Lords Sitting of 18 July 1973

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Chichester):
The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON
Gerald Alexander, Lord Bishop of London—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.

ELECTRIC VEHICLES
2.37 p.m.
LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of the world shortage of energy and the pollution of the atmosphere by petrol and diesel fumes, they will encourage the production of the electric or part-electric car.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, world oil supplies are expected to be adequate for a considerable time. Her Majesty's Government have supported research into the development of improved batteries, which are important for the construction of a practical electric car, and are continuing to examine promising alternatives. We have also financed the building of two electric buses which are now being tested in operation in city centres.
LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for that reply. Is it not a fact that the famous Mr. Healey—I refer to the engineer, not the politician—has recently announced that he is working on this project? Is there not also a prototype Waterbury electric car which is solar charged from the roof and electrically charged from crash barriers and from parking meters? Would it not be a great advantage for us to be able to develop something like this so that no longer need we be blackmailed
1136
by Colonel Gaddafi—or, for that matter, the Scottish Nationalists—and would not this car have been developed before but for the interests of the oil companies?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I quite agree with the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, that if some electric car could be invented it would certainly have very great advantages. Much research has been done by different companies from time to time, but, so far as I understand it at the moment, it has been found impossible to find a suitable form of battery.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, following the noble Earl's very encouraging reply, may I ask whether he is aware that one of the greatest contributions made to the lack of pollution and the cleanliness of the atmosphere in England is made by the local milkmen, some 50,000 of them, who drive their electric lorries or little tubs round Britain? Is the Minister further aware that in 1972, in an answer given in another place to Mr. Clark Hutchison, the Minister of State for Trade and Industry said that we were subsidising research into batteries to the tune of £160,000; and anent that supplementary answer may I ask whether we have increased that amount? When shall we cease to succumb to the pressure of the petrol interests? Edison said a century ago that there was a potential in the electric car and Berlin had 600 of them in 1902. Finally, is the Minister aware that a bus was running between Victoria and Charing Cross in 1902 and providing a good and a regular electric bus service?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, has provided a fund of information, of some of which I was aware and some I was not. I agree that the electric milk float has very great advantages, but the trouble with batteries is that they need to be re-charged. That means that they have to be re-charged with electricity developed probably by the use of oil or some other means of generation. With regard to the subsidy to which the noble Lord referred, the amount paid out by the Department has increased over that sum.
VISCOUNT HANWORTH: My Lords, would not the noble Lord agree that with the existing batteries both the speed

1137
and endurance of most electric cars are inadequate for anything except city use?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, that is one of the problems.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, would the noble Earl take this opportunity to repudiate the statement of the noble Lord, Lord Clifford, that there might be some sort of blackmail in the matter coming from Scotland?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, when the noble Lord, Lord Clifford, comes to read what he said he may feel, in view of the number of people who come from the part of the world to which he referred, that he might have chosen slightly different words.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, is there any evidence to prove that the atmosphere is dangerously polluted by exhaust fumes, unless the exhaust pipe is turned and put through the window of the motor car?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, there are certain regulations to prevent the pollution of the atmosphere from exhaust fumes, and there is also a voluntary agreement with industry to reduce the lead content in petrol to a maximum of 4·5 grammes per litre by the end of 1975.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, the noble Earl mentioned in his first Answer that there was sufficient oil for a considerable period. Is he able to quantify that rather more exactly, and tell us what are the official estimates of the amount of fuel that is available, and for how long a period it will last?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I think the imminence of the physical shortage of oil should not be overstressed. The present known reserves in the world are sufficient for about 35 years' supply at the current rate of consumption.
LORD KINGS NORTON: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that the prospects for the battery electric car are not very good and that there are electrical alternatives which are more promising? Is he further aware that it is possible to incorporate into a motorway a linear motor so that motor cars of the conventional kind, by the mere addition beneath them of a flat plate, could be carried along the motorway by mains power? Further,
1138
is he aware that this mains power would probably be generated in the future, which we now have to visualise, by nuclear energy?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I agree that as to the prospect of electrical cars, as we know them, they have had their problems and therefore are not as good as we should wish. We should like to see this possibility pursued, but the fact is that research has not yet found a way of overcoming some of the problems. The alternatives to which the noble Lord, Lord Kings Norton, has referred are certainly exciting possibilities, which I am sure will be pursued.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, can the noble Earl give us an assurance that the Government have no intention of yielding to any political pressure from any quarter in order to ensure our adequate oil supplies in the future?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, it is the Government's desire to ensure, so far as possible, that we have adequate oil supplies for the future. This is one of the reasons why we are prosecuting to the extent we are the findings in the North Sea.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, the Minister mentioned that electricity would be required for re-charging batteries. Would not most of this be done at night time, which would be a great advantage to the Generating Board, who would be able to spread the load?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, that may well be a possibility. But the fact is that the electricity required to generate the batteries also has to be produced by hydrocarbons—
LORD KINGS NORTON: Nuclear energy.
EARL FERRERS: So if one is referring to pollution, there is still the same relative degree of pollution.
LORD SLATER: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that he is to be highly complimented on the way he has answered the supplementary questions that have been asked? Would it not be a good idea for the three Parties to get together, to see whether we cannot fix a date for a debate and discussion on a matter of such great importance as

1139
this with the people who are supposed to have advanced knowledge on this subject?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, we had a debate on the world energy situation some time ago. While the noble Lord, Lord Slater, may have a point about wishing this to be debated, the real problem is to try to find the answer to the research problems. At the moment that has not been possible.
LORD REA: My Lords, if investigations are to be made in this matter, would the noble Earl ensure that there is also taken into account the possibility of the steam car?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, the steam engine went out a short while ago. I do not know whether the reintroduction of the steam car would prove very acceptable to most people.
LORD CROOK: My Lords, is the Minister able to say whether fuel cell investigation is taking place as part of the research?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, there are many companies involved in research in this particular field.

CHELMSFORD A.12 BY-PASS ROUTE
2.46 p.m.
LORD IRONSIDE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they agree with the precipitate decision of the Essex County Council Highways and Planning Committee in selecting the Northern route for the proposed Chelmsford A.12 By-pass; and, in view of the importance attached by the Department of the Environment to the method by which such planning decisions are reached, whether the reasons for Essex County Council's decision can be made publicly known and subjected to proper public scrutiny.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, the decision on the route of the A.12 Chelmsford By-pass will be a matter for my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environ-
1140
meat. In accordance with the new arrangements for consulting the public at an early stage in road planning, members of the public were asked to state a preference for one of three routes. The Essex County Council expressed a preference for the Northern route. It is for the county council to decide whether to make public the reasons for their choice.
LORD IRONSIDE: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer; but is he aware that I live in the area and that there is widespread objection to the Northern route from the rural district council, from the borough council and from the three action groups? In fact, one might say that this route has no friend in the world except the Essex County Council. Is my noble friend further aware that intense interest is being taken in the planning of this by-pass, particularly from the point of view of the new planning procedures, and that Chelmsford is here being used as an experiment? Would he not agree therefore that if a proper judgment is to be made by the local community it is important for the county council to make known their reasons for the selection of the Northern route?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I take my noble friend's point. In fact, in this particular case the Essex County Council are not the planning authority. They are just one of the local authorities who have given their views, as others have been asked to do. Thirteen thousand completed questionnaires have been received, and when my right honourable friend makes his announcement in due course he will no doubt indicate which way they favoured.
LORD IRONSIDE: My Lords, may I further ask my noble friend whether he knows when the Secretary of State expects to lay a draft proposal under the Highways Act?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I cannot give my noble friend an exact date. My right honourable friend is studying the data received from local authorities and amenity bodies, and in the course of the summer he will be announcing his decision. Of course, if there are substantial objections an inquiry will be held.
LORD BURTON: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that planning procedures already proceeding on the A.12 by-pass are grossly in excess of what we are allowed for any trunk road in Scotland? Would he advise the Ministers concerned that we should like to increase the planning procedures in Scotland too?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I am sure my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will take notice of my noble friend's question.
LORD PARGITER: My Lords, can the noble Lord say how many major routes have been approved without objection?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I think that is a little wide of the Question on the Order Paper, and I should need notice of it.

EX-SERVICEMEN'S WIDOWS' PENSIONS
2.49 p.m.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what representations have been made by widows of ex-Servicemen, or on their behalf, for increased pensions; how many have applied for supplementary allowances; the number in receipt of such allowances; and the average amount paid.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SECURITY (LORD ABERDARE): A number of representations have been received from both individual war widows and ex-Service organisations by my Department and by the Ministry of Defence. In November, 1972, 11,600 of the 100,000 war widow pensioners were in receipt of supplementary benefit. The average amount in payment was £2.32 a week.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, if it be considered desirable to provide a reasonable pension for those widows who were bereaved as a result of recent conflict, for example, in Ulster, why
1142
should not widows who were bereaved as a result of the Second World War, Aden and other conflicts be assured of a similar pension?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, there are two separate issues involved. One is the ex-Serviceman's pension, which is administered mostly by my Department and which also covers war widows; and the other issue is covered by the schemes run by the Ministry of Defence, one of which is the special scheme which applies to Northern Ireland and which the noble Lord has mentioned.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the fact that this very difficult matter is being administered by two separate Departments calls for immediate co-ordination? A reasonable pension should be given. Can the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, explain why this anomaly should continue?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, it is not an anomaly. This has always been the practice. One scheme is the basic scheme, rather like the National Insurance basic scheme which is run by my Department. Over and above that there are special schemes, for example, the new occupational schemes of the Ministry of Defence, which give additional benefit to people who are now serving on better terms of service than originally applied.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, would the noble Lord say quite categorically that those widows who were bereaved as a result of what happened in the Second World War and in Aden, and so on, are receiving as reasonable and decent a benefit by way of pension as those widows who were bereaved as the result of other conflicts?
LORD ABERDARE: No, my Lords, they are not, because there are widows whose husbands were killed while serving in the First World War, and those men were serving on different terms of service. The fact is that they are treated considerably better; all Governments have treated them considerably better than they would be treated under the normal National Insurance scheme. They have considerable preferences over the widow in the National Insurance scheme. But there have recently been introduced improved terms of service by which people who are now serving are gaining

1143
the benefit. This is exactly what happens in any other walk of life when a new pension scheme is introduced.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, when the Minister says that this has been the rule for a very long time, is he implying that if an anomaly goes on long enough it ceases to be anomalous?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, this is not an anomaly.
LORD MAYBRAY-KING: My Lords, is the noble Lord, whose work in this field many of us admire, aware that every ex-Servicemen's association— AJAX, BLESMA, FEPOW, and the great Legion itself places first on its agenda at every annual conference the special claims of, the women who gave their husbands that we might be free?—that we recognise what the Minister has done, but that we hope he will still bear in mind the special claim of the widows of ex-Servicemen?
LORD ABERDARE: Indeed, I will, my Lords. I thank the noble Lord for the kind references he made to myself and my Department. It is a fact that war widows do receive very special treatment, not only in respect of their basic pension but also in regard to special allowances; and they also benefit from a special disregard in respect to supplementary benefit. All this will continue and is continuing under the new Bill which uprates the various allowances.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, I feel I must pursue the matter a little further. I apologise for doing so, but this is an extremely important matter. In view of what the noble Lord has now stated—that the widows of those bereaved as a result of previous conflicts are not as well off, because of some technical difficulty or financial problem, as those who were bereaved in recent conflicts—may I ask the noble Lord to give an assurance that the Government will reconsider this matter at a later stage—perhaps soon after we resume in October? Would he give me an assurance that he will be able to inform your Lordships' House at that time that the matter has been settled in a more reasonable fashion?
LORD ABERDARE: No, my Lords; I regret that I cannot give the noble Lord that undertaking. This is a completely new scheme—an occupational pension scheme of the Ministry of Defence—and it applies to those who are currently serving in Her Majesty's Forces. It cannot be retrospective in its application.
LORD WIGG: My Lords, is it not a fact that all Governments have treated with generosity the dependants of the soldiers who lost their lives in the First and Second World Wars, whereas the dependants of the ex-Servicemen who receive benefits under the Royal Warrant —and indeed the ex-Servicemen themselves—are heirs to quite a different tradition? In the first case the recipients receive their pensions under statutory authority, while others, like myself, my stepfather and my mother, receive our pensions by grace and favour—and there is pretty little grace and not very much favour.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I am afraid that that only underlines what I have been trying to say to the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell: that people serve in Her Majesty's Forces under different conditions of service.
LORD WIGG: But, my Lords, is it not about time that the Government (I am not saying that the Conservative Government have been more mean than others but they have not been more generous) looked retrospectively, perhaps as far back as the South African War, and to those who enlisted before the First World War, and treated them with the same generosity as those who had the good fortune to be born some years later?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, the normal schemes run by my Department are generous and are uprated at regular intervals.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, is it not true that in fact the reason why this pension scheme cannot be made, as the noble Lord, said, retrospective—though that is a rather crude way of describing it—is entirely a matter of financial restriction; in other words, of not having enough money? Would it not be wiser for the noble Lord to say so? And would he also say why—and it seems to me extraordinary—he cannot assure my noble

1145
friend that at least the Government will look into this? Because, whatever the noble Lord may say, there seems to be a great anomaly here in that the dependants of those killed in previous wars are treated less generously than those who are serving now. This is an anomaly which should be put right. Would not the noble Lord assure the House that the Government will at least look into this?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I do not agree with the noble Lord that this is an anomaly; nor is it only a matter of finance. Certainly there is a very large sum of money involved, but the fact of the matter is that it would set an entire precedent for every other large pension scheme. When you have a pension scheme, it is only those people who are enrolled in that scheme who stand to gain by its benefits. That applies to the schemes of the Civil Service and to various other large schemes, where you could not take into account all those people who have already retired on different conditions of service.
LORD WIGG: My Lords, would the noble Lord bear in mind that many Governments—and certainly this applies to the first Labour Government before they assumed Office—gave an undertaking on one simple point: that for those of us who had the good fortune to have had lengthy "other rank" service and were subsequently commissioned, that "other rank" service should count for pension? I must declare an interest. I happen to be one of the victims, as were my forbears; but there are many others who are worse off than I am; and there are many widows who are worse off, for just the reason that the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, mentioned, and are treated in this scandalous way.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, would send me details of his case, I will certainly look into it.

BUSINESS
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, with the leave of the House, my noble friend Earl Ferrers will be making a statement on the recent meeting of the Council of Ministers at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m.
ABERDEEN CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936) deemed to have been read 2a and reported from the Committee.
DUNDEE CORPORATION (BROKERS &c.) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936) deemed to have been read 2a and reported from the Committee.
NATIONAL TRUST FOR SCOTLAND ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936) deemed to have been read 2a and reported from the Committee.
CROMARTY FIRTH PORT AUTHORITY CONFIRMATION BILL
Read 3a, and passed.
ULLAPOOL PIER ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Read 3a, and passed.
GLASGOW CORPORATION (PARKS ETC.) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Read 3a, and passed.
DEE AND CLWYD AUTHORITY BILL
Read 3a, and passed.

LAND COMPENSATION (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
3.2 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (LORD POLWARTH): My Lords, before the House decides to discharge the Order of Re-commitment, if it does so decide, I should inform the House that this is a Bill to re-enact, in the form in which they apply to Scotland, the provisions of the Land Compensation Act 1973. Following a Resolution of this House on May 22, 1973, which was agreed to by the other place, this Bill was referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills. They have reported that the Bill represents the existing law as contained in the Land Compensation Act of this Session, and that it does no more than reproduce the provisions of that Act in the form in which they apply to Scotland. They are of the opinion that there is no point to which the attention of Parliament should be drawn. This Bill was not amended by the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills. I understand that no further Amendments have been put down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript Amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the Order of Re-commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the Order of Re-commitment be discharged.—(Lord Polwarth.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Then, Standing Order No. 44 having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of July 12):
LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, I beg to move that the Land Compensation (Scotland) Bill be now read a third time.
Mover, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Polwarth.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD HAILSHAM OF SAINT MARYLEBONE): The Question is, That the said Bill be now read a third time. My Lords, I heard a noble Lord say, "Committee, Committee!" and I am bound to say that in the form in which it is shown upon my Order Paper the item on the Local Government (Scotland) Bill appears as "House to be again in Committee". If that is right, the appropriate Motion
1148
would be to move, "That the House do again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill". I am wondering whether my noble friend could elucidate the position, because some of the Members of the House are in some doubt as to where they stand.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, surely the Order of Re-commitment has been discharged.
LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, we are still discussing the Land Compensation (Scotland) Bill, and, the Order for Re-commitment having been discharged, I am moving that the Bill be now read a third time.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I apologise to my noble friend; I was misled by a voice on my left.
On Question, Bill read 3a.
LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Polwarth.)
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL
3.4 p.m.
LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, that the House do again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Polwarth.)
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, in view of the confusion that has been exhibited on the Government Front Bench, may I ask whether this is not a classic example of the need for home rule for Scotland? Does it not occur to the Ministers on the Government Front Bench that if the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, left your Lordships' House at the present moment and went post-haste to Edinburgh, to St. Andrew's House, and tried to remove the confusion, it would help your Lordships' House to get on with more important business?
LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, if I accepted the noble Lord's suggestion, I should certainly invite him to come and join the party.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, three-quarters of the Front Bench at present are Scots. Secondly, I can imagine no more important business before this House than Scottish business.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair.]
Schedule 3 [Amendmentand Modification of Election Law]:
THE EARL OF BALFOUR: Sections 113 and 117 of the Representation of the People Act 1949 concern local elections. Therefore I am moving that for the word "county" in one case there should be substituted "island or district", and in the other case, "district or island". I beg to move Amendment No. 46.
Amendment moved—
Page 158, line 35 at end insert—
("in section 113(3) (Presentation of petition questioning local election) in subparagraph (b) for the word "county" there shall be substituted "island or district".
In section 117(1) (constitution of election court in Scotland) for the word "county" there shall be substituted the words "district or island". ").—(The Earl of Balfour).
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD DRUMALBYN): I can reassure my noble friend on this matter. Provision is made in the 1971 Act for the interpretation of the word "county" in relation to sheriffs; and with that assurance my noble friend may be prepared to withdraw his Amendment. However, my noble friend may also like to know that there is a possibility that some local authority areas may be contained partly in one sheriffdom and partly in another. In this situation there would be a question as to which sheriff would have jurisdiction in relation to elections in the local authority concerned. This point is being considered and, if necessary, an Amendment will be brought forward at the Report stage.
THE EARL OF BALFOUR: With that assurance, I should like the leave of the Committee to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF BALFOUR: I consider that this is a drafting matter. It is either necessary or unnecessary. In my opinion,
1150
certainly the date 1947 can no longer be appropriate. I beg to move Amendment No. 47.
Amendment moved—
Page 158, line 38, at end insert:
("13. In section 166 (Local elections in Scotland excluded form Parts II and III of Act), for the date "1947" there shall be substituted the date 1973".")—(The Earl of Balfour.)
LORD DRUNIALBYN: I am happy to agree with my noble friend and to accept the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 12 agreed to.
Schedule 4 agreed to.
Clauses 13 to 15 agreed to.
Clause 16 [Substantive changes in electoral arrangements]:
THE EARL OF BALFOUR THE EARL OF BALFOUR moved Amendment No. 49:
Page 9, line 16, at end insert:
(" (4) It shall be the duty of the Council of each district or island area to keep under review the electoral boundaries of their wards and report to the Boundary Commission any substantive changes in the electorate or other matters concerning the representation of the people.")
The noble Earl said: May I briefly speak to both Amendment No. 49 and the next Amendment standing in my name, in Clause 18, No. 50? I put down these Amendments to draw attention to the fact that the review of boundaries and wards need to be carried out; and I felt, if the council of each district did not keep these matters under review, who else would? Also, I felt that the Secretary of State, on any representation made to him, should be in a position to invite the Commission to look into the matter properly. The problem here is that people, even within one district, can move from one area to another and thereby upset the ward or the election areas. I beg to move.
LORD HUGHES: I am not certain whether it will be necessary to have a provision in the Bill to give effect to this proposal, but certainly what the noble Earl is asking for is desirable. The Boundary Commission in relation to local government is a new procedure and it may well

1151
be that unless local authorities' attention is drawn to the fact that this remains a matter on which they should continue to interest themselves, some of them, at any rate, may assume that they do not have to do anything; that they just have to wait for the Boundary Commission to act. It may be that the Boundary Commission will have its own sources of information and get it just as readily as it would do if the local authorities notified it. But I agree with the noble Earl that the most likely body to be first aware of a need for change is the local authority. Presumably, however, it will always be open to anyone else to suggest to the Boundary Commission a need for change; for example (and I say this in fear and trembling because of what the noble Lord, Lord Burton, may say), even the political Parties may be able to draw the Boundary Commission's attention to a matter of this kind.
LORD DRUMALBYN: The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, is quite right on this; we do not think this Amendment is necessary. But we think that the local authorities will certainly keep these matters under review, and in any case, as Lord Hughes says, in Clause 14(3) the words are:
"If the Boundary Commission receive a request from a local authority or from any person that they should conduct a review under subsection (2) above with respect to any local government area in which the authority or person appears to the Commission to have an interest, the Commission shall consider the request."
The preceding clause gives the Boundary Commission the right at any time to:
"review all or any part of the local government areas".
So that is the body which has to keep the local government areas under review. But obviously the local authorities themselves will be taking a constant interest in this matter, such is the nature of local government, and if they request the Boundary Commission to make a review, then the Commission is bound to consider the request. So this Amendment is unnecessary.
THE EARL OF BALFOUR: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 16 agreed to.
Clauses 17 to 20 agreed to.
Schedule 5 agreed to.
Clauses 21 and 22 agreed to.
Clause 23 [Change of name of region, islands area or district]:
THE EARL OF BALFOUR THE EARL OF BALFOUR moved Amendment No. 52:
Page 12, line 20, after ("proceedings") insert ("or arbitration").
The noble Earl said: Here we have in Clause 23(3), at line 20, the expression:
"or render defective any legal proceedings".
I have suggested that we should insert the words, "or arbitration". In many casesterms of leases, contracts and various such things—because often it is an easier and cheaper way of settling any dispute, the words "or arbitration" are used. The term used might be:
"In case of a dispute between the local authorities, or whoever it may be, the matter shall be settled by arbitration".
I have attempted to seek legal advice as to whether the term "legal proceedings" would cover arbitration, and I was rather led to the impression that it would not. Hence the reason for my Amendment. I beg to move.
LORD DRUNLALBYN: We are here talking about the consequences of a change of name of an authority. The subsection reads:
"A change of name made in pursuance of this section shall not affect any tights or obligations of any council, authority or person, or render defective any legal proceedings".
My noble friend is seeking to add the words "or arbitration". In its ordinary sense the expression "legal proceedings" does not include arbitration, but there are instances in Statute where express provision is made so that it is deemed to include arbitration—for example, the Bankers' Books Evidence Act 1879. But the essence of arbitration is the agreement of the parties to go to arbitration. It is best, therefore, that in this area of arbitration, which is governed by agreement and not by Statute, there should be the minimum of statutory interference and the effect of any change of name should be left to be dealt with by the parties them- selves. The use of the expression "legal proceedings" in the subsection is primarily to cover proceedings before the courts where more formal rules and procedures apply and there is no question

1153
of the agreement of parties. A change of name here could lead to delay and expense, and even dismissal of the action in certain cases, and it is this situation that the subsection is really providing for. Having said that, I am prepared to look at this matter further, if my noble friend will withdraw the Amendment, to make quite certain that the interests of the existing authorities and their successors will be in no way prejudiced.
THE EARL OF BALFOUR: I am most grateful for that highly technical reply and am happy to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.20 p.m.
LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved Amendment No. 54:
Page 12, line 24, leave out ("before 16th May 1980").
The noble Lord said: Subsection (4) of Clause 23 reads:
"The name of a region, islands area or district shall not be changed under this section before 16th May 1980 unless the change is made with the consent of the Secretary of State".
I can understand the reasons for putting in a date. The declared view of the Government on this and on other matters has been to give the maximum amount of freedom to local authorities to make their own decisions in matters of their own business, and that is a point of view with which I heartily concur. However, I think the change of name of an authority can affect a great deal more than just their own business. It can cause complications in relation to what people outside know, what they think of an area, and at a time when most local authorities in Scotland concern themselves very much with trying to attract industry into their area it is important that outside people should know exactly with whom they are dealing. We have too much trouble as it stands, even with long established and well known names, with the amount of remarkable ignorance of the situation which exists.
Not so many years ago I attended an exhibition arranged by the Hydro Board in Birmingham. This was at the time, if I remember rightly, when the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, was chairman of the Board. An industrialist there who was contemplating coming to Scotland
1154
said he had just learned that some remote ancestors of his came from Aberdeen and therefore he thought he might be in-interested in going there, but before doing so he would wish to be assured that Aberdeen possessed an electricity supply and running water. If one can have that sort of misunderstanding about a name which has become famous, if in nothing else at least in story—funny story in particular—what will be the position if there are to be frequent changes of names of local authorities? We heard a good deal about this yesterday when some names, perhaps well known in ancient history but not so well known at the present time, were queried, and in one case at least a change was made.
So while generally I should be reluctant to say that the local authority should act only with the consent of the Secretary of State, I think this is a case where the Secretary of State might retain a power and not just have it for a limited period. I am quite certain that if there are good reasons for a change it will be a formality; the Secretary of State will not withhold his consent. But there could be circumstances in which a change was made for reasons which were good neither for the local authority itself nor for other people concerned. Therefore, in those circumstances I think it would be better that the position should be safeguarded and that an outside, unbiased party should have a right to say "Yea", or "Nay". I beg to move.
LORD BALERNO: I rise to support the noble Lord. Lord Hughes, in this Amendment. A change of name can affect not just the district or region which changes its name but the adjacent districts or regions. There is a wider implication here and I trust that the Government will give sympathetic consideration to this Amendment.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, that it is a serious matter to change the name, and I think he is perfectly right—and also my noble friend, Lord Balerno—in saying that a change of name affects people outside the area concerned, although I believe it is equally right to say that the people who stand to lose most by a change of name are the inhabitants themselves. There are any number of things which are affected—maps, books of reference and all the rest of it. I should have

1155
thought that this was something that everyone concerned would take into account and that there would not be a tendency to change names frivolously (if I may put it that way) with each change of régime in a local authority.
The reason why the date of May 16 has been put in is because once the matter has been fully discussed, as it was before the Bill was introduced, and once Parliament has considered the matter, it seems that it would be only right that the Secretary of State should have a chance to express a view on a proposed change of name, and indeed even to prevent it if he thought it was inappropriate. That is the reason why it is being done in what might be termed the launching period of the new régime. But, given the fact that it is so obviously important to the inhabitants of the area themselves, we thought this was something which could safely be left to the local authorities. After ail, we are extending their powers of decision very widely indeed in this Bill and we thought that this was among those items where we could afford to leave it to the local authorities concerned.
My own personal view is that if a name is to be changed at all it ought to be changed pretty quickly at a time when we are changing names in general and before it gets into the maps and books of reference. But there is the safeguard of the Secretary of State, for the reasons I have given. I hope the noble Lord will agree that after that date, and simply because it will be obvious to everyone that if they are going to change the name they should change it quickly, a control will be unnecessary. After all, in the past names have not been changed without a good reason for so doing, and that is why we provided this initial period of five years during which the Secretary of State should exercise oversight of changes of name.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I must confess that I rather agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, on this subject. I do not think it is likely to happen often, but I can conceive of a name becoming
1156
a sort of political football, and that would be a great pity. I should have thought that the submission of a series of names to the Secretary of State would be a formal matter but it would discourage the frequent changing of names. May I mention one point which came out yesterday? There is sometimes a name which is popular locally, but the point of a name is much wider, and sometimes the local authority might not realise the wider significance of changing the name. I hope the noble Lord will give this matter further consideration.
LORD HUGHES: May I ask the noble Lord what the present position is? Are existing local authorities able to change the name off-hand? I know that it happens only seldom. The last one of which I am aware was in my own part of the world when, many years ago, the county of Forfarshire became the county of Angus. Can the noble Lord say what the present position is?
LORD DRUMALBYN: I think the answer is that they are not able to, but I am not sure of that without getting confirmation. I see that I am right; they cannot change the name without the consent of the Secretary of State. I should like to think of this proposal further in the light of what the noble Lord has said. As I have said, we are relaxing controls in many ways and we should like to consider whether this is an appropriate way in which to relax the control or not. I would point out that there is the safeguard of the Amendment made on the Report stage in the Commons which requires a resolution for a change of name to be passed by a majority of the whole council, not just a majority of those present. Even so, I shall be happy to reconsider the matter.
LORD HUGHES: That is as far as I can expect the noble Lord to go on this occasion. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 23 agreed to.
Clauses 24 to 28 agreed to.
Schedule 6 agreed to.
Clause 29 [Qualifications for nomination, election and holding office as member of local authority]:
3.31 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved Amendment No. 55:
Page 15, line 39, at end insert ("and has been resident in the United Kingdom for twelve months.")
The noble Earl said: Clause 29 deals with what I call the geographical qualifications, to enable anyone to stand for a local authority. I should like to draw attention particularly to subsection (1)(a). The rule, as it stands, is that anyone can stand for a local authority provided he has one of four qualifications: he can be on the electoral roll; he can have lived in his own property for 12 months; he can have worked for 12 months, or he can, during the whole of that period of 12 months, have lived in the authority's area. The first qualification is of a very different character from the others. I am not quite certain how one gets on the electoral roll, but I rather think that if one stays fora fortnight in October in almost any place, one would probably get on the roll. That is a very different proposition from the other three qualifications.
It might well be argued that the other three propositions are too restrictive. I am rather inclined to think that it is not too restrictive, but it is open to doubt. If it is not too restrictive, then I think paragraph (a) is too open if it means that any British subject—and I believe "British subject" means anyone who is a citizen of any part of the Commonwealth—can come into a local authority, be registered in October, and then is entitled, so far as I know, so long as he keeps that registration, to stand forthwith for the local authority. I am doing no more at this stage than moving a probing Amendment. I should have thought that if this is to stand in line with the other three restrictions there should be an additional qualification. Possibly one should say that he should be on the electoral role for 12 months, but I would suggest, if I may, that the Government should look at this again. I think the mere extending of the electoral role to someone who in fairness may have been in this country for only three months is a little too wide if the other three qualifications are considered
1158
necessary. Would the noble Lord look at the question to see whether it should stand exactly as it is? I beg to move.
LORD DRUMALBYN: As usual there is some force in what my noble friend says, but before I take it away to look at it, I ought to state at any rate the arguments that exist for maintaining the law as at present because this clause reproduces the existing law on qualifications for election which are at present set out in Section 50 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1947, as amended by the Local Authorities (Qualification of Members) Act 1971. So in a sense this has been looked at fairly recently. But that is no reason why it should not be looked at again.
As my noble friend says, it is the case that a British subject, or a citizen of the Irish Republic arriving in an area on or about the qualifying date for the register, which is October 10, could get on the register if the general circumstances of his stay satisfy the registration officer that he was resident in the area. As my noble friend knows, the register is compiled with regard to the circumstances at October 10, but not published until the following February. Under Clause 8 of the Bill, local authority elections in Scotland will be held on the first Tuesday in May, so candidates standing at these elections qualifying by being on the register of electors will have been resident in the area for at least seven months.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: If I may interrupt the noble Lord, he may have left the area and still be on the register. That is my point.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I take note of my noble friend's point, but if he has left the area he might have considerable difficulty in getting the people to sign his nomination papers and to put him forward. I think one has to bear in mind that a candidate cannot simply decide for himself that he should stand at an election. He will have to be nominated by local government electors for the electoral division or ward for which he wishes to stand. The restriction proposed by the Amendment is not one which applies for nomination for an election to another place. The restriction imported by the Amendment could debar an able candidate from standing in circumstances in which it would be

1159
obviously desirable that he should stand. For example, one would not have to look far round this Chamber to see people who might have been minded to stand for election to a local authority shortly after their return from holding distinguished office abroad. If they had strong connections with the locality, the mere fact that they had worked abroad would not deter them from doing so, and on return to the locality they could offer experience valuable to the council of the area concerned. My father did this on retiring from the Indian Civil Service. So these are matters one has to weigh in the balance in reaching a decision on this.
It is the Government's view that this matter can be left to the good sense of the electors in subscribing to nomination papers of the candidates and recording their votes in the ballot box. With respect I do not think my noble friend's arguments outweigh the argument that I have put forward.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I do not propose to press this Amendment, but if it is left to the good sense of the electors you do not need (b), (c) or (d). If you have those three paragraphs the good sense of the electors is superseded. In these circumstances, however, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.38 p.m.
LORD BURTON LORD BURTON moved Amendment No. 56:
Page 16, line 3, after ("land") insert ("with a value of not less than £10").
The noble Lord said: When I first stood for the county council 24 years ago, I remember that I had to become a tenant of a piece of ground to a value of no less than £10 to allow me to qualify. Since then there has been another Act which has dropped this qualification from the Local Government (Scotland) Act. I do not mind if it is £10 or any other figure, but I feel that there should be a minimum qualification. After all, as we stand at present, someone could just pay a peppercorn rent or 1p for a piece of land to allow him to qualify. Somewhere there should be a minimum qualification. I beg to move.
LORD HOY: While I am very interested in the Amendment, I must say that I do
1160
not think it is very clear. I do not think that the noble Lord made it any clearer in the course of his short introduction, for which I commend him. What does he mean by £10? Is this a value, a rateable value or rent? The Amendment just says, "to the value of £10", but does not explain what is meant by "£10". If it is an annual value, a rateable value, one can measure it, but if it is the selling price of land, one would not get much land for £10—you could carry it away in your window box. Before we discuss the Amendment any further, could the noble Lord explain what he means by £10?
LORD BURTON: I would agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, has said, that perhaps it is not very clear. I do not really mind what the figure is or how it is valued, but the principle I have in mind is that there should be a minimum value for a tenancy or for an ownership of a piece of ground. It is ridiculous that one may be able to pay perhaps a peppercorn rent and still qualify. If the Minister would look at this he might even put an Amendment down to put it right at Report stage.
LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, in order that the House may hear the statement of the E.E.C. Council of Ministers I beg to move that the House do now resume.
House resumed.

ROYAL ASSENT
3.41 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, before my noble friend makes his Statement I have to notify the House in accordance with the Royal Assent Act that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

Protection of Wrecks Act,

Ulster Defence Regiment Act,

Employment Agencies Act,

Northern Ireland Constitution Act,

Water Act,

Social Security Act,

Statute Law (Repeals) Act,

Ullapool Pier Order Confirmation Act,

1161

Cromarty Firth Port Authority Order Confirmation Act,

Glasgow Corporation (Parks &c.) Order Confirmation Act,

Ryde Corporation Act,

Southampton Corporation Act,

City of London (Various Powers) Act,

Medway Ports Authority Act,

Queen Mary College Act,

Rhondda Corporation Act,

Salford Corporation Act.

E.E.C.: AGRICULTURAL MINISTERS' MEETING
3.42 p.m.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, with the leave of the House I should like to repeat a Statement which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture on the meeting of the Council of Agricultural Ministers in Brussels this week. The Statement is as follows:
"The main subjects discussed were sugar, beef and the problem of protein for animal feed arising from United States controls on exports of soya beans.
"There were two issues concerning sugar before the Council. The first related to the subvention to United Kingdom sugar refiners which I announced to the House on March 28, and which is designed to enable us to continue refining Commonwealth Sugar on the same basis as before. The European Commission had warned us that they might have to take the view that this arrangement was incompatible with the Treaty of Rome. I received notification yesterday that the Commission was of that opinion, and so I immediately raised the issue in the Council of Ministers. I explained the importance of this subvention to the honouring of our Commonwealth commitments, and I am happy to tell the House that the Council immediately and unanimously decided to authorise its continuation for the next 12 months.
"The second issue related to the arrangements for sugar from 1975, with the three interrelated aspects of continued imports from the developing
1162
Commonwealth, the European Economic Community's membership of the International Sugar Agreement and the future arrangements for sugar beet in Europe. The Commission tabled farreaching proposals on all these aspects. Obviously they will require detailed study, but I should like to call attention now to three points. First, they provide for the continued import of the full 1·4 million tons a year from the developing Commonwealth, and so are intended to honour the Lancaster House assurances in letter and in spirit. Secondly, they would enable the Community to participate very constructively in the resumed negotiation for a new International Sugar Agreement. Thirdly, they should provide scope for us to secure a justified increase in British beet sugar production as the Australian quota is phased out. I am glad to say that, although obviously all wanted a chance to study these proposals further, the will to honour the commitment to continue to import 1·4 million tons was evident in the initial comments of most Ministers.
"The Council also discussed the reduction in cattle prices which has taken place recently. It was decided that import duties which are at present suspended should be restored if the average Community market price falls below 103 per cent. of the guide price for one week. The effect on United Kingdom retail prices should be marginally beneficial, since although we should have to reintroduce import charges these would be offset at the current value of the pound by the application of monetary compensatory amounts as subsidies on our imports. Exports from the Irish Republic both as stores and as fat animals which have recently been attracted away from their traditional outlet in the United Kingdom will be likely to revert to this country.
"On protein feedingstuffs, the Council decided to put in hand the consideration of the possible diversion from intervention stocks of 50,000 tons of dried skim milk for use in pig and poultry feed between now and the end of the year if the need should arise, and also the possibility of expanding protein production in the Community. These matters will be considered further

1163
in the light of the outcome of the visit which the Agricultural Commissioner, Mr. Lardinois, is to pay to Washington this week and in the light of the protein supplies likely to be available from the U.S.A. and Canada.
"I also raised briefly the question of welfare of animals in transport and at slaughterhouses. The matter is to be discussed now at official level and will be on the agenda of the Council for further discussion in September."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
LORD HOY: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Earl for repeating the Statement made by the right honourable gentleman the Minister of Agriculture in another place. May I ask the Government what steps the Minister is going to take regarding transport of live animals? After all, he is faced with the position created in another place which so overwhelmingly told the Government that there must be no more export of live animals. How do the Government propose to undertake this task? One has also to take into account the importance of this section of the industry so far as agriculture is concerned, so that we should be grateful to hear what proposals the Minister has to place before the other Ministers when they meet in September.
On the subject of the difference in cattle prices, I wonder if the Minister could say whether these falls have been reflected in the purchasing power of housewives at home. Have they been reflected in the shops? This is where the importance of any reduction will be appreciated. Secondly, I should like to know why the Minister thinks that, merely by changing the form of compensation that is proposed, more cattle, either store or fat, will be diverted from Southern Ireland to this country. How does he think that this simple change will allow this to take place? Since the figures we have of imports from Southern Ireland are fairly well established under the Anglo-Irish Treaty and the Irish Agreement, the House would also like to know, I think, whether in fact they do meet that commitment in this respect.
Most important, of course, is the question of the Sugar Agreement. I must say
1164
that the Minister's account of it appears to be quite cheerful, but if one cares to read the official reports of the meeting the position is not quite as the Minister has put it in his Statement. First of all, the Minister quoted the date on which we debated the Sugar Agreement, March 28; and the House was then assured that the position of the Commonwealth sugar producers had been totally safeguarded. Now we hear that the Commission have intimated—not only did they intimate but they told the Minister pretty firmly—that what Britain was doing was in fact a contravention of Article 92 of the Treaty of Rome. Having had this unanimously agreed to, we then had to adopt another tactic, as I understand it. And is it not a fact that when we went to the Committee of Ministers we were appealing against a decision arrived at by the Commission? While the Ministers have agreed to give us the waiver, it is a waiver that will last only for 12 months. Surely this cannot give any great assurance to the Commonwealth sugar producers, because they cannot continue the practice of producing sugar on a year-to-year basis. They understood when the first Agreement was reached that they had an assurance for practically all time. Can the Minister tell us what is proposed in order to put the Commonwealth sugar producer back to where he thought he was when the first Agreement was made in March of this year?
LORD WADE: My Lords, I should like to join in thanking the noble Earl for repeating this Statement, but would also ask him whether he can give a little further clarification on the subject of the timetable. I certainly welcome the announcement that the commitments of Her Majesty's Government to the Commonwealth countries will not be inhibited. I think we are all aware that the production of sugar is very important to certain of the Commonwealth developing countries, particularly those in the Caribbean. Long-term planning is essential for sugar production. It is not quite clear to me what the position is over a period of time. The noble Earl referred to the next 12 months in the case of this extension, and under what he called the "second issue" he referred to arrangements for sugar from 1975. Is he able to say for how long a period the safeguards of the interests of the sugar

1165
producers in the Commonwealth will continue, or is that a matter for resumed negotiations? If I remember rightly—this is my last point—even the Lancaster House assurances were not in any way indefinite; they were only for a period of years. I think the crux of the matter is the period of time for which the safeguards will continue.
3.52 p.m.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, perhaps I may answer the questions put by the noble Lords, Lord Hoy and Lord Wade. The noble Lord, Lord Hoy, first asked what Her Majesty's Government were going to do about the export of live animals, having regard to the view expressed by another place the other day. Quite clearly, Her Majesty's Government will take into account that view, and are at present considering what action should be taken to give effect to the view expressed by another place last week.
The noble Lord also referred to the falls in the price of beef to which the Statement referred, and asked whether these would be noticeable in the price of beef in the shops in this country. Of course the falls that have taken place in the European Economic Community have varied from country to country. In this particular country over the last few weeks the fall in market prices for beef has been of the nature of 1½ per cent. Various countries have experienced greater falls, the highest being Germany, where there has been a fall of up to 10 per cent. Therefore, in this country, where the fall has been in the nature of only 1½ per cent., the effect will be less marked than would otherwise have been expected.
The noble Lord, Lord Hoy, was also concerned as to why exports of beef from Southern Ireland should now find their way into this country as opposed to the European Economic Community. The fact is that once the price of beef falls below 103 per cent. of the guide price for a period of one week, then the European Economic Community will impose the tariffs which it had previously removed. This would in fact be a direct disincentive to sales from Southern Ireland to the other members of the Community, which the removal of those tariffs had reversed, and it would, therefore, tend to make the products from
1166
Southern Ireland, which temporarily have been going to the European Community, come to this country.
Both the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, and the noble Lord, Lord Wade, were concerned, and with justice, about the future of sugar. Clearly, the Community decides the intervention prices for raw and refined sugar one year at a time, and the present prices will last until the end of June 1974. The Community will have to decide the prices for 1974–75 before then. But it is a fact that the Commission made it perfectly plain that they thought that it would be indefensible for the Community to import less than 1·4 milion tons, and indeed I think no country other than France challenged this. I have no doubt that the Lancaster House assurances, which were given by this Government after consultation with the Commonwealth producers will be met. Indeed in the Treaty of Accession, in Protocol No. 22, Section 3, which was signed by the Community and this country, it says:
'The Community will have as its firm purpose the safeguarding of the interests of all the countries referred to in this Protocol whose economies depend to a considerable extent on the report of primary products and particularly of sugar."
This is a commitment made by the European Community. All the Ministers, with the exception that I mentioned, have agreed in principle that the figure of 1·4 million tons for the import of Commonwealth sugar is reasonable.
LORD HOY: My Lords, the noble Earl has not dealt with the main point. Is it not a fact that the Commission said that it was a contravention of Article 92 of the Treaty of Rome for Britain to pay this £4 a ton to Commonwealth sugar producers, without which, obviously, it would be quite uneconomic to send sugar to this country? Was it the Commission who said that Britain was wrong to do so, and so was contravening Article 92? The waiver took place only when the matter went to the Council of Ministers, and that waiver will last for only twelve months.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, of course the £4 a ton to which the noble Lord refers is not paid to Commonwealth producers, but to the refineries in order to enable them to have the equivalent of £17 a ton margin. It is perfectly true

1167
that the Commission put their view that this was in contravention of the European Economic Community's obligations. But, of course, under Article 93, Section 2, of the Treaty of Rome any Member State is permitted to appeal to the Council when it considers that there are special reasons for disagreeing with the Commission. This Article permits the Council to derogate from the conclusions of the Commission. It was upon that basis that my right honourable friend the Minister for Agriculture took this matter to the Council of Ministers, and they agreed unanimously to derogate from this particular recommendation.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I am sure the whole House warmed to the noble Earl when he quoted these words, that we were going to honour our obligations in letter and spirit. If the noble Earl really means to honour our undertakings in letter and spirit after 1975, we shall be behind the Government in that regard. But would he not agree that there is room for some doubt still when one looks, for example, at the statement made in Brussels by M. Henri Cayre, the President of the Confederation of European Beet-growers, when he said that had the Council really meant that they were going to let 1·4 million tons of Commonwealth sugar come into Europe they would never—and I quote—
"…have taken the trouble to search out the now famous wording of Protocol 22".
M. Cayre went on to say:
"European producers are guaranteeing European self-sufficiency and have every intention of going on doing so."
In the light of that sort of attitude, what would be the position of Her Majesty's Government?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, first, let me make it plain to the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, that what the Statement refers to as the intention to honour the Lancaster House assurances in letter and spirit does not apply just to Her Majesty's Government but to the European Economic Community.
LORD BESWICK: After 1975?
EARL FERRERS: Yes. It is perfectly true that the French have always had a different attitude, and up to a point their attitude is understandable. They have
1168
always made it plain that it would be difficult for them to accept a cut-back in their own production to make room for Commonwealth sugar. But I can only assure the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, that discussions and negotiations are bound to go on, and people will put conflicting views. The European Economic Community accepted what is known as the aura à cæur, as indeed did this country, and it is our belief that the European Community as a whole intend to honour this particular agreement.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, is it not remarkable that Mr. Godber, who I am certain is doing his best in the interests of the United Kingdom, in the course of his Statement made no reference to the intransigent attitude of the French Minister of Agriculture who for the past ten days, according to reports in reputable newspapers in the United Kingdom, has been breathing fire and fury and declaring that on no account must there be any interference with French agricultural interests? Is that not the reason why so many of the items which have been referred to by the noble Earl arising from the Statement made by Mr. Godber have been deferred until the next meeting of the Council of Ministers? Is it not also the fact that we are experiencing considerable difficulty because of the attitude of the French?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I do not think that it would have been helpful had my right honourable friend mentioned, in a cool and reasoned Statement, that the attitude of the French Minister was intransigent. Our purpose is to negotiate over details and problems of the European Community. We have always accepted, and indeed every member has accepted, that there will be differences of opinion and differences of demand and requirements from different countries. It is in order to resolve this that there will be decisions and discussions at which different points of view will be put forward.
With regard to the question of the Sugar Agreement, it has been acknowledged and accepted as part of our joining the Community that we and the Community should have respect for the obligations that we have previously had to the sugar developing countries. To the best

1169
intentions of the European Economic Community, this is what they intend to honour.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, in the statement from which I quoted from M. Cayre, he also said:
"Sugar is just one vehicle for aid. Its absence in one country can be replaced by another form of aid."
Has this possibility been part of the discussions to which the noble Earl referred? Is there a suggestion that we should buy off the Commonwealth countries by some other form of aid?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, there has been no suggestion, to my knowledge, that any of the Commonwealth countries should be bought off by any other kind of aid. The whole purpose is to ensure that the sugar production from those countries should have a ready place within the Community. I can only repeat that, with the exception to which noble Lords have referred, the Ministers of the Council have been of the opinion that this should be done.
LORD WIGG: My Lords, does not the noble Earl realise that it is no use the Government, on the one hand, blaming the sharp rise in the price of commodities on to world conditions when they, by their action, have created the conditions of shortage? Is he not aware that one of the consequences of the uncertainty about the future of refining costs is to diminish the production of sugar in Jamaica? Is he not aware of the extraordinary situation last winter in Jamaica, a country which is one of the most natural low-cost producers of sugar, that it was without sugar because production had been cut down under the shadow of the agreement which the Minister has announced to-day?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, there was a conference at Lancaster House some two years ago which was attended by all the countries of the Commonwealth who were involved in sugar production. It was decided then what would be the appropriate level of imports of sugar from those countries. With regard to the future, it is Her Majesty's Government's hope and intention that that undertaking should be approved and should be kept. Of course it is up to the Commonwealth sugar producing
1170
countries themselves to negotiate directly with the European Economic Community on future supplies, in which of course Her Majesty's Government are extremely interested.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that his observation that there is likely to be an improved prospect for sugar beet growing in this country will be very welcome? Can my noble friend, knowing, as he does, the great value of sugar beet as a break in the corn rotation, tell us how this prospect might mature in terms of an increased sugar beet acreage here?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I think that we are getting a little premature on that. I would tell my noble friend Lord Nugent that the reason behind this is the fact that there will be the phasing out of the Australian sugar quota in the course of the next few years, and that supply of sugar which, at the moment comes from Australia, will have to come from some other parts of the European Economic Community. It is cur hope that some part of that will come from this country.
LORD BALERNO: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether the Government are aware that a continuation of this acute shortage of vegetable protein will almost certainly result in a rise in the price of beef? May I ask whether he has any information as to when, if ever, the United States is likely to raise its embargo on the export of soya beans?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, it is perfectly true that the shortage of protein is bound to cause great concern to producers of beef, and indeed to the Government, because it is bound to result in a rise in prices. I can only tell my noble friend Lord Balerno that M. Lardinois is going over to America this week to discuss the position with regard to soya beans. My understanding is that there is likely to be a better crop there of soya beans this year than last, and if this is so possibly it will help to lessen the effects of the world shortage of protein. I cannot give my noble friend the answer as to whether and when the United States will lift the embargo on exports of soya beans.
LORD WIGG: My Lords, would the noble Earl not agree that the problem can be expressed arithmetically quite simply? In Jamaica we are paying £64 a ton, but the agreement for beet sugar which was welcomed by the noble Lord below the gangway is at £100 a ton. Of course the farmers in this country welcome it. That is what the French want—£100 a ton. The French being what they are, is he not aware that they have hit on the slick idea of withdrawing the subsidy for refining costs, and as it is more expensive to refine the sugar from Jamaica, if they withdraw the subsidy here it will work against the sugar that comes from the Commonwealth?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, the point is that the subsidy has not been withdrawn. I would only say, in deference to the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, that when he says that he found that the problem was arithmetically simple, I have never found anything to do with sugar, Commonwealth sugar agreements or international sugar agreements, in any way simple.
LORD WIGG: My Lords, the point is that the row with the French is that they want to withdraw the subsidy on refining because they want us to favour beet sugar.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, maybe they do, but they have not succeeded.
LORD WIGG: Not yet.
BARONESS WHITE: My Lords, would not the noble Earl agree that it is all very well for the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, to speak up for the beet sugar growers in this country, but they are capable of growing other crops, whereas there are many sugar islands, particularly in the Commonwealth, which are not capable of growing other crops? Surely we have always regarded sugar as the touchstone of whether or not the Economic Community was really concerned about the Third World. If we do not speak up for the Commonwealth sugar countries and prefer to take votes from East Anglia, we are really in breach of our moral obligation to our Commonwealth partners.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I think that the noble Baroness, Lady White, has
1172
slightly turned the implication—I am sure unwittingly—which my noble friend Lord Nugent put into his question. Her Majesty's Government have always been concerned about the Commonwealth sugar interests. That is the reason why they convened the Lancaster House Conference, and that is the reason why, having come to an agreement, they were able to persuade the European Economic Community to write into the Treaty of Accession that which has been written into it and which I have quoted. I would only repeat—and I accept that this is a very important point—that the Commission made it plain this week that they thought it would be indefensible for the Community to import less than the 1·4 million tons, and no country other than France challenged that.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I wonder whether I may suggest to your Lordshops that as we have been nearly half-an-hour on this Statement, and are in the middle of a most important Committee stage of a very important Bill, we could perhaps have just one more question and then call it a day and move on to the next Business.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, I shall put my point as briefly as I can, declaring my interest as an East Anglian sugar producer but one who does not have a vote. I hope the noble Earl was not accurately reflecting Government policy when he indicated that the coming to an end of the Australian sugar quota would mean that this sugar would be replaced by sugar beet from Europe. I should hope a good proportion of that sugar, if not all of it, might come from the developing countries of the Commonwealth and elsewhere. May I at the same time, while welcoming the one year's Agreement which has been achieved and about which I am certainly very happy, as I am sure the sugar producers in the Commonwealth will be, reiterate the point made by my noble friend Lord Hoy and by my noble friend Lord Wigg, that sugar production is a long-term business, and express the hope that Her Majesty's Government and the Minister of Agriculture, in particular, will press upon their colleagues in the Community the overriding necessity of having long-term agreements for all these products, particularly sugar?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I sympathise with the wish of the noble Lord, Lord Walston, to have long-term agreements for these commodities, a wish which I think will be shared by a great many people and by a great many countries. I hope that I did not give the impression that when the Australian sugar quota came to an end all of that production would be absorbed by beet growers in this country. If I gave that impression, it was an erroneous one. Clearly, there will be a gap left by the sugar which at the moment comes from Australia, and it will be a matter of negotiation as to how that gap will be filled. It is not impossible that some of it might be filled from elsewhere.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, I do not want to put a question. I want merely to ask whether I may voice a vote of thanks to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, for having made a better defence in this House of the Statement which was made in the other place by the Minister of Agriculture.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL
4.14 p.m.
House again in Committee.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: Perhaps I should remind noble Lords that the Committee is still considering Amendment No. 56 by the noble Lord, Lord Burton, to Clause 29.
LORD DRUMALBYN: It might be convenient if I resume the discussion and reply to my noble friend. This is another matter which has been discussed at least twice within the last five years in Parliament. May I remind your Lordships that we are talking about the qualifications for nomination as a local government candidate, and, in particular, the qualification of occupying land or other premises in the area of the authority. My noble friend wishes to add after the words, "occupied as owner or tenant any land" the words, "with a value of not less than £10", and the paragraph will then go on "or other premises in the area of the authority". I think my noble friend appreciates that one of the difficulties here is setting a value to the property or other premises which must
1174
be occupied for this qualification to apply. Whatever figure is chosen is bound to be an arbitrary one. My noble friend is quite right in saying that the figure used to be £10, which I think was fixed way back in 1947.
During the passage of the 1971 Bill, the Government took the view that no value should be specified, because occupation of property is one of a number of considerations which might indicate a person's interest in an area. If the property concerned was of very little value, then, in a normal case, a person's interest in the area would be very slight and he would be unlikely to want to stand as a candidate. But if he wanted to stand, he would first have to be nominated and it would then be for the electors to decide whether he should be elected. So it still remains the Government's view that no value should be specified, and that we should adhere to what was decided in 1971.
LORD BURTON: I note what my noble friend has said, but it seems to me pointless to have these words in the Bill if we are talking only about a peppercorn value which can be rigged by anyone. But in view of what my noble friend has said, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 29 agreed to.
Clause 30 agreed to.
Clause 31 [Disqualifications for nomination, election and holding office as member of local authority]:
4.17 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved Amendment No. 57:
Page 16, line 35, leave out ("or").
The noble Earl said: Amendments Nos. 57 and 58 should be taken together. Clause 31 states what is substantially the law as it is to-day, and according to that if within five years before nomination day anyone has been convicted and sentenced to three months' imprisonment without the option in the United Kingdom, the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man or the Irish Republic he will be disqualified from standing. As the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has said, a British subject includes anyone who is a citizen of the United Kingdom, but this disqualification

1175
should apply equally to anyone who has been convicted in a court within the Commonwealth. That seems to be a common sense interpretation. It may be argued that it might be difficult to identify the circumstances, but if the circumstances are not identifiable then clearly they will not be found out. But I believe that if somebody is convicted within the Commonwealth and is sentenced to three months' imprisonment or more without the option, he should be disqualified in the same way as another person would be because of a sentence imposed in this country. I beg to move.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I do not think we should be under any misapprehension. The phrase, "British subject" goes a good deal wider than a subject of the United Kingdom and Colonies. I was in some doubt as to my noble friend's purpose in moving this Amendment, but as I understand it he takes the view that if a person should be debarred from standing for election as a local authority candidate if he has been convicted in the United Kingdom of an offence for which a three months' sentence has been imposed without the option of a fine, then that disqualification should also apply in respect of convictions in those areas where there are similar jurisdictions; that is to say, in the Commonwealth.
A Government Amendment adding sentences passed in the Irish Republic as a ground for disqualification was carried at Report stage in another place as a result of an undertaking given in Committee there. This seemed reasonable because of the status of citizens of the Irish Republic as laid down in the Bill and also because of what is known as the sentencing policy in the Irish courts; but, all the same, it was a departure from the disqualification provisions of the Local Government Act 1972 affecting England and Wales. It would be more difficult to justify a further departure from the common code especially having regard to the relative numbers of Commonwealth citizens in the three countries. There is also the point that it is quite possible that all Commonwealth countries do not follow the same kind of sentencing practice as is followed in the United Kingdom. It is possible that a minor offence in the United Kingdom will be less harshly punished than in some of the Common-
1176
wealth countries, and it would be perhaps less than fair if an apparently severe penalty passed in a Commonwealth country led to disqualification from membership of a local authority whereas a lesser and more reasonable sentence passed in a United Kingdom court for a similar offence did not.
There is also the point that if we are disqualifying people in respect of offences that merit a certain punishment, why stop at the Commonwealth? If you are going to disqualify people for offences, then they ought to be disqualified wherever those offences are committed if it is the moral content that you are looking at. So the Government think it wiser to keep to the present system. We have already extended it to the Irish Republic, but we do not think we ought to extend it any further.
LORD HUGHES: I certainly would not welcome the prospect of its being extended to any part of the world because at the present time there are some parts of the world where they think being a British subject is worthy of imprisonment.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This may or may not be the case, but I think the noble Lord has missed the point entirely. If he turns back, he will see that any British subject in this country can stand for local election, and a British subject is a citizen of any member of the Commonwealth. What the noble Lord says is that if anyone is convicted of an offence in this country within five years—and three months' imprisonment is the minimum—he may not stand as a member of a local authority. What I am saying is that if someone from any part of the Commonwealth comes here with a heavy criminal sentence on his back, he should equally be disqualified. The noble Lord says, "Oh, well, we do not know, about Comonwealth courts; some of them are very second-class; they convict people of all sorts of silly things." This is not so; it really is not remotely so. If it is fair that a person in this country who has a criminal record should not stand for five years, I think it should be equally so in the case of people from Commonwealth countries.
I must say, with respect, that the noble Lord's argument is wholly illogical. As to the extension to Ireland, I did not know it had been made at that time.

1177
But anyone with a criminal record coming here from abroad who has the right to vote can stand. It is a peculiarity of this country—in this respect we are probably unique in the world—that anyone from any part of the Commonwealth can vote and stand if he is on the electoral register. It is a peculiarity of this country; it is quite different from most other countries. I should have thought that at least the same rule should apply to someone coming here as in fact applies to citizens of this country. I really must ask the noble Lord to be good enough to look at this again. I do not think his answer has met my point at all.
LORD KILMANY: Having listened to the debate for the last few minutes, I am bound to say that I feel there is a good deal of substance in what my noble friend Lord Selkirk has said, and I very much hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will think again before he definitely says "No" to what he has been asked to attend to.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am perfectly prepared to think about this again, but the difficulties are these. In the first place, do we want to have disqualifications in the case of Scotland that differ considerably from disqualifications in England and Wales?
THE EARL OF BALFOUR: I am sorry to interrupt my noble friend, but is it not the case that either we have disqualifications for Commonwealth citizens or else, because they may have been sentenced overseas, they can come here and go immediately into local government if they want to, or stand for election? The Bill as I read it does not cover anybody who has been sentenced in the Commonwealth, irrespective of the crime. I think that is the point, and I ask my noble friend to look at it again.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My noble friend may say that that is the point, but it is not the point I was talking about. I am saying that we have to consider the relativities of qualifications in Scotland and in England and Wales. My noble friend is of course quite right, in theory at any rate, that a person having been sentenced for something and having served his sentence in the past five years, immediately on being let out of prison
1178
might come over here to start a fresh life and might stand for election as a representative in a local government area. Of course he might; but we have I think to consider the realities of these things—the prospects of his getting nominated, and so on, in circumstances of that kind. May I also say that we are not thinking only of Commonwealth citizens: we are thinking of British citizens who may have been sentenced abroad and then come back to stand for election here. We have not so far thought fit to include this in the disqualifications, but it is, again, another difficulty. If a British citizen is to be debarred for a crime committed in the Commonwealth, why should he not also be debarred for a crime committed in another part of the world? I think we have to get some kind of logic into this. It is not as easy as it looks; there are difficulties. But we think that, having regard to the realities of the situation, it is not necessary to do this, least of all in Scotland because the number of Commonwealth citizens coming into Scotland are proportionately less than those coming into certain parts of England and Wales.
LORD SHEPHERD: Perhaps I could help the noble Lord. Would it not be a fact that if there was a Commonwealth immigrant with such a record the likelihood of his getting a permit to take up residence in this country would be extremely remote, certainly in Scotland?
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am obliged to the noble Lord, but I was taking the extreme case, where he had got away with it.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I must say that I find it very hard to understand why the noble Lord should not change this and simply say that anyone who has been convicted and sentenced anywhere to not less than three months' imprisonment should not be competent to stand for local government. If that is what he wants, why not put it in? I really think that we want a measure of logic about this matter. I am not thinking, of course, of people sentenced to three months: I am thinking of scoundrels. If a scoundrel comes here there should be an absolute bar which can be enforced. The argument that sentencing may be different in different countries is, with

1179
respect, quite illogical. If it is valid in this country, it should be valid over a wider sphere.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I note that there is some support for this proposal. My advice at the present time is that it would be difficult to do this, but in view of what the noble Earl has said I will take another look at it to see whether it would in fact be practicable. We have a little time before the next stage to do that, because obviously it is a rather complicated matter.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I am grateful to the noble Lord. I felt a sort of conservative obstinacy in the noble Lord's approach to this problem: that this is the law at present, and why should we change it? But now he changes to quite a different line and says it might be difficult. I said at the beginning that it might be difficult; and, of course, if it is not known, then it is not known. But where this is known then it can be effective. I am very happy to accept what the noble Lord has said, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 31 agreed to.
Clauses 32 and 33 agreed to.
THE EARL OF BALFOUR THE EARL OF BALFOUR moved Amendment No. 59:
After Clause 33, insert the following new clause:
Declaration by member elected by local authority
" .A person who is elected by a local authority as a member of the authority shall, before attending a meeting or otherwise acting as a member of the authority, sign a declaration that:—

(a) none of the disqualifications for office set out in section thirty one of this Act apply in his case:

(b) he is otherwise qualified for election in terms of section twenty nine of this Act:

(c) he accepts office as a member of the authority; and

(d) he will faithfully perform the duties of the office;

and any person attending a meeting or otherwise acting as a member of an authority before signing such declaration, or signing such a declaration knowing any statement therein to be false, shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds."
The noble Earl said: Throughout my time as a member of a local authority I have always signed a declaration very
1180
much on the lines of this Amendment. I admit that the words, "by a local authority" in the first line of my Amendment are wrong. There will be no co-option, so those words would not apply; otherwise the new clause reads reasonably satisfactorily. I regret to say that I have not managed to find these words in the Bill. It happens that I have never had to fight an election, but I have always had to sign a declaration that I will perform my duties efficiently. I presume that this point must be covered somewhere. I beg to move.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My noble friend is quite right: it is contained in Clause 7(3). His Amendment says:
"A person who is elected by a local authority as a member of the authority shall … sign a declaration…."
This relates only to co-option and is already covered in the Bill.
THE EARL OF BALFOUR: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 34 to 36 agreed to.
Clause 37 [Filling of casual vacancies]:
4.31 p.m.
LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved Amendment No. 59A:
Page 19, line 39, after ("election") insert ("(a)")
The noble Lord said: This is a paving Amendment for No. 59B and deals with the question of co-option. The Bill changes the law in this respect in that at present there is a power, a very wide power, to co-opt members to a local authority as the authority may decide. In the Bill there is no provision for co-option in any circumstances. If a vacancy occurs more than six months before the end of the Council's term of office it will be filled by means of a by-election. But if the vacancy occurs in the six months before an ordinary election is due it will remain, unless there are so many vacancies that the council is reduced by one third. The second possibility is so remote that one wonders why it is in the Bill at all. I have never heard of a council where the vacancies were so numerous, whether from resignation, death or imprisonment, that

1181
one third of the council went from the scene.
What is very common is that a single vacancy occurs, and there are a number of authorities in the country which are run on Party lines. In my home town, in the last seven or eight years, neither side has ever had a majority of more than one, and for a period of three years or six years there was equality. Decisions rested entirely on the casting vote of the Lord Provost. I think that it might be bad for government if, during the last six months of a council's life, because a vacancy was created, the majority in the council changed. There could be a situation where for the last six months of the council's existence there was a complete futility, in that the new majority might spend a considerable part of the time electioneering in the way of undoing decisions taken in the previous period. That is not the sort of thing which leads to good government.
My Amendment would permit a local authority to co-opt a member, if a vacancy occurred during the last six months of the council's term of office. I emphasise that it is only during this period that the Government are not providing that there should be an election. But I think it is important that if a council wishes to co-opt in those circumstances it should be free to do so. If the control of a council were unaffected by a single vacancy, or even two vacancies, within the six months, probably the council would not bother to do anything about it. But I think it right that good government should be made possible for the whole four years. Or, if one looks at it from the political point of view, the minority might say that it would be equally effective that bad government should at least be continuous right up to the end of the term, and that the electors should decide whether what had been done was good or bad. But we ought not to create a sort of "lame duck" situation in the last six months of the council's period of office.
LORD BURTON: I am sure that we were interested to hear the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, expounding the disadvantages of having political councils.
LORD HUGHES: The noble Lord, Lord Burton, is not usually so misunderstanding as that.
LORD DRUMALBYN: Perhaps what my noble friend Lord Burton means is that the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, is looking at this as a matter of fact at present; irrespective of whether it is desirable or not. Is not that right? I am bound to tell the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, that his Amendment is defective because he has linked it with subsection (2):
"Where a casual vacancy in any such office occurs within six months before the date of the next election …"
There is then the remainder of subsection (2), which he does not seek to amend, after which he wishes to add a provision for co-option which does not fit in very well with the words:
"where an election under subsection (1) above is not held, the vacancy shall be filled at the next ordinary election."
The drafting of the Amendment is defective, if I may say so, but I agree that there is a good deal in the noble Lord's argument. There are considerations both ways. There could always be extreme cases whatever we do, such as the case which the noble Lord mentioned. But if he will be good enough to withdraw the Amendment, we will look at the matter again before the next stage.
LORD HUGHES: I am quite happy to do so. Had I thought there was only a defect in the drafting that would affect the issue, I would have had the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, draft the Amendment for me. The noble Earl seems to be establishing a reputation as a draftsman—and perhaps a record for the number of Amendments withdrawn. But I will join him in that and ask leave to withdraw the Amendment, on the assurance that the Minister has given.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 37 agreed to.
Clause 38 [Disability of members of authorities for voting on account of interest in contracts, etc.]:
4.39 p.m.
LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved Amendment No. 60:
Page 20, line 11, leave out ("fact") and insert ("nature of his interest").
The noble Lord said: This Amendment relates to a matter that is giving a great deal of concern at the present

1183
time in respect of the declaration of interest by members of a council. I had better say in advance that I do not claim to be a draftsman, and if I am told that the drafting is defective I will immediately accept that that is the case. What I am certain about is what the Bill is doing and what I want to do. The Bill deals with two types of people who have to declare an interest; one is the member and the other is the official. The Bill says that if a member of a council has a pecuniary interest, direct or indirect, and is present at a council meeting, he should declare the fact. What takes place at present is that if a member attends a meeting he stands up and says, "I beg to declare an interest". But he does not say what the interest is. He does not say whether he is employed at the works as a janitor, or whether he is a major shareholder, or whether he is interested in a contract, or whatever it may be. He merely says, "I beg to declare an interest". Then he takes no further part in the proceedings. That complies with the law. Instead of merely declaring an interest he should declare the nature of that interest. I want him to be more specific than he has to be at present. That is the object of Amendment No. 60.
It will save time if I may, with permission, speak also to Amendment No. 61. This deals with the other part of the matter, the part which is similar to that dealt with in Clause 68. The clause we are now discussing deals only with the declaration that has to be made if a member is present at a meeting when the matter is being considered. Let us assume that someone wishes to evade the law. Let us assume that he has something to conceal. He is not going to risk breaking the law by taking part and helping to get the business through; for by concealing his interest he is going to place himself in a difficult position. A man who wants to do something underhand will be careful, as things now are, to declare an interest and to arrange for someone else to do the work for him, or to absent himself from the meeting. If he absents himself from the meeting he is under no obligation to declare an interest.
Let me now, if I may, read Clause 28 of the Bill:
1184
"If it comes to the knowledge of an officer employed, whether under this Act or any other enactment, by a local authority that a contract in which he has any pecuniary interest, whether direct or indirect (not being a contract to which he is himself a party), has been, or is proposed to be, entered into by the authority or any committee thereof, he shall, as soon as practicable, give notice in writing to the authority of the fact that he is interested therein."
It goes on to apply the same conditions to that officer as apply to a member. My second Amendment takes care of the situation where a man has an interest in a matter but is not present at the meeting, either through accident or intention or because he is not a member of the committee concerned. My second Amendment would require in these circumstances that if a member becomes aware of the fact that such a matter is going to take place or has taken place he shall take exactly the same action as the officer of the local authority is required to take: that is, he should notify in writing the nature of his interest. I can see no reason why in a matter of this kind in which there is so much public interest at the present time there should be a stricter set of rules for officers of local authorities—who are much less likely to have an interest in contracts—than there is for members of the authority. I beg to move.
THE EARL OF CROMARTIE: I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, on this Amendment. As he knows, we have recently had a vast increase in matters in which a great deal of money is concerned: I refer to oil and to consequent heavy interests in building. This problem has exercised our minds for some time as a county council and I would strongly support the noble Lord on this Amendment.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I referred to this issue in the course of the Second Reading. I have an Amendment down later which touches on this subject but which I think is greatly inferior to the one that the noble Lord. Lord Hughes, has put down. He has taken the case of anyone who is not a member of a particular committee—and that is very important—and of the need to state the nature of the interest. For a long time we have had close rules about contracts but we now have in relation to planning permission a far more difficult matter than in relation to contracts. As my

1185
noble friend Lord Cromartie knows, the values involved in planning permission can be colossal.
My approach to this problem is this. The great majority of people who go into local government are perfectly honest people. We have a duty to see that no temptation comes to them that would divert them from the standards they held before they went into local government. We should make it as difficult as possible for anyone to transgress. The second side, which is just as important, is that the public should know that members of local authorities would have the utmost difficuty in doing anything to their own advantage. I believe that the wording which Lord Hughes has used is good wording. I am not going to say that it cannot be improved—probably the Government can do something about that—but the lines are sound, and I hope the Government will accept the Amendment or undertake to produce something closely parallel to what is intended by it.
LORD BALERNO: I should like to support the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Hughes. So far as I recollect, I was the only speaker on the Second Reading of this Bill who drew attention to the state of affairs which is occurring in Scotland at the present time and which probably has been going on for a rather longer time than we suspect. I then particularly welcomed Clause 40 which I think meets a great many of the points raised in this debate. It is that a book should be kept in which members of authorities will record their own and their spouses' interest in any particular subject and that this book will be made available for examination by any local government elector. I welcome what the Government have done in this matter. I am sure that when it is appreciated that it exists, it will be very widely welcomed throughout the country. I am grateful to the Government for what they are doing—and to put a little extra polish on it, Lord Hughes' suggestion is a very good one.
THE EARL OF BALFOUR: I, too, would support this Amendment. I think that Lord Hughes has raised a vitally important point. So far as Amendment No. 60 is concerned, I feel that there may be either a declaration of the nature of the interest or possibly—and I should like
1186
Lord Hughes to consider this—that the member simply leaves the meeting. It might not be strong enough; but on one or two occasions I have been involved in such situations and whenever a matter has arisen in which I have an interest I have just left the meeting. I refused to discuss anything about it with anybody. It once happened over something which was then a little embarrassing (and is so to-day) and I should not have liked to resign from the council because of this one item. I backed right out of it; I had nothing to do with it. If that was possible, it would achieve a lot of points. A matter to which I have strong objection is that of a member who might be quite a senior employee with a building firm being present when a building contract comes up to be discussed. I feel that that person at that meeting could gain information that an outsider could not get. That is wrong. That person should not have attended the meeting. I must say I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, for putting down this Amendment. I am sure we all feel that the tighter we make these regulations the better.
LORD BURTON: I agree that this Amendment has much to commend it. I am a little worried, however, about the words, "If it comes to the knowledge of a member". It will not be very easy to know whether a member did or did not know about the matter in question. It could be said that he should have known about it if he had read all his papers. But he may not be on the committee. We all know that we shall have a great deal of paper work to read, and it may be that he did not know about the matter. I do not want to interfere with the Amendment, but I feel that the question of whether he did or did not know about it should be looked at.
LORD HUGHES: I was not too happy about these words, but I adopted them because they are the form of words in the Bill in relation to an officer. This seems to me, in one sense, to be quite satisfactory because a comparatively minor matter could arise which affected an individual—an indirect pecuniary interest—and he did not know it had taken place because it was so insignificant. In such circumstances, we must give a man the benefit. It would obviously be a defence to say: "I did not even know

1187
that it had come up." This is why I think in the case of an officer, and in the case of the member, the matter is conditional upon the words "If it comes to his knowledge". We are really concerned here to ensure that no councillor or official on a matter of substance enables something to be done for his benefit by concealing information which might change the position if the council were aware of it. That is what we want to prevent.
I cannot believe that any member or official of a committee, with something of that kind coming up, would not know about it. The noble Earl, Lord Cromartic, referred to large building contracts in the oil industry. Just imagine a contract running into some hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of pounds and a director of a company saying: "I did not say anything about it because I did not know about it." Some people might believe that; but if they did, they ought not to be members of local authorities—which brings in another point, whether a man is of sound mind if he believes that sort of thing.
I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say on this matter. I honestly believe that the Bill does not go far enough. I want to emphasise the fact that it is my opinion that the number of people in local government who are doing things that they ought not to do is a very small proportion of the total. Any tight piece of legislation of this kind will not affect or worry the great mass of individuals, because they are never going to be doing anything which might be an infringement of the law. Most of them will have no interest to conceal at any time; and most of them, if they have an interest, remote or otherwise, are only too ready to make it known. They do as the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, does—it is the commonest procedure: they say exactly what the interest is, and then go away. Nobody is then under any misunderstanding. That is not what we are concerned about. We are concerned about the individual who is trying to do the wrong thing, and we want to make it as difficult as possible for that individual to get away with it.
THE EARL OF PERTH: On that last point, raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, and also by the noble Earl, Lord
1188
Balfour, I do not think the draft, as it stands, ensures that a man might have to go away. Clearly there are occasions when he ought to be asked by those present to go. I should hope that that would be taken into account in any drafting. The wording is merely that he should declare his interest, and not take part in the consideration, and so on. That is not enough. I should hope that we could so tighten up the draft that it would be open to the authority to say: "Please leave the room" rather than that he should sit and listen.
4.56 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: The more I have listened to what has been said, the more I am convinced that everybody wants the same thing, but that it is a very complicated matter. I am quite certain that we all want to achieve what the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, has indicated. We want to see that not only the opportunities for somebody being able to use his position to bring decisions his way should be avoided, but also that people should not be allowed to use the council, so to speak, as a means of obtaining early information. There are those two aspects. I am not entirely in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, in equating the position of the member with the officer of an authority, because the essential difference between them is that the officer has no opportunity to declare his interest, as he does not normally attend meetings unless he is the clerk, the adviser to a particular committee, or something of that kind.
As to the first point, that of declaring the nature instead of merely the fact of an interest, so far it has been considered sufficient to declare the fact and to remain silent, and not to leave the discussion. Declaring the nature gives rise to certain tricky little problems. Do you have to declare the full nature every time there is a discussion on the particular matter? With what degree of accuracy and detail must you declare it? There are difficult little points like that, and I am bound to mention them.
On the general point I think my noble friend Lord Balerno gave the reason; namely, that we have left it as the fact, so far, because we have introduced Clause 40, which provides optionally for the full disclosure of interests to be recorded and

1189
to be available for public inspection. So that not only will the clerk have notice in advance of any interests of members that they have disclosed, but so will the other members present. I have certainly found in another place that my fellow Members were quick to draw attention to any failure to disclose a known interest on the part of any Member of the House. It is more difficult to secure a disclosure of an interest that is not known. But here, of course, tied to subsection (1) is the sanction of a fine not exceeding £200, unless he did not know that the contract was the subject of consideration at the meeting. There is there the need to declare the fact, coupled with the fine. There is, furthermore, the register, which can act as a permanent notice to everybody of the interest in question.
I am not absolutely certain that we should be justified in making this change, or that if we did this would be the right way to go about it. I think I should draw to the attention of your Lordships the fact that the Prime Minister, speaking in another place on May 3 of this year, referred to the general question of a code of conduct in public life, and said that he was studying the part relating to local government. So the whole question of a code of conduct is under consideration. It may be that your Lordships, while sharing the views of everyone who has spoken to-day, may feel that in anticipation of this general consideration it would be a mistake to make a change at this time.
As I have said, I think we are all in sympathy with the general intention of the noble Lord, but I think it would be a mistake at the present time to make up our minds definitely. It may be that we shall be able to make further progress before the next stage, but my guess would be that it would take rather longer than that and that we should try to get simultaneous changes in England, Wales and Scotland.
LORD HUGHES: I can appreciate the point about the general view, and obviously it is desirable that the same sort of conditions should apply throughout the whole country. If that decision is known before we come to the next stage and if the code has been worked out, obviously the way will be clear for the Government to submit such Amendments to the Bill as will fit in with the code.
1190
Because I am quite certain that if a code of conduct for local authorities is produced and goes no further than this Bill, the Prime Minister can prevent a lot of time from being wasted by many people, because they need not look at it any further if that is all that is going to come out of it. But if something more effective is to take place, then obviously we ought not to wait for a change in the English legislation before we take the opportunity of doing something about it in Scotland. After all, it would not be the first time that Scottish legislation has set the pattern for what is subsequently done South of the Border—though in present circumstances we find that once the English decide to follow our example we then decide to go back to what we were doing before, as for instance we are doing with water.
If it is not possible to do some tightening up of procedure under the Bill, would the Minister consider with his right honourable friend the possibility of taking administrative action by circularising local authorities and giving guidance on the way they feel this should be done?—for instance, making it quite clear that just getting up and saying, "I beg to declare an interest", is not what the Government expect to be done, because such a statement is of no use whatever. If the Minister is willing to look at these points, then I shall be happy to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
THE EARL OF BALFOUR: I should like to say just one or two words. If a guide could be given to setting a first-class standard for local rules for a local authority—such as our own Standing Orders, for example—I think this would go a long way.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am most grateful to the noble Lord for making two very valuable suggestions. I shall most certainly respond to what he has said to see whether between now and the next stage of the Bill these are practicable.
LORD TAYLOR OF GRYFE: I am sorry to delay your Lordships on this matter, but I wonder whether, following the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, that some administrative guidance might be given, in the declaration of interest we should define the nature of the interest. Shareholding is becoming

1191
rather dispersed, and it could be that people have a fairly remote interest in a particular matter. I think even the area of the Co-operative Society's involvement is one that might be covered by such administrative guidance.
LORD HUGHES: But is this not covered in the following clause. Clause 41(6), where the interest is in fact such a small one that it does not disqualify a person?
LORD DRUMALBYN: Yes. I think what the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, was referring to was a dispersal of an interest. If one has an interest in, say, a unit trust which again has a certain holding, it is difficult to determine exactly what that proportion is. The matter may perhaps not be as simple as that, but it illustrates the problem.
LORD HUGHES: This clause refers to cases where a holding does not exceed £1,000 or one-hundredth of the total nominal value of the issued share capital in a particular unit trust. There are not many people who own more than 1 per cent. in a particular trust. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD BURTON LORD BURTON moved Amendment No. 63:
Page 20, line 16, leave out ("£200") and insert ("£500 or 6 months in prison or both").
The noble Lord said: Here we have a derisory penalty of only £200 for corruption. We discussed this subject at our county council meeting last week and it was unanimously agreed that this was a ridiculous penalty. It is absolutely no deterrent and I feel it is very important that the punishment should be made to fit the crime. This question was also discussed in another place and a much larger penalty was suggested there than I have suggested. I would not be against that. The arguments given for not accepting it were that we should not be different from England. The noble Lord on the Front Bench has just had a reply on that point from the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, and I was also glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, rebutting it just now. There seems to be no reason why in Scotland we should not have something different from England, particularly if we are im-
1192
proving the Bill—and this would undoubtedly improve it.
The other reason that was given was that there was no demand for a higher penalty. During the course of the last year, since the English Bill went through, some extremely unsavoury cases have come to light. In particular, there is one in which a penalty of £200 would be absolutely ridiculous. Therefore I beg to move that the penalty should be increased to £500—and if any noble Lord wishes to propose more I should be only too happy—or six months in prison, or both.
LORD HUGHES: My noble friend, Lord Hoy, has given me a very good reason for making it more in Scotland than it is in England: if it is £500 in Scotland and £200 in England we may encourage all the corrupt people to go South of the Border.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I certainly would not rely on the argument in this case that we should not do anything different from England. I think the point of the argument, so far as people coming in from abroad or committing offences abroad are concerned, is rather different from the point we have here. There is a different quality about that argument. We should bear in mind that the offence here is not the offence of corruption but of failure to disclose an interest—which may be quite a different matter—or else the offence of taking part in a consideration or discussion of a contract as well. There are of course separate penalties under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The actual offence of corruption is governed by the Act, under which on conviction on indictment it is possible to get two years' imprisonment or a fine of £500, or, on a summary conviction, four months' imprisonment and a £200 fine. On that basis, I think that my noble friend would agree that it would be out of proportion to make it a £500 fine for simply failing to disclose an interest.
LORD BURTON: If my noble friend can assure us that if someone failed to disclose an interest when he obviously should have done and it would therefore come under this different Act which he has mentioned, then I cannot see any point in having this particular clause in

1193
the Bill. I should like to have an assurance that it would be possible to prosecute him under the other Act. If that is so, perhaps the noble Lord would consider withdrawing this clause.
LORD DRUMALBYN: We are talking of a totally different offence. One may fail to disclose an interest without actually doing it corruptly. If one is doing it corruptly, then it would be a matter for consideration by the authorities whether or not to prosecute for corruption. We are concerned only with the offence specified in subsection (1).
LORD BURTON: I thank my noble friend for that explanation, which I am sure will relieve the anxiety of a good many people. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 38 agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 39 shall stand part of the Bill?
5.10 p.m.
LORD HUGHES: I should like to ask some questions about Clause 39. Subsection (2) says:
Subsection (1) … does not apply to membership of or employment under any public body, and a member of a company or other body shall not by reason only of his membership be treated as having an interest in any contract, proposed contract or other matter if he has no beneficial interest in any securities of that company or other body."
I am foxed by what is meant by this. How can a person be a member of a company without having a beneficial interest in its security? I can think of one exception—a charitable body which is limited by guarantee, not having a share capital. I am a member of such a body, the Help the Aged Housing Association, in Scotland. That is a limited company not having a share capital. Is that what is meant by being a member of a company, but not having a beneficial interest in any of its securities?
The second point is in reference to paragraphs (a) and (b), which say:

"(a) he or any nominee of his is a member of a company or other body with which the contract was made or is proposed to be made or which has a direct pecuniary interest in the other matter under consideration; or

(b) he is a partner, or is in the employment, of a person with whom the contract was made or is proposed to be made or who has a
1194
direct pecuniary interest in the other matter under consideration."

Is a director of a company an employee in terms of Clause 39(b) and, in terms of that, does "a person" include a company or other body?
LORD DRUMALBYN: The answer to the second question certainly is, "Yes"; and I think the answer to the first question is also, "Yes". May I explain the situation, because this is a clause which starts with a wide provision in subsection (1) and then narrows it down in subsection (2). Subsection (1) covers, in effect, the case where the member, or any nominee of his, is a member of a company or other body which has a direct pecuniary interest in a contract or other matter, or the member is a partner or employee of a person with a direct pecuniary interest in the contract. These interests can arise where the member is a shareholder of a company (including a co-operative society), a trustee or a member of a society or club. Your Lordships can see how wide it is. The subsection also covers partnerships—for example, where members are in professional practice—and employment in a firm of any size. By virtue of the Interpretation Act 1889, an employee of a person includes an employee of any body of persons, corporate or incorporate.
Subsection (2) goes on to qualify subsection (1) by excluding membership of or employment under any public body and membership of a company or other body where the member has no beneficial interest in any securities of the company or body. "Public body" is defined by Clause 42—
LORD HUGHES: I am not concerned about a public body.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am trying to put the matter in perspective. A public body, as defined by Clause 42, includes nationalised industries and undertakings, and governing bodies of universities and similar institutions.
A member may have both a direct interest under Clause 39(1) and an indirect interest under Clause 40 in the same matter. An employee may have an interest in a proposed contract because it is with his firm (that is an indirect interest) and also, because it would mean overtime for him, a direct

1195
interest. If he has a direct interest he will be caught by Clause 39 because of the great width of subsection (1). Subsection (3) brings in a third class of interest through another person. This is the main burden of the provisions here. It is a matter of fact in any particular case whether there is a direct or indirect interest, and it is not always easy to distinguish it at first sight. I am speaking without being briefed on this matter, but I imagine that this is one of the difficulties in disclosing the nature of an interest, because the mere nature of an interest itself might not fully disclose the reality of interest in the particular case.
LORD HUGHES: The Minister has answered all but one of my questions. He has not told me what is meant by a member of a company who does not have a beneficial interest in any securities of that company. I may be wrong, but I thought that a "member of a company" and a "shareholder of a company" were interchangeable terms.
LORD DRUMALBYN: "Securities" is a wide term; it covers any kind of debenture, ordinary or preference shares, or anything else.
LORD HUGHES: How can a person be a member of a company if he does not have a beneficial interest in any of its securities? A director is not a member; a man can be a director of a company without having any shares. He is not a shareholder, therefore presumably he is not a member of that company. That is what I want to get at.
LORD DRUMALBYN: He might be not merely a shareholder, but a trustee as well. I understand that this is the situation. I do not think membership of a company is used, in the widest sense, to include employees. I think it relates to a member of a company in the technical Companies Act sense.
LORD HUGHES: I am sorry, but I am still not getting an answer. I am being told what he may not be; but I want to know what he is. Can the Minister of State help? He is an accountant and ought to know from his own professional experience rather than his Ministerial knowledge.
LORD POLWARTH: Certainly one category coming under this description would be a person holding shares for another person's beneficial interest, for instance as a trustee or nominee. That is a common state of affairs. So far as I know, that is the main category covered by this Amendment.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: Did I understand my noble friend to say (I think I must have misunderstood him) that because of Clause 39(2) someone would not be caught by Clause 39(1) if he had no beneficial interest in the company? He might well be a director of a company, but not hold any shares in it; in which case I should have thought technically he had no beneficial interest, particularly if he was an unpaid director.
LORD DRUMALBYN: He is either an employee—and some directors I believe could be employees—or he is a member as a director.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: I thought that subsection (2) over-rode subsection (1); that is what worries me. But I do not think we can argue the matter now.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I do not think subsection (2) over-rides subsection (1). It is simply a clarification of it.
Clause 39 agreed to.
Clauses 40 to 43 agreed to.
Schedule 7 [Meetings and Proceedings of Local Authorities]:
THE EARL OF SELKIRK THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved Amendment No. 66:
Page 165, line 39, at end insert—
("Such standing orders will make provision whereby members of the council will be informed on request of any matter for which the Council has responsibility or on which funds have been suspended.")
The noble Earl said: I beg to move this Amendment to ask a question. The local authorities write their own rules of procedure: I think they generally get a model which the Government show to them. May I ask what assurance councillors have that they are informed on questions which they ask? I certainly know of one case where this is a matter of discretion of what is sometimes called "the Establishment". I am wondering

1197
whether it is desirable to make some provision in the Bill that councillors themselves are entitled to information on matters with which the local authorities are concerned and on which they spend money. In some ways this is more important than Clause 44, which deals with the Press, and I should like to know whether the Government can give any assurance that councillors or members of a council or any local authority can be given such assurance or such rights.
LORD DRUMALBYN: As I am sure my noble friend will be aware, it is not the case that a councillor has a right to demand information which is or ought to remain confidential. So there is already that exception. So far as we know, there is no great or continuing difficulty arising out of this matter, although there may be the odd difficulty that arises every now and again. But it would be difficult to lay down by Statute a general right without impairing the right to preserve information which ought to remain confidential. If my noble friend could bring to my notice any wide range of cases where there has been a failure to provide information, then I think there would be a case to argue here, but at the moment it is difficult for me to see how we could justify Parliament's intervening in a matter which is essentially a matter for standing orders, as my noble friend has said. If he has information it might be, as he said, possible to deal with it by circular in so far as it has not already been dealt with in that way.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I accept what the noble Lord says. This is really the point. If there were a case like this, what could the noble Lord do? So far as I know, the Scottish Office could do nothing. I am only saying that, unless something is put into the Bill, they will have no power to interfere at all with the procedures which are drawn up by the local authority. This is the point I am making. The noble Lord refers to a circular, but I do not think that would be of any use. If the noble Lord does not want it, I will not press him; I am only asking him to think about it. I think it is a fundamental right of councillors to be informed, and I was wondering whether some words to that effect should not be included in the Bill itself. However, in view of the noble Lord's
1198
answer I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 7 agreed to.
Clause 44 [Admission of public and press to local authority meetings]:
On Question, Whether Clause 44 shall stand part of the Bill?
5.24 p.m.
THE EARL of SELKIRK: I am moving the exclusion of this clause to see whether I can persuade the Government to write a clause that is comprehensible. I have done my best to understand this clause and I have read the Act of 1960; but I am not very much wiser. It is extremely obscure. The 1960 Act deals with a number of other authorities—health authorities, water authorities and others—which are not wholly connected with this. I should have thought that local authorities were entitled to a clear clause on how they stand in relation to the Press. I myself am not clear on how they stand at the present time. I think that any meeting of a local authority, whether it be the full authority or one of the major committees, must allow the Press to come in and must inform the Press, unless a resolution is passed—I am not clear by whom; whether it is by the committee or whether it be by the local authority itself. Nor, may I say, am I wholly clear about an extraordinary provision—Section 1(1)(c)—in the 1960 Act, which changes the rule if there is a public telephone on the premises not belonging to the local authority. Why the existence of a public telephone should make any difference, I cannot state. But the point I am trying to make is this. Can we not have a clause clearly stating how the matter stands? This is not unimportant, and this clause is very difficult to understand as it is at present drafted.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: As the person who took the 1960 Act through the House of Lords (it was a Private Member's Bill, started in the House of Commons by the present Minister of Education, Mrs. Thatcher, and I was asked to take it through the House of Lords in 1960: it is the only Act taken through both Houses by ladies), I wish to defend it and also the particular paragraph. It is perfectly clear to me

1199
that that provision was passed in order that there should be no dubiety about meetings being open to the public and to the Press. Before that, there were meetings of county councils and committees, and so on, from which the Press were excluded. This caused a considerable amount of anxiety, and I think bad blood on occasions at these meetings. This Bill went through both Houses and the Act has now been working since 1960. I have seen it working very successfully in the councils on which I sit. The Press are of course admitted; the public are admitted. If there are times when one has to debate something in private someone can move that the Press be excluded. It is obviously reasonable to have a private debate on an individual person or an individual salary or on something the members do not want the Press to know about. In such a case the Press can be kept out. Otherwise they are present. I hope very much that this principle of allowing the Press and the public to come to meetings of councils will not be altered. I am bound to say that I do not agree with my noble friend Lord Selkirk that this provision is obscure, since it operates very well as part of the 1960 Act.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: I do not share the anxieties of my noble friend Lord Selkirk over this clause. It repeats almost word for word what became Section 100 of the English Local Government Act, and that itself was the subject of a fairly long and interesting debate in your Lordships' House. The actual clause was spewed out in the other place in the middle of night on Report. It was originally the product of the very last gasp of a Standing Committee—the very last Amendment which the other place made to that particular Act, as it now is.
The general principle, as I understand it (and I am sure that my noble friend on the Front Bench needs no help from me), is that the Press will be admitted to all deliberations of a local authority down to sub-committee level; that is to say, all meetings of the council or the authority, and all committees, but not sub-committees. I do not suppose there are many of your Lordships who would dissent from this principle. Previously, meetings of committees were held in
1200
private. But where a number of us were extremely concerned over this particular section—Section 100, as it became—was in regard to committees to whose deliberations, by the very virtue of their constitution or the type of matters they discuss, it is undesirable that the public or the Press should ever be admitted. I am thinking now of a committee which deals perhaps with staff appeals. I am not going to weary the Committee with a long list of other examples, but any of your Lordships who are in local government will readily appreciate them. There is no possibility of a staff appeals committee's ever admitting the Press or the public in their deliberations.
There were two subsections which were deleted in Committee from the English Local Government Act in your Lordships' House and which rendered it within the powers of a committee, acting properly and according to the laid down procedure, to exclude the public and the Press for a period of twelve months from all its deliberations. Unfortunately, the debate in your Lordships' House really centred on whether the Press and the public should ever be admitted to all meetings. Be that as it may, my noble friend Lord Sandford, who on that occasion conducted matters on behalf of the Government, undertook to continue thinking about the matter—I think that is the way to describe it. What I should now like to ask my noble friend is whether, to his knowledge, in England there have been further thoughts and whether those further thoughts have produced anything. In this particular instance, it is not so much a matter of principle because I think all of us are agreed that the maximum publicity, where proper, must be given to everything that a local authority does. It is a matter of procedure, to tie up, as it were, the procedures which should be adopted where a committee is never going to discuss matters that should be ventilated through the normal media of publicity.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am afraid that I am not in a position to tell my noble friend Lord Mansfield exactly what progress has been made in the consideration of this matter in England and Wales. I am sorry if my noble friend Lord Selkirk finds it difficult to understand this particular clause. I wonder whether it would help him if he knew what it meant to

1201
start with, because sometimes when you know what it means to start with you can understand it better afterwards. So if I may tell my noble friend what it is intended to mean, it may help him. But let me say first that the purport of the 1960 Act is that, in general, meetings of the local authorities and certain similar bodies—that is to say, the list of bodies given in the Schedule to the Act—are to be open to the public; and the exception to this general rule is that if the authority resolve, for reasons of confidentiality or other special reasons, to exclude the public they may do so, but they are obliged to live reasons for the exclusion.
The object of Clause 44 is mainly to extend the scope of the 1960 Act to all committees of the authority as well as the council itself. My noble friend Lord Mansfield is quite right there. It also forestalls a device which has been used to evade the spirit of the 1960 Act so far as the council is concerned; namely, that of dropping one member of the council from the meeting and to declare the meeting to be a committee, which, not then being a full council, does not fulfil the conditions of the Act. Clause 44 brings all committees, however constituted, within the ambit of the Act, so that in every case if it is desired to exclude the public, which also means the Press, they may do so, but they are obliged to give reasons for the exclusion.
As to the question of telephones, as the Press need to communicate immediately the contents of their notes, and so on, to their papers, it is thought reasonable that they should have acccess to telephones on the premises for the purpose, and where there are joint committees, or where the premises belong to the local authority or one or more local authorities appointed to the committee, they shall be treated as belonging to the committee. So the purpose of this is to extend the whole thing to the committee for the purposes of the Act and put the access to committees on exactly the same basis as access to councils at present.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I was in Singapore when the noble Baroness piloted the Bill about which she spoke, and I apologise if I was not aware of the fact that she was the sponsor. I think I did not know what it meant in the first place, but I am bound to say that,
1202
although it may be easy for the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, to understand, I do not think it is easy for other people who are immediately concerned with it. My whole point in raising it was to try to persuade the Government to write into the Bill what I understood to be the position. If they do not want to do it I do not mind very much.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I think my noble friend has made a point here at which we should look, because if it is not clear to him perhaps we should look at the clause to see whether it can be made more clear.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I thank my noble friend.
Clause 44 agreed to.
Clause 45 [Attendance allowance and financial loss allowance]:
LORD STRATHCLYDE LORD STRATHCLYDE had given Notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 67:
Page 23, leave out line 25 and insert:—
("(1) Members of regional councils shall be paid a salary. Members of other councils").
The noble Lord said: As there are other Amendments on the Marshalled List with the same object in view, I do not now intend to move this Amendment.
5.35 p.m.
THE EARL OF CROMARTIE THE EARL OF CROMARTIE moved Amendment No. 68:
Page 23, line 25, at end insert ("other than a councillor for a region").
The noble Earl said: With your Lordships' permission, as this Amendment leads on into my Amendment No. 70 I shall take the two together. This is a difficult position. I realise this because I have spent a good many years thinking about it and have only recently come up with what I believe to be my final decision. It is a matter for the consideration of your Lordships and also it is in the interests of that much abused word "democracy". I fear that in the great area of the Highland region, where lack of transport facilities and sometimes climatic conditions are quite dissimilar from the smaller Southern regions, the less affluent would-be candidates might be discouraged from standing. As I mentioned during the Second Reading debate,

1203
there could be a danger of regional members, who in any case will be occupied on local government business for many days in the month, holding unnecessary meetings at the expense of the ratepayer. I do not say that this would necessarily happen, but it could happen. In the change of local government, conditions in which we have served for many years are radically altered and I, with others, have come to the conclusion that the answer is that regional and not district councillors should be paid. I beg to move.
LORD POLWARTH: Before other noble Lords intervene, I think I should be right in saying that as there are several subsequent Amendments dealing closely with the same subject with only small variations we might be in order if those noble Lords interested in them took the opportunity to debate the subject in general on this first Amendment.
LORD TAYLOR OF GRYFE: I am delighted to acept the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, that these matters might be discussed together, because they raise a very important principle in connection with the future of local government. The issue that is at stake here is very clear; namely, whether we should pay members of local authorities or whether they should be provided for by means of attendance allowances. I suspect that if this enactment were passed, the Secretary of State for Scotland, whose duty it would be to decide on the rate of the salaries to be paid, would look at the situation so far as the responsibilities are concerned. The noble Earl, Lord Cromartie, has indicated his concern for the Highland region. I am also concerned with the fact that the Strathclyde region will be responsible for 2 million people and the responsibilities of a regional councillor in Strathclyde are very considerable. In fact, my Amendment would permit the Secretary of State for Scotland to extend the principle to other members of local authorities. If we take the Glasgow district council prior to its reduction in size as from yesterday's date, if the council was responsible for more than a population of 1 million it may be that in discharging his responsibilities the Secretary of State would look at the whole field of service in local
1204
government and make decisions appropriate to the responsibilities of regions and districts.
The Amendment does not state any sum and I think this is appropriate, for the reason I have just suggested. It is a fundamental principle of democracy that all men and women who wish to give public service should be available to give public service without penalty. I suggest that the arrangements whereby they are given the expenses and allowances, plus the day-to-day allowances mentioned in the Bill, are less attractive than being paid a straight salary. It may be said that people will be available for this service who are already in receipt of substantial salaries from other duties. In that event, the salaries would attract a tax liability and so the State would recover a substantial amount of the additional salary paid to people in that position.
I have had some experience of local government in the city of Glasgow. I was a fellow-councillor with the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, for a number of years. The problem of people claiming on local authorities for expenses and so on has always been a very difficult one. In this particular case we are getting away from the old loss of earnings claim, and I am glad that this is so. I think to receive a salary for the job carries with it much greater status than to receive so much per attendance. As the noble Earl, Lord Cromartie, has said, there is a tendency, perhaps a human weakness, that if you are paid so much per day or per attendance it is quite easy, particularly if so much of your time is taken up in local government, to make it almost a full-time job and to have six meetings where perhaps two might have served. That is a danger if an attendance allowance is paid—and it is a very real danger.
Therefore, I suggest that it would be much more in keeping with the status of the job, and it would make for better government, if we were to pay a straight salary. I know that at present there are people who are serving in local authorities, who have to get time off to do so and whose salaries are reduced accordingly because they are of little value to their employer. I know from cases in the organisation with which I was associated that this is so. There is a further penalty on people, because their

1205
superannuation and pension expectancy is based on a much reduced salary. If we paid a straight salary it might be better. We are initiating new government here and we want it to be better government. I suggest that this principle might be a contribution to better government.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: I rise to support the Amendment just moved. If I may say so as a preamble, it seems to me that if we are to obtain the highest possible level of efficiency in local government it is surely necessary that we should encourage and succeed in attracting to serve as councillors capable men and women from social and financial backgrounds who can give service of the highest quality. I think it is now generally accepted that councillors should receive payment for their services and that they should be able to recover in addition inescapable out-of-pocket expenses. The Bill proposes that payment should be in the form of attendance allowances and financial loss allowances. I strongly support this Amendment as against the suggestion in the Bill.
I want to point out the differences which arise and what should happen. The Amendment states that payment should be by way of salary, and for this reason it seems to me that prospective candidates should be quite aware of how their finances are going to be affected on their becoming councillors. If they are partners in a professional firm, or in some form of business, their partners will wish to know to what extent the finances of the firm will be affected before giving permission to their partner to undertake this public service. Where the payment is by salary no difficulty is likely to arise, for most partnership agreements stipulate that all the earnings of the partners are paid into the firm. On the other hand, where payment is by attendance allowance there is a temptation—I put it no higher than that—to prolong business and to multiply meetings and the number of attendances available. Where salary is paid there is no such temptation. Business will be expedited; everyone will want it to be dealt with in a businesslike way and as speedily as possible, and meetings will be kept to the minimum number necessary for the proper and efficient conduct of affairs.
1206
It is only in these circumstances that active men and women, busy and usefully employed elsewhere, will be attracted to serve as councillors.
Let me say that there is another advantage in the payment of a salary. It is that by expediting business it will allow highly paid officials to spend more time in their offices dealing with council business instead of interminably attending meetings. As this is a matter of great importance, I believe, in getting the proper people to serve as councillors, I hope that the House will support the Amendment which has been spoken to by the noble Lord opposite, and that my noble friend on the Front Bench will find himself able to accept it.
LORD STRATHEDEN AND CAMPBELL: This is an extremely difficult problem. When I first gave evidence to the Wheatley Commission, some seven or eight years ago, I opted for an attendance allowance, but at that time the whole matter was very much in the air; there had never been any question of paying county councillors or local government councillors at all. Having considered it further, after a great deal of thought I am now in favour of the Amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, with one condition, which I think makes it extremely difficult to accept: that there must be a different salary paid to the councillor for the Strathclyde region from that which is paid to the councillor for the Borders region. There is no comparison at all in the amount of work which will be involved in those two jobs. I do not know why that cannot be done. It is perfectly competent, I should have thought, for the Secretary of State, who will have to lay down the amount of salary anyway, to lay down the amount of salary either on a per capita basis or in some such way so as to make it a fair and reasonable salary for each of the different regions. I support the Amendment of the noble Lord.
5.49 p.m.
THE EARL OF BALFOUR: I should like to say a few words in opposition to the payment of a salary. First and foremost, we have an excellent example in this your Lordships' House: that is, that democracy will work only if the ordinary man is prepared to give up his own free time to make it work. If he has not got

1207
that free time, he should not stand as a councillor anyway. Furthermore, let us consider what has really happened.
LORD TAYLOR OF GRYFE: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Earl, but is not the point that he can then make free time if he is paid a salary, whereas if he is not paid a salary, if he is in employment from nine to five, he cannot have the free time necessary to discharge this duty?
THE EARL OF BALFOUR: In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, if a person does suffer loss of earnings there are special provisions in this Bill, as there were in the 1947 Act, that the employer must give him time off to attend to council duties; also, as an employee, he gets the loss of income allowance, which I must admit is not nearly generous enough. But there are such provisions, and so far as I know they work quite well. To the best of my knowledge, even in the big cities the position of Lord Provost is not considered as a full-time appointment. He is not expected to be on duty every day of the week. In future, the cities will become second tier authorities with less work to do. Equally, we shall be in the position of having the whole of local authority functions divided in half, roughly half going to the region and half to the district; so that in many ways, certainly at district level, there will be less work to do as a councilor than there is at the present moment. Now a local authority councillor deals with all the functions—education, roads, planning, and so on.
I should like my noble friend to consider a generous allowance on a daily basis, paid roughly in the same way as that in your Lordships' House is paid, and not something for the forenoon and something for the afternoon or on an hourly basis, which will not work. Those people who have a lot of travel and work to do, such as chairman of the education committee, or Provost, should be provided, out of the expenses of a local authority, with a car which they can virtually call their own for as long as they hold the job, together with a full allowance for telephone and other expenses which I feel should be covered. I am quite certain that if we pay councillors we shall attract the wrong type of
1208
people into local government. I am certain that England came to the right conclusion when they rejected payment of councillors, and I am certain that an attendance allowance on a generous footing is what we need.
Finally, if we decide that there should be a salary, is it going to be the same salary for every regional councillor, whether he is the convener, chairman or an ordinary councillor, whatever his duties may be? If that is so, we shall get into serious difficulties. The moment the word "salary" is mentioned we come up against income tax, and the councillor may end up poorer than he is now. Do let us remember that any ordinary attendance allowance is not subject to the filling in of income tax forms or anything else; it is classed as out of pocket expenses.
THE EARL OF CROMARTIE: Before the noble Lord sits down, he did suggest giving cars to councillors? I know he lives in a rather more confined space than I do. Does he suggest that those councillors to the Islands authorities should be given a yacht?
LORD STRATHEDEN AND CAMPBELL: Again, before the noble Lord sits down, can he enlighten me further? He says that this attendance allowance is not liable to income tax. I understood that it is and that it is treated as ordinary income.
THE EARL OF BALFOUR: Not to my knowledge.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: I am bound to say that I find the purpose of this debate most difficult to follow. As I understand it, the Government are committed to providing some sort of remuneration for those who are engaged in local government. Also, as I understand it, the remuneration is to be on the basis of money received for part-time work, and it is to be taxed. This is no loss of profit allowance which is not subject to tax. As I understand it, certainly the English Local Government Act is on that basis. Therefore I find it difficult to understand why noble Lords are so passionate in regard to a salary which is taxed rather than allowances which are also taxed. Equally, my noble friend Lord Cromartie might care to reflect on whether it is better for the taxpayer to

1209
have councillors who are straining to have more meetings in order to get more allowances, or to have persons elected to the council who take their salaries without turning up to any meetings. It seems to me that there are points in favour of both those views.
I have had certain experience of this by virtue of my membership here and of the European Parliament, and I would come down on the side of allowances. I am bound to say that we argue about almost everything in six languages, but I have never yet heard anybody suggest that we have more meetings in order that our £22 should be increased. On a more serious note, I hope that members of local authorities would really not be so low as to occupy themselves with that aspect. I should have thought that if the Secretary of State, and indeed the local authorities working together, combined to make a scale of attendance allowances—which is not merely like that of your Lordships' £8·50—which is reasonably generous to take into account the work which councillors will have to do through their constituencies, not just the cost of attending meetings and the cost of missing their work on that day or whatever happens to be the case: a fairly generous attendance allowance, but not a full-time salary—it would then, I think, be up to the individual councillor to attend meetings as often as he can and he will duly claim the money in relation to each meeting he has attended.
5.57 p.m.
LORD HUGHES: I find difficulty in knowing what I want to do on this proposal in the absence of any information from the Government as to what the attendance allowance is going to be. Circumstances could arise where obviously a councillor would feel that, if the attendance allowance was sufficiently generous, he could give all the service that was needed without in any way having to arrange extra meetings in order to get more money. The noble Earl made reference to the £22 for members of the European Parliament. One wonders whether they are not out of pocket every time they attend, whether it is sufficient to give them a profit, whether they might want to spin it out there, too. The argument in relation to councillors is that
1210
if the allowance was generous, and therefore was profitable, there might be needless meetings. I rather agree, but I do not think that this is likely to be a serious factor.
There is a difficulty about salaries—and I must say that I start off with a preference for salaries rather than allowances—but the Amendment which my noble friend Lord Taylor of Gryfe has moved tries to take account of this particular difficulty, namely that the nature of the duty will vary enormously from one authority to another. Some of the very small districts in the Highlands which have had to be created because of the great distances involved may have many fewer meetings than, for instance, a district of Glasgow. My noble friend's proposal would make it possible for the Secretary of State to fix different salaries for different councillors in different regions. While this would be possible, I certainly should not like to be in the shoes of the Secretary of State if he were to say that a regional councillor in region A would get £3,000, whereas a person in region F (and I am carefully not naming them, in case it should be thought I am attributing value to their services) would get £1,500, in district B £2,000 or in district X £500. He would be inundated with protests. This is where I presume the Government see the attraction of the daily allowance. It will be governed by the volume of work to be undertaken. In the bigger authority, presumably the people will have more work to do and will legitimately be involved more often. I do not know whether that is how it will work.
We all have our ideas about what an appropriate salary would be. Figures have been mentioned: £2,000, £2,500 or £3,000 for regions; £1,000 or £1,500 at district council level. All we have in relation to allowances is the supposed leak that the Secretary of State or Secretaries of State were considering an attendance allowance, taxable, of somewhere between £12 and £16 a day, plus, in particular cases, the subsistence and travelling allowances, which of course would be non-taxable. If the allowances were sufficiently generous, then I might be attracted to them rather than salaries. But of course, if the Government's idea of a generous allowance was something like £5, £6 or £7 a day—or even £8·50, I should not agree, and in

1211
those circumstances the argument for salaries would be overpowering.
I should like the Minister to make some statement about what the range of allowances might be, but I do not expect that he will be able to do so. If he were in a position to do so, it would be much easier for all concerned to say whether they favour attendance allowances or salaries. I do not expect that we shall reach a decision on this point to-day, but if it were to come to Report stage and the Government had not made up their mind about attendance allowances, then I suspect the House would almost certainly be forced into the position of putting a stated salary in the Bill. The Minister said on Second Reading that the local authorities are not to be elected until May next year, so that there is plenty of time for the Government to arrive at a decision. I want to disabuse the Minister of that idea. One of the difficulties which the Parties or associations are already having is to find out on which authority people are willing to be nominated. The membership of a regional body, certainly of a larger region, is going to be virtually a full-time job.
I spoke to a very able councillor in my own part of the world the other day, and said to him, "I suppose you will be going for the region". He said, "Well, at the moment I think not". I asked him why. He replied, "I have a very good job, but if I am going to hang on to my job I must give a reasonable amount of service to my employer. If I go on a regional authority, and I am going to be engaged three or four days a week, I would not expect my employer to continue my employment, because I should not be able to give him the sort of service he needs. If that were to be the case, I would have to decide what the alternative was." If it were a totally inadequate allowance, the answer of that man would be, "I will go on the district authority, where I shall be perfectly able to do my job and attend the meetings, because in that particular area it is almost certain that the new authority will meet in the evenings, so that the work will not interfere with my employment." But I am quite certain that in many cases regional councils will not be able to arrange for evening meetings. So that position is much more urgent than being related to the date of the election. The
1212
decision ought to come in time for people to make up their minds where best they can give their service, at regional or district level. I think it would be wrong if large numbers of people opted for the district because they did not think they could afford to be members of the regional authority.
6.5 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: May I say one word on this subject, as I have an Amendment down? I think that if the Government want to get a new spirit in local authorities they will have to pay something that looks very like a salary. I honestly do not believe that they will get the nature of the change which we all believe is fundamental unless something like this is done. I think the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, put his finger right on it when he said there is a dignity in the office which comes from payment of a salary which I do not think would come from daily attendance allowances. I am not sure that this House is a good example, or the European Parliament. There are already stories going around about the European Parliament—not, if I may say so, about our members, but about other members. I am not going to say whether they are right or wrong, but there are stories going round. I wonder whether it matters if we do have different salaries. When a man goes to a job he knows exactly what he is going to get; he knows that before he goes into it.
May I add one other point? I suppose that we in Scotland must be tied to England. Is this really the position we are in; that we dare not make any decision, whatever our requirements are, unless they fall in with those of our neighbours? If that is so, I should have thought it is not much use continuing the discussion very much longer.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: May I intervene for one further moment? I am afraid I did not succeed in making clear that one of the particular attractions of the salary system is that it will enlarge the area from which candidates will come and to a very considerable extent. I know this from experience. For many years I was responsible for getting candidates for the City of Glasgow Council, and I found time and time again that the partners in businesses would not allow their younger partners to come and serve because they did not know what it meant

1213
to their firms. If in fact they know that they are going to be paid a salary, of whatever sum it may be, they know that that money is not being lost to the firm, as it would be otherwise. Under a salary scheme you will get quite a number of excellent candidates whom you would not get under the allowances provisions.
LORD BURTON: I am very much in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, on this point. It is an extremely complicated issue. I came in with a completely open mind. Having listened to the debate, I am rather inclined to come down on the side of allowances. There is a tremendous variation, not only from region to region and from district to district, but even with individual councillors within those districts. Take, for instance, our own Highland district: a councillor coming from Skye or Caithness would find it very much more onerous than one living just outside Inverness, if he is doing the same amount of committee work. He will have to spend so much time travelling to and from his work. I find it very difficult to know how anyone is going to fix a salary which will be reasonable and commensurate to the amount of work the individual is doing. Some councillors may well be committee chairmen or vice-chairmen. Are they going to get different salaries from the ordinary members? It seems to me that allowances would be fairer.
If I might make one further observation, I hope the Government will look at the question of loss of earnings. I think it is very difficult for a self-employed person to establish what loss of earnings he has. If you are a farmer, and perhaps employing no one else, I do not know how you work out your allowance for coming to a regional council or district council. It is quite easy for someone on a £10,000 salary to apportion the time, but for a self-employed person it is not easy to calculate loss of earnings.
LORD HOY: It is a very difficult subject. As I said not long ago, if I had had to vote that day I should have voted for salaries rather than allowances. When the noble Lord, Lord Burton, says he is inclined to come down on the side of allowances, all I would say is, do not come down too quickly or too heavily. This is a very difficult issue, and the real
1214
trouble is that the Government have put us into this difficulty. I do not say that spitefully or in any other way, but we are faced with the position that we do not know what the Government are going to do, or what they want to do. If we had the opportunity of making a choice between a salary that is going to be specified or an allowance, we could more readily make up our minds which to choose.
I know some young people who at the present time are members of the council in the city of Edinburgh. Whether one agrees or disagrees with their political views, they are of absolutely first-class calibre. What has become quite apparent is that they will certainly not go to regional councils; the time that would be demanded from them would be much too great. Some who are employees of certain associations and firms, and perhaps some in business for themselves, could not afford to give up the time that the regional council is going to demand unless they knew that all the loss in attending was not going to fall on them.
It seems to me that until such time as the Government tell us what they intend to do, we shall continue to be in this predicament. I heard the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, say, "Do you think that councillors are going to create meetings?" The noble Earl must realise that councillors are just as human as other folk. I am not going to say that they will create meetings, but indeed they are not going to continue—as we sometimes do—until 10 or 11 o'clock at night, when they can adjourn at 5 and come back the next day and finish the business at a reasonable hour. You have all these views to take into account when you are considering a question of this kind. I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, is going to tell us what the Government's decision is. Indeed, he kindly sent some of us a letter—I do not know how many—after the last debate, and made it perfectly clear that the Government were giving it "due consideration". That is not a very new answer so far as Governments are concerned. We are in this position, and it is a difficult one, because in England, where the Bill has already become an Act and been put into operation, the Government have not yet decided what they are going to

1215
pay people who are working at the present moment.
LORD BURTON: Does the noble Lord insinuate that no one is going to stand for a council until he knows what he is going to get out of it?
LORD HOY: No. If the noble Lord had been listening he would have heard me say that there are hundreds, thousands of councillors in England operating the present Act and they do not know whether they are going to get a penny out of it. They do it because they want to do it. If Parliament is going to make a change and call for greater demands on councillors so that it makes it impossible for them to earn their livelihood in the ordinary way, Parliament has no right to make those demands without paying compensation in one form or another.
That is the position that we are at, whether it is going to be a salary or allowances. We could be taken out of this difficulty if we knew what the Government proposed to do. It is not noble Lords on either side who have introduced this Bill; this is Government legislation, but the Government cannot make up their mind how they are going to pay for it. Until we get that information I do not think that we can make a decision. I should like to put on record once more that unless we get something much more constructive, or much more informative, then I remain of the opinion that I had some time ago, that a salary would be a better solution than allowances.
6.13 p.m.
LORD TAYLOR OF GRYFE: May I delay the Committee a moment or two to discuss one or two points that have been raised. The major problem is the differential in rates for different authorities. This is a serious problem, but it is not unknown in business to-day to employ people on job evaluation to assess the relative responsibilities of particular jobs. It is even done by one organisation of other organisations. I suggest that there are techniques of job analysis and job evaluation that could quite readily establish the amount of time that people have to serve in a fairly independent way, and take the responsibility off the shoulders of the Secretary of State for Scotland—though to some extent the ultimate decision will be his.
1216
The Government have said where they stand in this matter; all they have not filled in is the amount of the attendance allowance, but the Bill has said that it will be an attendance allowance and not a salary. We are seeking to secure the best form of local government and attract the best people to local government service, and the question we have to ask is whether payment of an attendance allowance or a salary is more likely to achieve these ends. I must say that if you are asking people to give public service of this kind you must give them some idea of what they are involved in in terms of expectancy of reward. To say that they will get an attendance allowance does not give anyone any information on which they can decide whether to give up their job in order to serve, and this is what many people will have to decide before they will undertake this public service. It does not tell them what adjustments they will require to make in their personal budget. If you state that the salary for this service is x amount, at least an individual who makes a decision to be a candidate for public office knows where he stands.
I would say to the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, and to the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, that what is practised in this House is not a very good precedent. We do not get an attendance allowance; we get a figure to cover our expenses bill and our hotel expenses, and this is provided for in the Act under "expenses". We do not get an attendance allowance because we attend; we have to produce certificates that we have spent £8·10, if we claim that amount, or £5 or whatever it may be. It is not a good practice. May I say to the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, that this House is probably the poorest example of an organisation which permits a broad opportunity for people to enter it. What we are talking about is calling on the whole resources of our community for public service, and to make it easier and not penalise them for offering themselves for public service. I suggest that to provide a salary makes it possible for people to plan, makes it possible for them to arrange their domestic circumstances to give this service, and by the technique of job evaluation some of the political conflicts that are visualised in the differentials between the various authorities can be avoided.
LORD BALERNO: When the Bill was first published I was strongly in favour and there has been opportunity for study of the discussions in Committee in another place, and after hearing the debate to-day, especially the arguments of my noble friend Lord Strathclyde, I want to give my support to Lord Cromartie's Amendment that the regional councillors should be paid a salary.
THE EARL OF PERTH: May I ask the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, about one point in his argument which I did not fully understand. He said that if you paid a salary it would enable a man to decide whether he should give up his other job. If I understand that aright, I find it a dangerous principle, because it may lead to a professional class who are working on this job only as salaried functionaries, and who would give up their other interests. I do not think we want that type of person all the way through. I wonder whether I was right in understanding that the noble Lord is advocating a salary so that there shall be a professional class doing this work and nothing else.
LORD TAYLOR OF GRYFE: I am sorry to intervene again, but a question has been directed to me. All I am saying is that in many areas there are working class people—not professional classes—who would require to make a decision about whether to give up their employment, because it is not easy in many forms of employment to operate part-time in this way and to give four or five hours' service to the public and three hours' service to an employer. I had to resign from my public service because I could not afford to take time off in my former employment in order to give public service. All I am saying is that for many people it will be that type of decision, and it could be better made by people knowing what is the expectancy of salary in such cases. I think it would broaden the area of selection of candidates.
LORD HUGHES: There is another way of looking at this question. I cannot say that I agreed with the noble Earl, Lord Perth, about a fixed salary bringing in a professional man. If a man is so interested in the work of, say, a regional council, and it involves so much time
1218
that he is prepared to give up his present method of earning a living, with the risk attached that he can be discharged at the end of four years' employment without any redundancy pay, superannuation or pension, simply because he has not satisfied the electors, he will not necessarily be a bad councillor because of it. The argument can be advanced that when he has put himself at risk to this extent, he will make every endeavour to be so good a councillor that his chances of re-election are greater than other people's. After all, we do not have to look any further than the other end of this building to find that that is what many Members of Parliament have had to do. They have had to give up their employment in order to be able to do a satisfactory job as Members of Parliament, and I doubt very much whether anyone would argue nowadays that those who are able to combine another job with the job of a Member of Parliament are better than those who have had to give up their outside employment and who give their whole time to being Members of Parliament.
We have not yet reached the situation, even in regional government, where we can say that being a councillor is a full-time job, but undoubtedly the feeling for salaries is almost overwhelming in the case of regional councillors, because in so many cases, even if it will not be a full-time job, it will certainly be very near it and will restrict very much the type of other work that a man is able to undertake with satisfaction, either to his own business or to his own employer, if he is to do a satisfactory job as a regional councillor. I have not the slightest doubt that that is what influenced quite a number of your Lordships to change from the general idea of allowances to the strong possibility of salaries for regional councillors.
6.24 p.m.
LORD POLWARTH: We have had an extremely interesting discussion about a subject on which, while there was a predominance of views in favour of salaries, there was equally quite a strong lesser element in favour of the opposite, while some noble Lords indicated that at present they are in doubt. It may be helpful to explain the Government's thinking on the question of the payment of councillors and how it has developed. We start with the present system of a

1219
financial loss allowance, which any councillor can claim up to a maximum of £5·50 a day, free of tax, but only if he can prove that he has actually suffered loss of income of the amount that is claimed. I think we are all agreed that this is not a satisfactory system and it should not be perpetuated. Certain classes of people have found it difficult to establish loss; the rate of take-up of the allowance is low; and there is no doubt that an unknown number are deterred from seeking office because of the inadequacy of the loss allowance.
The Maud Committee on Management of Local Government in England and Wales—and I have deliberately refrained from commenting on our neighbours to the South, because we are discussing a Scottish Bill—reporting in 1967, recommended that the financial loss allowance should be replaced by a sort of flat rate expense allowance, to be fixed by local authorities themselves and claimable by individual members in whole or in part. Then we had the Wheatley Commission which went further and came out in favour of an outright salary for all members, as a reflection of the value of the service which a councillor gave to the community. Although this salary was not to presume that the ordinary councillor was serving full-time, it was to be substantial and it was to be augmented at the discretion of the council to the extent of up to 100 per cent. in the case of those councillors who had special responsibilities, such as chairmen of committees. It was accepted that such a salary would be taxable.
The Government have no quarrel with the basic objectives of the Wheatley recommendations on this matter. We certainly want to get away entirely from the idea of financial loss allowance, with its overtones of hardship payment and the need to prove every penny spent. We want to see a simple and effective system which will be taken up by a much higher proportion of people, and we do not shy against the idea of regarding payment as a form of remuneration. However, while the payment of a salary is one way of achieving these objectives, it is not the only way and we are not convinced that it is necessarily the best way.
A number of noble Lords have made very valid points. It could be that the
1220
offering of a salary might be an inducement to people—I hope not too often—to go into local government, when they do not necessarily intend to give their maximum effort and time to the job. There is the much more real problem of how we settle the level of salary in relation to the different duties falling on those in chairmanships and ordinary councillors. There is the difficulty of deciding the level as between different regions and districts, some of which would need to have far more meetings with a greater demand on people's time. How would one come to a conclusion about who should be eligible for special responsibility payments? One can envisage acrimonious discussions internally, if this were left to each authority to thresh out. This is a very considerable draw-back to a flat rate salary, and it would be a very invidious job for a Secretary of State, or indeed for any independent body to attempt to assess the values of the services demanded as between different regions and districts.
We have therefore proposed a system which differs from the ideas of both the Maud Committee and the Wheatley Commission and which seems to us to have advantages over both. I shall not follow the analogy of your Lordships' sessional allowance, because that analogy is limited, although to some extent it will operate in the same way. But the system we propose has the advantage of simplicity; it will be easily known who is entitled to what; it will be widely taken up, because it will be payable as of right to any councillor regardless of his own income and employment; it will apply equally to regional, district and island councillors; it will deal satisfactorily—I do not mean necessarily equal in amount, but in the same way to different bodies—with chairmen of committees and "back-benchers", and the fact that chairmen of committees will be doing more work will be reflected in the amount to which they are entitled.
I should like to correct the noble Earl, Lord Balfour. These allowances will be taxable. They are allowances: they are not the reimbursement of expenses. Of course, certain travelling and subsistence expenses will be reclaimable, as at present. They will be taxable, but that is inevitable under our tax laws if we are to have a tax system which offers remuneration, as this is, just the same as it would be in

1221
the event of a salary. The amount of the allowance, I can assure your Lordships, will be fixed so as to take account of the fact that it is to be taxable.
The question of proliferation of meetings has been raised by a number of noble Lords. I know this is often alleged with regard to local government in Scotland, but to what extent it is a fact I do not know. In the first place, there will be no danger of prolonging meetings to increase the allowance because the allowance will be fixed on a maximum daily basis, and there should therefore be an incentive to finish off the day's business as expeditiously as possible.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: May I interrupt the noble Lord for a moment? He says that it will not lead to the carrying over of business. But will it not? Will they not be able to say, "We will not finish the business to-day; we will have another meeting to-morrow", and in that way get in two days?
LORD POLWARTH: With great respect, I was coming to that. I had not said that: I had said that there would be no danger of stretching out a day's meeting in order to get more. As to the question of carrying over, of proliferating meetings, I think we must have some faith in the members of these new authorities; and I am sure that the public, with their rights of admission, and the Press, with their rights of attendance, will be fairly quick to spot this kind of practice if it is developing and will bring it to the attention of local electors.
I come finally to the very tempting bait which the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, once again dangled in front of me regarding announcing the rate of allowances in order, as he told us, to enable him to make up his mind as to which horse he will back.
LORD HUGHES: I would hope not just me. Do not do it just for me: I think others will be interested also.
LORD POLWARTH: It was the noble Lord, I think, who originally raised the matter at a previous stage. I think there is a genuine difficulty here, and, as my right honourable friend the Secretary of State said in another place on July 5, we are not ready to announce this yet. We still have to consult local authority associations; we have had other more press-
1222
ing matters to consult them on in the meanwhile; and we must—and I submit to your Lordships that this is a matter of importance—have regard to the particular stage at which the Government's counter-inflation programme stands. We are also, after all, considering fixing a figure that will not commence to be payable until May of 1975. That is the better part of two years ahead. I should have thought that there were advantages in waiting till as reasonably near the first elections as possible to fix this amount, because of the distance ahead when it should first become operative.
I appreciate the wish of those standing, or intending to consider standing, to have knowledge of the figure. I doubt whether it is really quite so pressing as the noble Lord made out, as to need it at this time in relation to elections next May. I would only repeat my previous assurance that an announcement will be made in good time for the first elections in May. There is another point here. If it were a salary that we were proposing at this moment, we should find ourselves in exactly the same difficulty about announcing the amount of the salary. Having said that, and realising that there are arguments on both sides, the Government are very definitely of the view that the balance of advantage is in favour of the system we are recommending, and I would ask your Lordships to support that view.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
LORD TAYLOR OF GRYPE: I beg to move Amendment No. 69.
Amendment moved—
Page 23, line 25, leave out from ("councillor") to end of line 4 in page 24, and insert ("shall be paid such salary as the Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument determine.").—(Lord Taylor of Gryfe.)
On Question, Amendment negatived.
THE EARL OF CROMARTIE THE EARL OF CROMARTIE had given Notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 70:
Page 23, line 30, at end insert—
("( ) A councillor for a region shall be paid such salary as the Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument determine.").
The noble Earl said: I am quite prepared not to move this Amendment on one straightforward understanding.

1223
Unless we get a clearer view of what is going to happen, I shall put this Amendment down again at the next stage of this Bill. Meanwhile, I do not move this Amendment.
6.36 p.m.
THE EARL OF BALFOUR THE EARL OF BALFOUR moved Amendment No. 72:
Page 24, line 4, at end insert—
("(5) Allowances may be paid by regional island or district councils in respect of expenses reasonably incurred by their members in connection with the installation or use of telephones for the purpose of the performance of their official duties.")
The noble Earl said: Clause 45 of this Bill was taken from Section 119 of the Local Government Act 1948, Chapter 26. The subsection which I am seeking to insert into the Bill is worded in almost exactly the same way as an amendment to Section 119 by Section 36 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1966, Chapter 51—which, by the way, is being repealed by Schedule 28 to this Bill. I beg to move.
LORD POLWARTH: While I am grateful to the noble Earl for drawing our attention to this point, I would submit to your Lordships that the Amendment is not necessary. The new power given to local authorities in Clause 69 of the Bill enables them to
"do any thing (whether or not involving the expenditure, borrowing or lending of money …) which is calculated to facilitate, or is conducive or incidental to, the discharge of any of their functions ".
This is sufficiently wide to cover the payment to councillors of expenses connected with their telephones; and I have no doubt that the use of a telephone and the costs connected with it are very necessary expenses, and will be considered so by councils. The noble Earl quoted a section with which I do not think I am familiar, but it could be that he is thinking of Section 36(4) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1966, which amended part of the Local Government Act 1948, enabling local authorities to pay for the provision of telephones for their members. This specific power is no longer required because of the general powers conferred under Clause 69 of this Bill.
THE EARL OF BALFOUR: May I ask my noble friend one further question?
1224
Would this cover having a car? Would Clause 69 of this Bill cover, say, a Provost being provided with a car?
LORD POLWARTH: Presumably it would be a question of what expenses the authority considered reasonable for the carrying out of the office.
LORD HUGHES: Presumably there is some such power at the present time; otherwise, there are an awful lot of Provosts and Lords Provost going about illegally in cars.
THE EARL OF BALFOUR: With that assurance I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 45 agreed to.
Clauses 46 and 47 agreed to.
Clause 48 [Payment of expenses of official and courtesy visits, etc.]:
On Question, Whether Clause 48 shall stand part of the Bill?
6.40 p.m.
LORD HUGHES: I have a small query on Clause 48. Paragraph (a) refers to defraying expenses incurred in making "official and courtesy visits", and paragraph (b) refers to defraying expenses incurred in entertainment by way of "official courtesy". Is there a difference? In the first instance does "official and courtesy" mean an official visit or a courtesy visit, or a visit which must be both official and courteous? The second one I am clear on. "Official courtesy" would cover a conference coming to town, distinguished visitors and so on. What I am doubtful about is why there should be the use of this phrase "official and courtesy visits".
LORD POLWARTH: I would assume that one could easily differentiate between two kinds of visit. There could be a visit to study, say, some particular new type of sewage plant and so on which was official in that the visit was for official purposes. When we come to courtesy, one example would be the admirable practice of twining towns between this country and the Continent. These are examples of courtesy visits which within reason would be encouraged. These two examples occur to

1225
me. A visit purely for goodwill purposes to a twin town would not necessarily be classed as an official visit.
LORD HUGHES: I would not agree for a moment. Unless a council authorises a courtesy visit to a twin town and agrees to pay the expenses, it cannot take place; therefore it is an official visit. It may be an official visit for the purposes of courtesy. I have been on visits to Orleans and before I went the council decided which members of the council were to go. If a member who was not on the list travelled—on one occasion one did—he would find himself having to pay his own expenses.
LORD POLWARTH: We appear to find some difficulty in distinguishing between what is official and what is not official. I can assure the noble Lord that I will look into this and communicate with him as to the specific meaning of "courtesy" as distinct from "official".
LORD HUGHES: I think that all that is needed is the phrase "official visits".
Clause 48 agreed to.
Clauses 49 and 50 agreed to.
Clause 51 [Establishment and general purpose of community councils]:
THE EARL or BALFOUR: This Amendment is clear in its wording. We have a lot of business to-night. I should be happy to move it formally. I would answer any questions noble Lords may care to put. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 27, line 11, at end insert—
("(1A) A community council shall be established for one or more electoral divisions or wards as described in Section 5 of this Act;
(1B) The Boundaries of a community council shall be the same and conform to the boundaries of the electoral division or divisions or ward or wards, as the case may be;
(1C) An electoral division or ward other than a regional division shall not be divided between two or more community councils.").—(The Earl of Balfour.)
LORD POLWARTH: As I see it, the noble Earl's Amendment seeks to have two effects. First he says that community councils have to be established for one or more electoral divisions or wards. I take that to mean that this would make the establishment of community councils compulsory—
THE EARL OF BALFOUR: I thought they were complsory; that we were supposed to start them under the Bill.
LORD POLWARTH: We give every encouragement, as will be seen further on, when we come to the establishment of community councils. We are not laying down that they must be established for every community. We are saying that every district must put forward to the Secretary of State for Scotland a scheme for the establishment of community councils within its districts. There may be reasons why one particular part of the district should not require one. It is not correct to say that the establishment of community councils is compulsory. It will be encouraged, and actively so.
The main point of the noble Earl's Amendment is to tie boundaries of community council areas rigidly to those of electoral divisions or wards. I think that this is against the tenor of the idea of the community councils. It is the essence of our thinking that these bodies should be set up if and where local communities ask for them. District councils are required to prepare these schemes, but once a scheme is confirmed it is for the local people to make up their minds and say how they want it set up, its rules, its purposes, and also its area. It could be that the logical area for a community council would overlap the boundaries of electoral divisions or wards which are established for quite different purposes. We feel that his Amendment would restrict unduly the freedom of action of all parties in connection with community councils, which are not statutory local government bodies but a totally new form of organisation that we are introducing in this Bill. Therefore we feel that such a proposal as the noble Earl suggests would be unduly restrictive.
THE EARL OF BALFOUR: In that case, may I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment?
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.48 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 51 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD HUGHES: There was considerable discussion about community councils on Second Reading. I think that the Minister said at that time that one of

1227
the reasons why community councils were in the form of not being another tier of the local authority was because they are to have the maximum amount of freedom. It was not to be laid down what they might do or might not do. First of all, I should like to ask a question. On the answer to it depends where I go. Clause 51(2) says:
"… and to take such action in the interest of that community as appears to it to be expedient and practicable."
Does the fact that what the community council may do or may not do is not defined mean they have complete freedom to do anything that appears to them to be expedient and practicable in the interest of that community?—because that would appear to be what flows from what was said on Second Reading. Would the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, be good enough to answer that simple question? On the answer to it depends my next question.
LORD POLWARTH: As I understand it, the freedom will be complete within what is considered expedient and practicable for that council.
LORD HUGHES: The freedom will be complete. In that case I cannot understand the answer that the noble Lord gave to the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, when he asked whether a community council would be free to give free milk to children in their area. The answer was that they would not. If they can do anything they consider expedient in the interest of their community—and obviously it is perfectly reasonable for them to say that it is expedient to give free milk to the school children of the area of the community council and it is a simple matter to arrange its distribution, so it is obviously a practicable proposition—on what ground did the Minister answer Lord Tanlaw that it would not be permissible for them to do that? That is the second question.
LORD POLWARTH: I will see whether I can do better on this one. Have freedom of action, yes!—but not so as to usurp any function reserved for some other body. Certainly, my first reaction on that question of Lord Tanlaw was that this was a function statutorily laid down, as I understand it, and therefore it should be reserved to those bodies. I suppose that theoretically it would in
1228
this case be possible, if they had sufficient funds; and, of course, they have to acquire the funds. I suppose in theory they could produce a scheme for the distribution of free milk if they could raise enough money, but I doubt whether they would get the funds out of the district council or the regional council.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: Why not?
LORD POLWARTH: Because those bodies would probably feel that that was a function covered in other ways.
LORD HUGHES: By no means. After all, the country is full of local authorities which wanted to continue to give free milk. They were prevented from doing so by the Government. The councils stopped doing it, but not because they wanted to, and they have tried various means to get round the Government's decision with limited success for limited periods. There is nothing in the Bill which says that the community council cannot do things which are within the power of the district council or the regional council to do. It is anything which appears to be "expedient and practicable". The Minister says, "Yes, it would be theoretically possible for them to give free milk, if they could get the money." If you have a district council which wants to give free milk it will be only too ready, if that is the only way to make it possible, to put these funds at the disposal of the community council.
I am not raising this point in order that on Report the Minister may introduce restrictive powers on community councils. But I think it right to point out that either they have freedom, as the Minister has said, to do anything they like, and for which they can raise the money, or they are restricted in some way. Undoubtedly it is the case that the Government have, over a period, interfered with the functions which local authorities may undertake, in the sense of saying that local authorities may not do certain things which hitherto they have been able to do. In this the Government may be giving the opportunity to these councils to do the thing at second hand. I am not raising this because I want to stop the possibility, but I am pointing out that this would be the wrong way to do it and that the Government may be making it a perfectly legal

1229
way to do it. I can think of at least half a dozen district councils in Scotland who would be delighted to take the opportunity of making funds available for the distribution of free milk to any community council which wished to do the job.
LORD POLWARTH: I can only say that the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, has opened up a fascinating new field of possibilities. I would need to inquire further into this matter about the exact limitations and communicate with him. I cannot say precisely what limitations could be imposed.
LORD HUGHES: I did not intervene in respect of the community councils because I have no great enthusiasm for community councils. I doubt very much whether they will be able to do the sort of job that people think they may do. They may be no more than glorified tenants' associations. But if they are capable of doing the job it will be because the Government are giving them real powers and putting real money at their disposal from the district and regional councils. Either the Government want them to be bodies with power to do these things, or they must re-think the matter. My real objection to community councils as they are in the Bill is that I do not think the idea has been thought out at all. They are a kind of unknown kind of animal which has not appeared in local government life before, and if it were left in this way they might turn out to be the most powerful bodies of them all, provided that the district and regional councils were prepared to find the money, because it is the nearest approach to general power given to a local authority which appears in the Bill.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I am wondering whether the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, is not greatly overstating the case. Suppose a community council wanted to run a brothel. Is the noble Lord saying that there would be no objection to rates being raised in order to put money at the disposal of a community council to run a brothel, or a gambling hall, or anything else? Surely, there would be an objection to that. It is carrying the thing too far.
LORD HUGHES: No. Running a brothel, so far as I know, is against the law. I have never tried it.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: Giving free milk is against the law.
LORD HUGHES: It is not against the law. It is illegal for town and county councils to give free milk. There is nothing in the present legislation to say that a community council cannot give free milk. The embargo is on existing local authorities.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: Therefore it is raising money for an improper purpose.
Clause 51 agreed to.
House resumed.

NATIONAL INSURANCE AND SUPPLEMENTARY BENEFIT BILL
6.55 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SECURITY (LORD ABERDARE): My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now received.
Moved, That the Report be now received.—(Lord Aberdare.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Amendment of Schedule 2 to Ministry of Social Security Act 1966]:
LORD ABERDARE LORD ABERDARE moved as an Amendment:
Page 16, line 42, leave out paragraphs (d) and (e).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment seeks to reverse the decision which was taken by this House at the Committee stage last Thursday. On that occasion an Amendment in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, and the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, was carried against the Government by one vote in a small House. This Amendment seeks to restore the provisions of the Bill as they were originally introduced into this House. I should like to try to explain as clearly as I can why we wish to stick to our original proposals. We are not being in the last bit mean or grudging; very much the reverse. We are in fact

1231
giving additional help to a particular class of people who need it most, and we are not reducing the present scale of assistance to anybody else. To try to make this clear may I begin by briefly sketching the historical background.
Before 1966, the National Assistance Board had power to consider on their merits individual claims for extra help in exceptional circumstances. This meant that inquiries about special needs had to be made in every case which often caused embarrassment to the applicant. Moreover, the fact that special additions were given at the discretion of the officer dealing with the case resulted in a considerable lack of uniformity, and entailed some instances of unfairness for the applicant. It was therefore entirely to the credit of the then Labour Government that in 1966 they introduced the long-term addition. This was designed to avoid these individual investigations, except in very particular circumstances, by paying a flat-rate addition to all those, apart from the unemployed, who were in receipt of long-term supplementary benefit. So that the majority of claimants under the new scheme had an entitlement to an allowance covering their special needs instead of having to depend on the discretion of the officer concerned to get what they needed.
When it was first introduced in 1966 the rate was 9s. This figure was chosen because it was roughly the equivalent of the average amount awarded for special addition before 1966. This 9s. was to cover, so far as possible, the extra requirements of long-term recipients of supplementary benefit, including extra heating needs, extra diet, extra laundry and other exceptional needs. Only when a person's exceptional circumstances required more than 9s. was it necessary to make a special investigation, and possibly an extra payment. But in any such case, of course, it followed logically that the 9s. already allowed for extra needs had to be taken into account, and any extra requirement was paid over and above the 9s. This has been the system which has operated ever since. It was operated by the Labour Government and is operated now by the present Government; although the portion of the long-term addition available to meet special expenses has now been increased
1232
to 50p, and for those over 80 years to 75p. But there has been no change in the administration of these exceptional circumstances additions. They have been calculated in full, and the long-term addition already paid to meet exceptional circumstances has been offset against the total.
Now if we come to this Bill, we are making one small but very significant change in order to help a particular priority case; namely, those who require extra heating. Your Lordships will know well that we have been under considerable pressure to help those in need of extra heating for a long time, both in the two Houses of Parliament and by such organisations as the Child Poverty Action Group and Age Concern. Now that is just what we are doing. We are allowing those with heating needs to receive their extra addition without offsetting it against the long-term addition.
I acknowledge that this is of course illogical, but it is a very special effort to help with the cost of heating, and it certainly should be welcome to all your Lordships. In fact, no one has criticised us for making that concession, but it has stirred your Lordships to demand that we make even more concessions. The Amendment which was carried last Thursday by one vote would compel the Supplementary Benefits Commission to make this same concession in respect of those who receive exceptional circumstances additions for special diets or for laundry. Since these, together with heating, form the bulk of the special needs for which provision is made, the Commission would in effect be providing twice over for most special needs—once in the long-term addition, and again by means of special additions made on top of it. Moreover, in a sense the Amendment would put the clock back, since, just as in the days before 1966, all claimants would once again be dependent on the discretion of the local officer to ensure that they got their full entitlement. This we cannot accept.
We believe that heating has a priority of its own and that we are justified in making an exception in that case. In cases where a very special diet is required the Supplementary Benefits Commission always make proper provision on medical advise. They also have full flexibility to make such additions as they

1233
consider appropriate in other cases; for example, in the case of laundry. The concession that we are making in favour of those with heating needs we estimate will help about 400,000 people at a cost of approximately £6 million; but of course this is a figure which it is difficult to estimate, and it may be considerably more.
LORD PLATT: My Lords, would the noble Lord forgive me for interrupting, because I am not quite sure of one thing he said a few seconds ago. Did he say that full provision was made for the diet on medical advice?
LORD ABERDARE: Yes; that is precisely what I said. I said that where a doctor recommended a very special diet —and there are cases, such as those with kidney failure—then the full amount of what the doctor says is required for the special diet is allowed by the Supplementary Benefits Commission. But of course there is set against it the extra amount the person is already getting from the long-term addition.
My Lords, I was saying that the concession we are making in favour of those with heating needs will help some 400,000 people and will cost about £6 million; but it will depend what the needs are shown to be, and the costs will vary according to the needs. But to add on, as some of your Lordships wish, those who need extra diets or extra laundry additions would cost something in the region of another £10 million. We do not think it right to incur this extra expenditure, given the fact that the Supplementary Benefits Commission already have discretion to consider exceptional individual cases. When the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, spoke last week she implied—I am sure it was done inadvertently—that while retirement pensioners were to get an extra £1, longterm recipients of supplementary benefit might get 10p more, or perhaps nothing at all. This of course is not right. Longterm recipients of supplementary benefit will receive the same increases as retirement pensioners, and it is only amounts additional to that for exceptional needs with which we are concerned in this Amendment.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, may I interrupt? That is, I am sure inadvertently, linking two unlike things. I
1234
did not refer to the flat rate increase; I was referring to the long-term allowance and to the exception.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I am glad it was inadvertent, because if the noble Baroness reads her speech, at column 920, she will see that perhaps she gave another impression. I just want to make it clear that the supplementary benefit people will be getting their £1 just as the ordinary retirement pensioner does.
My Lords, in total, this Bill brings large extra benefits to those who are most in need, including, at a cost of £6 million, additional help to those who need extra heating. We are going far further than any previous Government have gone in this respect, and I do not think it reasonable that your Lordships should force us to go any further at the present moment. I confidently recommend this Amendment to the House, and I hope that my noble friends on this side will support the Government in making this one very significant concession to those who need extra heating next winter. I beg to move.
7.6 p.m.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I should like to thank the Minister for his careful explanation of what is, as we all appreciate, a rather complicated matter. I will not detain your Lordships for long; I never believe in repeating arguments. Though the Minister said it was a thin House last week—and that is quite true—I think it had one particular quality; namely, that everybody present on that occasion was genuinely interested, asked questions and really seemed to follow the whole of the debate. So while it might have been less in quantity, it was very high in quality—and by that I do not imply in any way that that is untrue this evening, as no doubt we shall see later. I rest my case purely on this point. The Minister said last week, rather sadly, that when he came to bring more we then asked for still more. I do not in any way decry the additional help which this Bill will give. I have only four sums here with which I will not weary your Lordships, but when they are added up, if there is only the one allowance offset, these people will not receive any more on their extra benefit. They will receive the £1, but so will everybody else. It

1235
seems to me that we are slightly confusing the long-term allowance, which, as I understand it, was never intended to cover diet or heat. The Minister shakes his head. Perhaps it is laid down.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I am sorry, but it certainly was.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: As I understood it, when I carefully read the regulations, it was intended to cover replacements, shoe repairs and things of that kind. The heating allowance came under the exceptional circumstances. But be that as it may, it seems to me that, whatever explanation we give and however kind and sympathetic we are, if at the end of the day somebody who has hitherto received £1·10 still only receives £1·10, then he or she is not going to get any more on his extra benefits. I think we can see this very clearly in the examples of two elderly couples, living side by side. One couple, in relatively good health, will be receiving their extra long-term allowance, but because they are both fit and not in need of the exceptional circumstances allowance, as the other couple are (where the husband has had a stroke and is totally incontinent) the first couple will get the heating allowance offset and the second couple will not. Therefore, even though the first couple receive the pound and the second couple also receive it, the second couple will still get less—and they are the people who, being sick, will need it more.
On this side of the House, my Lords, we are not suggesting that this Bill does not bring help. It does bring help to all pensioners and it brings extra benefit to those who are already in receipt of benefit; but it still leaves out many people—people, as I said to your Lordships last week, who are very sad people, those right at the end of the scale. If somebody is over 80, is ill and has very little money, he needs the maximum to stay in one place. I should like to say once again that if they need a high-protein diet, a steak costs the same for them as for any of your Lordships. However we work out the sums in the Bill, when we get down to actual figures there will be some people who will not receive any more. Therefore I am sorry, but I cannot support the Amendment which is before us this evening.
7.12 p.m.
BARONESS MASHAM OF ILTON: My Lords, it seems extraordinary to have supported an Amendment which is now part of the National Insurance and Supplementary Benefit Bill and now to be speaking against another Amendment which is meant to undo the good work which your Lordships did last Thursday evening. What is the point of a Bill coming to your Lordships' House and going through the different stages if your Lordships, many of whom have great experience in these matters, cannot make suggestions on how to improve the Bill? With the multitude of legislation which has recently passed through both Houses, is it not possible that Members of another place may not have had time to consider fully the importance of giving this very small extra help to people who, after all, are already on supplementary benefit?
To take the least important item first, I should like to stress, as I did on Committee stage, that good food helps to keep people out of hospital and thus saves the country money in the long run. If a person's haemoglobin drops too low, they are likely to develop pressure sores which will cause a considerable extra cost to an already overworked nursing service. People on extra diets, as the noble Lord has already said, are catered for. In this case, why worry about taking them out of the Bill? They are ill people.
At the Committee stage, I thought the heating and laundry allowances should have equal priority, but now, because of the Amendment which we are considering, I have had to give it more thought. I hate to be cold, but I hate even more to have to sit in wet clothes or sleep in a damp, clammy bed. At least if one has a dry bed and is cold it is possible to go to bed with a hot water bottle and keep warm. I therefore feel that the extra laundry allowance heads my list of priorities. There is nothing more depressing than a pile of soggy laundry. If there is 50p available, it is possible that someone (even if there is no home help available) might take the laundry down the road to the launderette. If there is no 50p, after weeks of good will, the situation may end with the incontinent person giving up his or her struggle for freedom and going into an institution.

1237
The noble Baroness, Lady Elles, feels so strongly about this that she has written to the Prime Minister.
I had to go home to Yorkshire last night. I drove 240 miles here this afternoon and shall drive another 240 miles back to-night; but at least I shall have had the satisfaction of having voted against this Amendment. This Government have done a great deal to help people who will be affected by this Bill, and they can take great credit for it. But there was a Government survey, compiled by Amelia Harris, which came out two years ago. It gave a great deal of information about the appalling conditions many elderly and disabled people throughout the country were living under. With this information, any Government have a duty to continue to do something about it. I have often opened a newspaper and read about the right honourable Sir Keith Joseph having said that he recommends people to stay living in the community as long as possible. Today, we are talking about a group of people who cannot live in the community with the rising costs, unless they have increased financial help for these vital services.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, I should like to echo the opening words of the noble Baroness, Lady Masham. I hope that the Minister, when he comes to reply, will explain to us why the normal and dignified procedure is not being followed in this matter. Surely the normal, dignified procedure is that this Bill, having been amended in this House, should be sent to the other place as amended and that the Amendment should be considered in the other place. No doubt the careful argument which the Minister addressed to us just now would be addressed to Members of another place, and it may be that they would decide to disagree with your Lordships' Amendment. Then the Bill would come back to your Lordships and, on all known form, your Lordships would not insist upon their Amendment.
Instead of that, what is the situation that is presented to us now? The Government are taking a course which, if they are successful, will achieve the position that the House of Lords came to a decision last week and are going to come to an opposite decision this week. Is
1238
that not a situation after the Devil's own heart?—if the Devil is one who would not be sorry to see the demise of the House of Lords. Would this not then enable people to say: "What does the House of Lords really think? Is it what they said last week or is it what they have said this week? Or is it that the House of Lords does not really know what it thinks and has really nothing to offer?" I am fond of your Lordships' House. I come here on most days, and I am jealous of the reputation of your Lordships' House. I think it is a sorry day when a Conservative Government sets out on a course which, if successful, will tend to bring the House of Lords into disrepute.
7.18 p.m.
LORD PLATT: My Lords, I tend to be one of those who is a little influenced by a logical argument, though I do not think logical arguments should govern us in every possible case. I can of course see the arguments of the Government in this case, as they were very ably put over by the noble Lord in his introduction. His point, or the Government's point, is that the supplementary allowance has been given and people spend some of that on food, heat and laundry; therefore, if you are going to give extra, some of that extra should be deducted because you have already given them a supplementary allowance. The noble Lord went on to say—and I questioned it just to make quite sure that he really did say it—that if, on medical advice, a diet were to cost a patient something extra, and presumably it was assessed by an hospital dietician, full provision was always made. I have actual evidence—and I think the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, had evidence—that in many cases this is not true. I do not know of any case in which it is true, but I have not been into a large number of cases and I may he wrong over this. What happens as a rule is that the diet is assessed as costing £3, £4 or £5 a week, or whatever the sum is. Then the authorities say, "We will give you £3 towards the diet". It will probably cost £4. Already a deduction has been made; but on top of that another deduction is being made. I do not believe the argument holds water. I said so when we discussed this matter only a few days ago. I cannot accept the argument that this

1239
would be providing twice over for the same need. If that argument is defeated, I do not think the Government have any arguments left on which to stand.
I agree, after giving careful thought to what the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, has said—and she told me about it beforehand, so I have had more than just two or three minutes to think about it—that the laundry need is most important. For most people, fortunately, it is not one of the essentials of life. Most of us manage one way or another to get some washing done. But for the people who really need it, the people who are incontinent and so on, who are old, who cannot do their own laundry, this is one of the greatest needs. I come back to another point which I made. Is this not a foolish situation? How will the people look at it? Whatever the logical arguments may be, they will say, "You give us a benefit and immediately you take something away from us. If we are over 80, you take 50 per cent. more away from us than if we are under 80." Can you really imagine a Government putting that forward and expecting to get votes on it? I cannot, though that is the least of my arguments. In view especially of what the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, has said, I hope that this Amendment will be withdrawn.
7.23 p.m.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I have listened to what has been said in the debate, and I should like to answer one or two points. I should like to make it clear to the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, that no-one is any worse off. This Bill does not take anything from anybody. There may be, as there always is with any provision, some who stand to benefit more than others; but there is nobody who is worse off, and probably 400,000 people are better off at a cost of £6 million. There may be cases—
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords—
LORD ABERDARE: I am sorry, I want to finish my sentence—where a person is getting more than one extra exceptional circumstance addition, where the set-off arrangements mean they will not be getting any more. These are special cases. If there are cases of hardship the Supplementary Benefits Commission can always review them. The flexibility is
1240
there; but the general provisions of the Bill are more for those who need heating allowances.
The noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, made an eloquent plea, but her picture of people sitting in damp, clammy beds is not realistic because they can get all that they need from the Supplementary Benefits Commission. If they have exceptional laundry needs these are met. The only point I am arguing on is, as has been the case since 1966, in order not to have a mass of small claims, everybody has their long-term addition of 50p which is to meet these needs. If the needs are greater than that, they can get extra. This seems perfectly fair to me; it has been the system which has been working since 1966.
BARONESS MASHAM or ILTON: If they get it, why not have that in the Bill?
LORD ABERDARE: Because they would be getting it twice: the long-term addition to meet the needs, and getting it on ton of that. That is the point. My Lords, I do not agree with the noble Lord. Lord Airedale; I thought his was a very unrealistic approach considering that all through the past three years that I have been on this Front Bench we have done nothing but repeat at Report stage Amendments that have been moved and carried one way or the other at Committee stage. When there is an Amendment like the particular Amendment we had at this Committee stage, which was only carried by one vote in a small Committee, I see nothing wrong with asking your Lordships to reconsider the matter. This happens the whole time in another place.
LORD SLATER: My Lords, may I ask—
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I must get on; but perhaps a quick question from the noble Lord.
LORD SLATER: The noble Lord emphasised the point that this Amendment had been carried by one vote. Is he aware of the statement made in another place by an ex-Member of the Cabinet of the Tory Government, to the effect that if they were returned to power and they had a majority of only one in regard to denationalising the steel industry, they would denationalise the steel industry?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, that is another matter. If the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, thinks back even so far as a Bill not dissimilar to this one—the Social Security Bill—the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, moved an Amendment at Committee stage, and he lost it by one vote. It came back again at Report stage when it was considered again, and he lost again. The fact that he lost again does not alter the fact that one can always reconsider at Report stage a decision that has been made at Committee stage.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, what I asked the Minister to answer was why the Bill had not been sent to the other place for them to consider the Lords' Amendment. I hope that we shall not be told that it is because of lack of Parliamentary time, because I hope always each House of Parliament would do the courtesy to the other of giving time to consider any Amendment to any Bill introduced in the other House.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I accept what the noble Lord is saying.
The point is that this House should send its balanced decision back, not a decision made by one vote in a small Committee.
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords—
LORD ABERDARE: I will not give way any longer. We must get on, my Lords. This is a Report stage of a Bill and I am speaking to this Amendment.
I would only say, finally, that this Bill brings massive benefits to many people. It makes one particular concession to 400,000 people who need extra heating, at a cost of £6 million. It takes nothing away from anyone; it continues the sensible practice of a long-term addition to cover the normal extra needs of long term beneficiaries, but leaves the Supplementary Benefits Commission flexibility to meet extra needs in excess of that long-term addition.
7.29 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 93; Not-Contents, 44.

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Eccles, V.

Monck, V.

Ailwyn, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Mountevans, L.

Albemarle, E.

Elton, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Aldenham, L.

Essex, E.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Aldington, L.

Ferrers, E.

Nelson of Stafford, L.

Alport, L.

Fortescue, E.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Fraser of Lonsdale, L.

Pender, L.

Atholl, D.

Gainford, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Balerno, L.

Goschen, V.

Polwarth, L.

Balfour, E.

Gowrie, E.

Reay, L.

Barnby, L.

Grenfell, L.

Reigate, L.

Berkeley, B.

Gridley, L.

Rockley, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Brecon, L.

Harris, L.

St. Helens, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Sandford, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, B.

Inchyra, L.

Selborne, E.

Cawley, L.

Kemsley, V.

Selkirk, E.

Coleraine, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Colville of Culross, V.

Lauderdale, E.

Sharples, B.

Conesford, L.

Limerick, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Lonsdale, E.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Craigavon, V.

Lothian, M.

Croft, L.

Loudoun, C.

Stratheden and Campbell, L.

Cromartie, E.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Sudeley, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Lyell, L.

Tenby, V.

Daventry, V.

McFadzean, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Macleod of Borve, B.

Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, B.

Derwent, L.

Mancroft, L.

Vivian, L.

Digby, L.

Mansfield, E.

Ward of Witley, V.

Drumalbyn, L.

Merrivale, L.

Windlesham, L. (L. Privy Seal.)

Dulverton, L.

Milverton, L.

Young, B.

Ebbisham, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Balogh, L.

Blyton, L.

Auckland, L.

Beswick, L.

Boothby, L.

Bacon, B.

Birk, B.

Burton, L.

Champion, L.

Hoy, L.

Segal, L.

Chichester, L. Bp.

Hughes, L.

Serota, B.

Davies of Leek, L.

Jacques, L.

Shackleton, L.

Foot, L.

Janner, L.

Shepherd, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Slater, L.

Garnsworthy, L.

Longford, E,

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

George-Brown, L.

Maelor, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Taylor of Mansfield, L

Granville of Eye, L.

Phillips, B. [Teller.]

Wade, L.

Greenway, L.

Platt, L.

Wise, L.

Henderson, L.

Raglan, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Henley, L.

St. Davids, V.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
Then, Standing Order No. 44 having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of July 12):
7.36 p.m.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Aberdare.)
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, we now have a situation in which on a particular matter, on a particular Amendment, your Lordships decided last week in one direction, and at Report just now in the opposite direction. I do not know whether it is usual for a Bill to be read a third time immediately after a Report stage in which an Amendment has been made. In any event, I should have thought it was only a courtesy to those noble Lords who are not able to be present this evening to have time in which to consider the two conflicting decisions that your Lordships have come to within a week upon this matter. I would therefore suggest that your Lordships do not support a Motion for the Third Reading of this Bill this evening.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, it is on the Order Paper and was agreed through the usual channels that we should take the Report and remaining stages this evening, and that seems to me to be perfectly fair and logical. On the other point which the noble Lord makes, I am not sure whether it is out of order or highly irregular to move again on Third Reading an Amendment which has been voted upon at Report stage. I remember this question in the case of debates we had on the boundary between Somerset and Avon. But I would suggest to the House that as we have agreed to this matter and this Bill is a very urgent
1244
one and brings massive help to a great number of pensioners and other people, really we are behaving in a perfectly normal manner.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, could the noble Lord give an indication of when the Government expect to receive the Royal Assent to this Bill, because this of course is material in the light of what the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, has said in regard to the importance and the urgency of this Bill. I think—and no doubt the noble Earl the Chief Whip would agree with me—that there have been occasions on Third Reading when Amendments have been moved and voted upon despite the fact that they have been moved and voted upon in Report. Some noble Lords who take a fairly strong view upon this matter might not wish to move an identical Amendment but might wish to consider the consequences of this evening's vote on Report, to see whether there was a possibility of bridging a gap—I do not know.
On the question of the "usual channels", I suppose that as Deputy Leader of the Opposition I am part of them, although I was not involved in the actual discussion. I think the position is that where there is agreement by the usual channels it must always be with the consent of the House at the end. The usual channels can only decide what is suitable as they see it in the interests of the House. It is for the House itself to decide whether the proposals that the usual channels have put forward are in accordance with their wishes.
I have not participated in this debate, but I think in some respects there is a case made by the noble Lord, Lord Airedale. We have changed the Bill at the Report stage and it may be that some noble Lords may wish to have an opportunity during the Third Reading debate to explore the possibility of some bridging

1245
position. I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, would accept a Motion moved by the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, so that we could delay the Third Reading until Monday of next week. If the Royal Assent is not being taken to-morrow I should not think the Government would lose any particular time in relation to this Bill.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I really do not think we ought to postpone it in that way. It is very unusual. I have before me the paragraph in the Companion to the Standing Orders, which says
"It is considered undesirable that an amendment which has been fully debated and decided upon on the previous stages of a Bill should be moved again on Third Reading".
There really is no halfway house between us on this particular matter. The noble Lord was not here when we debated it. It is a perfectly simple issue. There were two Amendments standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, originally. One of them was defeated and the other, which was the compromise Amendment, was the one on which we have just voted, so we have no bridge left. I suggest that this is an important Bill which will be of enormous help to a number of people; we are on a very narrow point, and I suggest that the House may decide to give it a Third Reading.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, can the noble Lord answer the question: when does he expect the Bill to receive the Royal Assent?
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, if this Bill is to come into operation in October it is essential that it should receive the Royal Assent before the two Houses rise. We cannot have Royal Assent with only one House sitting.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, that would be in two weeks' time.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: No, my Lords, next week. If we were to postpone it we could not take the Third Reading before Monday—we could not possibly take it to-morrow—and if an Amendment were moved and carried it would be virtually impossible to get the Bill back to the Commons, the Lords Amendment considered by the Commons, then back to us
1246
for further consideration of the Commons probable disagreement with our Amendment, and get the Royal Assent. As my noble friend has said, with the benefit that this Bill is giving, it must, if the recipients are to get that benefit, come into operation in October, and it seems to me that that is more important than trying to have further discussion on this one particular point.
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed.

ELECTIONS (WELSH FORMS) REGULATIONS 1973
7.45 p.m.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL moved, That the Elections (Welsh Forms) Regulations 1973, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, these regulations touch on an important form but they involve no new principle, and I am happy to say, perhaps for the first time to-day, that they are not a matter for controversy. The form they prescribe is the basic canvass form which is issued to all householders each autumn as the basis for the preparation of the electoral register. The form was first prescribed in Welsh in 1965 under the Elections (Welsh Forms) Act 1964. The Welsh Language Act 1967 provided for the use of bilingual forms (or, as the Act expresses it, forms partly in Welsh and partly in English) and in consequence a bilingual Form A was prescribed in 1970 (in the Elections (Welsh Forms) (No. 5) Regulations 1970). This was the bilingual version of the revised English form prescribed in 1969.
The present regulations follow a minor revision in the English form which was approved by your Lordships' House on March 5 last. The change was consequential on the change in jury service effected by the Criminal Justice Act 1972. A column was added to Form A to enable those over 65 to be marked as ineligible for jury service, and this bilingual form prescribed by these regulations reflects this change. The changes are minor, and in essence the prescribed bilingual form is the same as that prescribed in 1970 which has been in use in Wales for the last three years. This has not been the subject of any complaint to the Home Office or to the Welsh Office. However, when these regulations were

1247
being considered in another place, mention was made of numerous grammatical and other errors in the Welsh translation. We have looked into this and I am advised that in the printing of the Statutory Instrument there are nine printers' errors in the Welsh text. I naturally apologise for this on behalf of the Department concerned, but I am assured that these errors will not occur in the forms actually distributed at the canvass this coming autumn.
As regards the correctness of the Welsh used, the translation is basically that made some years ago by a distinguished Welsh scholar. Of course translation can never be an exact science, and a true assessment of its success in a particular case can only be a matter of opinion. Nevertheless, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales has been concerned about the criticisms which have been raised and he has arranged for the translation to be considered by the advisory panel which he consults on these matters, and this panel will be meeting next week. In the meantime, I express the hope that your Lordships' House will approve these regulations, in order to allow the appropriate form to be used in Wales this year in connection with the electoral register and the new arrangements for jurors. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Elections (Welsh Forms) Regulations 1973, be approved. —(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, we have to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal, on his first appearance at the Box. We are delighted to welcome him here to that Box and also to congratulate him on his elevation to the post of a Lord in Waiting. His is not exactly a Welsh name—but neither is mine, so I cannot complain of his actually moving this Motion that we now have before us. This Motion is for a Statutory Instrument to be made under the 1967 Welsh Language Act, which in my opinion made an outstanding advance in bringing about the use of the Welsh language for legal and official purposes.
I support what an honourable friend of mine said in the other place when he paid tribute to the way in which both Governments, since the passing of the
1248
1967 Act, have maintained the flow of translation. This has been going on to the satisfaction of Welsh-speaking people in Wales. I was going to complain a little of the translation, not because I know a great deal about it but rather because I consulted my honourable friends in another place who happen to be scholars in the Welsh language and they pointed out to me some of the errors. But I accept the point from the noble Lord that alterations are to be made and that when finally the election form is issued, it will be issued in a style which will be reasonably accurate and the translation will be such as to be acceptable to Welsh scholars. I could not very well have criticised the translation because I must admit I have to rely on my wife to translate the Welsh news for me. She unfortunately is quite often in the position of not understanding what the North Walians seem to be saying on television; but that is a matter of slight differences of language as between the North and the South.
My Lords, there is little else I need say, except to welcome the regulations as another earnest of the Government's intention to carry out both the letter and the spirit of the Welsh Language Act 1967. May I end by again congratulating the noble Lord upon his elevation. He has moved the Statutory Instrument which is before us, and I hope the House will accept it.
BARONESS WHITE: My Lords, I also extend a welcome to the noble Lord into the realm of Welsh affairs. With his usual courtesy, my noble friend Lord Champion has been too kind, because the criticisms in another place about this particular set of forms were really rather startling. I apologise for the fact that I did not realise that we were on this business so I was not able to hear the explanations of the noble Lord, but it is puzzling to me because under the last Administration we had in the Welsh Office a regular and highly learned body of persons, under the chairmanship of Professor Glanville Williams, in charge of the translations. Something seems to have gone awry.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, the problem is nine printer's errors in the Welsh text, for which I felt it was essential to apologise,

1249
and I do so again now. I do not think there is any reflection on the scholarship of the translation.
BARONESS WHITE: My Lords, I am delighted to have that reassurance. I hope, now everyone has gone to so much trouble, that the forms will be used, because our experience has been that after the greatest care and labours from the panel of translators either these forms are often not made obviously available (one has to ask for them and go to extra trouble in order to get them) or those who shout the loudest in public take the least trouble actually to collect the Welsh forms and use them. This I find extremely discouraging, and I hope it will not be the fate of the particular form we are discussing to-night.

CONTROL OF ZOOLOGICAL GARDENS BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL
7.53 p.m.
House again in Committee.
Clause 52 [Schemes]:
LORD POLWARTH LORD POLWARTH moved Amendment No. 76:
Page 27, line 39, after ("elections") insert ("or other voting arrangements").
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is consequential to one accepted by the Government on Committee stage in another place to Clause 52(7). It was proposed at that time by the Opposition that the provision whereby a district or islands authority receiving a petition for the setting-up of a community council should be required to hold elections for the purpose within six weeks be amended to read "elections or other voting arrangements", to cover the case where some other way of choosing the council might be thought appropriate. As an example, there is the possibility in a remote area of some form of postal ballot. As a consequence of that Amendment made in another place, this Amendment is required. I beg to move.
LORD TAYLOR OF GRYFE LORD TAYLOR OF GRYFE moved Amendment No. 77:
Page 28, line 24, leave out ("30") and insert ("20").
The noble Lord said: It has been represented to me by several rural communities that the number of 30 ought to be reduced to 20. I think there is some substance in this suggestion, and from my own experience of setting up what must be the equivalent of a community council, a local amenities association, I recognise that in the initial stages a very small number of active and concerned people can be the basis of a healthy community council. It is not always evident at the beginning that a community council can be useful, but once a few people are convinced and once it is organised and has attained some interest locally, it can be set up. For these reasons I suggest that the number of 30 be reduced to 20.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: I should like to support this Amendment. Living as I do in a rural area where it would not be easy to get 30 people to start a community council, I would suggest that the figure of 20 proposed by the noble Lord is a more realistic one. It does not apply in the urban areas where one has any number of people, but in large parts of Scotland, where I hope the community councils will be a valuable and effective form of assistance to the local council, it would be a pity to put in a figure which might be difficult to achieve and which would prevent the starting of the council. So I give my support to the noble Lord's Amendment.
LORD POLWARTH: In another place this subject was discussed quite exhaustively. To show the variety of opinion, I may say that one Amendment that was moved suggested reducing the number from 30 to 10 and another suggested increasing it from 30 to 100; so we have a wide range of views as to what is the appropriate number. The final view was that a minimum of 30 should be required to sign a petition. That would be the right number, so it should be allowed to stand. On the other hand, I appreciate that in the rural areas there may well be problems. One has to consider whether reducing the figure from 30 might make it possible for the formation in an urban

1251
district of a group that was not truly representative. I am quite open to persuasion on this matter. We have heard from only two of your Lordships, but if it is your Lordships' wish that the number should be reduced to 20, I do not think the Government would object. But if anyone else would care to comment, we should be glad to hear them.
LORD HUGHES: Coming from a totally urban area but where one does not have to go too far out of town before one is in a rural situation I can well envisage the circumstances my noble friend Lord Taylor of Gryfe indicated could arise. For instance, the number of people who have been added to the new district of Dundee from a very large part of the surrounding area will be widely dispersed. If one person is trying to organise this sort of thing and going round to find out who is in favour of it, it would be a troublesome business to get 30 signatures. As the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot, has said, in the more densely populated areas the difficulty will probably be to keep the number who want to sign it down to the figure. So I do not think the Government would be giving anything away over the greater part of Scotland if they did reduce the figure. It is perhaps in some of these sparsely populated areas that the community councils might serve the most useful purpose. I think the Minister would be well advised to accept the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe.
LORD POLWARTH: As there appears to be no contrary view, I shall be happy to accept the noble Lord's Amendment.
8.2 p.m.
LORD TAYLOR OF GRYFE LORD TAYLOR OF GRYFE moved Amendment No. 78:
Page 28, line 28, at end insert:
("(8) Where a community council has been established it will be the duty of the Local Authority to advise the council in advance of any schemes or developments which may affect the environment in the area covered by the community council so that they may be given an opportunity of comment and advice.")
The noble Lord said: I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, for accepting Amendment No. 77 and I can only hope that he will be equally accommodating on the Amendment which
1252
I now move. This Amendment suggests that the community council be advised by the local authority in advance
"of any schemes or developments which may affect the environment in the area covered by the community council so that they may be given an opportunity of comment and advice."
In an earlier discussions on this Bill reported in yesterday's Hansard, the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, stressed the importance of community councils in giving advice to local authorities. We must establish that these community councils are important to the whole set up.
I perhaps disagree a little with the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, regarding the value of community councils. I think that particularly in the rural areas they will be very important because it is in this area that people see the reality of local government. District councils and regional councils may be fairly remote from them but community councils are part of their daily lives, and to make them meaningful it is important that schemes affecting the environment of these communities should at least be discussed by the community councils and that they be given the opportunity of advising on such schemes to indicate the local reaction.
This is very much in line with the Skeffington Report which laid great emphasis on the importance of the local community advice and involvement in planning decisions. I should think that the local community councils will have something to say in this field and I would regard it as enhancing the value of the community councils if they were so involved. My own experience in this field is in relation to local amenity councils under the civic trust where we reached an understanding with the local "county" councils that we would be advised in advance of matters affecting the environment in our village, and the local planning officer sought such advice and welcomed such advice although he did not always accept it. At least it gave the local community an opportunity of saying what they thought about certain desirable or undesirable developments in the area, and I would regard this as a useful addition to the legislation now before us.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: I should like strongly to support the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, on this Amendment. I

1253
think it is essential to the success of community councils to make them feel that they are doing a real job and this is one of the spheres where I feel they really could do a useful job of work and that their advice would be appreciated by the higher authorities—if I may describe them in that way. I hope that the Government will accept this Amendment, I feel fairly confident that even if this is not written into the Bill it will probably happen, but I think it will be better if it is written into the Bill.
LORD POLWARTH: I am grateful to the noble Lord for drawing our attention to what I think will be a very valuable function of community councils, but I am bound to doubt whether giving them a statutory right is the right approach. We are most anxious to give community councils the maximum freedom. I accept that at the present moment they are an unknown animal and we do not want to saddle them, at this stage at any rate, with statutory rights and statutory duties, and I think to single out this one for statutory treatment would, frankly, be a mistake. It would raise a number of difficulties, some of which are apparent from the wording of the noble Lord's Amendment, which says:
"… any schemes or developments which may affect the environment in the area covered by the community council …".
How would one describe exactly what issues?—because an enormous number of things can affect the environment if you take it literally. How far would the interests of the community need to be affected before consultation was required, and to what extent would consultation mean any action following the consultation? I think it would be better here to rely on common sense in relations between the district or regional councils and the community councils in this respect rather than saddle them with statutory rights—such a right of consultation which I am bound to say I do not think that even any statutory local authority enjoys in such a broadly worded and absolute form. For a body such as a community council this right would not sit happily with its voluntary status. Let us leave this to the good sense of local authorities in their dealings with the community councils in due course. It has been shown from experience in the Scottish Office that these
1254
requirements to consult with respect to legislation, to provide information in advance, sometimes make the body concerned as determined as possible to observe it to the minimum legal extent rather than to do it generously or wholeheartedly. While I entirely agree about the important function of the community councils, I would submit to your Lordships that the right way is not to saddle them with a statutory right.
LORD STRATHEDEN AND CAMPBELL: I should like to support my noble friend Lord Polwarth. I have stressed the importance of community councils since the first debate in your Lordships' House on the Wheatley Report and I am quite certain that they will work far more effectively if they are not restricted by statutory rights and statutory duties. Their object, in my view, has always been that they should be a completely detached form of organisation which will receive information from the local people and be able to pass that on without any real statutory duties at all. I strongly disapprove of the idea expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, that they should be used by the district councils in any way at all.
LORD HUGHES: That was not what I intended to speak about. I did not say that it was my idea that they should be used in that way; I was pointing out that as the Bill stood they could be used in that way, and I have no doubt that they might be. I did not express myself as necessarily being in favour of it, but for that matter I am not saying that I am against it either.
I would advise my noble friend not to press his Amendment. I thought the noble Lord was going to finish up in the way that Ministers in every Government so often do, by saying, "As soon as you start to particularise you put the general in danger". As we have established by Clause 51 that community councils are going to be the most uninhibited bodies in local government, I would be very much averse to any form of particularisation which might place this wide general power in danger. I therefore hone that my noble friend will accept that there is nothing in the Bill as it stands which will prevent the community council getting this information, and it would not really rest on the district council telling them

1255
of anything that happened. After all, if it is something which is likely to worry them, some or other of the members of the community council will get to hear in ample time for something to be done about it. So let him not, in wishing to help the community councils, take away from the possibility that they can be even more powerful than he thought, and therefore as useful as he thinks they are going to be.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: I am not sure I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hughes. I think the trouble may well be that community councils may not get to hear of developments taking place in their area, particularly when they are being carried out by people like the Gas Board or the Electricity Authority. I think there are defects in this particular provision and I hope the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, will not press it. But a provision such as this would I think be very useful in the Bill. If there is not going to be such a provision, I would hope that my noble friend will assure us that his Department will send a circular to district councils and regional councils to the effect that where community councils exist they should be kept very closely informed of development and planning applications in their area. I should be happy if my noble friend gave us that assurance. I think, however, that some such provision as this would be a great help to community councils in their work.
LORD TAYLOR OF GRYFE: In the light of the discussion which has taken place, I would not wish to press this to a Division, but would strongly support the suggestion of the noble Duke that some guidance ought to be given on the rights and responsibilities of community councils. I speak with some experience of a community council, so far as it is constituted as an amenity association, and it is not always the case that we are advised of substantial developments in our area. While this has now been regularised, sometimes there is reluctance on the part of the county council to advise local communities on important developments in their area. This has unfortunate consequences. It may set in motion ad hoc bodies which may be unrepresentative and sometimes irresponsible. I think it would be far better if these matters were channelled through com-
1256
munity councils. This would provide a reasonable forum for discussion and thus avoid these complications. But in view of the sympathy shown by the general view of the Government, I would not propose to press the Amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
LORD POLWARTH: I am quite sure that, by whatever manner, these things will be called to the attention of those concerned with the setting up of these councils. Schemes have to be submitted to the Secretary of State, and I am quite certain this aspect will not be overlooked.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 52, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 53 to 55 agreed to.
8.15 p.m.
THE EARL OF BALFOUR THE EARL OF BALFOUR moved Amendment No. 79:
After Clause 55 insert the following new clause—
Community Council Officers
(".—(1) Every district or island council shall appoint a clerk and such other officers as they think necessary, for the efficient discharge of the functions of any community council established under this part of this Act and may pay to the clerk and such other officers appointed under this section such reasonable salaries as they think fit.
(2) The clerk and every other officer appointed under this section shall hold office during the pleasure of the district or island council.
(3) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to affect the provisions of any enactment or statutory order requiring the appointment of any officer for the purposes of that enactment or order.").
The noble Earl said: I will try to be as brief as I can, but this is something about which I feel rather strongly. I have attempted, unfortunately, to do two things here. One is to provide a sub-district office and the other is to provide the district council with some official who could attend to its ordinary running. I do not know whether any of your Lordships has been a member of clubs and societies and organisations, but so often the one and only paid member is the secretary. That is why I feel that this matter is important. I should like to go into a little further detail. I feel that, in future there will be just as great a need, if not a greater need, for the retention of the official known at present as

1257
the district clerk of a county council as there has ever been in the past, particularly when one realises that burgh councils disappear. If a community council does not have some official of that council to call the meetings, issue the minutes and deal with the correspondence, I cannot see that community council ever getting off the ground.
Your Lordships may not be familiar with the actual duties of a district clerk. Less than 10 per cent. of the work is taken up by the district councillors actually meeting. I therefore include a list of the duties of the Dunbar District Clerk, which I think serves as a typical example. In regard to the regional functions he calls the meetings of the education areas sub-committee and writes the minutes. He attends to irregular attendance and the procedure for dealing with school truancy; school lets; the assessment and recommendations under the school meals scheme; the assessment and recommendations for clothing and footwear in necessitous cases; the appointment of janitors, school cleaners; the payment of ancillary wages. On the area youth panel, he deals with applications for grants to youth organisations. With regard to the youth employment service, he keeps the employers vacancy register; he places people in employment; issues the National Insurance card and deals wtih the claims for unemployment benefit and social security payments; and he also makes up the returns to the careers officer. In the divisional health sub-committee, besides calling the meetings he deals with the assessment, administration, engagement, calculation and payment of wages of that marvellous organisation, the home-help scheme. He also acts as registrar of births, deaths and marriages, and does everything in that field.
I feel that there is a tremendous need for somebody to be available to do these duties. It is perhaps worth mentioning that his staff consists of only two girls in the office. But what concerns me most is the difficulty of dealing with school truancy, which is becoming an increasing problem; of the vital service under the home-help scheme and of necessitous cases being dealt with promptly. I cannot see people requiring that sort of help travelling maybe 50 miles to the new district council office,
1258
or possibly 100 miles to the new regional council office, to get attention. Perhaps I should emphasise that in future there will be no town clerk or burgh chamber-lain. So far as I know, every district clerk is expecting his office to wind up with the reorganisation of local government. Who is going to take his place? Will there be such an organisation? Can something be produced in the Bill to satisfy what I consider an urgent requirement? I beg to move.
LORD BALERNO: I should like to support my noble friend Lord Balfour in this matter. I think it is terribly important, if at all possible, to make a success of these community councils. The community councils are going to be of varying composition and operating in varying fields of activity. Some are going to be extremely active and some are not going to be so active. It is impossible to lay down exactly what should be the help that should be afforded them to get on with whatever their jobs and circumstances require. It is essential that they should be provided with some form of permanent staff to keep them going.
I am equally certain that the staff of the new district councils will normally be far too fully occupied to be able to attend to the community councils. I am not at all certain that it is desirable, in many cases, that an official from the district council should be seconded, as it were, for spare time work with the community council. That may well work in certain cases, but there is no doubt that in some of the community councils which are going to be extremely active there is going to be a job for a full-time person. In so far as the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Balfour makes this possible, I fully support it, and I hope that this will be the feeling of the Committee.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: I am strongly in favour of the community councils having someone to work for them, but I do not think that any community council should deal with some of the things mentioned by the noble Earl. In my county, social services deal with meals and looking after old people, and the Education Committee deals with the truancy problem. What is being suggested that this person, or the community council, should do should be

1259
done by the statutory committee whose duty it is to look after education, social work, and all the other matters. I can visualise some things for the community council to do which are not the statutory duty of another committee. The community councils must have someone, and I hope that they will have a part-time secretary. But I deplore the suggestion that they should do the jobs that have been done, and should be done by the statutory committees.
LORD POLWARTH: I have sympathy with the noble Earl in what he is desiring to achieve by this Amendment, but I think that my noble friend Lady Elliot has produced the answer. This is not a matter for a statutory obligatory appointment of an official who would be in the pay, and at the pleasure, of the district council or islands council. They would have the complete whip hand over the actions of the community council, for whom we desire the maximum freedom.
The noble Earl referred to various functions which are not functions for a community council. They are laid down by Statute, and they are local authority functions. I do not think that the district councils need be remote. They have complete freedom to set up their own management structure and local offices, and I am quite sure that they will very often replace these previous district council offices with branch offices of the district council, where they can offer these services close to the people. It might very well be a good thing that the local community council office should share premises or be in an adjoining building, and the district council may make personnel and other services available to the community council. I submit that we will achieve the results much more effectively by leaving it to intelligent, voluntary arrangements of this kind.
THE EARL OF BALFOUR: May I say one word more. Many things, such as school truancy, have been dealt with at a very local level, and I am not satisfied with the work that the reporters are doing. They are wonderful and dedicated people, but I feel that very often the kind of social works organisation going on at the moment in the case of school truancy is so slow in getting anything
1260
moving that often the child has left school by the time that anything has happened. This is the sort of thing I want to nip in the bud. I felt that some local authority official of some kind was needed to deal with the long list that I read out, and that is what I wanted to happen. Provided that does happen, I am quite happy to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 56 [Arrangements for discharge of functions by local authorities]:
8.25 p.m.
LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved Amendment No. 80:
Page 30, line 28, at end insert—
(" ( ) A local authority may delegate to a committee or sub-committee any of their functions other than those which by this Act or any other enactment must be exercised only by the authority, and in case of such delegation subsection (4) of this section shall not apply.")
The noble Lord said: I think that this is a rather important Amendment, but I can be brief about it. It is really a probing Amendment more than anything else. I raised this point on Second Reading. The noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, was not able to deal with it in his reply, but he was good enough to write to me on a number of matters and this was one of them. If he will allow me, I will read what he said on this matter:
"I can confirm, as I indicated in my winding-up speech, that arrangements for the discharge of local authority functions under Clause 56 do cover the particular circumstances of delegation of powers to which you referred."
I am not certain that that is in fact right. Delegation of powers with local authorities can take two forms. There may be a particular subject and they may decide that the matter requires consideration. They may remit it, with powers, to a committee to take a decision on; that decision will be final, and that is a delegation of a particular item.
What I have in mind in connection with the delegation of powers is something very much wider than that, and something that is very widely practised by local authorities. They have a scheme of delegation under which, when a committee have taken a decision on a matter, it is final. Until the local authority reconsider their standing orders in due

1261
course—and that takes place normally once a year—the scheme of delegation cannot be altered. This happens very often, and I can give an example of the sort of thing that is in mind. On planning, for instance, in the Dundee Town Council—and I think it is typical of what is done in many local authorities—all decisions are delegated to the planning committees unless there is a division. If there is a division, but only then, does the matter then come to the full town council for decision
But in other committees, a wide range of ordinary business of the committee is delegated to them with full powers. When the minutes come up before the full meeting of the authority for consideration, items which are so delegated are marked with an asterisk, and there can be no debate on that in the council. This is generally accepted as being a means of cutting out needless delay in the carrying out of council decisions. I may say that the scheme of delegation in Dundee goes back to the time when Sir Garnet Wilson was Lord Provost towards the end of the war and in the years after the war. That was when it reached the form in which it substantially exists to-day, and it has worked admirably well.
The difficulty with Clause 56 is that it does not give delegation with powers. It says that they may be discharged by a committee. That can be delegation, but where it ceases to be delegation with powers is in subsection (4):
"Any arrangement made by a local authority or committee … for the discharge of any functions … shall not prevent the authority or committee by whom the arrangement is made from exercising those functions."
This simply means that nobody can act. There is no delegation in fact, because no committee can act on a decision that it arrives at because it would always be open for the meeting of the full authority to say, "We are going to decide this ourselves", so that delegation with powers would disappear. That is why my attempt at dealing with this was to say that where there was delegation with powers then subsection (4), giving the authority the right to take the matter back would not apply.
It will not surprise me in the least if the wording of my Amendment does not accomplish in proper draftsman's language what I want to do. I should be
1262
quite content to withdraw this Amendment if the Minister could assure me that he would look at this point, so that it is made clear beyond a shadow of doubt that a local authority may delegate a matter with powers, and a committee will know that those powers can safely be exercised and will not be withdrawn, or a decision overturned, at a subsequent meeting, except in the circumstances which I have indicated can be put into a scheme of delegation; for example, if a planning committee were divided and it was felt that a matter ought not to rest with them, because there should be a further opportunity of looking at it in the full authority. But if they were unanimous, that would be the end of the matter. That sort of case is not confined to a planning committee. A scheme of delegation might operate only where a committee were unanimous that the powers that were delegated would be operative. If the Minister will undertake to look at this point, and make the powers of delegation under Clause 56 wider than they appear to be, then I shall be content. I beg to move.
LORD POLWARTH: I do not think that the position is as restrictive as it seems to the noble Lord. As I understand it, this question of delegation can continue to be regulated, as I believe it is at present, by standing orders, and if standing orders say that a function is delegated without recall then it is so delegated until the standing orders are changed. The doubt may be over the use of the word "functions" rather than specific decisions, as it were. An authority can delegate with powers of decision under standing orders, and that remains the case until the standing orders are changed; and then, of course, they can take back the powers. This is a matter for the authority's own decision and regulation and it is not affected by Clause 56(4), which will not operate against an authority's standing orders.
LORD HUGHES: I should be happy with that if the Minister could tell me in what circumstances Clause 56(4) does operate.
LORD POLWARTH: Presumably, it would not prevent a local authority from taking back the delegated authority under the procedure laid down when it delegated the authority.
LORD HUGHES: It would not prevent their taking back the delegated power under the procedure laid down. If a local authority have a scheme under standing orders to delegate certain matters to a committee—and I agree that that is how it should be done—can the Minister assure me that the legal effect of Clause 56(4) would be overridden by the powers of the standing orders? If he can do that, I shall be perfectly content. I have never been committed to an arrangement, in any body of this kind, for more than a year at a time. Every year after the election the authorities will probably review the standing orders and they could change. But what I want to make certain about is that if a decision is taken and it appears to be a delegated one in pursuance of the decision which an authority has taken under the standing orders, a member will not be able to get up in Committee and say, "Notwithstanding the scheme of delegation in standing orders, according to Section 56(4) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 I have the right to raise this matter because it can be taken back". Will the Minister assure me that that will not be possible within a proper scheme of delegation?
LORD POLWARTH: Yes, it will not be possible without action being taken regarding the standing orders.
LORD HUGHES: I am grateful to the Minister. With that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD POLWARTH LORD POLWARTH moved Amendment No. 81:
Page 32, line 11, leave insert (" 1973").
The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 111, 172 and 201 are consequential on this Amendment. These Amendments are consequential on the passing of the Education (Work Experience) Act 1973, which received the Royal Assent on May 23 this year. That Act becomes part of the body of Education Acts which may be cited together. It is therefore necessary that we amend the description of these Acts from "1939 to 1971" to "1939 to 1973". At the same time, the opportunity is taken to make a minor drafting Amendment in Clause 233(2), where two Education Acts are at present
1264
specified. It seems preferable to cover them all by employing this formal embracing citation of the Acts from one year to the other. I beg to move.
Clause 56, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 57 to 63 agreed to.
Clause 63 [Appointment, etc. of staff]:
THE EARL OF BALFOUR THE EARL OF BALFOUR moved Amendment No. 83:
Page 36, line 7, leave out paragraph (e).
The noble Earl said: Clause 64 is a curious clause because of the choice of the specified officers that a local authority must appoint. It is also curious to find the variations in the terms and conditions of their appointment in the Schedules to this Bill. For example, a local authority must appoint a qualified weights and measures inspector, but there is no mention of either the appointment or the terms and conditions of the very important official known as the sanitary inspector or the environmental health officer because Section 79 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1947 is being repealed. Hence my new clause.
LORD POLWARTH: I wonder whether I may interrupt the noble Lord. I think the Amendment called was No. 83, was it not?
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD CHAMPION): Yes, Amendment No. 83 to Clause 64 by the Earl of Balfour.
THE EARL OF BALFOUR: I thought I was speaking to that.
LORD HUGHES: I also thought the noble Earl was speaking to that.
LORD POLWARTH: With great respect, I think that the noble Earl is speaking to the subsequent Amendment in his name.
THE EARL OF BALFOUR: Amendments Nos. 83 and 84 go together. We are now on No. 83, to leave out paragraph (e).
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: It has nothing to do with environmental health.
THE EARL OF BALFOUR: I am giving my reasons why I want to leave out paragraph (e). I do not think I have made a mistake. A director of social work can neither be appointed nor be dismissed except with the sanction of the Secretary of State, under Section 3 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968. Under Section 36 of that Act, social work reporters are at present appointed or dismissed under the same conditions as their director, but it will be noted that under Schedule 26 to this Bill these conditions are being repealed. Hence the reason for my Amendment to leave out paragraph (e). If it is the intention of the Government to specify that a local authority must employ reporters, why have the Government decided not to specify the appointment of any of the officials in the Local Government (Scotland) Act—Section 76, clerk; Section 77, treasurer; Section 78, collector; Section 79, medical officer of health and sanitary inspector; and Section 80, road surveyor. At the same time, I should like to point out that although directors of education must be appointed under Section 86 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1962, under Schedule 11 to this Bill they
"… shall hold office on such reasonable terms and conditions, including conditions as to remuneration, as the authority appointing him think fit."
The special conditions mentioned in the rest of that subsection cease to have effect. Yet teachers at the authority schools will continue to have these special conditions of employment. I therefore ask: is this alteration in the best interests of either the officials or the authority concerned? I beg to move.
LORD POLWARTH: I think there is a small degree of confusion here. The noble Earl's Amendment relates to the office of reporter under the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968. We have specified here a number of offices which it will be obligatory to continue. In general, our policy is to give the maximum freedom to local authorities, and not to oblige them to maintain more than the minimum necessary offices designated by their titles. We will leave it to their discretion how they designate the people to carry out the jobs. But this particular one is in a rather peculiar position, and I shall
1266
confine my remarks to this because this is the substance of the Amendment.
The office of reporter was introduced as a carefully independent part of what is really quasi-judicial machinery. The reporter's duties as the permanent official servicing children's panels include very important powers like deciding which children referred to him by the police, social work departments or individuals as having committed offences or as having been in difficulties seem to require compulsory care. The decision as to who come before a children's hearing is the reporter's alone, and it is most important that his independence is manifest. The only way of ensuring this is to provide that a reporter has specifically to be appointed, and that his functions cannot be absorbed, for example, within those of the clerk to the authority, the director of social work or any other official. That is the purpose of requiring the maintenance of the office of reporter, which the noble Earl's Amendment would remove from the Bill.
THE EARL OF BALFOUR: I beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 64 agreed to.
8.44 p.m.
THE EARL OF BALFOUR THE EARL OF BALFOUR moved Amendment No. 84:
After Clause 64 insert the following new clause—
Environmental Health Officer
".—(1) Every district and island council shall appoint an officer who shall be called the environmental health officer of the district or island authority and shall regulate the duties of the environmental health officer and pay him such reasonable salary as the council may determine.
(2) Except with the sanction of the Secretary of State no person shall be appointed environmental health officer of an authority unless he possesses such qualifications as may be prescribed by the Secretary of State.
(3) The environmental health officer of an authority shall not hold any other appointment or engage in private practice or employment without the written consent of the council.
(4) The environmental health officer shall hold office during the pleasure of the council, so however that he shall not be removed from office except by either a resolution of the council passed by more than two thirds of the members of the council present at a meeting of the council the notice of which specifies the consideration of the removal from office

1267
of the environmental health officer as an item of business or by or with the sanction of the Secretary of State."
The noble Earl said: I have already spoken to this Amendment. It is either necessary or it is not necessary, but I feel that the environmental health officer is in very special circumstances. The environmental health officer could be placed in a difficult position, and I feel that he should be in some way covered by Statute. I beg to move.
LORD POLWARTH: I think this is a fairly clear, straightforward difference of view as to whether or not it is necessary to have an official designated by his particular title. The environmental health officer is, of course, our old friend the sanitary inspector under his newly-chosen designation. He is a very important person, but I do not think he enjoys such a special responsibility or position as to require that he must statutorily be designated as the environmental health officer by every authority. I think that here, as with these other appointments, unless there is something specific (like the reporter, who was mentioned in the last Amendment), we should leave it to the good sense of the authorities concerned how they designate these officials. They will have to employ people with these skills to deal with the functions with which they are charged, and there will be many opportunities for the people with these present designations for employment with the new authorities. They will indeed have even better opportunities, I submit, than they have at present in their careers. Accordingly, in the interests of leaving the maximum freedom to authorities about the designation of their officials, I would ask your Lordships to resist this Amendment.
LORD HUGHES: I think the Minister is right in this case. I doubt very much whether any local authorities which have needed sanitary inspectors in the past are going to refrain from appointing them just because it is not laid down. I agree with the Minister that these are very important officials of local authorities. In fact, I would go further and say that they are even as important as their new title would indicate.
THE EARL OF BALFOUR: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 65 to 69 agreed to.
Clause 70 [Acquisition of land by agreement]:
On Question, Whether Clause 70 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD HUGHES: I have a query on Clause 70. This clause states the way in which local authorities can acquire land, and I presume that under the usual arrangements "land" includes anything which may be on it—buildings, and so on. In the past it has been a great thorn in the flesh of authorities that they can acquire land only after a value has been placed on it by the district valuer. This means that in many cases they have had to wait sometimes two years before they can do so. I do not see anything in Clause 70—though I would not guarantee that it does not appear somewhere else in the Bill—requiring that a local authority will acquire land only after the district valuer has valued. I do not think it is in the clause, but would the Minister say whether or not these restrictions still apply, or whether this is part of the giving of greater powers to local authorities?
LORD POLWARTH: The noble Lord has caught me out on this one, without notice.
LORD HUGHES: I would be quite happy if we left it at that, and perhaps the noble Lord could be a little out of order in giving us the information later on.
LORD POLWARTH: If the noble Lord will allow me that opportunity, I will gladly accept it.
Clause 70 agreed to.
Clauses 71 to 75 agreed to.
Clause 76 [Special provisions as to land acquired for public recreation from heir of entail]:
8.48 p.m.
THE EARL OF BALFOUR THE EARL OF BALFOUR moved Amendment No. 87:
Page 40, line 42, leave out ("quarter of a mile") and insert ("100 metres").
The noble Earl said: I took legal advice on this Amendment, and I was told that the heirs of entail enactments were 19th century Acts which applied to property which was entailed before 1914. The quarter of a mile was in connection with what was regarded as a

1269
reasonable distance from the point of view of privacy. At that time people really felt that a quarter of a mile was the minimum distance. I well remember one case of relations of mine who acquired a house that had five huge monkey-puzzle trees planted close round about it, and a Virginia creeper and ivy which had been trained to grow up the walls. Nowadays, with the open-planning type of house, I feel that the distance of 100 metres in substitution would be quite far enough away, and a much more practicable thing—and we are trying to make things more practical by the provisions of this Bill. I beg to move.
LORD POLWARTH: The noble Earl is taking us back into some rather obscure legislation. He is right in saying that no entails have been created under Statute in Scotland since 1914. Nevertheless, I do not think it would be right that your Lordships should tamper with what is really a basic part of the law of entail. This is something which I think we may well want to review as a whole in the appropriate way at the appropriate time. The noble Earl would in fact, by his Amendment, reduce the radius of inalienable land from one quarter of a mile to 100 metres. Apart from going metric, he would be reducing the radius to approximately a quarter and the area to one-sixteenth. The number of occasions, if any, when this will arise is minimal. I would suggest that anything to do with this should be left to the review of the whole of the law of entailment.
THE EARL OF BALFOUR: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 76 agreed to.
Clauses 77 to 80 agreed to.
Clause 81 [Contracts of local authorities]:
On Question, Whether Clause 81 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD HUGHES: I do not think I shall catch the Minister this time. I ought not to. The clause starts by saying:
"A local authority may make standing orders with respect to the making of contracts by them or on their behalf."
1270
It goes on to say that they
"shall make standing orders with respect to the making by them … of contracts for the supply of goods or materials or for the execution of works".
I take it that what the first part means is that a local authority might be making a contract for some sort of service other than that dealt with in the second paragraph (for the supply of goods and materials or for the execution of works); for instance, contracts with architects, surveyors, lawyers and so on. Is it the intention that where contracts do not fall within subsection (2) the authority may still make standing orders, but where it falls within subsection (2) they are under an obligation to make standing orders and they are covered by the following provisions? Am I reading it correctly?
LORD POLWARTH: That is certainly how it appears to me. The first is a general permissive power, the second is more detailed and specific with relation to entering into specific contracts and works and that they must have standing orders with respect to specific kinds of contracts for the supply of goods or materials or the execution of works. They may have more general ones overall.
Clause 81 agreed to.
Clause 82 agreed to.
Clause 83 [Power of local authorities 'to incur expenditure for certain purposes not otherwise authorised]:
LORD POLWARTH LORD POLWARTH moved Amendment No. 88:
Page 44, line 17, leave out ("a Lord Provost").
The noble Lord said: This Amendment and Amendment No. 89 go together. They are being proposed following an undertaking given by Ministers in another place at Report stage to consider further classes of persons sponsoring appeals which might be assisted by a local authority under the powers of the clause. At the moment subsection (3) provides that a local authority may contribute under it to appeals sponsored by
"a Lord Provost, a chairman of a regional, islands or district council, a lord-lieutenant or a body of which any of these persons is a member".
I am not quite sure how a lord-lieutenant can be a member of a body of persons, but it is apparently all-embracing. The term "Lord Provost" as provided in

1271
Clause 3 will continue to attach to the chairmen of the city districts of Aberdeen, Dundee, Edinburgh and Glasgow, but the Government made it clear that while they did not intend to extend the title by Statute to other office holders there was nothing to prevent its use elsewhere; for example, by a district council or a community council. There could also be the possibility in some areas that local councillors might wish to provide for the title to continue to be borne by someone other than the chairman of the district council.
To avoid confusion, we feel that the words "Lord Provost" should be deleted from the clause. In the case of cities the position will be covered by reference to "a chairman of a district council", which is what the Lord Provost will be in the cities. It was also agreed to accept a suggestion originally put forward in another place that local authorities should also have power if they wish to contribute to appeals sponsored by community councils, and the reference to the chairman of a community council has been inserted in this Amendment.
LORD HUGHES: I agree with the Minister that these words should be taken out in view of the reference to a chairman of a district council, but my agreement arises from a different reason. The way in which the noble Lord expressed this view multiplies my fears that the Government are prepared to contemplate with equanimity the possibility of Scotland being littered with Lord Provosts.
LORD POLWARTH: I beg to move Amendment No. 89.
Amendment moved—
Page 44, line 18, after ("council") insert ("a chairman of a community council").(Lord Polwarth.)
Clause 83, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 84 [Powers of local authorities with respect to emergencies or disasters]:
On Question, Whether Clause 84 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD HUGHES: I wonder whether the Minister can tell me what this power covers. Would it cover, for instance, the
1272
conditions that arose in Glasgow some years ago when with exceptional storms a tremendous amount of damage was done and for a long time there was doubt as to the power the local authority had to carry out repair work and subsequently to recover the cost from the owners of the property? That was how it was eventually done, but after long and needless delay was incurred. I think that largely the legal advisers to the Corporation of Glasgow did not think they could do this. This clause would make it clear in circumstances of that kind that the local authorities have the power to get on with the job right away. Is that the position?
LORD POLWARTH: That is what is envisaged: that it should cover emergency and disaster involving danger to life or property—some physical event but not a continuing eventuality or state of affairs.
Clause 84 agreed to.
Clause 85 agreed to.
Clause 86 [Insurance by local authorities against accidents to members]:
On Question, Whether Clause 86 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD HUGHES: The question is raised by NALGO as to whether this clause is sufficient in requiring insurance by local authorities against accidents to the members and whether it ought not to be extended also to ther officers or employees. The opinion I expressed (but I am not certain I am right) is that it would not be necessary in their case because it will be provided in the ordinary course of events. Part of the conditions of service is that these people are protected against the consequences of accidents. That is not the position in relation to members, where it can be done only by insurance and special arrangements. Am I right in my opinion?
LORD POLWARTH: The position, as I understand it, of the officers is the normal employer-employee relationship. As such, the industrial accidents provisions in National Insurance legislation should adequately take care of the officers. There is nothing to prevent special arrangements for special officers, so far as I know, under the Bill.
LORD HUGHES: If an authority wanted to make up an employee's wages for a period, as is done by any good employer; if they wanted to make up the industrial benefits to his normal wage or to insure against that contingency, presumably they are free to do so without any specific power being laid down in the Bill?
LORD POLWARTH: Without being absolutely certain on that, from what I have heard of the arrangements I should have thought this to be a normal employer-employee situation in which the employer would have power to make any reasonable arrangement regarding the insurance of his employee.
LORD HUGHES: As the noble Lord is not absolutely certain, may I ask whether if the position is different he would be good enough to write and let me know? If I do not hear from him I shall know that the position is satisfactory.
Clause 86 agreed to.
Clauses 87 to 90 agreed to.
Clause 91 [Social, cultural and recreative activities]:
9.0 p.m.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL THE DUKE OF ATHOLL moved Amendment No. 90A:
Page 48, line 19, leave out ("an adequate") and insert ("a reasonable").
The noble Duke said: The terms of this subsection occur in several places in the Bill and in most of the other places I think that they are perfectly suitable. But I am worried in connection with this clause which deals with the provision of recreational and social facilities. It is almost impossible to produce adequate facilities for social, cultural or recreational activities at times of peak demand. However many golf courses there may be, probably on Sunday mornings there will not be an adequate number. I should have thought it was unreasonable to expect any regional authority to produce this number of facilities. I am worried also that on some occasions various recreational activities will conflict. Thus you may have a pond which is used for water ski-ing and for fishing, which two sports cannot take place at the same time. Is the regional council to be expected to produce adequate facilities for both
1274
sports? It is the word "adequate" that worries me.
If there were a demand for ski jumping in some towns (I might add that every Scandinavian town of any size has its own ski-jump and I do not think the day will be far off when every town has one, with sports getting more and more international) would the regional council be expected, at great expense, to produce a ski-jump and supply adequately the demand for that particular recreational facility? I imagine they would be expected to produce bigger and better State bingo halls if the demand for accommodation for bingo was not satisfied by the existing halls. I feel that in this subsection it would be better if the word "reasonable" was used rather than the word "adequate". I am not prepared to go to the stake over this; I am not even prepared to divide the Committee on it. But I feel that here the use of the word "adequate" goes perhaps too far, and that "reasonable" might be a more appropriate word.
LORD POLWARTH: I think we would all agree that both these words, "adequate" and "reasonable", are capable of a pretty broad interpretation and at first sight there is a lot to be said for the noble Duke's suggestion. If there were ever to be any question of challenging a council on whether they had fulfilled their duties under the clause I think the real criterion would be whether they had tried to do their best in the circumstances. I should think it very unlikely, but if the matter ever became one of a legal definition, I should think it would be easier to enforce it over the term "adequate" than over the term "reasonable". I am sure that the interpretation of adequacy will be dealt with in a sensible manner.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: If my noble friend is satisfied that this is not going to cause difficulty, who am I to complain? I am still not entirely convinced, but I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD TAYLOR OF GRYFE LORD TAYLOR OF GRYFE moved Amendment No. 91:
Page 48, line 21, at end insert ("and shall report to the Secretary of State annually on the steps taken particularly in relation to the provision of parks and recreation facilities.").
The noble Lord said: This Amendment follows representations made to me by the Institute of Parks and Recreation Administration, a body for which I have the highest regard. They are a little concerned about some of the facilities not being adequate. I think the balance between district and region is clearly and sensibly defined in the Bill. There will be parks and recreation facilities which are essentially district, but more and more the provision of country parks will have a regional impact and responsibility. The park administrators and the recreation administrators were a little apprehensive about the wording in Clause 91 which says:
"A local authority may do or arrange …"
and it gives a list of the facilities which they may provide. I confess that it would be wrong to make these facilities compulsory and to insist on the maintenance of a band, orchestra or theatrical company. At the same time, it is felt by people who are concerned with outdoor activities that something stronger might be expressed in relation to parks and recreation.
I think that we are all deeply concerned about the mounting cost of vandalism in areas where school leavers who have been accustomed to enjoying some organised recreational facilities and some order in their school life, suddenly find themselves in a new world, a new environment of factory life, where facilities for recreation are inadequate. I think there is a duty to provide adequate recreation, even as an insurance against the increasing menace of vandalism. We make compulsory certain services by local authorities. I admit that there are difficulties about making this facility compulsory, but I think that for many local authorities the budget for local parks is more and more being taken up by the provision of a little landscaping here and there on new housing estates; and there is little money left for the additional responsibility of providing adequate recreation facilities.
We are living in a period in which vandalism is the result of frustration felt by people who can find no outlet for their creative energy. I hope that the Minister will be able to say something which might encourage those of us who are concerned over this matter, and that
1276
in particular the Institute may be encouraged to feel that their particular and important social responsibility is not being lost sight of in the new legislation. I beg to move.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: I think it might be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak now rather than on the Amendment that I have put down to Clause 138, Amendment No. 135A, which is on much the same point, and if I say straight away that I was never enamoured of my Amendment and much prefer that of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe. I am afraid I have not his skill in thinking of Amendments. I feel that this is a very good compromise between the two evils: first, forcing local authorities to spend their money in some particular way, which is something, like the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, I would tend to deplore; and secondly, that in times of financial stress the first thing that is always cut out is expenditure on things like parks and recreation areas. I feel that expenditure on outdoor places where people can go and enjoy themselves is well worth while in the fight against vandalism. I therefore hope that the Government can give us some encouragement by saying that they adopt the spirit of this Amendment, if not the actual words.
The Institute of Park and Recreation Administration are slightly worried by the somewhat dual responsibility that this Bill lays on the regional councils and the district councils for the administration of parks. They realise that regional parks, like Culzean, ought to be a regional function, and that smaller parks in the heart of Glasgow ought to be a district function, but they feel that there may be some falling between the stools. I should like my noble friend to confirm that the Government will keep an eye on this.
LORD POLWARTH: I can confirm that it is the Government's intention to give every encouragement to the provision of this kind of facilities. It is encouraging to read that,
"regional councils shall have a duty in consultation with district councils …"
This is a definite provision to ensure that there is an adequate provision of facilities for the inhabitants in their regions for social, cultural and recreational activities I think these activities will all benefit

1277
from the fact of having a stronger regional structure, with greater resources, and better able to plan the proper distribution and allocation of these facilities, instead of possibly every very small community striving to have every facility and ending up not having a good enough one anywhere. I think the regional set-up will enable us to make a much better provision than in the past, and that is certainly our intention.
On the actual substance of the Amendment, which suggests that they shall report to the Secretary of State annually on the steps taken, with great respect I do not think this is the right answer. We do not want to increase the number of statutory annual reports that have to be made. Everybody then bustles around and says, "What are we going to put in the annual report?", and they think up all sorts of odds and ends to fill it out. Under Clause 199 of the Bill the Secretary of State is given power to require any local authority, joint committee or joint board to submit such returns and give him such information as he may require. So I think the Secretary of State can keep a good eye on this. He has the power to do so, and we certainly intend to give every encouragement to this end.
LORD TAYLOR OF GRYFE: I should like to thank the noble Lord for that assurance and for the encouragement he has given. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 91 agreed to.
Clauses 92 and 93 agreed to.
Clause 94 [Capital expenses]:
9.13 p.m.
LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved Amendment No. 91A:
Page 50, line 18, after second ("works") insert ("or to such amount")
The noble Lord said: The two Amendments that I have put down to Clause 94 look the same, but they are not. They cover different aspects, and I speak only to Amendment No. 91A. On Second Reading, I pointed out that one considerable source of anxiety to local authorities is the fact that every item of capital expenditure is controlled, and they have to go to the Secretary of State for consent, no matter how small it may
1278
be. I appreciate that it is part of the functions of central Government to control the use of the resources of the country and that one of the ways in which this is done is by tight control of capital expenditure. I do not wish materially to depart from that. However, I suggested on Second Reading that it might be appropriate, in the spirit of giving more powers to the new local authorities than are available to the existing ones, that the Government might consider the possibility of either an aggregate amount for local authority expenditure, not exceeding some small sum—I would not care to put a figure on it—which might in fact be generally approved by the Secretary of State without requiring the submission to him of details. I looked at the clause as it stood and it seemed to me that it might be possible to regard paragraph (1)(a):
"subject to such conditions as may be specified …".
as enabling the Secretary of State to say that any scheme which does not cost more than £x is given approval in this way. Regarding paragraph (1)(b)—
"in relation to such project, or to such programme of works, or to such class of works …"
I do not know, for instance, whether it might be said that schemes costing not more than £x could be regarded as a "class of works".
If, therefore, the wording of the clause as it stands would enable the Secretary of State to give a general authority of this kind, then I should be content. All I would seek to do—and the Amendment which I have put down is only if it is thought necessary—would be to lay down such an amount so that the Secretary of State could say that any scheme costing not more than such an amount could be gone ahead with, and there would be general authority for him to do that. But I am taking it generally really as a permissive power, so that the Secretary of State "may" do this, and, whichever way it was done, the Secretary of State would not be under any obligation—because in times of stringency he might want to pull the reins tight, but at other times he might be able to give a general dispensation of this kind. Would the Minister be good enough to say whether the clause as it stands would enable the Secretary of State

1279
to regard a scheme of this kind as coming within the powers which the clause gives?
LORD DRUMALBYN: It is doubtful whether the clause as it now stands would allow the kind of permission that the noble Lord seeks. On consideration, we think it is desirable that there should be such a power, and therefore I am happy to accept the Amendment, though, like the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, I should not care to put a figure on it.
LORD HUGHES: I am grateful to the Minister.
LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved Amendment No. 91B:
Page 50, line 23, leave out ("or are to be met from a reserve fund").
The noble Lord said: This Amendment, although it refers to the same clause, is quite a different thing. I am rather unhappy about the way the clause is worded, because subsection (2) says:
"In this section 'capital expenses' means any expenses which are to be charged to a capital or borrowing account, …".
No one could dissent from that: a charge is obviously a capital expense. It continues:
"… or are to be met from a reserve fund, or are to be met otherwise than out of current revenue."
Presumably if they are not to be met out of current revenue they are to be met by using borrowed money, and presumably again it is a capital expense.
What I am not happy about is the inclusion of the words:
"or are to be met from a reserve fund,".
I could understand the position if what is intended is that what is obviously a capital project which could otherwise be met by borrowing money was in fact going to be met from a reserve fund; but as I read this clause it says that any expense which is being met from a reserve fund shall be regarded as a capital expense. There may be many things which are met from a reserve fund. The most obvious occasion is if there is a deficit on the current year's accounts and therefore the local authority take money out of a reserve fund to meet it. But on a strict reading of this clause they would be debarred from doing so, because as soon as they take
1280
money out of the reserve fund it becomes a capital expense, and they can do it only with the consent of the Secretary of State. I am quite certain that that is not what is meant.
If I am told that, notwithstanding that being an intelligent reading of the provision, this is what the lawyers would make it out to be and that it is confined to preventing the use of reserve funds on proper capital expenditure, then I should be content. But if I cannot be assured of that, the least I am prepared to do is to invite the Minister to look at this clause again and ensure that it does only what it is intended to do: that is, prevent a reserve fund from being used for capital expenditure that otherwise would have been controlled by the Secretary of State.
9.20 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I think I can clarify the intention here for the noble Lord. As he has appreciated, the basic object of Clause 94 is to ensure the control of the use of resources through the control of capital expenses, instead of through the control of borrowing. Reserve funds are in general derived from revenue contributions. But if they are built up they can be used to fund quite large capital projects—which of course means a take up of resources. It is exactly this take up of resources that it is intended to control. Moreover, paragraph 60 of Schedule 9 removes the 2½p limitation on aggregate contributions by local authorities to capital funds in any year. In view of these two considerations, it is not unreasonable to include expenses met from reserve funds in the definition of capital expenses. The noble Lord will have noticed that the end of that sentence says "or are to be met otherwise than out of current revenue". So there is the distinction there between what is to be met out of current revenue, and what is to be charged to capital and the like. There will need to be some flexibility in operating Clause 94, and local authorities will normally be free to spend within the limits of their agreed capital budgets. Where capital expenses are being incurred, or reserve funds are being employed simply to acquire existing assets rather than to create new assets, it should be possible to make some relaxation of control, and again there is no creation of new assets.

1281
I hope I have made the position clear. There was some reference to this in correspondence that passed between my noble friend and the noble Lord. I hope that I have made the purpose of these particular words clear. Plainly, if funds are merely to be paid out of the reserve fund to meet what is normally funded out of current revenue, whether it is a deficit or anything else, this does not come within the meaning of capital expenses. That is clear from the subsection. What we are talking about here is the spending of money for the creation of new assets. It is on this point that we seek to exercise control.
LORD HUGHES: I am sorry, but I am not satisfied. I do not think the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has met the point I am raising. I am in complete agreement with the object he stated and which was in Lord Polwarth's letter to me. I would not wish to be a party to giving an unlimited freedom on capital expenditure if people were free to use reserve funds. Some local authorities could have large reserve funds—Edinburgh at one time had enormous reserve funds; we do not know how enormous because the figure was never revealed. We all know there was a lot of money involved.
But it is a fact that in Clause 94(2) capital expenses are being defined. The definition includes the spending of any money from the reserve fund as being considered a capital expenditure. It is much more common to use reserve funds for items which are not of a capital nature at all; yet as I read this, as soon as you take money out of a reserve fund it becomes a capital expenditure. That is what I am seeking to prevent. I want the Minister to make it perfectly clear that reserve funds will not be used for expenditure of a capital nature without the consent of the Secretary of State. To that I have no objection. What I am objecting to is the way in which capital expenditure is being defined. I would be content to withdraw this Amendment; it may well be that there is an answer to it, but I have not received it so far and it is a little late to press the matter too much. I should be happy to withdraw the Amendment if the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, would look into the matter and write to me to assure me of the adequacy of this provision, or if it is not
1282
adequate to say what is to be done about it.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I shall be happy to look at the point. It is a question of the definition of capital expenses for the purposes of this clause. I shall look at it very carefully to see that the intention is adequately expressed in these words.
LORD HUGHES: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 94, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 95 and 96 agreed to.
Clause 97 [Establishment of Commission for Local Authority Accounts in Scotland]:
9.26 p.m.
LORD POLWARTH LORD POLWARTH moved Amendment No. 92:
Page 52, line 5, after ("Commission") insert ("with such associations of local authorities as appear to him to be concerned and with such other organisations or persons as he may think appropriate").
The noble Lord said: We come now to the clauses of the Bill dealing with the provisions for audit and particularly the establishment of a Commission for Local Authority Accounts in Scotland. Since this is an innovation, before moving the first of these Amendments, I think I must say a little about this new set-up because I know that certain of your Lordships are interested in this. At present, the audit of local authority accounts is carried out by what the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1947 calls " fit persons " appointed by the Secretary of State. These " fit persons " are, in fact (I am delighted to hear it) practising accountants holding a recognised professional qualification—and I am sure that it will please my noble friend Lord Strathclyde behind me to know that he and I are presumably both qualified to be called "fit persons". The work of carrying out something like 500 audits is spread fairly thinly over a large number of firms, and the system has long been felt to suffer from two main drawbacks.
In the first place, it does not encourage specialisation in public accounting

1283
matters, which are indeed very specialised, or the provision of adequate central guidance on, for example, new legislation, and it involves the Secretary of State to an unnecessary extent in administrative matters such as appointments, fee fixing and dealing with reports on irregularities, many of them of a fairly mundane kind. The provisions of these clauses are intended to remedy these defects. They have been discussed with, and I understand welcomed generally by, the profession as represented by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland, the Local Government Auditors' Association (representing those accountants holding audit appointments) and the local authority associations.
We propose to appoint a Commission for Local Authority Accounts, which we hope will be seen to represent the joint interests of local authorities and of the public—those who spend money on local services and those who provide it. The Commission will take over nearly all the Secretary of State's present functions in securing the audit of local authority accounts and the consideration of audit reports. They will be supported by a chief official, the Controller of Audit, and other staff. They may arrange for auditing to be done either by their own staff or by accountants in public practice as at present. The Controller of Audit will co-ordinate and guide the work of the auditors and will be responsible for reporting to the Commission on matters arising from the accounts.
The Commission are to consider all reports made to them and will be empowered to hold hearings and make recommendations. They will have no executive powers to recover illegal payments, losses or deficiencies. Any recommendation they make at all for recovery from a councillor or official will have no effect unless it is confirmed by an administrative order of the Secretary of State, and this gives the opportunity for anybody affected by such recommendation to make his own representations before any order is made. Apart from the final discretion thus vested in him, we do not intend that the Secretary of State should be involved, as he now is, in determining issues of fact and law which may arise on an auditor's report.
Coming now to this Amendment, it is the essence of the new arrangements that the Commission should be independent. However, we thought it right to include a long-stop provision—this is well precedented—against the unlikely possibility of the Commission adopting a course of action which is clearly not in the public interest. In another place representations were made that we should add words to this clause to make it clear that the power of general direction resting with the Secretary of State should only be exercised with regard to the Commission after consultation with those having an interest in the work of the Commission. Such consultation would normally take place, of course, but the Amendment removes all doubt by making it a statutory requirement. I beg to move.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: It was during the debate on Second Reading that I expressed an interest in this new Commission, and then my noble friend was good enough to say that if I cared to raise the matter at a later stage he would try to explain it further. I want to express my most sincere thanks to my noble friend for the explanation he has given, so fully and so clearly. I thank him most sincerely for it. He has relieved any doubt that I had in my mind and I am grateful to him.
LORD POLWARTH: I beg to move Amendment No. 93.
Amendment moved—
Page 52, line 5, leave out ("them") and insert ("the Commission").—(Lord Polwarth.)
Clause 97, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 8 agreed to.
Clauses 98 to 101 agreed to.
Clause 102 [Reports to Commission by Controller of Audit]:
LORD POLWARTH LORD POLWARTH moved Amendment No. 94:
Page 54, line 33, at end insert—
(" (2) Without prejudice to subsection (1) above, the Controller of Audit may make a report to the Commission on any matters arising out of or in connection with the accounts of a local authority in order that those matters

1285
may be considered by the local authority concerned or brought to the attention of the public, and shall send a copy of any report so made to any local authority which is named in that report.")
The noble Lord said: As I explained earlier, the Controller of Audit will make reports to the Commission on various matters and formal reports will only be made on issues of importance which cannot be disposed of easily by consultation with the officials of the local authority concerned. There will be two kinds of report—general reports and special reports. We envisage that special reports will be like those which are at present called interim reports of an auditor, which will draw attention as quickly as possible to cases where, in the opinion of the Controller of Audit, any item of account is contrary to the law or there have been other irregularities of the kind with which we are all familiar and which are dealt with by interim reports at present.
On the other hand, general reports will be made on the completed audits of the year and will draw attention to a wider field—to matters, for instance, of financial administration or accounting practice, which might be helpful, on which comment by the Commission would be useful to the local authorities or in the interests of the ratepayer. We are advised that the wording of Clause 102(1) may not be sufficiently specific to cover the making of such general reports, and we see this as an important feature of the new system. The object of the additional subsection which this Amendment proposes is to make this clear beyond doubt. I beg to move.
Clause 102, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 103 [Action by Commission on reports by Controller of Audit]:
9.35 p.m.
LORD POLWARTH LORD POLWARTH moved Amendment No. 95:
Page 56, line 5, leave out from beginning to ("the") in line 10 and insert—
(" (3) Subject to subsection (4) below, if after consideration of the matters referred to in subsection (2) above the Commission find that any item of expenditure is contrary to law, or that there has been a failure to bring into account any sum which ought to have been brought into account, or that any loss or deficiency has been incurred or caused as mentioned in section 102(2)(a) of this Act, or that a local
1286
authority have not taken steps to remedy such a matter as is referred to in section 102(2)(b) of this Act, the Commission shall send the special report together with their findings to the Secretary of State and may recommend him to make an order—

(a) requiring any person whom they find responsible for incurring or authorising that expenditure, or for that failure, or for that loss or deficiency, as the case may be, to pay to the local authority concerned an amount not exceeding the amount of the said expenditure, or of the said sum, or of the said loss or deficiency; or, as the case may be,

(b) directing the authority to make such rectification of their accounts as appears to the Commission to be necessary.

The noble Lord said: The Committee will be relieved to hear that I intend to speak not only to this Amendment but to Nos. 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101 and 198. I thought that would be welcome news. I am afraid that this again is a matter that requires a little explanation. As I said earlier, one of the intentions in setting up this Commission for local authority accounts is to reduce the involvement of the Secretary of State in audit matters which could well be misunderstood as a form of control by central over local government, so we propose the main responsibility for considering audit reports shall devolve on the Commission who will make recommendations to the Secretary of State. These Amendments are designed to make more clear the procedure of allocating responsibility where it is intended that it should belong. In general, the Commission shall consider and recommend, and the Secretary of State shall decide in the light of their recommendations, and of any representations made to him by persons who may be affected.
The main change affected by this group of Amendments—and I apologise for the fact that we have had to make these changes—is the transfer to the present Clause 103 of a good deal of what is now in Clause 104, so we have one clause dealing with the Commission, and one dealing with the Secretary of State. Under these provisions the Secretary of State holds hearings at which persons concerned can express their views, make objections or require a case to be stated to the Court of Session on any point of law. It is not intended that the Secretary of State should then have to go over the ground again, but it could be implied that that was so from the first part of Clause 104. The Amendment would

1287
make it clear that it is for the Commission, when they inquire into special reports, to reach conclusions on relevant matters and facts of law which the Secretary of State will not then re-open. They will recommend to him how his powers should be used. I do not think I need worry your Lordships by going into all the Amendments in detail, unless any of your Lordships would like to raise any point. I can assure the House that all the Amendments hang together in clarifying where the different responsibilities should lie.
LORD HUGHES: I notice in the Amendment now moved that there is reference to 102(2)(a) and (2)(b). I presume that this is automatically changed because there has been a new 102(2) put in and it has now become a reference to 102(3)(a). Is this the sort of thing which is done automatically without any necessity?
LORD POLWARTH: I am most grateful to the noble Lord for drawing my attention to this. I understand the machinery will look after it.
Clause 103, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 104 [Action by Secretary of State on recommendation by Commission under s. 103(3)]:
LORD POLWARTH: I beg to move Amendment No. 96.
Amendment moved—
Page 57, line 1, leave out from beginning to ("acted") in line 32 and insert—
(" (1) Where recommendations are made to the Secretary of State under section 103(3) of this Act the Secretary of State may make an order giving effect to any recommendation, with or without modifications, or may decline to make such an order.
(2) The Secretary of State shall not make an order under subsection (1) above requiring a person to pay an amount to a local authority if the Secretary of State is satisfied that that person ").—(Lord Polwarth.)
LORD POLWARTH: I beg to move Amendment No. 97.
Amendment moved—
Page 57, line 40, leave out ("paragraph (a) of ").—(Lord Polwarth.)
LORD POLWARTH: I beg to move Amendment No. 98.
Amendment moved—
Page 58, leave out lines 2 to 5 and insert ("subsection (1) above requiring a person to pay an amount to a local authority, forthwith cause a copy of that order to be sent—
(a) to that person;").—(Lord Polwarth.)
LORD POLWARTH: I beg to move Amendment No. 99.
Amendment moved—
Page 58, line 9, leave out (" paragraph (a) of ").—(Lord Polwarth.)
LORD POLWARTH: I beg to move Amendment No. 100.
Amendment moved—
Page 58, line 20, leave out ("under paragraph (b of ") and insert ("in an order under").—(Lord Polwarth.)
Clause 104, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 105 [Regulations as to accounts]:
LORD POLWARTH: I beg to move Amendment No. 101.
Amendment moved—
Page 59, line 2, leave out ("or of any direction given to them").—(Lord Polwarth.)
Clause 105, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 106 and 107 agreed to.
Clause 108 [Determination and levy of regional, district and general rates]:
9.39 p.m.
LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved Amendment No. 101A:
Page 60, line 31, after second ("year") insert ("not added to reserve funds").
The noble Lord said: This again is on the subject of reserve funds. When we were talking on my previous Amendments, which were also on the subject of the reserve funds, the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, referred to the removal of the disability in adding to the funds. At present, this is limited to 21p in any one year. My difficulty in reading Clause 108 was that it did not seem to make provision for putting money to reserve. Page 60, line 25 reads:
"It shall be the duty of every local authority to determine such regional, general or

1289
district rate, as the case may be, as will provide sufficient moneys to meet such part of the total estimated expenses to be incurred by the authority during the financial year in respect of which the rate is to be levied (after taking account of any balance or estimated balance at the end of the financial year immediately preceding that year) …"
That is the point at which I am proposing to add the words "not added to reserve funds".
The subsection continues:
"as falls to be met out of moneys raised by rates, together with such additional amount as is, in the opinion of the authority, required—

(a) to cover expenses previously incurred,

(b) to meet contingencies,

(c) to meet any expenses which may fall to be met before the moneys to be received in respect of the regional, general or district rate, as the case may be, for the financial year next following the first-mentioned year will become available."

On the face of it, there does not seem to be any authority to put money to reserve, and yet obviously if the Government have removed the limit of 2½p—the amount that could be placed to reserve in a particular year—it is intended that it should be possible to put money to reserve.
LORD DRUMALBYN: May I interrupt the noble Lord? The noble Lord is speaking to both Amendments Nos. 101A and 101B, is he?
LORD HUGHES: Yes, that is so. Neither will be necessary if I can be assured under what Part of the Bill the authority have power to put money to reserve. What raised my doubts was the first part that I sought to amend, which said:
"… after taking account of any balance or estimated balance …".
I know it has been the case with quite a number of authorities that if they have finished the year with a surplus that surplus was automatically placed into the reserve fund, subject, of course, to the present limitation of 2½p. If they wanted to put less than that of course they could do so, but they had to carry forward into the next year any surplus beyond 2½p, although it is not likely that many authorities nowadays have a surplus of more than 2½p at the end of the year.
The usual provision was that money went to reserve, and if they wanted to use any part of the reserve to diminish the rate for the following year, then when
1290
the treasurer was making his estimates or the finance chairman was making his statement to the authority in due course he intimated how much money he was prepared to take out of the reserve fund. The clause as it stands would seem to prevent the local authority from putting any balance at the end of the year straight to reserve. They have to take it automatically into the accounts for the following year. If there is elsewhere adequate provision enabling the local authority to put such sums, without limit, to reserve my point is made. I want to safeguard the right of the local authority to create reserve funds. Perhaps the noble Lord can let me know where that is provided for. I beg to move.
LORD DRUMALBYN: So far as I can understand what the noble Lord has been saying, he really has two objects in mind. As he says, he wants to safeguard the putting of funds into a reserve fund. If this is what he is seeking to do then I can tell him that no amendment of Clause 108(2) is necessary for this purpose, because local authorities are authorised by Sections 8 to 10 of the Local Government (Development and Finance) (Scotland) Act 1964 to establish and contribute to reserve funds, and Clause 107, replacing Section 211 of the Local Government Act 1947, provides for general sanction for expenses on functions under public general Acts to be met from rates.
If I may say so, I think one point where the noble Lord may perhaps not quite have appreciated the situation is that this clause is dealing with the duty of local authorities. While they have power to make contributions to a reserve fund, it would be strange to give them a duty to contribute to a reserve fund. The second point is that the noble Lord intends that the local authorities should not be inhibited from amassing revenue reserve funds out of revenue surpluses at the end of the year as a form of rate equalisation account.
I am not absolutely certain I was right in what I told him before about the use of reserve funds, or as to the transfer to revenue account from the reserve fund. The general concept is that the rating should be sufficient to meet the expenses, taking one year with another, and I think that is made pretty clear in this particular clause. If this is what the noble Lord is wanting, I am bound to

1291
say to him that Clause 108(2) is in terms very similar to those of Section 212(1) of the 1947 Act, which it replaces, particularly as regards the treatment of any balance on revenue account from the preceding year. The underlying intention of both provisions is that local authorities should as far as possible balance their accounts year by year and should not accrue either surpluses or deficits. The Government attach importance to the principle that the total rate demand for each year should be neither more nor less than is needed to meet the year's outgoings. I hope this makes the position clear, that there is power to contribute to a reserve fund, but it is not the intention that the reserve fund should as a principle be built up from revenue for use towards things that would normally be met from revenue.
LORD HUGHES: I am grateful to the noble Lord for that explanation. I would say right away that I had not in fact appreciated that the second Amendment was placing a duty on the local authority to put money into reserve funds. I did not notice the words right at the beginning of subsection (2). Of course, it would be quite wrong to put an obligation on them to provide a reserve. So I will not in fact move Amendment No. 101B.
I am still not quite certain how the reserve funds are ever going to be increased if the local authority are not allowed to put a surplus to reserve at the end of a year. If the intention is, as the Minister has stated, that the local authority would normally rate for the expenditure which they intend or expect to incur, and that they should not be budgetting either for surplus or deficit, I do not see where a contribution to reserve is going to come from other than the balance that might accrue at the end of a year, unless the Government are acceptting that the local authority, in stating what they are raising money for in the ensuing year can say " and we propose to put x pounds into reserve ", and will rate for that. That would be in direct conflict with the requirement that they should be rating only for the amount necessary to balance their accounts. It is this business of saying that a surplus must automatically be carried forward to the next year which I think hits at the accumulation of reserve funds. I may be getting a bit dim as the time goes on, but
1292
I still have not understood that the Minister has given me assurance on that point.
LORD DRUMALBYN: The power to contribute to reserve funds remains. The way in which it is envisaged that these reserve funds should be used is, for example, to make provision for renewals, to make provision for anticipated acquisitions and that sort of thing.
LORD HUGHES: I have no doubts about the way the reserve fund can be used; what I am asking is how they are created.
LORD DRUMALBYN: Yes, I understand that. The contributions to capital reserve funds are normally budgeted for and are a proper charge on the year's rates. Up until now there has been this limitation of 2½p. The fact that the limitation is removed does not mean that the contribution is removed. They can make the contribution, and it will be a contribution on the year's rates. What we are not intending should happen is that the funds should be amassed from rates as a rate equalisation fund. They are to be used for capital expenditure, and because they will be capital expenditure, as we saw before when dealing with a previous Amendment, they will be subject to the control of the Secretary of State in so far as they represent the creation of new resources. That is why I am saying here that the kind of use to which they will be put is renewals, or anticipated acquisitions. This is the kind of use that they can be put to.
LORD HUGHES: I see now, and this makes me most unhappy. I am quite certain that the local authorities do not appreciate what is happening here. This is the abolition of reserve funds as local authorities have known them up to the present, and they are only going to be allowed to have a new type of reserve fund usable for capital purposes. In that sense the definition of capital expenses earlier makes sense. It did not make sense at the time when we were discussing it, and nothing was said that made sense of it, because it was not stated that the type of reserve fund was being changed. A principal use that local authorities have made of the reserve fund was as a rates equalisation fund. Has there been consultation with the local authority associations? Do they know that it is part of

1293
this Bill that they are not to be allowed to have rate equalisation reserves? If so, I am surprised that they have accepted this, because the type of use I have indicated has always been regarded as one of the best things that a prudent treasurer or finance convenor would wish to do. It is most undesirable that there should be needless fluctuations in rate amounts.
The City of Edinburgh is a capital example of this. Because of the reserves they had accumulated through what some people would call "prudent financing" and other people "meanness", they were able to avoid rate increases over many years, because every year they dipped into the reserve fund, until the day came when Mr. Imrie had to tell them that they had reached the bottom of the barrel and that the rates should go up in Edinburgh just as they did elsewhere. Unkind political people said that what had happened was that the Tories made certain that the reserve funds were used up before there was a Labour majority in the Edinburgh Town Council. However, I am not going to enter into that aspect of it. It is important that local authorities should know that a fundamental change is taking place in the reserve funds. I propose to withdraw this Amendment, but I will make certain that the chamberlains in Scotland, and the other finance officers, know what this is about. If they and the treasurers and finance conveners are happy about it, then I will let the matter rest there; but I shall be very surprised if they are. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 108 agreed to.
Clauses 109 to 113 agreed to.
Clause 114 [Variation of standard scheme by rating authority]:
9.55 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 114 shall stand part of the Bill?
THE EARL OF BALFOUR: I should like to take this opportunity of asking a question about subsection (7). There appear to be slight differences in the way in which the rent and rates rebate
1294
might be calculated, and I feel that it would be a pity if two different calculations had to be fed into the same computer in a local authority. If they were on practically the same lines the same computer could be used, but there appear to be slight differences.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am not clear what differences the noble Lord is referring to. If he has something in mind which is fairly detailed it might be better if we discussed it together off the Floor of the House, in order to see where the differences lie.
THE: EARL OF BALFOUR: I thank my noble friend and I shall be happy to do that.
Clause 114 agreed to.
Clause 115 agreed to.
Clause 116 [Valuation areas and authorities and appointment of assessors, etc.];
THE EARL OF BALFOUR THE EARL OF BALFOUR moved Amendment No. 102:
Page 68, line 21, at end insert—
(" (5A) The assessor of a region in making up the valuation roll of the region shall distinguish in the roll lands and heritages situated within the boundaries of each district of that region.")
The noble Earl said: With this Amendment, I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 105, 182A and 202A. The purpose of this Amendment is to replace paragraph 1 of Schedule 9 on page 167, which is itself an Amendment to Section 49(3) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1929, which could then be repealed. I believe that my Amendment would simplify matters. I beg to move.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am bound to say that the Amendments do not make any substantive change to the proposals already in the Bill, but it may be more convenient to have the noble Earl's drafting as it is more direct than what is already there. So the Government have no objection to this Amendment and I shall be happy to accept it.
Clause 116, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 117 agreed to.
Clause 118 [Local financial returns]:
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 103:
Page 69, line 35, at end insert ("or any river purification board within the meaning of section 134 of this Act")
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is consequential on the Commons' decision to retain river purification boards. I beg to move.
Clause 118, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 119 and 120 agreed to.
Clause 121 [Rates of interest in relation to certain sums due to local authorities]:
10.0 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 104:
Page 71, line 31, at end insert ("section 56(3) of the Water (Scotland) Act 1946;")
The noble Lord said: This Amendment rectifies an omission by adding Section 56(3) of the Water (Scotland) Act 1946 to the list of enactments in subsection (1). I beg to move.
On Question, Whether Clause 121, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD HUGHES: The purpose of this clause is to substitute the rate of interest in subsection (2) for the rate of interest which is payable under these various provisions, to which the noble Lord has just added another one. Subsection (2) says:
"The said rate shall be one-quarter per cent. above the relevant rate determined by the Treasury in relation to loans ",
et cetera. What I want to know is whether this means that they are going to be charged more money or less money? What are they being charged under the provisions which are being done away with?
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am not sure. The point is that it standardises the amount. It simplifies the administrative procedures by providing that the relevant rates of interest or maximum rates of interest are in effect determined by the Treasury Loan Commissioners when from time to time they fix the interest rates chargeable by the Public Works Loans
1296
Board instead of having them determined as and when the borrowing is done.
LORD HUGHES: I think the noble Lord is trying to wear me down by answering questions I do not ask. What I want to know is: are they paying more money? I would not be happy about having a thing standardised if at the end I was paying out more money. Let me put it another way. Under Section 10(2) of the Coast Protection Act 1949, are the authorities paying more or less than a quarter per cent. above the relevant rate determined by the Treasury for 15-year loans?
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am sorry that I did not answer the question, but I did not have the answer then. The answer is that this is a question of up-dating, because the borrowing rate has not been shifted. The regulations date from 1949 and specify the rate of interest as 5½ or 5¾ per cent., depending on whether the instalments chargeable are payable over a period of more or less than five years. These regulations have not been up-dated because no coast protection work, in the first case, has been set for several years. In each case there are different rates which have been fixed at different times. But the answer is that of course current rates of borrowing would be higher than the rates which were fixed some time ago, but presumably the current rates will not remain for ever, and this introduces the desirable flexibility and keeps things in relation to the current borrowing rate.
LORD HUGHES: Does this mean that authorities which are at present paying a rate of interest less than the current rate will, as from the passing of this Bill, find that they are paying money at the higher rates of interest or at the lower rates of interest, as the case may be, although I think the second one is very doubtful? Is that the position?
LORD DRUMALBYN: Yes. At the present time they will be paying at a higher rate because the rates have never been up-dated.
LORD HUGHES: They are paying a lower rate at the present time?
LORD DRUMALBYN: They are paying a lower rate than they will be paying. They will be paying a higher rate because the

1297
present rate has not been up-dated. However, the future rate will not remain fixed as the present rate has done. We hope that in due course, as these things go, the rate will come down, and in future it will be related to the borrowing rates prevalent at the time.
LORD HUGHES: It will certainly be a long time before it comes down to the rate chargeable under the Coast Protection Act 1949, which is 5½ to 5¾ per cent. Even the most optimistic occupant of the Government Front Bench cannot expect that to be happening either tomorrow or the day after. This seems to me to be a rather cunning device to get more money out of local authorities and into the Treasury. I think I will have a look at this before the next stage.
LORD DRUMALBYN: The noble Lord may have a look at it; but when
1298
we are talking about paying, it is the local authority that are being paid. It may interest him.
LORD HUGHES: That is even worse. They are taking it out of the ratepayers from whom they are getting enough already.
Clause 121 agreed to.
Clause 122 agreed to.
Schedule 9 [Amendments with respect to finance]:
THE EARL OF BALFOUR: I beg to move Amendment No. 105.
Amendment moved—
Page 167, line 37, leave out paragraph 1.—(The Earl of Balfour.)
10.7 p.m.
THE EARL OF BALFOUR THE EARL OF BALFOUR moved Amendment No. 106A:
Page 168, line 33, leave out sub-paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert—

("(a) subsection (2)(f) shall cease to have effect;

(b) for subsection (3) there shall be substituted the following subsection:—

"(3) A demand note shall be in such form, and shall contain such information in addition to the information required by subsection (2) above, as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State under section III of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973".")

The noble Earl said: This Amendment is to provide that the demand notes for rates in Section 237 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1947 are preserved and that the only part deleted is subsection (2)(f) and not the whole subsection I am grateful to my noble friend for assistance in re-drafting the second part, paragraph (3), of this Amendment. It does not change the sense of the Bill, but it makes it easier for somebody who has more than one piece of property. I beg to move.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My noble friend's Amendment leaves most of the requirements as to the content embodied in the Act. All that will be left out will he the outdated requirement of subsection (2)(f) regarding the itemisation of expenditure met from rates and grants. For that reason I am happy to accept this Amendment.
THE EARL OF BALFOUR THE EARL OF BALFOUR moved Amendment No. 109:
Page 174, line 23, after ("region") insert ("and the districts within that region".)
The noble Earl said: On page 174, I ask that 35 copies of the estimate be sent not only to the rating authority for that region but also to any district within that region. Hence the reason for my Amendment. I beg to move.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am prepared to accept this proposal in principle, but I do not think my noble friend's Amendment quite achieves what he wants. If he will withdraw the Amendment I am prepared to put an Amendment down, if that is what the Committee wishes.
THE EARL OF BALFOUR: I am happy to withdraw the Amendment and I am grateful for my noble friend's undertaking to look at this matter, for I think it is important.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF BALFOUR: This is a purely drafting Amendment to cover the definition in Clause 26 of the Local Government (Financial Provisions) Act 1963. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 175, line 27, at end insert—
("In section 26(2) for Local Authority there shall be substituted "means a region or island council".")—(The Earl of Balfour.)
LORD DRUMALBYN: I do not think this Amendment is necessary, but I am prepared to look at it before the next stage.
THE EARL OF BALFOUR: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 9, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 123 [Education authorities]:
LORD POLWARTH: This is one of a previous group of Amendments to which I spoke. I beg to move Amendment 111.
Amendment moved—
Page 72, line 16, leave out ("1971") and insert (" 1973 ").—(Lord Polwarth.)
Clause 123, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 124 [Education committees]:
LORD STRATHEDEN AND CAMPBELL LORD STRATHEDEN AND CAMPBELL moved Amendment No. 112:
Page 72, line 27, at end insert ("other than any function which the authority may delegate to the Committee.")
The noble Lord said: I mentioned this Amendment on Second Reading. My trouble over Clause 124 is that it makes it quite impossible for the regional council, which is the local authority, to delegate anything to the education committee. I say that because, to quote part of the clause:
"Every education authority shall appoint a committee, which shall be known as the

1301
education committee to which … all their functions as such authority shall stand referred. In this subsection, 'referred' means remitted to the committee for consideration and report to the authority but without power to the committee to discharge any function on behalf of the authority."
Nothing can possibly be clearer than that; you cannot delegate. Clause 65 starts by being subject to any other part of this Bill, including Clause 124. Schedule 10 is quite clear. It is subject to the provisions of Clause 124 before it is possible to delegate. This is not entirely my own idea. I got in touch with the Association of Directors of Education in Scotland, and in their submissions when the Bill was being drafted they stressed the importance of delegation. The director of education with whom I discussed this matter said that they had brought the matter up again with the Government but had obtained no satisfaction; and they were extremely worried about the fact that any delegation seemed to be made quite impossible. I hope that my noble friend Lord Polwarth will either accept my Amendment or, at least, have a careful look at this matter to make sure that it is possible to delegate to the education committee.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: I wish to support this Amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Stratheden and Campbell, and I have both been chairmen of education committees in the past, and I know that it is vital that education committees should have the authority to take executive action in the way delegated to them by the county council. If they cannot do this, everything is held up and has to go back, in this case to the regional council and in other cases to the county council. It would be a great mistake if the powers under the new legislation did not include delegation as part of the authority's executive power.
LORD POLWARTH: I will endeavour to reassure the noble Lord and the noble Baroness that their understanding is not correct. I have some sympathy with them because, thanks to the mysteries of draftsmanship, a certain amount of pursuit from one section to another is involved in ascertaining the correct position. I will try to explain it and make it as clear as I can. Clause 24(1) obliges the educa-
1302
tion authority to appoint an education committee and to refer all educational matters to it. That means that the authority is not entitled to take a decision on any educational matter without having obtained the advice of the education committee. That is the first point.
Now we come to the word "referred" in lines 24 to 27. The use of the definition "referred" is merely to make clear what the education authority must do as a minimum by way of obtaining advice from the education committee. It does not by any means limit the role of the education committee to the minimum. When it says:
"… without power to the committee to discharge any function on behalf of the authority",
that means in relation to this general reference to all matters for consideration.
Now, if your Lordships will look at lines 20 and 22 on that page, in subsection (1) we come to the key words which mention the possibility of an arrangement under Clause 127. That clause, in turn, refers to Schedule 10, which opens with the words:
"Subject to the provisions of Clause 124 … an education authority may arrange for the discharge of any of their functions by their education committee …"
And "discharge of functions" includes delegation. So what Clause 124 is securing is, first of all, that all educational functions are referred to the education committee for its advice; and secondly, that the general power of the authority to delegate functions to committees applies equally to education committees. Therefore I submit that there is no cause for anxiety that the powers of delegation do not exist, though I admit it requires a rather detailed perusal of the provisions to arrive at the conclusion that they do exist.
LORD HUGHES: I had a letter from the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, which pleased me because all this was put down in writing for me, and after reading the letter through two or three times, and going backwards and forwards from Clause 56 to Clause 124, Clause 127 and Schedule 10, I eventually came to the conclusion that the noble Lord was not misleading me and that the power to delegate to an education committee did exist. But

1303
I must say that if any poor soul outside this House who is not a lawyer wants to try to find out what is to happen, he will have a devil of a job. I cannot understand why draftsmen have such complicated ways of doing things. To have to go into three clauses and a Schedule to find out so simple a thing as giving delegation of power seems to me to be the height of absurdity.
LORD STRATHEDEN AND CAMPBELL: Before withdrawing the Amendment, I would ask my noble friend to have another look to see whether it is not possible to make this a little clearer. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
LORD HUGHES: Before the Amendment is withdrawn, could I suggest that if the noble Lord would regard this as being the equivalent of a financial matter, and do the quick, good job that he did on Clause 103 and 104 to get the matter sorted out, he would be rendering a service to humanity.
LORD POLWARTH: Before the noble Lord withdraws the Amendment, I can give the assurance that I will certainly bring this matter to the attention of those concerned with such mysteries.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.19 p.m.
THE EARL OF CROMARTIE THE EARL OF CROMARTIE moved Amendment No. 113:
Page 73, line 5, after ("area") insert ("or the Highland Region").
The noble Earl said: Most of the subjects prior to the last Amendment have been financial in nature. I am now turning to something rather more holy on which I have had representations from the areas concerned; namely, that the Highland region should follow the same procedure as the Islands Authority. I have had no views to the contrary, and I should be grateful if my noble friend the Minister could consider this matter. I beg to move.
LORD BALERNO: I think that probably no clause in this Bill has created greater discussion in Scotland than this one, which relates to the representation of the Churches on the education committee. It has been debated in practi-
1304
cally all the presbyteries of the Church of Scotland, and a note has been taken of it by the Roman Catholic hierarchy and the Episcopal Church. The change that was made in the Bill in sub-paragraph (iii) as it was originally drafted was to give three Churches representation on the education committee: one for the Church of Rome, one for the Church of Scotland and one (not necessarily another Church) nominated as representing the Churches. A special exception was made in the case of the Highlands area because they have a number of minor Presbyterian denominations. The most notable of them are the Free Church and the Presbyterian Church, and there is a very strong pocket of the Roman Catholic Church. Therefore it was felt to be only right that in the Highland area there should be four representatives from the Churches on the education committee and the minor Presbyterian Churches would also have an opportunity of being represented.
Along the West Coast of the Highlands there are several congregations of both the Free Church and the Presbyterian Church as well as the Roman Catholics, the Episcopalians and the Church of Scotland. I think that if justice is to be done to these Churches it would be most appropriate to apply to the Highland area the right to have four representatives of the Churches on their education committee. To my mind, that is just common justice, and I should think it would be very prudent on the part of the Government to do this. In view of what has been said about declaring an interest, I have one to declare. I hope I shall not be condemned for not having declared an interest at the beginning and therefore perhaps having to leave the Chamber. My interest is this. Though I am now an Elder of the Church of Scotland, I was born in a Free Church manse.
LORD HUGHES: I should like to support the noble Lord. A number of years ago I spent a holiday in Wester Ross, in Gairloch; and one Sunday when I went to look for the Church of Scotland I missed it. Then I saw an enormous building which I assumed to be the Church of Scotland—but I very speedily learned that this "Cathedral" was in fact the Free Kirk—we call them the "Wee Frees". The Church of Scotland, when I found it, was a very modest

1305
little building. It was quite obvious which was the predominant religious denomination in that part of the region. I think that at least in part of the Highlands exactly the same case can be made as can be made in the Islands area.
I am not certain, if we put this into the Bill, that it will be well received in another place, because there is a strong body of opinion there (and it is not totally unrepresented in your Lordships' House) that in fact there should be no representation at all from the Churches. The point of view has been expressed that if Ministers want to get on to local authorities they should get themselves elected as councillors. However, I do not think that is the general view, and I believe that the noble Lord is on to a good point here. Like the noble Lord, I must declare a half interest—it is not direct or indirect or pecuniary, any more than his was: I am an Elder of the Church of Scotland; I cannot claim to have been born in a Free Church manse.
LORD BALERNO: Before the noble Lords sits down, he mentioned the case of Gairloch—that is a particularly interesting one. There is a large Free Church congregation and the Cathedral which he mentioned was built from the proceeds of a bazaar in Dundee.
LORD HUGHES: Does that mean I have to declare an indirect pecuniary interest then?
10.25 p.m.
LORD POLWARTH: We are now venturning on to very delicate ground. These matters of religious representation are food and drink to us in Scotland. We must be very careful in our handling of these affairs. May I point out that the provision about Church representation on education committees in this Bill has been arrived at after very lengthy discussion in another place and after the consideration of a great volume of representations from many different branches of the Christian Church. I know how hard my right honourable friends in another place have endeavoured to meet the widest demands in this matter, and it has not been easy. As the clause now stands, it represents a balance which we believe has widespread support. It has been very difficult to reach a position of such balance. We would be somewhat chary of
1306
disturbing that at this stage. We might very well find the last stage worse than the first. I appreciate that in the Highland region there is more than one importan minority Church—if that is the phrase I should use. But this is not true only of the Highlands. I would not like to say that there is any area in Scotland where more than one minority Church might not feel entitled to put forward a special claim for consideration. One thinks certainly of the Episcopal Church in the North-East of Scotland where it is traditionally extremely strong.
I think we ought to ask ourselves carefully what we are trying to do in this provision. It is certainly not, and it could not be, our intention to try to ensure that there is present on the education committee a representative of every branch of the Church. That would be impossible. The main object of the provision is twofold: first, to ensure some place for the voice of the Church, and because we are dealing with Scotland that has to mean a place for the Church of Scotland; and secondly, to honour the long-standing agreement that Churches who had handed over denominational schools to the State would be given a say in their administration; and that means a place for the Roman Catholic Church. The decision to add a third place was taken in the face of a strong feeling in and out of Parliament that minorities should be given the opportunity of a statutory place as well. But I seriously suggest to your Lordships that, with the addition of that third obligatory place, the provision now goes far enough.
Let me emphasise that there is nothing in the Bill to prevent education authorities from appointing further Church representatives if they so desire. Most education authorities do so now of their own discretion and there is no reason to suppose that this will be different in the future. What we are discussing is the statutory duty to appoint Church representatives—the minimum number to be appointed. Furthermore, I should emphasise that if the Amendment were made and the Highland region were placed under this special obligation, it would not necessarily lead to the appointment of a representative of any particular Church. The choice of a representative would remain at the discretion of the education

1307
authority lust as much as if the Amendment had not been made.
I can assure your Lordships that nothing that I have said will be construed as suggesting that I or my colleagues in the Government have any desire to restrict the appointment of Church representatives to education committees. The education authorities will be free to do as they think proper, and that we think it right that they should be so free. Our view is, however, that we should not impose unnecessary obligations, and that the Bill goes far enough at it now stands. I should be loth to see this hard-won balance of opinion reached in another place disturbed at this stage. I would respectfully ask your Lordships not to accept the Amendment.
LORD HUGHES: There is one point. On re-reading this Amendment I would ask whether the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, is right in talking about an increase to four representatives? Is it not three throughout?—because the provision is that in the islands there is no specific need to appoint a representative of the Roman Catholic Church; they have to take their chance among the two unspecified ones. So it is a requirement to have three in every case.
LORD POLWARTH: Yes; the noble Lord is correct.
LORD HUGHES: So the effect of the Amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Cromartie, would in fact be to put the Highlands in the position of having four representatives instead of three, whereas everywhere else it would be three. I think that on that basis I am going to withdraw my support.
THE EARL OF CROMARTIE: In view of the very specific reply that has been given by my noble friend the Minister, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 124 agreed to.
10.31 p.m.
THE EARL OF BALFOUR THE EARL OF BALFOUR moved Amendment No. 114:
After Clause 124, insert the following new clause—
Education: Chairman of Education Authority
—(1) The education committee established under section 124 of this Act shall appoint from the elected members of the local authority a chairman under the same conditions as are described in Section 3 of this Act with the exception that subsection (6) of section 3 shall not apply to the chairman of the education committee.
(2) The Chairman appointed under subsection (1) of this section shall be an ex-officio member of the school and college councils established under section 125 of this Act."
The noble Earl said: Very briefly, I should like to point out to your Lordships that the chairman of the education committee has far more work to do than any other local authority official. As chairman of the regional education committee, or even island committee, he is going to be far harder worked than the convener or anybody else. That is why I ask that he also should have an expense allowance, or the local authority should be in a position to give him one. He needs to be treated as rather a special case. He is asked to contribute towards a lot of school prizes, and let us not forget that he will be responsible for the spending of somewhere between 65 per cent. and 70 per cent. of the rates. So I feel he needs to be treated rather as a special case. I beg to move.
LORD POLWARTH: I am bound to say that when I saw the noble Earl's Amendment on the Paper I failed to spot what now appears to me to be the principal object of the Amendment. I was going to query the need for a special authority for the education committee to appoint a chairman; the right to appoint a chairman is I think inherent in any committee or body and it is not specifically written into the Bill with regard to committees of local authorities. But the noble Earl has brought up this particular point, and the object was to refer to the conditions mentioned in Clause 3 of the Bill. The provision he has referred to is that the council may pay the chairman, enabling him to meet the expenses of his office, such allowance as the council thinks reasonable. In Clause 3, to which he has referred, the reference is to the chairman of a council and not of a committee of the council. To single out the chairman of the education committee, important though that committee is, to give him an allowance, is going against the principles which we discussed earlier with

1309
regard to allowances. I do not think we can entertain this new condition. The committee will have power to appoint a chairman; it has it automatically and it does not need to be written into the Bill.
I find it difficult to comprehend the second part of the noble Earl's Amendment. He is saying that the chairman so appointed
"shall be an ex-officio member of the school and college councils established under section 125 of this Act."
There are two main objections to this. One is that the school and college councils are intended to be independent bodies and should not be attached too closely to the area education authorities, and this Amendment would, I think, militate against this. The second point is that we have already been told by the noble Earl that the chairman of the education committee is one of the busiest people in the authority. If in addition to that he is to be expected to attend meetings of every school or college council in his area, I do not think he would ever have time to sit down. So, with great respect, I must ask your Lordships to reject the Amendment.
THE EARL OF BALFOUR: I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 125 [School and college councils]:
10.35 p.m.
LORD POLWARTH: This Amendment and the following one, No. 116, are purely drafting. They move the provision giving a status to school and college councils from their present position in Clause 127 to form part of Clause 125, which seems to us to be the appropriate clause because it deals with school and college councils. There is no change in the effect. I beg to move Amendment No. 115. Amendment moved—
Page 74, line 35, at end insert (", and, except where the context otherwise requires, references in sections 59 and 60 of this Act to a sub-committee shall include references to a school or college council.")—(Lord Polwarth.)
LORD HUGHES: I wonder whether I might ask a question which has absolutely nothing to do with the Amendment we are now discussing. It was only when we
1310
were discussing Amendment No. 114 that the opportunity arose and I was all set to raise it on the Question, Whether the clause should stand part of the Bill; but as the suggested new clause did not go in the opportunity did not arise. It arose from a remark made by the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, that of course the education committee has power to elect the chairman. I thought the chairman of the education committee would be appointed by the education authority. If in fact it is being done by the committee this is a new departure. At the present time the chairman of the education committee, like the chairman of any other committee, is appointed by the town or county council concerned. They do not leave it to the education committee to decide who the chairman will be, and one of the points in Amendment No. 114 was to prevent the chairman of the education committee being one of the co-opted members; he would have to be an elected member. If that Amendment did not go in there would be nothing to stop the education committee appointing a co-opted member as the chairman. That is undoubtedly a change from the present set-up. Is that the intention?
LORD POLWARTH: The information given to me is that all committees appoint their own chairman. If the noble Lord thinks that is incorrect I will certainly look into it.
LORD HUGHES: I know that the advice given to the Minister is incorrect because certainly in the town councils the chairman of the education committee is appointed by the town council and not by the education committee.
THE EARL OF BALFOUR: That is certainly the case in the county of East Lothian as well. The chairman of a committee is appointed by the full council and not by the sub-committees, and I do not think this task should be undertaken by the sub-committees. I am very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, has taken up this point and I must ask my noble friend to investigate it.
LORD POLWARTH: I think I can only undertake to do so.
LORD HUGHES: What is quite certain is that if this is being done it is a change, and it is one that will be resisted.
Clause 125, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 126 agreed to.
Clause 127 [Discharge of education authority functions]:
10.40 p.m.
LORD POLWARTH LORD POLWARTH I beg to move Amendment No. 116.
Amendment moved—
Page 75 line 22, leave out subsection (2).—(Lord Polwarth.)
Clause 127, as amended, agreed to.
10.40 p.m.
LORD POLWARTH LORD POLWARTH moved Amendment No. 117:
After Clause 127 insert the following new clause:
Educational endowments
"127A.—(1) Where, immediately before 16th May 1975, any educational endowment is to any extent vested in the existing local authority for an area specified in the first column of Table A below, that endowment shall on that day to that extent be transferred to and vest for the same purposes in the appropriate new local authority for the area specified in relation thereto in the second column of that Table.

TABLE A

Existing area

New area

County

Region or islands area.

County of a city

Large burgh

District or islands area.

Small burgh

District

(2) Where, immediately before 16th May 1975, any educational endowment is to any extent to be vested, by virtue of his office, in the holder of any office connected with an existing local authority specified in the first column of Table B below, that endowment shall on that day to that extent be transferred to and vest for the same purposes in the holder of the office, specified in relation thereto in the second column of that Table, of the
1312
appropriate new local authority as determined by reference to subsection (1) above.

TABLE B

Existing office-holder

New office-holder

Lord Provost

Chairman of council.

Provost

Convener of county

Chairman of district council

Magistrate

Councillor, or any other person nominated by the council.

Councillor

Chairman of a member of a committee

Any specified officer

The corresponding officer or (if there is no such officer) the proper officer.

(3) Where, immediately before 16th May 1975, any power with respect to an educational endowment is vested in an existing local authority, or (by virtue of his office) in the holder of an office connected with such an authority, that power shall on that day be transferred to and vest in the appropriate new local authority or (as the case may be) in the new office-holder of that authority, as ascertained by reference to subsections (1) and (2) above.
(4) Subject to the provisions of the governing instrument of an educational endowment, where, as the result of the election of a local authority occurring after 16th May 1975, it is necessary for a person to be nominated by the authority or by a committee thereof to be vested (to any extent) with the endowment, in terms of subsection (2) above, or to be vested with any power, in terms of subsection (3) above, that person shall be so nominated at the first meeting of the authority or committee held after it has been elected or appointed; and in such a case the person who (to the said extent) was last vested with the endowment or, as the case may be, who was last vested with the power, before the meeting shall continue therein until the date of the meeting.
(5) In this section, unless the context otherwise requires, expressions used in Part VI of the Education (Scotland) Act 1962 have the same meaning as in that Part, and "the appropriate new local authority" means, in relation to an existing local authority, the new authority whose area comprises the whole or the greater part of the area of the existing authority: and if, in any case, there is a dispute as to such appropriate authority, or as the person or persons corresponding to an existing

1313
office-holder or office-holders for the purposes of this section, it shall be taken to be such new local authority or, as the case may be, person or persons as the Secretary of State may direct.
(6) Nothing in this section shall affect any other power to reorganise any educational endowment or otherwise to alter the provisions of any trust.")
The noble Lord said: The object and effect of this new clause is to transfer to the appropriate regional islands or district authorities educational endowments vested in existing local authorities, and to replace by the appropriate representatives of the new authorities members or representatives of the existing local authorities who are included on the Government bodies and other educational endowments.
Because educational endowments confer specified benefits on specified persons or categories of persons and on specified places or areas, they cannot simply be included with other existing educational facilities and services in the total educational resources to be administered by the new authorities as education authorities. Although many educational endowments are in practice largely integrated with the public educational services, they confer closely defined benefits to which the prescribed beneficiaries, and only they, could if necessary lay claim by appealing to the courts. It would be quite impossible to attempt to amend each educational endowment scheme (there are about 160) and the governing instruments of each unschemed educational endowment, of which there are about 1,500 on the Register of Educational Endowments, to bring them into conformity with the new local government structure by May, 1975.
On the other hand, if no action were taken, a great many educational endowments, including the 35 area trust schemes based on existing educational authority areas and which result from the amalgamation of previous separate educational endowments, would become inoperable. The new clause has the effect of securing the continued operation of educational endowments without change in their purposes, beneficiaries or areas of benefit. This is a necessary provision, and I ask your Lordships to accept the Amendment.
Clause 128 agreed to.
Schedule 10 [Arrangements by education authorities for discharge of their functions.]
THE EARL OF BALFOUR THE EARL OF BALFOUR moved Amendment No. 118:
Page 178, line 50, at end insert ("or local authority officials").
The noble Earl said: Paragraph 6 of Schedule 10 at the bottom of page 178 reads:
"No arrangement shall be made by an education authority for the discharge otherwise than by their education committee of any function in regard to the dismissal of teachers."
"Or local authority officials" are the words I should like to insert at the end. I feel that the Director of Education, and people like him, should have the same sort of protection. I beg to move.
LORD POLWARTH: As the noble Earl has said, there are existing provisions for dealing with the case of teachers, and they have a special provision because there is provision in the Education (Scotland) Act 1962 which deals with the position of the dismissal of teachers, and the assumption is that this is action to be taken only by the education authority or by the education committee. The powers there are extensive and considerable, but the other categories, I would submit, are different. There is at present some protection for the Director of Education in respect of dismissal. This was mentioned by the noble Earl. That is being repealed in this Bill, but with the knowledge of the Association of Directors of Education who have raised no objection to its repeal. There is no special protection for other categories—one thinks of administrative staff, janitors and so on. I do not see there is any special need in that respect. They come within the normal practices for dealing with employees in general and I do not think they need to be accorded a special position. I think we should leave it to the discretion of and proper handling by the new authorities without according to one group of staff a special position.
THE EARL OF BALFOUR: I raised this point because it had been brought to my attention, but with the assurance that the Association are quite happy

1315
about it, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 11 [Amendments of the Education (Scotland) Act 1962]:
10.45 p.m.
LORD BALERNO LORD BALERNO moved Amendment No. 119:
Page 180, line 7, at end insert—
("5A. After section 24 the following new section shall be inserted—
('Pupils at secondary school in final or penultimate year.
24A. Where, in consequence of the coming into force of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 or any boundary change under Part II of that Act, pupils at a secondary school have to be transferred to another secondary school such pupils who, after the appointed day will enter their final or their penultimate year, may with parental consent complete their school education at the school they attended immediately before the appointed day'.")
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this Amendment is to "mak sicear" that the new education authorities do not allow prejudice to overcome them, or any single one of them, and to ensure that pupils who are in their final or penultimate year at a secondary school, sitting their "O" level or "A" level exams, can, if they so wish and with their parents' consent, remain at that school to the conclusion of their education irrespective of the fact that the drawing up of the new boundaries may have put that school from the area of one education authority into that of another education authority. One would like to think that the possibility of this happening is remote, but I have myself had experience of the prejudice of an education committee in Scotland, and this, I believe, is not a single instance. The education committee, because it was so determined that children in its own area should be educated in its own area, sent some of the children of Currie, before a secondary school was built there, 12 miles to West Calder by bus every day, and sent some of the children by public transport right across Edinburgh to the burgh of Musselburgh while there were two secondary schools belonging to the Edinburgh education authority within three miles of Currie, both of which had vacancies and would have been delighted to have taken these pupils. That was a matter of sheer prejudice. The cost to
1316
the education committee of Midlothian was considerably greater in that they had to pay for the transporting of these children. They would have had the children educated in the Edinburgh school for £15 apiece, I understand, at that time. This Amendment would prevent a nonsense like that again arising. It is a precautionary Amendment, but I think it might be an important one in the lives of half a dozen young persons.
THE EARL OF BALFOUR: I am most grateful for the assistance of my noble friend Lord Balerno in trying to draft this rather difficult Amendment. I must stress that what I am far more concerned about than anything else here is that it is in this last year or the year previous that a child participates in the most important exams. I think to be made to change schools at that stage could be disastrous to the child's future. This is only intended as a temporary measure, but it could crop up again with any decision of the Boundary Commission. I cannot believe that there could be many children affected, and I ask my noble friend to consider the matter very carefully.
LORD POLWARTH: I have very great sympathy with the object of this Amendment as it has been explained by the noble Lord, but with great respect I do not think that I can recommend your Lordships to accept it. In the first place, in the form in which it has been put down—and I appreciate that some difficulty has been experienced in drafting it—I do no think it would entirely have the desired effect. It applies to all secondary school pupils in attendance at the schools concerned immediately before the appointed day and who will begin their final or penultimate year after that date. In those circumstances, it would include pupils in their first year of seconary education and it would exclude pupils who at the appointed day had already begun their penultimate or final school year.
THE EARL OF BALFOUR: This is the whole purpose. It is those children who are just in the final stages before they go for their examinations. Do not make them move school in almost their last year; that is the whole point.
LORD POLWARTH: But the Amendment would not include those who had

1317
already begun this final year or penultimate year. The wording is faulty; I do not think this is what noble Lords intended. There are other drafting imperfections with which I will not concern your Lordships. I doubt whether this is a matter on which we should lay down an absolute hard and fast rule. I submit that, in spite of the apparently stupid arrangement which the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, mentioned in a particular case, this is a matter where we should rely on the good sense of education authorities. The fact of changes occurring under this Bill does not necessarily mean that pupils will have to move from one school to another. There are perfectly good powers available under the Education (Scotland) Act 1962 (Section 24) enabling an education authority to provide education for pupils belonging to the area of another authority. At present many authorities provide education for pupils who live outside their areas, and we do not have any evidence to suggest that the new authorities will not be prepared, where appropriate, to continue existing arrangements or where necessary make new arrangements.
There may in due course have to be schemes of rearrangement, but we have no reason to think that the authorities will act unreasonably in this matter or fail to have regard to the best interests of the pupils concerned. I would suggest that in pursuance of the policy of giving to the new authorities the maximum discretion in the management of their own affairs we should trust them to act wisely and use their discretion responsibly, and I should have thought it was quite wrong to suggest that the future education authorities would be less to be relied on than the existing ones and should be subjected to this new restriction. I am sure that this is a matter on which their attention could very properly be drawn to the importance of continuity of schooling, but I submit that it is not right to write it into this Act.
LORD BALERNO: I would only say that in the past there have been some education authorities who have been prejudiced in this way and who have done precisely what my noble friend says they will not do in the future. This Amendment is to prevent any authority from erring in the future, especially in
1318
this difficult period when the schools may be changed from one education authority to another. I really cannot see why the noble Lord cannot accept this Amendment, and I am very reluctant not to press it.
THE EARL OF BALFOUR: Let me give your Lordships one example. May I ask you to look at page 151, line 26, where it says:
"In the county of Midlothian—the electoral division of Heriot and Stow."
At the present moment I rather think the children in secondary education go all the way to Dalkeith. Now that it is being transferred to Ettrick Forest they will in future go to Galashiels—I admit probably a little nearer. It is a dreadful thing to take a child away in the last or second last year of school, going from one direction to the other direction, when it is coming to an important examination. This is a difference of nearly 40 miles. It is a problem.
10.55 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: The noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, said that he had not heard of any local authorities that have done this. Of course he has not. None of them are going to tell the Government that they are doing this sort of stupid thing. The noble Lord said that this Amendment is defective. It would be very easy to make it non-defective. If he will not go so far as that, will he undertake to draw this matter to the attention of the local authorities? It is one upon which those concerned with education feel very strongly indeed. I wonder whether he could make any suggestion, as it would be simple to change it for children in the last year or who enter immediately after the date. I cannot believe that it is going to affect more than a few people, and it is not asking very much of the Government.
LORD HOY: Midlothian County Council have a very good record educationally, and I cannot believe that we should have an Amendment to a Bill to cover a very few people. Knowing the area very well indeed, I can say there is always great accommodation to meet the needs of the pupils in this respect. When they are moving into their last year they are always given continuity of education

1319
are always given continuity of education if it is possible for the authority to provide it. As to the conflict between Edinburgh and Midlothian, I may say that there has not been great co-operation in all the years I have known them, but I can claim that I have been living there all my life and was educated there, and we have never had any difficulty in this respect. This is not a matter for an Act of Parliament. We do not require to pass an Act of Parliament to put it right. With a little administrative intelligence the whole thing can be sorted out. I am certain that between the education authorities in Midlothian and Edinburgh it might well be undertaken without passing an Act of Parliament to make it possible.
LORD BALERNO: The case I gave was one that happened between Midlothian and Edinburgh. Edinburgh, of which the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, is an eminent citizen, was certainly most cooperative; it was the then stupidity of the Midlothian education authority that caused these things to happen, and that is what I wish to guard against in the future. I agree with the noble Lord that the Midlothian education committee is now a most respectable committee. It is quite a different committee, and it is perhaps one of the better education committees in the whole of Scotland, but I was giving this case as an actual instance of what has happened. I have every reason to believe that similar things have happened in other parts in the past. All I want to do is to prevent this stupidity from happening again. This is a very simple Amendment; it is only to tide us over a short time, but it can be very important for just a few children.
LORD HOY: What the noble Lord is saying is that the Midlothian education committee in the past might have been a little foolish in certain things but that they have now such a good committee that it cannot happen in the future, and I am willing to accept his judgment on that matter. All I am saying is that with a little administrative persuasion the whole thing can be put right. If your Lordships are going to pass an Amendment to do what the noble Lord says, we are really doing it to cover three to six people in the village of Currie. I have great respect for Currie, but I do not
1320
think that we should overdo it in importance. This matter can be sorted out administratively. All I am saying is that we do not require an Act of Parliament to do it, and I am certain that in the future, if there are pupils from Currie who have to go on to further courses to complete their "A" or "O" levels, this can be done by a little co-operation between Edinburgh and Midlothian, and we shall not require an Act of Parliament to put it right.
LORD BALERNO: I was in no way pleading for Currie. In Currie we have an excellent secondary school, and when the Bill comes into force as an Act it will go into Edinburgh. There will be no trouble there at all. But there are other places where a school is moved into another education area.
LORD POLWARTH: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, for explaining the position better than I have been able to do. I absolutely understand the feelings on this matter and have every sympathy with them, but I submit that this is not a matter for a statutory restriction on authorities, to whom we are trying to give the maximum freedom. I should be very happy to convey the thought to my colleagues that this should be dealt with by advice and guidance from us, giving the authorities the opportunity to act on their own initiative. But I could not possibly accept this Amendment in its present form, because it is defective.
THE EARL OF BALFOUR: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD CHAMPION): Only the mover can withdraw an Amendment.
LORD BALERNO: My noble friend has used that phrase so often that it comes to him very naturally. Can the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, give an assurance that, in the event of any cases like this coming to light, he will endeavour to draw the attention of the secretary of his right honourable friend to it and will get it put right at that level?
LORD POLWARTH: The noble Lord will appreciate that it would be very difficult for me to give any detailed commitment about what may happen after May, 1975.
LORD BALERNO: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 11 agreed to.
Clauses 129 to 131 agreed to.
Schedule 12 [Amendment of enactments relating to housing]:
LORD POLWARTH LORD POLWARTH moved Amendment No. 120:
Page 183, line 22, after ("allowances") insert ("—

(a) for the word "1947" there shall be substituted the word "1973";

(b)")

The noble Lord said: I hope your Lordships will accept my assurance that this is purely a drafting Amendment, as is the subsequent one. I beg to move.
Schedule 12, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 13 [Amendments of the Rent (Scotland) Act 1971]:
LORD POLWARTH: I beg to move Amendment No. 121.
Amendment moved—
Page 183, line 37, leave out ("1947") and insert ("1973")—(Lord Polwarth.)
Schedule 13, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 132 agreed to.
Schedule 14 [Amendment of Enactments relating to Roads]:
THE EARL OF BALFOUR THE EARL OF BALFOUR had given Notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 122:
Page 196, line 13, leave out paragraph 53.
The noble Earl said: I have been approached by various sections of the Committee, and I am quite happy not to move the rest of the Amendments standing in my name on the Marshalled List, and to come back at Report stage.
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: The difficulty is that I shall have to call all of those Amendments.
Schedule 14 agreed to.
Clause 133 [Building]:
11.4 p.m.
THE EARL OF CROMARTIE THE EARL OF CROMARTIE moved Amendment No. 124:
Page 77, line 1, leave out ("Highland").
The noble Earl said: I have been extremely brief in moving every other Amendment that I have produced, unlike some people this evening. I shall not be quite so brief this time, though I shall be as brief as possible. This is a vital Amendment so far as the Highland region is concerned, a fact which I hope the Minister will accept. But if he feels unable to accept this Amendment, I trust that all noble Lords who know something of the Highland region and the great changes that are taking place will support me in the Lobby. What I said on Second Reading was that the best qualified people to direct the operation of the duties of the building authority are already within the district authorities where the building will take place.
The Highland region is vast, and while my own county, to be the District, of Ross and Cromarty is the very centre of the oil and, therefore, building developments, the most recent developments are taking place to the North, North-East and North-West of Ross and Cromarty, and this means the existing county, which includes the Island of Lewis and the counties of Sutherland and Caithness. Surely it is obvious that those who are going to be the king-pins of intensive building activity should be those who are experienced and on the spot. The fact that the Minister says that these individuals will be moved to regional headquarters—that is to say, Inverness—only strengthens my case. I would suggest that this is a case of centralisation for the sake of centralisation. There is no logical reason why they should be moved to Inverness at all. I hope the Minister will not tell us that a magnificent addition to the A.9 road is to be started, together with bridges over the Moray and Cromarty Firths. Years will pass before this is completed; neither will it have very much effect on the new and probably extensive North-West oilfields South-West of Orkney. I beg to move.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: I should like to support my noble friend. I think it is essential that local government should be

1323
local, particularly in the very scattered and very large, geographically, Highland region, and I feel that this Amendment would help to this end.
LORD POLWARTH: I think that the fears of the noble Earl about centralisation are, if I may say so, greatly exaggerated. There is nothing in the Bill to prevent devolution of functions, devolution of offices and that kind of thing, and I am quite sure that the new authorities will make use of these powers. I think there is a very important point here in relation to building control. Building control is, as we know, to be a regional function in the Highlands and in the Borders and Dumfries and Galloway Regions, where local planning is also to be dealt with at regional level, unlike the case in the other regions. While we recognise that there are connections between building control and housing, there is in fact a much closer link between building control and local planning, particularly where it concerns development control and applications for planning permission. We feel—and I think this view has been quite widely accepted—that there is advantage from the point of view of the member of the public who is making application to the local authority, as well as benefit to the local authorities themselves, in having arrangements, where applications for building warrants and planning permission are involved, to see that building control and development control are dealt with by the same authority, and that therefore there will be only one place for the applicant to go instead of more than one. I think the noble Earl's fears are exaggerated. However, in view of the late hour, I am quite prepared to take this away and consider it further, but without any definite commitment to making an alteration in the Bill.
THE EARL OF CROMARTIE: In view of this rather unexpected concession from my noble friend the Minister, and remembering that there is another stage of this Bill, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment for the time being.
LORD HUGHES: Before the noble Earl withdraws the Amendment—and I want him to withdraw it—I hope he is not under any misapprehension that he has a concession. There are not enough
1324
people to keep the Committee going if we divide, so we cannot afford to have a Division. So the noble Earl has got nothing.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 133 agreed to.
Schedule 15 agreed to.
Clause 134 [Prevention of river pollution]:
11.10 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 127:
Page 78, line 25, leave out ("the councils aforesaid") and insert ("regional councils")
The noble Lord said: The Government are grateful to my noble friend Lord Balfour for putting down Amendment No. 129. This Amendment gives effect to what the noble Earl desires, which is that the expenses of the river purification board, so far as they are not defrayed out of revenue, shall be defrayed by the regions and not by the regions and the districts.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I beg to move Amendment No. 128. This is a drafting Amendment designed to correct a reference to existing local authorities in Clause 134(7).
Amendment moved—
Page 78, line 43, leave out ("existing local authorities") and insert ("councils of counties and large burghs")—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
Clause 134, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 16 [Amendment of Enactments relating to River Purification]:
LORD DRUMALBYN: On behalf of my noble friend Lord Balfour, I beg to move Amendment No. 129.
Amendment moved—
Page 204, line 29, leave out paragraph 1 and insert—
("1. In section 6(1) (financial provisions) for the words 'counties and large burghs whose districts' there shall be substituted the words `regions whose areas' and for the words' administrative scheme of there shall be substituted the words 'order constituting'.")—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: I have handed in a Manuscript Amendment which comes before Amendment No. 130.

1325
This Amendment would be necessary if by any chance the Committee accepted Amendment No. 211. If the Government tell me that they are going to accept that Amendment, I should like to move this Manuscript Amendment also; but otherwise it is redundant. If the Government are not going to accept Amendment No. 211 I do not think it is a point worth pursuing at this late hour and I am prepared to leave it until Report stage. I beg to move.
Manuscript Amendment moved—
Page 204, leave out lines 29 to 31.—(The Duke of Atholl.)
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am afraid that we cannot accept Amendment No. 211.
TIIE DUKE OF ATHOLL: In that case, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL THE DUKE OF ATHOLL moved Amendment No. 130:
Page 204, line 35, leave out ("133") and insert ("134").
The noble Duke said: I am more hopeful that the Government will accept this Amendment. When reading through a Bill I nearly always start with the Schedules because they seem to contain the meat of the matter. In Schedule 16 one finds a reference on page 204 in line 35 to "section 133 of this Act." Clause 133 (which will be section 133 when enacted) deals with buildings and makes no mention of a board which has been established under that section. I think it must be intended that this reference should be to "section 134."
LORD DRUMALBYN: My noble friend is quite right. I am obliged to him. I accept the Amendment.
LORD DRUMALBYN: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move Amendment No. 133.
Amendment moved—
Page 205, leave out from beginning of line 21 to ("for") in line 22.—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 134:
Page 205, line 27, at end insert—
("In section 29(4) (application of Act to tidal waters), the words from" subject "onwards shall cease to have effect.")
The noble Lord said: This Amendment goes with Amendment 214. Here again I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Balfour for drawing attention to a point at which the Bill can be improved. He had down an Amendment, but it was defective and we could not accept it. This Amendment repeals the modification that reference to councils of large burghs shall include a reference to purification boards, which is unnecessary.
Schedule 16, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 135 to 144 agreed to.
Clause 145 [Police]:
LORD DRUMALBYN: This Amendment goes with Amendments Nos. 137 and 138. They are all drafting Amendments, required for clarity as a consequence of some Amendments made on Report stage in another place. I beg to move Amendments Nos. 136, 137 and 138 en bloc.
Amendments moved—
Page 84, line 24, after ("or") insert ("in subsection").
Page 84, line 26, leave out ("that subsection ") and insert ("subsection (1) above").
Page 84, line 44, leave out ("section") and insert ("subsection ")—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
Clause 145, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 146 agreed to.
Clause 147 [Water]:
11.20 p.m.
LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved Amendment No. 138A:
Page 88, line 23, at end insert—
("That part of the former County of Kincardine which lies within both the Grampian Region and the region of the East of Scotland Water Board. Tayside.")
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is to make the part of the former county of Kincardine which lies within the Grampian region and the region of the East of Scotland Water Board an added area for the Tayside region. I

1327
am not seeking to import any new principle into the Bill in doing this; I am tidying it up. There were two opportunities available to the Government in this Bill to do what had been recommended to them—to continue water boards in existence. This subject was fully discussed in another place and it was decided that it would become the function of regional authorities. But because not even the ingenuity of this Government or any of their predecessors could make water run uphill, it has been necessary, for some reason which I cannot understand, to alter the boundaries for water purposes by having added areas.
The Minister in another place said that the arguments for doing it as it is in the Bill, or making this part an added area to Tayside as had been done in the other two parts of the county, were very finely balanced. That being the case, if the arguments are so finely balanced that they can go either way—and this is what was said—the way it ought to be done is to apply exactly the same principle in each of the regions concerned. Remember, Wheatley made it part of the Tayside region, and this was one of the reasons why it was part of the Tayside region, but the Government succumbed to the pressures of sentiment and so on and made South Kincardineshire part of the Grampian region, a decision with which I may say I am in agreement.
I think this is a case where there is justification for doing what people want locally, but in doing it that part of the Grampian region is going to be dependent on the Tayside region for water in bulk supply. This is a part of the world where the future industrial requirements are quite unforeseeable. Because of the impact of oil and oil-based industries, the possible demand for water for industrial purposes may grow by leaps and bounds. It is going to put the people of South Kincardineshire at great risk if they are going to be dependent on Tayside's giving them a bulk supply. Where they have direct responsibility as an added area, they must treat these people in exactly the same way as anybody else in the rest of their region. I think it would be wrong if Tayside in future were placed in the position of having to choose between withdrawing a bulk supply from somebody who was merely a customer
1328
and giving preference to the people inside their own region. These folk are entitled to be treated in exactly the same way as the rest of the people in the Tayside region. For that reason I wish to move that, as in the other parts of Scotland, this principle be adopted and that this area be an added area for Tayside.
It is only because of the lateness of the hour that I am speaking so quickly and for so short a period. This does not mean that the matter is not important; it is exceedingly important. Everybody concerned with water has pressed for this as a second best to preserving the water boards. I was not prepared to move that the water boards be preserved, because of the ample discussion elsewhere; but this principle, I think, is sufficiently important to be insisted upon. I beg to move.
LORD DRUMALBYN: Clearly, in a case like this there are strong arguments both ways; otherwise the decision would not have been changed as it has been. I agree with the noble Lord as to the importance of the matter, which is illustrated by the rapid growth of industrial development at Stonehaven, particularly development centred on Kincardineshire County industrial sites. This is a practical example of the importance of water supply and industrial promotion being in the hands of the same authority.
I shall try to be brief, too, but the argument against the added area—that is, the argument in favour of the bulk supply—is that proper co-ordination of services ancillary to strategic planning, including water supply, is essential to major planning and development, and in principle an authority should have control of all these services through their region. Any departure from this principle, except where it is not practicable to adhere to it, is contrary to one of the fundamental principles laid down by the Royal Commission. The alternative of a bulk supply is practicable. Water from Loch Lee in the Tayside region enters Kincardineshire by a single pipeline, and meters are already in position to measure the supply. This would leave the Grampion region in full control of distribution and directly accountable to its electorate. The "added area" arrangement, with provision for representatives of the Grampion region on the

1329
Tayside region for water supply functions, but obviously in a small minority, and the requisition on the Grampion region to pay for the supply, would give less control and involve unnecessary complications. I cannot believe, if supply obligations are accepted for a neighbouring territory, that fair play would not exist. Such arrangements have existed between local authorities for a considerable time, and I am sure they would be honoured.
LORD HUGHES: But this is a new bulk supply agreement that would need to be entered into, and I would think that the Tayside region would be extremely foolish to enter into a bulk supply arrangement for anything but a limited period. The one thing that is quite certain is that the Grampion area is not in a position to give this water from its own resources for a very long time ahead. It is perfectly true that it is practicable to give a bulk supply, but I am trying to safeguard against the possibility of the Tayside region—whose first obligation must be to look after people in its own region—cutting off outside supply and saying, "We are very sorry, but this is your responsibility. We are not going to supply any more water under a bulk supply arrangement because we now need it ourselves. It is better that you should go short rather than that we should." I am not saying that will happen within a week or so, but obviously the Tayside region is not going to enter into anything other than a short-term commitment for bulk supply. It would be unreasonable for it to do anything else. So the Government are making a great mistake here.
The Minister said it was finely balanced and that justice could easily go one way or the other. Because this matter was considered after the Committee had been sitting for a long time, I think the reasonable thing to do is to give the other place another chance to look at it. I would suggest that the Minister should allow this to go into the Bill—it at least applies the same principle throughout Scotland—and I certainly could give an undertaking that if, on further consideration, the other place wishes to stick to its decision, I should be perfectly willing to accept that. But because this is an
1330
area I know, I believe they ought to look at the matter again. I know the feelings of the water authority, and I believe the Minister is optimistic if he thinks that they will commit themselves for a long time ahead. If these considerations are put to another place, they may yet agree that this is the right thing to do. We are not asking them to do anything in regard to something that they threw out overwhelmingly: it was just a question of fine balance. It was interesting that one of the Members of Parliament concerned put this case most strongly for the area.
I would plead with the Minister to do it this way, on the assurance that I will not make trouble if that is the way the other place wants to do it. Otherwise I am placed in an impossible position, because I would wish to divide the Committee on this question. If we do divide we are in grave danger of bringing the proceedings to an early termination—though I would not altogether regret that. However, I think that whether there are 25 people or 125 people present, it is reasonable that this matter should go back to the other place in order to be looked at again.
LORD BALERNO: Before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask him—he having the greatest knowledge of anyone in the Chamber—whether he knows the county boundary which runs between Kincardine and Angus, as it runs up the River Esk, and whether it is the fact that the Loch from which this water comes is half in one county and half in the other?
LORD HUGHES: It might be; I could not say. What I do know is it has not been suggested that the Grampian region will be able to lay claim to half the loch.
LORD BALERNO: The main question is perhaps not so much the water taken from South Kincardine, but that the Fettercairn distillery should not be removed from Kincardine.
LORD DRUMALBYN: The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, has put the same sort of pressure on me as he anticipates Tayside will put upon the Grampian region. The noble Lord is not right in saying that the Tayside region might refuse to give us bulk supplies and get away

1331
with it. In such circumstances the Secretary of State may make an order requiring them to do so. I think the noble Lord's premise is wrong there, and what does he say to that?
LORD HUGHES: If the result was that the Secretary of State was depriving the Tayside region of the opportunity of getting industry in, he would be in more trouble than he is at the present time.
LORD DRUMALBYN: The fact remains that the noble Lord's premise is wrong. We are in the great difficulty that if we do as the noble Lord says this will go as a recommendation of the House of Lords, as the opinion of the House of Lords. I want to make it plain that the opinion of the House of Lords has not been taken on this. Having made that plain, I will not oppose the Amendment.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL THE DUKE OF ATHOLL moved Amendment No. 139:
Page 89, line 15, at end insert—
("(8A) In the exercise of their functions under the Water (Scotland) Acts 1946 to 1967 a water authority shall have power to enter into and make payments under wayleave agreements.")
The noble Duke said: The effect of this Amendment is to enable the water authority to enter land for the purposes of carrying out their functions to make payments under wayleave agreements. A water authority is given general powers under this section to provide water mains. This is the 1946 Act. But there is no requirement to enter into any wayleave agreement or to pay any rent or other payments for rights to construct a water main on the land. As is known, all other statutory undertakers, such as the electricity authority and gas board, require both to enter into wayleave agreements and pay for the right to instal electricity pylons or gas pipes over, through or under land. There seems no reason to me why the water authorities should not be put in the same position as these other statutory authorities. I beg to move.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My difficulty here is that this Bill is concerned with the re-structuring of Scottish local government. It is not the appropriate vehicle for alterations to the statutory operational powers of water undertakers. This
1332
is particularly true of matters affecting the fundamental relations between them and private interests. Discussions have been taking place with the British Waterworks Association, who represent undertakers throughout Britain. The correct procedure here is for discussions to continue and for the conclusions, with, we would hope, a substantial measure of agreement, to be submitted for consideration to the Government in connection with the first suitable legislation which may be under consideration. I agree that the gas and electricity undertakers operate differently, but the fact of the matter is that the power to lay water mains has existed since before the beginning of the century and this is a fundamental change which my noble friend is proposing. The powers of water authorities are of very long standing and they have operated reasonably well for many years.
There is nothing new, as I said, in the water authorities having the right to lay and maintain mains. Since the end of the last century water authorities in Scotland have been empowered to do so on giving reasonable notice to the owner and occupier of the land and they may from time to time inspect, repair, maintain, alter or renew or may at any time remove the main already laid. Where they exercise these powers the undertakers must from time to time pay compensation to every person interested in the land for any damage done to or any injurious affection of the land by reason of the laying of the main.
LORD HOY: Does that include Blair Atholl?
LORD DRUMALBYN: And where there is a dispute as to the amount of compensation to be paid it has to be determined by arbitration.
Section 26 of the Water (Scotland) Act confers the present power on regional water boards and water development boards to lay mains after giving reasonable notice to the owners and occupiers of the land concerned; it also provides for payment of compensation for damage done to land or injurious affection of the land. Such compensation is payable whether the damage does or does not result from actual negligence, and in this respect the Amendment adds nothing to the clause. Compensation for damage

1333
resulting from a burst may well be payable under Section 12 of the 1946 Act which provides for compensation being paid,
"to any person who has sustained damage by reason of the exercise by the authority of any of their powers"
under that Act. But the legal position has never been actually tested in the courts. The fact is quite plain that the reason why it has never been tested in the courts is that on every occasion where a dispute has arisen it has been settled amicably and compensation must have been paid. So I really do not think my noble friend has very much to fear here.
Of course, the point about requiring a wayleave to be given is that as the tendency now is for mains to run over a wide part of Scotland, the mere refusal by one of the parties to give the way-leave would result in the matter going to court. This is something which has been avoided in the past and I think it would on the whole be undesirable to create it in this way at the present time, and certainly it would be undesirable to create it in this Bill.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: I had a feeling that my noble friend might say that this particular subsection did not fit very happily into this Bill; and for that reason I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 147 agreed to.
Schedule 17 agreed to.
Clauses 148 and 149 agreed to.
Schedule 18 [Amendment of certain enactments relating to transport]:
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved Amendments Nos. 143 to 146:
Page 215, line 40, leave out paragraph 2 and insert—
("2. In section 10 (powers of Executive), the following amendments shall be made—

(a) in subsection (1)(xvi), the words, "and the consent of the Minister" shall cease to have effect;

(b) for the word "county", in both places where it occurs, there shall be substituted the word "region".");

Page 216, line 70 at end insert—
("Section 11(4) shall cease to have effect.");
Page 217, line 36, at end insert ("and in the said section 16, in subsection (2), the
1334
words from "and (d)" onwards, and subsections (3), (4) and (5) shall cease to have effect.
In section 18 (planning of passenger transport services in designated areas), the following amendments shall be made—

(a) in subsection (1), the words "to the Minister and" shall cease to have effect;

(b) in subsection (2), the words "to the Minister and" shall cease to have effect.

In section 21 (functions of traffic commissioners in designated areas), subsection (5)(a) shall cease to have effect.")
Page 219, line 10, after ("12") insert ("14").
The noble Lord said: May I suggest that we deal with Amendments Nos. 143, 144, 145 and 146 together. This is a series of Amendments designed to relax certain of the controls at present exercised by the Secretary of State over passenger transport authorities and executives. A Schedule to relax 50 controls was put in at Report stage in the House of Commons. I will willingly describe these relaxations if the Committee wishes, but it may be sufficient if I simply move.
Schedule 18, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 150 to 152 agreed to.
Clause 153 [Piers and harbours]:
11.40 p.m.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL THE DUKE OF ATHOLL moved Amendment No. 147A:
Page 93, line 10, leave out ("regional") and insert ("district").
The noble Duke said: I have agreed with my noble friend Lord Inchyra that I should open the batting, to speak on the general application, and that he should speak on the more particular application of these Amendments. If it is to the convenience of the Committee I should like to speak to all the Amendments to Clause 153 and Schedule 19 standing in the names of my noble friend and myself.
The object of these Amendments is to place local authority harbours, and only local authority harbours—not the larger ones like Aberdeen and Dundee and Leith—under district councils and not regional councils. The history of these Amendments is that virtually identical Amendments were carried on the Committee stage in another place, supported by Members of both the Parties represented on the Committee. The Government whipped up, or whipped in (I am

1335
not quite sure which is the right word) many English and even some Welsh gentlemen to oppose these particular Amendments at the Report stage in another place.
LORD HUGHES: Shame!
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: I could not agree more. Unfortunately, they succeded in reversing the decision which had been arrived at by the Scots on the Committee stage. The Under-Secretary agreed to send a circular to the regional authorities, requesting them to devolve to the districts as much as possible of the administrative responsibility for these harbours. As the Under-Secretary has agreed to do that I cannot see why he cannot agree to them coming under the control of the district councils. Among these harbours are many of the smaller fishing harbours, like Buckie and Mac-duff, to take two examples, and also the smaller transport harbour (if that is the right term) of Perth. Very few of the bigger harbours are local authority harbours, but they feel that if they go to the regional authorities they may be neglected.
I think it is true to say that in the past they have had extremely good labour relations when being run by their present local authorities, which in very many, although not in all, cases will be much the same as the new district councils. They have been economically run; they are a source of local pride; they have very little regional trade. They are frightened that the harbour rules which are in operation for the bigger ports may be applied to them if they go into the regions, and it is of course easier to put the points if you are dissatisfied with the way your harbour is being run. Your district councillor rather than your regional councillor is much more likely to be on the spot. I feel there is every advantage in keeping these mostly small harbours in with the district authorities. I feel this most strongly, and I consider that the decision of the Scots in the other place was right and that the decision when the English and Welsh were added was entirely wrong. I am rather disappointed to see the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, here tonight; otherwise I think we are all Scots. Although I must admit that in the Wheatley Report regional control for these harbours was
1336
recommended, it appears that they did not consider the matter too deeply and did not realise how controversial it was going to be. There do not seem to have been any direct submissions on this particular matter; at any rate none were published in the evidence. I beg to move.
LORD INCHYRA: I should like to support the Amendment proposed by the noble Duke. I will do so as shortly as I can, and with particular reference to the harbour of Perth which he mentioned. I support the Amendment because this is an issue which is arousing quite a lot of feeling locally. I think the inhabitants of Perth are a little worried about what will happen to their Lord Provost, and if they see their harbour taken away, they will be more unhappy. We have heard about the importance of carrying local opinion in order to make this new scheme of local government work. On this particular issue local opinion in Perth will not be on your side.
I do not need to say much about the harbour except that it is a good harbour. It is rather peculiar in that it is 20-odd miles from the sea. It serves many local interests; it is efficiently run, and is certainly very much appreciated not only by the citizens of Perth, but by everybody round about. They are naturally unhappy at the prospect that the present efficient set-up will not be so good under a regional situation, where the headquarters will be further away and where their interests will not be so well understood. Not unnaturally, they are rather concerned that their peculiar local interests may be swallowed up by the bigger Tayside region.
We have heard a lot from noble Lords about the desirability of having close connections between local people and the new local government set-up. I am rather afraid that people in Perth will feel that if the harbour is taken away, then that connection is weakened. I quite understand all the arguments which no doubt we shall hear from the Front Bench, about the importance of regional coordination, planning and arranging financial priorities, and so on. I understand, too, that we cannot expect at this stage any special arrangements to be made for Perth in particular. But I would hope, if this Amendment is not accepted, that at least the Government will agree that in a place like Perth it

1337
would be very suitable for the detailed, day-to-day operation of the port to be delegated by the region to the district, so that at least the actual operation of the port will still be in local hands, and the local people will feel they have a direct interest in what goes on.
THE EARL OF PERTH: Bearing the title that I do, your Lordships will not be surprised that I rise to support the noble Duke and the noble Lord, Lord Inchyra. The case is a good one, and I would hope that the Government are able to accept it as it is, rather along the lines of compromise suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Inchyra.
LORD HUGHES: I support this Amendment. I feel under an obligation to help Perth from time to time. Perth must have been considered a harbour of great importance at one time, because the railway bridge across the Tay, built nearly 100 years ago, was so designed as to permit shipping to travel up beyond the railway bridge. Much more recently the road bridge was constructed in such a way that it would not in any way impede the passage of shipping further up river. It was then not only for the benefit of Perth, of course, but I think now it is solely for the benefit of Perth. Having gone to all that expense in building the bridge, I think we might expend a little more money by including the Amendments in the Bill.
11.50 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: Certainly the House will feel considerable sympathy with the point of view of Perth on this matter, but it is based, I think, on fears rather than on realities. After all, Perth is a very important inland harbour; it will really be the jewel of the harbours, so far as Tayside is concerned, under the local authority, because Dundee is not under the local authority.
LORD HUGHES: Tayside region?
LORD DRUMALBYN: Yes.
LORD HUGHES: The noble Lord said that Perth harbour would be the jewel of the Tayside region—that must inevitably be the Dundee harbour.
LORD DRUMALBYN: The noble Lord started moulding before I finished my sentence. I was talking about the
1338
local authority harbour, and Dundee is not a local authority harbour. The main harbour that the region will have to operate will be Perth, and we can be quite certain that they will run it well, and will devolve the day-to-day management and control operations on a local basis. It may well be that they will establish a local harbour committee, which is possible under this Bill. I do not fear for Perth at all in this respect. If I may put it this way, I feel that a tremendous amount of justification would be needed to change the whole system from regional control to district control for all the other harbours in Scotland. There are over 230 local authority harbours in Scotland, and representations against the Government's proposals were received in the first instance from no more than nine authorities, and have been maintained only by Perth.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: Could the noble Lord tell us how many of those 230 harbours are actually used? I believe the number is very small, and it is very unlikely that representations would be received from those authorities whose harbours are not used.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I have not that information here, but I can tell my noble friend that the matter was not really quite so controversial as he represented it as having been in the House of Commons. He is right in saying that an Amendment was carried in Committee, but it was carried, I think, on the basis of the position of two harbours—Macduff and Banff; and Macduff has now indicated that it prefers regional control. Then at the Report stage in the Commons there was no Division; the Amendment was negatived. So I am afraid that I cannot agree with my noble friend that it was the Englishmen who rallied to the support to defeat the Scots in the Commons.
The substance of this matter surely is the main argument of the recommendation of the Wheatley Commission and the arguments behind it. Where harbours are important for transport purposes, there will be considerable advantage in their operation being related to the regional transportation policy because all other transport powers are regional. Where harbours are primarily used for fisheries, regional administration will

1339
secure co-ordination. My noble friend Lord Inchyra is quite right in saying that I used the word "co-ordination" of harbour development, that it will facilitate the further rationalisation of arrangements for revenue from landing dues which the fishing industry is already moving towards.
I must also say that the views of existing local authorities which control harbours are generally in favour of the Wheatley proposals. The main objection among those authorities which opposed the proposals was the fear of local control, but there is nothing in the Bill that prevents the harbours from being managed locally. I think these are overwhelming facts, and it would be very difficult to justify the acceptance of my noble friend's Amendment simply on the basis of the one case of Perth. Even though the inhabitants of Perth would prefer at the present time to retain control of their own harbour in their own district—but not as the City of Perth—I do not believe there is any chance of an adverse result from the transfer of the harbour to the regional authority.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: Can the noble Lord tell me where under Clause 153 the region could delegate the manage-merit of the harbour so that it could be locally controlled?
LORD DRUMALBYN: There is a general power to delegate. I said there was nothing to prevent its being done.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: In answer to my noble friend, I think it is Clause 56 under which it is possible for control to be delegated to the district.
LORD DRUMALBYN: There is no special power in the clause, but that is the clause which gives general powers of delegation.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: I know that my noble friend would not like me to divide the Committee, but I still remain unconvinced by his argument. I think these small ports are far better off controlled by the districts rather than by the regions. I do not think the coordination of regional transport really means anything. Perth is going to be at the centre of regional transport whatever happens to the harbour. The same applies to the ether harbours such as
1340
Buckie and Macduff. I would agree that if the Government were going to nationalise all harbours, which I think the Party opposite wish to do, there might have been some point in having them in regions. I am not encouraging my noble friend to do this; I think it would be a disaster. But his argument would hold more water if the major harbours, as well as the minor ones, were going to be under the control of the regions. At the moment I am prepared, reluctantly, to withdraw these Amendments, but I warn my noble friend that I shall be coming back to them on Report, if I am able to be here; and if not I shall make sure that one of my other noble friends does so.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 153 agreed to.
Schedule 19 agreed to.
Clauses 154 to 161 agreed to.
Schedule 20 agreed to.
Clause 162 agreed to.
Clause 163 [Public libraries, museums and art galleries]:
12.1 a.m.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD moved Amendment No. 154:
Page 97, line 40, leave out from ("be") to end of line 42 and insert ("a regional or islands council").
The noble Baroness said: I have an interest to declare in that I am vice-president of the Scottish Library Association, and what I am going to say to-night has the full support of that Association. In moving this Amendment, I should like to speak to the two following Amendments, which are consequential. The Library Association is very anxious that libraries should be a regional service and not a district service. This is necessary for several reasons: the increasing pace and technical development of modern society; the steadily growing demands of students and educational authorities in the fields of literature, and the ever-widening range and variety of reading and requests for information. These are all features and matters of great importance, and they mean that one must have a very extensive library service. This is possible only if a considerable amount of money is available to back the library service.
It also requires a very large collection of specialist books for science, technology, sociology, the humanities, music, drama, and all the other subjects. Readers' requests have to be met for a very large range of comprehensive and different subjects. There is a need to have computer techniques to manage libraries today, and extension and coordination of services throughout the whole of an area is very important. Mobile libraries, and a speedy exchange of books, are needed if we are to serve the public as we believe they should be served.
It is important that there should be a very strong link with the education authorities, which in the new set-up are going to be on a regional basis. Therefore every reason points to the fact that the library service should be one which belongs to, and is administered from, the regions. It does not mean that the local services will not be just as good as they have always been when the libraries were divided. Books can be, and will be, divided between many local libraries; but to be fully effective in meeting the enormous demand for different types of books and so on it would be necessary to have central buying and central distribution.
I know that it is not popular to say that in England and Wales and Northern Ireland the library services are regional, but they are. That is not of itself a reason for our doing it in Scotland, but it is a fact that it is necessary to have this service on a regional basis, otherwise it will certainly not be as effective as it should be in this world today, where knowledge is expanding, books are becoming more technical, and many more people are going to universities and wanting access to books. The University of the Air is another reason why people are asking for books on a very much larger scale. I hope the Government will realise that libraries are a vital service in the education service of the country, and I feel very strongly that the library service should be on a regional basis and not on a district basis. I beg to move.
LORD STRATI-JEDEN AND CAMPBELL: In supporting the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot, I would stress that this is a matter in which the regionalisation of local government would have a really
1342
beneficial effect. The central library could be brought together so that a large sum of money would be available to accumulate a proper and far-reaching collection of books on various subjects, instead of decentralising and having a large number of small libraries none of which could possibly afford a proper collection on any subject. The distribution of books could be easily arranged and there would be no need to centralise that aspect; it could perfectly well be decentralised and delegated down to districts. Indeed, there could even be district libraries with the books required on a small scale for local issuing. But the central library should be centralised in the region, so that it could be an all-embracing collection on every type of subject. I strongly support the noble Baroness.
THE EARL OF PERTH: May I ask one question? If this Amendment is accepted in relation to libraries, will museums and art galleries also go to the regions?
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: My Amendment refers to libraries. I am afraid that I do not know the situation about museums and art galleries, which would clearly come in the same category. My Amendment, which I am moving on behalf of the Scottish Library Association, affects libraries only.
THE EARL OF PERTH: If I read the Amendment aright, it also covers museums and galleries; and it would be very unfortunate if that were so. Museums and galleries are surely local and not regional.
LORD POLWARTH: We all know of the noble Baroness's close involvement and interest in this sphere. While she has made some very powerful pleas for a change in the set-up, these arguments were listened to very closely in preparing the Bill. The noble Earl has made a crucial point, which is applicable to the library service as well as to museums and galleries; namely, that since the library service is mainly intended to serve local needs, this is surely an example, above all others, of what should be a district council responsibility, except in the more thinly populated regions such as the Highlands, the Borders, Dumfries and Galloway, where we are providing otherwise. During the deliberations on

1343
this Bill, your Lordships have shown yourselves anxious to give the districts as much responsibility as possible. The criticism has been that they do not have enough responsibility. This is a sterling opportunity for them to take on responsibility, and I cannot believe that they will not be equal to it. There is scope for them to collaborate in schemes if they wish, and if that will help in the provision of a wider range of books. I feel that the noble Baroness and the noble Lord who has supported this Amendment, are not doing the districts justice in suggesting that this responsibility should be removed to a higher level.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: I am very disappointed in the noble Lord's reply. The fact is that it is not possible to have on a very small basis the type of library that is required for the modern world, the modern student and the modern reader. We need a central library on a very big scale, covering all the subjects, which will distribute through the districts. If the library service is divorced from the education service, there will be great complications. There will be a wastage in the buying of books, because there will be overlapping, or there will not be enough books in a particular region. I am afraid that I find this matter very unsatisfactory. I know that it was discussed in another place at some length, but the Scottish Library Association is deeply disappointed that the Government are not prepared to accept this. While I will not press this Amendment to a Division—I should have done if it had arisen at an earlier time—I shall certainly raise the matter again at Report stage. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 163 agreed to.
Schedule 21 agreed to.
Clauses 164 to 169 agreed to.
{Clause 170 [War memorials]:
LORD POLWARTH: This is entirely a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 100, line I, leave out ("shall be") and insert ("were")—(Lord Polwarth.)
Clause 170, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 171 and 172 agreed to.
Schedule 22 agreed to.
Clauses 173 to 184 agreed to.
Schedule 23 [Amendment of Enactments relating to Planning]:
LORD POLWARTH LORD POLWARTH moved Amendments Nos. 166, 167 and 168:
Page 231, line 11, at end insert—
("In section 43 (unopposed revocation or modification), the following amendments shall be made—

(a) in subsection (1), the words from "and (b)" onwards shall cease to have effect;

(b) in subsection (3), the words from "and the notice" onwards shall cease to have effect.")

Page 231, line 36, at end insert—
("( ) in subsection (3), the words "application for" shall cease to have effect;")
Page 232, line 4, at end insert—
("In section 153(1) (compensation where planning permission revoked or modified), the words from "(other" to "State)" shall cease to have effect.")
The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 166, 168, 227 and 229 are part of the process of removing what we consider unnecessary controls. They remove controls which the Secretary of State exercises at present in relation to the revocation or modification of planning permission. Where an order is not opposed and no compensation is involved, we now feel that there is no need for the Secretary of State's consent, and we therefore propose by these Amendments to remove this requirement. Amendment No. 167 is virtually identical because it removes a need to submit an application to the Secretary of State for confirmation concerning compensation. This, again, is the removal of an unnecessary control. I beg to move Amendments Nos. 166, 167 and 168.
Schedule 23, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 185 to 187 agreed to.
Clause 188 [Miscellaneous licensing, registration and related matters]:
12.15 a.m.
LORD POLWARTH: This Amendment and the one following are minor technical

1345
Amendments for the tidying up of provisions in the Bill. I beg to move Amendments Nos. 169 and 170.
Amendments moved—
Page 111, line 11, after last ("the") insert ("War Charities Act 1940 (registration authority for war charities) and the")
Page 111, line 33, leave out subsection (4).—
(Lord Polwarth.)
Clause 188, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 24 agreed to.
Clauses 189 to 196 agreed to.
Clause 197 [Inspection and deposit of documents]:
LORD POLWARTH: This Amendment No. 172, was discussed with a previous Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 115, line 25, leave out ("1971") and insert ("1973").—(Lord Polwarth.)
Clause 197 agreed to.
Clauses 198 to 208 agreed to.
Clause 209 [Removal or relaxation of controls affecting certain local authority functions]:
LORD POLWARTH LORD POLWARTH moved Amendment No. 176:
Page 123, line 34, at end insert—
("(5) In this section "local authority" includes a Passenger Transport Executive.")
The noble Lord said: The Title of the Bill expressly defines one of its purposes as the amendment of Part II of the Transport Act 1968. This again is a case of giving the Secretary of State power to remove or relax controls affecting certain local authority functions by an order subject to Affirmative Resolution and we feel it right that it should cover controls affecting Passenger Transport Executives. The point may not be of great practical consequence, as most controls over Passenger Transport Executives are being withdrawn; but it seemed reasonable to make provision for the possibility. I beg to move.
Clause 209, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 25 [Relaxation of controls]:
LORD POLWARTH LORD POLWARTH moved Amendment No. 177:
Page 241, line 41, at end insert—
("In section 5(3) (interpretation etc.), the words from 'and the fee' onwards shall cease to have effect.")
The noble Lord said: This Amendment and No. 202 delete the provisions setting a maximum fee for the registration of animal trainers and exhibitors under the Performing Animals Regulation Act 1925 because the authorities already have freedom to set registration fees as they wish.
LORD POLWARTH LORD POLWARTH moved Amendment No. 179:
Page 245, line 10, after ("(5)") insert ("paragraph (b) and").
The noble Lord said: This is another removal of what seems a superfluous power given to the Secretary of State in connection with the notice to do with the proper maintenance of waste land and the requirement to give directions regarding this. The Secretary of State's intervention is now removed.
Schedule 25, as amended, agreed to.
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 180:
After Schedule 25, insert the following new Schedule—

SCHEDULE 25A

  AMENDMENTS OF THE TWEED FISHERIES ACT 1969
  1. Section 3 shall cease to have effect.
  2. In section 5—

  (a) in subsection (1), for the words 'the appointed day', in both places where they occur, there shall be substituted the words '16th May 1975';

  (b) in subsection (2), the words from 'but' onwards shall cease to have effect;

  (c) after subsection (2) there shall be inserted the following subsections—

  '(2A) The representatives appointed as commissioners by a local authority shall be persons appearing to the local authority to be persons sufficiently representing the interests of those respective parts of the area of that local authority as are specified in column 3 of Schedule 1 to this Act, and the number of persons appointed in respect of each part so specified shall be in accordance with the respective numbers specified in column 4 of the said Schedule 1.

  1347

  (2B) Of the representatives appointed in respect of each specified part of the area of a local authority, the respective number specified in column 5 of the said Schedule 1 shall be persons appearing to the local authority to he persons sufficiently representing the interests of freshwater fishing associations or clubs within that part.'

  "SCHEDULE 1

  REPRESENTATIVE COMMISSIONERS

  Local Authority

  Number of Representatives

  Part of Local Authority Area represented

  Number of Representatives for each part of Local Authority Area

  Number of Representatives of associations or clubs

  1

  2

  3

  4

  5

  District Council of Merse.

  9

  Former Burgh of Coldstream

  2

  1

  Former Burgh of Duns

  2

  1

  Former Burgh of Eyemouth

  2

  1

  Remainder of the Council's area

  3

  2

  District Council of Roxburgh.

  9

  Former Burgh of Jedburgh

  2

  1

  Former Burgh of Kelso

  2

  1

  Former Burgh of Hawick

  2

  1

  Remainder of the Council's area

  3

  2

  District Council of Ettrick Forest.

  11

  Former Burgh of Selkirk

  2

  1

  Former Burgh of Lauder.

  2

  1

  Former Burgh of Galashiels

  2

  1

  Former Burgh of Melrose

  2

  1

  Remainder of the Council's area

  3

  2

  District Council of Tweeddale.

  5

  Former Burgh of Peebles

  2

  1

  Former Burgh of Innerleithen

  2

  1

  Remainder of the Council's area

  1

  —

  Berwick on Tweed District council.

  9

  Former Borough of Berwick-upon-Tweed.

  2

  1

  The rural district of Norham and Islandshires.

  2

  1

  The rural district of Glendale

  4

  3

  The remainder of the River Tweed catchment area within the County of Northumberland.

  1

  —")

  The noble Lord said: Perhaps with this Amendment we might discuss Nos. 180, 181, 226 and 232. Under Section 5(1) of the Tweed Fisheries Act 1969 certain local authorities in the River Tweed catchment area were authorised on or before February 1, 1970, to appoint specified numbers of people to act as representative commissioners for the purposes of the Act. The local authorities concerned and the number of representatives appropriate are specified in columns 1 and 2 respectively in Schedule 1 to the Act. The new clause and Schedule, and the consequential Amendments, transfer to the new district councils the function
  3. In section 6(2)(a), before the word 'burgh' there shall be inserted the word 'former'
  4. In section 7(3), before the word 'burgh' there shall be inserted the word 'former'.
  5. For Schedule 1 there shall be substituted the following Schedule—
  of appointing representative commissioners under the 1969 Act. The existing commissioners will be removed, and new ones appointed by the new district councils will act on and after May 16, 1975, as commissioners for the purposes of the 1969 Act.
  BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: The names on the Schedule are not correct. I do not know whether this is the moment when we ought to alter them, but yesterday we agreed two new names.
  LORD DRUMALBYN: I think it would be asking a bit much for us to have been expected to put down another

  1349
  Amendment overnight in order to get that right. Perhaps we may be allowed to put it right later.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: We could do it now by means of a manuscript Amendment.
  THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD CHAMPION): If there is to be a manuscript Amendment, it will have to be written and handed to the Chairman. That is something I must insist on.
  LORD HOY: I do not object to that happening, but I know this part of the country extremely well. Can the Minister assure us that all the local authorities have been consulted about this and have agreed to these changes being made?
  LORD DRUMALBYN: They have been consulted. This, of course, is a straight transfer which is necessitated by the change in the type of local authority that has been set up.
  BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: I was not querying the change, but only the wrong names.
  LORD DRUMALBYN: We are concerned here with identifiable places. If we make an Amendment at the next stage of the Bill I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw her query.
  Clauses 210 to 212 agreed to.
  LORD POLWARTH: Amendment No. 181 is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  After Clause 212, insert the following new clause:
  Tweed Fisheries Commissioners
  "212A.—(1) On 16th May 1975 each person holding office as a representative commissioner under the Tweed Fisheries Act 1969 shall go out of office.
  (2) The function of appointing representative commissioners under the said Act of 1969 shall be transferred to the district councils of Merse, Roxburgh, Ettrick Forest and Tweed-dale and the Berwick on Tweed District Council.
  (3) The said Act of 1969 shall have effect subject to the amendments set out in Schedule 25A of this Act."—(Lord Polwarth.)
  LORD HUGHES: I take it that the point the noble Baroness, Lady Elliott,
  1350
  has raised will be dealt with at the Report stage and that appropriate Amendments will be brought forward by the Government to insert the right names.
  LORD POLWARTH: Certainly.
  Clause 213 agreed to.
  Schedule 26 [Adaptation and Amendment of Enactments]:
  12.26 a.m.
  LORD POLWARTH LORD POLWARTH moved Amendment No. 182:
  Page 251, line 21, at end add—
  ("In section 11(2), after the word "the" there shall be inserted the words" area of the former".")
  The noble Lord said: This Amendment has the effect of maintaining the unusual position of the City of Glasgow in relation to the Celluloid and Cinematograph Film Act 1922, in that Glasgow under one of its local Acts has wider powers than in the general Statute. We are enabling them to retain these wider powers. I beg to move.
  THE DUKE OF ATHOLL THE DUKE OF ATHOLL moved Amendment No. 183:
  Page 256, line 31, leave out lines 31 to 33.
  The noble Duke said: The Border Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Act 1951 makes provision for joint committees of river boards and river purification boards on both sides of the Border. Section 17 of that Act defines the responsible board. The Amendment seeks to substitute the words "purification authority" for "purification board", but Clause 134 refers only to "purification board". In those circumstances, I suggest that paragraph 99 should be deleted as being both wrong and unnecessary. I beg to move.
  LORD POLWARTH: I am grateful to the noble Duke, and am glad to accept this Amendment as a drafting improvement.
  LORD POLWARTH LORD POLWARTH moved Amendment No. 192:
  Page 268, line 9, at end insert—
  ("The Island of Rockall Act 1972
  189A. In section 1, for the words from "District" to "Inverness" there shall be substituted the words "Western Isles".")
  The noble Lord said: This Amendment redefines "local authority" for the purpose of Section 11 of the Independent Broadcasting Authority Act 1973. Section 11 makes provision for the appointment of local advisory committees in respect of all the local authorities whose sound broadcasting services are needed by the Authority.
  THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My noble friend has left out one of his Amendments about the Island of Rockall.
  LORD POLWARTH: I beg your Lordships' pardon. I was trying to beat the Deputy Chairman of Committees in the race to it. Amendment No. 192 is a minor Amendment to substitute the name of the new local authority area as the fortunate one to possess the remarkable and outlying Island of Rockall. I beg to move.
  LORD POLWARTH LORD POLWARTH moved Amendment No. 193A:
  Page 268, line 24, at end insert—
  ("The Independent Broadcasting Authority Act 1973
  In section 11(6)(b), for the words from "council" to "small burgh" there shall he substituted the words "regional, islands or district council".")
  The noble Lord said: This Amendment redefines "local authority" for the purpose of Section 11 of the Independent Broadcasting Authority Act 1973. I have already spoken to it out of order, and I hope your Lordships will accept the Amendment. I beg to move.
  Schedule 26, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 214 to 216 agreed to.
  Clause 217 [Staff commission for Scotland]:
  LORD HUGHES: Amendments Nos. 193B and 193C hang together. They are important Amendments from the point of view of staff. It would be a nonsense to speak to them at this time of night, and I do not propose to move them. I will, however, resubmit them on Report.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I should like to say that I think the Staff commission arrangement is very important. It is confined entirely to the operation
  1352
  of this Bill. I am going to ask the Government whether this might not be a permanent institution in Scotland, primarily designed to maintain the standards and facilities of transfer of local officers. I believe it might be of considerable importance and I would ask the Government to look at that point.
  LORD POLWARTH: I think that all the noble Earl would expect me to do at the moment is to say that I will certainly look at it.
  Clause 217 agreed to.
  Clauses 218 to 220 agreed to.
  Clause 221 [Transfer of Property]:
  12.31 a.m.
  LORD POLWARTH LORD POLWARTH moved Amendment No. 194:
  Page 134, line 38, after ("property") insert ("which is subject to the provisions of section (educational endowments) or (property held on trust) of this Act or property").
  The noble Lord said: This Amendment, together with the proposed new clause after Clause 221, seeks to ensure that the new authorities will be able to fulfil their duties in relation to trusts which are held by existing authorities or in which existing authorities have an interest. The new clause is the operative part: the Amendment is in fact consequential. This is purely a question of continuity. The clause is designed to enable these trusts to continue operating with the minimum changes necessary in their administration. I hope your Lordships will accept that as an explanation of the new clause.
  Clause 221, as amended, agreed to.
  LORD POLWARTH: I beg to move Amendment No. 195.
  Amendment moved—
  After Clause 221 insert the following new clause—
  Property held on trust
  —(1) All property held on trust immediately before 16th May 1975 by

  (a) an existing local authority, or

  (b) a councillor and a specified officer of an existing local authority,

  shall on that day be transferred to and vest (subject to the same trust) in the appropriate islands or district council.
  (2) The council in whom property is vested by virtue of subsection (1) above shall nominate a sufficient number of their councillors to

  1353
  act as trustees of that property and in so doing shall have regard to the terms of the trust deed; and where the property is held immediately before 16th May 1975 by the persons mentioned in subsection (1)(b) above, the council shall nominate the proper officer as one of the trustees.
  (3) All property held on trust immediately before 16th May 1975 by a specified officer of an existing local authority shall on that day be transferred to and vest (subject to the same trust) in the proper officer of the appropriate islands or district council.
  (4) Where, immediately before 16th May 1975, property is held on trust by the holder of an office, whether as a councillor or a specified officer, connected with an existing local authority or existing local authorities and any other person, the appropriate islands or district council or (where the area to which the trust relates comprises the areas of more than one existing local authority) the appropriate islands or district councils shall, on the application of the trustees, nominate a sufficient number of their councillors to act in place of such holder and in so doing shall have regard to the terms of the trust deed, and, where the terms of the trust deed so require, the said council or councils shall nominate the proper officer as one of the trustees.
  (5) In this section "appropriate islands or district council" means, in relation to an existing local authority, the islands or district council whose area comprises the whole or the greater part of the area of the existing local authority, and "appropriate islands or district councils" shall be construed accordingly.
  (6) This section shall not apply to property which is subject to section (educational endowments) of this Act."—(Lord Polwarth.)
  Clauses 222 to 225 agreed to.
  LORD POLWARTH LORD POLWARTH moved Amendment No. 196:
  After Clause 225 insert the following new clause—
  Abolition of fiars courts for counties, etc.
  "225A.—(1) The courts for striking the fiars prices for the counties of Scotland shall no longer be held, and accordingly no payment becoming due after the appointed day shall be calculated by reference to fiars prices.
  (2) Subject to the provisions of section 12 of the Conveyancing (Scotland) Act 1924 (abolition and commutation of grain, etc. feu-duties) the amount of any periodical payment becoming due after the appointed day which would, if it had become due immediately before that day, have fallen to be ascertained by reference to fiars prices, shall be a sum in money representing the average value of the payment due during the last three years before that day.
  (3) In the event of the parties failing to reach agreement as to the commutation into money of any payment by referent( to subsection (2) above, either party may apply to
  1354
  the sheriff for a decree declaring the commuted value in money of the payment.
  (4) Where any payment, the amount of which falls to be ascertained by reference to subsection (2) above, is exigible from any person by virtue of an interest in land, the title to which may be recorded in the Register of Sasines, any agreement relative thereto and any decree pronounced under subsection (3) above shall, on being duly recorded in the appropriate register, be binding upon all persons having interest.
  (5) Any valuation or question mentioned in subsection (4) of section 75 of the Agricultural Holdings (Scotlanqd) Act 1949, falling to be decided by reference to a date after the appointed day, which would, if it had fallen to be decided by reference to a date immediately before that day, have been decided by reference to fiars prices, shall be decided in such manner as the parties may by agreement determine or, failing such agreement shall, notwithstanding the provisions of that subsection, be decided by arbitration under that Act.
  (6) In this section "the appointed day" means the day appointed under section 235 of this Act for the coming into operation of this section."
  The noble Lord said: I am afraid that this is an Amendment of substance which I shall have to explain but I will do so as briefly as I can. The purpose of this clause is to abolish the institution known in Scotland as the fiars court in the counties of Scotland to make provision for those money payments which are still calculated on the basis of the commodity prices fixed by them. As Scottish Members of your Lordships' House will know, the fiars prices struck in any county of Scotland are the sheriffs' assessment of the average prices at which the different sorts of grain produced in the county at the last harvest were sold. They are used to calculate the current cash value of the various payments which were once made in kind but are now made in money. While they are still used for a variety of purposes, the number of occasions on which they are used is small and is becoming smaller every year. With the disappearance of counties as administrative units, following the reorganisation, and the probable alteration of sheriff court districts and sheriffdoms to coincide with the new local government areas, the abolition of the fiars court will eliminate the need for special provision for the continuation of a process which is out of date and falling into disuse.
  I might add that the Committee on Sheriff Courts, under the chairmanship of the late Lord Grant, recommended that fiars prices should cease to be struck.

  1355
  Unless your Lordships would like a longer explanation of this matter, I would propose to leave it at that, except to say that while, naturally, we regret the passing of any institution of an historical kind in Scotland, the fact is that the purpose for which the fiars court exists has virtually disappeared. This Amendment replaces it by a less laborious method.
  Clause 226 agreed to.
  Schedule 27 agreed to.
  Clauses 227 to 229 agreed to.
  Clause 230 [Orders, rules and regulations]:
  LORD POLWARTH: I beg to move Amendment No. 198, which is consequential.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 142, line 12, leave out ("(a)").—(Lord Polwarth.)
  Clause 230, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 231 and 232 agreed to.
  Clause 233 [Savings]:
  LORD POLWARTH: I beg to move Amendment No. 201 which is a consequential Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 144, line 33, leave out ("1962 and 1969") and insert ("1939 to 1973").—(Lord Polwarth.)
  Clause 233, as amended, agreed to
  Clause 234 agreed to.
  Schedule 28 [Repeals]:
  12.37 a.m.
  LORD POLWARTH: I beg to move Amendment No. 202 which is a consequential Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 284, line 5, column 3, at end insert ("In section 5(3), the words from "and the fee" onwards.")—(Lord Polwarth.)
  LORD DRUMALBYN: Amendment No. 203 is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 286, line 2, column 3, after ("110") insert (C in subsection (1), the definition of "Large burgh", and")—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
  LORD POLWARTH: I beg to move Amendment No. 204, which is a consequential Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 287, line 25, column 3, at end insert ("(4),")—(Lord Polwarth.)
  LORD DRUMALBYN: I beg to move Amendment No. 210. This also is a consequential Amendment.
  Amendment moved:—
  Page 291, line 23, at end insert—

  ("14 & 15 Geo. 6. c. 15.

  The Local Government (Scotland) Act 1951.

  The whole Act.")

  —(Lord Drumalbyn.)
  12.40 a.m.
  THE DUKE OF ATHOLL THE DUKE OF ATHOLL moved Amendment No. 213:
  Page 291, line 31, column 3, leave out ("section 11").
  The noble Duke said: I should like to ask a brief question on this Amendment. In this Schedule Section 11 of the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) (Scotland) Act 1951 is repealed. My Amendment would seek to have Section 11 kept. Section 11 deals with the making of bylaws. I feel sure that it must be possible to make by-laws under Clause 134, which was inserted in this Bill on the Committee stage in another place, but I should like my noble friend to assure me that it is. It would probably be an advantage to these boards to be able to make by-laws in certain cases. I beg to move.
  LORD DRUMALBYN: I am informed that Section 11 is no longer necessary because the provisions of Clause 202, "Procedure for by-laws", take its place.
  THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  LORD DRUMALBYN: This Amendment was discussed with Amendment No. 134. I beg to move:
  Amendment moved—
  Page 291, line 35, column 3, at end insert

  1357
  ("In section 29(4), the words from "subject" onwards.")—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
  THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: This Amendment is on the same point as a previous Amendment which the Government accepted, that under Clause 134 the river purification authorities have now gone back to being called "river purification boards". I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 291, line 37, column 3, leave out (""river purification boards or"") and insert (""or river purification authorities"")—(The Duke of Atholl)
  LORD DRUMALBYN: The effect of this Amendment would be to limit the holding of inquiries under Section 31 of the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) (Scotland) Act 1951 to the functions of river purification boards only, to the exclusion of islands councils as river purification authorities. It is desirable that any inquiry which might be held under Section 31 of the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) (Scotland) Act 1951 should relate not only to the functions of river purification boards but also to those of islands councils which, along with river purification boards, fall within the meaning of "river purification authorities" in Section 17(2) of the 1951 Act as amended by Schedule 16.
  THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: In that case, as we have gone back to calling them "river purification boards", ought not the words: "In Section 30(1), the words 'river purification boards or'" to be deleted from these repeals? I fully appreciate my noble friend's point about the islands councils, and realise that we still have to retain the word "authorities" but I should have thought we now need to delete the whole of the sentence I have referred to.
  LORD DRUMALBYN: I shall be very glad to have a look at that point. I am afraid I cannot give my noble friend the answer right away.
  THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 220:
  Page 295, line 6, column 3, at beginning insert ("Section 27").
  The noble Lord said: This Amendment effects a minor repeal in the light of the relaxation of central Government control over local authorities. It removes the transitional position of the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 which gave the Secretary of State power to repeal or amend local enactments which were inconsistent with that Act. The provision is now spent.
  12.45 a.m.
  LORD DRUMALBYN: Amendment No. 222 is consequential on the repeal of Section 28 of the Public Health (Scotland) Act 1897, in paragraph 31 of Schedule 26. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 301, line 24, column 3, at end insert—
  ("In Schedule 1, paragraph 1.").—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
  THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTTES (LORD CHAMPION): I notice that Amendments Nos. 223 to 231 stand in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, and I wonder whether he would care to move them en bloc.
  LORD DRUMALBYN: These Amendments are all consequential or have been previously discussed. I beg to move Amendments Nos. 223 to 231 en bloc.
  Amendments moved—
  Page 301, line 46, column 3, at end insert—
  ("In section 10(1)(xvi), the words "and the consent of the Minister".
  Section 11(4).")
  Page 301, line 53, column 3, at end insert—
  ("In section 16, in subsection (2), the words from "and (d)" onwards, and subsections (3), (4) and (5).
  In section 18, in subsection (1), the words "to the Minister and", and in subsection (2), the words "to the Minister and".
  Section 21 (5)(a).")
  Page 302, line 13, column 3, after ("12") insert ("14")
  Page 303, line 41, at end insert—

  ("1969 c. xxiv.

  The Tweed Fisheries Act 1969.

  Section 3. In section 5(2) the words from "but" onwards.")

  Page 304, line 46, column 3, at end insert—
  ("In section 43, in subsection (1), the words from "and (b)" onwards, and in subsection (3), the words from "and the notice" onwards.")
  Page 304, line 52, column 3, at end insert—
  ("In section 107(3), he words" application for".")
  Page 305, line 20, column 3, at end insert—
  ("In section 153(1), the words from" (other "to" State)".")
  Page 305, line 27, column 3, after ("(5)")
  insert ("paragraph (b) and")
  Page 305, line 46, at end insert—

  (" 1973 c.28.

  The Rate Rebate Act 1973.

  The whole Act.")

  —(Lord Drumalbyn.)
  Schedule 28, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 235 [Short title, commencement and extent]:
  LORD DRUMALBYN: I beg to move Amendment No. 232, which has been discussed with Amendment No. 180.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 145, line 21, leave out ("section 145(5)") and insert ("sections 92, 145(5) and 212A and Schedule 25A")—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
  LORD HUGHES: I do not think we can congratulate ourselves on the way in which we have proceeded in the latter part of this Bill. We have got through it in the two days but in a most unsatisfactory fashion, and it is obvious that we did not allow sufficient time for the enormous number of Amendments that were tabled. We have got to this stage only at the expense of having a whole lot of the Amendments to be re-submitted at Report stage and I am afraid that while most of us had hoped that the Report stage would be fairly brief, it is not now going to be.
  I am not opposing this Amendment. My real purpose in rising was to say that having got to the end of this stage we owe a very special debt of gratitude to the Deputy Chairman of Committees, the noble Lord, Lord Champion. If we had all spoken as quickly and with as few—or no—mistakes as he has done, we might have made the deadline of twelve o'clock at which we were aiming and I think it would be wrong if we were to reach the end of this remarkable occasion without expressing our thanks to him.
  SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
  THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD CHAMPION): The noble Lord is much too kind.
  Clause 235, as amended, agreed to.
  House resumed: Bill reported, with the Amendments.

NORTHERN IRELAND CONSTITUTION BILL
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
WATER BILL
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
INSURANCE COMPANIES BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments; the said Amendments to be printed.
GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL TRENT RIVER AUTHORITY BILL
Reported, with Amendments.