LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL

HL Deb 17 July 1973 vol 344 cc1086-131

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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 LORDS

It 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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. 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 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 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. 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 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 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 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 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 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.