. There is the added complication that the said interim chairman might not even be re-elected and would find himself out of office. I think the answer is, as the noble Lord, Lord Burton, has suggested, by all means to look at the question of whether this period of 21 days is right or not. I should like to consider that. The fact of there being a hiatus would, I think, be an incentive to the council to hold their first meeting as promptly as possible after the elections—which they are perfectly entitled to do—and to elect a new chairman. While sympathising with the motives I do not think I can recommend your Lordships to accept the Amendment.
LORD BURTON: Before moving this Amendment, I did consult senior officials of our county council and they agreed that difficulties could arise, and they have arisen. Indeed, between the last election and the setting up of the county council I was, as chairman of the roads committee, asked to approve a tender. I think the answer here—and I am glad that the noble Lord has said he would look at the point—is to reduce the period from 21 to 14 days for the new council to be appointed. With that I would ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 3, line 7, at end insert ("of each").
The noble Lord said: This is a rather simple Amendment. On page 3, subsection (6) we read:
"The title of 'Lord Provost' shall attach to the chairman of the district councils of the cities of Aberdeen, Dundee, Edinburgh and Glasgow and the chairman of each regional or islands council shall be known as the convener of that council."
On any ordinary reading of English it would appear that there is going to be an individual who will be the Lord Provost of Aberdeen, Dundee, Edinburgh and Glasgow. Although it was suggested that the Lord Provost of Glasgow might be one of the two Popes in Scotland it has not been suggested that he should take the other three cities in his muncipal stride as well. I do not know whether my Amendment has got the words in the right place, but obviously the intention is that the chairman of each of these bodies shall be known as the Lord Provost and that is what I have tried to make clear. I beg to move.
LORD POLWARTH: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, for having spotted that appalling possibility if one were to interpret the Bill as literally as that. I accept the Amendment in the interests of clarity.
LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 3, line 10, at end insert—
("( ) The title of 'Lord Provost' or 'Chairman' shall attach to the chairman of the district council of Perth and Kinross as the council decide.
( ) The title of 'Provost ' or 'Chairman' shall attach to the chairman of each district council other than in subsections (6) and ( ) above as each council decide.
( ) The title of ' Lord Provost' as in subsections ( ) and ( ) above shall attach from the first Tuesday in May 1975.").
The noble Lord said: In another place it was decided that there should be one single title for the chairmen of regional councils and it was accepted that the most generally approved title would be "convener", which has been applied to the chairmen of county councils—the nearest approach we have under present procedure to a new regional council—since their inception. I have heard no
1098
opposition to that. When it came to the district councils, some of which are much more urban than others and some are largely rural in concept, no such obvious choice was available. The suggestion was made that the chairman of the district council should be known as "Provost". That was not acceptable to many people because in a non-urban district it might not in fact be appropriate at all.
I am not concerned very much whether they should be called provost or chairman. What I am much more concerned about, as a former holder of an office, is to make certain that the title of "Lord Provost" is not proliferated all over Scotland. This could well happen if they are to be free to choose, because if a body thought that it was more important than another, and the adjoining one decided to call themselves "Provost", they might say, "Very well then. Provost is good enough for them, but we are going to have a Lord Provost here." I cannot remember what I am quoting from, though I rather think it is Gilbert and Sullivan, in the lines:
"When everyone is somebodee,
Then no one's anybody."
The Government have decided, and I think rightly—although it aroused the ire of my good friend the Member of Parliament for Dundee, West, who wanted to have the whole thing done away with altogether—to preserve the title of Lord Provost in the four cities. With that I am in agreement. But it is no good preserving it if at the same time they create the opportunity of making it something which is not worth while. I think, therefore, that if we are going to prevent districts from choosing the title of Lord Provost we must confine them within certain lines. While I would normally say that the Government are wise to give the greatest amount of freedom to local authorities, I know there are at least some who have little claim to the title but who would undoubtedly decide that their chairman was going to be a Lord Provost; and that I wish to prevent.
I think that the choice should be narrowed and if we give them a choice between provost or chairman that is all that is necessary. On Second Reading I speculated about the possibility of some more exotic titles being chosen. I do not know that it is strictly necessary

1099
to legislate to prevent that from taking place, but one does not know what strange things might emerge, and it is better that there should be some reasonable degree of uniformity in what the chairman of a district council is to be known as. I have a third leg to my argument, and that is the position in Perth. The citizens of Perth, the town council of Perth, have felt very strongly that they were being discriminated against in not having the title of Lord Provost of Perth continued. It is a fact that the Lord Provost of Perth was entitled so to be called before some of the others. He certainly, to my knowledge, was entitled to be called Lord Provost long before Dundee was entitled to call its civic head Lord Provost. In fact, at the present moment it could be said that the only body which has statutory right to call its civic head "Lord Provost" is Dundee as it is the only one where it is contained in a document. Queen Victoria conferred the title of "Lord Provost" on Dundee—the last of the cities to get it. The others have picked it up at various times during the centuries. Perth undoubtedly was the one which probably had it, if for not longer than Edinburgh, for probably as long.
Noble Lords may remember that a number of years ago the Lord Lyon raised rather a "stushy" in Scotland on the subject of who was entitled to wear ermine, and he was "getting after" the various councils who had robes for their Lord Provosts and magistrates which had ermine. He said that this was a royal fur and that they had no right to it. On indignant protests being raised from Edinburgh he conceded that Edinburgh, as the capital city, might be regarded as an exception. The then Lord Provost of Perth was Sir John Ure Primrose, and I thought he would have been very quick to assert the interests of Perth. I said, "You have not said anything." He said, "No; I am waiting to see if the Lord Lyon will back down. I think he will, but if he does not I can sink him without trace because I shall be able to remind him that Perth was entitled to wear ermine before Edinburgh was even entitled to wear robes." That demonstrates the importance that attaches to the title of Lord Provost of Perth.
The reason why the Government did not include this provision in the Bill is I think quite correct. In the four cities the districts which will arise, and even more so now in Glasgow as a result of what we have done to-night, will be largely the same as the cities at present. They will all be expanded to a certain extent, but the great part of these districts will be the four cities. But in Perth this is not the case. It is the Counties of Perth and Kinross which will form a district and the city of Perth is only part of that. If I had been absolutely certain that they would have wanted to attach the title of Lord Provost I would have added it to the first part, but I am not certain that they wish to do so. They may want just to call him a chairman, as in other districts. But it is reasonable that the opportunity should be given to that council to continue the title of Lord Provost. I have no doubt that if they do, although the body is the Perth and Kinross District Council the chairman will undoubtedly be referred to much more regularly as the Lord Provost of Perth. So they will in fact continue the title in both ways.
Many people think that this is rather unimportant. I do not. One of the regrets I have about the reorganisation of local government is that some of the offices which we have been accustomed to and which we have valued and respected over many centuries are disappearing. We are not going to have bathes any more, but your Lordships know how highly the title "bailie" is thought of particularly by those who have it. We have a saying in Scotland which is very true (I will put it into English): "Once a bailie, always a bailie." A man may have been a bailie for one year and then live for forty years afterwards as an ex-bailie, but he is always a bailie to the end of his days. Now that is going. It would be a pity if all the provostships went at the same time. If we have an Amendment on these lines some of them will survive. The reason for changing local government is that the old machine, the existing machine, is no longer completely capable of doing all that is necessary, but I think we ought to make every effort to carry into the new as much as possible of the old, provided that it does not in any way frustrate the operations of the new machine. I cannot believe that the use of these respected titles, if they are chosen by the councils—and I am leaving it to

1101
them—would do other than enhance their value, particularly in the eyes of the residents of many of the burghs which will now fall by the wayside and will be part of the district. I beg to move.
LORD STRATHEDEN AND CAMPBELL: I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, though I will not follow him into the controversy between Perth and Edinburgh as regards robes. But apart from that he is absolutely right. It is important that these titles should continue so far as possible and that they should be kept under control, which I think this Amendment achieves. It should not be possible for a district or other junior authority suddenly to launch out with some exotic title for their head. With those few words, I support the noble Lord, Lord Hughes.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: It is very kind of the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, to fight Perth's battles, and I think I am right in saying that he has the support of the city of Perth in what he is trying to do here. But I think it has slight dangers because, as he fairly said, in the case of the other Lord Provosts the new districts are virtually the same as the old cities, and in the case of Perth this is not so. It would be rather ridiculous if the chairman of the district council of Perth happened to be the councillor for Blair Atholl and he went around calling himself the Lord Provost of Perth; or even more ridiculous if he happened to be the district councillor for the district of Kinross which is not even in Perthshire historically. Therefore this Amendment has problems. I gather that the idea of the city of Perth was that in the event—which they felt was unlikely, but then they were bound to do that—of the chairman of the district not being a member for the city of Perth, they should then be allowed to call their senior member, whoever he might be, "Lord Provost" even though he was not chairman of the district council. I do not think that this would work, and personally I do not feel that I could have supported them if they had tried to get us to accept an Amendment to that effect. But I feel that there are problems about this. I, too, would like to preserve the title of "Lord Provost of Perth". The danger of doing it in this way is that there will be great pres
1102
sure on the district council to have as its chairman a member from the city of Perth. Whether this will really matter it is hard to say, but I feel that the best person ought to be chairman rather than someone necessarily from the city of Perth. I think that might lead to difficulties.
I should also be quite interested to know whether Elgin has put any pressure on the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, to say that the chairman of the new district of Moray should be allowed to call himself "Lord Provost". It seems to me that Elgin, while they have not got such an historical claim as Perth, for many years now have been calling their head citizen "Lord Provost", and they might feel that if it applied to Perth, Elgin should have it, too. I remain rather neutral on this. I am quite attracted by the Amendment, but I see that there are difficulties in connection with it.
LORD HUGHES: Elgin have not brought any pressure to bear on me and if they had done so they would have failed. I did not represent in Parliament the constituency in which Elgin is located and therefore I was not under any obligation to placate local voters by referring (in the Scottish Office) to their civic head as" Lord Provost". I think it failed at the time of the late Lord Stuart of Findhorn: the title was not recognised by the Scottish Office and I am not certain that it was recognised after he left.
THE EARL OF BALFOUR: I am not very good at Scottish history, but I gather that in the 15th and 16th centuries the Lord Provost of the cities was also a Privy Counsellor and hence the title "Lord". Surely if the title "Lord" is to be retained at all it should apply to a recognised city in Scotland of which there are only the four—Aberdeen, Edinburgh, Glasgow and Dundee. To bring it into any other district, particularly where there has been in the past more than one borough involved, would be taking things a little too far and I entirely support what my noble friend the Duke of Atholl has just said.
LORD BELHAVEN AND STENTON: I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, on this Amendment. I think it is sensible that we should cut down the number of titles which the heads of local authorities are given, but

1103
in the rural areas of Scotland we have the rather venerable title of "Convener", which is not mentioned in this Amendment. I do not know why.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDSIt is in the Bill.
LORD BELHAVEN AND STENTON: I am sorry; I made a mistake. The only thing I should like to add is that in the rural districts the old Royal burghs are going under. I am asking for information from my noble friend Lord Polwarth: presumably they can appoint community councillors and continue to have Provosts fulfilling to some extent the position which they fulfilled in the past, because otherwise many of these little Royal burghs will feel themselves rather hardly done by. I should be grateful if my noble friend could tell me the position in regard to these small Royal burghs such as Castle Douglas and Selkirk. I should like to know what their position will be when the Bill has become; whether they will be able to continue to have Provosts, and, since they have had Provosts for 600 years, what they will do if they cannot have them now.
LORD HUGHES: I have just realised that in moving so comprehensive an Amendment I failed to speak to the last leg of it, in which I should think there is little difficulty. As it stands, it says that the title of "Lord Provost" will attach in the cities. The first business of the district council is to elect a chairman, and if we say in the Bill that the title of "Lord Provost" shall attach to the chairman of the district council, at least for cities, we shall have the position that from the first Tuesday in May, 1974, to the first Tuesday in May, 1975, we shall have two Lord Provosts in each city, one who is the Lord Provost of the outgoing body and the other who is the Lord Provost of the incoming body. The obvious solution is that the new man should not in fact receive the title until the old one has gone from the scene, and therefore I feel that the title "Lord Provost" should attach—in other areas also, but particularly in the cities—as from the first Tuesday in May, 1975, when there will be only one person entitled to use that title. I think it is
1104
an oversight in the Bill that as it is drafted at present it provides for the possibility of two people using the title at the same time.
LORD BALERNO: I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, in this Amendment. It makes it entirely optional for Perth to use the title "Lord Provost" or "Chairman". Personally I would not see any objection, pace the noble Duke, to the Chairman having a residence in Blairgowrie if he was the best man to be obtained for the area, or even in Kinross. The great thing is that it is optional for them to do it, and it gives them guidelines for the whole country which they should not transgress. I think this is the perfect solution for the slight difficulty that would otherwise have arisen.
As the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, at one time occupied the position of Lord Provost of Dundee—he spoke about the position being elevated to a Lord Provost by Queen Victoria —I should like to add that a kinsman of mine was the person who was elevated from Provost to Lord Provost. In our family we have the story that the evening came of the day when he was so elevated and his wife went to the top of the stairs and shouted down four flights, "Maggie, bring up the Lord's supper".
LORD POLWARTH: The noble Lord has given us quite a mouthful—indeed, a three course meal, and I will try to deal with it. I should like to start with the third and final course which he so nearly omitted to put on the table. We appreciate that he has here a point of validity, certainly as concerns the four cities and the question of the title "Lord Provost". I will return to that question later.
As regards the four cities, I think there is a genuine possibility of confusion and the Government would like to remedy this, although I do not think the words used here are in fact the right way to do it. I should like to look back at the formal wording, but I undertake that we will deal with that point so that there is not this state of overlap in the four cities, with the attendant risk of confusion.
I have known a series of Lord Provosts of Perth. In fact, I met the

1105
current one yesterday morning, and I know how much pride attaches to this rather peculiar honour. As we have heard, there is a contender from further North—Elgin—from whom we have not heard so much. I am sorry that I am not familiar with the historical background of that office. I think it is a genuine difficulty which has been pointed out by my noble friend the Duke of Atholl in that it is very much a title attached to a city, and in future Perth will be part of a much larger district. We have considerable doubts as to whether it is right to hint so very broadly to a new district that the title of "Lord Provost" should be used. I wonder very much whether the style of "provost" may not eventually, as the system settles down, tend to come back to the burghs in some way with a constitution of the community councils. That seems to me to be a possibility we might well explore because it is essentially a designation attaching to burghs and the Lord Provost. This was recognised because I understand the Convention of Royal Burghs at their annual meeting this year passed a resolution to the effect that the title of Provost should be abolished following reorganisation rather than it should stray away, as it were, to bodies unrelated specifically to burghs. So I do not think there is by any means definite agreement and consensus on this question of title. Frankly, I would suggest to your Lordships that we should not so pointedly designate the district of Perth and Kinross as a possible recipient of this title of Lord Provost, but leave it to their own wishes when they come to decide.
On the point of whether we should direct that the chairman of the district council should be either provost or chairman, I must confess I have an open-mind. We have, on the one hand, the view of the Convention of Royal Burghs that the title should cease to exist and, on the other hand, there are views held that we should restrict the choice of terminology. I have some sympathy with these views, but would be sorry to see a wide number of designations. I do not think we should be liable to having any of the more extravagant ones such as "commissar" I would have welcomed the views of rather more of your Lordships on this particular point regarding the chairmanship of the district council, and would be very happy myself
1106
to say that while not accepting the noble Lord's Amendment as it stands, we would be ready to take further views on this question of the title, as to whether we should restrict it to "provost" or "chairman", before we reach another stage. I should not like to commit myself to-day, and I think the Committee is a little thin at this hour to take a really broad consensus of opinion on the point. However, subject to that I should be prepared to ask my right honourable friend whether we can make further investigations so we get this question right. Certainly I undertake that we will deal with the final point of the noble Lord's Amendment in a suitable way with regard to the Lord Provost.
LORD BALERNO: Before the noble Lord reaches a decision will he take time off to read his kinsman's novel The Fair Maid of Perth?
LORD POLWARTH: I am delighted to take that hint.
LORD HUGHES: On the third point, I most gratefully accept the Minister's undertaking that a suitable alternative Amendment will be drawn to make certain there is only one Lord Provost in any of the four cities at any given time. So far as the other two points are concerned, I think I have made it perfectly clear that what is at the back of my mind is the prevention of the proliferation of the title of Lord Provost. That is the greatest danger. I do not think there is much chance of a whole host of commissars being appointed throughout Scotland, and the one that does have a Communist provost is such a small part of the district that I do not think there would be much success there. But while the Minister and the rest of us are thinking about the matter, could I suggest that the alternative form of wording which I had thought to put down as an Amendment and which I wish I had done, was to say that the title of provost or chairman shall attach to each district council or other such title as the Secretary of State may approve. Perhaps something along these lines could be done. There may well be other variations we have not thought of which would be acceptable and which a number of people wished to have. Some may want to use the title "convener" in a district as well as in a region. If that were done, and so long

1107
as they were choosing either provost or chairman or some other acceptable alternative, there would be no difficulty about it. If they chose "provost" that would go through automatically; if they chose "chairman" that would go through automatically. If they chose something else which was reasonable, then the Secretary of State would undoubtedly say "Yes", and this might open the way for Perth to say: "We should like our chairman to be called Lord Provost without putting it specifically in the Bill."
In seeking permission to withdraw the Amendment, may I invite the noble Lord perhaps to have his advisers look at it from that sort of angle?
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I think it is important, within limits, to regulate the name. I am not quite certain that we need go so far as the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, suggests in allowing people absolute latitude. One does want to know who is in charge when one is in a strange area. There are a few odd appointments like "sheriff" which linger on in one or two obscure townships, meaning goodness knows what. I wonder whether we need go so far as that. I think it is important that we should keep a limit on what people are called. I will not go into the appalling problems of Perth; but I must say I should be sorry if there was no Lord Provost at Perth. I hope someone finds a way of producing it, because I know so many of that title whom I admire.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.38 p.m.
LORD BURTON LORD BURTON moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 3, line 11, leave out ("for the purpose of enabling him") and insert ("Chairman and Chairmen of Committees for the purpose of enabling them").
The noble Lord said: I have some difficulty in putting forward this Amendment at this juncture because later on we are to discuss the question of salaries or allowances; but whatever your Lordships decide, and there seems to be a good deal of sympathy for salaries rather than allowances to be in the Bill, these will be taxable. As I understand it the Bill at present allows that the chairman either of the region or district should be
1108
enabled to receive what really amounts to an entertainment allowance. It may well be when the Minister comes along he will be looking for his dram in Inverness. Be that as it may, it is not only the chairmen who are responsible for entertaining but very often the chairmen of committees. Indeed, I think perhaps the chairman of the environmental committee or the committee dealing with education and social work may have to look after more visitors than the convenor, the Lord Provost, or chairman of the region or district will need to do. The position is that even if one gets salary or allowances for attending meetings, the chairman has to attend many unofficial meetings for which he would not be able to draw an allowance. At these unofficial meetings many problems arise which are often solved over a meal or a drink.
This is only an enabling clause, and I suggest something should go in which would not be liable to abuse. There was a programme recently on the B.B.C. showing a Yorkshire councillor taking the whole council to the South of France. This is a scandalous misuse of local government funds, and I hope our Scottish councillors would be far more responsible than to do that. I hope your Lordships will agree that it should be not only the chairmen of the regional councils and the district councils who will be enabled to receive an allowance, but also the chairmen of the regional committees, and possibly also the vice-chairmen, because if the convenor is off sick, the vice-chairman will have to take his place and it may well therefore be that he will have to do as much entertaining as the convenor. I would hope your Lordships would support me here and, as this is only an enabling clause, allow this Amendment. I beg to move.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: I should like to support my noble friend Lord Burton in this Amendment. It is, I think, an ill-kept secret that Members of another place who are Chairmen of Select Committees very often receive a small allowance for entertaining the so-called witnesses that they have put through the hoop for the previous one and a half or two hours, particularly when they wish them to come back to give further evidence. I do not imagine

1109
that this is anything to do with us, as it is obviously a financial matter, but I cannot see why, if Chairmen of Select Committees of another place get this privilege, the chairmen of committees of district councils and regional councils should not also have this privilege, which I am sure would be of very small cost to the ratepayers of the districts concerned.
THE EARL OF CROMARTIE: I would only say that having had experience of this kind of thing I entirely agree with what my noble friend Lord Burton and the noble Duke, the Duke of Atholl, have just said.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I think my noble friend Lord Burton probably recognises that he is suggesting that we make an innovation here. The expenses allowance for chairmen have been regarded as allowances for the entertainment of distinguished persons, visitors and the like. This duty has been rather jealously reserved in the past for the convener or the chairman or the provost himself or the senior bailie, and it is understood that the accepted practice is to pay expenses incurred by whoever is representing the chairman on such occasion from the chairman's allowance. Chairmen of committees are really in a rather different position.
My noble friend raised the question of chairmen who have unofficial meetings for which they cannot recover expenses. I am not quite certain that the right way to deal with this would not be through allowances rather than in the other way, because if they are attending meetings of any sort presumably it would be better to deal with them through allowances. I would prefer to look at it from that point of view. I am talking of occasions where it is not a question of an entertainment allowance as such but where he is doing an official job and incurs expenses connected with that job. The fact remains that the busier the chairman is and the more frequent his attendances at meetings or at other approved duties are—and this is a point I want to look at; what is an approved duty—he will get a proportionately higher level of attendance allowance, including this element for overheads, as it were. As for entertain
1110
ment expenses as such, if the chairman of a committee is standing in for the convener of the council, there is no reason to think that the entitlement to draw on the "convener's kitty" will not continue. If he happens to incur substantial hospitality expenses connected with the work of his committee it may well be possible to defray these under the provisions of Clause 48(1)(b). I do not think my noble friend has made out a case for extending what exists at present, because in the normal way chairmen will be able to reclaim expenses, including special expenses.
LORD BURTON: I rather feel that my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn has made my case for me. He said that the conveners or chairmen jealously preserve their rights. This is absolutely true, and the wretched chairmen of committees have to bear the expense out of their own pockets. He also mentioned the question of approved meetings. This is another problem, because there are many times when these occasional meetings occur which have not been approved because they did not know they were going to occur. Before making a decision on whether or not to withdraw the Amendment, I should like to know whether the allowances are likely to be taxed. If they are paid for expenses, which is what was suggested just now, they should not be taxed.
THE EARL OF BALFOUR: May I put in a few words here. I took the advice of my own local authority. I must honestly admit that I entirely support what my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn has said. He has put it very clearly. These are literally out-of-pocket expenses for the convener, and under the peculiar Definitions Act of 1899 the singular includes the plural, so that it could extend to more than one person if it was needed in this sort of case. I do not think, except perhaps in the case of something like the education committee—which I will be raising later on in the Bill—allowances need be given to all chairmen. It is almost like allowing the convener to contribute towards all the various sorts of charities that come along. It is not just an entertainment allowance. If we started giving allowances to committee chairmen, I think we could very likely

1111
end up in trouble with the income tax people, as the entertainment allowance in all these fields is very complicated; so often you end up by being taxed on something on which you have already paid money and you have got "sweet nothing" out of it at all. I ask my noble friend to think about it rather carefully. I should not like to push it any further. I think my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn has said what is the state of affairs, and what should remain the state of affairs for the future.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Balfour. I do not think I can go further. Perhaps I may just reply to the point my noble friend Lord Burton made about allowances. Allowances will be taxable, but the allowances themselves will take account of the fact that they are going to be taxable. As I said, and as my noble friend Lord Balfour said, I think we have to look at this very carefully indeed, because at all levels allowances and expenses are very carefully guarded, simply because it is so easy to abuse them, not to put too fine a point on it. I do not think I can see any hope of extending this in the way my noble friend suggests, but if he will withdraw the Amendment I shall write to him, if I may, and see whether there is any further way I can meet his point.
LORD BURTON: My noble friend has perhaps come part of the way. Having had previous experience with him, I am not very hopeful. With regard to my noble friend Lord Balfour's remarks, of course I was not envisaging all chairmen; there is no reason why the chairman of the finance committee, for example, should get an allowance, because I do not think he has a great deal of entertaining to do. But with our existing local authorities, I know that the chairman of the roads committee, for example, has substantial expenses if he is doing his job as one expects him to, and if he is going to be the chairman of the environmental committee he will have to do a great deal more entertaining perhaps even than the chairman of the district council.
THE EARL OF BALFOUR: I am sorry to interrupt my noble friend, but I would point out that I have entertained as vice
1112
chairman of the roads committee and I did not pay for it; the local authority paid; they signed the cheque for the meal. I entertained officially, and it did not involve me personally in any expense. I should like to stress that the chairman or convener of the council is involved in personal expense, in contributing to the local cats' and dogs' home and such things, and it all comes directly out of his packet. I am sorry to interrupt my noble friend, but as he mentioned roads it brought this back to me.
LORD BURTON: I am interested to hear what the noble Earl says, but his council must be a good deal more generous than mine. It might well be that if the Minister wrote to my convener rather than to me it might have more effect. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4 [Term of office and retirement of councilors]:
8.50 p.m.
LORD BURTON LORD BURTON moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 3, line 18, leave out ("regional or islands").
The noble Lord said: I would ask whether I might also speak to Amendments Nos. 28, 29, 33 and 34. It is a little complicated because there are two points here. First of all, in some areas, possibly not all but certainly in the Highlands, there are many good men who will be lost to district councils if, as is suggested, in May, 1974, we have the regional and district council elections on the same day. It has already been drawn to my attention that in some areas some political Parties have already arranged that their respective councillors should stand not only for the region but also for the district on the same day. If they fail to get into the district council they will then be eligible for the region. This would cause a complete nonsense and a great deal of difficulty for the electors. I feel it would be much better if the district election could be some weeks—and I think that four would be adequate—after the regional election, so that if there were three or four good men standing for the regional council only one of which

1113
could get in, the other two or three would then be eligible for the district council. It may be that in some of the more highly populated areas of the South this is not necessary, but certainly in our rural areas in the North we are very thin on the ground. This is the point that came up before the Inverness County Council last week, and they were unanimous that it really must be split up.
Admittedly it is for only the one election. The Government have moved slightly since the Bill was originally drafted, and it is suggested that the district councils in subsequent years should be elected between the regional ones, which would avoid this problem. If you are going to avoid it in the future, why not avoid it in 1974? There does not seem to be any difficulty in this proposal. It may be that the first week in June is getting a bit late in the year, and perhaps in 1974 the regional election should be held a little earlier. The answer is that in 1974 the district councils elections should be after the regional ones, so that we do not lose good men to the district councils.
The second point concerns the question of the district elections falling midway between the regional ones. If a district councillor gets into the region, this is going to cause a by-election in the district council unless he is going to stand for both, and I think it would be quite wrong to say that he should not be a member of both. In that case there will be a mini-election after each regional election to re-appoint district councillors. Rather than having an election for district councillors and two years later having a mini-election to fill in the vacancies for those moving up to the regional council, it would seem to be easier to have the district council election four weeks after the regional elections every year. I beg to move.
8.55 p.m.
THE EARL OF CROMARTIE: Before the Minister answers, I think that my noble friend Lord Burton has taken the point of my Amendment and more or less taken the words out of my mouth. I support what he is saying. It affects only the first election of the new set-up, but it simply means an extra election at the expense of the ratepayer, and it is completely unnecessary. There should
1114
be a reasonable gap between the election for regional councillors and the district election.
LORD DRUMALBYN: It seems that in fact we are also discussing Amendments Nos. 33 and 34 at the same time?
LORD BURTON: I think it is difficult to divide them. If we could discuss them at the same time it would be easier.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I should have said Amendment No. 30, the Amendment standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Cromartie. It all covers very much the same points. The fact is that the question of the day or days for the first of the elections of councillors in 1974 was the subject of discussion at a conference on local elections which was held on June 13, 1972. All the political Parties and local authority associations were represented there, and the political Parties, with the exception of the Scottish Liberal Party, were in favour of first elections to all the authorities being held on the same day, on the ground that if the elections to the regional and district councils were held separately there would be likely to be a poor turn out of the electors in the elections held on the second occasion. In this judgment they were supported by the representatives of the counties of cities.
The County Councils Association, the Convention of Royal Burghs and the District Councils Association favoured separate elections on the grounds that simultaneous elections would be confusing to the electors and would be likely to lead to a large number of spoilt papers. The Scottish Liberal Party favoured separate elections on these grounds, and also on the additional ground that if simultaneous elections were held there would be no opportunity for candidates not successful at the regional elections to stand for the district councils. On the narrow point of the practicability of simultaneous elections from the organisational point of view, the local authority officials present at the conference considered that there were no insuperable difficulties that would arise on the grounds of impracticability.
The history of this matter in this Parliament is that in the Bill as introduced in another place provision was made for the

1115
day, or days, for the first election in 1974 to be fixed by the Secretary of State by Order. In this way it would be left open whether simultaneous or separate elections would be held. During the passage of the Bill an Amendment was moved by the Government, in response to representations by the Opposition, making provision for all the elections to be held on the first Tuesday in May. The issue is very much one on which there is a good deal to be said on both sides. All I can say on that subject is that it has been very carefully considered and carefully canvassed among the interests concerned, and I can say with some certainty that there has emerged a preponderance of opinion in favour of simultaneous first elections; and the arrangement is one which has also been approved in another place. For those reasons I do not think that I can advise your Lordships to go back on a decision which has been so carefully considered and in the light of all the views that have been expressed on the subject.
As to the other point, that the elections should take place midway in the term of the regional councils, the recommendation of the Royal Commission was that there should be separate elections to the two tiers of local government, but that the term of office should be four years and the elections to the district councils should take place midway during the term of office of the regional councils. They recommended these arrangements because they considered that clearly separated elections would help to direct the minds of the electorate towards the two different tiers of local government so that they would understand them, and it would enable them to distinguish the duties and functions of each. If you have separate elections then you must know that there are two authorities, and this immediately compels you to say, "There are two different bodies: what are they about?". That will lead to a better understanding.
I hope that the noble Lord will not press this Amendment. I think he said at an earlier stage that there would be a spate of by-elections as a result of some candidates who are elected to districts deciding that they will go for the regions. But I do not think one can assume that they will always go for the regions, if they are elected to both
1116
the regions and the districts. If only for this reason, it would be wrong to look at this system as an hierarchical one. Tiers there may be, but each tier has a different function to perform, and the sort of person who is good at performing one function may not be good at performing another. Some people do not have the time to spend travelling long distances in some of the more spread-out areas and would rather confine themselves to the duties in the districts, where they can get to the council meetings fairly readily and can still continue with their own occupations. It is not everyone whose occupation fits in with the exacting duties that will be imposed from distant centres of regions.
So my noble friend is perhaps taking too narrow a view. Looked at in the abstract, this matter may present all sorts of difficulties, but when one comes to the realities it will sort itself out. It is better to follow the plans suggested by the Royal Commission and adhere to what appears to be the majority opinion on the matter of elections. In those circumstances I do not feel that I can advise the Committee to accept my noble friend's Amendments. Indeed, I hope that my noble friend Lord Cromartie will not press them either.
LORD BURTON: It has been said that this provision has the support of the political Parties, but the more we can do to frustrate the political Parties in entering into local government the better. Therefore that argument is not valid. We want to consider how best our areas can be governed locally and not how the Parties will fit into local government. The position may be all right in the cities, because, as my noble friend said, the cities may well have people who are busy all day and can sit only on a district council; but in our rural areas, where people have to travel a long way, we shall lose good councillors and our district councils will be very much the poorer. This point was discussed at considerable length in our county council meeting last week, and the people present were very adamant about it. Even if what I am seeking does not apply to the whole of Scotland, it should be pressed for in the Northern areas, in the remote areas of the Highland Region.
I agree that my Amendment does not achieve this at the present time, and it

1117
may well be difficult to have local government elections at different times in different parts of the country. But this is a very valid point which really applies only in 1974. I do not feel so strongly about the by-elections, but I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that there are likely to be a number of them. But to take both elections together in 1974 must be wrong, and it is a point which we ought to press. When my noble friend Lord Polwarth on the Front Bench spoke earlier he kept emphasising that there must be local consultation. I can assure my noble friend that there has been local consultation, and there is a unanimous view that the elections should not be held on the same day in 1974 in the Highland Region. Therefore, I hope that my noble friend will look at this point, and even if he will not accept the Amendment at this stage will see that on Report we have another Amendment.
LORD DRUMALBYN: Obviously, we can come back to this matter on Report, and I dare say that we shall all be looking at it and seeing what soundings can be taken. But I am bound to say that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State is not minded to change his mind a second time, although we shall obviously have to consider very carefully what my noble friend has said and will look again at the feelings in different parts of the country.
LORD BURTON: With that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.5 p.m.
LORD BURTON LORD BURTON moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 3, line 41, at end insert—
("(7) Subject to the provisions of clause 2(3) no person may be a Regional Councillor and a District Councillor at the same time.")
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is to some extent dependent on Amendment No. 22 which your Lordships have rejected for the present. The basic fact is that district councillors should not be regional councillors, and regional councillors should not be district councillors, although it is a different matter if a regional councillor is an ex officio member of a district council. But I feel that it should not be possible for a member of a region to be also a
1118
member of a district council. I beg to move.
LORD HUGHES: The noble Lord, Lord Burton, having withdrawn the previous Amendment for further consideration, I do not see how he can possibly go ahead with this Amendment, because it states, "Subject to the provisions of Clause 2(3)" and there is no Clause 2(3) in the Bill.
LORD BURTON: Perhaps we should discuss this point on the Question, Whether Clause 4 shall stand part of the Bill? It is only a minor point, but it has not previously been discussed. When a regional councillor is an ex officio member of a district council it is a different matter, but people should not be elected to both councils at the same time.
LORD HUGHES: I am not seeking to enter into the merits of the Amendment. The other proposal was that regional councillors would be ex officio members of district councils, but the noble Lord withdrew that Amendment and I think reserved the right to come back on it. So he cannot proceed with an Amendment which is obviously defective because it refers to a subsection which is not in the Bill. I think his alternative is a better one, and if he wants to elaborate on his argument he should do so on the Question, Whether Clause 4 shall stand part of the Bill?, which will give him all the latitude he wants.
LORD BURTON: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, for his wise counsel, which I am happy to accept. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 4 shall stand part of the Bill?
9.8 p.m.
LORD BURTON: In view of the fact that I was quite rightly stopped a minute ago, perhaps I can now ask your Lordships to consider carefully whether councillors should be permitted to be elected as members of both councils. I think this must be quite wrong, must be highly improper, and I hope the Minister will be able to look at this before Report stage and perhaps then move an Amendment on it himself.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I have a little difficulty, as I expect other noble Lords

1119
have, in trying to detect the principle in differentiating in this respect between the Highland region and the rest of the country. I am bound to point out to my noble friend that there is nothing to prevent a person being, for example, a Member of Parliament and a regional or a district councillor. In fact, not very long ago we had the honour of the presence here of someone who had been a Lord Provost and a Member of Parliament at the same time. There is nothing to prevent this, and it is a matter which quite plainly we have to leave to the good sense of all concerned. One has to remember that people's circumstances differ so much, and their capacities for doing two jobs and keeping two balls in the air at the same time vary considerably. I think it would be a mistake, and that we might easily run the risk of losing some really good talent, if we were to put on a bar of this kind.
We do not feel that there should be a statutory bar, even though it might be very difficult for the ordinary person to carry out the duties of both offices satisfactorily. The conference, at any rate, took the view that this was a matter which could be left to the good sense of the electorate in nominating candidates and in recording their votes in the ballot box; but should my noble friend's fear be realised and should people vote mainly on political considerations at local government elections, then it will be a matter for the individuals concerned to decide for which body they should stand. If they put their names down for both and are elected for both then I do not quite see why they should necessarily be debarred from trying to do the job and at any rate seeing in the first instance how it works out. If it does not work out, then of course fewer people will do that sort of thing in the future. But I think it would be a mistake to put a statutory bar on it at the present time.
LORD BURTON: May I have a minute in which to answer my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn on this one? I am sorry, but once more he appears to be at complete variance with the Inverness County Council, who, again one can say, were emphatic on this. I would draw my noble friend's attention to a case which arose in Ross-shire at the last election, when a city councillor was
1120
debarred from sitting again because one of his proposers signed two nomination papers. This has debarred the city councillor from sitting at the present time. By having two elections on the same day and by allowing councillors to stand for two councils, you are going to cause endless complications and confusion to the electors. I think this really must be looked at very carefully.
LORD HUGHES: If at a later stage it should be decided that salaries are going to be paid to councillors in berth the regions and the districts, the Government might be willing to put in what would prove to be quite an effective deterrent to people serving on both bodies by saying that only one salary could be drawn.
LORD BURTON: I would heartily support that suggestion. Again, I think there is a difficulty in a councillor standing for two places. I dare say my noble friend Lord Cromartie finds the same trouble, but I find it extremely difficult to attend in your Lordships' House and to attend properly to my local authority duties. To do the two jobs is very difficult, and I think that to do the two local authority jobs would really not be warranted.
LORD DRUMALBYN: Perhaps I may be allowed to revert to the fact—this is turning the argument round, right on top of my noble friend—that it has been the usual practice for county councillors to sit on district councils. I am deliberately turning the argument round on my noble friend for the moment; but the fact oil the matter is that there are people who sit on both bodies at the present time. For example, one knows that on educational matters and so forth the ordinary burgh councillors may very well sit on county councils. So there is this amount of duplication at present. But I would say to my noble friend that we need not make up our minds on these things at the present time for we shall be looking at them again in the interval. On the whole, in this Bill we are trying to leave the maximum latitude to all concerned. We are giving the local authorities themselves a much wider choice of action. I do not see why one should not give the individual a wider choice of action in what he does.
LORD STRATHEDEN AND CAMPBELL: Is there not a certain confusion arising from the fact that what will be the Highland regions will no longer include the Islands? The cause of the trouble in the Inverness and Argyll county councils is that people have to come in from the Highlands. In my part of Scotland it is automatic that the county councillors are ex officio members of the district councils. That works very well. It always has. It applies, with these two exceptions, over the whole of Scotland. I think that is probably the cause of the confusion.
THE EARL OF CROMARTIE: That is not entirely true in a very large part of the Highlands. We shall not have the Isle of Lewis, which might occasion additional travel. But to those who live in what they call the rather more civilised but what I call the more congested areas with better communications, I would point out that it takes a long time for people to come from Ullapool or the Kyle of Lochalsh to Dingwall. It means they must stay overnight.
LORD BURTON: I do not think it is fair to refer to the present state of affairs where the county councillors sit on the district councils. The district has only about four meetings a year and that is not too onerous. To add to what my noble friend Lord Cromartie said, Sutherland councillors are already complaining bitterly that they may have to come all the way to Inverness which is almost as onerous as the Islanders coming in for a week to Inverness or Dingwall from Lewis. It is not the same thing. Even to-day I have an irate note from the Provost of Inverness because I told him that he could not hold a reorganisation of district council meeting to-day because we were discussing this Bill in your Lordships' House and I could not be at that meeting and in this House to-day.
LORD DRUMALBYN: It is difficult to make up one's mind because the facts that my noble friend is bringing forward make quite apparent to anybody thinking of serving on both a district and a regional council, say in the Highlands, how difficult it would be. The question we are discussing is this. Should we therefore debar him by Statute from doing so or leave it to him to make up
1122
his own mind that he would be rather foolish to try?
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clauses 5 and 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 [Conduct of local government elections]:
9.18 p.m.
THE EARL OF BALFOUR THE EARL OF BALFOUR moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 4, line 19, leave out subsections (1) and (2) and insert—
(" (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, elections of councillors for local government areas shall be conducted in accordance with the local election rules in Schedule 3 of the Act of 1949 as amended by Schedule 3 of this Act.
(2) Rules made under this section shall apply the local election rules in Schedule 3 of the Act of 1949 subject to such adaptations alterations, and exceptions as seems appropriate to the Secretary of State.").
The noble Earl said: The real point here is a little difficult to explain, but I shall try to do so briefly. In the Representation of the People Act 1949, in Schedule 2, the arrangement is rather peculiar. On the left hand pages of Schedule 2 are the national election rules and on the right hand pages of Schedule 2 are the local election rules for England and Wales. In Schedule 3 are the local election rules for Scotland. The local election rules in Scotland existed as far back as the 1947 Act and perhaps earlier. They were repealed by the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1947, the Act to which I referred, and were virtually re-written. The problem in my mind arises in trying to make, as the Bill provides, that the national election rules shall apply to local election rules. If one looks through those rules, the fact that they both deal with elections is where the similarity ends, and any further similarity is almost purely coincidental.
Take Rule 1 for example, the timetable of national election rules:
"As soon as practicable after the issue of a proclamation summoning the new Parliament …"
On could hardly say that that will apply to local election rules which have a fixed date; something that the national election rules have never had. There is a reference to the issue of a writ:
"Her Majesty may by Order in Council specify the manner in which writs are to be conveyed."

1123
Rule 8 refers to nomination papers. At present in local elections only a proposer and a seconder are required. In future are we to have two electors as proposer and seconder, and eight other electors consenting to the nomination?
Rule 10 refers to a deposit. Are local authority candidates to be expected to put down a deposit? I do not think that they should receive a salary, anyway. Also, the issue of polling cards will present a serious problem at the first election. Although I think that this may be a benefit, it would be very difficult to bring it into the first election. If you look at Clause 7(6) your Lordships will see that rules are to be made by Statutory Instrument. Is this wise, when they have always been on the Statute Book up to now? I think that Statutory Instruments are marvellous when you are dealing with specific things like the milk and dairies hygiene regulations or the Building (Scotland) Regulations and things like that. But I am asking whether it is in the interests of democracy and the control of local election rules that they should be subject to a Statutory Instrument which, when it goes through Parliament is practically laid on the Table and few of us have the time properly to study it. This is what I am concerned with and I have put down this Amendment to draw attention to these differences. I hope that I have explained the position and I have no intention of further wasting the time of the Committee. I think that is all that I need to say.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I think perhaps my noble friend overlooks the fact that when one is preparing rules, whether one puts them in an Act of Parliament or a Statutory Instrument, one bases them on something. In fact, the 1949 Rules were based on the Parliamentary Election system. What my right honourable friend is proposing to do in this case is to base them on the Parliamentary system and to tailor them to meet the requirements of the local elections. This is what has been done before and it will be done in this case. If we look at the alternatives that were available, it would have been possible, as at present, for the Bill to
1124
have provided rules suitably prepared for the needs of the new authorities, either in a Schedule or by amending the existing Rules in Schedule 3 to the 1949 Act. This would have had the advantage, as I would agree, that my noble friend would have been able to compare them with the existing rules in Schedule 3 to the 1949 Act. But if this method had been adopted legislation would have been required to make any subsequent changes in the rules. The second method, and the one which is adopted in the Bill, enables the rules to be made by subordinate legislation. The advantage of this method is that you can make changes in the rules from time to time without the need for legislation. This is becoming the more up to date way of doing things. I do not think that my noble friend need take this too much to heart.
It really is reasonable that the Parliamentary election rules as enacted by Parliament should be taken as a model and that the new rules to be made by subordinate legislation should be based on them, just as are the existing rules. There is no need to fear that the new rules to be made under Clause 7 will introduce innovations into the conduct of local elections. Nor is there the contrary fear that they will have such references as are applicable only to Parliamentary Elections. The scope of the rules will be limited, as I have explained. Further, before they are made, as is usual with electoral matters, they will be subject of course (if I may say this without offending my noble friend Lord Burton) to the usual consultations with the political Parties, as well as with the local authority association.
The rules will come out in a convenient form for use by the returning officers, candidates, election agents and the like, and they will be contained in a relatively short document, instead of, as at present, being locked away in the Schedule to a long Act which is not completely up to date because of the amendments made to the rules by the Representation of the People Act 1969. On reflection, I hope my noble friend will feel that this is a much more convenient way of doing things than having to trundle round, as we have so often seen agents do, the 1949 Act of Parliament.
LORD HUGHES: I do not think the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, ought to apologise for making reference to consultations with the political Parties, because, notwithstanding the express desire of the noble Lord, Lord Burton, that they should not be fought politically, I notice in to-day's Scotsman that the various Conservative Associations in the Borders have announced that they are getting down seriously to the job of fighting it because the Liberals say that they are going to take the Borders. It may be that that is where they are now, away taking the Borders, because they certainly are not in the Chamber.
THE EARL OF BALFOUR: I am grateful to my noble friend. I would mention one other point. One reason why I raised this matter was that when the English Bill was going through Parliament this was never discussed, and I did not notice it in the 1972 Act, because there was no mention in the repeals Schedule to that Act that the local election rules in Schedule 2 were being repealed. I mention that as a point of interest. My only other comment is that, as your Lordships know, Members of your Lordships' House do not have a vote in Parliamentary Elections, but I hope that we shall have a chance of voting in local elections.
LORD KILMANY: I listened with fascination as my noble friend Lord Balfour opened his case and expressed the fear that a deposit might be required from candidates at local elections; and that not only in their nomination papers would they be required, as now, to have a proposer and a seconder, but they might be required to have added the names of eight other electors, in the same way as in Parliamentary Elections. If my noble friend on the Front Bench could give us an assurance that those proposals are not really proposals at all, and that people standing for local elections will not be subject to those two conditions, I, for my part, would feel much reassured.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am not apprised of what my noble friend has said. I should like to look into it and let him know.
THE EARL OF BALFOUR: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clauses 8 to 11 agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Establishment of New Local Authorities]:
9.30 p.m.
THE EARL OF BALFOUR: My point here was that I felt that Part II of the Bill had as much to do with the first election of councillors as had Schedule 5; hence I felt that "Part II and" should be inserted after the word "under" and before "Schedule 5" in the 17th line. I beg to move Amendment No. 35.
Amendment moved—
Page 155, line 17, after ("under") insert ("Part II and").—(The Earl of Balfour.)
LORD DRUMALBYN: My noble friend's Amendment would extend, so far as the initial reviews of electoral areas are concerned, a reference in paragraph 1(2) of Schedule 2 to such reviews taking place under Schedule 5 to a reference to such reviews taking place under Part II of Schedule 5. I suggest to my noble friend that this is misconceived, since paragraph 2 of Schedule 5 applies Part II with certain modifications. It would be misleading therefore (and also legally incorrect, I must tell my noble friend), to extend the reference in the way proposed in the Amendment.
THE EARL OF BALFOUR: In view of what my noble friend has said, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF BALFOUR THE EARL OF BALFOUR had given Notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 36:
Page 156, line 4, leave out ("(b)") and insert ("(c)").
The noble Earl said: I should like, if I may, just to say a few words about this Amendment although I shall not move it. My reason for putting forward the Amendment was that in Section 55 (6)(b) of the Representation of the People Act, 1949, these words appear—
"in relation to a local government election in England or Wales, the clerk of the authority for which the election is held;".
Section 55(6)(c) reads:
"in relation to a local government election in Scotland, such officer as may be prescribed by the Court of Session by Act of Sederunt."

1127
Without going into this too much, I thought quite honestly there must be a misprint as between paragraphs (b) and (c). I have now been informed by my noble friend the Minister that if your Lordships were to turn over to page 158, at paragraph 9, right in the middle opposite line 25, it appears that the words "in England and Wales" are being removed from paragraph (b) and that paragraph (c) will cease to have effect. In other words what we are doing by this is to make this read—and now I am quoting from the 1949 Act—
"In this Part of this Act the expression 'appropriate officer 'means—
(b) in relation to a local government election … the clerk of the authority for which the election is held;".
I hope your Lordships will forgive me for this rather complicated practice of putting down an Amendment and then not moving it although putting forward an explanation.
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Amendment and Modification of Election Law]:
9.34 p.m.
THE EARL OF BALFOUR THE EARL OF BALFOUR moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 157, line 24, leave out paragraph 2 and insert—
("2. For Section 6(3) (Registration officers and areas) there shall be substituted the following subsection:—
"(3) In Scotland, the assessor appointed under section 116(2) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1973 and Section 1 of the Valuation and Rating (Scotland) Act, 1956 c. 60 shall be the registration officer for any constituency or part of a constituency which is situated within that region or island area."").
The noble Earl said: We are now on page 157 and I should like to draw attention to paragraph 2. I will read from the new section 6(3) to be inserted, leaving out the unimportant words:
"In Scotland, the council of every region … shall appoint an officer … for their area or for any adjoining … area … to be registration officer for any constituency or part of a constituency which is situated within that region.…"
I felt, having read this rather carefully, that great big, powerful Strathclyde might be able to dictate to its neighbours as to
1128
who should be the registration officer. I felt this was carrying their powers, and giving them powers, to far too great an extent.
Having indicated the defect which I feel is in the Bill, the real reason behind my Amendment was that in Scotland the assessor has always been the person who made up the registration roll of the electors. He has done it very well; I am asking that the assessor should continue to do this work. Do not give the new authorities the problems of making up the roll, something which they have never done before. I think they will have more than enough on their plates without having to do that as well. For the sake of brevity I am also speaking to Amendments Nos. 40 and 48 which are both connected with the same matter of trying to preserve the functions of the assessor in dealing with registration matters.
9.36 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My noble friend is perfectly right here. What we are proposing to do is to leave to the region and the islands area the appointment of an appropriate person as registration officer. In the past it has been the custom for the valuation assessor to act as registration officer. This was considered by the conference, and they felt that it was a matter which could be left to the discretion of the new regional and islands councils. The probability is that they will appoint the valuation assessor, as before. What they had in mind in particular was that valuation and registration procedures are required to be carried out in accordance with strict timetables, and the possibility could arise that the present timetables could be altered so as to make it difficult for one officer to discharge both duties. This was the reason why they decided to leave the matter open in this way for the authority to make its own choice of whom to appoint.
The second Amendment follows upon the first, so I do not think my noble friend would wish me to pursue that. He also spoke to Amendment No. 48. Here again it is an Amendment entirely consequential upon the Amendment he has just moved. This is the sole reason for doing as we have done. It is a valid reason, although it may be designed to catch an exceptional case. I hope my noble friend will accept it.
THE EARL OF BALFOUR: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF BALFOUR THE EARL OF BALFOUR had given Notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 38:
Page 157, leave out line 32 and insert—
("(1) In section 11(2)(b) (polling districts and polling places) the word "County" shall cease to have effect and after").
The noble Earl said: I will speak to Amendments Nos. 38, 42, 43 and 44. Very briefly, I was under the impression that in the reform of local government county national election constituencies would cease to exist, and that is where I have gone wrong. That was the reason for putting down these Amendments as I thought that they would be based on the new regional or district areas. It was a mistake on my part and I will not move these Amendments.
THE EARL OF BALFOUR THE EARL OF BALFOUR moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 157, line 47, leave out from ("districts") to end of line 48.
The noble Earl said: I have just a brief point here, more to ask a question than anything else. May I refer your Lordships to the bottom of page 157 of the Bill where it says:
"(1A) In Scotland, for elections of regional or islands councillors the regional or islands council may divide an electoral division into polling districts and may alter any polling district, and for elections of district councillors the district council may divide a ward into polling districts …".
That I accept, but the words I do not like are:
"and may alter any polling district."
I felt that a district should not have the power to alter possibly the size of its own district. That is what concerns me more than anything else and it was the reason for my putting down this Amendment. There may be a perfectly satisfactory explanation. I beg to move.
LORD DRUMALBYN: This point concerns the division of the electoral divisions into polling districts. This is something which Schedule 3, paragraph 4, leaves to the districts and the regions. It simply says—
"…for elections of regional or islands councillors the regional or islands council may divide an electoral division into polling districts
1130
and may alter any polling district, and for elections of district councillors the district council may divide a ward"—
the sub-division of the electoral division—
"into polling districts and may alter any polling district."
It does not seem very clear why a district council should not be able to alter its sub-divisions into polling districts when the regional council can do so. I do not think that my noble friend really argued that this should be done. In practice it is expected that all the new local authorities will adopt for their own elections the Parliamentary polling district fixed by the returning officer for the Parliamentary elections under the provisions of Section 11 of the Representation of the People Act 1949.
The way the system works, as many of us know all too well, is that local authorities inform the sheriff of the polling districts which they consider appropriate, and if these are adopted for Parliamentary elections they are then adopted by the local authority for local elections. Although the regional and district councils will be operating in a two-tier system both authorities are given power in relation to polling districts so that both will have an equal say in deciding on the polling districts that should be adopted.
LORD HUGHES: Does that mean that both of these will put their ideas forward and whatever is adopted for Parliamentary purposes will apply in both the regional and the district elections? Obviously it would be an appalling situation if there was one set of polling districts for the regional elections and a different one for the district elections. People would not know which polling station to go to. Obviously the same decision must be taken, and, as I under- stand the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, that is what will take place. Each will be free to represent the way it ought to be done, but the sheriff will be the one who will decide exactly, for Parliamentary purposes, what in fact is to take place for all three.
LORD DRUMALBYN: Yes; that is perfectly so. As I said, this generally starts at Parliamentary level and works downwards.
THE EARL OF BALFOUR: My Lords, in view of that satisfactory answer, I ask leave to withdraw this Amendment. I do not propose to move the following Amendments to No. 45, but to start again at 45.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
House resumed.

STATUTE LAW (REPEALS) BILL [H.L.] QUEEN MARY COLLEGE BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
SOCIAL SECURITY BILL RYDE CORPORATION BILL SOUTHAMPTON CORPORATION BILL
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL [H.L.] MEDWAY PORTS AUTHORITY BILL [H.L.] RHONDDA CORPORATION BILL [H.L.] SALFORD CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to with Amendments: the said Amendments considered and agreed to.