Lords Sitting of 15 October 1973

Preamble
Reassembling after the Summer Recess the House met at half past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of London.

PARLIAMENTARY PAPERS AND THE SUMMER RECESS
LORD AIREDALE: 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 how many Parliamentary Papers were laid "in dummy" during the last week before the Summer Recess; and what useful purpose was served thereby.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (LORD WINDLESHAM): My Lords, 48 Parliamentary Papers were laid "in dummy" during the last week before the Summer Recess. This was necessary because authority for printing had to be obtained to enable Reports to be published during the Recess.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord for that Answer, but did that not lead to 48 misleading entries in the Minutes of the
2
House, leading noble Lords to suppose that 48 Papers had been published when they had not? Would it not be better to have a system whereby Parliamentary Papers are laid before Parliament after they have been written, and not before?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, this is a mild fiction, but one I have been looking into because I know that the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, raised this same point last year. It is generally for the convenience of the public. Unless a printing order is given by another place, the Reports, although laid, cannot be printed and that would mean that for a period of perhaps up to three months the public would not have access to these Reports.

E.E.C.: BRITAIN'S CONTRIBUTION TO BUDGET
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: 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 has been Britain's gross contribution to the E.E.C. budget so far this year.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, allowing for the refund of collection costs our gross contribution to the European Community's budget to date is £128 million.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, in thanking my noble friend for that reply, may I ask whether he is aware that this figure is somewhat, though not greatly, more than that estimated in the 1971 White Paper? Can the noble Lord tell us what is the estimated budget for the Community for the next year?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, the actual figure for the whole of 1973 will, we assume, be of the order of £160 million, offset by about £70 million in receipts; so we are really talking about a figure of approximately £90 million for the full year. This is in line with what was forecast in 1971. On the second part of the question, the request for information, I do not have that with me, but will refer to it again at a later time.
LORD MAYBRAY-KING: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord: what amount will be offset against the figure mentioned in aid to the regions this year?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, the Regional Development Fund is not yet in its final shape and I would therefore be surprised if there were any receipts to the Regional Development Fund in this year.

CHILE AND BRITISH AID
LORD BROCKWAY: 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 will refrain from providing aid for civilian or military purposes to the Administration in Chile in view of the fact that by military force it overthrew the democratically-constituted Government.
THE MINISTER OF STATE. FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR or BELHELVIE): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government do not give military aid to Chile and do not consider that it would be in the interests of the people of Chile that development aid should be suspended.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, while I welcome that Answer from the noble
4
Baroness, may I ask whether Her Majesty's Government recognise the historical importance of what has occurred, following the Soviet invasion of human socialism in Czechoslovakia and now the American-supported prohibition of socialism and democracy in Chile? Is it not enormously important that the "unacceptable face of capitalism" should be altered by democratic means rather than by suppression?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, unfortunately there have been many coups in Latin America, and so far as concerns any suggestion that America is involved we unreservedly accept their denial that this was so.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, is it not the case that Her Majesty's Government would have refused sympathy to Hitler's Germany, and by its repression and methods of coming to power is not the new Administration of Chile the most Fascist regime since the Hitler régime?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I do not feel it is appropriate to try to compare the present Government of Chile with that of Hitler. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, after formal recoenition of the new Government in Chile, made it clear that it did not mean that the British Government necessarily agreed with the policies of the Chilean Government. Recognition is acceptance of a fact and not an expression of approval.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, while it is difficult for most of us to know precisely what is going on in Chile, I wonder whether the noble Baroness is considering what steps the Government might take to ensure that no more unnecessary and tragic executions take place. Would the noble Baroness agree with me that whatever may have happened recently, the late President Allende was a very high-minded and idealistic man who was undoubtedly seeking a democratic socialist society?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, naturally Her Majesty's Government deplore violence wherever it may occur. Immediately after we had recognised the new Government,

5
Her Majesty's Ambassador was instructed to make representations explaining the very strong feeling in this country over the death of President Allende and others, and over the many people who had been arrested. The Government of Chile offered its assurances that it would deal in a humane manner and in accordance with due process of law with all those in detention and with those in political opposition.

HOUSING: USE OF NON-FLAMMABLE MATERIALS
2.44 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: 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 action they are taking to encourage or compel the use of nonflammable material in house building.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT (BARONESS YOUNG): My Lords, the Building Regulations 1972 made under the Public Health Acts 1936 and 1961 already restrict the use of inflammable materials in the construction of houses where this is thought necessary in the interests of safety.
THE EARL or SELKIRK: My Lords, will the noble Baroness agree that in the course of this year something like £200 million-worth of damage has been done to houses for personal and public use and an unknown amount by wet or damp rot? In those circumstances, is not some further encouragement, or possibly compulsion, necessary, to use material which is both non-flammable and which prevents wet or dry rot setting in?
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, the building regulations are under continuous review, and I caa assure my noble friend Lord Selkirk that there has been a complete amendment of that part which deals with structural fire precautions; it came into effect at the end of August. The kind of points which my noble friend has made are taken into account.
LORD GREENWOOD OF ROSSENDALE: My Lords, can the noble
6
Baroness tell the House if the Government have considered whether this might be a field in which the National House Builders Registration Council have a constructive contribution to make?
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, I understand that when the building regulations are under review at least 160 different organisations are consulted. If the Council are not among them, I will certainly see that their name is added to the list. It is, of course, open to any organisation which wishes to make represention on this matter to do so any time.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that the Fire Brigades Union have suggested that all new building materials should be compulsorily tested, and that the results should be transmitted to all local authorities and all Chief Fire Officers? What will the Government do about that?
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, if the noble Lord has plastics in mind when he refers to new materials. I would say that these are already subject to building regulations.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, am I to understand from what the noble Baroness has said that builders have been instructed not to use the material which was used in the Isle of Man concert hall, where something like 200 people were killed?
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, I do not think it would be appropriate for me to comment on the terrible tragedy at Summerland, which I understand is now the subject of a public inquiry.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: But am I to understand that the material, which everybody agrees was inflammable, has now been prohibited for use in public buildings?
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, I cannot comment on anything which is connected with that disaster. I said in my previous answer that plastic materials are the subject of building regulations.
LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, while not wishing to comment on the particular case to which the noble Baroness has referred, does the Minister not consider that it would be in the interests of the people of the Isle of Man if the building

7
regulations in force in that part of the United Kingdom conformed to those in the rest of the British Isles?
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, I think that is rather wide of the Question. As the noble Lord will know, the building regulations to which I have referred apply to England and Wales, but do not apply to the Isle of Man.

MIDDLE EAST: THE ARAB/ISRAELI CONFLICT
2.48 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question of which I have given Her Majesty's Government Private Notice, namely:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will make a Statement on the outbreak of Arab-Israeli hostilities?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs will to-morrow make a full Statement on the Middle East which I will, by leave of this House, repeat. Noble Lords will, however, be aware that Her Majesty's Government's main objective is to bring the fighting to an end and simultaneously to create conditions in which urgent progress can be made towards carrying out Security Council Resolution 242 in full. In the meantime, we have stopped sending arms to the battlefield.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Baroness for the answer she has just given. I hope she will understand that we are in some difficulties because this is the first day of resumption after the Recess. We are all deeply conscious of and share the anxiety and disquiet of the people of this country about hostilities in the Middle East. No doubt there are many noble Lords who would like to put particular points to the noble Baroness, but in the circumstances I can understand that the Foreign Secretary would himself wish to make a very full Statement to-morrow. I think the House ought, therefore, to be content with what the noble Baroness has said. However, I presume that the statement that arms have ceased to be supplied, presumably to both sides, means that the
8
Scorpion tanks not yet sent to one of the Arab States will now not be sent, and, secondly, that the Government will look at the question of training Egyptian pilots in the present circumstances. Perhaps this matter could be part of the Statement the Foreign Secretary will make to-morrow. In the light of that, if I may advise my noble friends in the House, I think we ought to wait for the full Statement to-morrow. But the noble Baroness and the Government Chief Whip will be aware that it must be expected that we may wish to debate the Middle East situation on Thursday in the light of the Statement being made to-morrow. I hope we can have an assurance, either from the Leader of the House or from the Chief Whip, that, if it is the desire of Members, time will be provided for such a debate.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I would thank the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, for his most admirable restraint, with which I very much concur, because I think it would be more acceptable to the House if they based their questions on the full Statement to-morrow. As I understand it there is a possibility,in fact a probability, that there will be a debate on Thursday. On the specific question put to me by the noble Lord about the Scorpions for Dubai, as he is well aware, Dubai is not a battlefield country and that is why these are continuing.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, would the noble Baroness be a little more forthcoming? There has been deep disquiet about aircraft supplied to Libya and deep suspicion that these aircraft have found their way to the battlefield. Would the noble Baroness look at this matter, because there is great disquiet among Members of this House about all arms to these States in the light of the present situation?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I will certainly draw this question to the attention of my right honourable friend. I omitted to reply to another point put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, about training Egyptian pilots in this country. These are 12 trained Egyptian pilots who are on a conversion course in this country. We feel that this should

9
continue. We do not think that it would help matters particularly to send these 12 pilots back.
LORD JANNER: My Lords, while I appreciate that we shall be debating or discussing this matter to-morrow, there are one or two matters of considerable urgency on which I should like to ask a question. The first is with regard to the removal of the embargo on Israel relating to the supply of arms. How dare we, and how can we, refuse to supply Israel with parts necessary to use the tanks that we ourselves sold to them, particularly after a contract has been entered into and that contract has already gone to the extent of the arms being delivered in this country to Israel? In view of the tremendous amount of armaments being flown in and supplied by Russia, in particular, to Arab countries, is it not a shocking thing that we should stand aside and leave these people who are defending Israel against an aggression, and a violation which everybody realises is a violation, to be slaughtered by guns and weapons far above the numbers that they themselves possess, and in spite of the fact that the aggression was taken on one of the most sacred days which was being celebrated in Israel by Israeli troops? Cannot we possibly do the right thing and remove that embargo straight away? Time is very important in this matter.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, while I personally understand the noble Lord's deep personal concern, I would ask him to recall that in recent years Her Majesty's Government's policy has been to consider requests for arms from both sides provided that they did not seem likely to impede the search for a settlement or to encourage the resort to hostilities. This is why we have now imposed an embargo. On the last point, I do not think that it is right to apportion blame for this round of fighting. The British concern is not to take sides, but somehow to ensure a lasting solution to the problems of the area.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that nobody expects this country to take sides, but it is obvious from some statements that have been made—even by her right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary
10
—that we appear to be adopting an attitude that is far from neutral. Can the noble Baroness justify the refusal of the British Government to provide spare parts and other material for which Israel has already paid? Can she also state whether King Hussein, who has suddenly decided to enter into hostilities in a limited fashion, is being provided with arms from this country as for the past few years? May we have some information about that?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, as I said earlier, we think that an embargo should not be one sided. It applies to both the main combatants in the area. So far as Jordan is concerned, it applies also to her.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, the noble Baroness cannot get away with that. There are many other things that the Government are getting away with. I want to ask quite plainly whether it is true that Israel has paid for spare parts for tanks and other equipment and that this material has not been delivered? If so, why not?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I thought that I made it perfectly clear, and I hoped that it was acceptable to the House, that in this very severe conflict it would not do to have an embargo which was one-sided. The only way in which we had a justification for working for a cease-fire, and connecting that with a settlement that is fair to all concerned, is to have embargoes to the battlefield.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, if it is not to be one-sided, would the noble Baroness inform your Lordships' House whether Egypt has purchased material from this country, paid for it and been refused delivery? Indeed, is it true that Egypt is not concerned at all about getting arms from this country because she has been adequately supplied by Russia, who, as we know, is no friend of this country?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I am happy to say that I have a precedent from the previous Government of the noble Lord who, together with ourselves, always refused to discuss in detail specific arms agreements, and I do not propose to do so now.
BARONESS BIRK: My Lords, in view of the reply regarding the training of Egyptian pilots, and of the fact that, as understand it, the Government have confirmed that these pilots are being trained and will continue to be trained, may I ask whether, between to-day and making the Statement in the House to-morrow, this subject will be reconsidered? Because is it not breaking the Government's neutrality? They say that they will not give help to either side. To continue the training of pilots is really a breach, and makes nonsense of the statement that no help is being given to either side in a military sense.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, perhaps I did not make it clear that these pilots are already trained pilots who are on a conversion course. Were we to stop their courses right away they would return instantly as trained pilots, and that would not help the situation.
BARONESS BIRK: My Lords, would the Government then keep them here for ten years?
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, may I ask the Minister for a simple affirmative or negative reply? Has ammunition ordered in this country by Israel before the commencement of the current Arab aggressive operation been denied export?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, arms which are not already on their way are in fact subject to the embargo.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that she has support from all Benches in the line the Government are taking to use their utmost influence to try to achieve a cease-fire? Is she aware that the only prospect of succeeding with that is if we are absolutely neutral as between both sides? I am sure that there is great sympathy, including my own, with the Israelis in this matter; nevertheless, is my noble friend aware that she has very great support for the line she has taken?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend very much for his words. I would only repeat to the House that the main objective of my right honourable friend and Her Majesty's
12
Government, as I said in the first Answer, is to bring this terrible fighting to an end and simultaneously to create conditions in which progress can be made towards carrying out the Security Council Resolution.
LORD JANNER: My Lords, would the noble Baroness please say whether she thinks it is morally right either from a pre-purpose or any other purpose to refuse to supply the necessary supplies to Israel which is being attacked from all sides and against whom an enormous flow of arms has been used? Is it proper that we should refuse to do anything in respect of the tanks that have been supplied and which will be useless without these parts?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government consider that we are in a stronger position to ask our allies and anybody else who would listen to come together to try to seek an end to the fighting and to create the conditions for a settlement, if we do not at the same time supply arms either to one side or the other.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that many of us welcomed the suggestion from the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, that we should refrain from questions to-day until we have heard the Statement from the Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office to-morrow? Is she aware that we were a little surprised that he proceeded to put questions himself and that this has led to the unfortunate exchange of questions to-day, and that many of us will reserve our questions until we have heard the Statement?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I think many noble Lords in all parts of the House would agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, has said. I was asked earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, whether there would be an opportunity for a fuller debate later in the week, and I can confirm that there will be an opportunity on Thursday. In addition we have the Statement, which has been forecast, by the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which will be released to your Lordships' House.

COMMONWEALTH SPEAKERS' CONFERENCE IN LUSAKA
3.2 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD HAILSIIAM OF SAINT MARYLEBONE): My Lords, with the permission of the House I would like to inform your Lordships that at the invitation of the Speaker of the National Assembly of Zambia, I attended a Conference of Speakers and Presiding Officers of Parliaments in the Commonwealth, which was held in Lusaka between September 24 and 28. I was accompanied by the Clerk of the Parliaments. This is the third of a series of Commonwealth Speakers' Conferences. The first was held in Ottawa in 1969, and was attended by my predecessor. The second was that held in Delhi in January, 1972, which I myself attended.
I would like to take the opportunity to express publicly (as I have already done privately) my warmest thanks to Mr. Speaker Nabulyato and to President Kaunda and his Government for the admirable arrangements made for the Conference and for the courtesy and hospitality extended to us as representatives of the United Kingdom. Nothing could have exceeded the warmth of welcome and of interest with which we, as delegates, were received and I am grateful for the chance of taking part in the Conference and of making, or renewing, personal contact with the Speakers of the Commonwealth Parliaments and with the President, Members of the Assembly and people of the Republic of Zambia.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That, until Parliament is prorogued, Standing Order No. 38 (Arrangement of the Order Paper) be suspended so far as is necessary to give Government Business, except with the consent of the Government, precedence over other Business; and that Standing Order No. 44 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be suspended during the same period.—(Lord Windleshain.)
On Question Motion agreed to.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL
THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (LORD POLWARTE): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Amendments for the Report stage of the Local Government (Scotland) Bill be marshalled and considered in the following order, vizt.:—

Clause 1,

Schedule 1,

Clauses 2–11,

Schedules 2–3,

Clause 12,

Schedule 4,

Clauses 13–20,

Schedule 5,

Clauses 21–28,

Schedule 6,

Clauses 29–43,

Schedule 7,

Clauses 44–97,

Schedule 8,

Clauses 98–122,

Schedule 9,

Clauses 123–129,

Schedules 10–11,

Clauses 130–132,

Schedules 12–13,

Clause 133,

Schedule 14,

Clause 134,

Schedule 15,

Clause 135,

Schedule 16,

Clauses 136–148,

Schedule 17,

Clauses 149–150,

Schedule 18,

Clauses 151–154,

Schedule 19,

Clauses 155–162,

Schedule 20,

Clauses 163–164,

Schedule 21,

Clauses 165–173,

Schedule 22,

Clauses 174–185,

Schedule 23,

Clauses 186–189,

Schedule 24,

Clauses 190–210,

Schedule 25,

Clauses 211–214,

Schedule 26,

Clause 215,

15

Schedule 27,

Clauses 216–230,

Schedule 28,

Clauses 231–238,

Schedule 29,

Clause 239.—(Lord Polwarth.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

POWERS OF CRIMINAL COURTS BILL [H.L.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I understand that no Amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript Amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the Order of Recommitment be discharged.
I think I should inform your Lordships at this point that it is a pure Consolidation Bill. The Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills were of the opinion that the Bill as amended represents the existing law and that there is no point to which the attention of Parliament should be drawn. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Order of Recommitment be discharged.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL
3.5 p.m.
Report received.
Schedule 1 [New local government areas]:
LORD POLWARTH LORD POLWARTH moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 150, line 42, column 1, leave out ("Forth") and insert ("Central").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, seems a long time since we laid down this Bill at the end of the last stage nearly three months ago, and some of no doubt felt a little relief at the time. hope that your Lordships all return refreshed to the discussion of the final stages. This Amendment results from an undertaking I gave at an earlier stage.
16
An Amendment was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, and accepted by the Government to change the name of this region in the centre of Scotland from "Central" to "Forth", as having a little more character to it than something which was described as being I think parallel to the central station or something of that kind, and I am bound to say the idea certainly commended itself to me personally. I had to undertake however that we would again consult the local authorities in the region concerned, because we have throughout taken the view that on the matter of names the majority view of the local authorities in The areas concerned should be given heed to.
Despite eloquent pleas from your Lordships for the name to be "Forth", I regret to say that the local authorities most concerned. Stirling County Council, Clackmannan County Council, and the Regional Steering Committee of authorities in the region have all requested that we reinstate "Central" as their agreed first preference because the usage has already become familiar and accepted locally. There was another point which they made. It has of course arisen before. It is related that during the war an American warship was directed to proceed up the Firth of Forth and dock at the Port of Rosyth. To the surprise of the authorities on shore the ship was observed to be proceeding onwards in the direction of Stirling. Frantic signals were exchanged saying, "Did you not have instructions to turn to starboard after the Forth Bridge?". "Yes", came the reply, "but I have only just passed the first". Seriously, however, I believe that some of the authorities are concerned that the name "Forth" might be misconstrued in the same manner. Indeed I should remind your Lordships that it was so spelt in your Official Report on the debate. In view of what has occurred I think I can only recommend your Lordships to revert to the name originally proposed.
THE EARL OF MAR AND KELLIE: My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Polwarth and I very much hope that his Amendment will be acceptable to your Lordships. For many years I have been a member of Clackmannan

17
County Council and I am fully aware that every opportunity was given to us and to our neighbours to select a name for the region. The Scottish Office went out of their way to consult the constituent members and bodies. Almost unanimously the elected members of the existing local authorities voted for the name "Central Region". I of course appreciate the views of my noble friends Lady Elliot of Harwood and Lord Balerno, but they do not live within the bounds of the proposed region and may not have realised the strong feeling, expressed at the Committee stage, for the word "Central", which is the description favoured by the vast majority of those who are directly concerned.
LORD BALERNO: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Polwarth gave me some prior information as to the results of his consultations with the local authorities, and I am perfectly satisfied that the local authorities and the local people wish themselves to be called "Central". But I must say that although one wants to allow the local people to determine their own name, the rest of Scotland has a right to object to any part of it being called "central" when indeed it is lopsided to a degree. Every drop of rain that falls on the proposed Central Region and every bit of sewage that it produces drains into the Forth, and none of it goes to the West. It is not "central" Scotland. But in view of the redoubtable and gallant Lord Lieutenant of Clackmannan and the silent and equally redoubtable Lord Lieutenant of Stirlingshire being so strongly in favour, who am I to oppose this Amendment?
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
3.12 p.m.
LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 151, line 1, at end insert—
("Greater Glasgow
The county of the city of Glasgow.
In the county of Dunbarton—the burghs of Bearsden, Clydebank, Milngavie; the district of Old Kilpatrick (except the electoral divisions of Bowling, Dunbarton).
In the county of Lanark—the burgh of Rutherglen; in the Eighth district the electoral divisions of Bankhead, Cambuslang Central, Cambuslang North, Hallside, Rutherglen, and those parts of Cambuslang South and Carmunnock electoral divisions
18
lying outwith the designated area of East Kilbride New Town; in the Ninth district, the electoral divisions of Baillieston, Garrowhill, Mount Vernon and Carmyle, Springboig.
In the county of Renfrew—the First district.
Lanarkshire
In the county of Dunbarton—the burghs of Cumbernauld, Kirkintilloch; the district of Kirkintilloch and Cumbernauld.
The county of Lanark (except the burgh of Rutherglen; in the Eighth district, the electoral divisions of Bankhead, Cambuslang Central, Cambuslang North, Hallside, Rutherglen, and those parts of Cambuslang South and Carmunnock electoral divisions lying outwith the designated area of East Kilbride New Town; in the Ninth district, the electoral divisions of Baillieston, Garrowhill, Mount Vernon and Carmyle, Springboig).
In the County of Stirling—the burgh of Kilsyth; the Western No. 3 district; the electoral divisions of Kilsyth East, Kilsyth West.
Argyll and Clyde
The county of Argyll (except the district of Ardnamurchan; the electoral divisions of Ballachulish, Kinlochleven).
The county of Bute (except the burgh of Millport; the districts of Arran, Cumbrae).
In the county of Dunbarton—the burghs of Dumbarton, Cove and Kilcreggan, Helensburgh; the districts of Helensburgh, Vale of Leven; the electoral divisions of Bowling, Dunbarton.
The county of Renfrew (except the First district).
Ayrshire and The county of Ayr.
Arran In the county of Bute—the burgh of Millport; the districts of Arran, Cumbrae.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I will not read out Amendment No. 2 as it is rather long, but I would mention that on this Amendment there hang a number of others: Amendments Nos. 4 (now No. 2A), 8, 10, 11, 22, 23, 51 and 52. The purpose of this series of Amendments is to divide the Strathclyde Region into four regions which the majority of those I have consulted would describe as regions of more suitable size. Your Lordships will recollect that at the last stage of the Bill I did not have any Amendment on Strathclyde but said that I remained unhappy about it and would take the opportunity during the Recess to try to ascertain viewpoints on this matter. If I might go back

19
to the beginnings, when I had responsibility at the Scottish Office and had the duty of speaking to the Report of the Wheatley Commission on behalf of the then Government, I said that the Scottish Office accepted the Report of the Wheatley Commission and would in due course be issuing comments on it. But I said then that it was the instruction of the then Secretary of State, my right honourable friend, Mr. Ross, that when a White Paper came out it was to be regarded in the original sense of a White Paper—that is, a document for consultation—and that only after we had ascertained the points of view of people concerned would the Government put their proposals into final Bill form.
Your Lordships will also recollect that when the present Government brought out their White Paper they did not follow that (as it seemed to me) admirable point of view. They stated that in certain matters—for instance, the boundaries of regions and districts, and of powers—the conclusions of the Government were final and were not to be subject to adjustment other than on minor details. It is not surprising, therefore, that many people accepted that the Strathclyde battle had been fought and lost right at the very beginning. I want to say that while it was my responsibility to persuade people of the advantages that accrued from having a region such as Strathclyde—and it would be idle for anyone to suggest that there are no advantages attaching to a region of this kind —I must confess quite frankly that, in the time that has elapsed, far from persuading other people of the advantages of the Strathclyde Region the other people have persuaded me of its disadvantages.
The population of Scotland is approximately 5½ million. As the Bill stands, half of that population is to be placed in this Strathclyde Region. At the last stage of the Bill we departed to a certain extent from the then Strathclyde Region by taking certain parts out of the Glasgow district, but that was really only a comparatively small part of the job. The Government themselves have recognised, just as the previous Government did, that there are tremendous disadvantages in the Strathclyde proposals, and I would say
20
that almost certainly they did exactly the same as we did, which was to search around for alternatives to Strathclyde. I have said before—and I think it is probably true of present Ministers—that we spent more time trying to find an alternative to Strathclyde than we spent on everything else put together. Now we do not do that because we think the Strathclyde proposal is a good one: we spend that time on it because we think there are very considerable disadvantages to it. What I did during the Recess was to arrange a meeting in Glasgow, which took place on September 10. To that meeting were invited the councils of the six counties in Strathclyde, the city of Glasgow, all the large burghs and representatives of the small burghs and the district councils. Not all the small burghs nor all the district councils were invited, because to have brought all of them in would have resulted in an unduly large meeting. In fairness to Glasgow, I must point out that they decided to come to the meeting only as observers; and they made their view perfectly clear at the meeting that Glasgow remained firmly in support of the Wheatley proposals for a Strathclyde Region and that the decision of the Glasgow Corporation was a unanimous one. Although there is an overwhelming Labour majority in Glasgow, the view that was expressed was not just the view of the Labour Glasgow Corporation: it was a unanimous decision. But exactly the same thing applies outside Glasgow.
When a vote was taken 40 authorities represented at that meeting expressed themselves in favour of my Amendment to break Strathclyde into four regions, 9 authorities expressed themselves as in favour of the present Strathclyde Region and 7 authorities said neither one thing nor the other. But if I were to leave the matter there it would give a completely misleading picture, because one could not possibly say that the vote of one authority, Glasgow, with 601,000 inhabitants, could be cancelled out by the vote of one small burgh, even if it is a burgh with a name such as Biggar, with 1,378 inhabitants. So the only fair way to make a comparison is to take the electorates for which these authorities might be regarded as speaking. Having said that, believe for one moment

21
that even an authority which is unanimous can claim that it is speaking for everybody within its boundaries. Not all the 600,000 people in Glasgow are in favour of Strathclyde; and although other councils are unanimously against it, not all the people living in their burghs are against Strathclyde. But, in the absence of being able to take a vote of the individuals concerned, the best thing is to take the views of their councils as being reasonably representative of their areas.
The position that we get is that, taking the electorate as a whole, authorities with an electorate of 948,000 are for Strathclyde as it stands, and authorities with an electorate of 728,000 are in favour of the break-up of Strathclyde. On the face of it, Strathclyde is home and dry, but 601,000 of those 948,000 are in Glasgow and all the opposition to Strathclyde has come from outside Glasgow. The figures then show 728,000 for the four Regions and 347,000 for the single Region. So quite clearly, on any basis upon which we look at it, those outside the Glasgow district do not want to see a single Strathclyde Region.
In another place, this matter was dealt with on the basis of setting up a third tier, a metropolitan tier, which would look after what has loosely been described as the "strategic functions". The defect of that is that nowhere in the Bill are "strategic functions" defined, and it is exceedingly difficult to define in any Act of Parliament what strategic functions are. But there are many people who know fairly clearly the sort of matters which would fall under the hearing of "strategic functions"; for instance, major planning decisions could be strategic functions. If I wanted to get Strathclyde broken up into something which was more acceptable, and more in keeping with the organisation of local government in the rest of Scotland, I had to find some way by which certain matters, such as the planning of the Valley of the Clyde as one unit, could be considered on a wide basis, and my Amendment to Clause 56 takes care of that. That Amendment will give to the Secretary of State powers to require the four Regions, which are called for in this Amendment No. 2, to combine or consult together for such purposes as he may determine. That is a simplification, and I admit right away that there
22
are aspects other than the one I shall cover. But, broadly speaking, the same kind of argument flows from them.
I ask your Lordships to take planning. Planning decisions in the Strathclyde Region, as it stands in the Bill, could cover the change of use of a shop in a single street in a small burgh, which had no interest whatsoever outside the street in which it was located. At the other end of the scale, there would be a major project such as Hunterston, and it is the knowledge that there have been a number of projects such as Hunterston, when major planning decisions affected more than one county council and when it was so difficult to get agreement between the counties, which led very largely to the acceptance of the argument that major planning should be capable of being followed out on this very wide basis. I accept that, but the method which I have suggested is a much simpler way of ensuring that this is done.
Do not let us pretend for one moment that the acceptance of a Strathclyde Region would mean that all planning decisions of a major nature would be settled in Strathclyde. They would not. Items such as another Hunterston would not be left to a Strathclyde planning authority. I doubt very much, without in any way seeking to diminish the power of the building in which I once was a Minister, whether "Hunter stons" would even be decided in St. Andrew's House. So long as we are a United Kingdom, matters like that will be decided at 10 Downing Street. Do not let us pretend that Strathclyde will be a substitute for Cabinet decisions on matters of that kind, because it will not. In fact, the Bill continues the provisions—which must inevitably be there—for the Secretary of State to call in for his own decision items which he considers must be regarded as of national importance.
The proposal which I have put forward could be implemented by the Secretary of State in a variety of ways. It has been suggested that I am putting a very wide power into the hands of the Secretary of State, but in this matter I am accepting that the Secretary of State is stating a fact when he says that it is the desire of the Government to put as much of the decision-making into the hands of the new local authorities. I would certainly be prepared to trust the

23
Secretary of State, whether present or future, acting on these principles to require combination or consultation on items only where it was necessary. This is not necessarily the way in which it could work, but the planning authorities of the four Regions might exchange their agendas, and, if anyone in one Region thought that there was an item on the agenda of another which showed a need for greater consideration than by one Region alone, he could require it to be considered by a joint committee. I visualise a joint planning body of that kind having the right to take decisions, without having to refer back to its constituents for approval, because, otherwise, we should be back to the present position with an inability to get agreement.
If one looks at the other side of the picture, the Government, by the very nature of the way the Bill is drafted, have accepted that Strathclyde is a hopeless proposition when it comes to the administration of certain of the personal services; for instance, education and social work. The Government, in order to help in overcoming that difficulty, have included in the Bill the provision that, for a period at any rate, the Strathclyde Region, should prepare a scheme for the administration of education and social work. That is understandable, because there are few people who believe that it is possible to run a single education authority in Scotland with responsibility for half the population. It would be infinitely greater than anything else in the country.
If I may make what I think is not an unfair comparison with the situation on this side of the Border, in statistics of the new county councils in England and Wales, issued by county treasurers, we have information relating to the metropolitan counties, one of which is Greater Manchester, which is in many ways similar to Greater Glasgow or to Strathclyde. The population of Greater Manchester is 2,700,000 and it has the one council. But it has not been decided to have one education authority for Greater Manchester. There are ten district councils in Greater Manchester, each of which is an education authority, and each of which has responsibility for the administration of the personal social services. So that although the Government have
24
attempted to have one authority for each of these purposes in Scotland, they have said that in England and Wales they need ten authorities to do the job.
I am not proposing to have ten authorities in Scotland. My Amendment suggests four Regions, and Greater Glasgow will still be by far the biggest of the Regions in Scotland, with a population of nearly 1,200,000. The next biggest will be that based on Edinburgh, the Lothian Region, with a population of 760,000. Lanarkshire, with 573,000, will be third; Argyll and Clyde, with 455,000, will be fourth; and the remaining one of my four Regions, Ayrshire and Arran, will be seventh in size in Scotland and will be around the middle. From the point of view of size, every one of them is either larger than or comparable to the rest of regional government in Scotland. This has not been a political exercise in any way, as a reference to the names attaching to my Amendment will show clearly. In Glasgow, as I have said, Labour and Conservative agree with the Strathclyde Region. Out of Glasgow it works the same way. In Ayrshire, the parties are united in wanting to go out; in Argyll, they are united in waffling to go out. In Renfrewshire, there are strong divisions of opinion; the county wants to go out and some of the large burghs want to remain in. In Lanark, taking the population, it is almost equally divided: certain burghs want to go out and four burghs want to remain in. If I were seeking to divide on purely political lines I should be in a very difficult position, because I should have a choice of Labour Parties on either side. If I were seeking to support it as a Conservative I should be in the same position: that is to say that those who attached their names to my Amendment, if they were seeking to support it as Conservatives, would be in the same position. It would depend on which Conservative composition down on which side of the argument.
This is a reform of local government. It is a reform which I think is worth while and I will do nothing to prevent this Bill from becoming law in this Parliamentary Session; but it is a reform which ought to remain a reform of local government and, as I have said before, I do not think that the way to deal with it is for people to look for the ideal solutions and then seek to impose them on others, whether they

25
want them or not. I have always said that a second best which is acceptable to more people is better than a perfection which nobody likes. If you sit down to look at this as a matter of the ideal way that local government ought to be worked out, Strathclyde is the obvious answer; but, on the same basis (to take an argument I have used elsewhere) if all we men wanted to be regarded as properly dressed we should come down to London and buy our suits in Savile Row. But those who cannot afford to do this go elsewhere. I suggested that some of your Lordships undoubtedly were customers of (and I think we are allowed to advertise provided that we declare an interest; I have no interest and I am not being paid for it) and go to Burton's. I was also told that some of us go to the Co-op. But while those who do not go to Savile Row may be willing to admit that Savile Row is perfection, we do not regard ourselves as necessarily being badly dressed or ill equipped to do our job because we have not gone there. That is largely the argument over Scotland.
I have confined my discussion to the West. If I had wanted to bring in the rest of Scotland I am certain that almost everywhere outside the Strathclyde region individuals would have said that they do not want Strathclyde; that it is a lopsided division of local government in Scotland; that it is always going to be able to exercise influence on government which will nullify other points of view, even though they may be different; and that they are in complete agreement with their point of view so far as they are concerned.
I think that what I undertook to do I have done; I think that what I undertook to do I have been justified in doing. In the result I have spent a busier time in the Recess than I have ever spent during the time when Parliament is sitting. Honestly, once this Bill has become an Act and is on the Statute Book I shall be able to look back on the last four weeks and say: "Never again will I undertake anything of this nature." In the other place people who occupy the sort of position I have are described as "Shadow Minister of so and so" and "Shadow Secretaries of State."No one has ever described me as the "Shadow Minister of State "—which, having regard to my bulk, is reasonable—but during the last four weeks I have definitely felt that I have
26
been functioning as a "Shadow Scottish Office". I have not regretted it. I have ascertained, by and large, what people want. I was interested to hear—and I gave Lord Polwarth warning that I would use this point—that when I was arguing on going back from the Centre to the Forth (with or without the "u")I was giving effect to the views of the local authorities. This is what I want done in this case. It is no answer to say that if we have Glasgow in, that is what the majority want. I do not for a moment subscribe to the view that Glasgow is seeking to dominate the rest of the region and that Glasgow in the Strathclyde region would seek to impose its view on the rest, whether they want it or not. I do not think it has the numerical support to enable it to do it and I do not believe that it would to do it. These people are opposing it because it is not local government as they understand it.
In some of the local newspapers circulating in my part of the world the decision to locate a public convenience or a lamp post in a particular street can attract more columns than the dispute about a Lord Provost occupies the attention of the national Press. That is because these things are important from their point of view. These things do not necessarily matter from the regional point of view; but your Lordships will recall that when these other burghs, the peripherals, were taken out at Committee stage, the noble Lord, Lord Potlwarth, said they were having big reductions in the numbers of their councillors, but so, too, was Glasgow. When he finally produced the figures we found that Glasgow was falling to something like 60 per cent. of its present strength whereas some of the peripherals were falling to 6 per cent. We cannot be surprised, therefore, if they say that this is not local government as they understood it and that it is not local government as they would wish to see it continue.
In moving this Amendment and in hoping that it will receive the support of your Lordships I ask your Lordships to accept that this is something which does mean local government, with the emphasis not merely on "government" but on "local". It has attracted wide support throughout. I will close by showing the most extraordinary extremes of support, if I may use, without irreverence, the way

27
in which it was put to me. My Amendment has received the support, on the one hand, of the Presbytery of Ayr and, on the other hand, of the National Union of Mineworkers, under the signature of its President Mr. Michael McGahey. To summarise, I have done something most unusual, in that I have received the support of the followers of God and of the followers of Karl Marx. I have in the past more than once had the support of the former but I must admit that this is the first time that the latter accomplishment has been attained by me. It shows that if such different types of organisations with views on so many things completely at variance can come together on the question of local government, there is indeed very strong feeling in Scotland on this point. My Lords, I beg to move.
LORD BALLANTRAE: My Lords, my name stands second on this Amendment and I should like briefly to follow the noble Lord, Lord Hughes. I can support almost every word that he said and confirm his claim that while we were enjoying or relaxing during the Recess lie was "sweating blood" on this Amendment. With many noble Lords and others I attended a meeting in Paisley Road—an uncongenial place—in the middle of September. I confirm that the discussion turned out as he said. He made it clear to all who heard him that it was not a Party matter. At one moment the ugly Party head stuck out and Lord Hughes reverted to his wartime habits and struck off that head with a smart cut. He also made clear that there was no one solution which would appeal to everybody at every point, and there are some people who will not he wholly happy with the solution which he has put forward, even with the enormous support which it has received. Many of your Lordships, like myself, will have been overwhelmed by a heavy post bag asking us to support this case or that case. The historic Burgh of Rutherglen wants to remain as at present, a little place like Carmunnock wants to remain independent. Possibly these cases may be looked at sympathetically hut, as the noble Lord made clear, the solution we are looking for is one which will be for the greatest good of the greatest number. I support him 100 per cent. in what he has thrashed
28
out during these last two months because I think it will provide the greatest good for the greatest number.
I share the charitable view of the noble Lord that the motives of Glasgow Corporation in this matter are not unkind. I admit that when living in the country one sometimes feels that the carnivorous instincts of these big conurbations may tempt them to gobble us up. Sometimes even when 70 miles or so from Glasgow one feels like a potential babe in the woods who has a not very kindly uncle. But I am certain that is not the motive which is inspiring Glasgow, and we believe that the motives that have inspired everyone who has been articulate in this matter are not entirely selfish. I think that in any new reconstruction of our social pattern we must be careful to preserve the balance between rural and industrial and not sacrifice the rural for the industrial on all occasions. I support 100 per cent. what the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, has said, not only to-day but also in two previous debates and in all his public utterances, that the big decisions, such as Hunterston and so on, will never he regional ones, and not even St. Andrew's House ones, but national ones. That is one example of the manner in which the noble Lord has cleared away with his sickle a lot of the undergrowth of myth which has grown up round our discussions on this matter.
I will not detain your Lordships further except to express my conviction that the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, really has had his finger on the pulse of Westdrn Scotland, and Scotland as a whole, in all his researches and speeches on this matter, and that the support he has received, though not 100 per cent., is very wide indeed. It is hard to guess, but I think his estimate was just about right. Certainly it represents the vast majority of those who will be affected by this new and historic change. Coming to the basic matter, Strathclyde is far too big and various in its interests, stretching as it does from oban to Girvan and hither and yon. I can only repeat my profound conviction that the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, with all the work he has done, has put the matter into a nutshell and expressed what I believe to be the view of the vast majority of those people affected.
3.44 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, for the trouble and skill with which he has examined the problem. We are all in the noble Lord's debt. I am bound to say that the people of Scotland are, for the first time, beginning to have an inkling—I will not say more than that—of what this matter is all about. Up to now, they have, as so often is the case, remained completely ignorant of, or indifferent to, what is happening. I think it would be wrong not to let the other place see this Amendment and pass judgment on it. This is what we are really considering to-day. The problem, I think, takes two forms, the first being not only its size but the fact that half the population of the country is involved. The sheer weight of this authority would put the rest of the country into the shade. Secondly, it is impossible to say that there is a sense of community of interest but rather a common interest in the whole of the area. If you consider as the noble Lord, Lord Ballantrae, said, oban, Girvan, Biggar and Campbeltown, they have nothing in common.
When I first read the Wheatley Report I was rather astonished and wondered what would happen. We have never in this country created anything of the size and variety which constitutes Strathclyde. Manchester may have the size but it has not the variety, and there are completely different situations existing in one part as compared with another. Where I think the Wheatley Report has gone wrong is in subordinating the purposes of local government to the means of getting it; that is to say, it has put strategic planning first and education and social services second. I think the object of local government is to provide education and social welfare, and these have been subordinated to what is called strategic planning, which is no more than to prefer the means to the end. We are sacrificing the end for the means. I think this the wrong concept and the centre of the mistake which Wheatley has made. Look for a moment at the question of social welfare. I will take one or two cases from the County of Lanark with some 700,000 people. No one could say it is adequate to deal with the problems there.
30
There are some 300 schools and 130,000 children or more, which would be enough to deal with. In Strathclyde there would be well over half a million children and well over a thousand schools and 250 training centres which Strathclyde would have. That is an enormous area, and it would be quite wrong to think that the same personal attention would there be given. That fact is realised in that the Act says that there must be decentralisation. In other words, Strathclyde by itself cannot possibly deal with the matter and it must be dealt with in another way.
When we come to social work it is a curious fact that in 1968, when the Act was passed, it was deliberately said that counties were too big for some social work so it was passed on to large burghs. Now it is moved from this area altogether and put into an enormous central belt. It seems to me that this is sacrificing the real purposes of education and social welfare for something rather nebulous which was so admirably described by the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, and which will rest with St. Andrew's House. I do not believe that any major planning will be decided without their consent, and that the arrangement put in the later Amendment is adequate for the purpose.
To my mind, the meeting about which the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, spoke brought out clearly that there was a very large measure of objection to this centralised scheme. The interesting point is that the support which Strathclyde got was for the wrong reasons, at least so far as the Government are concerned. They knew that Strathclyde would not work, and that therefore they would be obliged to decentralise to the districts in order to get the work done at all. That was what was in the minds of the large burghs, but that is not what the Government want because had they wished to decentralise to what was the district they would have done so already. So that I feel that even the objections to Strathclyde are not helpful to the Government.
During the Second Reading debate the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, said that we cannot have two Popes in Scotland. In Strathclyde we are getting very near it. If I may quote a somewhat similar example, in Manitoba in Canada there is a large area called Winnipeg which consists of nine separate boroughs with nine

31
mayors and it is said that if there were one mayor for Winnipeg the premier of Manitoba would be a very insignificant person. The same applies here. The chairman of Strathclyde would make the Secretary of State a very much reduced personality, and that, I think, would be against the interests of Scotland. That is the point which we are trying to put clearly to the noble Lord.
If this Amendment is carried, Rutherglen in which I am interested, and which could form itself into a district with Cambuslang, would form part of a separate district. About this I will say just a few words. It is a very distinct area with boundaries which are perfectly clear: the Clyde, the Calder, the designated area of East Kilbride and the Castlemilk estate which is well laid out. Not only is it much stronger in size and rateable value than any of the other peripheral areas marked out, but it has also a record of civic progress of which it can be proud. Its record of industry, with about six industrial estates and some of the largest industries in Scotland, enables it to employ a very high percentage of its own population—some 45 per cent. or so, which means that in no way is it a dormitory city.
I think it is important that this significant Amendment should be seen by the other place. I think it would be quite wrong to prevent them from considering it again. I very much hope that the Government will consider it, although I have not much hope in that quarter. I hope the House will realise that this is something which will mark the shape of Scotland for many years, and that it should be carefully considered by the other place before it becomes an Act of Parliament.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: My Lords, after the remarkable speech which we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, touching on every aspect of this matter, I feel it would be almost an impertinence for me, believing as I do that he is correct the whole way through, to say much about it or to take up much of your Lordships' time. So I would confine myself merely to expressing my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, for the tremendous amount of skill and energy that he has put into this matter,
32
getting together all these local authorities and pursuing every aspect of this matter in the most minute way. I think we all owe the noble Lord a great deal, and I am sure that that is the feeling of all my noble friends on this side of the House.
LORD TANLAW: My Lords, I should like to follow the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, and say that I wish there was room on the Marshalled List to put a Liberal name to Lord Hughes' Amendment, as it is indeed an all-Party matter. I hope that this will be taken into consideration.
3.52 p.m.
LORD TAYLOR OF GRYFE: My Lords, some reference has been made earlier in this debate to the fact that this whole matter has been discussed in a non-Party spirit and in a non-Party context. Perhaps my intervention at this stage will emphasise that point. I should like the House to reject the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Hughes. If I may say so, while the noble Lord, Lord Ballantrae, has indicated that the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, is very much in touch with public sentiment in the West Region, I can at least claim to live in the West Region and to have some experience in local government on the Glasgow local authority. I think it is easy to encourage opposition to this particular proposition, because it rests on two fears. The first is the fear of the bigger organisation. Anyone who has been associated with local government in Scotland will appreciate that in dealings between local authorities there has always been the threat of Glasgow, as the big brother, dominating local authority thinking and attitudes. This is one basic fear that is built into the attitudes on this matter.
The other fear is the fear of change. There are a lot of people who do not wish to face the implications of the substantial change that is represented in the Bill. Yet we must face it, because the whole justification for the Wheatley Report was a recognition of the fact that the existing pattern of local government had become quite irrelevant to our present economic and social environment; of the fact that communications had changed; of the fact that population had moved; and of the fact that the decisions now made in local government had much

33
more wide-spread implications than when we operated local government half century ago. So the Government asked the Wheatley Commission to look at this problem, and to look also at the problem of declining local interest in local government, because the public felt that some of the forms of local government had become irrelevant.
I think it is important to regard what we have before this House not as a Bill produced by the Government and promoted by the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, in this House, but as the Report of the Wheatley Commission. The House should think twice in responding to the appeal of the noble Lord, Lord Hughes. I, too, pay tribute to the noble Lord's enthusiasm, interest and concern in this matter, but I think we should realise that what we are rejecting is the Report of a Commission set up by the last Government, presided over by a distinguished judge and drawing on the experience of distinguished people in local and national government; receiving advice and guidance, formal and informal, from leading civil servants; and going to other countries of a similar population structure—the Scandinavian countries—and examining their form of government. With all the experience of that Commission and all the objectivity of a judge, the Wheatley Commission's proposals emerged, and they include the Strathclyde Region. So it is important that we weigh this in the balance.
The second point is this. The proposal made by the noble Lord, Lord Hughes—and, as I say, I pay tribute to the noble Lord in that during the period of Recess he has been trying to sift views so that intelligent decisions can be arrived at—is that this large Strathclyde Region should be divided into four separate areas, and that these four district councils should come together and consider strategic planning decisions. I must say—and this is based on my experience of Scottish industrial development—that if there is one thing that is impeding Scottish industrial development at the moment it is the frustration and the limitations of the planning procedures, and the delays that are involved in planning. It is vital to the future industrial welfare of Scotland that there should be some rationalisation of the planning processes.
34
If you bring four separate local districts together to discuss major strategic planning, inevitably each one of these four develops its own loyalty to its own particular area, and you have not strategic planning thinking, but planning consideration in so far as it affects "my area", or this or that area. This is frequently inimical to good planning. You see, my Lords, the condition of Scotland is changing. The old pattern of Scottish industrial development, the ten-mile wide belt in central Scotland from Glasgow to Edinburgh, is changing with the new industrial, commercial and economic developments in the country, and we may have new areas of industrial development stretching perhaps from Hunterston to Inverness. This may be the new axis of Scottish industrial development. In looking at these substantial changes in the economy of Scotland, we require a bigger authority to plan and make sensible strategic decisions.
The noble Lord, Lord Ballantrae, said that we have to legislate for the greatest good of the greatest number, and I would suggest that developments of this kind should be encouraged in the interests of the greatest good for the greatest number. In all our thinking on this matter, there is a great deal of opposition to Glasgow. Glasgow is not perhaps the brightest gem in the Kingdom, environmentally. Perhaps, as the Economist made clear in a recent survey, what is wrong with Glasgow is that there is not an adequate social mix and it tends to be a one-class city. I think good social planning demands that there be a balance in the regions and that one area should not be isolated from its environs, giving a variety of interests. This proposal does not make for good social planning and therefore, for that reason, too, I should reject this isolation of Glasgow. I would therefore recommend that we think twice to-day before casting a vote against the Bill which is now before us.
4.2 p.m.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I have hesitated to speak on this Amendment because I am not a resident of the Strathclyde area, but I happen to have a little property in Argyll where I spend a good deal of time. I find that in almost every part of the country the people I

35
have met have been unanimously against this perpetuation, so far as I can see, of the Strathclyde, area outlined in the Bill, and they are very anxious to have some different arrangement which will give them more independence of the urban area of Glasgow.
Your Lordships will remember that at the very beginning we had a great deal of difficulty in thinking what to do about Argyll when the Wheatley Report was published, before the Bill was drafted. According to Wheatley, it was put in the Highland Area. Most of your Lordships felt, and said, that purely on the ground of distance such an arrangement would not work. The distance from one end of the Highland Area to the other was too great. The alternatives were either to have Argyll as a separate region or combine it with some small part of the mainland. I think the proposal in the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, is one which is acceptable both to Argyll and to those parts of the mainland with which it is proposed that Argyll should be joined. I used to sit for one of the Renfrewshire Divisions in another place. I spend a little time there—I was there last week. There is one large burgh, Port Glasgow, which is decidedly against the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hughes but the great majority of the smaller burghs and country districts are very strongly in favour of it.
As for Ayrshire, of which my noble friend Lord Ballantrae has spoken. I have often compared in my own mind the case of Ayrshire with that of Fife. Ayrshire has much the same population, or per haps a little more. The people of both counties have expressed dissatisfaction at losing their local sovereignty, so to speak. As your Lordships may know, for reasons which it would be quite out of place to repeat now, I was myself against having a separate region in Fife. I thought it would be better to accept the Wheatley plan for putting the Northern part of Fife into the Tayside region, but when in another place in the Scottish Standing Committee an Amendment was carried by a majority of. I think, two on a very small vote, the Government meekly—and I would almost say pusillanimously—gave
36
in and accepted the new arrangement. As I feel the case for Ayrshire having an independent region is so much stronger than that of Fife, it seems to me rather unfair that the independence of Fife should be so easily accepted by the Government while they are not going to give equal consideration to what I think is the stronger case of Ayrshire to have a separate regional authority.
Looking at the matter as a whole, it seems to me that the present plan as proposed in the Bill for the Strathclyde Region is a very fine exercise in bureaucratic planning; but I do not think that sufficient regard has been paid to the feelings of the human beings who live in this area. Therefore I do not think it will work, because you must have the support of the majority of human beings in an area of government if it is to work well. I believe the vast majority of people, apart from the city of Glasgow itself, in this proposed Strathclyde area, will be resentful and disinclined to co-operate in the new region. I believe that this Amendment, which has been carefully drafted after consultation with a large number of local authorities by the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, and a number of others, would remove the apprehensions felt so strongly by so many people about the imbalance of this great Strathclyde Area, without destroying the purposes of the Bill. It seems to me that the proposals inserted in it for strategic planning will not cause any more delay in getting the planning approved: in fact it is very often the Scottish Office rather than the planning authority which is the cause of delay. I believe that this is a compromise which should be given a trial.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, there are many excellent qualities in the Scottish character, but if there is one thing from which Scotland suffers, and has suffered for a long time, it is an excessive "parish pump" philosophy. My only qualification for intervening in this debate is that just on 60 years ago I was a member of the Glasgow Corporation. There is perhaps another qualification I should mention—that I came to Glasgow first from Durham in 1892. There is also a distinct further qualification, if I may dare to mention it. It is this. There is not a single township, or almost a single hamlet,

37
concerned in this area covered by the proposed new burgh of Strathclyde in which I have not spoken. I know every one of them on the Ayrshire coast from Girvan and back again to places like Irvine, Ardrossan, Ayr, and all the rest. Then I should mention that in the perimeter of Glasgow, where the real opposition to the Strathclyde Area comes from, 'there are Bearsden, Duntocher, and Bowling, largely, if not exclusively, occupied by those who 'have made their wealth in Glasgow and decided they would rather live outside.
I listened with intense interest to the admirable speech of my noble friend Lord Hughes who mentioned two matters in the course of his remarks. He referred to the subject of local government and sought to define it. The only detail in that definition was some reference to a public convenience. That is not going far enough; I should require further details in that definition. But what is local government? Does it consist merely, in the case of Scotland, of electing a Lord Provost? Lord Provosts in Scotland, in order to ingratiate themselves with the electors, often come to them and say, in order to show how delightful and how neutral they are, that they are ready to be either partial or impartial. A whole coterie of people regard themselves as very important because they happen to be local councillors. It is not good enough.
The next point in the speech of my noble friend Lord Hughes was about the disadvantages of a centralised local authority like Strathclyde. But what were the disadvantages to which he referred? There is only one. If he wishes to correct me he can. There is only one disadvantage: it is too big. It does not necessarily follow that if something is too big it is a disadvantage. I might equally respond by saying that if it is too small it can be a disadvantage. So we have to restore the balance. What is sometimes too small and what is sometimes regarded as too big ought to be coalesced so that something is formed capable of exercising authority with effective consultation with all concerned over a large area. I agree with my noble friend Lord Taylor of Gryfe, who spoke about the necessity above all things for extensive industrial development in the Lowlands of Scotland. If that is to be
38
implemented in an effective fashion obviously it must be largely associated with effective and centralised local government. There has been a great deal of propaganda in this matter. I have been beseiged, as have no doubt other noble Lords, by masses of material. When I was paying a visit in Glasgow recently I was told all about what is happening in Bearsden and such places, and the arguments they are using against Glasgow. They dislike Glasgow; it has a Labour council. They did not dislike it as much when it had a Conservative council. But they simply dislike it and that is the only argument against it.
The whole purpose of local government is not merely to decide upon a public convenience, or whether a road should pass through a particular street in a particular village, or whether there should be a by-pass or something of that sort. If we are to consider local government in the context of effective planning covering an area, providing new roads and new buildings, dealing with pollution, creating a delightful environment, an area satisfactory to the vast number of people in it, then we must have centralisation. I agree that centralisation sometimes has its disadvantages if those responsible for administration use undue and unnecessary authority. If there is proper consultation, as I am sure there will he if we have the right kind of people associated with such a body as is proposed by the Government based on the Wheatley Report, I can detect no disadvantages in it.
Before I came into your Lordships' House to-day I was approached by somebody who reminded me that he had met me many years ago in a place—and if he is in the gallery I hope he will not mind my mentioning it—called Rutherglen. We used to call it "Ruglen". He appealed to me with emotion that I should do something to prevent Rutherglen being absorbed into Glasgow. I ventured to say that Rutherglen is just around the corner. When I lived in Glasgow Rutherglen was part of Glasgow. There were some queer people there, I agree, but it was Glasgow. It was not a hop, step and jump from the Clyde Foot-ball Club ground. People came into Glasgow in those days by tram, although most of them walked when I was there in the early days because there was no

39
other effective means of transport. But we never thought of Rutherglen, and certainly not places like Bearsden, Old Kilpatrick and Bowling, as being outside Glasgow. It seems to me that although there may be some defects in the Glasgow character and in the character of the members of the Glasgow town council, if we can promote effective local government in a centralised fashion with effective consultation, taking into account all the needs of the area, it is far better to support a proposition of that kind.
LORD FORBES: My Lords, like my noble friend Lord Dundee I live a considerable distance from Glasgow. However, having been a Minister of State for Scotland, I support two other former Ministers of State, the noble Lords, Lord Hughes and Lord Strathclyde, in their Amendment. Unless there is agreement to this Amendment it is going to be a poor day for the rural areas of Scotland. Scotland is not made up just of cities, and towns but is dependent on cities, towns and the rural population. We have to strike the right balance and, in my opinion, this Amendment gives the right balance.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: My Lords, I should like to support the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hughes. I listened with great interest to the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, whose knowledge of Glasgow is very great indeed. I have some knowledge of it too; I was for some 30 years married to the Member of Parliament who sat for the City of Glasgow, and all my ancestors have come from Glasgow. I know Glasgow extremely well, and I am very fond of it. But that does not make me think that it is a good idea that the County of Argyll, with islands like Tiree and Islay and those far away places, should be linked with a city whose interests are totally different from the interests of Argyll and that rural Highland area of Scotland.
Equally, I know Lanarkshire very well; and I also know Ayrshire. All those areas are perfectly capable of producing first-class members of local government who will not necessarily be in conflict one with another. But they are interested in and know about the areas in which they live. The noble Lord,
40
Lord Taylor of Gryfe, says you want to spread a great industrial belt. You may well want to do that. If it is in the interests of the local government of Lanarkshire and Ayrshire they will cooperate too, but they will co-operate far better if they are able to play a full part with their own local government representatives than if they are part of a gigantic region such as Strathclyde, which has very little in common with them—except that, according to the Wheatley Report, it would be a viable proposition.
I do not believe that local government must be looked at purely from the economic point of view. I have done my stint, like a great many others in this House, and am still a local county councillor. I think that the great interest and importance of local government, as opposed to central and national Government, is that one must take a great interest in the people whom one represents, and with whom one is much more intimately associated than are Members of Parliament, even in their own constituencies. I do not think one must govern entirely by the idea of an economic unit. What in fact is an "economic unit"? Almost everything that is done has to have some source of money supply which does not come directly from it. Our nationalised industries—for instance, our railways, and so on—are not independent. We are all dependent to an extent one on each other. And I do not myself think it is a good idea to tie up these four areas which the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, has defined. In fact, it was not really his definition; they have really defined themselves.
I was present at the meeting which he called in Glasgow recently. I did not go there absolutely convinced that this proposal was going to be the right thing to do, but I came away convinced that it was going to be the right thing to do. I am more convinced than ever since I have studied the matter more carefully. I am quite sure that we shall not get the good will of the people and will not get the good local government we want or the interest of the people if we put two and a half million people in the West of Scotland into one area and give them small representation. The number of people who will represent that vast region will be very small. It could be more a kind of dictatorship than a free and democratic local government. I do not

41
mean by that that it will not be a government which is free and democratic and elected, but the fact that so few people will be in charge of such a huge area is in itself wrong.
It would be much better to have the four regions, and to have the co-operation suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, in a future Amendment. One noble Lord was asking for a mixture. By this proposal we should get a very good mixture in the whole of the County of Lanarkshire, which is an enormous area, and in the whole of the County of Ayrshire, which also is a huge area, and in the County of Argyll—parts will be in Argyll—and in the Glasgow area around Glasgow, which we are proposing should be that Region. It would be most unwise to pursue the idea of this enormous area, which Lord Wheatley's Commission recommended. I do not think it will work. It will make for great unhappiness—and that does not make for good local government. Unhappiness is not one of the things that make for good local government.
Of course, we can be considered to be not sufficiently looking ahead. That is a charge which can be levelled at a great many of the things we do. But in this connection I think we should obtain far greater support for whatever great planning schemes are put forward, whatever central Government are putting forward, from these four areas than we should if they were all together. If the latter were done they would all dislike it intensely and would either be very difficult to govern in those circumstances, or would simply lose all interest. The idea of linking together all these islands with Glasgow, and Lanarkshire, almost entirely an industrial county apart from its agricultural interests, seems to me to be most unwise. I strongly support the proposals put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, and hope very much that your Lordships will back them so that we can send this Bill back to the House of Commons to reconsider the whole matter. It is quite vital for the future of Scotland.
4.25 p.m.
THE EARL OF BALFOUR: My Lords, may I say at this stage that, although I much admire the work and effort that the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, has put
42
into this Amendment, I should like your Lordships to reject it. The reason why I say this Amendment should be rejected is that we are virtually going to turn Glasgow into a metropolitan district—or Greater Glasgow, as his Amendment stands at the bottom of page 2 of the Marshalled List of Amendments. I ask your Lordships to look at the rest of Scotland as well. Of the four cities in Scotland, we have Aberdeen as the centre of Grampian; Dundee as the centre of Tayside; Edinburgh as the centre of the Lothian Region; and it is only right that we should have Glasgow as the centre of Strathclyde Region. The other areas may be very much smaller. If your Lordships like it, we could regard Strathclyde as the size of a swan, with the others no bigger than a small teal duck in comparison. But to accept the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, would be to chop that swan into four different parts. I am not at all satisfied that it will achieve the results that are required.
May I read one paragraph of a letter I received from Sir James Faulkner, the town clerk of the Corporation of Glasgow, on September 28, in which he said:
"The creation of four districts within the proposed Greater Glasgow region suggested in Lord Hughes' Amendment would perpetuate the existing artificial geographical boundaries which separate the City from its residential hinterland which already tend to produce a grave imbalance, social, economic and educational in he City's population."
Glasgow City must stand on its own as a district, but it does not require in that function as a district to have Rutherglen, Eastwoods and Kilpatricks districts joined together with it.
The Amendment concerning Rutherglen, at the top of page 3 on the Marshalled List, means that on the one hand it is to become part of the Greater Glasgow region. But I wonder whether your Lordships would also be good enough to look at Amendment No. 13, standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Selkirk, by which it would become a separate district outside Glasgow. I have had letters from the Master Court and members of the Incorporation of Rutherglen, on October 11, the Royal Burgh of Rutherglen, on October 1, and Rutherglen and Cambuslang Society, on October 5—all expressing the desire to be a separate district. But I am fairly certain

43
that they would prefer to be part of Strathcylde rather than of Greater Glasgow. At the Committee stage, we made the new district of Kilpatricks, which concerns the burgh for Bearsden, Clydebank and Milngavie. I certainly got the impression from them that they were quite happy to be a new district within Strathclyde, but did not want to be part of Greater Glasgow. Eastwoods have a similar argument. Almost all the burghs round about—Kirkintilloch, Cumbernauld, Bishopriggs, Motherwell and most of Cadzow—prefer to be part of Strathclyde and not necessarily in their own Lanarkshire Region within the Strathclyde Region.
There is on the other hand—and I must be fair to both sides—quite a feeling that Ayrshire would like to be on its own. I cannot speak for Argyll and Clyde, but I do know that Jonstone would really prefer to be part of Strathclyde and not part of a separate Argyll and Clyde Region. East Kilbride would also prefer to be part of Strathclyde and not part of the region (as it would then be) of Lanarkshire.
There must be a centre. We must have the City of Glasgow as the centre of the Strathclyde Region. I am quite certain that this will work but before we pass on or possibly go to a Division on this subject I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to Amendment No. 14, standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Polwarth. I have had representations from all over that part of the world, saying how much they support that Amendment and how much they wish to stay part of the overall Strathclyde Region, but not supporting the Amendment standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, the noble Lord, Lord Ballantrae, my noble friend Lord Selkirk and the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde.
My noble friend Lord Selkirk has suggested that we should accept this Amendment and pass it back to the other place to consider. Our time is short. I should like this Bill, even if not perfect, to be on the Statute Book in a very short time. I do not think the other place would have an opportunity for the same sort of discussion on the subject as we are having to-day. I am glad that the question has been put to your Lordships' House. While I
44
admire the work and skill that went into the drafting of this Amendment, I should also like to take up what the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, said, that Glasgow is perhaps not the brightest gem; but in my opinion if we split Strathclyde into four different parts what little brightness there is in that gem will disappear. I ask your Lordships to consider carefully the subsequent Amendments to Schedule 1 and to reject this Amendment.
LORD BURTON: My Lords, I also would add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Hughes. One of the few concrete arguments that we have heard against this Amendment to-day was that put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, on planning, but I should like to remind him that planning decisions are not delayed at local level; they lie in St. Andrew's House. In February we held a public inquiry as to whether or not we should have a small pier on the island of Raasay and we still have no decision. So I do not think we can blame local authorities, whether they be large or small, for planning delays. That argument, though it be one of the few concrete ones, is not a valid one.
As to whether there should be one region or four, I feel that too much attention has been paid to the political line up. The main dissenter is the City of Glasgow with a Labour dominated council, and I hope that to-day we shall not have a Conservative Government supporting a strongly dominated Labour council against the more moderate or even Right Wing councils. For 24 years I have tried to help islands and remote West Coast areas and I have been sorely disturbed at how poor Argyll is going to suffer if it is dominated by Glasgow. I wonder how many of the existing Glasgow councillors have ever been to the Island of Mull, let alone to the smaller Argyllshire islands. Therefore I hope your Lordships will support the noble Lord, Lord Hughes. I anticipate my noble friend on the Front Bench will probably say that it is too late, but I would suggest that it is better late than never.
THE DUKE OF WELLINGTON: My Lords, as an Englishman I speak with some diffidence, but as some of your

45
Lordships may know I am a Scot's relationship by marriage and, as is deemed wont of in-laws, I am going to have my say. In the part of Ayrshire which I know well this has been a contentious issue. Opinions are evenly divided. I do not think anyone would differ from that view in the part of the country which I know. My old friend the noble Lord, Lord Ballantrae, is a close neighbour of mine in Ayrshire. He and I have totally divergent views on this matter. He favours going to Strathclyde come what may but remaining in Ayrshire—Ayrshire to the end! I favour seeing that part of Ayrshire which I know best go into Galloway, as was the original proposal.
I think that the solution proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, is most statesmanlike; it has produced a bridge between those who feel one way and those who feel the other, and as he has said so much more admirably than I could, we shall never get a completely perfect solution. There are those who think that one solution is perfect and there are those who think that the other is perfect. His solution produces an answer which I am quite sure has the support of the majority of the people in that part of Ayrshire which I know—and let us face the fact that we are talking about people and not of economic factors and planning, and this and that. The solution suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, has the support of the people in that part of Ayrshire which I know bemuse it unites them in a common solution to this problem. Therefore I very much hope that your Lordships will support this Amendment.
LORD BALLANTRAE: My Lords, if I may come in for a moment—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No!
LORD BALLANTRAE: I am sorry, my Lords; I am apparently out of order.
4.40 p.m.
LORD STRATHEDEN AND CAMPBELL: My Lords, I should like to speak briefly on two aspects. One concerns the way in which the decision of the Wheatley Commission has been completely ignored, as if they really had not considered the matter at all. The Wheatley Commission went carefully into all these facts and although their Report
46
is by no means holy writ, not only did they take the evidence (which they had to do) but they went round and interviewed in every district and area in Scotland. Great weight should be attached to the fact that they came to the considered opinion that this Strathclyde Region was the only answer to an almost insoluble question. Great weight attaches to what the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, said. One is nearly convinced that he was right, and also my noble friend Lord Selkirk.
There was one other point on which I was left dissatisfied, namely, the question of planning. The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, said that agendas are being passed between regions to vet some sort of consensus of agreement on planning. It seems to me that this is not only producing a third tier, which has been discussed at great length and decided against, but is not even producing an official top tier—a sort of unofficial arrangement. I really do not think that that can work. I realise all about the humanities. We are thinking about human beings but, on the whole, I am of the opinion that, in the end, the Strathclyde Region is the answer.
VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN: My Lords, there is one point I wish to make. All Governments make mistakes, and no Government will admit that they have made a mistake. It is fairly easy to create a giant, but very difficult to dismember it. There is an historical background where amalgamations of counties and regionalisation of duties have worked well where they have been brought about voluntarily, when they have been proved necessary. If this Amendment is passed—and I support it—it will not bring local government in Scotland to a halt; it will not make the system unworkable. Scotland is working now without any of these provisions at all. My counsel is that we should give it a chance and should not create this giant. When Wheatley reported, there was not a smell of oil in the North Sea. The oil-related industries which are having an enormous effect on the other side of Scotland are only just becoming apparent. So I counsel that the Government should be very careful here. We are at the halfway house. If in five years' time it has not worked, there is nothing to stop the Government

47
bringing this Glasgow giant into effect, but do not do it now.
4.42 p.m.
LORD BALERNO: My Lords, one of the glories of Scotland is its diversity. In the Highlands this diversity has been largely based on plans; in the Lowlands it is a geographical matter, but the result of the diversity in Scotland has been a notable contribution to the nation. Let us take some examples merely from the South-West. Robert Burns is a product of a small area of very natural genius around Ayr; James Watt came from a very characteristic little town de suis Greenock; Lord Kelvin came from Mill-port; Alexander Fleming came from a little country place in North Ayrshire called Darvel, unknown perhaps to most of your Lordships; the inventor of television, James Logie Baird, came from Helensburgh. All these people grew up in small communities of great character and individuality, peripheral communities to the rapidly growing Glasgow. They may have gone to Glasgow to make their living but they grew and developed outside it, and it is the growing and developing that matter.
This great region comprising the heart of Scotland will inevitably attempt to standardise and to centralise—bureaucrats cannot do otherwise. When that happens in education, the inevitable result is a loss in the individuality and ruggedness which has made the West of Scotland. I fully share the misgivings of the noble Lord. Lord Hughes, and the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, about one large education authority which is proposed under the Bill. Indeed, I personally think this to be the most serious single objection to this Bill. I believe intensely in the fundamental importance of diversity in education.
I want to put before your Lordships a rather interesting question. With the extent of individuality in Scotland, and the characteristics of the different localities, how does it come about that the time of your Lordships on this Bill has been taken up almost exclusively with the South-West? No one has talked about the North-East: very little has been heard about the Highlands, and the Central Region has been mentioned only by
48
name. Nothing has been heard from Fife or the Lothians, there has been just the slightest cheep from Berwick and nothing of substance from Dumfries. Why should that have been?
The arguments which we are hearing to-day stem from a very widespread and indigenous resentment against the Wheatley proposals, outdated, as my noble friend Lord Stonehaven said, by other developments in Scotland. But these resentments have been slow in developing. Just because they are indigenous developments the people at the grass roots know the proposals are wrong. A lot has been said about planning. Surely this point is met if the House agrees to the Amendment to be moved later on. I cannot agree with my noble friend Lord Stratheden and Campbell, that this is putting in a third tier; it is not. It is putting in something very flexible. It allows the Secretary of State to put in something and to take it away if it does not work. Whereas if we commit ourselves to this large region now, we will have to have this giant whether we like it or not, and all that stems from it. I cannot see why the West of Scotland should be sacrificed on the altar of perfection in planning.
The noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe referred baiefly to the article in the Economist, a paper which has been taking a very curious and critical interest in Scottish affairs in recent times. The Economist remarked that Scotland is a divided land, divided into the prosperous East and the declining West. One will not invigorate the declining West by putting it all into one great region. Devolution of administration and devolution of education are far more likely to produce the results. The establishment of the great Region of Strathclyde will be a focus for discontent and grievance at a very high level. The Region will have half the population and, with that, half of the total population will become a nation within a nation. As my noble friend Lord Selkirk has indicated, it will be only a short time before the authority of the Secretary of State is challenged.
LORD GRAY: My Lords, I can be brief. As a resident of Argyll, I state my support for the Amendment. My experience is that those proposals have found small favour in my area, and raise fears of real problems of representation

49
for large numbers of those whom the proposed Region would seek to govern.
4.50 p.m.
LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, whatever we may think of this Amendment and those that follow it, we must all admire warmly and genuinely the perseverance of the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, and his self-denial of time off during the Recess in order to make his researches for what must be one last fling, in the nature of the timetable of this Bill, to find an alternative solution to the problem of Strathclyde. I congratulate him warmly on the success he had in bringing together such widely divergent bodies as a Presbytery and the National Union of Mineworkers.
This issue is so fundamental to the Bill, and so important, that at the risk of wearying your Lordships at the end of a very full discussion I feel I must go over the ground from the beginning and in some detail if we are to clarify our minds before we reach our decision. Of course we recognise and must have some sympathy with the concern prompting this set of Amendments. The main concern is that the Strathclyde region, embracing 2½ million people over 5,000 square miles of territory, will be too big; that it will be a monster uncontrollable in its relations with the outside world and unworkable internally. But I feel, with respect, that this is an exaggeration. It is no new problem. The problem of the area was present in the minds of the Wheatley Commission. They spent a large part of one chapter discussing it. It was fully considered by the previous Government, as the noble Lord told us. It was thoroughly aired in this Government's White Paper of 1971, and finally it was given an independent examination by consultants engaged by the West of Scotland counties themselves, who reported in August, 1971.
If the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, asks why did we not, as a Government. after the publication of the White Paper consult with the different authorities and interests concerned, I would simply say that we did consult in the period between the publication of Wheatley and the publication of our White Paper, which I submit was the right time for consultation. If we had felt it right to prolong consultation it should have been a Green
50
Paper. We might have prolonged the reform of local Government in Scotland indefintely with this process. We felt that the time was ripe for action, and having made our consultations we published the White Paper and proceeded broadly on the basis of it, but not inflexibly so. None of these many examinations was perfunctory; none of them tried to make little of the difficulties. All of them came to the firm conclusion, in spite of the difficulties, that there was an unanswerable case for an executive authority for the whole of the West of Scotland such as the Government proposed.
My Lords, why did these four separate studies come to the same conclusion? The reason is that they looked dispassionately and broadly at the requirements of local government in the West of Scotland, not just the short-term problems and difficulties of transition, but at the long-term interests of Scotland, and they all had no hesitation in pronouncing a Strathclyde region both necessary and workable. I think it is worth looking back to an earlier diagnosis and remedy prescribed nearly twenty-five years ago in the Report on the Clyde Valley Regional Plan in 1949, in which it was stated:
"The Clyde Valley region, though never closely defined, has always been recognised as an area in which there is unquestionably a real community of interest. It is indeed frequently referred to as an economic unit. The present system of local government with its water-tight compartments of local government areas is altogether inadequate and unsuited to the problems that face the development of the area in its best sense.
"We are convinced that regional administration for the Clyde basin in respect of certain functions is not only desirable but nesessary and that a regional authority should be established."
That was twenty-four years ago. I do not think that that finding has ever been seriously challenged. There is in the recent consultants' report to which I referred, commissioned by the authorities in the area, the statement:
"Density of population in the centre is such that it is impossible to create regional units of population suitable for the administration of some major local government func- tions without cutting across social, economic or geographic links."
My Lords, there is an internal unity about Strathclyde whether we like it or not and whatever one may say about local

51
communities of interest, which of course exist within the greater unity.
With great respect, it will not do to talk of the Scottish Office exercising this unifying influence on a variety of independent authorities. The Secretary of State's concern is with Scotland as a whole, and that is right. If Strathclyde does not have its own identity, then I do not believe that any amount of ad hoc co-ordination, joint committees or what have you, will achieve the planning and, just as important, more important, the carrying out of the large-scale projects and services which are so necessary if we are to deal with all the problems and opportunities of this key area of the West of Scotland. I thought the noble Lord, Lord Stratheden, with his personal experience of local government, touched very well upon this point. I thought the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, was a hit sanguine about the Scottish Office's influence in this field. We can tell a long story of attempts to achieve coordination by voluntary means, of opportunities missed, of policies enforced as a last resort by an unwilling central Government on resentful local authorities. I think it is asking a bit much of authorities elected to represent the interests of their own specific area to forget those interests, to sink them and think themselves instead into the point of view of a very much wider area. I think we must have an elected authority for that wider area. Consider some major problem of planning on which the Secretary of State has ordered these authorities to come together and on which there may well be strong disagreement. All past history of the West of Scotland is riddled with this kind of example. Suppose for one moment that Ayrshire, for example, held some very strong views on some subject, would it give way to the other bodies? I doubt it. One would be faced with situations of inaction, stalemate and nothing happening.
The question of planning was, of course, very much raised. The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, spoke of all decisions, even something affecting a house or a shop in a particular street. With great respect, I think that sort of planning is local planning which would be a matter for the district in any case. I do not think we need be concerned about
52
the problem of the pier on Raasay which the noble Lord, Lord Burton, brought in. It is a very long way away, but I appreciate that it was a good opportunity to have a go at the Scottish Office. The noble Lord also mentioned the question of planning in relation to Hunterston, which is fair enough; Hunterston is, of course, a matter of national importance. I can think of a number of other fields where a Strathclyde region could do extremely valuable work which at the moment they cannot do without the Secretary of State's intervention, such as the problem of population distribution, allocation of land use, new settlements, whether New Towns or in other forms, the siting of power stations in relation to the needs of the West of Scotland, location of hypermarkets, selection of areas for country parks, very important planning functions which the Secretary of State will not necessarily have to interfere in and which Strathclyde could well carry out.
Of course there are problems in all this, but local government bristles with problems, and there is nothing in principle here which cannot be overcome. One of the main difficulties is that in a large authority, taking a particular function—say education, which is one that has greatly exercised your Lordships, along with social work—people imagine that the education committee must be responsible for every detail, everything that happens, and that the director of education must do everything himself. This is a great mistake. The director's job is to advise an education committee on issues of broad policy and not of detail. Detail must be done lower down and nearer to the people.
The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, mentioned the area of Greater Manchester, and that there would be within it ten separate authorities. I am not as familiar as perhaps I should be with the English system, but it is not necessary to have separate authorities to secure this degree of devolution. Take as an example industry or business; nobody would say that a great organisation like that mentioned by the noble Lord, where some of your Lordships clothe yourselves, with its vast chain of branches throughout the country, or even perhaps their bigger brother very well known to us, are not highly efficiently run nor in close touch with their customers throughout.

53
It is a question of management structure and proper organisation. I believe that with guidance to the new regions and districts we can achieve proper management structures and combine the benefits of close local contact with the resources available to the larger organisation. A number of valuable suggestions have recently appeared in the Paterson Report on organisation for the benefit of local authorities.
There are some considerable problems if we accept these Amendments, however well intentioned they are. Perhaps I may mention one or two that occur to me. The strategic function of planning has been mentioned and we have dealt with that. Take another field, that of transport. Urban transport is of immense importance to this huge area of Strathclyde, and we have created a passenger transport authority for the Greater Glasgow area. I am sure that your Lordships would want to see an authority of this kind existing and retained, but at present its sphere would, if these Amendments were accepted, cut across the boundaries of all these different new proposed regions. I believe that there is enormous benefit in having a region for which a proper transport system can be devised fitting in with all the other things, road transport, parking policy, road programmes, and everything else. This would be one disadvantage of breaking up the Strathclyde region. The same could be said for water supply. I think that Ayrshire could stand on its own for geographical reasons, but the other three proposed regions would simply cut across the existing and future water supply arrangements.
There is the question of existing regional boundaries. Take the proposed Argyle and Clyde region; I do not know where its centre would be, but probably in Paisley. Think of the problems of travel. A councillor from Helensburgh going to meetings would have to travel by the centre of Glasgow now that there are no more steamers across the Clyde. The same problem would arise with the proposed Lanarkshire region stretching in a great are from the North round to the East and South side of Glasgow. As mentioned by my noble friend Lord Balfour, there is a real problem about this Greater Glasgow region which would be one of the four proposed. It would comprise Glasgow, Clydebank, Bearsden,
54
Milngavie, Rutherg,len and Eastwood, with a population of 1·1 million of which Glasgow would make up nearly 900,000. If there is anywhere the danger of domination, surely it would be in that Greater Glasgow region that there should be fear of domination.
I do not want to weary your Lordships, and I have gone on for a rather long time, but may I just touch on this question of what people want. It is fair that we should try to meet public demand in this matter, but the noble Lord was the first to admit that even with the meeting which he convened, and the voting of the authorities present at it, it would be very difficult to say precisely how many people in the West of Scotland wanted it or were against it. It is rather like the block vote at the T.U.C.; nobody can say how many of those hundreds of thousands of voters were really for or against. The numbers game is perhaps a rather dangerous one, and I do not want to pursue it too far. I have had representations from two of the authorities present at the meeting, East Kilbride and Greenock, both dissociating themselves from the decision but also saying that in their view the support for dismembering Strathclyde at the meeting was not really as great as has been suggested. Of those authorities who have taken the trouble to write to the Scottish Office about the matter—and I may say that the population of those authorities add up to 2·4 million, which is practically the whole population of the Strathclyde Region— the population of those for Strathclyde was 1.500.000 and those against it fractionally under 900.000. I do not want to make too much of this; I am not sure that we should rely too much on numbers in this matter.
One should also bear in mind that there are other interests. I have to-day tion of those authorities adds up to 2·4 Glasgow Chamber of Commerce urging the maintenance of the Strathclyde Region. The interests of industry and commerce are extremely important in this field, and they have urged me that Strathclyde should not be broken up. The noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, mentioned the importance of industry and commerce in this field. We have to face it that there is no ideal solution. There is certainly none that everybody

55
would like. I do not believe that we are right to go for what a noble Lord has called a "second best" which is liked by more people than for one ideal which nobody likes. I do not think that Strathclyde is ideal, but equally I do not accept that nobody likes it. I do not think that this is an exaggeration. We could do worse than heed the words of the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, who certainly, so far as this House is concerned, must have had the longest contact and experience of the city of Glasgow and its needs. I was glad that his native accent became stronger with every word that he uttered.
None of us likes change. I think that this is the fundamental problem. We are frightened of change; we are frightened of larger units; we are afraid of what they are going to do to us. Naturally, existing organisations want to retain as much control in their hands, or in the hands of their own area, as they possibly can. This is a natural view and reaction, and one could naturally judge that many of these authorities who came to the noble Lord's meeting would support that view. With proper organisation and administration we can have the best of both worlds if we keep Strathclyde. We must have the greatest respect for the views of the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, and for all the trouble that he has taken in this matter, and for the views of all the other noble Lords who have spoken. We have certainly had a wide range of them. Let us beware of letting emotion prevail over reason. We had a most thoughtful contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, who has lived and worked during the greater part of his life in or close to Glasgow and the region outside it, and he gave us some good advice here. On the matter of time, I would simply say that there is not long for the other place to consider the Bill if we amend it and send it back. That is no reason why we should not amend it if we so decide. But my considered advice to your Lordships, after this very full debate, would be that we should accept the position as it stands and not accept the Amendment moved so very sensibly if I may say so by the noble Lord, Lord Hughes.
5.10 p.m.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, may I take the opportunity of replying not at
56
great length to what has been said by the opponents of my Amendment. It would be a waste of your Lordships' time to refer to the admirable speeches which many noble Lords have made in support of my Amendment. But the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, adhered very closely to the brief which obviously was not written in its entirety during the course of this debate, and I noticed that at no point was that more so than when he advised the House not to accept my Amendment after all the discussion. That was obviously a part that was written before the discussion ever took place which rather detracts from its value. If I may say so without any disrespect to the Minister, or even less to the denizens of the Box, it was a typical Civil Service brief, and if there is one thing that is clear beyond paradventure it is that outside the Scottish Education Department the Civil Service in St. Andrew's House are wholely in favour of Strathclyde. The Scottish Education Department are, so far as I know, not in favour of it yet; that was made clear right from the very beginning. But some of the things which have been attributed to me in the course of the speeches—and I will refer to them briefly —are not what I said. I, for instance, did not, as the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, attributed to me, say that Strathclyde was uncontrollable. He said that I had said this and that this was an exaggeration. It is not uncontrollable.
LORD POLWARTH: With great respect, I certainly did not intend to say that the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, said it was uncontrollable. I said that much of the fear about it stemmed from this aspect.
LORD HUGHES: That may in fact be just what the noble Lord said, but as it was taken in the context of my own remarks I thought he was attributing that to me. I do not think it is uncontrollable. Given the power and the propensity of the Scottish Office to stick its finger in where it thinks it is necessary, nothing in Scotland is uncontrollable, except the Scottish Office.
In relation to the White Paper the noble Lord said that the time was ripe for that, and that if they had so wanted there was ample time for discussion before the White Paper was issued—that

57
that was the right time. The old conception of a White Paper was as something for discussion. It is only in recent years that the Government have regarded a White Paper as being something before the first print of a Bill and have brought in a Green Paper to serve the purpose that a White Paper used to serve. I pointed out that my right honourable friend wanted to get back to the position that a White Paper was something for discussion, and that that particular White Paper said that on the matters which are the subject of this Amendment there was to be no further discussion. Therefore it is not surprising that thereafter the local authorities did not come to the Secretary of State with their objections. In fact, the Minister came very nearly to saying, although in fact he did not say this, that by the time the White Paper was issued speed was the most important consideration. I would think that getting good government is more important than getting quick government.
The noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, said that Strathclyde was both necessary and workable. I would say that change is necessary. I would agree that Strathclyde is workable. My argument is that if we organise the four regions as I suggest we get something which is even more workable than Strathclyde. I am not against change, nor can anyone say that the Amendments which I have put forward are other than change. This Amendment makes very considerable change from the existing structure of Scotland. Someone said—I do not now remember who it was—that this was not my Amendment. In fact what I did after the meeting which decided so largely that they wanted to have some change, was to invite the local authorities to set up a Working Party. This Working Party consisted of representatives of the counties, the large burghs and the small burghs, and the boundaries which are drawn up for these regions are the boundaries which were drawn up by that Working Party. I have accepted these without changes.
The other matter which anyone who was present at the meeting will recollect is that beforehand I made it perfectly clear that I would not proceed with any Amendments unless it was abundantly clear that those outside Glasgow wanted change. If there was no clear majority for that I proposed to take no further
58
action. One must lean over backwards to be fair to Glasgow because there is a certain amount of innuendo that the wickedness of Glasgow lies behind this matter. Glasgow is not being wicked in this at all. If they had been they would have come and cast their votes against the proposal. They made their point of view perfectly clear but recognised that at that stage this matter was principally one for those outside Glasgow and left the vote to them.
On the question of education the Minister has made the most of what is in the Bill, that a scheme is to be submitted to the Secretary of State for the Strathclyde Region for the administration of education. I would invite the Minister of State to read what the Secretary of State said in another place when the Amendment about a three-tier structure was before the House for consideration. The Secretary of State at that time emphasised the considerable importance which the Government attached to education and planning being regional functions. It is really not conveying to the House a proper picture of how education will be administered to suggest that only broad principles are to be considered at region, and that the local education committees will be doing all the real work. They will be doing the day-to-day "donkey work", but they will not be settling principles.
The Minister referred to other difficulties which would arise from my proposal. He referred to water supply, which I think is a good example. I might well have used it myself; perhaps it would have been fairer had I done so. I have consulted with the water authorities on this matter, and with the Lower Clyde authority in particular. I had meetings with them, and they informed me that two of the four regions can work together perfectly satisfactorily without in any way interfering with the functions presently carried out by the Lower Clyde Water Board which would enable them to carry on as if in fact there had been no change. I refer to Greater Glasgow and Argyll and Lower Clyde. Lanarkshire can work quite satisfactory on its own so far as water is concerned. I am told by them that there is to be a new reservoir in Renfrewshire, and when that is completed there will be no difficulty in leaving the two reservoirs in Ayrshire

59
for the use of the Ayrshire and Arran Region. So there would then be three water authorities each of which would be capable of functioning as efficiently as the water boards are doing at present, and basing their work on what the water boards have done. So my Amendments do not in the slightest way interfere with the proper and efficient function of water supply.
The Glasgow Chamber of Commerce were very fair in sending their letter to me also; they did not just send it to those who might be expected to support them. They knew I was not going to support them. If the Minister would look at the Glasgow Chamber of Commerce letter it is principally against taking the peripheral barriers out, of Glasgow. The reference to the region is to the fact that right from the beginning they supported Wheatley, but apparently the decisions of the Glasgow Chamber of Commerce are to be like the Medes and the Persians, once taken never to be altered, and after all they gave their evidence to Wheatley a long time ago. Was it the noble Viscount, Lord Stonehaven, who referred to the fact that when the Commission were examining the evidence there was not even a smell of oil in the North Sea?
I accept that the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, speaks with authority on this matter of the location of industry. He has and is presently spending a great deal of time in trying to get industry into Scotland, and his views on these matters must be treated with respect, but I am going to pray him in aid of my proposal because he referred to the fact that the access now stretched from Hunterston to Inverness—in fact it could have gone a lot further up than Inverness. And I would say that if the smell of oil had been there when Wheatley was examining the question the arguments in favour of Strathclyde Region would have compelled the Commission to rope the Highlands and the Grampian Region in as necessary for the proper planning of industry, because this is what is going to work. Like the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, I have seen the graph showing the departure from the two lines across the central belt to the diagonal running up from Hunterston to North Sea oil; and, having mentioned that state
60
ment by my noble friend Lord Taylor of Gryfe, I should like now to deal with some of the other points which he made.
My noble friend referred to the fact that there is a declining interest in local government, as reflected in the number of people who show their interest by voting in the polls. My noble friend, like all the rest of us, must have noticed that in no place is the decline more obvious than in the largest centres of population. There are few places which can achieve a lower percentage poll than some of the wards in Glasgow. The same applies to the other cities; it is not something peculiar to Glasgow. My own native city of Dundee boasts high figures because we can raise 40 per cent., which is high in relation to what is accomplished in other such places. But it is not lack of interest which produces low figures in so many of the Glasgow wards and in the Aberdeen wards: it is because the result is a foregone conclusion. The wards are so overwhelmingly oriented in a particular political direction, that people know perfectly well that even if only 10 per cent. of the electors vote the man returned will be exactly the same person as if 90 per cent. of them vote. That is what produces the low figures; not lack of interest but the fact that they do not need to vote. After all, Scots are people who are interested in economy, and it applies in that way. Why make the effort when somebody else can do it for you, and can do it in the way that you want?
On the question of Glasgow, the report in the Economist (which, as I am sure my noble friend Lord Taylor of Gryfe will admit, has not been received in Scotland with any great enthusiasm) stated that Glasgow is a one-class city. I am quite sure that there are a number of suburbs in Glasgow which would dissent from that point of view, but let us take it that it is largely correct. If we take that as being the basis, it is almost equally correct to say that Strathclyde is a one-class area. The addition of the various large burghs in the county of Lanark and in the county of Dunbarton will not turn Strathclyde into a two-class area. The fact is that the area as a whole is overwhelmingly in one political direction; and if that is what is described as one class, it will remain a one-class area whether it is in one or in four.

61
Now I come with some trepidation to my noble friend Lord Shinwell, whose connection with Glasgow goes back longer than I have lived. I have never lived in Glasgow at any time, so I can claim no personal experience at all, except that I have a daughter who has recently gone to live in Glasgow and my visits there are now much more frequent than they otherwise would have been. But my views on this matter have not been culled from any experiences of my own; what I am putting forward are the experiences and desires of the people who live there, inside and outside Glasgow. No one in this House or in another place is a more skilled debater than my noble friend, and he showed this very clearly in the way in which he selected items from my remarks. He said that the real objection to the proposals which I am putting forward comes from places like Bearsden, and so on. That is not the position at all. I gave the figures of those who were against the proposals, and they numbered some 740,000—or was it 720,000? It was over 700,000, anyway. The authorities named by my noble friend Lord Shinwell account for 39,000 of those 720,000. I would say that much more important is the fact that almost the whole of Dunbartonshire is against them, that almost the whole of Ayrshire is against them, and that at least half of Lanarkshire is against them—and they do not all live in Bearsden and Duntocher.
Then my noble friend said that the only disadvantage I had put forward was the fact that it was too big. My Lords, that is not by any means what I said. In fact, it was the least of the arguments which I put against it, because, as I indicated, I am still creating four districts which will include four of the biggest seven in Scotland; and Greater Glasgow, remaining at 1¼ million, will still be enormous in comparison with anything else. So I have no objection to bigness as such. But I do not want to recite the points which my noble friend glossed over. For instance, I made the argument about education very fully, and I have repeated it to-day. Then the noble Lord, Lord Balfour, quoted from the
62
letter written by the town clerk of Glasgow. The town clerk sent me that letter, too—he also is very fair. The arguments to which the noble Lord referred have nothing at all to do with my Amendment to break up Strathclyde. The points to which he referred were the ones relating to the detachment of the periphery from the district of Glasgow, and had nothing at all to do with the proposal to break up the region.
My Lords, I remain of the opinion that this is a better alternative than Strathclyde. We have had a very good debate on it. I want to emphasise something which I think the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, said. I want to emphasise how much I am in agreement with him when he said that the real purpose of this Amendment is to give another place the opportunity to look at this matter. It is a solution quite different from anything which they have considered; and I say in advance that, whether the other place accept or reject this Amendment, I for one will take the decision that they arrive at on Monday as being final. In a matter of this kind, the view of the elected House must prevail. If they decide to throw out my Amendment, I will remain of the opinion that they are wrong; but I accept that they are the ones who have the right to be wrong, and we do not necessarily have the right to be right. On that basis, my Lords, I hope that it will go back. I know that there is not a great deal of time, but most of the other Amendments which are going back are Amendments which I am quite certain the Government are willing to have the House accept. I suspect, with my usually rather devious mind, that what the Government have in mind is to try to send this Bill back to the Commons in a form in which all the Amendments can be accepted there, therefore obviating the need for it to come back here some time after next Monday. But we do have until Wednesday; and if it gives the Minister any consolation I give him the assurance that if this Bill does come back with the rejection of Lords' Amendments there will be no difficulty from this side of the House so far as I am concerned. I hope that your Lordships will vote for this Amendment.
5.28 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 2) shall be agreed to?
Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
5.37 p.m.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 2A which is a consequential Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 151, leave out lines 2 to 12.—(Lord Hughes.)
THE MARQUESS OF AILSAhad given Notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 3:
Page 151, line 9, at end insert ("except the burgh of Girvan, the District of Girvan.").
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 65; Not-Contents, 59.

CONTENTS

Ailsa, M.

Fulton, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Airedale, L.

Garnsworthy, L.

Rothes, E.

Archibald, L.

Gray, L.

Rowallan, L.

Atholl, D.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

St. Just, L.

Balerno, L.

Hailes, L.

Sandys, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Harvey of Prestbury, L.

Selkirk, E.

Ballantrae, L.

Hughes, L. [Teller.]

Sempill, Ly.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Somers, L.

Berkeley, B.

Inchyra, L.

Stonehaven, V.

Boothby, L.

Kilmany, L.

Strange, L.

Burton, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Byers, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Strathspey, L.

Clwyd, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Tanlaw, L.

Crathorne, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Teviot, L.

Cromartie, E.

Loudoun, C.

Thomas, L.

Daventry, V.

Margadale, L.

Thurso, V.

Dundee, E. [Teller.]

Monck, V.

Vivian, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Moyne, L.

Wade, L.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Northchurch, B.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Erskine, of Rerrick, L.

Ogmore, L.

Wellington, D.

Ferrier, L.

Perth, E.

Wise, L.

Forbes, L.

Platt, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Eccles, V.

Popplewell, L.

Arwyn, L.

Ferrers, E.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Auckland, L.

Goschen, V.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Balfour, E.

Gowrie, E.

Sandford, L.

Barnby, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Segal, L.

Blyton, L.

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

Shepherd, L.

Brockway, L.

Shinwell, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Hall, V.

Slater, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, B.

Hanworth, V.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Cartington, L.

Henderson, L.

Chorley, L.

Hewlett, L.

Stratheden and Campbell, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Hoy, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

CourtQwn, E.

Limerick, E.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Craigavon, V.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Tenby, V.

Davies of Leek, L.

Mancroft, L.

Trefgarne, L.

de Clifford, L.

Milverton, L.

Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, B.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

White, B.

Digby, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Williamson, L.

Douglass of Cleveland, L.

Phillips, B.

Windlesham, L. (L. Privy Seal.)

Drumalbyn, L.

Polwarth, L.

Younger of Leckie, V.

Ebbisham, L.

Poole, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

The noble Marquess said: My Lords, as your Lordships may recollect, I moved a similar Amendment at the time the Bill was going through the Committee stage in your Lordships' House. I withdrew the Amendment at that time as I understood that the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, was going to put down an Amendment on the lines we have just discussed. As that Amendment has now been discussed and has been accepted, and as the intention and desire of Girvan District was to get out of Strathclyde but not to get out of Ayrshire, I am not going to move this Amendment or the other Amendments down in my name.
Lord POLWARTH: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No.6.
Amendment moved—
Page 154, line 46, column 1, leave out ("Forth") and insert ("Central").—(Lord Polwarth.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 7.
Amendment moved—
Page 155, line 3, column 1, leave out ("Forth") and insert ("Central").—(Lord Polwarth.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, Amendment No. 8 is also consequential, but I should be prepared to accept the Amendment to my Amendment in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk.
Amendment moved—
Page 155, line 43, at end insert—

("Greater Glasgow

City of Glasgow

The county of the city of Glasgow.

In the county of Lanark—in the Ninth district, the electoral divisions of Baillieston, Garrowhill, Mount Vernon and Carmyle, Springboig.

Rutherglen

In the county of Lanark—the burgh of Rutherglen; in the Eighth district, the electoral divisions of Bankhead, Cambuslang Central, Cambuslang North, Hallside, Rutherglen, and those parts of Cambuslang South and Carmunnock electoral divisions lying out-with the designated area of East Kilbride New Town.

Eastwood

In the county of Renfrew—the First district.

Kilpatricks

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

Lanarkshire Strathkelvin

In the county of Dunbarton— the burghs of Cumbernauld, Kirkintilloch; the district of Kirkintilloch and Cumbernauld.

In the county of Lanark—in the Ninth district, the electoral divisions of Chryston, Stepps; the burgh of Bishop-briggs.

In the county of Stirling—the burgh of Kilsyth; the Western No. 3 district; the

electoral division of Kilsyth West; the polling district of Kilsyth East (Banton).

Monklands

In the county of Lanark—the burghs of Airdrie, Coat-bridge; the Ninth district (except the electoral divisions of Baillieston, Chryston, Garrowhill, Mount Vernon and Carmyle, Springboig, Stepps); in the Seventh district (except the electoral division of Shottskirk).

Motherwell

In the county of Lanark—the burgh of Motherwell and Wishaw; the Sixth district (except the electoral divisions of Bothwell and Uddingston South, Uddingston North), the Seventh district (except the electoral division of Shottskirk).

Cadzow

In the county of Lanark—the burgh of Hamilton; the Fourth district (except the electoral division of Avon-dale); in the Sixth district, the electoral divisions of Bothwell and Uddingston South, Uddingston North; in the Eighth district, the electoral divisions of Blantyre, Stonefield, and that part of High Blantyre electoral division lying out-with the designated area of East Kilbride New Town.

East Kilbride

In the county of Lanark—the burgh of East Kilbride; in the Fourth district, the electoral division of Avondale in the Eighth district, those parts of High Blantyre, Cambusland South, and Carmunnock electoral divisions lying within the designated area of East Kilbride New Town.

Lanark

In the county of Lanark— the burghs of Biggar, Lanark; the First district, the Second district (except that part of the

Argyll and Clyde.

Dumbarton

In the county of Dunbarton— the burghs of Dumbarton, Cove and Kilcreggan, Helensburgh; the districts of Helensburgh, Vale of Leven; the electoral divisions of Bowling, Dunbarton.

Renfrew

In the county of Renfrew— the burghs of Barrhead, Johnstone, Paisley, Renfrew; the Second, Third, Fourth districts.

Inverclyde

In the county of Renfrew—the burghs of Gourock, Greenock, Port Glasgow; the Fifth district.

Argyll

In the county of Argyll—the burghs of Campbeltown,

Dunoon, Inveraray, Lochgilphead, Oban, Tobermory; the districts of Cowal, Islay, Jura and Colonsay, Kintyre, Mid Argyll, Mull, North Lorn (except the electoral divisions of Ballachulish, Kinlochleven), South Lorn, Tiree and coll.

In the county of Bute— the burgs of Rothesay; the district of Bute.

Ayrshire and Arran.

Cuninghame

In the county of Ayr the burghs of Ardrossan, Irvine, Kilwinning, Largs, Saltcoats, Stevenston; the districts of Irvine, Kilbirnie, West Kilbride; those parts of the designated area of Irvine New Town within the Ayr and Kilmarnock districts.

In the county of Bute—the burgh of Millport; the districts of Arran, Cumbrae.

Kilmarnock and Loudoun

In the county of Ayr—the burghs of Darvel, Galston, Kilmarnock, Newmilns and Greenholm, Stewarton; the district of Kilmarnock (except that part of the designated area of Irvine New Town within this district).

Kyle and Carrick

In the county of Ayr—the burghs of Ayr, Girvan, Maybole, Prestwick, Troon; the districts of Ayr (except that part of the designated area of Irvine New Town within this district), Girvan, Maybole; the parishes of Coylton, Dalrymple; that part of the parish of Ayr within the district of Dalmellington.

Cumnock and Doon Valley

In the of Ayr—the burgh of Cumnock and Holmhead; the districts of Cumnock, Dalmellington (except the parishes of Coylton, Dalrymple; that part of the parish of Ayr within the district).")—(Lord Hughes.).

5.40 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved Amendment No. 9 as an Amendment to the Amendment:
Line 49, column 2, leave out ("Cadzow") and insert ("Hamilton").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, if the noble Lord has accepted the Amendment to the Amendment, I am very happy. I am not certain whether to address my remarks to him or to the Government. If the Government wish to dissent from
68
it, perhaps I may be allowed to speak again.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD DRUMALBYN): My Lords, perhaps my noble friend will speak to his Amendment.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, this is not a question of sentiment; this is a question of the practical value of a name for an area which has been deeply concerned in what might be called regional policies and which has seen an enormous change in the last fifty years. It is changed from being a mining town almost entirely, to almost entirely not a mining town. What I am saying is that this is a practical requirement, and I do not think the Government will deny it is much the wisest practical course to take. Their embarrassment, for it is an embarrassment, is that they have said that they will take the view of the local authorities in the area. I want to ask this question: do they mean the local authorities in the area or do they mean popular opinion; for that is quite a different proposition? This is a peculiar district in the sense that it consists of 45 per cent. of a burgh and the rest consists of parts, in two cases only one-fifth of districts (and there are three districts here) and the Lanarkshire County Council. Which is the noble Lord interested in—the one or the other? If the noble Lord is interested in public opinion, that is, the popular vote, he does not know the answer any more than I. These are the bare facts of the situation that he must look at.
We had a short correspondence on this subject. The joint advisory committee, which is drawn from the local authorities and in no sense is representative of public opinion—it has no relation to it whatever—recommended the word "Cadzow". That does not represent popular opinion at all. I will give the formation of the advisory committee: six from Hamilton, six from the three districts and six from the county. For this reason I want the noble Lord to say that he will accept this Amendment to the Amendment because it is one which is valuable to the area. Two new factors have come into this matter since the last discussion. The first is that the Government are now including the great new town of Stone-house in the Hamilton or Cadzow area.

69
What are the views of the developers of Stonehouse in regard to this matter? They are promoters; they built one of the finest new towns in the country, East Kilbride, and they know what they are talking about. This is what they said in regard to the name Cadzow:
"Unfortunately, however, from a marketing promotional point of view it does not have the ready identification of the name Hamilton."
This is from an industrial development point of view:
"This is important in Scottish terms generally but very much more important in relaion to the promotional efforts in the South and overseas. People just would not know for some considerable time the location of Cadzow."
It happens that they have a good reason for expressing that view. If you look at a geographical map of the world and at a gazeteer you will find more geographical places under the name of Hamilton than any other single name. The Encyclopædia Britannica shows some 50 of them. I can offer no explanation; but there it is. In Canada, in the U.S.A., in Australia and in New Zealand the name is extremely well known and promotionally very valuable.
Let me give another example. Any noble Lord who knows North Lanarkshire will know that quite a number of new roads have been built there. Although I know it well I should not guarantee to be able to find my way around the close concentration of roundabouts, slipways and by-passes unless they were signposted. In fact, signposts of Hamilton can be seen everywhere; but there is no signpost for Cadzow and you will never see one because you only get there, to the ancient castle there, by a dirty farm track road. At no time will you ever be able to find the name on a signpost in North Lanarkshire. For these reasons I think it is foolish to take an unknown name.
I know how this happens. When I was in South-East Asia I found that all the countries from the Mediterranean to the China Sea disliked their neighbours. No doubt much the same thing happens in local government. No doubt there is a feeling of resentment that this is a Hamilton takeover. It is a small local sentiment. What matters is that this place should be known so that it can make the development for the further changes
70
necessary. The noble Lord has a third Amendment down which says that at any time—not in 1980 but at any time—the name can be changed. I suggest that the name be changed now, and if when the Council meet and there can be a positive representation of what the public think they can make any new name they like. I should have no objection if this were expressing public opinion. I say that we do not know it now. I think that we, as a House, should make a sensible practical suggestion for development. I beg to move.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: My Lords, I should like to support the noble Earl. I know the area of Lanarkshire well and work in parts of it. Hamilton is an exceedingly well-known part of Lanarkshire. Suddenly to be told that it is called Cadzow means nothing to anybody. I have had a number of letters, as has every noble Lord, strongly urging that we should not change the name of a very well-known town and area into some name that nobody has ever heard of—except perhaps the antiquarians who may know something about the ancient castle and the cart track leading to it. All local government at the moment is going to be fairly complicated in the sense that many changes are taking place. Let us try not to change the nomenclature when it is not necessary. On the Committee stage we changed the name of another county, Berwickshire, back again to Berwickshire instead of something else. Everybody was delighted. If we allow Cadzow to go forward a great number of people will be disgruntled. Why not stick to the old, fine name of Hamilton in an area so well known and respected?
LORD BALLANTRAE: My Lords, I had never heard of Cadzow until I read this Bill for the first time.
LORD KILMANY: My Lords, I feel that it should scarcely need any more speeches in support of the Amendment so well moved by my noble friend Lord Selkirk, but I should like to emphasise the point he made about the repercussions in the Commonwealth. There is a Hamilton in Australia and a Hamilton in Canada. It is a name which means something to those people. The closer we can keep our connections with those individuals who have gone out to the

71
Dominions, surely the better. If you go to Australia, someone asks, "Where do you come from?" If you say you come from Hamilton, it is picked up at once; it may be that his old grandfather came from there, too, and you have a basis for conversation and friendship. If you say you come from Cadzow your questioner will look blank. Like other noble Lords, I have never been in the habit of recognising Cadzow as an important place in Scotland. Everybody has heard of Hamilton. It is a good name known throughout the world. Let us keep it!
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I am prepared to accept this as an Amendment to my own Amendment, not because of any strong feeling. Hamilton is one of the areas which opposed my Amendment and I have no strong need to be friendly towards them, but I think they are putting forward a case, whether it is the view of the majority in the area we do not know. In the letter the Provost sent me he said:
"What is Cadzow or where is Cadzow? No one knows."
When I was speaking with the noble Lord now sitting on the Cross-Benches (and perhaps he will allow me to quote a part of our conversation), we were speculating on how one pronounced the name. Neither of us had heard it before. We did not know. There is a rather peculiar tradition in Scotland that if the letter "z" appears in a name it is ignored—as in "Menzies", for instance. That is not applicable in Australia. We wondered whether the pronunciation of "Cadzow" was "Caddow", or whether, in the way in which we tend to corrupt the ends of words, that could become "Caddy" so that it would appear as if the new district was an appendage to a golf course.
I was impressed by a document which the Provost sent me. It contains an interesting advertisement by the Philips Electrical Company, who have a place there. The advertisement says:
"Hamilton is a famous name. The name of Hamilton has been borne by a poet, a soldier, a statesman. It is given to a town in Australia, a city in America, a river in Canada and it is the site of an ancient burgh."
I have no doubt that their advertising experts would be able to think of something for Cadzow, but I can think of
72
better reasons for changing a name than putting work into the hands of advertising agents.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, I should like to remind my noble friends on the Government Front Bench that there is a Hamilton racecourse. So far as I know, there is no Cadzow racecourse. For the convenience of the racing public, I think it would help if we went on calling it Hamilton rather than "Cadzow", "Caddow" or whatever it is.
LORD BALERNO: My Lords, may I add to the general information of your Lordships' House, being one of the few people who has been to Cadzow, and say that "Cadzow" as a name is quite well-known to all those who study the ancient cattle of Britain. At a time when we are going into the Common Market, it is interesting to know that they are the descendants of the Aurochs of Europe. But I am afraid that that stimulating fact does not persuade me that the name should be used to describe the district, and I fully support my noble friend Lord Selkirk.
VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN: My Lords, I do not really wish to dance to the tune of Cadzow House.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, my noble friend has put us in a certain amount of difficulty in this matter, because when my noble friend Lord Polwarth replied to the previous debate he offered to consult the local authorities. And of course, in the main, if there are to be changes of name it will be the local authorities who will suggest them. We duly consulted the local authorities with the result, which I think my noble friend knows, that Hamilton, obviously, voted for Hamilton and, so far as I am aware, nobody else did. They voted for Cadzow. This has put us in a difficulty, because your Lordships have all to-day felt that the name "Hamilton" is a better name than "Cadzow" on many counts.
I must say that it is a question not of changing the name of the town, but of whether the town should give its name to the district. I do not think it is a question, either, of what appears on the signposts, because there will be many names of districts which will not appear on signposts. It is generally a question of what the people want and, as my noble friend

73
has said, our only means of testing that was to consult the local authorities. Obviously, we could not hold a plebiscite in the district. The name, has unfortunately, received no support in this House at all and, that being so, I feel that the only right course for us on the Govvernment Front Bench is also to leave this decision to another place and to accept my noble friend's Amendment. That seems to me the only rational course to take in the circumstances.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. I pointed out that facilities for changing the name will be made easier by a further Amendment with which we shall deal shortly, so that if people want a change there will be no difficulty. So far as pronunciation is concerned, I think it is accepted that the letter "Z", or the letter "Y" in Scots is changed into "Z" and should not he pronounced. But nowadays the modern usage is "Cadzow".
On Question, Amendment to the Amendment agreed to.
On Question, Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 10 and 11 are consequential. I beg to move Amendment No. 10.
Amendment moved—
Page 155, leave out lines 44 to 53.—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HUGHES: I beg to move Amendment No. 11.
Amendment moved—
Page 156, leave out lines 1 to 52.—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 14A, which is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 157, leave out lines 1 to 48.—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 15 to 21 inclusive cannot be moved, because there is no longer a page 157 in the Bill.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, Amendment No. 23 is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 158, leave out lines 3 to 16.—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (LORD MAYBRAY-KING): My Lords, I have some manuscript Amendments. The first one is Amendment No. 23A, page 158, col. 3, to leave out line 8.
LORD STRATHCLYDEhad given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 23A:
Page 158, column 3, to leave out line 8.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I offered my apologies to my noble friend for not having been able to give earlier notice of my intention to put down this Amendment. When the Bill first appeared, the county of Ayr was divided into two parts. In another place that was altered to four districts. Of those four, two were in the southern part of the county and were named Kyle and Carrick and Cumnock and Doon Valley. In that latter district were included the parishes of Coylton and Dalrymple, an arrangement which apparently met with the general approval of the inhabitants of these parishes. When the House was in Committee, my noble friend the Minister carried an Amendment which removed Coylton and Dalrymple from Cumnock and Doon Valley and put these two parishes into Kyle and Carrick. Briefly, my noble friend's argument in favour of this change was that the community of interest was more with Ayr than with Cumnock, and this he claimed was borne out in the figures of population in the Dalmellington district. He said that 31 per cent. of those in that district, many of them from Coylton and Dalrymple, work in Ayr, while only 4 per cent. work in Cumnock. These figures are challenged. It is stated that they are presumably based on the number of passengers travelling by bus to and from Ayr. If that be so, I am advised that a great number of those travelling have little to do with either the parish of Coylton or the parish of Dalrymple, but are through passengers, and are not from the villages or from elsewhere in these parishes.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to interrupt. I should have got up earlier to say that this Amendment cannot now be moved, because these lines are also out of the Bill. We have taken out everything relating to Strathclyde, and this is an Amendment to Strathclyde. Sorry as I am to do this, it would not be a kindness to allow the noble Lord to carry on only to be told at the end of the story that he is out of order.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: My Lords. I am glad to be relieved of a duty imposed on me only recently, and I thank the noble Lord for his intervention.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, may I point out that there is a misprint in Amendment No. 8 in regard to the district of Lanark, at about line 10 on page 4 of the Amendments.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, what is the misprint?
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, it is the noble Lord's Amendment, not mine. There must be a misprint, because the bracket has no ending.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, the Amendment has already been passed. Presumably it will be passed in the form I submitted it, and I can assure the noble Duke that when I put it in it had two brackets.
6.3 p.m.
LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 3, line 9, after ("Glasgow") insert (",the chairman of each other district council shall be known by such title as the district council, with the consent of the Secretary of State, may decide").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, your Lordships will be glad to hear that this is a totally different item, and I will not take up a lot of your Lordships' time. I have been in correspondence with the Secretary of State on this matter. As a former Lord Provost, may I confess that my interest is a completely selfish one. I have wished to protect the value of the title of "Lord Provost". The Government have done this to a certain extent. In the Bill they have laid down that the districts in which the cities of Glasgow, Edinburgh and Dundee are located shall have attached to their chairmen the title of "Lord Provost". The
76
Government, in the correspondence with the Secretary of State—the wording of which I have no doubt is basic Civil Service language—advance rather peculiar arguments. The Bill decides the title of a chairman of a Region. They have no option: he is to be called a "convener". The chairman of a district council—they have no option—is to be called "Convener". As I have said, the four districts in which the cities are located have no option: the chairman is to be called Lord Provost. But in relation to the other, the effect of my Amendment is to prevent a proliferation of titles, and my Amendment merely says that,
"the chairman of each other district council shall be known by such title as the district council…may decide"
provided that the Secretary of State approves. My Lords, the number of possibilities which are likely to arise are fairly few. I think if we say Convener, Chairman, Provost and Lord Provost, that almost certainly is the list from which districts will choose their titles. I mentioned more exotic ones. I suggested the possibility of Commissar. In a letter from the Secretary of State, thinking of the territory from which he comes, he visualised the equally outlandish possibility of Thane—and that is going back a bit.
In the correspondence, I made it perfectly clear to the Secretary of State, and I wish to make it clear to the House, that my desire is to see that the title of "Lord Provost" is not devalued by its being available to anybody who likes to pick it up. I would rather see the title abolished altogether than have it proliferated. If my Amendment is accepted, there may be one or two places which suggest the title of "Lord Provost", to which the Secretary of State would have difficulty in saying, "No". Perth is one. As I do not want to give any encouragement to them, I will not mention the other, but I know that it would present peculiar difficulties for the Secretary of State, Notwithstanding that, I do not think it is a good reason for refusing the Amendment.
In a letter from the right honourable gentleman the Secretary of State, there was also a rather peculiar misconception of what would be involved. The letter said (I have it here, but I will paraphrase it) that this would perhaps

77
result in the Secretary of State having to arbitrate between different points of view put forward by the local authority. That is not what will happen. It may be that there will be differing views inside a district council as to what the chairman should be called but, if there is, the view which will receive official support, and which will go to the Secretary of State for consent, will be the one which commands the greatest measure of votes in the local authority. It will not be for him to ferret around to find whether there was a minority and, if so, what kind of minority, or if there was more than one minority, what they wanted. He will take a decision on what is put before him. If it is considered sound policy to tell the regions and the cities what their chairman must be called, I can see no reason why on earth the Secretary of State should boggle at saying to the other districts: "Submit your chosen title to me for approval." I would expect that in the great majority of cases he will have no difficulty in agreeing to what they want; but I would hope that if he gets half a dozen Lord Provostships coming up, he will be a little selective in those to which he agrees. I beg to move.
LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, I do not think that this is a point of very great substance, particularly in relation to what we have been discussing. I think, with great respect, that in a way, this is neither one thing nor the other. We are depriving local authorities at this level of complete freedom, but equally we are not giving them a direction. I am bound to say that I wonder whether it might have been better to give them a direction as to their title. But I understand that there have been diverging views as to the title of chairmen of districts. I do not think it will greatly enhance the burden of the Secretary of State if he has to rule on these titles. After all, he can slap down an unreasonable one if he wishes. I do not think it is a matter of such great substance that I should resist it, and should at least let the other place have an opportunity of agreeing or not.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4 [Term of office and retirement of councilors]:
6.10 p.m.
THE EARL OF CROMARTIE THE EARL OF CROMARTIE moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 3, line 27, after ("1974") insert ("not sooner than one month after the ordinary election of councillors for a regional or islands council in 1974").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name. It is a very short matter but it possibly affects the far North and North-Western Highlands more than the more populated areas with which we have been dealing for the past few hours. My point is simply that if you have regional and district council elections on the same day and if you have, as we might very well have in our part of the world, one person standing both for a regional and district post, he might be elected to both. Then you would need to have a by-election, and that is very expensive, especially when you are dealing with an area as large as the Highland Region. I do not know whether it is desperately important. but I do know that the districts in the Highland Region are afraid of this, and if possible they would like at least a week's grace between a regional and a district election. I beg to move.
LORD BURTON: My Lords, I should like very strongly to support my noble friend in this matter. I mentioned this subject on Committee. Since then I think there have been further developments and there is likely to be great difficulty on the day. There are a great many councillors or prospective councillors who are going to stand both for a regional and a district council, in case they do not get elected to one or the other. This was said on Committee and the Government ignored it. It is going to mean not only that there will be a great many by-elections but also that the electorate will be considerably confused. There has already been confusion over one person seconding two councillors in one county council election, and this caused a lot of difficulties, as the Minister will know. This

79
proposal will cause considerably more difficulty, and it seems to me there is absolutely no reason why a district council election should not be held, say, 4 or 6 weeks after the regional elections.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I am told by people who actually have to deal with the holding of the elections that there is great difficulty in trying to run them on the same day. I am talking now about people who have to take over the actual running of elections and not about political Parties. I am told that there is much to be said for holding these elections on separate days. I hope, therefore, that the Government will consider this aspect.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, we had a debate on this subject at the earlier stage. I said then, and I repeat now, that there is some force in what my noble friends have said about it, but I do not believe that the difficulties are insuperable. One has to take into account in any case that at the conference of the political Parties and the local authority associations on local electoral law, held in June, 1972, the point about unsuccessful candidates for one local government election not being able to stand for another was raised. Nevertheless, a very substantial body of opinion was in favour of simultaneous elections. The reason is that if separate elections are held it is considered that there will be a poor turn-out of electors at the election which is held second. I should have thought that if second elections were held the election period would last for quite a considerable period. My noble friend talks about an interval of at least a week, but it would probably mean that the election period would extend for a period of 2 months and it would be difficult to maintain the interest of the electorate over such a long period.
My noble friend said that a great many potential candidates are now saying that they are going to stand for both the region and the district. It is to be expected that as time goes by prospective candidates will consider very carefully, in the light of their own experience, their aptitudes and circumstances, at what level of local government they can most effectively and most conveniently serve. I do not think one can assume that in general candidates
80
who are successful in the regional elections would wish to stand for the district councils, so the advantage, from the point of view of my noble friends, in having two separate elections is not as great as they imagine. Furthermore, the Government hope that the new system of local government will attract able candidates who may not have served in local government before. This would mean that in relation to the number of seats there would be a pool of candidates much greater than has been the case in the past. It would be disappointing if this turned out not to be so. After all, one of the reasons for local government reform is that the system should be made more attractive to candidates. The number of places open, taking county and town councillors together, as I am sure my noble friends know, will be less than half the number of places which are at present open to them.
The question of whether candidates should be permitted to sit on one or more councils was considered at the conference on local electoral law which was held on June 13, 1972. This of course would have been one of the ways to ensure the elimination of any inconvenience such as my noble friends suggested might arise if two elections were held on the same day. But it was then agreed that while it was in general both undesirable and impracticable for a person to serve on more than one local authority, there should not be a statutory bar against it. It was felt that this should be left to the good sense of the candidates and the electorate.
I would say this to my noble friends: the main argument in favour of holding both sets of elections on one day in 1974 is that there will be very important elections for local government. They will be the first to be held under the new system and it is preferable to focus electoral effort and public attention on one single day than to hold an election on one day and then try to revive interest in another local government election later. This has been the nub of the problem, and this is what most of those consulted at the electoral law conference thought to be right. I am bound to tell my noble friends that the Government think that this is the overriding consideration and that any other inconveniences will have to be accepted, should they arise.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Schedule 3 [Amendment and Modification of Electoral Law]:
6.19 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 161, line 33, leave out paragraph 3(1) and insert—
("3.—(1) In section 11 (polling districts and polling places), in subsection (2)(b), the words "or, in Scotland, each electoral division" shall cease to have effect, and after subsection (2)(b) there shall be added the following paragraph—
"(bb) In Scotland, each electoral area established for the purpose of local government elections which is within the constituency, and that part within the constituency of any such area which is partly within the constituency and partly within another constituency, shall, in the absence of special circumstances, be a separate polling district or districts;"")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Amendment standing in the name of my noble friend on the Marshalled List. These Amendments are designed to make the statutory provisions on the defining of polling districts correspond more closely with practice. Under the existing statutory provisions (Sections 11 and 22 of the Representation of the People Act 1949) two authorities are responsible for defining polling districts: the returning officer for Parliamentary elections (in Scotland the sheriff) and the county or town council concerned for local elections. It is the general practice, except in special cases, for the county or town council concerned to adopt the Parliamentary polling districts for local elections.
The Bill as it stands will confer on the new authorities the powers of existing county and town councils under Section 22 of the 1949 Act to determine their own polling districts. Because of the new two tier system of local government, however, this means that in every district there will he three interests concerned with the polling districts, the sheriff for Parliamentary elections and the regional and district council for local elections. So far there have been only two interests involved, the sheriff and the county or town council concerned. There is therefore a greater possibility of conflict, and as the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, remarked when the point was discussed in Committee it would be what he called an appalling
82
situation if there were one set of polling districts for regional elections and a different set for district elections. It is perhaps too much to expect that we could safely depend in the circumstances on agreement being reached between the interests concerned. The Government have thought it desirable, therefore, to bring forward these Amendments so as to give clearer guidance and to avoid the possibility of conflict.
The effect of the Amendments is to provide that the Parliamentary polling districts are to be adopted as the polling districts for local elections, unless there are special circumstances. The saving for special circumstances is made in order to allow some latitude in the case where a constituency boundary crosses a local authority electoral boundary. I beg to move.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, these Amendments will make for greater clarity in the minds of the electors as to where they are to vote. That is very important. Those with experience of local government will know that when there is a change there is always somebody who turns up at the wrong place, and they take it as a personal insult from the candidate that they have not been made aware of the situation. If the Amendments the Government are proposing are not made such a thing could often occur. I wish to support the Amendments.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 30 which goes with the previous Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 161, line 49, at end insert—("; but in the absence of special circumstances the said polling districts shall be those which were last designated for the purpose of parliamentary elections under section 11 of this Act."").—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 162, line 35, at end insert—
("12. In section 113(3) (person to whom petition questioning local election is presented), for paragraph (b) there shall be substituted the following paragraph—

"(b) in Scotland, to the sheriff principal of the sheriffdom in which the election took

83
place or, where the election was in respect of a local authority whose area is situated within more than one sheriffdom, to the sheriffs principal of the sheriffdoms in which the area of the authority is situated.".

13. In section 117 (constitution of election court, etc.):—

(a) in subsection (1), for the words after "tried" there shall be substituted the following words—

"(a) by the sheriff principal of the sheriffdom within which the challenged election took place; or

(b) where the election was in respect of a local authority whose area is situated within more than one sheriffdom, by the sheriffs principal of the sheriffdoms in which the area of the authority is situated; and where in such a case the sheriffs principal are unable to reach a unanimous decision, they shall state a case for the Court of Session and the Court may pronounce any deliverance which it would have been competent for the sheriffs to make.";

(b) in subsection (2), for the words "by the court" there shall be substituted the words "(unless imposed or made by the Court of Session in consequence of a case stated under subsection (1) above)";

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

"(3) The place of trial shall be such place within the sheriffdom or sheriffdoms in which the area of the local authority is situated as the election court may determine.";

(d) in subsection (4), for the words "sheriffdom" there shall be substituted the words "said sheriffdom or sheriffdoms".")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment adjusts existing provisions in the Representation of the People Act 1949 on election petitions so as to cover the case where the area of the local authority concerned is comprised within more than one sheriffdom. All existing authorities are within a single sheriffdom but this will not always be so under the new structure of local government, particularly at the outset.
Under the Amendment, where an election petition is in respect of a local authority whose area is comprised in more than one sheriffdom, the petition will require to be submitted to all the sheriffs principal concerned and to be tried by them jointly. If they are unable to reach a unanimous verdict the petition must be referred to the Court of Session. This is the same procedure as is provided in Clause 233 in respect of other local authority
84
matters which may have to go to the Sheriff Court.
The unsatisfactory nature of the existing provisions was drawn to attention by Lord Balfour at the Committee stage when he agreed to withdraw an Amendment on the point on an undertaking being given that the position would be looked at for Report stage. The Government hope that the noble Earl will be able to agree that the Amendment which has now been brought forward meets his point.
When my noble friend Lord Balfour moved Amendments to these two clauses in Committee I said that this point was being considered and that if necessary we would bring forward an Amendment at the Report stage. This rather complex Amendment fulfils that undertaking. I am grateful to my noble friend for having caused us to look at this matter again.
THE EARL OF BALFOUR: My Lords, I am most grateful. This makes the procedure absolutely clear. I am very glad to have my noble friend's drafting, which is probably rather better than mine.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
6.25 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 162, line 40, leave out ("date") and insert ("word")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with permission, I would like to sneak to Amendments Nos. 32, 34, 36 and 38. It may also be convenient for us to discuss Amendments Nos. 33, 35 and 39 at the same time. This is a simple drafting Amendment to change the word "date" referring to a year, to "word", which I believe is more appropriate. I beg to move.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, the reason why I put the alternative Amendments, which are to substitute for the word "date" the word "year", is because that is what ordinary people would understand. I have no doubt that the Amendment the Minister has moved to describe the figures 1947 as a word is something which has been done in legislation for a very long time. But, as I said to the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth.

85
earlier to-day, it does not make a non-sense respectable because you say it more and more often. To anybody outside Parliament, 1947 is a set of figures and not a word. Undoubtedly the reference is to the calendar year to which these numbers attach; therefore, it is more reasonable to say "year" rather than "word". However, if it causes the Minister a great deal of heartburning to have this carried, I will not press it because since putting down these Amendments I have discovered that in other parts of the Bill sets of figures are described as words, although the Government, when they come to parts of the Bill where it is necessary to refer to a year which, being a period of 12 months extending through two calendar years, do not talk about the word 1972–73, but talk about the year 1972–73. Unless the Minister is going to give way on the matter, I will not move my Amendment. I think my Amendment is more sensible, but it may well be that the Minister's is hallowed by a bad tradition.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 34.
Amendment moved—
Page 162, line 41, leave out ("date") and insert ("word").—(Lord Draimalbyn.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 36.
Amendment moved—
Page 163, line 10, leave out ("date") and insert ("word").—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 38.
Amendment moved—
Page 163, line 11, leave out ("date") and insert ("word").—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 5 [Initial Review of Local Government Areas and Electoral Arrangements]:
LORD DRUMALBYN: I beg to move Amendment No. 40 This is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
86
Page 167, line 13, leave out ("arrangements") and insert ("arrangements").—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 23 [Change of name of region, islands area or district]:
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 41:
Page 12, line 24, leave out ("before 16th May 1980").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, an identical Amendment to this one was moved in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, supported by my noble friends Lord Balerno and Lord Selkirk. We have considered this matter again and the Government now agree that the change of a local authority's name is a sufficiently important matter to justify retaining the requirement to obtain the Secretary of State's approval beyond the initial five year period provided for in the Bill as it is at present drafted. I hope that this will meet the wishes of the House. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 31 [Disqualifications for nomination, election and holding office as member of local authority]:
THE EARL OF SELKIRK THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved Amendment No. 42:
Page 16, line 34, leave out from ("convicted") to ("and") in line 36, and insert ("of a criminal offence").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, we had a short discussion on this matter at the Committee stage and I made a wrong statement. I gave the impression that this was already part of the law of Scotland—at least in part—and I was wrong. This was apparently an entirely new clause. I am indebted to my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn for pointing out that the clause is rather illogical. That is what I want to draw attention to now. I do not of course pretend that logic is all that important in politics; it is not. But if one runs right against the logic of a situation one wants to have some good reasons for doing so. That is all I am saying.
The law as it stands is this. If someone rifles a bank in London and is caught he may not stand for five years for election to local government in Scotland, but if one rifles a bank in Paris, New York,

87
Melbourne or Delhi one is perfectly free to stand for local government in Scotland. That seems to me very illogical and there ought to be some good reason for it. It is not only illogical; it is slightly insulting to the criminal law of other countries. At a time when we are in Europe, and ought to show a certain respect for the legal systems of countries in Europe, it is a little absurd to say, "We don't think it matters if a man is sent to prison in Paris, whereas if he is sent to prison in London it does." The Government, I think, have two difficulties here. One is whether it would be found out whether a man has in fact been committed and in prison for a criminal offence. The answer, of course, is that when he stands as a candidate he puts himself forward as a qualified man, and if he does not do so there are various procedures which can be taken to the sheriff court to decide whether indeed he is a qualified man. Besides that, I imagine it would involve making a false statement. So I do not think that finding out will present much difficulty.
The second point is that some people may be sent to prison for political offences. I have sought to include the word "criminal" to make it clear that imprisonment for a political offence would not count or prevent a man from standing for local government in Scotland. This is a sensible way of dealing with the matter. It shows a less insular point of view than that at present represented in the Bill. If the noble Lord thinks that foreign legal systems are too uncertain, he should have a clear idea why he thinks so. My proposal is, I think, a much more sensible and logical way of dealing with the matter, but if the noble Lord has other reasons I will not press the Amendment unduly. My Lords, I beg to move.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I think I must defend myself slightly from what my noble friend has said. It was not I who pointed out that the clause was illogical. What I pointed out when we discussed this matter on the last occasion was that it was illogical to impose the limitation so far as the Commonwealth alone was concerned. My noble friend has, quite properly and logically, now extended his proposal to cover the whole world. I am not sure
88
that he is entirely right in drawing the distinction he has drawn between a criminal offence and a political offence. I doubt whether this would apply in all the countries outside this country which he would like to involve. But the main argument which I adduced against the earlier Amendment seems even more cogent against the present Amendment.
My noble friend took some exception to my saying that, so far as the Commonwealth was concerned, there might be a difference in sentencing policy between one country and another; offences might be classed as criminal elsewhere which might be regarded as merely technical in this country, or in the extreme case not regarded as offences at all here, and criminal offences, carrying only a very modest penalty here, might attract a sentence of three months or more in certain other countries. If this was true of the Commonwealth, I should have thought it was even more true of other countries if the provision were extended to the whole world. I quite accept the point my noble friend makes about the need to make a declaration in effect that a person is a fit and proper person to stand, and such a person will then be accepting the responsibility for his assertion that in effect he has not been convicted in the past five years of such an offence as we are speaking about here.
However, the main point in this case is this. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the argument as to whether the bar should be extended from Great Britain and Ireland to the whole of the world, the whole subject of disqualification is definitely within the remit, one might say squarely within the remit, of the inquiry into standards of conduct in local government under the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud, which my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has recently announced. The provision in the Bill which the Amendment seeks to change was inserted so as to align the law North and South of the Border. For that reason, this is the least appropriate of all times to alter the Scottish law unilaterally on a matter which is really on general qualifications, extending in this case to the whole world. I am afraid I cannot accept my noble friend's Amendment.
VISCOUNT AMORY: My Lords, when my noble friend Lord Selkirk spoke earlier on another Amendment I found his arguments wholly convincing. This time I am not quite so sure that I think that as a practical matter what he is suggesting would be wise. Here I find myself entirely convinced by what my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn has just said about the difficulty of interpreting this matter fairly in the case of many foreign countries. The point he made about the difference between what we should consider criminal or political or technical would be extremely difficult to adjudicate upon fairly. For this reason, I would not find myself as a layman entirely convinced on this occasion by what my noble friend Lord Selkirk has said.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I do not want to press this point. I am, however, reminded of people such as Savundra who can utterly deceive their business colleagues. It would be very much easier for a man to deceive electors who know less about him. There are two views in this connection. Either you say, "Trust the people", which is a perfectly sensible way; alternatively one can say that this clause is necessary. If it is necessary I think it should be logical; but I will not press the matter.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 7 [Meetings and Proceedings of Local Authorities]:
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, Amendment No. 43 is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 169, line 11, leave out ("a").—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 45 [Attendance allowance and financial loss allowance]:
6.37 p.m.
THE EARL OF CROMARTIE THE EARL OF CROMARTIE moved Amendment No. 44:
Page 23, line 25, at end insert ("other than a councillor for a region").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name and, with your Lordships' permission, I will take Amendment No. 46 with
90
it. They are both about the same matter. It is a matter we discussed at considerable length on Second Reading and on the Committee stage and concerns payment of purely an attendance allowance for regional councillors. This is a difficult question but it is probably worth while for it to be considered by the Government. Apart from the fact that in the very big Highland region long distances are involved, our communications are not all that good and sometimes our climatic conditions are not good, either. People have to spend a great deal of time working in their own constituency, but will go a long way to the regional headquarters at Inverness. Two things may happen here. One is that we shall have people who do not attend what I call the headquarter meetings; others may say, "Well, it pays us much better to get a lot of attendance allowances and we will go to Inverness and perhaps create unnecessary meetings."
We have also had that hardy annual ("hardy annual" is hardly the right expression; it is a perennial) of the loss of financial earnings which some people find it difficult to calculate; and in fact it is extremely difficult to find out in what is largely an agricultural area what financial earnings are. That would be abolished by a system of payments to regional councillors. A few weeks ago I attended a meeting of the Association of County Councils in Edinburgh, and there was a majority vote for some form of payment for regional councillors, plus an attendance allowance of some sort which had been suggested by a Minister in another place. It seemed to me to be rather complicated. I am asking the Government to consider whether they are absolutely certain in their own minds that this pure allowance system is wise or desirable for regional councillors. I personally do not think it is and, difficult as it is to work out the figures, I think some form of payment should be made to a regional councillor if he is going to do his job properly, plus an attendance allowance. I may add that by that time I shall have stepped out of local government, having been involved in it since before the war. My Lords, I beg to move.
LORD TAYLOR OF GRYFE: My I Lords, if it is for the convenience of the

91
House, I wish to move Amendment No. 45 which relates to the same subject.
LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, if I am right I do not think the noble Lord can move his Amendment now, but it might he for the convenience of the House if he spoke to it so that I may deal with the two Amendments together
LORD TAYLOR OF GRYFE: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his guidance. The difference between the Amendment moved by the noble Earl, Lord Cromartie, and my Amendment is that he confines the payment to regional councillors, whereas in the Amendment with which my name is associated I broaden the scope a little. This is a most important matter. We have spent a great deal of time, both to-day and on previous occasions, discussing the machinery of local government, but I suggest that the best machinery of local government as it is envisaged in the Bill is of little merit, unless it can attract the best people to administer that machinery. I think one of the weaknesses of local government is in the fact that it is very difficult for people who have a sense of community service to find the time and opportunity to give that service in local government, and I hope that the new local government structure will enable people without impediment to give that service. If it is to be an instrument of democratic government, it must enable a broad range of people to serve so that local government is widely representative. I was looking at some of the appendices to the Wheatley Report, and I found that in Scotland at the moment 19 per cent. of all male councillors and 24 per cent. of all women councillors are over 65 years of age. The mere fact of paying an attendance allowance, a loss of earnings allowance or something of that kind makes it extremely difficult for a wide range of people to serve the local government.
If we accept the proposal in the Bill that they be given an attendance allowance, this will have two weaknesses from the point of view of the average person who wishes to serve. First, he is uncertain as to the income he will get for his service, because the meetings might be on two days, three days or five days per week. No young man can plan his domestic budget on the basis of that uncertainty. The second weakness was
92
mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Cromartie; that is, the fact that one should never build into a system an incentive to hold more meetings. Good government is not necessarily a multiplication of the number of meetings, as we all know. But if working people—and I gather the figure that is being spoken of is £12 per meeting, which may give your Lordships some cause to think about what is an appropriate attendance allowance—take time off to serve on a local authority, then, whether we like it or not, there may he an inbuilt incentive to hold meetings if £12 per meeting is the appropriate figure. They could readily earn £60 per week for service in local government in a large city or a large region. I do not think this is a good thing. It is bad enough for councillors to take up their time in this way. In order to make these meetings official they must have their officials present, and I imagine that in this new structure of local government there will be some very highly paid officials, and rightly so because this is now big business. So not only would councillors hold a large number of meetings, but they would demand the attendance of men on a salary of £15,000 a year to sit at these meetings in order to make them official and to justify the claim. So I believe that a most unfortunate principle is being incorporated in this Bill, and now is the time to put it right.
Some people have asked me what the salary should be: should it be the same for regional councillors and for district councillors in a district like Glasgow, which will presumably have a population of about a million. I think it is left to the Secretary of State for Scotland to determine. It is not unusual in business, when one gets a new type of job, to introduce job evaluation and to assess what that job is worth and how much time it takes. It is not beyond the wit of modern business and modern government to do this. So we need not be afraid of this. In a previous debate, some of us said that we like to feel that local government is a form of service and therefore there should not be a salary in this way. There is no need for anyone to feel that the motive for public service is being somewhat diluted by receiving a salary. He can refuse to take the salary. So this is another reason why we

93
should not legislate for the minority and penalise the majority.
I do not want to make any political points on this matter, because it is strictly a non-political one. I am rather disappointed that our Liberal friends, with their great concern for involvement in local politics, are not present but I gather that the Conservative Party in Scotland supports the principle that I have just put forward. It is said that this would be different from England. This in itself is not a good argument for rejecting it, and accordingly I hope that your Lordships will approve the principle.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: My Lords, I should like to support, as briefly as I possibly can, the arguments which have been put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe. I should just like to remark that both of us were councillors on the City of Glasgow council for a number of years and therefore we speak with a certain amount of experience behind us. I would agree that prospective candidates must know precisely how being councillors will affect them financially, and I am sure that it will be in the interests of councillors to keep meetings to the minimum in both time and number. It is desirable that the number of meetings should be kept to the minimum commensurate with efficiency, for two main reasons. The first reason is that only in these circumstances will men and women, who are busy and useful in ether spheres of activity, be attracted to serve as councillors. The second reason, as the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, emphasised, is that highly paid officials will be able to spend more of their time in their offices dealing with council business, instead of interminably attending meetings.
I do not really know what the words "attendance allowances" convey at present. If their pattern is to be as it used to be, as a method of payment with no restrictions on the number of committee meetings, then I can honestly see very little hope of improving the quality of those coming forward to serve as councillors. Then again, in the case of professional men and of junior executives in limited companies Who wish to give service in local government, it would be possible for the councillor to pay his council salary into his firm as a refund for the loss of time; thus he would be more
94
likely to obtain the approval either of his board of directors or the other partners. I think this is a most important point because there is a great sphere from which we could recruit really first-class young men to serve. The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, has told us of the age of the people presently serving—19 per cent. of the males are over 65 years old and 24 per cent. of the women are over 65 years old.
I think it is fair to refer to what happens in the New Town corporations. There I understand members have always been paid a salary. In that connection my information is that it has been found in practice that this encourages a minimum number of meetings commensurate with efficiency. The salary for an ordinary member of a development corporation is about £1,000 a year, something different from the figure mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, as being in people's minds. There is no difficulty in finding men and women who are capable and willing to serve.
There is one other matter to which the noble Lord on the opposite Benches has alluded, that is, the Wheatley Commission recommendation. They recommended a substantial salary for all councillors which could be augmented by the council by up to 100 per cent. for chairmen. These are my views on this matter, and I hope the Government will give them and the views of other noble Lords who have spoken very careful consideration.
6.52 p.m.
LORD BURTON: My Lords, I was not quite sure when we came to Committee stage as to whether one should have allowances or salaries, but I think there is no doubt now that salaries are the answer. The people who suffer at present are those who are self-employed, who are not really in a position to charge expenses. All sorts of "fiddles" can be indulged in, such as that of the good lady who used to charge expenses for someone to come and milk her cow while she was at a meeting. There was also the councillor who travelled with his pal on the railway engine and charged expenses for the fare. Such activities should not be allowed. It would be better if we had a fixed salary to cover not only allowances but also expenses.

95
One drawback to this is that the chairmen of committees—perhaps not of the Finance Committee, but certainly of the Education Committee and some of the other more busy committees—ought to receive a salary in addition to that which the ordinary councillor receives. But apart from that, I am convinced that salaries are the answer.
VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN: My Lords, having given this matter considerable thought, I am completely in favour of salaries. But I think that in order to keep the number of meetings to a minimum there should be a definite fine of, say, £10 to £15 per meeting for those who do not attend. Noble Lords may think this is funny, but if they think it over, the more meetings there are the higher the potential of fines a person might suffer. Further than that, it means that if one is paid by results, and if one is not at the meeting, one is not doing one's stuff, although drawing a salary. If one is paid a salary then one should be there. I think that the two things go together. I do not at this moment agree with different salaries for different people, but I think that the chairmen of committees, who have additional expenses, should get an additional amount of cash for the expenses incurred.
6.54 p.m.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: My Lords, I support the Amendment put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor. I have been converted to this view by studying very carefully what has been said in other places. In our area I had thought allowances would be the right thing; but our area is different in that it is a small area and it would work there. I am quite sure that in the great councils and in some other areas an allowance would encourage people to hold as many meetings as possible. One would then get a good deal of unfortunate behaviour, and also probably rather bad government; therefore it would be much better to have a straightforward salary and that those who are chairmen of committees and who form the inner group of the Convenors Committee, should have more money than those who are simply members of the committee. As I know from experience, convenors do a lot of extra work. To date, none of us has ever been paid a farthing. I do not grudge
96
that because everyone else is in the same position; but in future young people who have to give up an earning job to do this kind of work I think ought to be paid a salary.
LORD OAKSHOTT: My Lords, it your Lordships will permit a Sassenach to intervene—and I promise not to be more than a minute—if the question of salary arose, would people not be allowed to set necessary expenses against their salary so they would not need to pay income tax on the whole sum?
VISCOUNT THURSO: My Lords, I support the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor. I cannot support the idea of tines from salaries as it is not something that could be equitably imposed. I should like to support what has been said in regard to certain councillors from certain regions incurring very heavy expenses. This is particularly true of people in the Highland Region; they will have long distances to travel which may involve staying away from home and so on. I would hope in this Amendment it is understood that full reimbursement of necessary out-of-pocket expenses involved in staying away on council work would be made, and that there would be a salary for the time actively spent on the work of the regional councils. In those circumstances I certainly would support the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor.
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, I am a little confused about whether we are bound to be looking at Amendment No. 44 and then Amendment No. 45, and whether Amendment No. 46 disappears altogether, or whether that is considered afterwards, because it seems to me to cover the same point, although I know the noble Earl, Lord Cromartie, has not yet moved it. If Amendment No. 46 is going to be considered later, I wonder whether that Amendment does not give us the best of all worlds. Amendment No. 45 rules out the possibility of an attendance allowance. If I read Amendment No. 46 correctly, it will be possible to do one thing or the other. If that were the case, would it not be more attractive than being dogmatic one way or the other?
6.58 p.m.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I must confess that I enter into this discussion

97
with a certain amount of difficulty, because right up to this point I have not been firmly convinced one way or the other. I have no doubt at all that as far as the region is concerned we shall not get the right kind of candidate if salaries are not paid. I can think of at least one young man I know who has done sterling work in local government in Scotland and I had expected that he would be a natural candidate for regional government. I said so to him a few weeks ago, and to my astonishment he said, "No, I am going to go for district". I said "Why? The really important functions are at region". He said "Yes, but I have a management job with my employers. I can do the district job and still give proper service to my employers, but I cannot expect to continue in my job if I have to be away three or four days a week on regional authority business. I should have to resign from my employment; and to do that for a seat where I might be in for three or four years and then find myself unseated is really not fair to my family. So I will continue, if I am elected, in district council work". I think it would be a tragedy for that particular man to devote himself to what in this particular area will undoubtedly be the less important part of the work, although undoubtedly there is a considerable measure of importance attaching to it.
I have misgivings about how salaries are going to be fixed. In the ordinary course of events, if you are to have ranges of salaries you have a Whitley Council; but who is going to sit on a Whitley Council for councillors? Somebody suggested having the English councillors sitting on the Scottish Whitley Council and the Scottish councillors on the English one, and the good old principle of "If you'll scratch my back I'll scratch yours" would work out. But, to be serious, I do not think there is any difficulty about fixing salaries for regions. My inclination before the debate was to go for Lord Cromartie's Amendment, to have allowances at district level and salaries at regional level, but I have come to the conclusion that Lord Taylor of Gryfe's Amendment is the better one because I think there will have to be some variation of salaries anyway. If my Amendment which has been carried into the Bill remains, we shall still have a
98
region with 1¼ million and another region with less than 100,000, and obviously there will be a variation of salary to be paid. If we are to have differentials of salary at regional level then we must accept that there will be differentials at district level which will probably be no greater in range.
It may well be, for instance, that a district councillor in one of the bigger districts like Glasgow or Edinburgh will be worth a higher salary than a regional councillor in the Borders, to name one of the smaller regions. I do not know what the Government are going to do. The figure of £12 has been mentioned. I do not know whether the Minister is able to state the figure. I was surprised at the constant reference to £12, because the figures I have been told vary from £12 to £16 a day. If we are to have multiplicity at any of these levels, it is going to run into a figure which at the end of the day the Treasury is going to resent very much.
The final difficulty I have about this issue is whether or not the Commons will regard it as a financial matter and say it is is none of our business. But, after all, if we send it to them they can tell us that, and that would be the end of the matter. But whether or not the Minister is in a position to do anything about it to-day, I think that between now and Thursday he ought to consult with his right honourable friend the Secretary of State, because I believe the preponderance of feeling expressed here is for salaries all round. If the Minister wishes my noble friend Lord Taylor of Gryfe to withdraw his Amendment to-day, on a promise to resider, it should be understood that there would definitely be a resubmission of the Amendment on Third Reading, because I think that the other place ought to have a chance to look at this matter. I should prefer it to be done to-night rather than to have to re-table. It is obvious that the Commons are going to have a fairly full meal of the Bill on Monday, and adding another course like this will not worry them unduly. In the other place the question of salary versus allowance cuts across Party lines; this is not Government against Opposition. If it were put in, one hopes that when it got to the other place it would be the subject of a free vote, and the result might be surprising.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, could the noble Lord answer one question when he replies? It is the point that was made by Lord Taylor of Gryfe. Can we not be different from England, or must we have the same system? Is it not worth trying us out like a guinea pig to see whether we might even find a system which would help England too at some future date? The noble Lord mentioned that he was interested in the Report made by Lord Redcliffe-Maud. That was, of course, ten years ago. It was written about England and Wales. It said there that 68 per cent. of the councillors were not paid and about the same number did not think that anybody should be paid. The position does not seem to be entirely the same in regard to Scotland, so far as I can see. I would also ask the noble Lord whether the wording of the Bill is really correct, if he wants to adopt the system which Lord Redcliffe-Maud suggested? He was really suggesting a flat allowance expense for all councillors, which is rather different from a salary; it is not quite the same thing but it is the same idea. I wondered whether the wording here, which is confined to an attendance allowance, is too narrow for the purposes the Government may have in mind.
LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, we have inevitably covered a lot of the same ground on these two Amendments as we did on the same subject at the previous stage. I would say straight away to the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, while it is fresh in my mind, that there is no question of slavishly following Redcliffe-Maud or anybody else. The proposal is for an attendance allowance which will need to take account of the fact of the person having to be present and, to some extent, the lesser expenditure he may be involved in as a result of his duties, and it will be taxable. I should like to make it absolutely clear to the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, who was under a misapprehension, that councillors incurring travelling expenses, like his colleagues from the far North, will of course be able to claim those quite apart from the normal allowance, and they will not be taxable. It will only be the minor expenses which cannot be categorized—the odd local telephone calls and that kind of thing—that are supposed to be covered by the attendance allowance in addition to the value, as it were,
100
of the councillor's time. I think we could very simply get over Lord Stonehaven's question of fines for nonattendance, because the attendance allowance itself looks after this very point. The person who attends more diligently receives more than the person who does not.
I would point out one technical defect in the Amendment of Lord Taylor. As I understand it, it would not provide any form of payment to non-elected members, co-opted members of committees and so on. I am advised that under this Amendment there would be no arrangement to meet their services. I will try not to go over all this ground again. We are not suggesting that the system of attendance allowance is good and the system of salary is bad. We are merely contending that both systems have good points but that the attendance allowance in these circumstances is the better. I would again assure the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, and others who have raised it, that there is no question of slavishly following England in this matter. We are perfectly entitled to have a different system for Scotland if we so decide. Of course there are advantages on both sides. I think some of your Lordships are a little cynical about the tendency of local authority members to proliferate their meetings. It is one of the subjects which come up rather like other improper practices by local authority members that have had such an airing in the Press recently. I am not sure that there is very much evidence to substantiate a proliferation of meetings simply in order to be paid for them. I suggest that with the greater degree of publicity to be given to local authority meetings in future, including their committees, the attendance of the Press will have a salutary effect in bringing to the notice of the public any tendency to behave like this.
The question of differentiation of salaries raises some very real problems. If we had a salary, we should first have to differentiate between councillors for regions, for districts, and for islands, and I think we might well have to differentiate between regions. The demands on a regional councillor in Strathclyde may be very different from those on a regional councillor in the Borders, as I am sure my noble friend Lady Elliot of Harwood

101
will be the first to admit. Is the Secretary of State to have the invidious task of deciding what is the going rate for regional councillors in Strathclyde, for those in the Borders, and so on? I do not say that it is impossible, but I submit that it is something that is very difficult to do in advance of experience in the working of the new system.
Here I would say that job evaluation is all right, once you know what the job is. At the moment, it is difficult to say what these jobs will be in terms of time and demands. I submit that initially it will be extremely difficult to fix fair salaries as between these different categories. The same applies to those in a special position, such as chairmen of committees and others. While any system will inevitably have its disadvantages and will not necessarily be fair, I submit that the attendance allowance will reward the more assiduous attender, the person whose duties are more demanding and which therefore require his presence more often, and, by and large, it should be the right solution, bearing in mind that we cannot possibly expect in local government that everybody should be rewarded precisely and exactly according to the time that he gives. There must be an element of public service in membership of local authorities.
The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, questioned me again about the probable rate of attendance allowance. I regret that I am not able to enlighten your Lordships as yet. I very much wish that I was able to do so. There are two obstacles, and they are the same as at the last stage. First, we have only just had the announcement of the counter-inflation measures under Phase 3, and it is a little soon for us to fix the figure before the dust has settled in many different respects. Secondly, we have promised to discuss the matter with the associations of local authorities. The written submissions of the local authorities on this matter have only just been received. We would wish to discuss these with the local authority associations, and that process of consultation is not complete. I appreciate the views that have been expressed. I have tried to explain from the Government's viewpoint why we feel that attendance allowances are certainly the better system in this initial stage. After all, there is no reason why, in the light of experience
102
of the working of the system, it should not be possible to change the system at some date in the future. I submit that this is the right system with which we should start, and I therefore hope that those moving these Amendments will not persist in pressing them. If they do, I shall feel bound to ask your Lordships to reject them.
THE EARL OF CROMARTIE: My Lords, there seems to be some difficulty about which Amendment one is opposing or suggesting at the moment. I take it that it is the first one. As the Minister has said that he is still conducting meetings with the Association of County Councils, then unless there are others who wish to take this Amendment to a Division I am prepared to withdraw it under the circumstance that it is not the end of the road. However, I do not think that the Government have taken the right road this time. On the other hand, if anybody wishes to carry this to a Division, I will vote with them. In view of that, I would withdraw my first Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.15 p.m.
LORD TAYLOR OF GRYFE LORD TAYLOR OF GRYFE moved Amendment No. 45:
Page 23, line 26, leave out from beginning to end of line 4 on page 24, and insert ("shall be paid such salary as the Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument determine").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, so far as I understand it, the discussions with the local authorities will not concern the principle we are discussing now—they will concern the level at which expenses and attendance rates may be paid. What we are in fact discussing here is the principle of whether attendance allowances or salaries are desirable. Since the Amendment establishes that principle, I propose to move it.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I am sorry that I had to go out when the Minister was talking and I do not know all that he said, but I did hear the end of his remarks where he came down again in favour of allowances. I heard the reference to the written views of the local authorities having been just received and that they are now being considered. Like my noble friend Lord Taylor of Gryfe, I feel obliged to point out that if

103
the Bill remains as it is, it does not matter very much what the local authorities have said because the Government will have no power to pay salaries after the Bill has passed even if they want to do so. I should have thought that the very least that the Minister should have offered in these circumstances was to table an Amendment to enable the Government, in the light of how things develop, to have the option of paying either attendance allowances or salaries as appeared right in the circumstances at the end of the day. If they are not going to leave the door open for salaries in any circumstances, then I think that my noble friend Lord Taylor is undoubtedly right
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (LORD AIREDALE): My Lords, there being an equality of votes, in accordance with Standing Order No. 54, which provides that no proposal to amend a Bill in the form in which it is before the House shall be agreed to unless there is a majority in favour of such an Amendment, I declare the Amendment disagreed to.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, it is perhaps a suitable moment to adjourn this discussion. I therefore move that the Local Government (Scotland) Bill be further considered on Report later this day, and I suggest that that time should
104
to go ahead with his Amendment to make salaries possible.
LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, with great respect to the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, I submit that before the passage of this Bill we must decide on a system, and I have indicated which system the Government favour. I do not think that I can do more than that.
LORD TAYLOR OF GRYFE: My Lords, in view of that I feel that I must press my Amendment to a Division.
7.18 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 45) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 38, Not-Contents, 38.

CONTENTS

Atholl, D.

Gray, L.

Rowallan, L.

Balerno, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Selkirk, E. [Teller.]

Beswick, L.

Hacking, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Blyton, L.

Hoy, L.

Shackleton, L.

Boothby, L.

Hughes, L.

Shepherd, L.

Burton, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Stonehaven, V.

Cromartie, E.

Lauderdale, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Tanlaw, L.

Dundee, E.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L. [Teller.]

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Thurso, V.

Ferrier, L.

Milverton, L.

Wade, L.

Forbes, L.

Molson, L.

Wise, L.

Garnsworthy, L.

Phillips, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

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

Polwarth, L.

Amory, V.

Rankeillour, L.

Auckland, L.

Hewlett, L.

Redesdale, L.

Balfour, E.

Kilmany, L.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Berkeley, B.

Kilmarnock, L.

St. Just, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Kinnaird, L.

Sandford, L.

Courtown, E.

Limerick, E.

Sandys, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Margadale, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

de Clifford, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Thomas, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Northchurch, B.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Vivian, L.

Ferrers, E.

Oakshott, L.

Windlesham, L. (L. Privy Seal.)

Gowrie, E.

be 8.30 p.m., regardless of whether the other Bill has been concluded or not. I beg to move.
Moved accordingly, and on Question Motion agreed to.

BREEDING OF DOGS BILL
7.28 p.m.
LORD HOY: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time. There could not have been a better introduction than a deadheat to start off the Bill. The purpose of the Bill, as your

105
Lordships will probably know, is to regulate the commercial breeding of dogs. There are welfare organisations, animal breeders and the public who have expressed great concern about the conditions under which some of the less scrupulous breeders carry on their business. Pet shops and boarding kennels, for example, must be registered and because of this are open to inspection. This, however, leaves a gap in the law regarding breeding establishments, and evidence shows that a minority—but a very substantial minority—of dog breeders have kept bitches and puppies in dreadful conditions. The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals have been very concerned about this, and the position is aggravated by the fact that a considerable number of these cases are to be found in rural areas of the country, where they are very difficult to detect. If further proof of the necessity for this Bill is required, then one has only to recall some of the facts exposed by the B.B.C. in a recent Nationwide programme
The main provisions of the Bill are simple. Any commercial dog breeder who has more than two bitches and who offers puppies for sale must register with the local district council after April 1, 1974. The breeder pays a fee of only £2 to register. The rules, too, are simple. The council must refuse to register anybody who has recorded against him or her under existing legislation a conviction in connection with the treatment of animals, or remove the name of that person from the register on a conviction under this Bill. Once registered, the premises of the breeder are open to inspection by an official of the council or by a veterinary surgeon—and here I make it plain that there is a third category because I know it gives some difficulty to dog breeders—or by a veterinary practitioner acting on the council's behalf. So three classes of person may in fact do this job. That is the simplicity of the Bill, but it is absolutely essential.
If your Lordships wish to know why this Bill should be introduced at this late stage, let me say on behalf of my honourable friend who introduced it in the House of Commons, Mr. Gordon Oakes, the Member for Widnes, that it was introduced only after a great deal of consultation, and indeed after consultation with the Home Office itself; and I
106
should like to add my congratulations to my honourable friend on the assiduity with which he undertook this task. He was asked why this legislation was necessary, and I should like to quote what he said in reply to that question, which was put to him by one of the officials of a newspaper called Dog World. It seems to be a rather well-off paper, because a copy of it costs 15p. He said this:
"The legislation which I have introduced is not a cure-all: no legislation can ever be. But at least it demands decent and reasonable conditions for dogs in breeding establishments, and allows those concerned with animal welfare to know where to look for abuses. It will force that minority of quick-profit breeders to comply with conditions which responsible breeders have always provided, or to get out of the business altogether".
It is because the Bill is simple, because it is necessary, because it is humane and because it meets the desire of a considerable number of people in this country that I now beg to move that the Bill be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Hoy.)
7.34 p.m.
LORD DE CLIFFORD: My Lords, the noble Lord has moved the Second Reading of this Bill in a most eloquent manner. This Bill is not simple. It virtually comes back to what is meant by the words in it. The noble Lord has said that it covers the commercial breeding of dogs, but he has not yet told us what is meant by the commercial breeding of dogs. During the Committee stage in another place the question of the administration of this Bill was raised, and it was said that the R.S.P.C.A. had undertaken a survey and that in that survey they had discovered only 1,156 cases to which this Bill would apply. I think this is quite absurd, because the Bill says,
"for the purpose of breeding for sale".
How do you in fact establish the purpose of breeding for sale? I know there are breeders who breed as fast as possible in the most disgraceful conditions and who do it for sale, but there are thousands of breeders who do no such thing. You have only to pick up a Cruft's catalogue, and in it you will see the names of 3,000 people, I would say, who will be affected by this Bill. They

107
are not breeding commercially; they breed their dogs to improve the breed. They do it as a hobby; they do it because they love their dogs; they do it because they have an intensity of feeling that they should improve breeds. When they breed these dogs they probably breed from a bitch once a year under reasonable conditions, but they breed to improve the breed. If they have eight puppies, they might keep only two and sell six. Are we to say that that is commercial breeding?
This Bill affects every possible form of breeding. There are the breeders of the show dogs and there are the gun-dog breeders, most of whom breed because they want to improve the strain of obedience in their breed. They sell their puppies. Are they to be registered under this Bill? We even come down to foxhound packs. Are beagle packs to be registered under this Bill? Do racing greyhound breeders come under the Bill? While they sell their puppies, are they doing so commercially or merely so that they may get some small return for all the costs which they have to incur? There is no question but that they are breeding for the purpose of breeding for sale; but someone has to decide what the purpose of breeding for sale is, because they are intending, if they are lucky, to sell the surplus puppies. But the intention is to breed good dogs, not to sell the surplus puppies. It would seem to me that one day somebody will have to decide in the courts what exactly is the meaning of the words "the purpose of breeding for sale".
My Lords, the noble Lord also said that this Bill fills a gap. There is another gap which is not even touched on in the Bill and which has not been touched on in the Animal Boarding Establishments Bill. I can think of at least 15 kennels (and within a few minutes I could get the names of them) which do nothing but buy dogs and sell them, and which do this as kennels. They are not boarding establishments, they are not breeding establishments, they are not pet shops. They do something which I think is absolutely dreadful so far as dog breeders are concerned, and that is to sell dogs on hire-purchase. If you cannot afford to keep a dog, you should not have it on hire-purchase. That has
108
nothing to do with this Bill, but such kennels are not covered by the Bill.
I should like to try to get over to noble Lords that I am not opposing the principle of the Bill, but I think that its contents may do a lot of harm and damage to people who do not deserve it. To produce good dogs of good breeds is a most expensive business. The other day a gentleman, in the opposing paper to the one from which the noble Lord has quoted, Our Dogs, set out in some considerable detail the expenses he had incurred in showing one dog for one year—not to keep it for a year, but just to show it. He went to 19 champion shows and 9 open shows, and that cost him £730. That does not include keeping the dog for a period. His sole return in cash was £43. If he is breeding and showing for the purpose of increasing the breed, is there any reason why he should not sell his puppies without having to be registered as a breeding establishment? Further, my Lords, for many years the income tax authorities have agreed that money obtained from the sale of puppies by people who show can be classified as a hobby and is not liable. If now we come to the position where they are registered as breeding establishments, they lose that concession completely. Where do they stand?
If one looks further into the Bill, Clause 1(4) lays down various conditions which, if I am not mistaken, are straight out of the Animal Boarding Establishments Act, although having been around some of these establishments I can assure your Lordships that that Act does not work very well, particularly in regard to the size of dogs kept. But I should like to know who will be qualified to say in what conditions those dogs should be kept? I have looked in the Kennel Gazette this morning and 116 different breeds are mentioned. What person, unless they happened to have a particular interest in this subject, could tell how any of these dogs should be kept? I was most interested in a dog which I have never even heard of—and I have had something to do with dogs for quite some years—the Lowchen, and there are the two breeds of the Tevevreren and the Groenendael. Who on the council could possibly tell a breeder how to keep them under all conditions? I just do not believe that it is possible.

109
Then, my Lords, according to this Bill anybody who is registered as a breeding establishment is to be told how to move dogs and the conditions under which it should be done—how they should be fed, watered, and everything else on the way. What is in the Bill is all very desirable and is entirely the right idea, but it is unenforceable. How could an officer of the council at any time arrive at a place and say, "You will take your hairless Chihuahua in such-and-such a condition in such-and-such a car"? Or, shall we say, how can it be said that a Husky shall be taken in a car with a temperature of less than 54 degrees and shall be fed on dried fish? Nobody in the council can do such things and, unless this provision is put in the Bill merely as a brick or club to hit someone with, there is nothing that can be done to enforce it. How can any member of a council ensure that somebody who is breeding and keeping dogs is giving them sufficient exercise? Are they going to be there walking them up and down? I cannot see that this provision can possibly be enforced.
Should this business of breeding commercially and for sale be a fact, there is another class of person who might well be affected. This Bill affects private establishments. It gives a power which I do not like, but which might well be desirable; that is, it gives another person the right to enter an establishment. I think the fewer people who can walk into a place the better. Nevertheless, under some circumstances I would agree that it is most necessary.
LORD HOY: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord? There is nothing new in this. The noble Viscount, Lord Amory, will tell him that with all our agricultural land the right of entry is granted. In fact, conditions have to he met and it has to be seen that they are met. There is nothing at all new in this.
LORD DE CLIFFORD: I accept what the noble Lord has said, but I still do not like it very much. The next person who is affected is someone in a private house. If, for instance, he keeps some small breed—perhaps four or five animals, of which three are bitches—in a house which is mortgaged, I believe that the mortgage might be invalidated if the house has to be registered as a
110
breeding establishment. The people who will be really hit by this Bill are those whom everybody can see. People who are carrying on their business perfectly adequately yet are not commercial breeders, although they could come under this Bill, will be hardest hit. The people who do all of this breeding are very hard to trace, and while I very much sympathise with the noble Lord I still do not like his Bill.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, I have been most interested to hear what my noble friend has said in his speech. He has put a finger on a number of points which had not occurred to me, although I think I share with the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, the feeling that a great deal of the subject is covered by the calling in of the veterinary authority to check on matters such as exercise and feeding. At the same time, it seems to me that there are two principal problems here. As we are all aware, there is at the moment a great deal of cruelty and revolting behaviour in dealing with man's best friend, and it is important that it should be stopped. I think it is possible to say—and perhaps the noble Lord who is to reply will confirm this—that if we amended this Bill it would further delay the introduction of a measure which would control this revolting practice. But I share my noble friend's anxiety as to how this Bill will apply, and not being aware of what he was going to say I have come with a specific suggestion in my mind.
For years I have kept two bitches and, incidentally, have bred from them for show with not inconsiderable success. One breed, the German Pointer, generally throws a litter of something like eight to ten pups, while a King Charles spaniel probably throws four or five and, while one may destroy a runt or two, one will sell them. My feeling is that if the definition in the Bill were slightly altered, it might help the noble Lord and myself. I refer to page 4, line 37. If the word "principally" were brought in, it might do what the noble Lord suggests and would improve the Bill. The Bill would then read:
"…where more than two bitches are kept principally for the purpose of breeding for sale".
It is manifest that one has to sell one's pups. One breeds them to improve the

111
breed and at times people have come to me and have said, "Next time you have a pup off that bitch, will you keep one for me?" At the same time, I feel most strongly that we should not amend this Bill or otherwise interfere with it if it will delay the control of this trade, which it is agreed on all hands is most undesirable and uncivilised.
With that consideration, I support the Bill and feel it would be right to give it a Second Reading. We can hear from the noble Viscount who is to reply, and from the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, whether, in the light of what my noble friend has said and perhaps in the light of what I have said, it would be possible to introduce some slight Amendment which would solve the problems that we see, without delaying the application of the main object of the Bill to a process which we so deplore.
7.48 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS): My Lords, I am not quite sure whether I can emulate the speed of the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, in dealing with this Bill, but I do not want, just for the sake of speed, to skip points which I think are of importance—not that I am suggesting for one moment that the noble Lord did so. I should like to treat this subject in the same serious way as other Members of the House have done.
The House will remember from previous experience in animal welfare matters of this kind that the initiative is generally left to Private Members in both Houses, and by tradition the Government take a neutral attitude and listen to what everyone has to say. We are certainly doing that to-day. The Government's attitude is one of neutrality, but I think I can go a little further and say that we are sympathetic to this and that our neutrality is of a benevolent character. We have known for a long time that allegations have been made as to unsatisfactory, or in fact grossly unsatisfactory, conditions at some dog breeding establishments. The trouble has been that there has been little evidence one way or the other to refute or substantiate what has been said. I think a year or so ago the R.S.P.C.A. decided to carry out a survey of dog breeding kennels. After they finished that survey earlier this year I met a delegation of
112
some Members of another place and people from the R.S.P.C.A. who had been involved in the survey to discuss the matter. It is good to know, from what they found, that there is no evidence of widespread abuse or anything in a serious way going right across the entire operation of the dog breeding world. They showed that the vast majority of breeders provide adequate care and attention and proper accommodation for their dogs. But they found that a small minority, about 7 per cent., of the establishments they visited were not satisfactory. These are the places that this Bill is intended to deal with.
I noted that my noble friend Lord de Clifford said that there were yet other establishments, not places where dogs are bred commercially, not pet shops or animal boarding kennels or riding stables, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, mentioned are already controlled under other legislation. That may be so, but it seems to me that these things tend to be tackled one bit at a time on the basis of the abuses which are shown to exist. I should have thought that we now had everything to show that the control over dog breeding establishments of the kind now in the Bill is a reasonable project to put forward. I have some sympathy with those who support it and I consider that the Bill deals with an area where a little strengthening legislation of the existing law may not come amiss. We do not think that the machinery of the Bill will impose an undue burden on the local authorities, or one they cannot cope with, and we do not think that the obligation on breeders to obtain a licence and allow their kennels to be inspected should cause any significant inconvenience.
I must say, having listened to my noble friend Lord de Clifford, that I heard him say that he is not opposed to the principle of the Bill. It is really for the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, to analyse in detail what my noble friend said. It seemed to me that most of my noble friend's speech went to the root of legislation on this subject and that it will be difficult to deal with most of the points he made without new legislation. It may be that we want to clarify further some of the points he had in mind. I would only join in one moment of hesitation on the point raised by my noble friend Lord Ferrier. I think that perhaps the

113
level set at two breeding bitches is open to criticism. It is not a point that I want to take strongly but I understand that it is a subject which could cause concern among those who thought about the matter. I am not putting that forward as a reason for the Government to oppose this Bill in principle.
As my noble friend Lord de Clifford said, the Bill follows closely the lines of the Animal Boarding Establishments Act 1963 which was another Private Member's Bill. As I said, the Government have adopted an attitude of benevolent neutrality towards the Bill—and this was evident in another place—so I am left with the difficult question of the drafting. To be absolutely honest, there are one or two drafting difficulties. I am still pursuing possible methods of getting over the one that I think is the most difficult and vital of them all. I will continue to have discussions with the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, and with his honourable friend the Member for Widnes about this, but I am hound to say, in response to my noble friend Lord Ferrier, that if we amend this Bill in this House its future is precarious in the extreme. Therefore, those who wish to do so must balance the desire to improve the text of the Bill—and I think it is capable of improvement in a number of places—against the difficulty which will almost certainly ensue if Amendments are made. Therefore, we are in a slight dilemma, partly because of the stage of the Session in which the Bill was introduced in another place, and that in its turn flows from the reason which the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, explained and there is no criticism involved in that.
There we are, my Lords. There are some loose ends, as I am aware. There may be methods of getting over the worst of them but I cannot absolutely promise or guarantee it at the moment. We have had some criticisms of a fairly fundamental nature from my noble friend Lord de Clifford and on one point from my noble friend Lord Ferrier; and the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, will have to decide what he wishes to do about those. So far as we are concerned, I repeat that our attitude is one of benevolent neutrality. We are grateful to the noble Lord for taking up the Bill in this House and to his honourable friend for piloting it through another place.
8.0 p.m.
VISCOUNT AMORY: My Lords, I was very sorry to miss the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hoy. I think it is something in which we all rejoice that in this country cruelty to animals is regarded with horror and, above all, cruelty to the dog. That is not the case in many other countries in the world, unfortunately; therefore this Bill is something which we should consider seriously. I still remember that years ago I got a tremendous "rocket" from the then Prime Minister, Sir Winston Churchill, because on the way up from his country home he noticed a rabbit in the road suffering from myxomatosis. He stopped his car and examined the rabbit and on arrival at the House of Commons he had me "on the mat". He said, "Minister, why do you allow this distressing disease? You must stop it—action this day!" Then he went on to say that British people care about only two things and regard them with extreme disfavour. One is cruelty to animals and the other, to a lesser extent, is cruelty to children. He said, "If you go with them on those two things you can do almost anything you like with them in other ways."
I think this is a Bill which should receive a Second Reading. I think the cogent points which were raised by my noble friends Lord de Clifford and Lord Ferrier are matters which can be dealt with in Committee. I hope there will be a Committee stage. One point is very obvious: in every case in a matter like this, where the officials from local government cannot possibly have the depth of technical knowledge required, control and inspection must be carried out with a great sense of proportion and not be made over-fussy. Only real complaints should be dealt with. It seems to me, as was said by my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross, that the presence of two hitches seems to set rather too small a scale. I hope that there will not be technical difficulties in the way of considering points of this sort at Committee stage. I feel there is a case for a Second Reading of this Bill.
8.3 p.m.
LORD HOY: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords who have spoken. The last part of Lord Amory's speech was not necessary. He was not present when I spoke, but I made clear that once they

115
are registered, the premises of a breeder are open to inspection by an official of the council or by a veterinary surgeon or a practitioner acting on behalf of the council. There could not be a wider definition of people who could undertake this work and it will not be the councillors themselves. I hope that that will give an assurance about what will be done by the Bill in that respect. The noble Viscount knows as well as I do that I used to get considerable abuse from honourable Members opposite me in another place when dealing with agricultural matters and when we had to make provision for inspection. Always we had to meet the argument about an intrusion on civil liberties. But we all know that unless we provide these powers the thing will not operate.
I thought that the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, made a mixed speech. He was making the case for the Bill while trying to argue against it. He spoke about commercial breeding. We referred to more than two bitches on the premises and not just to two. That lets out the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, who has only one of each kind. There must be more than two before the provisions of the Bill have an effect. That gives the definition for which the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, was looking. He spoke about the number of cases to which the provisions of the Bill would apply and said that there had been considerable research by some newspaper or organisation which proved that the provisions of the Bill would apply to only about 1,156 cases.
LORD DE CLIFFORD: My Lords, it was during the Committee stage in another place and the R.S.P.C.A. gave those figures.
LORD HOY: My Lords, even though there were only 1,150 cases that would be a good reason for having the Bill. We all admit that there is cruelty. The noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, used language which was much stronger than I had used. He spoke about breeders who bred disgracefully and unreasonably, and so on. I did not go to that length, but I am willing to accept his definition and say that if there are such breeders the case for legislation has been made out. I agree that there are people in the dog world who breed in order to improve a
116
breed. That has gone on for many years. But such people would not keep their dogs in bad conditions. If you want to improve a breed of dog, or any other animal for that matter, the first thing you must do is provide the best conditions. If you do not, all your efforts will be in vain. There is no fear of these people being interfered with.
The noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, complained that the Bill did not deal with certain other abuses and mentioned the question of kennels where dogs were hired. He said that that was an absolutely disgraceful practice. That may well be so, but the fact that we have not widened the provisions of the Bill to include that type of disgraceful practice ought not to be made a case for appealing against the ones for which we have provided. If the noble Lord feels so strongly on these matters I will make him an offer. I do not know what the Government will be doing in the next Session of Parliament, but if the noble Lord likes to promote a Private Member's Bill which would follow on this one and deal with the practices of which he knows, I will add my name to it and between us we may be able to do something to improve the lot of those dogs which he mentioned.
The noble Lord spoke about the expense of people who take dogs to shows. That has nothing to do with this Bill. He quoted the case of a man who spent about £750 in taking his dogs to shows and got only £43 in prize money. The man must have been reasonably well off. But if one spent that amount of money, and could prove it, on showing one's dogs at dog shows, I think, although I am not a lawyer, that had it been me I would have had a good try to offset the amount against my income tax, and I think I should have been successful. So the noble Lord must not expect me to weep tears of pity for that man. Nor can I accept the noble Lord's argument. Some of the things which he said one must accept. One does not want to interfere with the rights of private citizens in attempting to deal with someone who misbehaves, but I think that the noble Lord was "straining at the lease", if I may put it that way, when he spoke of someone with a mortgaged house where there were five bitches all running about with litters of puppies. I should have

117
thought that that was a matter for the public health department and not something to be dealt with by the provisions in this Bill. I cannot think of anybody who would have five bitches with litters running about a house. I should have thought that most unhealthy, but not a very good argument for opposing this Bill.
My Lords, I am grateful for what was said by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross. Parliamentary time is getting very short. On this point I ought to say that if the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, had been present he would have said a word in support of the Bill. Obviously he wanted to strengthen the Bill, but I had to write to him to say that while I should have been grateful to accept Amendments we had got to such a stage in respect of Parliamentary time that any Amendments which were put down would have to be taken to another place and there would be a strong possibility of losing the Bill altogether. I am certain that no noble Lord would want that to happen. We have to make the best of the Bill we have, whatever its deficiencies. Let us agree that it deals with a problem, although it may not provide the complete answer.
It tackles the problem and I hope that the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, will find an answer to that problem. After all, there is some responsibility on the Government. The Bill had its Committee stage and Third Reading in the other place as far back as July of this year. I should have thought that long before to-day the Government would have known of any difficulties which may ensue. I have some knowledge of what is happening, and I should have thought that those were difficulties which should have been put forward. I would say to the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, that there was a Committee stage in the other place, and it went so quickly that they hardly had time to know that they were in the Committee Room, but the Committee was available for anybody who, like him, thought that the Bill had deficiencies. So the Bill has gone through in record time. We are grateful to the Home Office and to the noble Viscount for the assistance which they have rendered. I hope your Lordships will understand the impossible position in regard to time and will not do anything in the way of proposing further Amendments which will
118
make it impossible for the Bill to get through.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, can he assure the House that the Bill has the blessing of the R.S.P.C.A?
LORD HOY: Yes, my Lords. There is no doubt about that. The R.S.P.C.A. would be grateful to get this Bill, and I think they have made that view public.
On Question, Bill read a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
[The Sitting was suspended at twelve minutes past eight o'clock and resumed at half-past eight.]

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL
Further considered on Report.
Clause 47 [Allowances for attending conferences and meetings]:
LORD POLWARTH LORD POLWARTH moved Amendment No. 47:
Page 24, leave out lines 27 and 28.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment covers the same subject as Amendments Nos. 48 and 49. They are of a fairly technical nature and ensure that Clause 47, which concerns allowances to members for attending conferences and meetings, will apply to the Central Scotland Water Development Board in the same way as they apply to the local authority. I should point out that although these Amendments apply to any water development board, there is at present only one—the Central Scotland Water Development Board—and we do not contemplate another at present. The purpose is merely to ensure that members of this body are eligible to receive the same allowances for attending conferences and meetings as members of local government bodies. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 48.
Amendment moved—
Page 25, line 6, at end insert ("other than a water development board within the meaning of the Water (Scotland) Act 1967").—(Lord Polwarth.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 49.
Amendment moved—
Page 25, line 8, at end insert—
("(5) In relation to any water development board as aforesaid, this section applies to a conference or meeting held inside or outside the United Kingdom and convened by any other person or body (other than a person or body convening it in the course of a trade or business or a body the objects of which are wholly or partly political) for the purpose of discussing matters which in the opinion of the board relate to their functions.")—(Lord Polwarth.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 53 [Amendment of schemes]:
8.35 p.m.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD moved Amendment No. 50:
Page 27, line 42, at end insert—
("(d) provisions concerning the procedures to be adopted by the Community Councils on the one hand and the local and statutory authorities with responsibilities in the areas of the Community Councils on the other whereby the Community Councils may obtain regular and sufficient information about the activities and proposals of the local and statutory authorities to enable them to carry out their functions described in section 51(2).')
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is a new subject, that of the community councils. The community councils which are referred to in Part IV, at page 27 of the Bill, are of great importance. I have read very carefully what took place at Committee stage in another place on April 10. A considerable debate was initiated and this particular Amendment which I have put down, though not exactly the same, is rather similar to that put down in another place. I put it down because with reorganisation of local government we shall have a fairly large gap, if I might put it like that, between the ordinary citizen living in a village, a rural community or a city, and the people who are governing. The regional government will be a very long way away from ordinary people living in rural or small urban communities. Perhaps they will not be so far away in the big cities, but after all Scotland has very large areas of rural communities, and it is those with which I am particularly concerned.
Obviously, the Government have to ensure that the community council shall
120
be in close touch with the local community, whether it is district or regional, but there does not seem to me a close enough liaison between them and the community councils, which in a sense are going to be rather unofficial. I know that is the view of the Government: they do not want to make the community councils too stereotyped. On the other hand, we could have councils which are so un-stereotyped and so little a part of the local authority overall picture that they would really be of no use at ail. I think it is most important that the councils should be able to represent to the local authorities, whether they be district or regional, the views of the man in the street, the man in the field and the person in the community. Their views should be made known to those who need to take note of the overall picture and to know what is going on.
I think in fact there should be a two-way traffic of both ideas and means. I believe that the community councils ought to be recognised as bodies to be consulted when local needs are really involved. It will be very easy for districts or regions to say, We know all we want to know"; but often they do not. It would also be easy for them to do things without consulting the people who are most affected. For instance, if one of the nationalised industries—I am thinking particularly of the railways or electricity suppliers—wants either to close part of a railway or to alter electricity supplies or make some major alteration, they may well discuss this with regional representatives or even with the district council; but are they going to ask the local people for their views on matters concerning, for instance, the changing of a railway route or the moving of telephone kiosks and things of that sort? Are they really going to consult them or not? There will be many such instances, I believe—and I speak with some experience because I have been chairman of a district council, which is the nearest approach to what the community councils are going to be. I have also been chairman of a local advisory committee to the district council, which is even nearer, and I know that if you can get into really close touch with people you very often get extremely important and good opinions. This is most valuable when one is planning something on a

121
large scale. So I believe it ought to be clearly laid down in the Bill that
"…the Community Councils may obtain regular and sufficient information about the activities and proposals of the local and statutory authorities to enable them to carry out their functions described in Section 51(2)."
There was a great deal of discussion during the Committee stage in another place on the subject of finance. Here perhaps I may refer your Lordships to page 29, Clause 55, where there is described how assistance to community councils may be given. In the debate at Committee stage in another place I notice that it was said that much of the money acquired by community councils would come from voluntary funds. I question how, because most of us who are raising money in local communities are raising it for local charities, or whatever it may be, by whist drives, dances, jumble sales, et cetera. Those are the normal ways in which we raise money in villages and small towns to support local activities. Those activities are not likely to be diverted to raise money for community councils. Although it is in the Bill, I confess it is not a mandatory matter and therefore it is very likely that if the regions or districts do not set up community councils, consultation with local people will be of a very desultory character, if there is any at all. So it is necessary to have a clause in the Bill which says that information from a community council should be given to the people who are the elected representatives on either district or regional government, and that the statutory bodies should make it their job to see that the individual in the village and in the local authority area should be able to express his views.
It seems from the course of debate that some people are afraid that if they set up community councils they will be a nuisance, that they will be frustrating, or that there will be groups of people who will be simply grinding their own axes. That is erroneous. I have had experience of working at the grass roots with people in a rural area and in a district, and their views are most valuable when it comes to passing legislation in the county council which affects them very closely. I hope it will be possible to introduce into the Bill a statutory function or recommendation on the lines which I have put forward, lines that were discussed and to
122
which the Ministers in another place were quite sympathetic, but which would bring about a proper link between the people in the rural areas in the small communities, even in the towns, and with those who are elected. In view of the much bigger regions that are being dealt with there will be a big gap between the voter on the ground and the person dealing with legislation. I beg to move.
LORD STRATHEDEN AND CAMPBELL: My Lords, I should like to support the noble Baroness in this Amendment. Since the earliest White Paper I have been a consistent supporter of the importance of what I described originally as the real parish pump of this legislation, the community councils. They are going to perform an important function in getting, as the noble Baroness described, to the real grass roots of the electorate and keeping them in touch with what is going on. Although it could be said that the words in paragraph (d), "such other information…" could cover anything, it needs some definite statement as to how these councils should be able to function, how they should get their information. I am sure that something on the lines of the Amendment of the noble Baroness is of considerable importance. I hope that the Government will be able to accept something on these lines.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, I should like to join my noble friend Lord Stratheden in supporting my noble friend Lady Elliot of Harwood. There is much more steam behind the project for community councils than people may yet realise. I have some close acquaintance with what goes on in the burgh of Lauder. There we have already formed a preparatory committee for getting our community council going when the time comes. There is a tremendous enthusiasm for this and people are already trying to get their teeth into the problem of the community council. But they are frustrated by the obscurity and nebulousness of the community council's functions. The community council certainly needs money, it certainly needs status, and this is the novalgic point on which my noble friend's Amendment touches. It touches the community council's rights to information. There may be a whole range of matters on which it is proper that they

123
should be entitled to information. There may be a proposition for a firm, an industry, to move from Edinburgh, or wherever, down towards the Borders. If such an industry or factory is foot loose and looking for a site it is important that community councils should be entitled to know from the district council that such a thing is, as it were, coming along.
There are changes in roads; there are road developments there are all sorts of traffic problems ranging from pedestrian crossings to diversions. There are possibilities of changes in postal districts which arouse intense heat but on which it would be proper that the community council should be entitled to be informed. There are problems about signposting roads, putting up a notice outside a town or district to give it its proper name. There are matters relating to public events of all sorts on which it is proper and prudent that the community councils should have a right to be consulted and not merely the opportunity to be consulted if the district council so thinks. My noble friend's Amendment gives the Government a chance to give a lead in this matter. By accepting this Amendment, or something like it, they will be giving the lead that is wanted. I am glad to be able to support my noble friend Lady Elliot of Harwood.
THE EARL OF CROMARTIE: My Lords, I should like to support this Amendment, too. Having a considerable knowledge of local government over a great many years, I feel that we are going to lose our old district councils there is going to be nothing between what is going to be called a new district council and the old county council. The district council will not be there, and this is especially important because at the moment nobody knows what the community councils are they are floating about and referred to as being excellent but without any particular status or finance. It is important that there is something to take the place of the old district council. We are going to get so muddled with the words "counties" and "districts". I am trying to make it as clear as possible. The new district will be the county, in nine cases out of ten. It is vitally important that the community council should be given a definite place
124
by the Government and recognised as being a body which is there to look after its district.
LORD BALERNO: My Lords, I, too, wish to support the Amendment proposed by my noble friend Lady Elliot of Harwood. If I remember aright, the conception of community councils crept into the original cogitations of what has become this Bill rather as an afterthought, rather as a realisation that there was a gap between the new district councils and the electors. The community councils (a vaguish term) were going to fill that gap and act as lubrication. That is why we get in Clause 51(2) the object of the community council expressed in this way:
"…the general purpose of a community council shall be to ascertain, co-ordinate and express to the local authorities for its area, and to public authorities, the views of the community which it represents."
That I consider to be just a little bit of waffle, rather a pious hope, the kind of statement one gets in these things—"flannel", if you like. I think that by her Amendment my noble friend is making things more precise and putting an onus on the district council. In other words, it is not to be a one-way traffic of the community council defending the powers-that-be above, but for the powers-that-be above to communicate to the community council the things which they want communicated. My noble friend Lord Lauderdale has given so many excellent illustrations.
I should like Lady Elliot to go one step further. In Clause 55, on page 29, it is said:
"Regional, islands and district councils may make such contributions as they think fit towards the expenses of community councils…"
I should like to see that made mandatory and for it to be said:
"Regional, islands and district councils will make such contributions as they think fit towards the expenses of community councils…"
That puts more teeth into the existence of the community council. I am afraid it is rather late to think about moving that now and having a further Amendment tabled, but that is my very strong feeling which follows on the conclusion of the Amendment proposed by my noble friend Lady Elliot.
Lord INGLEWOOD: My Lords, one of the most important features about the establishment of the community councils I have not yet heard mentioned; that is, that they should have liaison with other community councils in the neighbouring areas. Otherwise, they are always at risk of being defeated one at a time by the officials, who in general do not like this kind of organisation because it causes them extra trouble and extra work. While we do not want them to exaggerate and hunt particular hares over and over again, or to waste a great deal of time, the fact remains that they must be given the opportunity to do their job properly, and that means they should have contact with the community councils of neighbouring authorities, and also have sufficient finance.
When it comes to the question of neighbouring authorities, the most important of all are those along the Border who should have liaison with similar organisations in England, because in the field of local government the position can be absurd. I do not know how often England is mentioned in this Bill, but those who draft Scottish Bills and those who draft similar English Bills always assume that there is a vast ocean between the two countries, instead of a simple land frontier. They seem to follow as a cardinal principle having organisations on both sides of the Border which, if possible, are different from one another so that liaison is difficult. This House surely ought to insist that these differences, without in fact detracting in any important principle, are reduced so that organisations, official and unofficial, on both sides of the Border work in the greatest harmony to the benefit of the people whom they are elected to serve.
LORD BURTON: My Lords, when the Minister replies, I wonder whether he could tell us whether the councils for social service will be abolished and replaced by these local community councils. Otherwise there will be duplication. The councils for social service already seem to be superfluous in many respects and I hope that the community councils will replace them.
8.55 p.m.
LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, I am glad of what appears to be the warm
126
welcome accorded from all quarters of the House to the proposition for community councils put forward. This is encouraging. I would agree entirely with the objectives which all speakers have put forward, which we should like to see. May I assure my noble friend Lord Inglewood that there is nothing whatever in the Bill to prevent the closest possible degree of liaison between community councils and their neighbours. I had nice visions of the noble Lord and the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot, embracing somewhere warmly on the borderline—I am not sure exactly where. But I can see no reason why there should not be the closest possible liaison between them. This is why we are deliberately not writing a great many details into the provisions about these councils. We want them to have the greatest possible liberty.
I would however suggest that there are dangers in trying to write into a Statute words of this kind regarding the provision of information to these bodies to enable them to do their duty. We take their role extremely seriously and believe they must have a proper supply of information from the local authorities about what they are thinking of doing. But to give a community council a prescriptive right to this kind of information is not the right way to set about it. For a start, I think it is quite impossible to draft a requirement in such a way as to make it really bite. The noble Baroness's Amendment refers to "regular and sufficient information about the activities" of the public authorities. Who is going to judge what is "regular" and what is "sufficient" and indeed what is covered by "activities"? We should be chary of writing into Statutes provisions which are incapable—and some are incapable —of accurate interpretation. I do not think it is part of Statute law to introduce vague requirements that cannot in fact be enforced.
More than that, I do not think that what the noble Baroness would want would be merely details of the formal decisions of district or other councils. What are much more important are details of what they are thinking about before they have reached their decisions. I believe an Amendment in another place went so far as to include the words "at

127
the formative stage". Again, to introduce a statutory requirement about giving information of thinking at the formative stage could mean authorities having to divulge to community councils plans which, for genuine reasons, ought to remain confidential at that stage, and once divulged to a community council there could be no assurance of further confidentiality. I ask the noble Baroness to think very seriously whether writing words into the Bill is the right way to ensure what she is seeking and what I think all of us want—certainly we on the Government side want it.
We feel that this question of information must be a matter more of good will than of legal prescription. As I think I said in another context earlier this afternoon when the question of requirement about consultation was raised, I do not believe that vague attempts to enforce consultation or good neighbourly behaviour by Statute have ever proved very effective; they have rather tended to be the opposite. If one includes requirements of this kind, it tends to put the authority on their mettle as to just how much they need divulge in accordance with the Statute. That surely is not what we want. What we want is something informal and forthcoming, and that is much more likely to be achieved without a statutory requirement. There may well be, I understand, perhaps in the formative stages, misunderstandings and frustrations between the statutory authorities and community councils. I would hope they would be the minimum possible, but the important thing is to get these bodies established to see a build up of good will between them and the local authorities. I believe that can be based only on mutual confidence, and not on legislation. Let us keep away from legislative requirements.
One noble Lord who spoke thought the Government should give a lead in this matter. I entirely agree, but suggest that the right course is not to write words into the Bill, but, as there will undoubtedly be circulars and other information going round to those concerned with the formation of these councils, to give a lead through these channels. With those suggestions, I earnestly hope that the noble Baroness will not feel inclined to press this Amendment.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I am not one who believes profoundly in the community councils, but I think that in certain isolated areas they are really of extreme importance. I have in mind in particular, the upper ward of Lanarkshire where certain isolated communities would not normally be in communication. There they look a lot to community councils and therefore I think they are important. The noble Lord has pinned his faith on good will. What happens when there is no good will? What authority have the community councils to do anything if there is no good will? Good will may exist on both sides, or on one side and not on the other. Has not the noble Lord some kind of suggestion that the community council is entitled to certain information? Information in regard to trunk roads is an obvious example, and there may be all sorts of other things. As this clause stands, there is no authority for any kind of information at all.
This Amendment may not be perfect; it is somewhat vague and it does not commit one to very much. But surely the community councils ought to be entitled to something. I should be happy if modified words were perhaps used, but I think that the community councils ought to be able to say, "We must be informed of those things that are important". Can the noble Lord look at this point again, to see whether words could be put in which would give a little standing to the community council? Even if these words are not perfect, surely something could be put in. Otherwise, it seems to me that we shall leave ourselves wide open to gossip. One will go into the local pub and say, "What have you heard?" The answer will be, "Oh, I have heard that the Lanarkshire district are going to do this", and there will be no reason to contradict it. Surely the information might just as well be properly circulated, instead of one's being dependent on circulars from time to time.
LORD BALERNO: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, may I ask whether he would agree to substitute for the word "regular" in the Amendment the words "timeous" or "timely"?
LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, the noble Earl, with his great skill in advocacy, is trying to lead me into saying that I will look to see whether

129
another form of words can be found. All I can say at this stage of the Bill is that if he, with all his legal skill and qualifications, can produce a form of words that is satisfactory and will mean something, and will not be vague and uncertain, then I shall be happy to ask my right honourable friend to consider it.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: My Lords, I am disappointed in the reply given by the noble Lord, because that is exactly what was said in the House of Commons. The Government said they would consider it, they thought it was important, but everything should be quite unofficial. Those of us who have been working on these jobs all our lives know that vagueness is an excuse for doing nothing. One really has to have something definite to go on. I think the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, and the other noble Lords who supported me, are perfectly right. We are anxious to support the Government, but they are anxious to do as little as possible and to make it as ineffective as possible.
I will not press this Amendment to a Division to-night, because the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, has said that lie will consider it if we will reconsider it. I will certainly consult my noble friend Lord Selkirk about it, but I really think that this is a very weak point taken by the Government, because the Amendment has been discussed. The same things were said by Mr. Younger and other Ministers, and they all said, "Yes, of course, we want everything in the garden to be lovely", but they are not prepared to do anything to make it lovely. I hope that at the Third Reading, if we can put down any variation which will make the Amendment more acceptable, we shall do so. Otherwise, the success of these community councils will be considerably jeopardised by the fact that the Scottish Office is so vague as to what they really want when they speak of "good will". It is when there is no good will that one wants to be able to make people cooperate. We will consult about this point and, if we think fit, we will put down another Amendment for the next stage of the Bill and, if necessary, press it to a Division. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.6 p.m.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I have spoken to this Amendment and to the following Amendment. It is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 32, line 5, at end insert—
("(11) In accordance with such directions as the Secretary of State may give, the regional councils of Greater Glasgow, Lanarkshire, Argyll and Clyde and Ayrshire and Arran, shall combine or have joint consultations in regard to the discharge of any of their functions.")—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 52.
Amendment moved—
Page 32, leave out lines 6 to 23.—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BURTON: My Lords, I beg to move manuscript Amendment No. 52A, and I must first apologise for the fact that it is a manuscript Amendment. In fact, I posted it at the main Post Office in Edinburgh before half-past nine on Saturday and I really thought the Post Office would have delivered it before two o'clock to-day in your Lordships' House.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, would the noble Lord read the Amendment, because I am afraid there are no copies of it.
LORD BURTON: My Lords, this Amendment is to Clause 56. It reads:
"(16) The business of any local authority or committee or sub-committee thereof shall be conducted in English."
THE EARL OF BALFOUR: My Lords, I thought my noble friend was moving Amendment No. 42A.
LORD BURTON: My Lords, I am in fact moving Amendment No. 52A, the manuscript Amendment. The position is that a district council has already decided to conduct its business in Gaelic, and has thus disenfranchised some of the councillors. Only yesterday I saw in the Press that one of the new Welsh Councils has had to appoint an interpreter. This appears to be an unnecessary expense to put on the shoulders of the ratepayers, when it is quite simple for the business to be conducted in English. To suggest

131
that some of the business should be conducted in this House in Gaelic would be contrary to Standing Orders. Therefore I do not see why it should not be contrary to orders in district and local authority councils. Therefore I suggest that these words be written into the Bill, and I move accordingly.
LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, having had about one minute's notice of this Amendment for causes outwith my control I am in some difficulty; nevertheless I think the noble Lord who moved the Amendment is perhaps being unduly concerned about the possibilities. Surely this is a matter we should leave to the common sense of the authorities concerned. I do not think we should put a prohibition on the use of another language. It is at their discretion. If there are problems, let us face them in due course. I personally do not see any objection that a subcommittee of a Gaelic-speaking local authority should decide for their convenience to discuss their affairs in Gaelic. I do not think it would matter terribly. This is something we should rot lay down but should leave to the common sense of the new authorities.
LORD KILMANY: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, I have had only one minute to consider this question, but I do not think it should be ignored. It seems to me intolerable that a perfectly good English-speaking Scotsman who does not happen to have the Gaelic, and who wants to attend a council to which he has been elected, should be at risk of finding himself on a sub-committee to whose deliberations, because he has not got the Gaelic, he is unable to make a proper contribution, and be unable to represent the views of those who have sent him to the council. Therefore, I support my noble friend and express with all deference great disappointment that the Minister does not take that point of view.
THE EARL OF BALFOUR: My Lords, is this not something that could be written into the standing orders of the local authority concerned, that their business shall be conducted in English, or Gaelic, or Welsh? If it is in their standing orders, which I feel they are perfectly at liberty to make themselves, I would think that the right place for it to go would be
132
into their own by-laws and not necessarily as part of our legislation issued from Westminster.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, if the Minister is reluctant to see this going into the Bill, I can see that point of view. Is it the sort of thing on which the Scottish Office would be prepared to issue administrative guidance to local authorities particularly in those areas where there might be both English and Gaelic speakers, to make certain that the proceedings are at least recorded in a language understood by all members of the council and not just by some? From this I think it would follow, if there happened to be on the district council, or perhaps an Islands council, someone who spoke only Gaelic, that for his benefit the proceedings could be recorded in Gaelic as well as in English so that he could understand what was going on. This could be done administratively in a way to suit the convenience of local authorities without anything being in the Bill at all. But the noble Lord obviously is on to a proper point; no one should be in the position of going to meetings of a sub-committee consisting entirely of Gaelic-speaking members and then getting the minutes in a language he does not understand. He might just as well stay at home.
LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, for his suggestion. This is the right way to tackle the problem rather than writing it into a Statute which will only create feeling and irritation in some quarters. I will certainly look at what we should do here by means of a Circular or otherwise. I am sure, together with standing orders, that this is the right way of dealing with the matter.
LORD BURTON: My Lords, with that assurance from the Minister I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.13 p.m.
LORD POLWARTH LORD POLWARTH moved Amendment No. 53:
Page 35, line 43, at end insert—
("(b) section 6(3) of the Representation of the People Act 1949 (registration officers);")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the object of this Amendment is to remove any possible cause for doubt. Under the

133
Representation of the People Act, 1949, there is a requirement for the appointment of an officer known as the registration officer. We have in the Bill reduced to the minimum possible the requirements with regard to designated officers of local authorities. It has come to our notice that in so doing we might have made it impossible for an officer to be designated officially as the electoral registration officer. The object of this Amendment is to make sure that it should be possible so to designate a person. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 91 [Social, cultural and recreational activities]:
9.15 p.m.
LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved Amendment No. 54:
Page 48, line 32, leave out subsection (6).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is the subsection which prohibits the granting of a licence for the sale of excisable liquor in premises provided by a local authority under Clause 91; that is, premises for social, cultural and recreational activities. When this matter was discussed in another place, the Government were not totally unsympathetic to the idea that changing attitudes over the years have perhaps made it less necessary to stop local authorities from having licensed premises of their own, but as a Committee had been appointed to look into the licensing laws of Scotland at that particular time, the Government thought it would be unwise to do anything of that kind before the Clayson Committee had reported. I understand that in the Report of the Clayson Committee, which has now been made available, they recommend in paragraph 100 that this restriction on premises of local authorities can properly be done away with. One of the things which emerged in the discussion in another place was the ridiculous situation that if you had premises belonging to the local authority and the local authority were holding activities in them they could not be licensed, but if they were let to a club for the same thing, a bowling club for instance, they could have the premises licensed.
I can understand the temptation that might face the Government for them to
134
say, "Let us wait until we hear all the views of all the people who are being consulted about the Clayson Committee's recommendations and then the Government will make up their mind on what legislation may he forthcoming". But as the experience in Scotland, in particular, is that there are more votes to be lost than gained by alterations in the licensing laws, I doubt very much whether this Government, in this Parliament or in the next Parliament, will be in any great hurry to bring forward legislation arising from the Committee's Report. I may be wrong in that, but in any event I can see no reason why in the Local Government Bill we ought not to be remedying this situation now. It has no impact at all on any other part of the licensing laws in Scotland so far as I can see. With the change in the character of the licensing courts being brought about, there is less objection than there would have been in the past to the granting of licences when the licence was granted in the magistrates' court; the argument was that the local authority was granting a licence to itself. Obviously that argument does not now have the same validity. I do not intend to take up time on this. I hope the Government, having seen paragraph 100 of Clayson, may be disposed to go a little further than they were in the Commons. If they are not, I shall be disappointed but not astonished. I beg to move.
LORD BALERNO: My Lords, may I support this Amendment. I think it is very timely one. I speak having been member of the Guest Committee on the licensing laws which was the Committee which preceded the present one which has just reported, the Clayson Committee. This matter was closely debated there, as it was felt that there was a material injustice regarding the licensing of premises owned particularly by a city council. I was also on a Parliamentary Committee dealing with private legislation where we had to enforce the principle of declining to give permission to the Corporation of Edinburgh to sell liquor on its own premises; that was on the legal principle that no person shall be a judge in his own cause. The matter was debated in the Clayson Committee, and so far as I can recollect this is more or less the answer that they have come to. I think it would be only a matter

135
of justice for the local authorities concerned to have it made clear that they can now for these purposes permit the drinking of alcoholic liquor on the premises as indicated in the Amendment.
THE EARL OF BALFOUR: My Lords, Clause 91 of the Bill has been taken pretty closely from Section 132 of the Local Government Act 1948. Almost all the provisions that are really required are already in this clause, and to restrict a local authority to the extent that exists in subsection (6) seems to me to be quite unnecessary. Every security is covered in the rest of this clause. Therefore I should also like to support the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, in saying that this subsection (6) is no longer required.
LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, has tempted me greatly. We have had a lot of talk about temptation. Of course we are not opposed in any way to the purpose behind this Amendment. I should like to make two points. First of all, it is not the purpose of this Bill to review the functions of local authorities in general. This is a Bill to reform local authorities and how local authority functions are carried out, and to ensure that their predecessors' powers are suitably passed and rearranged to fit into the new framework of local government. It is not the purpose of the Bill to make radical changes in any of those powers, any more than it is the purpose of a subsequent clause of the Bill to change the nature of local authority powers; for instance, to license cinemas. If we had done that, the scope of the Bill would have been limitless.
The second reason is a compelling one. The noble Lord said that it would be a temptation to us to say that we must consult everybody on the recommendations of the Clayson Report which, as he so rightly said, recommended that this restriction on local authorities in the sale of liquor should be removed. I do not think it is quite as simple as that. The Clayson Report was very recently published, and we gave an undertaking that any interested parties might make representations regarding the recommendations in the Clayson Report. As we have all agreed, the question of liquor is a delicate one in Scotland and one
136
on which widely differing views are held. I think it is right that we should give time for representations on the Clayson recommendations. We have widely circulated the Report and we have asked all those concerned, and the general public, to send any views they may have to the Secretary of State by November 30. In those circumstances, I think that we have a moral obligation to leave the situation open at least until that closing date, because we have said that we will receive views on the recommendations. However tempting it might be to say, "This is an obvious one; let us slip it into this Bill", I think that we should be wrong to do it now. The right time is when we look at the Clayson recommendations in the light of the representations that are put forward on it. I would therefore earnestly hope that this Amendment is not pressed.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I said that I should not be astonished if the noble Lord said something like that. It would have been untrue had I said otherwise, because it is exactly the same as he said to me this morning. I do not think that that is necessarily a good reason for it, but there is a certain validity in the point that this would in fact be altering the functions of local authorities, and that is not the prime purpose, or even a major purpose, of the Bill. I must say that I am disappointed, but I am content to let the matter rest, having aired it. However, I hope that one of the consequences of what the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, has said about hearing the views of the local authority before November 30 will be that I shall be proved wrong and that the Government will attach some urgency to legislation on this point. But if, having got the views of the local authority on these matters, they then put the matter on the shelf and three or four years from now we are still waiting for legislation, I shall be entitled to feel that we have departed from the subject. We have been talking about temptation. I was tempted to divide, because of the way this Amendment was received, and I might have carried it. The real temptation is in the fact that if the Government lose enough Amendments on this Bill we might encourage another place into thinking that

137
the time is ripe for a reform of the House of Lords, which many of us want, anyway. However, with these remarks I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.27 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 55:
Page 50, line 24, leave out from first ("or") to second ("are") and insert ("which, being of a capital nature,")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, subsection (2) of Clause 94 defines "capital expenses" for the purposes of subsection (1). In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, moved to leave out the words which this Amendment would leave out, because the words,
"any expenses which are to be…met from a reserve fund"
would involve all expenditure out of a reserve fund being treated as capital expenses requiring the Secretary of State's consent, even though some of this expenditure was not of a capital nature. We have considered this matter further and we accept that his point is a valid one. The Amendment deletes the reference to reserve funds and provides that, apart from expenses charged to capital or borrowing accounts,
"'capital expenses' means any expenses which, being of a capital nature, are to be met otherwise than out of current revenue."
My Lords, I hope that this meets his wishes, while at the same time ensuring that reserve funds are not amassed unnecessarily.
LORD HUGHES: I am grateful to the Minister for this Amendment. He will recollect that at the last stage I had Amendments to this clause and also to Clause 108. I am sorry that during the latter part of his remarks one of my colleagues spoke to me and I did not gather all that he said, so, if I am asking a question the answer to which he has already made apparent, he will forgive me for not paying as much attention to him as I ought to have done. Clause 94, with this Amendment, is now perfectly satisfactory, but noble Lords will recollect that in Committee stage I said that I wished to come back to this point after consulting with local authorities and with the chamberlains in the cities. I spoke, first of all, as it was easiest, with the City Chamberlain in Dundee and he arranged
138
to consult his colleagues, and they assured me they had never believed, they had never been informed, that there was any intention to restrict reserves to purposes of a capital nature, and that they did not believe that what was stated in Clause I08—that they would be prevented from carrying to reserve balances at the end of a financial year—was the position which the Government had been seeking to maintain.
As I understand it, while the noble Lord finished by saying that it would not be desirable for local authorities to amass enormous sums in reserve, I think in these days there is very little chance of that taking place. But am I right in assuming that it is quite clear that if a local authority finishes its year with a surplus on rating account it will be permissible for it, as some of them have done regularly in the past, to carry it to a reserve fund, and then, in framing their estimates for the ensuing year, to decide whether or not they wish to use any of the reserve fund in order to keep the rate down? I believe that within the Scottish Office that is what the position is intended to be, and that there is nothing in the Bill which changes the practice in relation to rate equalisation reserves. If that is the case, then I am content that the points which I raised in the last stage of the Bill have been fully met. May I have that assurance?
LORD DRUMALBYN: Yes, my Lords, I can give that assurance. If expenditure is to be covered one has to err on the side of a little over-estimating rather than under-estimating of expenditure. That means that you will probably have something in hand at the end of the year. Obviously, you can either carry that forward as a balance on the rating account itself, or it can be transferred to a separate account such as an equalisation fund, or whatever. But, as I said, all that we are concerned with here is not that the present practice should be changed, but that there should not be a habit of building up a non-statutory reserve fund to undue proportions.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, if that could be interpreted as the noble Lord having interrupted me to enable my question to be answered, I will now finish

139
my speech by saying that I am very satisfied with the whole matter and support the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 96 [Accounts and audit]:
9.31 p.m.
LORD STRATHCLYDE LORD STRATHCLYDE moved Amendment No. 56:
Page 51, line 5, after ("audited") insert ("by a Professional Accountant, who is either an Officer of the Commission for Local Authority Accounts or is an approved Auditor appointed by the Commission")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it may well be that it will be for the convenience of the House and of my noble friend the Minister if, with this Amendment, I were to take the two following Amendments and were to speak to them all together. Apart from the heading, "Accounts and audit", it is in line 5 on page 51 that the word "audit" is first mentioned. That is in subsection (4), which reads as follows:
"The accounts of every local authority in respect of any financial year shall be audited…"
It seems to me that at that point it would be reasonable and logical, and also helpful, if the Bill stated the types and the qualifications of the persons who were to conduct these audits. Accordingly, my Amendment starts by stating that the first essential is that the audit should be conducted by a professional accountant; that is, a man fully qualified in accountancy. Then, to keep in line as much as possible with the Bill, my Amendment continues,
…who is either an Officer of the Commission …or is an approved Auditor",
both of them being appointed by the Commission. That, my Lords, is my first Amendment.
Let me now move on to my second Amendment, which is to Clause 97, page 52, line 19. It is to delete the words "any other person" and to insert in their place,
"Officers of the Commission, being Professional Accountants, and approved Audi tors"—
and then the words which follow are already in the Bill—
"appointed by the Commission for conducting audits or, as the case may be, a particular audit under this Part of the Act".
To that, my Amendment adds the words:
"Approved Auditor means an Auditor who is qualified under new subsection (7) below".
My Lords, it is surely quite unacceptable to set forth in an Act of Parliament that "'auditor' includes…any other person…" Left like that, it would empower the Commission to appoint anyone at all to audit the accounts of a local authority. I have no doubt that my noble friend will say that the Commission would never do anything so ridiculous. That may be the reasonable expectation, but it is certainly not a certainty; and in relation to the serious and important duties of an auditor, the qualifications of the persons to carry out these duties should be strictly defined. These qualifications are set out in my next Amendment; that is, after subsection (6) to insert subsection (7), which is as follows:
"A person is qualified under subsection (6) above if, and only if, he is a member of a firm, all the persons wherein are members of one or more of the following bodies—that is to say:
The Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland.
The Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales.
The Association of Certified Accountants. The Institute of Municipal Treasurers and Accountants.
The Institute of Chartered Accountants in Ireland.
Any other body of Accountants established in the United Kingdom for the time being approved by the Secretary of State."
I think that gives plenty of scope from which to find an approved auditor.
I sent to the Secretary of State on October 2 a letter to which I attached a copy of the Amendments I proposed to put down on Report stage and I asked that a copy of that letter be sent to the Minister of State which went on the same day. With his usual courtesy, my noble friend sent me a detailed reply a copy of which reached me on the following day; that was last Saturday. The original letter is still seemingly in the post. It may be that when my noble friend comes to reply he will mention some of the points he makes in that letter, and perhaps if I deal with them now it would save the time of the House later on.
While, the consultations between the Scottish Office and the representative of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland, and the Local Government

141
Auditors (Scotland) Association were conducted throughout in the most friendly and agreeable manner, the accountants made it abundantly clear from the very start that they did not consider that adequate reasons had been put forward to justify the setting up a new whole-time audit department. They stated that they had never heard of an auditor's certificate being thrown back by the Department or of any complaint of lack of knowledge on the part of local government auditors. Later, however, following our discussions, assurances having been given on various matters and further consideration, representatives of the accountants agreed that the proposal to establish a Commission with the responsibility for the supervising of audits in Scotland of local authorities was acceptable to them.
The one outstanding matter remaining was the auditing of local authority accounts by a member of the commission staff. The representatives of the accountants held from the start that this is highly controversial, that it is not necessary nor, indeed, that it is right in principle. These opinions they still adhere to. It is to help towards clarifying this situation that my Amendments are directed.
On Second Reading I asked why the Bill should be so coy about the qualifications of persons to be approved by the Commission for the purpose of conducting audits. I said that in consequence there was a submission that this exercise; that is, the setting up of the Commission and the appointments by it of auditors, was for the purpose of introducing district auditing into Scotland— matter which in England caused much ill-feeling between the accounting profession, district auditors and the Government Department concerned; a situation which has been relieved by the greater scope given to the accounting profession in England by the new English Local Government Act 1972. My noble friend the Minister, in replying to the debate, assured me that this was not a subtle plot: but I must say that as matters have developed I find those matters which the English accountants most disliked are becoming evident in this Bill. I have, for instance, received letters commenting on the strangeness of the Scottish accountancy profession being
142
shackled in a manner from which the English profession has after many years succeded in freeing itself—at least to a considerable degree.
In his letter my noble friend said that we ought to be able to trust the Commission to be exacting about the qualifications and experience when making appointments, whether as full-time employers or agents. In that connection the use of the word "agents" has never been explained. Perhaps the Minister will be so kind as to explain when he replies who are these agents, what they do, what are their qualifications and how they are selected.
My noble friend again in his letter said that specifying membership of the professional institutions would be undesirable by implying that nothing else matters. When one is considering applications for important appointments, surely one does not merely take account of the initials following the name of the applicant but also of his personal qualities. That apart, membership of the institutions I have mentioned is proof that the applicant has gone through one of the most rigorous courses of training over a period of some six or seven years. Apart possibly from that of medicine it is the most rigorous of all qualifications for entry into any profession. Let me add that the Scottish chartered accountant is recognised throughout the world, and particularly in Canada and the United States of America, as being highly trained, hard-working and of the highest possible integrity.
My Lords, I get the feeling that these qualities are being undermined in this Bill. I personally feel that these matters concerned with auditing in a way cast a reflection on the profession, that great profession, particularly the Scottish profession. I hope, however, that the Amendments to which I have spoken may be found to be helpful and necessary to obtaining higher standards of audit.
THE EARL OF BALFOUR: My Lords, I certainly took this matter up by letter when it was going through the Committee stage of another place. It is an interesting point and one which I think possibly I should very briefly explain. The information that we had at the time was that Her Majesty's Government did not feel that accounting qualifications

143
should necessarily be specified for local authority officials and that it was their intention that they should not interfere in this way and it was something they did not want to introduce. This Bill removes a number of requirements that local authority officers should have particular qualifications. It seems invidious to legislate that the auditors, be they local authority or Commission auditors, should have certain defined qualifications. Under Section 197 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1947 appointed auditors have not been required to show particular qualifications but are to be "fit persons"— requirement which has in practice been interpreted as meaning that they should be qualified accountants. This is an effective continuation of the current practice and the Government considered it unnecessary to introduce new statutory requirements. I felt that this was a satisfactory answer. I do not think that we need to lay this down in legislation.
LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, nobody would agree with the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, more readily than I in what he said regarding the accountancy profession. It would indeed be surprising if I did not as I am a member of it myself and a member of the same Institute as the noble Lord. By saying that, I consider that I have declared my interest. I feel that despite the concern expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, about the new provisions for audit, he has no grounds for fear. There has been much discussion on this matter with the professional bodies. I agree that they have expressed reservations about audit work being carried out by the staff of the proposed new Commission. Certainly in recent months we have had no approaches whatever and we understand that, with the reservation expressed but not persisted in, the proposals have the acceptance of the professional bodies and of the Local Government Auditors' Association.
May I explain the purpose of this Commission, as I think that this is part of the difficulty? The present arrangements for local government audit in Scotland involve the appointment of auditors by the Secretary of State. I will not go so far as to say that my right honourable friend is the least suitable person to undertake such a selection. But I am
144
sure your Lordships would agree that it is not a very easy function for a Government Department or a Minister to carry out. It is an invidious task. It cannot be carried out by the local authorities. The appointment must he independent because the audit is on behalf of the ratepayers and not the local authority. This is where we feel that the Commission is an important new instrument. It will be an independent body carefully selected. The profession will be represented on it as well as local authorities and other independent persons. It seems to us best to put the choice of appointing auditors for local authorities into the hands of this new independent body which will be seen to be independent. If we do this we feel it important that members of the staff of that Commission, in order that they may know fully what they are dealing with and the problems involved, should be able to have experience of auditing local government accounts. This is why the profession is placed in the Bill. They will thereby become fitted to discharge their functions.
There is nothing sinister in the word "agent". In this context "agent" means a firm of accountants or individual accountants who are given audit appointments by the Commission. They are the people my noble friend wishes to see carrying out these orders. To specify narrowly the institutions to which the auditors should belong would, I think, be a mistake. After all, there are few other concerns I can think of from which proper persons could be found. To specify these people would be to indicate that unqualified accountants in one of these institutions would be fit and proper persons to do this work. Heaven help the local authority which had me let loose on it to audit its accounts! That is a specialised business. Comparatively few firms are anxious to undertake it, and in the past we have found that a number of firms have been involved in local authority audit who perhaps have not had the resources or skill to deal with the problems that will be involved, certainly with the new larger authorities.
Throughout this Bill we are trying to get away from restriction and to accord greater freedom. I think the right thing to do is to appoint an independent body and leave to them the discretion to

145
appoint proper people to carry out the audit whether from the profession or, on occasion, from their own staff, in order that they may understand all the intracicies of local government audit. So despite the very proper enthusiasm of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, for the honour and qualifications of the profession to which we both belong, I hope that he will not insist on his Amendment.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, could he say what is the point of the words "any other person"? He is asking me to approve this. Could he define it more closely?
LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, surely we cannot have any latitude unless we have a description of this kind. After all, there will be many people engaged on audits who are not qualified. The person in charge may be well qualified, but do not let us assume that an audit is carried out by the senior partner of the firm, or, indeed, entirely by a partner. There certainly was a stage when the Scottish banks insisted that the only person allowed to carry out their audit was the partner appointed. The result was, as I recollect, that the partner spent a great deal of time doing fiddling work which ought to have been discharged by a junior clerk. As I understand it, the object is to ensure that people under supervision may be brought in to do the work, and they do not all have to be qualified.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: My Lords, I want to make it plain, in case it is not clearly understood by all your Lordships, that hitherto no auditor of a local authority in Scotland has been other than a professional accountant and a member of one of the great institutes of which I have spoken. My point is that now
any unqualified people, as my noble friend has said, may well be—nd indeed it is intended that they should be—appointed to audit accounts. The difficulty of that, to my mind, is that they will not have a broad experience of auditing. They will be in a prescribed area. They will tend more and more to follow a routine audit. They will not have the experience which comes from years of practising auditing all kinds of commercial accounts and looking for points to discover if anything is wrong. It seems to me that this whole idea is a deterioration of the audit.
My Lords, there is another point that I would bring to your Lordships' attention; that is, that every new body that is set up tends to grow. I have seen them in the service to which I belong, in private life and in government. They have grown and grown. It seems to me that what may well happen here is that the Commission will grow, its staff will grow, and in consequence they will be more and more inclined to put their own staff on to this work of auditing, until in a few years' time there will be no professional accountants in the business. It is all very fine for the Minister to talk about trusting this and that. These things should be laid down in the Bill. That is my belief, and I should not be surprised to hear that it is the belief of my noble friend Lord Selkirk. I am not satisfied with the explanation. I think the idea is wholly wrong and misleading, and in the circumstances I propose to press my Amendment.
9.54 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 56) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 24: Not-Contents, 22.

CONTENTS

Balerno, L.

Gray, L.

Selkirk, E. [Teller.]

Burton, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Hughes, L.

Shackleton, L.

Cromartie, E.

Kilmany, L.

Shepherd, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Stonehaven, V.

Dundee, E.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Strange, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Margadale, L.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Ferrier, L.

Molson, L.

Tanlaw, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Atholl, D.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Ferrers, E.

Balfour, E.

Drumalbyn, L.

Gowrie, E.

Colville of Culross, V.

Eccles, V.

Hewlett, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Redesdale, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Pender, L.

St. Just, L.

Stratheden and Campbell, L.

Polwarth, L.

Sandford, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Sharples, B.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I feel this may be an opportune moment
148
to move that the Report stage of the Local Government (Scotland) Bill be now adjourned.
House adjourned at two minutes past ten o'clock.