Lords Sitting of 16 October 1973

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR On the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Southwark.
Earl Cawdor—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

EDINBURGH AIRPORT
LORD KILMANY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether progress on the expansion of Edinburgh Airport is up to schedule: and whether it is now possible to state target dates for completion of the principal improvements.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (Logo DRUMALBYN): My Lords, I am advised by the British Airports Authority that improvements at Edinburgh Airport are going according to plan. The contract for the new runway has been let and the runway and new terminal complex should be operational in the spring of 1976.
LORD KILMANY: My Lords, in thanking my noble friend for that reply, may I ask him whether he is aware that the Secretary of State's determination in pushing on with these improvements in spite of opposition from a noisy minority has earned him the gratitude of many people, particularly in the East of Scotland, who depend on Turnhouse Aerodrome for transport about their business occasions?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am much obliged to my noble friend.

MR. TARIQ ALI'S BRITISH PASSPORT
2.37 p.m.
LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government why Tariq Ali, a native of a foreign country and a self-confessed worker for the destruction of our system of government, was given a British passport: and what, if any Oath of Allegiance he was required to take.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS): My Lords, Mr. Tariq Ali had an absolute right to registration as a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies because he was ordinarily resident here and free of conditions on January 1, 1973, when the Immigration Act 1971 came into force, and satisfied the conditions of Section 6(1) of the British Nationality Act 1948. He was accordingly registered earlier this year. Consequently, he became eligible to hold a United Kingdom passport. Mr. Tariq Ali took the Oath of Allegiance in the form prescribed by the British Nationality Act.
LORD CLIFFORD or CHUDLEIGH: My Lords, while thanking the noble Viscount for that reply, may I ask whether he is aware that the ordinary chap in this country is mystified by the seeming attitude of successive Governments in allowing foreigners, anti-British people, to come and settle here, while our own relations from the Commonwealth, even for a visit, have to fill in a somewhat insulting form? Further, is he aware that after every series of bomb explosions we hear on the news that the police have visited the homes of I.R.A. sympathisers. Why cannot they be returned to their own Republic? Will the Government consider, therefore, introducing identity cards to help the police in tracking down tax dodgers, terrorists and illegal immigrants?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, that is a trio! In the first place, on the question of mystification I think the noble Lord must remember that at the time when Mr. Tariq Ali was

151
registered he was not a foreigner. He was a Commonwealth citizen, and Commonwealth citizens were, and still are, treated in what I hope is a fair way, whether they came from Pakistan at that time, or from Australia, or indeed, as the noble Lord knows, from Canada. The situation, of course, is that it is much less mysterious now, because the only people who are registered as of right are those in a transitional phase who have the necessary qualifications which allow them in under the 1971 Act as of right. Increasingly in future it will be a matter of discretion, and I think this will largely meet what the noble Lord has said.
The question of the I.R.A. people being returned to Ireland, and the other questions that the noble Lord asked me, are really matters that he might care to deal with specifically by putting down a Question on the Order Paper rather than dealing with them as supplementaries to this Question.
LORD KILMANY: My Lords, arising out of that reply, has my noble friend read on the front page of to-day's Scotsman a report that Tariq Ali was involved only last night in a rough-house at Edinburgh University, where he was among a crowd which broke the door of the Union and helped to smash up a meeting, and blows were struck? Is this really the kind of man we want to welcome to this country?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I am afraid I have not read the Scotsman to-day. If Mr. Tariq Ali, who is now a citizen of this country, has committed a criminal offence of any sort he, in exactly the same way as anybody else, would be liable to prosecution; as it is in Scotland, it would be by the police. The question as to whether or not he is the kind of person we like in this country is something that we can cope with now, but under the situation as it applied at that time we could not deal with it as a matter of discretion. We now have the discretion that we need.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, can the noble Viscount inform the House whether Mr. Tariq Ali also possesses a Pakistani passport, and whether he could be encouraged to make further use of it?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I do not know for what
152
purpose. He is certainly entitled to a Pakistani passport because the laws of Pakistan allow dual nationality.
BARONESS STOCKS: My Lords, can the noble Viscount tell us whether Mr. Tariq Ali is now a registered postgraduate student of any university and, if so, which?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I have looked at his nationality qualifications, but I am afraid not at his educational qualifications.
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, since the noble Viscount did not deal with the third of the trio of supplementaries put by the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, may I ask whether we can be quite sure that Her Majesty's Government are not contemplating the introduction of identity cards?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I really think that the question of identity cards is something that ought to be raised specifically as a substantive Question rather than as a supplementary on Mr. Tariq Ali. It is a little far away from the original Question.
BARONESS STOCKS: My Lords, will Her Majesty's Government realise that if Mr. Tariq Ali is in fact a registered post-graduate student of any university he is, to some extent, dependent on public funds for the facilities which he receives as a post-graduate student?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE or CULROSS: My Lords, I am sure that that is so. I should think that it would be for the grant-paying authority to consider his activity; but again, this is a little far away from the question of his nationality.
LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH: My Lords, did the noble Viscount notice the remarks of the New Zealand representative at the C.P.A. Conference here on the question of who and what comes into this country?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I seem to have been very short on my reading during the Recess. If the noble Lord would draw the observation specifically to my attention I will make the greatest effort to read it forthwith.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, since it is apparently possible to ask the Government any question we like on this matter irrespective of what is on the Order Paper, would the noble Viscount agree—and may I say that I agree that he was entirely right not to answer the other questions—that it would be unfortunate if his proper refusal to answer a question on identity cards gave any impression that the Government were contemplating such a matter? I ask this as it has been raised, as I think unfortunately, on the Question.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton. My hesitation about answering the question indicates nothing whatever in either direction.

HIJACKING OF AIRCRAFT
2.45 p.m.
LORD JANNER: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will make a Statement on the present position in respect of measures taken and proposed to be taken nationally and internationally in regard to the hijacking of planes.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE): My Lords, the failure of the recent Conference of the International Civil Aviation Organisation in Rome has been a great disappointment. However, the passing of the Protection of Aircraft Act has enabled us to make arrangements to ratify the Montreal Convention against sabotage.
LORD JANNER: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for the reply and for the action that was taken at the Rome Convention. When the text was originally produced by our delegation there Article 80, which called upon every State to take appropriate measures to ensure the safety of civil aviation, was included. May I ask why, in spite of this, that Article was withdrawn by us? May I ask further why, in the circumstances, we did not support the motion that was put
154
forward by the South American delegation in similar terms?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, we withdrew our support for Article No. 80, because we believed that if we had not done so the main proposal would have been deferred, and that was very important to us. We voted against the South American proposal because we were quite certain that it would not get the two-thirds majority.
LORD .TANNER: My Lords, surely the noble Baroness realises that on a question of principle of this sort we should have stuck to our guns? Would she say what proposals she is putting forward to the Montreal Convention in relation to the question of refusing air facilities to those nations who harbour the criminals, and who indeed have now shown what they are doing in regard to the attack on Israel?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, as I said, the Montreal Convention we can now ratify, and Orders in Council will shortly come before this House for consideration. We had a proposal, which was co-sponsored with the Swiss, that access to air space should be denied to the aircraft of States which failed to deal with hijackers. I regret to say that this was supported by less than half of those present. The rest of the proposal that we put forward was that ICAO should investigate such matters without imposing sanctions, and this failed by only two votes to get the two-thirds majority which it needed.
LORD HARVEY OF PRESTBURY: My Lords, does my noble friend not agree that as Governments have failed to reach any measure of agreement for the last two or three years, this matter should be left to the World Federation of Airline Pilots?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I notice that they have mot recently, but I hope that they will not take measures into their own hands, because it is only through international agreement, and through our own Protection of Aircraft Act and by ratifying the Hague and the Montreal

155
Conventions, that we can, as an international community, achieve something worth while.
LORD JANNER: My Lords, in view of the fact that the pilots themselves are perhaps the persons most immediately concerned with the matter, if they take it into their own hands to prevent those who are harbouring criminals from doing so by refusing air facilities, is not the noble Baroness prepared to support them in an action of that sort?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, although it is slow, I think that some progress is being made. I think that the recent examples of the unwillingness of many countries to receive the political hijacker, and the fact that our proposals in Rome attracted considerable support from the Arab States, are good things.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, is the noble Baroness implying that the Montreal Convention has now received an adequate number of signatures?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: No, my Lords, it has not. That is really the problem, because of course it is international agreement and acceptance that we are trying to achieve.

BULL BEEF, BOAR PORK AND RAM LAMB
2.50 p.m.
LORD BALERNO: 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 their policy is regarding bull beef, boar pork and ram lamb.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government are aware of the increasing interest in meat production from entire male animals. Some aspects of bull beef production are at present being examined by the Advisory Council for Agriculture and Horticulture in England and Wales. Boar pork, has in the past had only limited acceptability in the trade. There is at present little interest in rearing ram lambs for meat on any scale, mainly because of the inherent management difficulties.
LORD BALERNO: My Lords, in thanking the noble Earl for his reply, may I ask whether he is aware that in many European countries it is fully accepted that bulls produce beef more economically, more quickly and of better quality than do steers; and can he give information as to the amount of such meat as I have mentioned in my Question that is being imported from these Western European countries into this country, thereby putting our own breeders and feeders of livestock at a disadvantage, especially in a time of high feeding costs?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I am aware of the points which my noble friend Lord Balerno made with regard to increased food conversion, and so forth, from this type of animal; but one of the troubles is that there is a resistance both from the trade and from housekeepers to purchasing meat from entire male animals. It is therefore a question of commercial practice whether the public can be persuaded to accept this type of meat. With regard to the second part of my noble friend's question, there are no statistics existing which show imports of meat from uncastrated male animals, but our main overseas suppliers of beef, pork and lamb, which are Australia, New Zealand, the Irish Republic and the Argentine, do not produce significant quantities of meat from entire animals and there is no reason to believe that significant quantities of such meat are sent to us by those countries who do.
LORD ROYLE: My Lords, as one who was engaged throughout the war in the grading of food animals, may I ask whether the noble Earl would consider the possibility of reverting to the wartime system whereby entire male animals were used only for manufacture, so that there would be no danger that the housewives would be getting this kind of meat over the counter?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I think it is perfectly true that such entire male animals that do go on the market are mostly used for manufacture, but this must necessarily be a commercial decision, and farmers in this country are perfectly entitled to rear animals from this type of uncastrated male animals provided they find it economically worth while.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that those of us who have been brought up in the country are now looking at any kind of meat we can get, and at the price it is to-day old age pensioners will be lucky if they can get an Oxo cube from a male animal?
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, could the noble Earl tell me why the Government encourage this form of sex discrimination?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, the Government are merely concerned to encourage meat from all sources, whether male or female.
VISCOUNT THURSO: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that it does in fact encourage sex discrimination by not paying a calf subsidy on entire animals and not paying a calf subsidy on animals that are not entirely castrated?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, the calf subsidy is in fact payable on whole male animals provided that they come under the Stage B certification and provided they adhere to the appropriate requirements for those animals which are submitted dead weight under the Stage B certification.
THE MARQUESS OF WILLINGDON: My Lords, could the Minister confirm that there is any antagonism at all from the wholesaler on the production of boar pork? Secondly, will he agree with me that the castration of porkers when they are young is extremely cruel? I believe he will agree with me that there is absolutely no opposition by wholesalers to boar porkers.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I could not agree with that. The information which I have is that there is a distinct reluctance from the trade to accept this type of animal. Where there is no reluctance and where the economics are correct, of course this kind of animal can be produced.
THE MARQUESS OF WILLINGDON: It is the retailer as such and not the wholesaler.
EARL FERRERS: The retailer is certainly the obstructionist, but that is passed through to the wholesaler.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether, when the Government consider their policy in regard to meat, they will bear in mind the price to the consumer, having regard to a report in to-day's paper that one of the meat combines in this country has made £3 million profit this year—twice as much as last—and that the head of the firm got a £16,000 increase in salary, bringing his annual salary up to £53,000?
EARL. FERRERS: My Lords, I am bound to say with respect to the noble Lord, that I cannot help feeling that that question has really little relevance to uncastrated male animals.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, does the noble Earl recognise that whereas Ministers, when replying to questions about food and prices, usually use the term "housewives" he used the term "housekeepers"? Has this any sociological significance in the Government's mind?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, only in the noble Lord's mind.

THE MIDDLE EAST
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, with the leave of the House, my noble friend Lady Tweedsmuir will be making a Statement on the Middle East at a suitable moment after 3.30 p.m.

POWERS OF CRIMINAL COURTS BILL [H.L.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD HAILSHAM OF SAINT MARYLEBONE): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time. As your Lordships will remember it is consolidation.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3ª. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 3ª, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL
2.56 p.m.
Report received.
LORD BEAUMONT of WHITLEY LORD BEAUMONT of WHITLEY moved the following Amendment:
After Clause 1 insert the following new clause:

159
".The Teaching Council (Scotland) Act 1965 shall have effect as if in section 6 subsection (1) after the words "as may be prescribed" there were inserted the words "of all persons who at the date when this part of this Act is brought into force are certificated teachers and thereafter"."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment was tabled in an attempt to avoid the individual injustices caused by this—as I think it is generally agreed to be—lamentable retrospective legislation; but since the Government are determined to extinguish the right to sue on the part of teachers who have been deprived of their livelihood I realise that this Amendment will not do and to press it and take it to a Division would be merely to repeat the debate we had on the Committee stage, which is not the normal custom of your Lordships' House. I am not in fact entirely clear as to the Government's reasons for extinguishing the right to sue, since presumably the damages payable in the courts to those teachers who have been deprived of their livelihood would not exceed the amount which would be paid out in ex-gratia payments. I merely want to take advantage of this particular occasion—although I shall be saying a few words on the Third Reading in a few minutes—to ask the Minister one or two questions about ex-gratia payments to these people, after which, and when I have received what I hope will be a satisfactory reply, I shall be asking your Lordships' leave to withdraw the Amendment.
The question really is a general one on compensation payable to these teachers. In part it has been answered before, but I think this is the right moment for it to be reiterated for the benefit of your Lordships' House and for the benefit also of those teachers. It is: how far will the compensation go? Will it include all the pay which the teachers would have received from the moment they were dismissed? Will it include the restoration of the pension rights which they have forfeited? Thirdly—and this may be a new question—will it include the costs of those teachers who have taken their case to the courts but have not had the opportunity of going as far as judgment and therefore have not yet been awarded costs? Because it seems to me that these people who sued, and sued rightly as the law was at that time, and who would undoubtedly have succeeded
160
in the courts, as Mr. Malloch succeeded, are entitled to the money that they have spent on solicitors, on counsel's opinions, et cetera.
The alternative for them, I suppose, if they are not given compensation, would possibly be to pursue their case through the courts, not with any hope of obtaining a judgment which would give them back their livelihood but merely in order that they should get their costs at the end, as I imagine they would. It would obviously be a much more satisfactory situation if the Government were to say that they were quite prepared to meet these costs. It applies to only three people, I think, although there may be one or two more. I do not know exactly what it amounts to, but it cannot be any great sum. I should be most grateful if the noble Lord would give us a general answer on the question of compensation. I beg to move.
LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, while not necessarily agreeing—in fact, while definitely not agreeing—with the account given by the noble Lord of the nature and purpose of the Bill, I am nevertheless grateful to him for having given me notice of his intention to move this Amendment and of some of the points which he wished to elicit. I am sure your Lordships will agree with him that we should not spend time going over the reasons for the introduction of this Bill, although I must reiterate that it was introduced simply and solely to remedy a situation and restore a position which was always thought and believed to have existed since the provisions were originally introduced and until an unexpected legal lacuna was found. We are very conscious of the rights of these few individuals. I do not think there are very many of them; we are not as yet aware of more than another one or two besides the gentleman to whom reference was made. They having resisted registering under these provisions, the authorities they were employed by were obliged to dismiss them. On the question of compensation, I can confirm that the payment they will receive, which will be an ex gratia payment from the authority employing them at the time of their dismissal, will amount to the difference be-between the amount of salary that the teacher might have expected to earn if

161
he had remained in his teaching post from the date of his dismissal until the date of the enactment of this Bill and, on the other hand, his actual income from any employment that he may have had in that interim period and any public sector benefits he may have received which he is not obliged to refund. I hope your Lordships will agree that that is a fair provision.
The noble Lord also asked about superannuation. The arrangements here are that, where appropriate—and by that I mean where the recipient does not come into the provisions of some other scheme; that will of course be taken into account adjustments will be made to ensure that there will be no loss of entitlement under the teachers' superannuation scheme. I think we can rely on the authorities concerned to carry out these arrangements in the spirit in which they are intended to be carried out; and, as I said to your Lordships at the previous stage, any expenditure incurred by them in doing so will be wholly refundable out of Exchequer grant.
There remains the question of the legal costs of those who have actions before the courts and whose actions, on the passing of this Bill, will automatically fall. As to these costs (or expenses, as we refer to them in Scotland) the intention is that they shall be dealt with in the following manner. When the teachers abandon their actions, as presumably they will on the passing of this Bill, they will be entitled to ask the court for the costs or expenses of those actions up to the time of their dropping them. I understand that when a party seeks authority to abandon an action the court has complete authority to dispose of the matter of expenses, and I think this is the right quarter to deal with it. If it is of any guidance, I would say that in the one case which has been disposed of, and to which the noble Lord made reference, the court awarded the teacher concerned the costs of his action against the Secretary of State. I think this is the right way for the costs issue to be dealt with, and I feel sure it will be settled satisfactorily, particularly in the light of the decision made in this one case.
LORD BEAUMONT or WHITLEY: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that satisfactory reply and I ask leave of your
162
Lordships' House to withdraw the Amendment standing in my name.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Then, Standing Order No. 44 having been suspended, pursuant to the Resolution of yesterday:
3.6 p.m.
LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, that the Bill be now read 3ª.— (Lord Polwarth.)
LORD BEAUMONT or WHITLEY: My Lords, I am sorry to spend your Lordships' time raising this major point once more, but I think it would be wrong if we gave this Bill its Third Reading without another very short restatement of the reasons why we are very sad that this Bill should have been necessary. The noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, has said that this Bill was brought in to remedy a situation and restore something which was always thought to have been the law and which was proved by a lacuna in the law not to be so. We have had considerable discussion about this matter both here and in another place, and all I can say is that enough evidence has been produced against the noble Lord's view to show that there were certainly other people who thought differently. Indeed, it is quite clear that the unfortunate teachers about whom we are talking to-day thought differently.
This is an instance of retrospective legislation, and some very unkind things, and justifiably unkind things, have been said about it. I quote merely from the supporters of the Government. The noble Lord, Lord Belhaven and Stenton, speaking on July 26 (Hansard, column 1974), said that the result of this Bill might well be
"that an individual citizen who takes the trouble to challenge the Government in the courts of this country is embarking, if this principle is allowed to be established, on a rather futile exercise".
Because, of course, if the Government can always write back the law to being what they thought it was when someone brought a case against them it really is an unjustifiable use of Government prerogative. I understand that we shall see another example of this in another place to-morrow, so it is not an isolated instance, as your Lordships who have

163
read Bernard Levin in The Times to-day will be well aware. On the same date the noble Lord, Lord Elton, said at column 1977:
"It is a process which has much more in character with totalitarianism than with democracy."
In another place, Mr. Bruce-Gardyne, a Government supporter, said—but I will not trouble your Lordships with what he said.
On the Committee stage we had an interesting debate and a vote. I think there was no doubt in anybody's mind that the majority of those who listened to the debate voted in favour of the Amendment which I put down. I will go further and say that the majority of Conservatives who listened to the debate voted in favour of the Amendment, and it were merely the large number of people who had not listened to the debate but who voted who carried the day for the Government. I do not complain about that; that is our Parliamentary system. I point it out, though, as a fact, and I think it is worth pointing out because it is a bad and dangerous course upon which the Government have embarked. It is bad because it has taken away the rights of individuals, however just the Government may have been in their compensation—and I thank them for that. It is bad because it is indulging basically in deceit. It is in fact totally comparable to the George Orwell-ism that we were all brought up to dislike and to despise. It re-writes history to say that the law is something which for the last few years it has not been and to say that as from a previous date it is different. It is dangerous because I think it strikes at the very root of the rule of law.
Members of other Parties sometimes accuse the Party to which I have the honour to belong on acount of the activities of the young Liberals on Juggernauts and cricket tours. Sometimes their complaints are justified; much more often they are not. I say to this House that one speech like that of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in favour of recompensing the Clay Cross rebels, one Bill like this which rewrites legislation in the Government's favour against the individual, one Order in Council like that which is due to come
164
up to-morrow in another place does far more harm than any number of protests by young people. I merely hope that the fact that we have been able—and from all sides of the House, for this is not a Party matter—to make a protest in this particular case will mean that the Government will think twice, three times and a hundred times before they follow this slippery course down the road to retrospective legislation.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, the noble Lord referred to the debate on this matter some time ago. I am relying on my memory and I shall be corrected, I am sure, if I am wrong. But in speaking of the voting, of the Contents and the Not-Contents, from this side of the House, the noble Lord overlooked to mention that there were large numbers of abstentions. This was a very complex matter in which the Government found themselves on the horns of a dilemma. So much so that a large number of us—I know; I was one of them—who were in full agreement with what the noble Lord, Lord Belhaven and Stenton, said, felt that in the circumstances the only thing to do was to abstain. I think I am right in saying that many of us did so.
LORD GARDINER: My Lords, on the Committee stage of the Bill I explained shortly why my view about this Bill is substantially that expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley. I cannot think that it is right when a small body of men who had done absolutely nothing wrong except to stand up for their legal rights and for what they thought was the law—and they have been held in the courts to have been right all through—that thereupon the law is altered retrospectively to their detriment. I cannot think that that can be right. I understand that they do not have any right to compensation—that is, any legal right—but it is said that compensation will be paid. What then about their jobs? These are teachers. Teaching is their occupation; it is their life's work. What guarantee are they to have that they will get their jobs back? I raised this matter on July 26 on the Committee stage of the Bill when I said:
"Thirdly—and to this point I attach much more importance than to either of the first two: What steps are the Government prepared to take to ensure that these men get their jobs back? If I understand correctly what

165
has been said so far, all that is said is, 'Well, if they register they will be entitled to apply for a teaching job again to their education authority' ".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26 /7 / 73; col. 1976.]
I pointed out that those are the bodies with whom they had been in conflict in the courts and I asked what action the Government will take to bring pressure to bear on the education authority. In his reply (column 1980) the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, said:
"I am perfectly prepared to consider the noble and learned Lord's suggestion."
He was being very careful not to commit the Government in any way to do anything at all to ensure that these men get their jobs back. As he did say that the Government would consider the matter, and as three months have now gone by, I should like before we give this Bill a Third Reading to ask whether the Government do intend to do anything about it, or not.
LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, in reply there is one point that I must make perfectly clear. This small handful of individuals have all along had their own remedy to this situation. It was to accept the existence of the General Teaching Council, willed into being by the vast majority of their colleagues, and to register under it. If they had chosen to do so there would have been no problem. As I pointed out at the earlier stage, other professions have their bodies which require formal membership to enable a person to practise. This is very similar indeed to those cases. They have had that remedy all along. One cannot but say that they have brought this difficulty on themselves by their own act.
To the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, I would say that I did undertake to look at the matter and that I have done so during the vacation. But I think he must be the first to recognise that it will be quite impossible for the Government to ensure, or to endeavour to ensure, that those men get back their jobs. To begin with, the extent of the Government's influence on local authorities in their appointments is extremely limited; we do not have the statutory powers, and meanwhile the places will have been filled. Are we to ask the local
166
authorities to dismiss the present occupants of those places? Even if enforced reinstatement is open to the Government (which, I submit, it is not) will it not be contrary to what I think is a legal principle that employers cannot be compelled to retain someone in their employment? There are certain things the employer is obliged to consider if he gets rid of them but he cannot be obliged to retain them. I think that enforced reinstatement would conflict with the statutory discretion for the employment of teachers conferred on local authorities by the Education Act. However attractive a solution this may appear. I submit that it is simply not practicable. I do not see much difficulty in these few teachers if they wish to return to teaching—and some have done so already. In every area there are vacancies occurring for one reason or another, whether in the public or the private sector. If the teachers concerned chose to register—a course which is open to them at any time —I am quite sure that they will readily find employment.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I must confess that I agree with the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, that it would be difficult for the Government to compel the local authorities to find places for these men, but I should like to suggest to my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner, that while he is completely correct in saying that the application for re-employment would be to the authority with whom they hade been in dispute, I do not think that there has been any problem or difficulty between the authority and these men. The authority did not of their own volition dismiss the men. This course was taken where an Act of Parliament required them to do so in certain circumstances and they undertook those dismissals. We have no means of knowing whether the authority would have dismissed them if they had had a free hand in the matter; but they did not have a free hand. Having regard to the authority concerned in the particular cases, I doubt very much whether there is the slightest chance that there would be any vindictiveness between them and the education authority.
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL
3.20 p.m.
Further considered on Report.
Clause 97 [Establishment of Commission for Local Authority Accounts in Scotland]:
LORD STRATHCLYDE: My Lords, this Amendment, No. 57, and the one which follows are both consequential on Amendment No. 56 which was accepted by the House last night and is now part of the Bill. In these circumstances, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 52, line 19, leave out ("any other person") and insert ("and Officers of the Commission, being Professional Accountants, and approved Auditors appointed by the Commission for conducting Audits or, as the case may be, a particular audit under this part of the Act. Approved Auditor means an Auditor who is qualified under new subsection (7) below").—(Lord Strathclyde.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 58.
Amendment moved—
Page 52, line 21, insert—
("(7) 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.").—(Lord Strathclyde.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 108 [Determination and levy of regional, district and general rates]:
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, this and the next Amendment, Nos. 59 and 60, both correct printing errors. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 60, line 25, after ("shall") insert ("be").—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 109 [Rating Authorities]:
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 60.
Amendment moved—
Page 61, line 14, leave out ("of") and insert ("to").—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 113 [Persons to whom s.112 applies]:
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 61:
Page 64, line 4, leave out ("the prescribed form") and insert ("such form as the rating authority may require").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Clause 113(1) requires rate rebate applications to be made "in the prescribed form", and because of Clause 112(6) this means prescribed by the regulations made by the Secretary of State. However, it is preferable to leave the form of application to the discretion of the rating authority and wherever possible for them to treat an application for rent rebate or allowance as an application for rate rebate also. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 62:
Page 64, line 26, leave out ("Where") and insert ("Regulations under section 112 above may make provision as respects rate rebates where").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Clause 113(2) provides, as does Section 5(7) of the Rating Act 1966, that where a house is held in joint occupation or jointly tenanted, each joint occupier or tenant (other than a married couple) is to be treated separately for rate rebate. The effect of the 1966 Act provision is that the rates payable are split between the joint occupiers and the entitlement of each to rebate is calculated separately according to his means.
For rent rebates and allowances, paragraph 4 of Schedule 2 to the Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act provides that a housing authority
"may treat as a sole tenant … one or two or more joint tenants".
It appears that in practice this is what is almost always appropriate; certainly, we have no knowledge of any departure

169
from this method in Scotland. If the rates were similarly dealt with the entitlement to rebate on the whole amount would be calculated on the income of one joint occupier, with the other treated as a "non-dependant".
Under the clause as it stands, therefore, joint tenants who were also joint rateable occupiers would be treated differently for the purpose of rent and rate rebates. The effect of the Amendment is to leave the detailed arrangements for rate rebates for joint tenants to be determined by the regulations setting out the standard scheme. What we shall be seeking to put in the regulations is a formula designed to ensure that the joint tenants get a rebate which is fairly adjusted to the income and the needs of the household. An advantage of leaving the treatment of joint occupiers to be dealt with in the regulations is that a comparable rate rebate scheme is to be introduced in England and Wales and that the Amendment would leave scope for further consultation and allow us to ensure that the treatment of joint occupiers in both countries is uniform. I beg to move.
THE EARL OF BALFOUR: My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend for having put this Amendment down. I was not at all satisfied on this point. I think this has definitely improved the Bill and I should like to support the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, Amendment No. 63 is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 64, line 29, leave out from ("subsection") to end of line 35.—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 114 [Variation of standard scheme by rating authority]:
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 64:
Page 65, line 39, leave out ("in ") and insert ("for").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Clause 114 enables a rating authority to vary the standard rate rebate scheme within a limit of 10 per cent. extra cost. The Amendments are required because the limit needs to operate on the total of the rate rebates granted in respect of the
170
financial year and not in the financial year. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 65:
Amendment moved—
Page 65, line 41, leave out ("in") and insert ("for").—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 115 [Grants towards rate rebates]:
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 66:
Page 67, line 13, after ("period") insert ("or part thereof").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Clause 115(1) provides for grants of 90 per cent. of the cost of rate rebates under the new scheme. This Amendment is required because a rate rebate period could bridge the end of one financial year and the beginning of the next, and it is intended to make the rate rebate period correspond with the rent rebate period. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 9 [Amendments with respect to finance]:
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 67:
Page 178, line 24, after ("be") insert ("to the councils of all districts within that region").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment fulfils an undertaking given in Committee on an Amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Balfour (OFFICIAL REPORT, July 18, col. 1300) that the local assessors would be required to provide estimates of the new rateable valuations of districts following each revaluation, to district councils as well as to regional councils as rating authorities. The Amendment gives effect to this. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 68:
Page 179, line 27, at end insert—
("In section 26(2), in the definition of "local authority", for the words from "county" onwards there shall be substituted the words "regional, islands or district council".")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in Committee my noble friend Lord Balfour

171
questioned the aptness of the definition of "local authority" in Section 26 of the Local Government (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1963. While we have not adopted the Amendment which he proposed, we agree that an Amendment is necessary and are grateful to him for having drawn attention to the need for it. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, Amendment No. 69 brings the definition of "local authority" in the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1966 into line with the ones which your Lordships have just agreed to. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 180, line 23, at end insert—
("In section 46(1), in the definition of "local authority", for the words from "county" onwards there shall be substituted the words "regional, islands or district council".")
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 124 [Education Committees]:
3.29 p.m.
LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved Amendment No. 70:
Page 73, line 5, leave out from ("persons") to ("of") in line 9 and insert ("nominated by a meeting of representatives").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment relates to the appointment of representatives of Churches on local authorities. The Bill provides for a third representative in certain cases, and a second and a third representative in the Highland areas, to be appointed by the local authorities having regard to the denominations and their respective strength and so on in the area. This Amendment was suggested by—and I gather they wrote to a number of your Lordships—a body called the Association of Church Representatives on Education Committees, and the effect of the Amendment would be that the local authority, instead of selecting who the second or third Church representatives would be, would arrange for a meeting of representatives, not of all the congregations, but of all the Churches in the area, who would nominate a member or members who would then be accepted by the authority.
I am not quite certain in my own mind that it is necessary to put an Amendment of this kind in the Bill in order to accomplish this end. If it is in the existing legislation, then obviously there is no reason why it should go in this particular Bill. But if it is not in the legislation, then it is not necessary to legislate in order to have it happen, because I know that this is the procedure which is adopted in quite a number of local authorities. It takes away from them the difficulty of making a choice as to which particular Minister or Church representative is to be chosen, leaving it to the authorities themselves to make the nomination. If the Minister is going to tell me that it is not desirable or necessary to do this in the present Bill, but that in the sort of guidance that is given to local authorities in these matters from time to time this particular way of dealing with the matter is drawn to their attention, that I think would be a satisfactory way of meeting the situation, because I am quite certain that those authorities who have found a successful way of doing it in the past will be delighted to carry it on in the future. I beg to move.
LORD MACLEOD OF FUINARY: My Lords, I do not intend to delay your Lordships for more than two minutes, but as the only perital member of the Church of Scotland in this House, I think I have a peculiar interest in Clause 124(3), and I would of course approve an Amendment in the terms of that moved by the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, if it was accepted. We are grateful for the provision that has been made by the Government for three church representatives, one from the Church of Scotland, one from the Roman Catholic Church, each to be appointed by the decision of the relevant priests of the General Assembly or the heirarchy as to the method of his appointment; and this subsection is simply concerned with how the appointment is made for the third person with religious interests. The effect of the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, would leave the selection, as he said, to a meeting of representatives of all the Churches which can be recognised as such. There exists, as he stated, an Association of Church Representatives on Education Committees, and it seems fairly wise that those who are themselves

173
already concerned with religious education, rather than the very much larger education authority, should be the deciding factor as to who the third man should be, or if it is a question of the Islands, who their dual persons should be in the matter. I think it is worthwhile, unless we have some assurance on the point, retaining this Amendment at the moment, and I support the noble Lord, Lord Hughes.
LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, we always listen with attention to the advice of the reverend noble Lord (as I think we should call him), who addresses us all too seldom. The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, asked whether the position was unchanged from that in the existing legislation. That is not quite the case, because at present the Church of Scotland, the national Church, does not enjoy automatic right of representation on these committees. It is only the reserved right of the Roman Catholic Church, for historical reasons which I will not go into now.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, if I may interrupt the noble Lord, it was in regard to the method of selection that I wanted to know whether there was any change.
LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, I am sorry, but I had not quite understood the point. There is indeed to be a change. We propose a change in the method of selection for this very reason. The meeting of {the Churches in the previous system ensured that on numbers the Church of Scotland would get representation. There were only the two members. Now we come to a third place. We feel that the right thing here is not to saddle the Churches with the making of this decision. I, too, have had this representation from this no doubt worthy body of the Association of Church Representatives on Education Committees. I think the main reason given in their letter for this new proposal suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, was that it would relieve the regional authorities of an invidious procedural task as envisaged in the Government's proposals; namely, of selecting, by whatever means they chose, the third representative.
I think that argument might well be turned round and used with regard to the Churches. When the Church of Scotland and the Catholic Church have
174
prescribed places here and a meeting is then called to select the third representative it is very likely that in the great majority of cases the decision will be in the hands of the Church of Scotland because of its numerical dominance in most areas. I think it could equally be said that to have that laid down by Statute as the method of selection would be an invidious task for the Churches. There is nothing to prevent the local authority calling a meeting of Churches and denominations to enable them to discharge their task. There may be cases where it will be obvious what the right choice is, and where it is unnecessary to go through all the procedures of calling together all the representatives of all the Churches in the area. I feel that your Lordships would be advised to stick to the procedure in the Bill, because this was debated at great length in the other place and after much to and fro agreement was reached there; and after much discussion with the various Churches on a national level in Scotland, it was agreed with them. I think the overriding reason for sticking to the Bill as we are proposing it is to avoid any further disturbance of an agreement reached after full discussion and consideration by all concerned. Therefore I hope the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, will accept that the purpose of his Amendment will, as I think, often be achieved. I think the Churches will frequently be consulted and the local authorities are aware of the consideration behind the proposal.
LORD BALERNO: My Lords, I should like to support my noble friend in this matter. I followed the disputation in the matter in the other place, and the concessions that were then made by the Government regarding Church representation eventually received general agreement. I think it would be the greatest pity were we at this stage to disrupt that agreement in any way. It could easily cause further difficulty if it had to be debated and altered at considerable speed when the Bill goes back to the other place. I think, on balance, it will be a healthier way and will lead to less friction to give the local authorities the opportunity either of nominating, or if the local pressure is such of forming a committee such as the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, indicates in his Amendment. For that

175
reason, I would suggest that your Lordships would be well advised to leave the matter as it stands.
LORD MACLEOD OF FUINARY: My Lords, I hope it is in order for me to rise again on a point of clarification of Lord Polwarth's speech. He seems to convey that one of the main reasons why this matter should go to the education authority and not to the representative association is that mostly those concerned would be members of the Church of Scotland. I have no doubt that the noble Lord is aware that the Association of Church Representatives on Education Committees is composed of all the Churches; that is to say, it is composed not merely of the Roman Catholics and the Church of Scotland but also of all those who will be represented under this third person. In other words, it is not just the Roman Catholics and the Church of Scotland meeting together to decide who is to represent the other denominations. The committees deciding it, if the Amendment is carried, would be not the education authorities but people representing all the different denominations in addition to the Catholic and Church of Scotland denominations. Therefore, the decision would be a total decision, and not one by just the Church of Scotland.
LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, I fully accept the point made by the noble Lord, but I would leave the thought with your Lordships that perhaps there could be an advantage in the final choice not being limited to a body consisting of those already sitting or already involved in the matter.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, very briefly, I do not quite agree with the Minister about the argument that went on in another place or that it had anything to do with the method of selection. So far as I remember reading about it, it referred to the question of whether there ought to be any Church representatives on any of these committees at all and, if so, how many there ought to be. The noble Lord then stated that there was ultimate agreement on an increase from two to three. I should be most unwilling, as a result of this Amendment, to give the opponents of three or the opponents of two the opportunity
176
of having another go at the matter in another place. What I should be content to do would be to write back to the Association—I will send them a copy of Hansard—and direct their attention to what the noble Lord has said regarding the possibility of this procedure's being continued in the future. I have no doubt that they will in due course take it up with the education committees to see whether the matter can be dealt with in that way. With these words, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE MIDDLE EAST: THE ARAB/ISRAELI CONFLICT
3.42 p.m.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I should like, by leave of the House, to repeat a Statement on the Middle East which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. The Statement is as follows:
"The Whole House will share the Government's profound anxiety and disquiet that the long dispute between the Arab countries and Israel should once more have flared into a further round of bitter warfare. The fighting which began on Saturday afternoon, October 6, is still continuing and there have been many hard battles and a high rate of casualties. The Government especially deplore the loss of innocent civilian life which has occurred and we call upon all the Governments engaged in the war to do everything within their power to avoid civilian casualties.
"I regret to have to inform the House that one British citizen, Mrs. Burak, is believed to have died in the bombing of Damascus. We know of no other British casualties. Her Majesty's Ambassador at Damascus advised members of the small British community there to leave on October 12. Our Ambassadors in the other countries involved in the conflict are in close touch with the British communities. We have not so far thought it necessary to advise further evacuation. But we have advised all British subjects to keep clear of the war zone.

177
"When the hostilities broke out, Her Majesty's Government called for an immediate cease-fire, and suspended all shipments of arms to the battlefield. We did this because we considered it inconsistent to call for an immediate end to the fighting and yet to continue to send out arms to the conflict. This seems to me to be the best posture from which to make an effective contribution to a constructive settlement. As regards the embargo, we have supplied a limited number of arms to both sides in recent years. Whereas in 1967 an embargo would have discriminated against Israel, it is now even-handed. I should like to add here that British military facilities overseas have not been and are not being used for the transit of military supplies to the battlefield.
"We also sought to bring the Security Council into action at once but neither side was willing to contemplate a cease-fire, except on terms totally unacceptable to the other. The Security Council has met several times but has been unable to find a consensus on any action.
"Her Majesty's Government have therefore been engaged in consultation with other Governments with the twin objectives of bringing about an end to the fighting and ensuring that urgent steps are at last taken to implement in full Security Council Resolution 242. The nine countries of the European Community joined in issuing an appeal to this effect on October 13. Resolution 242 still offers the best chance of a settlement because to it, and it alone, both Arabs and Israelis subscribe.
"Three years ago at Harrogate I put forward our suggestions about how Resolution 242 might be put into effect. I outlined how a permanent settlement of the boundary question might be reached which could satisfy both the demand of the Arab States for Israeli withdrawal and the equally legitimate demand of Israel, which we all support, for recognition within secure boundaries.
"Clearly no settlement can be imposed. But unless the future is merely to be a repetition of the futile and dangerous confrontation of the past
178
a new effort at conciliation must be made.
"I feel that the ingredients of a settlement will have to include actions by the Secretary General of the United Nations and the introduction of an international force, first to police a cease-fire and then to guarantee the terms of a settlement. It will be necessary too, I believe, to establish demilitarised zones.
"The success of any initiative must depend on the state of the battle. Timing will therefore be all important. We are ready to play our part in the making of the peace and the keeping of it, so vital is it to the whole world that peace should be re-established in the area.
"We will do our best to turn what appears to be a disaster now into an opportunity for securing a permanent settlement in the Midle East. I will, of course, keep the House regularly informed of developments."
That, my Lords, is the end of the Statement.
3.48 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Baroness for repeating this grave Statement, which reflects the increasing gravity of the war in the Middle East—the gravity as a consequence of the fact that the United States and the Soviet Union are pouring in arms supplies to both sides. Now we have the report that has come from Cairo of the long-range missiles which are becoming available to the Egyptian authorities and which now could well be within striking distance of the cities of Israel and dire consequences could arise from this. We on this side of the House will give the fullest possible support to Her Majesty's Government in pursuing the implementation of United Nations Resolution 242, and we share with the Government the hope that out of this tragedy may come a permanent solution to the Middle East problem. We on this side feel, as we did in 1967, that the only solution to the Middle East problem that can come about will be by direct talks between all the parties concerned in the Middle East, together with the achievement of recognised and secure boundaries for all the

179
nations concerned. There must also be a solution to the refugee problem, which has been a blot on all our consciences.
We would agree with the noble Baroness that timing is important, but it does mean continual pressure and continual probing to find out whether a peace move is possible. It may be, from the reading of to-day's reports in the Press, that there is perhaps some glimmer of light from both sides that an initiative might be received. Without any possible criticism of Sir Donald Maitland, the British representative at the United Nations, I wonder whether this is not the moment when a senior British Minister ought to be at the United Nations, because one knows from experience that Resolution 242 is one that requires a particular type of negotiation—which permanent officials often find hard to indulge in. I therefore ask the noble Baroness to convey this view to her right honourable friend.
With regard to arms supply, we accept that if you are to be a mediator you should not to be too closely involved. But the Statement says that an embargo would have discriminated against Israel in 1967 but to-day it is even handed. I severely question that statement. I do not believe that an arms embargo by Britain on the Arab countries is of any consequence at all, but it is a different matter in terms of Israel, particularly as its main tank force—and those who fought in the desert know the importance of tanks—are British Centurion tanks. It is not possible to obtain ammunition or spare parts from any other country but the United Kingdom. I believe that there is a special case for the Government to consider supporting Israel in their tank requirements.
Could the noble Baroness confirm that the Israeli Government had placed an order; that a contract had been entered into by the Israeli authorities with either the British Government or the suppliers for Centurion tank ammunition and spare parts; that part of that contract was ready to be fulfilled before the embargo was imposed; that its shipment was not made because it was felt advisable to bring the entire consignment together; and since the embargo fell before this could be completed the Israeli
180
authorities did not receive the first portion of their contract? Would not the noble Baroness think, in these circumstances at least, that part of the contract that was ready prior to the embargo could well have been made available to the Israeli authorities, particularly as the noble Baroness felt yesterday that the agreement entered into by the training of Egyptian pilots should continue to be fulfilled?
I understand the position of the Government that they wish to be in a position to negotiate, particularly as the two big Powers are so deeply involved; but Israel is in great danger and tanks are of considerable importance. If there is to be an embargo, I do not believe that it should be an embargo that is unfair to one of the parties. If it is, it reduces one's ability and opportunity to be a negotiator between the parties concerned. I hope that the noble Baroness will keep the House informed of the situation. I am sure that the whole House will be with the Government, whatever may be our views on a number of matters here, in their pursuit for Resolution 242, and we wish them God's speed in bringing that about.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, I shall keep my remarks mostly for the debate which I understand we shall have later in the week; but I cannot let this Statement pass without telling the Government, with a great deal of sadness, that their refusal to honour their contracts to Israel is both commercially dishonest and politically reprehensible. Why do they suppose that Israel ordered these tanks from Britain in the first place? They were not for decorative purposes; they were for defence: they were intended to be used. I cannot understand a Government which refuses to service them with spare pants and ammunition at the very moment when Israel require it.
I should like the noble Baroness to explain the mathematics of even-handedness. This is a new Foreign Office phrase which ought to be explained in detail. How can they say that this is "evenhanded" when spare parts are denied to Israel to defend herself against Arab attacks? What is going to happen is not going to help the cease fire but cause more and more casualties and deny Israel the very reply that it will need against these

181
long-range missiles which are going to be used. There has been a newsflash which says that Israel has already gone into Egypt in order to try to destroy the bases from which the missiles will be used. In these circumstances, to deny them the ammunition and spare parts which they need for British tanks is totally unethical and completely illogical.
3.56 p.m.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I should like first of all to reply to the noble Lords, Lord Shepherd and Lord Byers. First, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, for saying that his Party will support Her Majesty's Government at this time in doing their utmost to bring about a cease-fire allied to the full implementation of Resolution 242. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, I am happy to say, referred in generous terms to Sir Donald Maitland; but lie asked whether a senior British Minister should attend the Security Council at this time. I will convey this to my right honourable friend. We think at the moment, in view of the fact that the Security Council have been unable to reach a consensus—and, as he said himself, time is all important—that it is not yet possible to get agreement, but we shall of course persevere. Then he turned to the question of arms supply, and it was this in particular to which the noble Lord, Lord Byers, addressed his attention. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, asked if it is really "even-handed" when the Israelis have Centurion tanks and no other country can supply the ammunition which is required. I should like to inform the House that in fact there is another major Power which manufactures this ammunition under licence from this country and therefore Israel is able to secure it not only from this country.
I think I heard the noble Lord, Lord Byers, say in a kind of protest: "Well then, why have an arms embargo at all"—that is if I heard him aright. We do not supply a large amount of arms to either Arabs or Israelis, but we do supply them. As my right honourable friend has said, if we are to be in a strong position to try to initiate a cease-fire and to follow up on that, we are in a better position if we do not supply arms to either side. The noble Lord, Lord Byers, said: surely, these are contracts.
182
It is perfectly true, they are contracts, whether they are contracts with the Egyptians or Israelis, and in both cases they have been paid for. These are not cancelled contracts; they are suspended contracts. We supplied arms because at that time we wanted to increase the feeling of security on both sides so that they would have a deterrent. We did not sign contracts with the intention that the other parties should go to war. It is for this reason that we feel we are wiser to withhold arms from both sides. I will certainly keep the House informed.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, may I elucidate one point from the Baroness's reply? Could she say which country has the licence for building Centurion tanks, and whether that licence permits that country to sell the ammunition and parts to any other country?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I do not know the exact internal arrangements of the contract with the country concerned, but it is the United States of America.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, arising out of the Minister's reply, in view of what the noble Lord, Lord Byers, has said, and in particular to what the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has said, does the noble Baroness not feel that a large number on this side of the House agree with the sentiments expressed by both sides opposite? Is the noble Baroness aware that not all on this side of the House are in sympathy—and some indeed are in conflict—with some assumptions she voiced yesterday? May I ask the noble Baroness whether she does not herself feel that to withhold supplies ordered before aggression started is commercial dishonesty, which is not in accordance with normal practice in this country? Further, may I ask her, on the grounds of the crudest self-interest, whether it seems sensible that when we deploy service attaches all over the world to sell armaments to the extent of some hundreds of millions of pounds a year, we should then let it be known to the buyers that in the event of their becoming involved in hostilities, with which we may, without being involved, be in disagreement, we should withhold spare parts? That is a gross obloquy on British salesmanship.

183
While thanking the noble Baroness for her longer range of outline of what is to be expected, and her hopes of ultimate peace, which we all share, let us turn to the immediate present, when blood is being shed and men's lives are endangered. I feel that the posture adopted by the Foreign Secretary may be in accord with traditional "ivory tower" diplomacy, but there is no doubt who is the aggressor. In my view, in that case the posture is hypocritical and unrealistic. It is not in tradition with British honesty. I hope the noble Baroness will be able to make some comment on that.
4.2 p.m.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I wonder whether it would be convenient to the House if I were to answer each question in turn? I think perhaps it might. My noble friend Lord Barnby speaks with very great feeling, as I think does the whole House on this issue, but if I may, I would remind the House that in 1967 had an embargo been kept on, British supplies would have gone to only one of the two major combatants. In recent years we have always decided to look at the requests for arms on their merits, provided that they did not seem likely to stop or hamper the search for a settlement, or indeed to encourage exactly what is happening at the moment. Therefore I suggest to my noble friend—I have dealt in detail with the contracts before—that on the main question we consider that we are in a better position now to try to work towards a cease-fire and a settlement if we do not continue to supply arms to both sides, because we could not supply arms to one side and not the other.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, may I ask to what extent—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order!
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (LORD WINDLESHAM): My Lords, I know that a number of noble Lords wish to intervene and to question my noble friend and if noble Lords could confine themselves to one intervention each it would be a fairer arrangement.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: My Lords, with what amounts to an embargo on the
184
spare parts from Britain are we not in the process of emulating France and following in the footsteps of General de Gaulle in 1967 when he put an embargo on 50 Mirages which he had sold to Israel and for which they had paid, and which he later sold to the Libyans? I have no doubt that they have found their way back to the Egyptian front at this moment in this war. Is this not a cautionary tale when it comes to standing on neutrality in this kind of conflict?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I have of course seen reports that French Mirages sold to Libya have been involved in the fighting but we have not ourselves had confirmation of those reports. It is just because we want to try to do everything within our power to lessen the possibility of conflict that we are taking this stand.
LORD COLERAINE: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether she is aware that however this business of the Centurion tanks and the spare parts is dressed up, in the minds of most people in this House and outside it constitutes a breach of faith? And is she not further aware that if there is one danger that Her Majesty's Government must avoid at all costs it is the danger of giving the impression that they are giving way to Arab blackmail over oil supplies? Is she not further aware that the business of the Centurion tanks only encourages that belief, and nothing can bring us closer to the third world war than a persistence in the belief that we are open to blackmail of that kind?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I entirely refute my noble friend's suggestion that Her Majesty's Government are open to blackmail because of the oil situation. Had we been open to blackmail we would have continued to supply arms to the Arab countries on the battlefield, because in fact both Israel and Egypt receive British arms. As I said earlier, it was in order to keep the balance that we decided to suspend both.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, can the noble Baroness give this House an assurance that the Government will not supply any arms or ammunition to any Arab country whatsoever?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: No, my Lords, I cannot

185
give that assurance. In fact we are not supplying arms to the battlefield countries, which are Egypt, Israel, Syria and Libya because of her procurement, Iraq and Jordan.
A NOBLE LORD: My Lords, what about Saudi Arabia?
LORD HARVEY OF PRESTBURY: My Lords, my noble friend referred to the appeal made by the nine E.E.C. countries on October 17. May we be told what progress has been made by the European Powers in having a unified policy and really making progress in this matter? For example, what is taking place in regard to the French? Are they still sending spares to Libya for the Mirage fighters? And will my noble friend say what use a suspended contract can be if a nation is defeated?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, we must hope —and this is what we are working for—that far from having a defeat on either side we shall be able to work for a cease-fire together with a settlement based on Resolution 242. The E.E.C. countries have asked that this is just what all nations concerned should try to do. I am afraid that as yet they have not made much progress, nor have we ourselves; but at any rate it is, as we think, the only possibility of any kind of permanent solution.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, is it not true that Jordan relies far more heavily on British arms imports than does Israel? Is it not true that there is no fighting going on within the internal borders of Israel at all? Is it not true that the Americans and the Russians ought to be leant on very heavily indeed to stop them supplying arms and ammunition to both sides? And is it not true that for the first time the Arabs did the Israeli trick of catching the other side by surprise?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, as I am speaking here I understand it is true that there has not yet been any fighting within the borders of Israel. It is also true that Jordan does rely on British supplies, and if we are to have an even-handed embargo then those who are engaged, or about to be engaged, in the war, should also be subject to the embargo. So far as the
186
Americans and Russians are concerned our views are very well-known.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I join with others in thanking the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement which was made in another House. I am in the unusual position of endorsing every statement which has been made by the Secretary of State. I am in favour of our refusing arms to either side. On the other hand, I endorse the protest which has been made against the supply of arms to any country in the Middle East or the training of pilots. But I want to raise the much larger issue of the war itself, which we have been overlooking a little in the questions which have been put. We are now in a terribly ominous situation, with both the U.S.S.R. and the U.S.A. supplying massive arms, and even with some of their personnel involved in their delivery. This situation may destroy all the hopes of a détente between the two great Powers which we are hoping will bring peace.
Her Majesty's Government now have a unique opportunity; but a very short time—I think it very possible indeed the end of this week—will decide whether there are negotiations for an armistice, for a cease-fire, or the escalation of the war. I want to ask Her Majesty's Government to use their unique position of neutrality to bring pressure both on the U.S.S.R. and on the U.S.A. to agree to stop their arms and to facilitate a ceasefire. I would ask Her Majesty's Government to raise this matter again in the Security Council, and, if there is a veto there, to take it to the General Assembly and to propose that there should be a cease-fire; that there should be discussions with United Nations' representatives led by the General Secretary; that there should be an implementation of Resolution 242, and that there should be an international peace-keeping force, to which we should contribute, to maintain the security of the State of Israel.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I would thank the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, for saying that he endorsed the actions of my right honourable friend and I will certainly convey his support, because it will be a great encouragement in what is an extremely difficult position. I would agree with him that the long struggle over the

187
years to get détente is in danger. We hope indeed that we shall be able to see very soon the end of what the noble Lord calls this "ominous situation". He asks us whether we cannot get the Security Council to meet to bring the matter to the General Assembly. As he recognised, and indeed as the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, recognised, timing is all important. We do not feel that at this moment there is the atmosphere (shall I put it this way?) in which to get acceptance of a cease-fire and negotiations for a settlement. So far as the United States and the Soviet Union are concerned, they know our position very well, and I think that the most we can do is to go on quietly working to try to achieve what my right honourable friend has described.
VISCOUNT DE L'ISLE: My Lords, there is a well-known phrase: "They made a desert and they called it peace". Does not the noble Baroness realise that we are looking upon the potentiality of the destruction of the State of Israel, in the creation of which we had a great deal to do; and if we take this impartial attitude, which was mirrored two thousand years ago in Jerusalem by Pontius Pilot, and wash our hands we shall not preside over conciliation but over an autopsy? Is it in the interests of the British nation that we should see the destruction of this State, which we helped to create, and does not the whole House think we ought to express ourselves most forcibly in telling Her Majesty's Government that we will not go along with this attitude?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I am afraid I could not have made myself clear in repeating the Statement or in replies to questions. There is no question of our supporting the destruction of the State of Israel. We are unswerving in our support for Israel's right not only to exist but to live in peace with her neighbours, and to do so within secure and recognised boundaries. Our only difference with her concerns the means to that end.
LORD JANNER: My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness first of all, in view of the timing of the matter, whether she does not consider that the one-sided action—because it is one-sided action—, relating to the supply of armaments is
188
something to be deplored; that the commitment in respect of the accessories, the ammunition required for the Centurion tanks, is essential to the preservation of Israel; that the balance has been upset; that Russia, in conjunction with the Egyptians, to whom armaments are being supplied, has been in the main the cause of this conflagration, and that the aggressors are to-day not condemned either by us or by many others? May I ask one further question? The noble Baroness said in the course of her Statement that Resolution 242 was a basis for a settlement. Why on earth did the Foreign Secretary in the Harrogate speech try to interpret that as being a return to the old borders, which is absolutely impossible for Israel? Where would Israel have been today if the attack had been made on borders which the Foreign Secretary himself suggested? Thirdly, can she possibly rely on the United Nations, on an international force, when blackmail—and I call it "black-moil"—is being used against the nations of the world?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, the noble Lord asked again about the Centurions and the spare parts. I said to him (and perhaps I should have said it more explicitly) that we do in fact supply more arms to Egypt than we do to Israel; and it is indeed an endeavour to have an even-handed embargo. The noble Lord asked about Resolution 242. If he will read the Statement again he will realise that it said that we hope that with a cease-fire there will be negotiation towards achieving Resolution 242 in full. That means not only that part of it which he mentioned, but also the recognition of Israel, the security and guaranteed frontiers and much else, which I do not think it would be suitable to discuss in question and answer. As to the third question about the United Nations, he seemed to think that perhaps it was not the United Nations but it was the fear of a stoppage of oil which was causing an embargo on all arms. We have not as yet, as I speak at this moment, had any representations made to us on oil, but the fact remains that we think it was fair to impose the embargo on both sides.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that those who sympathise with Israel may not necessarily see their aims best

189
achieved by supplying further arms to Israel? Is it not obvious that, with the supply of arms coming from the United States and from Soviet Russia, such enormous quantities could come into both sides that the spread of this conflagration would be something which would immeasurably damage Israel and all the surrounding countries? Ts it not obvious, therefore, that the unique role our country can play now is to act as a mediator, and that in doing this we shall be serving the interests of Israel and everybody else far better than by supplying them with further arms?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I should like entirely to endorse what was said by my noble friend Lord Nugent. The whole point of trying to be even-handed in this matter is to bring about a solution which is fair and which will put us in a better position as a mediator.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, while hesitating to continue this debate, because that is what it is coming to, I should like to ask my noble friend Lady Tweedsmuir whether she does not realise that the supply of arms by this country is critical at this particular moment, and that the general impression given to the world by our continuing to supply arms to Saudi Arabia and by our refusal to supply spare parts and ammunition for the Centurion tanks which we sold under contract to Israel is an indication that we are at this critical moment discriminating very strongly against the State of Israel which we did so much to create and build up? Would she not reconsider, and give an undertaking that the Government would reconsider, this policy, especially with regard to the Centurion tanks? We are not trying to arm either side. We should cut off supplies of arms of every kind to all Arab countries, and we should continue to give to the Israelis the spare parts and the ammunition for the Centurion tanks. Otherwise, the world will think, as they think today, and as the Daily Telegraph said this morning, that our policy is discriminatory against Israel at a critical moment, that it is misguided and wrong, and that we leave this all to the United States.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I cannot accept what the noble Lord, Lord
190
Boothby, says—I really cannot. He suggests we should suspend all arms shipments to the Arab countries and that we should, on the other hand, continue to supply Israel. If I may, I would just repeat what was said in the Statement. We have suspended all shipments of arms to the battlefield because we consider it inconsistent to call for an immediate end to the fighting and yet to continue to send out arms to the conflict.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, are we to understand that the spare parts and other equipment which Israel ordered and has paid for will be provided and that the contract will be fulfilled when the war is over? Could we have that assurance—when it is all over? Do the Government wish that every honourable Member will take credit for having fulfilled a contract which, apart from any diplomatic connotation, is immoral commercially and is perhaps one of the worst actions ever taken by a Foreign Secretary advised by a pro-Arab Foreign Office?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I must defend the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, not just the Foreign Office—
LORD SHINWELL: Defend what you like!
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR or BELHELVIE: —for their excellent advice, and it is my right honourable friend who makes up his mind on any advice tendered to him. As I said to your Lordships' House, these are suspended contracts, and perhaps it would have been wiser if the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, had carefully thought over the point put to the House by my noble friend Lord Nugent, when he pointed out that enormous supplies of arms are pouring into these countries supplied by the Soviet Union and the United States, whereas our supplies would be insignificant by comparison. We think we are in the best position in order to work for very fair settlement.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, the proceedings in your Lordships' House are a matter for the House as a whole, not for me as Leader, but we have been interpreting the Companion to the Standing Orders very widely. It is quite

191
understandable that we should do so because of the importance of the subject matter referred to in the Statement, but the points that are being made now are, in the main, ones that have already been put in the last 42 minutes. The noble Baroness has given a very full account of the Foreign Secretary's policies as of now, and we will have an opportunity, as I said yesterday, to discuss this crucially important subject again on Thursday; so if your Lordships are willing to await the fuller debate, I think that would be more in accordance with the Rules of Order of the House.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL
4.27 p.m.
Further considered on Report.
Clause 130 [Housing]:
LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 71.
Amendment moved—
Page 77, line 14, leave out ("—1972") and insert ("to 1973").—(Lord Polwarth.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 14 [Amendment of enactments relating to roads]:
LORD POLWARTH LORD POLWARTH moved Amendment No. 72:
Page 200, line 13, leave out paragraph 53.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a purely technical Amendment. It rectifies an error in the Bill relating to the adaptation of part of the Road Traffic Act 1960, which is already correctly dealt with in Schedule 18. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD POLWARTH LORD POLWARTH moved Amendment No. 73:
Page 201, line 27, at end insert—
("In section 24(2) (arrangements for patrolling school crossings), for heads (i) and (ii) there shall be substituted the words "the regional or islands council".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this again remedies an omission in the Bill. It makes the new regional and island authorities responsible for the appointment of school crossing controls. No
192
provision has been previously made for these. They are obviously related to police and road traffic, and I think it appropriate they should go together. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 134 [Building]:
THE EARL OF BALFOUR THE EARL OF BALFOUR moved Amendment No. 74:
Page 78, line 22, leave out from ("districts") to end of line 25.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the purpose of this Amendment to Clause 134 is to make the building regulations and the Building (Scotland) Acts entirely covered at district level. As the Bill stands at the moment, Highland, Borders and the Dumfries and Galloway regions will be the future building authorities for those areas. In speaking to this Amendment, I would ask that your Lordships consider also Amendment No. 76, and Amendments Nos. 136 and 137. They would be all consequential to this Amendment. Except for the large burghs, the Town and Country Planning Acts have always been administered by the counties, but building regulations have always been dealt with at very local level, with the landward area of a county being covered by the building authority and all the burghs by the Dean of Guild Court. The Town and Country Planning Acts cover the external appearance and proposed use of any intended structure or alteration to a building. The building regulations, on the other hand, cover the actual construction or internal alteration to a building. One of the failings of the Town and Country Planning Acts is that there is no provision within those Acts that an adjoining proprietor must be informed of the intention to erect a structure or alter an existing building. But I am glad to say that in Scotland an adjoining proprietor must be informed under the building regulations, and furthermore the adjoining proprietor has the right to lodge an objection.
The Building Standards Explanatory Memorandum, of which there is a copy in your Lordships' Library, shows that the regulations, extending to eleven volumes, are extremely comprehensive, covering the durability and structural strength of materials, fire precautions, means of escape, chimneys, flues and

193
installations of heat producing appliances, damp proofing, foundations, roof construction and sound proofing, insulation, ventilation, electrical installation, day-lighting and space about the house, stairways and safety rails, drainage and sanitary appliances. This information requires a very specialised and local knoledge. May I say that I have no longer any connection, but I have had for quite a number of years a very close connection, with the building industry. I have put up buildings in a great many places in the centre of Scotland, and on three different occasions the master of works informed me, in lodging the building application, that the client for whom I was putting up the building did not own all the property upon which he wanted to put the building. This sort of information is obviously valuable; it protects the adjoining proprietors, and it protects also the proprietor.
If your Lordships plan to build in Scotland, the chances are that you will employ an architect, who will certainly design the general appearance of the building, but I doubt whether he will go into exact details of damp proofing, the percentage of daylight you require for the kitchen or whatever it may be. Having drawn up his plans, which need not be terribly exact, the contract is put out to tender and probably the lowest tender will be accepted. Again the building contractor is not going to spend any more on that house than he has to. I should like to emphasise that the one friend you are likely to have is the master of works, as he is known in Scotland, or the building authority officer as he will he known in future. He is the person who will really see that your interests are looked after and that the building is built to a satisfactory standard.
Having explained a little of the history, I shall now come more firmly to the point of this Amendment. I must be fair to both sides. This is what I would like your Lordships to consider. The Government's idea is that there would be too small an opportunity for a suitable career if the building regulations were to be a district function in the Highland, Borders and Dumfries and Galloway regions. But from all the research I have done, I do not think that this will be the case because, one, the new district will take over all the burghs and the Dean of Guild
194
Court is being repealed in Clause 228 of the Bill; two, there needs to be a constant supervision of any building being erected; three, I am certain that there will be sufficient buildings being erected to keep a district council department fully occupied; four, a regional headquarters would be far too remote to give a good public service. To have some offices in the Borders, Highland and Dumfries and Galloway regions would, in my opinion, have a far worse effect on the career structure than making this a district function. I feel that this is something that could be managed by the districts, will give the service to the public by the districts, and will create a career structure because there will be sufficient people there to do the job properly. I beg to move.
THE EARL OF CROMARTIE: My Lords, with the permission of the House, I would join my Amendment, the following one, to my noble friend Lord Balfour's Amendment, because it is about the same matter. So far as the Highland region is concerned, it is a vital Amendment, and of course I hope that the Government will accept it. If the Minister feels unable to do this, I trust that all your Lordships who know something of the Highland region and the great changes that are taking place there will support me in the Lobby. I must point out that when this Bill was first drafted nobody had ever heard about oil in regard to Scotland, except in your car, or about oil rigs. All these things are now taking place, and I am right in the middle of them. I refer, of course, to what will be the Highland region, which will be Inverness-shire which is on the southern periphery, Ross and Cromarty in the centre, and Sutherland and Caithness where more developments are going to take place. It is therefore absolutely essential that the building authority stays with the districts. We have got the people on the spot who can do it. To move them down further South to a region is quite nonsensical; it would serve no useful purpose. It is no use the Minister saying, "Ah, but you are going to have a marvellous extension to the A9 road". So we are, but it is not there yet, and even when it is there it will not affect the future developments which are inevitable in the North-West of Scotland and the Highlands of Scotland. One of

195
the biggest oilfields is probably the one which will be starting shortly South-West of Orkney. This affects Sutherland and Caithness, as it does us. I strongly support, for possibly slightly different reasons, this particular Amendment, and I should like to associate my Amendment with that of my noble friend Lord Balfour.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, I should like to support my noble friends. I think it would be much more sensible if building regulations were administered by the district councils. I think they will be big enough to do this in the vast majority of cases, even in the smaller regions—smaller in population, not geographically —like the Highland region and the Borders. I very much hope that the Government will see their way to agreeing either to the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Balfour, or particularly that which applies to the Highlands in the name of my noble friend Lord Cromartie.
VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN: My Lords, I am not unconnected with building and local government, and, so far as I can see, this is purely a question of what is in a name. If something is going to work at all, the detailed building and so on will have to be administered at a district level, as it is to-day. All that is going to happen is that it is going to be called "regional". That may be a pity, but I do not see chat it is going to make very much difference.
4.40 p.m.
LoRD POLWARTH: My Lords, we went over the same ground at the Committee stage of this Bill. It was at a late hour of the night and the noble Earl, as I recollect it, withdrew his Amendment on an assurance by me that I was very ready to look at the position again, but firmly without any commitment to change our views. Perhaps it was as well that I did that, because if we had had a Division at that hour I do not think that there would have been a House, and that would have been the end of the evening's proceedings. I feel bound to put the other side of the picture. We have had several noble Lords with experience in this field saying that we must have these decisions made locally; that they will be remote if this is a regional responsibility. However, there
196
are some definite arguments in the other direction. In the first place, there is a close link between building control and local planning. In the areas affected by the Amendments local planning will be a function of the regional authorities and not of the districts. It is important to bear in mind that there is a close link between these two functions.
There is considerably more than noble Lords have made out in this question of the resources necessary to employ staff of sufficiently professional qualification. My noble friend Lord Cromartie referred to oil rigs and the development of oil in the North-West, and he also brought the A.9 into it, but I do not think that that was relevant to the Amendment. I should have thought that the enormous new developments taking place in the North of Scotland are the strongest arguments for the responsibility being put on a broader basis than the district. They will require skills that are well beyond the capacity—supposing oil developments occur—of districts such as Skye and Lochalsh, with a population of 9,000, and Sutherland with a population of 12,000.
THE EARL OF CROMARTIE: My Lords, may I correct the Minister? The Kyle of Loehalsh will be part of the district of Inverness-shire, so you cannot isolate it.
LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, if I have made a mistake I would certainly admit to it. But take the district of Sutherland, with a population of 12,000, a district that is eagerly seeking oil development. Very professional skills will be needed here. As far back as 1957 the report of the Committee on Building Legislation in Scotland, under Lord Guest, drew attention to the need for better qualified building control staff for the efficient administration of a comprehensive modern building code. I am not casting any slurs on the qualifications or status of officials in this field at the present—indeed, they will be taken over and will play a valuable part—but what we want to see is higher qualifications and a genuine career structure, which in these particular cases of areas of small population could only be provided within a region. Surely this must be our desire.
I always come back again to the fact that the centre of administration being

197
the regional headquarters does not mean that the functioning will not be devolved. By the nature of the thing, it will have to be devolved to the different localities. I do not envisage the present arrangements for local applications and objections being significantly changed. I do not think that there will be any problem over this. I submit that your Lordships would do well to think about the question of the resources necessary to employ the kind of professionally qualified staff that we shall need, and nowhere more than in the areas where these new oil developments are bringing new techniques and new problems of every kind. Therefore I would sincerely ask your Lordships to reflect before supporting this Amendment.
4.45 p.m.
THE EARL OF BALFOUR: My Lords, I think I must impress upon my noble friend the Minister that he should not confuse the question of local planning and the building authority. I have never denied, nor have I ever wished to create the impression, that local planning should be at district level. I have always felt that local planning in these areas that I am attempting to alter should be looked at on a very broad line. Roughly as a guide, may I put this: that what has been in the past a county function should be a regional function in the future, but what has been a burgh function in the past (except where there is the enormous expense of something like sewage), should be a district function in future.
The master of works is the one person who really needs to have his ear very close to the ground in order to do his job. I am certain that the regional headquarters will be too remote, and that because of the distances involved the service required will simply not take place. Remember that the master of works, or the buildings authority inspector, is involved in every house, every hotel, every factory, every single building that is being put up, and he is the person who creates the standards. It has often been complained that houses in Scotland cost about 10 per cent. more than they do in England, but the reason behind that is the very high building standards that we have in Scotland. This is something of which Scotland should be immensely proud. The fittings, the standard of building in Scot-
198
land, are almost always superb, from whatever standard they may be judged.
Let me give one more illustration. There was unfortunately a very sad loss of life not very long ago in a French school built on the clasp system, a system which has often been used in Scotland but its original plans have had to be drastically amended in order to comply with the Scottish standards in respect of escape from fire. This is something that has again been seen to and inspected by the local master of works in an area. Let us just refer to the Highlands and the Border. To have the headquarters, say, in Inverness, and expect to get service in Fort William, is really asking rather a lot. Equally, to have the headquarters in, say, Galashiels and expect somebody to travel all the way to the coast at Eyemouth, where there is not even a decent bus route between the places, is to create a service that will break down. I ask my noble friend not to confuse planning, which is a once-and-for-all application, and the building regulations, which require a constant inspection and supervision from start to finish. Remember that it is under the building regulations that an adjoining proprietor can lodge objection to a building's erection, and not under the Town and Country Planning Acts.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Does the noble Earl wish to withdraw his Amendment?
THE EARL OF CROMARTIE: My Lords, may I ask for some advice from the Front Bench? There are two Amendments in one here, in fact. They really raise exactly the same point but in regard to different parts of the country.
LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, the procedure of the House is that each Amendment has to be moved separately —that is, if it is moved and not withdrawn—in the order in which the Amendments stand on the Marshalled List. The noble Earl, Lord Balfour, is first and the noble Earl, Lord Cromartie, is next. However, before a decision is made on this matter I would say this. While bowing to the experience of the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, in the operation of these building matters, controls and so on, I would point out to him that he totally ignored what I said about the

199
devolution of control and said that everybody would have to travel, I think, to Inverness, or to Galashiels, or wherever it was. I made it very clear in my speech that I am quite convinced that this will not be the case. There will be local offices established, and there will be no need to travel to the centre unless it concerns possibly some major matter.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I am surprised that the noble Earl ignored that factor because it seems to me to concede his case. The job is going to be done in these areas. This is what has been pointed out. It might as well be done, therefore, by the official as an official of the district as be done by that same official as an official of the region, at some distance. Of course, this arises from the very small districts, and I would say in some cases the needlessly small districts, which have been created; but the only point which arises which makes what is in the Bill of value is that there may well be circumstances in which a senior official, of whom there might be only one located in the region, could be of value to a number of these local people, and I am not certain how that could be got over if either of the Amendments is carried.
But I should also like to agree with what the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, has said on the question of planning and building authorities. It is desirable that they should he closely linked, and in many cases, while they are separate committees, the membership of them is made up of the same people; but that does not mean that they always arrive at the same decision. You can have a planning committee granting planning permission for something and the building authority refusing it because it does not comply with the regulations. On the other hand, you can have a building committee hav-
ing no option but to agree to something being done because it complies with the building regulations, and then the same people, acting as a planning committee, refusing permission because it is not a good development from a planning point of view. So while on occasion there are advantages in their being combined, it does not alter the fact that they are carrying out completely different functions, and there would be no great difficulty if they were in fact being carried out by different people because they have to be looked at from totally different points of view.
THE EARL OF BALFOUR: My Lords, I think I should like to press this Amendment and to test the feeling of your Lordships' House.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
THE EARL OF CROMARTIE THE EARL OF CROMARTIE moved Amendment No. 75:
Page 78, line 23, leave out ("Highland").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I have spoken quite enough about this matter and, quite obviously, I am going to press it to a Division, as I said I would. I beg to move.
LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, before the noble Earl proceeds to put his Amendment to the House, I should like to point out two things to him. He refers to leaving out the word "Highland". Is it really his intention that this should apply only in the Highland Region and not to the Islands areas? I would also point out to him that if he succeeds in carrying this Amendment it will be necessary to make consequential Amendments to the Schedules to the Bill.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 75) shall be agreed to?
4.55 p.m.
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 21; Not-Contents, 77.

CONTENTS

Archibald, L.

Gray, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Atholl, D. [Teller.]

Henderson, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Balerno, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Stocks, B.

Balfour, E.

Laurderdale, E.

Summerskill, B.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

MacLeod of Fuinary, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Boothby, L.

Margadale, L.

Wright of Ashton under Lyne, L.

Cromartie, E. [Teller.]

Moyne, L.

Ferrier, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Elton, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Abinger, L.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Northchurch, B.

Alport, L.

Ferrers, E.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Arwyn, L.

Garner, L.

Oakshott, L.

Auckland, L.

Glendevon, L.

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

Ballantrae, L.

Gowrie, E.

Perth, E.

Barnby, L.

Grenfell, L.

Polwarth, L.

Berkeley, B.

Gridley; L.

Rowallan, L.

Bledisloe, V.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Hailes, L.

St. Just, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, B.

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

Sandford, L.

Carrington, L.

Sandys, L.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Hanworth, V.

Sharpies, B.

Coleraine, L.

Harvey of Prestbury, L.

Stamp, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Hawke, L.

Stonehaven, V.

Courtown, E.

Inchyra, L.

Strange, L.

Daventry, V.

Ironside, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Davidson, V.

Killearn, L.

Strathedcn and Campbell, L.

de Clifford, L.

Kilmany, L.

Thomas, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Kindersley, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Limerick, E.

Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, B.

Dudley, E.

Long, V.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Ebbisham, L.

Mancroft, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Eccles, V.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Windlesham, L. (L. Privy Seal.)

Effingham, E.

Mersey, V.

Young, B.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Monck, V.

Younger of Leckie, V.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

5.0 p.m.
LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 207, line 31, leave out ("subsections (1) and (4)") and insert ("subsection (1)").—(Lord Polwarth.)
Schedule 16 [Amendment of Enactments relating to River Purification]:
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, this is also a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 208, line 44, at end insert—
("3. In section 12(1) (power to appoint agents, etc), after the word "scheme" there shall be inserted the words "prepared in pursuance of an order under section 135(5) and (6)(b) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 ".").—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, Amendment No. 79 is another drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 209, line 38, leave out ("the") where second occurring, and insert ("this").—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
Clause 148 [Water]:
5.5 p.m.
LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved Amendment No. 79A:
Leave out Clause 148.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment and a number of others would have the effect of continuing the existence of the regional water boards. I know that this matter was very fully discussed in another place, but I think I am right to put this Amendment forward because I, and no doubt others, should like to hear why the Government think it desirable to do away with water boards. Water boards were set up in Scotland some five years ago and I do not think that there is any doubt that in their operation they have been completely successful. If no reform of local government had been taking place, there would certainly have been no demand for the abolition of water boards. I think that, without exception, they have proved that they can do the job in a much better way than it had been done hitherto.
When Her Majesty's Government decided to extend the benefits of the water board system to England and Wales, we in Scotland, in our innocence, thought that this was being done because the Scottish experiment had proved so successful that it was worthy of export South of the Border. But no sooner have the Government done that in England and Wales than they have

203
decided to scrap it in Scotland. The only reason for their doing this that I can think of is that they have accepted the argument that wherever possible these functions should be handed over to elected authorities rather than to appointed authorities. But this was not the only case where this was asked for. There was a demand for health authorities, for hospitals and for medical functions to go back to local authorities; but the Government, when legislating in that field, were not impressed by the argument that it was better that these functions should be carried out by elected authorities. They were much more concerned with the fact that the bulk of the money for hospitals had to be found by the Government, and therefore they wanted to have the control of this firmly in the hands of central Government.
I think that in perhaps conceding that this was a case where they could turn it over to elected control they are in danger of putting at risk the successes which have been achieved by the water boards during these five years—not over the whole of Scotland; but, in some areas, because of the way that things have developed, the water board is covering the same area as the successor regional authority. For instance, the Tayside region covers the area of the East of Scotland water board; the Fife region covers the area of the Fife and Kinross water board; of the new regions created yesterday Lower Clyde water board will take in two; and Lanark, Ayrshire and Arran will function just as the water boards did.
But in another place—and it is on this point that I should like to know the Government thinking—there was a feeling that the one thing, lacking in water legislation was the absence of a single authority for Scotland and that particularly (because things have developed industrially in parts of Scotland in a way which was not dreamt of) the need for a single authority will probably arise much sooner than people might have expected. It is believed that the continued existence of the water boards will make it easier for that development to take place if and when it becomes necessary. Experience has always shown that it may be much easier to give powers to a local authority than to take those powers from
204
them. By this Bill the matter is now being made an elected authority function, and if it should be desirable to return either to the present situation or a single water authority in the future—and in another place the Minister did not rule out that possibility—it is going to become a great deal more difficult. My Lords, I beg to move.
VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN: My Lords, I want wholeheartedly to support the noble Lord, Lord Hughes—I nearly said my noble friend; I hope he did not mind.
LORD HUGHES: I believe it is in order if you say "across the way".
VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN: My Lords, I must declare an interest. I have been a member of the East of Scotland Water Board since its inception. I personally think it is the best Board in Scotland by a long chalk, but perhaps I am prejudiced. Nevertheless, I whole-heartedly support the noble Lord in the idea of a central authority for water in Scotland. Water is not a Government function, it is an engineering function, and it is governed by engineering facts, figures and what have you. What is required on water boards is people who know something about water and if you want to develop good water and a good water industry these are the kind of people you want. You do not want good Tories, or good Socialists or good Liberals. This does not do anything for water at all. Not only that, we have a success story of the Water Boards in Scotland, copied by England, and what do the Government do? Having had everybody in chaos, and disturbed all the labour relations, now that we have at last settled them down and the experiment has been successful the whole darned thing is to be thrown overboard. And in many cases, because we have worked under the water board system, a large amount of expense will be incurred. We have our depots in the wrong places—but in the right places for the water boards. So far as I can see it is pure darned stupid.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I note what my noble friend Lord Stone-haven has said, but I also note, if he feels so strongly about it, that he did not himself put down an Amendment. It is interesting that the noble Lord, Lord

205
Hughes, has put down his Amendment as a starred Amendment only to-day. Nevertheless, he has called for reasons and I shall try to give him the reasons why this solution has been adopted.
My Lords, it is of course a fact, as he knows very well, that the water services were reorganised in Scotland in 1968 and there were then about 200 water authorities (town and county councils and joint water boards) and serving, many of them, very small populations. In the Report of 1966, the Scottish Water Advisory Committee concluded that responsibility was distributed among too many authorities without adequate resources to meet modern needs, and that a major overhaul of the structure of the service was necessary. The Committee's recommendation which was embodied in the 1967 Act, was that 13 regional water boards should be established, along with a water development board which would develop major new sources of supply in Central Scotland.
No one would deny for a moment that the outcome of that legislation has been successful. The regional water boards have worked well and they have done a good job, but as was pointed out when the matter was very extensively debated in the Commons, no one knew in 1967 what the pattern of local government would be that would emerge from the Royal Commission. If they had known they might have decided on a different solution. The Royal Commission's recommendations have created a new situation and the future responsibility for water has to be judged against the wider background of local government reform. What Clause 148 does is to give effect to the Royal Commission's recommendation that water (and sewerage and sewage disposal) should be the direct responsibility of local government and should be administered by the same authorities, the reason being that these are essentially main infrastructure services associated with strategic planning, and accordingly they should be assigned to regional authorities. The Report pointed out the inherent disadvantages of ad hoc water boards which are, first of all, that they separate to an unacceptable degree the responsibility for spending money from the responsibility for raising it; and secondly that they are not directly re-
206
sponsible to anyone. Paragraph 272 of the Report said as regards water that:
"The new regional water boards may be a great improvement on what went before: but the case for retaining them must be made in the context not of a past structure of local government but of a new and reformed structure".
My Lords, at the Government's request the Scottish Water Advisory Committee considered what changes should be made in the organisation of the water service in the light of the Royal Commission's Report and of the Government's White Paper. The Advisory Committee found that with very few exceptions the proposed regional and islands areas were suitable for water supply purposes. To meet the practical difficulties in certain areas they put forward two proposals which they considered as practical alternatives. The first one was that the majority favoured the creation of an ad hoc Central Scotland Water Authority which would be responsible for water supply and distribution and would take over the functions of the Central Scotland Water Development Board. The minority (including the chairman) favoured the transfer of water functions to regional and islands authorities throughout the country but with special "added area" arrangements for certain problem areas; and the retention of the Central Scotland Water Development Board. The minority recommendation was fully discussed in the Standing Committee and in another place and they rejected an Amendment to give effect to it by 17 votes to 7. The Committee also debated fully the proposal to transfer the functions of regional water boards to the new water authorities on the Motion, That the Clause stand part and agreed by 16 votes to 7 to keep the Government proposal in the clause.
It would be contrary to the fundamental principles laid down by the Royal Commission to keep regional water boards and there would be no attendant operational advantage. Separate boards would have to be created for Orkney and Shetland where the Government are permitted to hand back the service to local control. In these and other areas where the new regional boundaries would be coterminus with the water board boundaries there is no need for a water board structure. Elsewhere, water boards would have to requisition from the

207
regional councils in their regions. On the other hand, the new regional and islands areas are suitable for water supply purposes, with the exception of a few small areas which can be dealt with by bulk supply or "added area" arrangements. It is on the grounds of principle and practicality that the Government proposal is regarded as the correct solution and I hope it will be accepted by the House.
The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, asked why England had gone over to ad hoc water boards just at a time when Scotland is departing from them. It hardly needs stressing that the situation in the two countries is quite different. Most of the new English counties do not cover river basins, so ad hoc arrangements have to be made for them. On the other hand, the Scottish regions cover water areas extremely well—so well in fact that there is no need for the original proposal to be put forward for the central water board.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I do not intend to press this Amendment to a Division. I wanted to hear for myself some of the arguments which had been put in another place. The only comment I would make further at this stage is that I wish that we had taken the reform of the Health Service after the reform of local government, because the wholesale condemnation which the noble Lord has made of ad hoc bodies would have been very useful ammunition against the Government in setting up ad hoc bodies to run the Health Service; and I know that the question of high principle which has been enunciated so well in respect of these bodies is thrown overboard when one comes up against the Treasury's desire to hang on to control of the money. Principle would not matter in that direction. However, that battle has been fought and lost already and no useful purpose would be served by going over it again today. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 17 [Amendment of Enactments relating to Water]:
5.20 p.m.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL THE DUKE OF ATHOLL moved Amendment No. 80:
Page 210, line 20, at end insert—
("5A. In section 26(1) (power of regional water board to lay mains)—

(a) in place of paragraph (b) there shall be substituted the following paragraph:—

"(b) with the consent of every owner and occupier of any land not forming part of a street, in, on or over that land;"

(b) at the end of the subsection there shall be added the words—

"Provided that a consent required for the purposes of this subsection shall not be unreasonably withheld and any question whether such consent is, or is not, unreasonably withheld shall be referred to and determined by the Secretary of State.".")

The noble Duke said: My Lords, we now enter that part of the Bill that was not discussed at any great length in Committee owing to shortage of time. I would much rather have discussed this Amendment and Amendment No. 81 in Committee as I feel they are much more suitable points for a Committee stage than the Report stage of a Bill. None the less, I think it is worth while giving them an airing. Section 26(1)(b) of the Water (Scotland) Act 1946 gives a water authority a right to lay a water main. Before doing so all they are required to do is to give reasonable notice to the owner or occupier of the land. They are also required to pay compensation for any damage done or for any injurious affection of the land resulting from the water board's activities. I believe that in England the water authority have no right to lay drains over private land without the consent of the owner. This requirement does not apply to mains which are being laid in any street. These statutory provisions are laid down in paragraph 19 of the Third Schedule to the 1945 Water Act. The section further provides that if the consent of an owner or occupier of any land is unreasonably withheld appeal may be made to the Minister, whose decision is final.
My Lords, all I attempt to do by this Amendment is to bring the provisions in Scotland into line with those in England, so that the consent of every owner or occupier of land not forming part of the street must be obtained by the water

209
authority before they have the right to lay a water main. The Amendment also has a similar safeguard in the English Act, in that if consent is unreasonably withheld appeal may be made to the Secretary of State, and his decision is final. I beg to move.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I think my noble friend is under some misapprehension as to what the English Act actually does. He is quite right in saying that the wording of the proposed amendment of Section 26(1) of the Act of 1946 does follow closely that of paragraph 19 of the Third Schedule to the English Water Act 1945; but he himself says that this relates to cases where the undertaker is a private undertaker. The paragraph itself is adopted. It has to be applied by Ministerial order to each water undertaking, and English water undertakings, who are local authorities under the Public Health Act 1936, already possess power to lay mains simply on giving reasonable notice. It is accordingly the practice of the English department, so I am informed, in applying paragraph 19 to undertakers who are local authorities, to modify it to bring it into line with the Public Health Act code. In short, then, the English position is at present similar to the Scottish, except in relation to undertakers who are not local authorities; that it to say, the private water companies. So that my noble friend is not quite right in saying that the effect of his Amendment would be to bring the position in Scotland into line with the position in England.
The issues involved in these Amendments have been raised with the British Waterworks Association, who represent water undertakers throughout Britain, and the correct procedure is for discussions with the Association to continue until conclusions can be submitted to the Government for consideration in connection with the first suitable legislation. We hope that such conclusions can be reached with a substantial measure of agreement. The Government in the meantime must keep an open mind as to the merits of amending the law until the views of the body representing water undertakings in Britain are known and discussions are concluded.
I think I should add—because this is the view the Government take—that this Bill is not the appropriate vehicle
210
for alterations to the statutory operational powers of water undertakers, and particularly not for alteration of the provision affecting fundamental relations between them and private interests. I have made it clear that the discussions on such alterations are going on at the present time. I must advise your Lordships to resist the Amendment, and I would simply add that if the results of those discussions were known at the present time, the Government do not think that this is the appropriate Bill in which to incorporate them.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for giving us so much information. I have elicited what I wanted from him. I am quite happy to leave the position as it is, and beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL THE DUKE OF ATHOLL moved Amendment No. 81:
Page 210, line 20, at end insert—
("5B. In section 26(2) (payment of compensation by regional water boards) after the words "damage done to or injurious affection of that land" there shall be inserted the words "whether resulting from negligence or otherwise".").
The noble Duke said: My Lords, I can move this Amendment quite quickly. I realise that it suffers from the same defect as the last Amendment, in that this Bill would not be a suitable vehicle for it. However, it raises a point of some importance, and I really put down the Amendment to try to impress on my noble friends on the Front Bench that we need some degree of urgency in the negotiations going on between the various bodies and thereby to get a new Water Bill. This Amendment is also slightly more important than the last Amendment in what it sets out to achieve. Its object is to provide that there shall be an obligation on a water authority to pay compensation for damage done whether or not the claimant has been able to establish negligence against the water authority. When a water main bursts it may do a great deal of damage. I think I am right in saying that, as the law stands at present, unless the farmer over whose land the water main has gone—very often, as we have heard on the previous Amendment, without his consent—can establish negligence on the

211
part of the water board, he can get compensation only for the damage done by the vehicle and by the men who come to repair the burst water main, and cannot get compensation for the damage done by the actual flooding.
This Amendment would have the effect of enabling an owner or occupier to obtain damages for the actual flooding caused by a burst water main. A bad burst can be very expensive and possibly ruinous for a small farmer, and I should have thought it only fair that some such provision as this should be adopted. I realise the difficulties of achieving it here and now, but I should like my noble friend to give us some indication that there might be legislation in the fairly near future on this particular point, if not on the previous one. I beg to move.
VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN: My Lords, I have to declare my interest, and I wish to support this Amendment. I also want to say that I did not put down an Amendment because at the time of the Committee stage of the Bill, which I think is the appropriate time to put down Amendments, I was engaged in proceedings on a Provisional Order and could not be in your Lordships' House. Your Lordships can take that excuse or not, as you like. As I say, I support this Amendment. It would not, in my opinion, accomplish what is desired, but I think it is worth stressing. We in the East of Scotland Water Board have taken over a large chunk of Scotland, with a great many points that were laid a hundred years ago. As to whether or not they were properly laid, or as to the state of the pipes and so on, we just find out as we go along. But I can tell your Lordships that we have about one burst a day; so the matter is not trivial. We went to the extent of getting counsel's opinion because we, as a board, consider it grossly unfair not to be able to pay compensation to a small farmer who has had a great deal of damage done by the escape of water from pipes from which we are at least drawing revenue. According to counsel's opinion, there is considerable difficulty in interpreting the law.
One of the two sections which govern compensation is Section 1 of the Water
212
(Scotland) Act 1946. The governing point is that it reads:
"…by reason of the exercise by the authority…".
That, according to the lawyers and according to the insurance companies, is a gorgeous get-out. You can get compensation only for things that are done by the employees. The other one, Section 26(2) of the same Act, reads:
"…by reason of the laying…".
These are the key points and apparently in law are a complete get-out. The only method by which this situation could he overcome would he by including—not touching these two clauses as they are—another clause stating definitely that water boards or the authorities are to he liable for damage done by water escaping. Unless that is in black and white the lawyers and the insurance people will wriggle round it. It is a very unsatisfactory state of affairs. I know the answers, because we have written to the S.P.D. and the noble Lord has read out most of the answers they have given to the board, but I should like him to give us an assurance that the Government will not sit on this matter for the next ten or fifteen years while we as water boards are having to do dishonourable things.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am grateful to both my noble friends for the contribution they have made to this debate, particularly, if I may say so, to my noble friend Lord Stonehaven with his particular experience; and to have his appeal made from a member of a water board is particularly cogent. There is no doubt that the law is not clear and its meaning has never actually been tested in the courts so far. I am inclined to agree with my noble friend Lord Stonehaven that it is doubtful whether the Amendment would clarify this situation and he is probably right in saying that other amending legislation is required.
It might be useful if I reminded the House of what we are talking about. Clause 26(2) reads as follows, as amended:
"Where a regional water board and water development board in the exercise of their powers under this section may lay a main in, on or over any land not forming part of a street or inspect, repair, maintain, alter, renew or reform a main laid in, over or

213
on any such land they shall from time to time pay compensation to every person interested in that land for any damage done or injurious affection of that land"—
at which point the words proposed to be added would come in—
"whether resulting from negligence or otherwise…"
I go on now without the words added in—
"by reason of the laying, inspection, repair, maintenance, alteration, renewal or removal of the main and any question as to the amount of compensation to be paid under this subsection shall in occasion of dispute be determined by arbitration."
This is what we are actually talking about at the present time, so the Water (Scotland) Act 1946 as it now stands does provide for compensation for damage done or enjoins protection of the land in these circumstances, and such compensation is payable whether the damage does or does not result from actual negligence. In this respect the Amendment adds nothing to the section.
However, I understand that the Scottish water boards and the British Waterworks Association take the view that statutory water undertakings are not liable for damage caused by a burst water main unless negligence can be proved. Compensation for damage resulting from such a burst may well be payable under Section 12 of the 1946 Act which provides for compensation to be paid, and I quote:
"to any person who has sustained damage by reason of the exercise by the authority of any of their powers"
under that Act; but the legal position is not clear and has never been tested in the courts. The Scottish Development Department has had correspondence with the Scottish Landowners' Federation informally and the Federation are aware of the Department's view. All I can say to my noble friend—I am afraid I cannot give him the assurance that he asks for in this Bill—is that the Department have undertaken to keep in mind the possibility of clarifying the position when the opportunity for amending legislation arises. That is the second time that I have used the words, "when the opportunity for amending legislation arises". I hope it will be well within ten years.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, inspired by the fine phrase of my noble
214
friend, I should expect that it would be well within three years, but on the other hand it may not. I should have been very surprised if no one had said that the Amendment was defective in doing what I hoped it would do. That is the usual way with these Amendments. I am grateful for the support I have received from my noble friend Lord Stonehaven which I greatly appreciated. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, Amendment No. 82, with Amendments Nos. 83 and 84, and Amendment No. 170 to Schedule 29, page 306, line 12, are all drafting Amendments made in the interests of clarity and simplicity. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 211, line 33, leave out ("district council") and insert ("water authority, regional council, district council and water development board for every area").—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 83.
Amendment moved—
Page 211, line 40, leave out ("district council") and insert ("water authority, regional council, district council and water development board for every area").—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 84.
Amendment moved—
Page 212, line 2, leave out ("district council") and insert ("water authority, regional council, district council and water development board for any area").—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 85:
Page 218, line 47, at end insert—
("The Water Act 1973
64. In the Water Act 1973 any reference to a regional water board shall be construed as a reference to a water authority.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment goes together with Amendment No. 174. The Amendment to Schedule 17 provides for references in Section 4(5)(d), 4(6), 8(5) and 38(1) of the English Water Act 1973 to regional

215
water boards to be construed as references to the new Scottish water authorities when in 1975 these bodies take over the functions of regional water boards. The Amendment to Clause 239 is consequential.
Clause 150 [Public transport]:
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 86:
Page 92. line 16, at end insert—
("(4) References in this section to the Greater Glasgow Passenger Transport Area and the Greater Glasgow Passenger Transport Authority include references to that Area or Authority as varied by an order made under section 9 of the said Act of 1968.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this deals with a rather different subject. We now turn to references to Greater Glasgow Passenger Transport Area. The Amendment makes it possible for the Secretary of State, if he so desires, to alter the name of the Greater Glasgow Passenger Transport Area and Authority. Without this provision it might be held that the references in Clause 150 would inhibit any change. In any case it would be necessary, after the Bill is enacted, to make some small adjustments to the boundaries of the Passenger Transport Authority as described in the designation to make them coincide with the boundaries of the relevant new districts. I beg to move.
Schedule 18 [Amendment of certain enactments relatint to transport]:
LORD POLWARTH LORD POLWARTH moved Amendment No. 87:
Page 222, line 4, leave out ("North Ayrshire") and insert ("Cunninghame").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I must apologise to the House. There was a slight misunderstanding between myself and my noble friend at this point. This Amendment and the subsequent one (No. 90) set out the name of the new district created at the Report stage in another place. It was previously omitted in error and it is necessary to put this in.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I really ought to have invited the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, to make a manuscript
216
Amendment, because "Cuninghame" is now spelt in the Bill and in the district with a single "n" at the beginning and there are several alternative local spellings. This is the one I have always preferred and that is what was put in my Amendment. Therefore if the noble Lord at this stage puts in the word as it is spelt here it will refer to something which does not exist elsewhere in the Bill. I do not know how we get out of this difficulty, but perhaps he might feel able to alter the word—after all, if he wants to alter it back later on, it is just one alteration.
LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, I appreciate the problem, and I suspect that the matter might be dealt with by another place. Would that be the noble Lord's view?
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, it would probably be better done here. I rather think that we have already given them quite a lot to do.
LORD ROWALLAN: My Lords, "Cunninghame" is the family name and "Cuninehame" is rather the local name.
THE EARL OF BALFOUR: My Lords, could this not be done by means of a printing correction? This may not be quite right, but I am sure that nobody is going to argue about it at this stage.
LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, may I suggest that we deal with this matter at Third Reading? I do not think there will be any problem about doing so.
LORD HUGHES: It has been suggested that it can be treated as a printing error and in this way it could go into the printed Bill with a single "n" at the beginning. I know that this is one of those matters where one gets information and where the principal local authority say, "This is the way we want it", but somebody else, as has already happened, says that he would like something else. After all, if we are thinking of "Cunningham" most of us spell it without the final "e", so there is yet a further spelling.
LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, I hope the noble Lord will agree that it might be wiser to deal with it at Third Reading. We will then straighten the matter out.
Clause 154 [Piers and Harbours]:
5.45 p.m.
THE DUKE of ATHOLL THE DUKE of ATHOLL moved Amendment No. 88:
Page 94, line 31, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsection (2)below,").
The noble Duke said: My Lords, I think it would be for the convenience of the House if I spoke to Amendments 88 and 89 at the same time as they both deal with the same subject. At the Committee stage of this Bill I put down an Amendment in the names of myself and my noble friend Lord Inchyra that all local authority controlled harbours in Scotland should go under district control and not under regional control. My noble friends on the Front Bench resisted this, I think mainly on the ground that most of these were fishery ports and that some degree of co-ordination within the regions was desirable. Their other ground was that only two ports seemed to have a great objection to going under regional control: one was Perth and there seemed to be some doubt as to whether the other was Buckle or Banff. My noble friend said it was Banff and I said it was Buckie. I think Buckie is correct, though I am not quite sure. At any rate, Buckle is a fishing port.
I then put down an Unstarred Question to try to discover how many of these harbours dealt with cargo to any great extent. My Question read:
"To ask Her Majesty's Government how many of the local authority harbours in Scotland handled over 2,000 tons of cargo in 1972, or some other convenient 12-month period, and how many, and which ones, handled over 20,000 tons of cargo for the same period."
I had a reply, for which I am very grateful, from the noble Baroness, Lady Young, on behalf of the Department of the Environment, which stated that she regretted that this information was not available, since the local authorities who operate these very small harbours are not required to make returns of their traffic. So I think this establishes beyond peradventure that Perth is a very small harbour. That is my first reason for suggesting that it should be under district rather than regional control. I should point out that Perth has no fishing traffic at all. It is entirely a transport harbour, and so it would have been covered by that Question. My second point is that
218
Perth is unique in two different ways as a harbour. It is the only local authority port in the Tayside Region, and the Tayside Region is the only region—except possibly those which were created with the help of the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, yesterday, and I have not been able to check on them—which had only one local authority harbour in it.
One of the arguments my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn put forward at Committee stage was that all other transport functions were dealt with on a regional basis. I do not feel that the ports' transport functions are quite the same as, for instance, roads or public transport. I feel that small ports could be more advantageously dealt with on a district basis because they are where they are and nothing can be done about it. You cannot alter them. You could of course enlarge them, but this is difficult and cannot be done without a great deal of planning which would not be a regional problem but probably done on a national basis. The actual running of the port is very much a day-to-day matter for the local people. I think any noble Lord who knows Perth harbour will be impressed by its operations. It has good labour relations, is efficient and is economically run. It is also a source of local pride and it serves the local community in an area largely covered by the proposed Perth and Kinross district. Another argument that the Government produced at the Committee stage was that it served other areas of the Tayside Region besides the Perth and Kinross district. This is, of course, true to a small extent, but it also serves other regions—for instance, the Fife Region—and I think a certain amount of traffic also goes to what we are now calling the Central Region.
As Perth City Council disappears as a result of this Bill we obviously cannot keep the management exactly as before: but let us keep it as nearly as possible since it has proved itself. What is the point of enacting a provision whereby control is transferred from its doorstep to a place probably 21 miles away? It is not yet certain where the headquarters of the Tayside Region are going to be, but the chances are they will be nearer to Dundee than Perth; and if Dundee has its way they will be within the present boundaries of the city of Dundee, but I would not like to speculate on that.

219
Certainly control will be transferred to a place somewhat farther away than it is at the moment, farther away than it would be if it remained in the Perth and Kinross district. This place will have no direct interest in Perth harbour. Although it will not have Dundee harbour under its control the thoughts of the people in the Tayside Region, the regional council officials, are bound to be clouded by the proximity of the somewhat lareer harbour at Dundee. It is also easier to put points to district councillors than to regional councillors. This is a small matter, but as there are more district councillors it will be easier for them to take up matters appertaining to Perth harbour than it would be for regional councillors to do so.
My noble friend pointed out that the regional authority could delegate functions under Clause 56. He seemed confident that the new regional authority would do this so far as Perth harbour was concerned. His honourable friend in the other place, Mr. Buchanan-Smith, went so far as to say that a Circular would be sent to the new regional authorities encouraging them to do this. But if they are going to do this anyway, why do we not write it into the Bill and make sure that the running of Perth harbour remains in more or less the same hands as it is now, and so let us be sure that it will be run as successfully and efficiently as it is at the moment? I beg to move.
LORD INCHYRA: My Lords, I should like to support the noble Duke in this Amendment. He has advanced all the arguments in favour of maintaining Perth harbour as it is at present. I can only add one other argument, and I have some hesitation in saying this as it is a local argument; but, on the other hand, we have been told of the importance of carrying local opinion in all these new arrangements under the Bill, and that the new plans will not work 100 per cent. efficiently unless they have the support of local opinion. This is a case where one can truthfully say that local opinion is definitely against the Government's proposal to transfer the control of Perth harbour to the regions. Perth is in a slightly apprehensive state about the new set-up; it is going to lose its town council, it is going to lose the title of "Lord
220
Provost" and does not know what is in store for it in Tayside. The fact that it is going to lose the harbour as well is an additional point of unhappiness.
I am afraid that this is a case where civil servants who have drawn up this sensible plan have not paid enough attention to local opinion. Having been a civil servant myself, I know only too well that public opinion is not always the first thing civil servants take into account. This is a case where the Government ought to go out of their way to pay more attention to local feelings on the subject, and not necessarily to insist on 100 per cent. implementation of what is no doubt the perfect set-up from the purely planning point of view. I should like to support the noble Duke in his Amendment.
5.55 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, my two noble friends could not have moved this Amendment more persuasively, and I suspect that whatever I may say they are not likely to change their views. If I understand their views, in a nutshell they believe small harbours should be district responsibilities, and in any case Perth harbour should be a district responsibility. I think they would wish me, however, to put the case as I see it, and I ask the House to judge then where the greatest advantage lies. I hope that what I am going to say will reassure my noble friends considerably, although I cannot meet the points they have made.
As the House will have gathered by now, Clause 154 of the Bill provides that all harbours, piers, boatslips and jetties presently vested in local authorities are to be transferred to the respective regions and islands areas. This does not affect harbours such as Dundee, Aberdeen. Grangemouth, Leith and the Clyde ports which are vested in the various port authorities. The effect of these Amendments would be to except Perth Harbour alone from the general provision applying to the other 230 or so local authority harbours in Scotland. Plainly that is not impracticable, but the proposal lays a very heavy burden on its sponsors to prove that it is both necessary and desirable.
The Wheatley Commission recommended that local authority harbours should be a regional responsibility chiefly

221
because they are an essential element in the exercise of functions related to transport and ferries. There is a subsidiary argument as well. The Government accepted this recommendation, which was fully considered in the other place, and there was no Division against it on the Report stage, though there was in Committee. The case for making Perth an exception was moved in the other place by the Member for East Perth but not pressed to a Division. Although 9 out of the 230 or so local authority harbours in Scotland made representations against the proposals in the first instance, those representations have been sustained by Perth alone.
My noble friend the Duke of Atholl put the grounds for excepting Perth admirably and very succinctly in Committee when he said of local authority harbours in general (and he repeated some of this to-day) that first they have been economically run, secondly they are a source of local pride, and thirdly they have very little regional trade. With the first two propositions I agree. But there is no reason why Perth harbour should not continue to be economically run. It will almost certainly continue to be run under local management. It would be wrong for me to say certainly, but I can say almost certainly. It is already possible under the Bill for any local authority to arrange for any of its functions to be discharged by a committee of the authority or by any other local authority. So it could appoint a harbour committee and ensure that elected members at local level were involved. I suppose it could even arrange for the district authority to run the harbour. I can assure my noble friend that the Government will take steps to encourage regional authorities to devolve harbour administration to a local level, and my noble friend has already referred to the Circular sent out by the Scottish Office. But it will be for the new regional authority to decide for themselves precisely how to secure the best form of local management. In this way they can ensure that the harbour is economically run and that local sensibilities are respected.
I cannot agree with my noble friend that there is very little regional trade. The harbour owes its significance in considerable measure to agricultural traffic
222
which comes from and goes to places throughout the Tayside Region, and not only from the new Perth district alone. There really is no logical reason to except Perth harbour from the general principle that transport functions are to be regional responsibilities, nor are there sufficient reasons of a practical nature to warrant creating a single anomaly in this way. And there is surely a fallacy in arguing that, because Perth is the only local authority harbour in the Tayside Region, therefore it should be a district and not a regional responsibility. Would it not be equally valid—or invalid—to contend that, if there were, say, a single further education college in a region, this should be a matter for the district in which it was located and not for the region which is the education authority? After all, education colleges can also be sources of very great pride. The basic reason for Tayside's being responsible for Perth harbour, which is exclusively a transport harbour, is that the Tayside authority is to be the transport authority.
I admit that a matter of sentiment and past associations are involved, though the associations are with the burgh of Perth rather than with the new district of Perth and Kinross. But in the far-reaching reforms which this Bill is to enact there are inevitably a considerable number of cases where sentiment has to give way to practical considerations, and I hope that my noble friend will agree in the end that this is one of them, particularly as one can envisage, I think, that the practical considerations and the sentiment will in the end coincide.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, I have listened to my noble friend with great interest. He of course called Wheatley to his aid, quite rightly, but there were very few representations on the subjects of ports and harbours to the Wheatley Commission, and what there were I think were largely, if not entirely, concerned with the fishery ports and harbours. I am prepared to admit that, having thought about it since the Committee stage, I think he had a reasonable case for making the small harbours of the North-East and the Highlands, which deal largely with fishing traffic, a regional function, and not a district function. That is why I changed my Amendment on this occasion.

223
I would endorse every word that my noble friend Lord Inchyra said about local opinion. I have had communications from the Town Clerk of Perth City—or the City Clerk; he calls himself the "Town Clerk", actually—on behalf of the council, and I gather that it is the unanimous opinion of the City Council of Perth that the harbour should remain a district function and not be a regional function. I am sure that in saying this they are reflecting the opinion of their constituents. The argument about regional traffic is difficult to resolve. I am quite prepared to agree that Perth harbour is based on the agricultural and timber traffic that it has, although it handles some other things. But, while some of this traffic will obviously go outside the Perth and Kinross district into the Tayside Region, I would suspect as much would go outside the Perth and Kinross district into the Central Region, and possibly rather more into the Fife Region. Dundee, as I have said, is a considerably bigger harbour and I suspect that traffic in any bulk which was being landed for places such as Forfar would come into Dundee or somewhere like that —Montrose, perhaps—rather than Perth. No
shipping line is going to send a ship 21 miles unnecessarily up a river for the privilege of unloading at Perth and then taking it back to Forfar or Montrose—
LORD HUGHES: Especially, my Lords, as it could not get under the bridge.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: Especially as it could not get under the bridge, and there is a limited amount of tonnage that a ship can actually land at Perth harbour. So I am not convinced by this argument at all. Furthermore, I am not convinced by the noble Lord's simile with a further education college. I do not think this holds water. After all, a further education college draws its inmates from a very wide area, and therefore I should have thought that there were much better arguments for that being a regional function than for a port which, on the whole, serves a markedly local area. I am afraid that my noble friend has not convinced me on this subject, and I think it is something the House ought to decide.
6.5 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 88) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 45; Not-Contents, 59.

CONTENTS

Arwyn, L.

Inchyra, L. [Teller.]

Seear, B.

Atholl, D. [Teller.]

Killearn, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Ballantrae, L.

Kilmany, L.

Shepherd, L.

Blyton, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Shinwell, L.

Clwyd, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Slater, L.

Dundee, E.

MacLeod of Fuinary, L.

Somers, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Margadale, L.

Strange, L.

Ferrier, L.

Mersey, V.

Strathclyde, L.

Garnsworthy, L.

Nathan, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Gray, L.

Perth, E.

Thurso, V.

Green way, L.

Popplewell, L.

Wade, L.

Hall, V.

Rankeillour, L.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Hanworth, V.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Willis, L.

Henderson, L.

Royle, L.

Wright of Ashton under Lyne, L.

Hirshfield, L.

Sandys, L.

Hughes, L.

NOT CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

de Clifford, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Abinger, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Limerick, E.

Auckland, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Long, V.

Balfour, E.

Dudley, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Barnby, L.

Eccles, V.

Northchurch, B.

Berkeley, B.

Elton, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Bledisloe, V.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Oakshott, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Ferrers, E.

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, B.

Glendevon, L.

Onslow, E.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Gowrie, E.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Grenfell, L.

Polwarth, L.

Colwyn, L.

Hailes, L.

Redesdale, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Harvey of Prestbury, L.

Rowallan, L.

Courtown, E.

Hawke, L.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Cowley, E.

Kindersley, L.

St. Just, L.

Davidson, V.

Kinloss, Ly.

Sandford, L.

Sharples, B.

Stratheden and Campbell, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Stonehaven, V.

Thomas, L.

Wise, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Young, B.

Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, B.

Younger of Leckie, V.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 19 [Amendments of Enactments. Relating to Piers, Harbours, etc.]:
6.12 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, this is one of the Amendments to leave out "North Ayrshire" and insert "Cunninghame" of uncertain spelling. I beg to move Amendment No. 90.
Amendment moved—
Page 227, line 8, leave out ("North Ayrshire") and insert ("Cunninghame").—(Lord Drurnalbyn.)
Clause 160 [Youth Employment Services]:
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 91:
Leave out Clause 160.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment removes the clause relating to the Youth Employment Service which was a contingency provision until the enactment of the Employment and Training Act 1973, which itself deals with the arrangements for the provision of the service by the new authorities. This was a contingency in case the other Act was not passed in the course of this Session. I beg to move.
Clause 164 [Public Libraries, Museums and Art Galleries]:
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (LORD ROYLE): My Lords, I think I owe it to the House to point out that if Amendment No. 92 is carried the next two Amendments, Nos. 93 and 94, cannot be called.
6.12 p.m.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD moved Amendment No. 92:
Page 99, line 20, leave out from ("be") to end of line 23 and insert ("a regional or an island Council").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I moved this Amendment at the Committee stage but it was quite inade
226
quately discussed because we deált with it at about half-past one in the morning when there were very few people in the Chamber. I did not feel that I could do justice to the subject, nor was there a sufficient number of people to enter into the discussion. In my opinion it is quite different from the Amendment I spoke about yesterday, which was one to try to make the community councils as small and as local as possible. This refers to the library services for Scotland, and the Library Association, with whom I have had the honour to discuss this matter at great length, has given me a strong reason why the library services for the whole of Scotland should be based on the regions, although of course they will have to be decentralised and the services which will be given by the whole library service will be as personal and as closely associated with all the needs of the different areas, from the large cities down to the small communities, as can possibly be organised. In fact the difference between service to the public in making the regional authority responsible for it will be much greater than it could be if it were only a district function.
A great library must cover all sorts of subjects, technical, medical, historical, general, research and so on. That is what is required in a great library service in order to serve the people who are of the professions, people who are studying at universities and people who want to use books in the widest possible sense and who must have a large choice. There must also be a large amount of money in order to have a really great library service. In my submission, the best way to have a great library service is to have great libraries on which to draw for books. Comprehensive collections are to-day very expensive and require a big "catchment area", as it were, in order to stand up to the demand which will he made on them throughout the country. I do not think that can be done other than by having a regional centre, and a regional centre which can call on considerable finance.
Then there is the question of specialist organisations which require

227
separate departments—science, technology, geology, sociology, the humanities, music, drama and so on. Then there are readers' requests for services which, in order to meet them, must be backed by a comprehensive collection of books and of catalogues which can be sent out to people and to localities so that they may be aware of where they can get the books, because clearly they cannot have them all in a small area.
There is also the question of the new techniques for libraries which operate only in the great libraries—the computer techniques and the routine processing and cataloguing of information which has to be known at the time in the area. All these are matters which need the library service to be of enormous importance to the whole of the population living in the region. I think that can best be done by making the regional authority responsible for the library. That would not mean that the regional authority would not spread its work throughout the existing libraries. In many big towns they have very good libraries and a great library service. In the smaller towns they also have libraries but they would be fed into by a bigger authority, commanding more money than could be done by having only a district authority.
It has also been suggested in opposition to my Amendment that one cannot have delivery on the basis on which it is to-day in many areas. In my own very rural area the library service has a delivery by library vans to any tiny hamlet that wants a book, and people can pick up books very successfully indeed. This would still be continued, but the source of the inspiration, the money and the management of the library would be in the region. In my area there will be a regional service; there will be a regional service in the Highlands and Islands and in the other areas, too. My plea to the Government is that they should consider this matter very carefully indeed, because it is something which I am sure would improve the whole library service. It will not divorce it from the people or from the cities that now have libraries, but will simply make it larger, better furnished and better organised on a regional basis.
My Lords, a point which my noble friend, Lord Perth, made to me when I
228
moved the Amendment on Committee stage was that he was in favour of it so long as it did not interfere with museum services. I can assure him it does not affect the museum services because Section 164 refers in the first paragraph to
"the Public Libraries (Scotland) Acts, 1887 to 1955, in their application to libraries."
It does not say anything at all about museums. Museums are still local and very often a district responsibility, but in view of the fact that to have a library one must have a tremendous amount of money and expertise to draw on to make them all a regional responsibility—not just the three, namely, the Highland Borders and Dumfries and Galloway authorities—would be in the interests of everybody concerned. I beg to move.
THE EARL OF BALFOUR: My Lords, before my noble friend replies to this Amendment, as I am sure he will, I should like to ask one question. Can we ensure that as the Bill is written there will be a suitable agency arrangement for people to be able to borrow books from outside their district? I feel that this is rather important. On page 99, almost at the bottom of the page, it says that in connection with public libraries and museums.
"each regional council shall have a duty, in consultation with district councils within their region, to ensure that there is an adequate provision of facilities for the purposes of the said Act in that application for the inhabitants of their region."
This I feel is an important point. It is a function that should be handled at district level in order once again to keep close contact with the people who will use the libraries. In this case a regional headquarters can be too remote. I have a fear—and may I put this as a second question—that if this Amendment is accepted libraries might be connected with education in their regional functions. I feel that although people can get the benefit of education through libraries, the two, for once, should not be connected. I should like to preserve the districts a little, but I must ask the question.
6.23 p.m.
LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, told us, we went over this ground on the previous stage, though perhaps not quite so fully. She has tabled what I think is an identical Amendment.

229
I do not want to spend too much time going over the ground again, but perhaps I can correct her recollection of the time. I see from the records that she came on to speak at one minute past midnight—I will not draw any comparisons with Cinderella. We must clear our minds on this matter. The noble Baroness made a very impassioned plea, if I may say so, on one particular aspect of this problem. I know that the views she presented to us represent the strongly held views of the Scottish Library Association, but these are not the universal views of those who work in the library profession in Scotland. We have had equally strong representation from members of the Burgh Libraries Association that the library responsibility should remain with the districts. That is the view we have held ever since it was originally put forward by Wheatley. We have listened to the many representations made since and have had many discussions, but remain of the view that the right place for the libraries is with the districts. In addition, we have had strong representations in this respect from the Convention of Royal Burghs who, it seems to me, have a considerable interest in the matter.
My Lords, with great respect I think there is no service more admirably suited for local control than libraries. The noble Baroness argued admirably, I thought, for the cause which I was trying to argue on various occasions yesterday, to the effect that centralisation was needed in order to secure the necessary resources. Nobody would listen to the cases I was putting forward yesterday. However, I was interested to find that this was more or less the argument deployed by the noble Baroness to-day in favour of having libraries away from districts and putting the responsibility with the regions. Of course, we must have some of these large libraries able to cater for the needs of the student, the scientist, the expert, and so on, but those are not all that we need. We want local libraries, and there are admirable ones in our burghs to-day. Libraries bring more homely and perhaps more palatable fare to ordinary people. They are very important.
There was a nice remark in a letter I received from the Town Clerk of East Kilbride pleading for the function to remain with the district. I will not say
230
what he said about the arguments concerning computerisation of stocks, et cetera, which probably is necessary in the central and major libraries, but he said:
"These arguments have no relevance to the situation in the burghs and a few districts where the books are where they should be—on the shelves and not in some vast county stock room from which they are extracted for the reader about a week after ordering."
That may be an exaggeration, but we must in Scotland have access to up-to-date works of all kinds. I submit that that can be achieved by better methods of centralised control within the region.
My Lords, under Clause 56 of the Bill two or more local authorities can combine to discharge their functions jointly. Therefore this could apply to the running of joint library services, and I am sure it will in some areas. There will be collaboration with the School Library Service. I do not see any problem coming from that. There is the interlibrary lending service of the Scottish Central Library. It seems to me that this might be a very economical way of securing the availability of the enormously large number of books, many of them specialised and not needed very frequently, to which we must have access to-day. While I appreciate the noble Baroness's very eloquent plea, I would submit to your Lordships that it is a piece of rather special pleading; it is not the unanimous view of those in the professions or indeed in local authority work. I would ask your Lordships to resist the Amendment.
THE EARL OF BALFOUR: My Lords, may I have permission to speak again to ask whether there can be arrangements to borrow books from other libraries? I did specifically ask that question.
LORD POLWARTH: Yes indeed, my Lords; there are at present and there will continue to be.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: My Lords, I am very disappointed at the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth. I, too, had the same letter from the Librarian of East Kilbride. It is absolute rubbish to say that books are left on library shelves if the libraries are controlled by the region. They will have just as good delivery, just as good contact. The local libraries will be fed by

231
the region, but they will be just as responsible as they would be if the service was directed entirely by the districts. That seems to me to be a very shortsighted view. I am sorry the Government are not prepared to look at this matter again. The whole of the Scottish Library Association, which is the most important body in library service in Scotland, is strongly in favour of having regional libraries. If the Government are not prepared to look at it again—and I have now twice moved it—I will withdraw the Amendment, but with great reluctance, because I think it is a shortsighted view of this particular service.
Amendment by leave, withdrawn.
LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move Amendment No. 93.
Amendment moved—
Page 99, line 21, leave out ("the regions of").—(Lord Polwarth.)
LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, Amendment No. 94 is also drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 99, line 21, after ("Galloway") insert ("regions").—(Lord Polwarth.)
Clause 170 [Burial grounds]:
6.37 p.m.
LORD POLWARTH LORD POLWARTH moved Amendment No. 96:
Page 101, line 15, at end insert—
("(2) The functions of councils under the Church of Scotland (Property and Endowments) Acts 1925 and 1933 shall be transferred to and vest in islands and district councils in accordance with the amendments to those Acts set out in Part II of Schedule 27 to this Act")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment, and with it hang a number of subsequent Amendments, Nos. 112, 113, 115, 150, 154 and 158. No doubt it will relieve your Lordships to know that I am speaking to six Amendments at once. These Amendments may appear rather a formidable array. The aim is in fact extremely simple. The intention of them is first of all to repeal as much as possible of the Local Government Act 1894, the vast majority of whose provisions are in fact spent. However, in
232
that Act parish councils were given powers in relation to property belonging to the Church and in particular to parish burial grounds. Under the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1929, powers previously relating to parish councils became the powers of county and town councils and Section 22 of the Church of Scotland (Property and Endowments) Act 1925, made certain provisions regarding burgh churches.
It is necessary to preserve the position of the Church of Scotland under these provisions in relation to church buildings and burial grounds which have been taken over by local authorities already, and to continue to allow local authorities to have certain functions in relation to burial grounds and other properties. These Amendments are solely to preserve the status quo by giving the powers to the new authorities as necessary. I beg to move.
THE EARL OF BALFOUR: My Lords, here again I am very grateful that this part of the Bill is tidying up the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1894 and also the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1889, both of which I thought were not very good.
Clause 172 [Miscellaneous functions, etc.]:
LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment fitting the wording in the Bill more exactly to the wording of Section 13 of the Protection of Birds Act 1954. If noble Lords want further explanation I will endeavour to give it. I beg to move Amendment No. 97.
Amendment moved—
Page 102, line 5, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
("(2) For the purposes of section 13 of the Protection of Birds Act 1954 (orders) the administrative area shall be the region, islands area or district.").—(Lord Polwarth.)
Clause 180 [Reference of applications to regional planning authority]:
LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, Amendment No. 98 is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 108, line 38, leave out ("177(4)") and insert ("178(4)").—(Lord Polwarth.)
Clause 183 [Miscellaneous planning functions]:
THE EARL OF BALFOUR THE EARL OF BALFOUR moved Amendment No. 99:
Page 109, line 27, leave out ("district planning functions") and insert ("functions of islands and district councils").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, what I am seeking to do by this Amendment is merely to change the word "planning" to the word "council", but unfortunately, because of drafting and to allow for islands councils, I must make the wording a little longer. Caravan sites and control of development is, I admit, a purely planning function, but there is also the question of caravan site licensing, which is an environmental health matter, and these licences concerning the amenities of caravan sites have to be enforced. That is the simple reason for this Amendment, and I hope it will be accepted by your Lordships, changing the words "district planning functions" to "functions of islands and district councils". It is purely to make certain that the environmental side is taken care of. I beg to move.
LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, for the thought that he has given to this point. We have considered it since he raised it on a previous occasion and we have come to the conclusion that we would be glad to accept it.
Schedule 23 [Amendment of Enactments relating to Planning]:
LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, Amendment No. 100 corrects a drafting error. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 233, line 39, leave out ("1973") and insert ("1972").—(Lord Polwarth.)
LORD HOY: My Lords, obviously I do not want to delay the House, but perhaps the noble Lord will tell us why the Scottish Office get all their dates wrong.
6.40 p.m.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL THE DUKE OF ATHOLL moved Amendment No. 101:
Page 234, leave out lines 42 to 44 and insert—
("16. In section 11 (Inquiries, etc. with respect to local plans) the following amendments shall be made—

(a) in subsection (1) for the words "the local planning authority" there shall be substituted the words "the Secretary of State" and the words from "or, in such cases" to "themselves" shall be deleted;

(b) in paragraph (b) of subsection (1) the, words from "but as if in" to "a local authority" shall be deleted;

(c) subsection (2) shall be deleted.

17. In section 12 (Adoption and approval of local plans) the following amendments shall be made—

(a) subsection (3) shall be deleted;

(b) in subsection (4) for the words from "Where the Secretary" to "of this section" there shall be substituted the words "The local planning authority shall not adopt a local plan sinless it has been approved by the Secretary of State and";

(c) in paragraph (a) of subsection (4) there shall be added after the words "structure plan;"the words "and";

(d) in paragraph (b) of subsection (4) the words from "but he shall not" to "of the authority and" shall be deleted;

(e) paragraph (c) of subsection (4) shall be deleted.

18. In section 13(1) (alteration of local plans) the following amendments shall be made—

(a) after the word "authority" there shall be inserted the words "shall keep under review any local plan adopted by them and";

(b) the words from "and may at any time" to "approved by him" shall be deleted.")

The noble Duke said: My Lords, I think I ought first to apologise for the complexity of this Amendment. Secondly, I hope, but I am pretty sure in vain, that my noble friend will accept it with the same alacrity as he accepted the previous Amendment moved by the noble Earl. It would be a great encouragement to me if he did so.
I have been asked to raise this matter by various amenity societies in Scotland who are worried about the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act, 1969, which has now been consolidated into the Town and Country Planning Act, 1972. Sections 11 to 13 are the parts that worry them. The 1969 Act was never brought into operation, and the relevant sections of the 1972 Act have not been brought into operation

235
either. Therefore, we still go on with an Article 8 direction from the Secretary of State for Scotland. This may not be entirely satisfactory but, in the opinion of the societies for which I am speaking, it is better than the procedure envisaged under the 1969 Act as consolidated into the 1972 Act. Presumably these provisions will not be brought into operation until after the new local government structure has been set up, so I think that it is reasonable to forget the present position and concentrate on the future and what will happen when this Bill comes into force.
The position will then be that planning functions in the Islands areas and in the Highlands, Borders, and Dumfries and Galloway Regions, will be performed by general planning authorities in the Islands or regional councils. In every other region planning functions will be split between regional planning authorities and district planning authorities; the former being the regional council and the latter the district council. The regional planning authority will be responsible for the structure plan, while the district planning authority will be responsible for the local plan and the granting of planning permission within the limit of the structure plan. The validity of the local plan, or of an alteration of it, cannot be questioned in any legal proceedings not brought within six weeks of the adoption or alteration. Thus the general and district planning authorities may produce their local plans, and grant planning permission, which would previously have required the approval of the Secretary of State, without any supervision by a third party, and where there is public inquiry they may appoint the Reporter, lead evidence before him, receive his report, and make the final decision themselves.
Of course there are some safeguards. In the case of a district planning authority the regional planning authority may call in the proposed local plan, or an application for planning permission, or even take over the functions of the district planning authorities, but then the same criticism of the authority acting as judge in its own cause would apply. The Secretary of State still has power to call in any application for planning permission and can exercise control in this way, but this is entirely a matter for him. One
236
can imagine all too easily that he might regard some applications as political "hot potatoes" best left untouched. The worry of the amenity societies is that the regional planning authorities would be judge and jury in their own cause. This procedure is copied from an untried English idea which was recommended in 1965 by the Government-appointed Planning Advisory Group and enacted in the planning Act 1968, which applied only to England and Wales. We all hope for more public participation in planning, and I am not sure that this would be achieved if these sections of the 1972 Act were brought into effect.
I suspect that this Bill is not really a suitable vehicle for this Amendment, but I would ask the Government for the following assurances: that they will not bring the relevant sections of the 1972 Act into operation before regionalisation, to use a perfectly horrible word; that they will see how the situation under the 1968 Act is working out in England and Wales before they take any steps to bring the relevant part of the 1972 Act into operation; that if public participation is reduced, or if planning authorities of whatever sort act as judge and jury in their own causes, they will amend the 1972 Act, as amended by this Act, as speedily as possible. I feel sure that this is not too much to ask, and I hope that my noble friend will be able to tell me that the assurances I want will be met. I beg to move.
6.45 p.m.
LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, the noble Duke has certainly been well and fully briefed on this subject and we have indeed been aware of some concern mainly on the part of certain of the amenity societies. We recognise that anxiety, but the noble Duke put his finger on the nub of it straight away when he suspected that this Bill was not the right place to make amendments to the planning law. Of course that is entirely the case. This is a new development plan system provided for in a very recent planning Act, and it is not yet in operation in Scotland although it is envisaged that it will come into operation very shortly.
In the circumstances, it would be quite wrong for me to give specific assurances regarding our intentions on the planning

237
Acts and their operation in connection with this Bill. We feel that the present planning legislation contains very adequate safeguards as to how far local planning authorities may go and how they should operate. The Secretary of State has adequate powers to intervene even in these local plans if he thinks it necessary, and I do not think that there will be too many political "hot potatoes". He has indicated in another place that he is ready to exercise these powers vigorously if it is clear that that course is desirable. I think that I should go no further to-day than to say that we shall watch the operation of the new system when it comes in, but that it does not seem to me that this Bill is the place to make any changes at the present time.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, I must admit that I am a little disappointed by that reply. My noble friend said that this Act had only recently been passed, but it was in fact the 1969 Act, and the 1972 Act was a consolidation Act. If there had been great enthusiasm to bring these provisions into effect in the four years from 1969 that could have been done—although I am not encouraging my noble friend to do this, as he may have gathered from my original remarks. This is a matter of some concern to amenity societies m Scotland. I am grateful to my noble friend for saying that the Scottish Office will keep their eye on it, and I quite agree with him that this Bill is not really a suitable vehicle for amending the 1972 Act. I put down this Amendment purely to bring the disquiet of various bodies to the attention of the Government. With your Lordships' permission, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 187 [Minor and consequential amendments of Licensing (Scotland) Acts]:
6.48 p.m.
LORD POLWARTH LORD POLWARTH moved Amendment No. 102:
Page 113, line 1, at beginning insert—
("(1) The Secretary of State shall not make any order under section 31 of the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1959 (supplementary and local provisions) as that section had effect immediately before the passing of this Act; and no alteration shall he made in any licensing court or court of appeal by reason of any increase or decrease of population until those courts
238
are reconstituted in terms of the said Act of 1959 as amended by subsequent enactments (including this Act).")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is to meet a short-term bridging situation until the local government provisions become operative. It is intended to avoid a short-term upset to the system of licensing courts by freezing the present position until the new courts provided for in Clause 186 of the Bill come into being in 1975. The position is that at present whether a small burgh has a county licensing court or not, and also the number of members, are matters governed by their population. All burghs over 7,000 population have separate licensing courts. As a means of establishing the population the Secretary of State is required, under one of the Licensing Acts, whenever the necessary information is available following a Census, to make an Order declaring the population of various areas, and this declaration governs the issue until the next Census comes along.
As it happens, the time is at hand now when normally the Secretary of State would make an Order following the 1971 Census, there being normally a delay of some two years before the figures are available. For two reasons we do not feel that the present circumstances are normal. The first is that any changes in the number of licensing courts would only be of short-term effect. They would probably have only four general half-yearly meetings between now and local government reform, when they would cease to exist as such. The second reason is that the provisional figures that we now have suggest there will be a rather unusually high number of changes resulting from changes in population, and it would involve the creation of quite a number of new licensing courts which would have only a short life of some 18 months or less. In the circumstances, we feel, especially as local government officials will be very busy with reorganisation, that it would be neither reasonable in the public interest nor fair to the officials to give them this further burden of establishing new courts, simply because of these population changes, for this very short period. I therefore hope that your Lordships will agree to this Amendment. I beg to move.
Schedule 25 [Relaxation of Controls]:
LORD POLWARTH LORD POLWARTH moved Amendment No. 103:
Page 245, leave out lines 3 and 4.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment and a subsequent one, No. 148, remove references to the repeal of a section of an Act which has in fact already been repealed by the Statute Law (Repeals) Act 1973. I beg to move.
LORD POLWARTH LORD POLWARTH moved Amendment No. 104:
Page 247, line 34, at end insert—
("The Weights and Measures Act 1963
In section 4(2) (local standards), after the word "kept" there shall be inserted the words "in such manner and under such conditions as the Secretary of State may direct", the words "and approved for the purpose by the Board" shall cease to have effect, and for the words "approved in that behalf by the Board" there shall be substituted the words "which appear to the authority to be appropriate".
in section 5(3) (working standards etc.), the words "and approved for the purpose by the Board" shall cease to have effect.
In section 44(1) (inspector's fees), the words "with the consent of the Board" shall cease to have effect.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a very technical Amendment. With its related ones—Nos. 165, 166 and 167—it concerns the relaxing of a number of further controls over local authorities contained in the Weights and Measures Act 1963 regarding such things as where they keep their working standards, matters of fees and other things. They are all matters in relation to which we feel the local authority does not need to be controlled so closely, and I hope your Lordships will accept that explanation. I beg to move.
LORD HOY: My Lords, may I say just one word on this Amendment? I do not know whether the nomenclature is correct, but my noble friend thinks that instead of their being weights and measures inspectors they are trading standards officers. I do not know whether that is the new nomenclature, but people do change their designations these days. We have no secretaries left: they are all director-generals or secretary-generals. I do not know whether this point has been looked at from that point of view. While that may be a minor point, I
240
should like the noble Lord to give us an assurance (because this particular part of public work is very important to the consuming public) that what we are doing here will in no way diminish the responsibility of the authorities to the customers who are in the shops.
LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, I have no doubt that the noble Baroness is correct about the designation of the officer, but I am assured that the Act to which we are referring and with which we are dealing is the Weights and Measures Act still. I think I can genuinely assure the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, that none of these very minor changes regarding the Secretary of State having to approve the premises in which the local authorities keep their local standards, and this kind of thing, will affect the present position. It seems to me that we are not putting the consumer at risk in giving them these small extra responsibilities.
LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, Amendment No. 105 is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 247, line 40, leave out ("of") and insert ("not exceeding").—(Lord Polwarth.)
LORD POLWARTH LORD POLWARTH moved Amendment No. 106:
Page 247, leave out lines 42 to 44.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is another correction because it is removing a reference which is duplicated as it at present appears. It appears also in Clause 144, and is not needed twice. I beg to move.
Clause 214 [Tweed Fisheries Commissioners]:
LORD POLWARTH LORD POLWARTH moved Amendment No. 107:
Page 128, line 18. leave out ("Merse") and insert ("Berwickshire").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment and the three following ones are to take account of the change of district names made by your Lordships during the Committee stage. I am sure that your Lordships will be glad to heat that no representations have since been

241
received against the alterations to these names. I beg to move.
LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 108.
Amendment moved—
Page 128, line 18, leave out ("Forest") and insert ("and Lauderdale").—(Lord Polwarth.)
Schedule 26 [Amendments of Tweed Fisheries Act 1969]:
6.55 p.m.
LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 109.
Amendment moved—
Page 250, line 15, leave out ("Merse") and insert ("Berwickshire").—(Lord Polwarth.)
LORD POLWARTH: My Lords. I beg to move Amendment No. 110.
Amendment moved—
Page 250, line 28, leave out ("Forest") and insert ("and Lauderdale").—(Lord Polwarth.)
Schedule 27 [Adaptation and Amendment of Enactments]:
LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, Amendment No. 112 is consequential on the previous one on church buildings and burial grounds. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 253, line 45, at end insert—
("The Local Government (Scotland) Act 1894
.Sections 3 to 25 shall cease to have effect.
Sections 42 to 48 shall cease to have effect.
. In section 54, the definitions of "police burgh", "Public Health Acts", "Education Acts", and "burgh" shall cease to have effect.")—(Lord Polwarth.)
LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 113.
Amendment moved—
Page 257, line 35, at end insert—
("The Church of Scotland (Property and Endowments) Act 1925
In section 22 (burgh churches)—
(a) after subsection (2), there shall be inserted the following subsection—
"(2A) References in any scheme made under this section of this Act and in subsection (2) above to the magistrates or the town council of a burgh and to the burgh within which a burgh church is situated
242
shall, on and after 16th May 1975, be construed respectively as references to the council of the district and to the district within which that burgh church is situated.";
(b) in subsection (3), for the words "town council of the burgh" there shall be substituted the words "council of the district" and for the words "town council", where second occurring, there shall be substituted the words "district council";
(c) in subsection (4)—

(i) before the word "burgh", where second, third and fourth occurring, there shall be inserted the word "former";

(ii) the words "continue to" shall cease to have effect;

(iii) for the words "town councils of the said burghs" there shall be substituted the words "councils of the districts in which these churchyards are situated".

. In section 26 (transfer of parish churches etc.), for the word "parish" there shall be substituted the word "district".
. In section 28(4) (transfer of rights in parish churches etc.), for the words "town councils in their capacity as town" there shall be substituted the words islands and district".
. In section 32 (transfer of parish church-yards)—

(a) for the words "parish council", wherever occurring, there shall be substituted the words "islands or district council";

(b) subsection (3) shall cease to have effect;

(c) in subsection (4), the words "or other local authority", in each place where they occur, shall cease to have effect.

. In section 33 (preservation of monuments etc.), for the words "parish council", in both places where they occur, there shall be substituted the words "islands or district council".").—(Lord Polwarth.)
LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, Amendment No. 114 is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 258, line 16, leave out ("49(4)") and insert ("49(3) and (4)").—(Lord Polwarth.)
LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, Amendment No. 115 also relates to churches and burial grounds. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 258, line 38, at end insert—
("The Church of Scotland (Property and Endowments) Amendment Act 1933
. In section 2(2) (transfer of certain churchyards)—

(a) for the words "county or burgh" there shall be substituted the words "islands area or district";

243

(b) the words from "or, in the case" onwards shall cease to have effect.").—(Lord Polwarth.)

LORD POLWARTH LORD POLWARTH moved Amendment No. 116:
Page 263, line 44, after ("14(1)") insert("—(a)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this and the subsequent Amendment are drafting Amendments to provide for the responsibilities of the new authorities in relation to the Protection of Birds Act and to the question of who may be authorised to take wild birds. It is purely a continuance of an existing provision. I beg to move.
LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, this Amendment, No. 117, is on the same subject. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 263, line 46, at end insert—
("(b) in the definition of "authorised person", in paragraph (b), for the words "local authority" there shall be substituted the words "islands or district council";
(c) in the definition of "local authority", for the words "county council and a town" there shall be substituted the words "regional, islands or district".").—(Lord Polwarth.)
LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, this again is a drafting Amendment, taking account of the fact that the definition of "crofting counties" in the 1955 Crofters (Scotland) Act relates to areas now being replaced by the Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 264, line 17, at end insert—
("The Crofters (Scotland) Act 1955
In section 37(1) (interpretation), in the definition of "crafting counties", after the word "the" there shall he inserted the word "former".").—(Lord Polwarth.)
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether the word "crofting" ceases to exist or whether it is still retained as an area which is regarded as a crofting county?
LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, I am not absolutely clear on this matter. I think that "crofting counties" as a definition probably ceases to exist. am sure it will continue to be in popular usage; but as we are abolishing counties it is difficult to retain crofting counties.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, none the less the area is important to those concerned.
LORD HOY: My Lords, perhaps I could occupy a few seconds of your Lordships' time, by which time the noble Lord will perhaps have read the note passed to him from the Box—provided they wrote it distinctly. The question raised by the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, is of some importance and it may be that before we depart from this matter we may have an answer to the question. After all, there is no question that I can think of—especially in relation the crofting counties—that is unimportant. When making specific reference to it we should like to be assured that those concerned know what it is about as well as we. I have no doubt that the noble Lord will be happy now to get to his feet and give us the answer to the question.
LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his intervention at that point. I can say to the noble Earl that I understand that the area is being retained and will still be referred to in that manner, nut there may be some redefinition of its boundaries in relation to local government reorganisation.
LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, this Amendment, No. 119, corrects a printing error. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 264, line 25, leave out ("(4)") and insert ("(2)").—(Lord Polwarth.)
LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, this again is a drafting Amendment, and I must express my gratitude to the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, for spotting the omission that this rectifies. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 267, line 19, at end insert—
("In section 4 (saving for byelaws), for the words "subsection (5) of section 300 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1947" there shall be substituted the words "section 202(3) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973".").—(Lord Polwarth.)
LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, this Amendment, No. 121, is for the purpose of definition in the Post Office Act 1969

245
with regard to the new authorities. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 273, line 21, at end insert—
("The Post Office Act 1969
. In section 86, in the definition of "local authority", in paragraph (b), for the words "county council or a town" there shall be substituted the words "regional, islands or district".").—(Lord Polwarth.)
LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, this again is a drafting Amendment. In the Agricultural Act there is a specific reference to assistance in Orkney, so it is necessary to bring in a reference to "Islands area". I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 273, line 35, at end insert—
("In section 26(b), for the word "County", in both places where it occurs, there shall be substituted the words "Islands Area".").—(Lord Polwarth.)
LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, this again is a tidying-up Amendment. It removes a duplication of a reference to the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970, which appears also in paragraph 81 of Schedule 14 of the Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 273, leave out lines 43 to 46.—(Lord Polwarth.)
LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, this Amendment, No. 124, is to ensure that the islands and district councils who will be responsible for enforcement of milk legislation shall be notified of milk tests. This is a function under the public health powers which is being given to them. I beg to move.
Amendment moved.
Page 274, line 22, at end insert—
(" . In section 4(2) (authority to be informed about milk tests), for the words from "county council" to "situated" there shall be substituted the words "islands or district council in Scotland ".").—(Lord Polwarth.)
LORD POLWARTH LORD POLWARTH moved Amendment No. 125:
Page 274, line 31, at end insert—
("The Employment Agencies Act 1973
. In section 13(1) (interpretation), the following amendments shall be made—
246

(a) in the definition of "licensing authority", in paragraph (f), for the words from "a large burgh" onwards there shall be substituted the words "an islands area, the council of that islands area, and in any other case the council of the district in which the premises are situated";

(b) in the definition of "local authority", for the words from "Scotland" onwards there shall be substituted the words "Scotland, means a regional, islands or district council".").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is necessary because of the passing since this Bill was introduced of the Employment Agencies Act 1973, in which there is a reference to local authorities. This confers on district and islands councils the function of licensing, inspection and control of employment agencies. I beg to move.
LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, the same applies to this Amendment, No. 126, except that the reference in this case is to the passage of the Badgers Act 1973. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 274, line 31, at end insert—
("The Badgers Act 1973
. In section 11 (interpretation), in the definition of "local authority", in paragraph (c), for the words "a county or a burgh" there shall be substituted the words "an islands area or district".").—(Lord Polwarth.)
LORD HOY: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend, Lord Arran, I should like to express his pleasure.
LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, once more we have new legislation, in this case the Hallmarking Act 1973, where there is provision for local inquiries; and again we have to provide for the relevant local authorities.
Amendment moved—
Page 274, line 31, at end insert—
("The Hallmarking Act 1973
193. In section 20 (local inquiries), in subsection (1)(b), for the words "subsections (2) to (9) of section 355 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1947" there shall be substituted the words "subsections (2) to (8) of section 211 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973".").—(Lord Polwarth.)
Clause 217 [Transfer of Officers]:
7.8 p.m.
LORD HOY LORD HOY moved Amendment No. 127A:
Page 131, line 12, at end insert—
("( ) This section shall apply to such persons in the employment of voluntary agencies as the Secretary of State may prescribe.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I move this Amendment on behalf of my noble friend, Lord Hughes. It raises a very important point. Apparently in the course of a meeting some time ago my honourable friend Mr. Bruce Milian, Member for the Craigton Division of Glasgow, ran into what he regarded as a social problem involving the employment of many men working in Glasgow or Ayr. He felt so strongly about it that he communicated with the Secretary of State for Scotland; so the Scottish Office is aware of the reason for this Amendment. Apparently the provisions of the Social Work (Scotland) Act did not provide protection for welfare workers concerned, since they were employed by a voluntary agency, although in fact they were to work for a local service for which the local authority have a statutory responsibility. It seems that a similar difficulty may arise with local government reorganisation. The new regional authorities may decide at some time that they wish to take over the full responsibility for blind welfare as a direct service. They may also take a similar view about welfare for the deaf as another example.
In those circumstances it seems to us that there ought to be some protection in the Local Government Bill so that the workers concerned and others in a similar position would have some rights against the local authorities. In other words, if in fact these changes have to be made, the penalties ought not to be imposed on the workers alone. If local authorities choose to make these changes with regard to employment, at least the workers should have some entitlement to compensation or other benefits that may ensue. It is because of the case which my honourable friend raised that these Amendments were put down on the Marshalled List, and we shall certainly be interested to see what consideration the Scottish Office has given to this particular problem. My Lords, I beg to move.
LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, for bringing this particular case to the attention of the House. We are aware of the case he has mentioned, in connection I think with Ayr County Council, and we are watching it—we have had representations—because in this case the authority dispensed with the arrangement previously in existence with a voluntary society in connection with welfare of the blind. There are of course a number of different arrangements of this kind made by different authorities with voluntary agencies to carry out a function, in part or in whole, for them, and I think we are all agreed that this is a desirable thing in many cases. There are, on the other hand, other authorities which perfectly properly feel that they can provide certain of these services entirely off their own bat, and they are doing so and may in future decide to do so.
We have every sympathy with the intention of the Amendment, but I think it would be a little difficult to write into this Bill specific provisions that would cover any cases of this kind. The form of relationships between local authorities and the voluntary bodies varies very much. As to the degree of financial support, how much of it you can say is really as it were, contract work, and how much of it has a voluntary element involved. The variety of arrangements with the different cases, different authorities and different voluntary agencies would make it very difficult to place a statutory requirement on the local authority to give them the same fairly rigid degree of protection that is afforded to local authority employees—and quite rightly afforded I think. For instance if there were an obligation to compensate them for loss of employment, there could be hesitation by local authorities to take these agencies into their service. There is also the technical difficulty that this is the Bill to deal with reform of local government. The clauses here dealing with staff are all related to local government employees and I think it would be very difficult to bend them far enough to include employees of voluntary organisations. None of that, however, means that we are not very aware of this problem, and we shall watch closely to see whether there are cases needing attention in one way or another. But I would submit to your Lordships

249
that it would be wrong to try to do this in a statutory manner in this particular Bill.
LORD HOY: My Lords, I appreciate the points the noble Lord has made and I admit right away that there is always difficulty if you provide for a statutory obligation, even on an organisation that may very well be disappearing in the process of time. On the other hand, I think it is important that Parliament should look after the people who are not going to be provided for, and I am grateful for what the noble Lord said in the concluding sentences of his argument: that in fact we can have an assurance that this matter will be kept closely under review, as indeed I should have expected as a result of the case I have already referred to, it having been drawn to the attention of the Scottish Office. I should have thought that that is the kind of thing that we do not want to happen in Scotland. I am grateful for the assurance and would therefore beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 221 [Provision for early retirement in lieu of compensation for loss of office]:
7.13 p.m.
LORD HOY LORD HOY moved Amendment No. 129:
Page 134, line 14, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
(" (2)(a) Where a person has made an election under subsection (1) above the body under whom he holds office or by whom he is employed may within the period of one month beginning on the day on which the notice of election is given, gives notice to him objecting to the election.
(b) A person to whom notice of objection is so given may within the period of one month beginning on the day on which the notice of objection is given appeal to the staff commission for Scotland established under section 217 of this Act and unless the objection is withdrawn the staff commission for Scotland shall, after giving the parties an opportunity to state their case determine whether or not the appeal against the objection should be allowed.
(c) Where a person has made an election under subsection (1) above to which objection is not taken in accordance with paragraph (a) by the body under whom he holds office or is withdrawn before an appeal is determined or where an appeal made by him against an objection duly made is allowed by the staff commission for Scotland, this section shall and section 218 of this Act shall not apply to him on his retirement within the prescribed period and before attaining normal retiring age.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I think this is a matter which has also already been drawn to the attention of the Scottish Office. Here the employee may decide to retire before a particular period. Indeed, while he has not the right, he may well opt to retire earlier than might be normal. Now this course can be approved, provided the employer gives it his stamp of approval; but if the employer decides that the employee ought not to be allowed to retire, then there is no method by which the employee can make an appeal against what would be the decision of the local authority. As I understand it, this Bill provides for a Commission which will look into the matter, and this Amendment suggests that instead of the decision being left with the employer only, the employee should have the right of appeal to the Commission and that its decision would then be final: thus it would be seen to be fair as between the local authority and the employee. I should have thought that this suggestion must have some appeal to your Lordships' House, that in fact we are appointing what might be described as an arbiter, a judge, to judge as to who is right as between the local authority and the employee. I think there is a fair amount of sense in making a provision of this kind, and if it is to be turned down on this occasion I would think the Scottish Office would need to have ready a fairly comprehensive reply, because it seems to me that we are not asking very much with this Amendment, but merely what would be just and fair to the employees in local government service. My Lords, I beg to move.
LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, as the noble Lord has said, we are indeed aware of this problem and that representations have been made in some quarters. Of course the reason for making a provision for objection to an application for early retirement is to guard against the possibility—admittedly probably not a great one, but nevertheless a probability—that in the course of reorganisation a number of officers might choose early retirement simultaneously, and in such a way as to put in jeopardy the business of the incoming authority. For whatever reason they chose to opt for early retirement, if there was a mass

251
exodus at that time there could be problems. The views of the officers concerned as to their future prospects might not be at all correct; they might be a lot better than they might be thought to be.
I do not think that authorities would want to use this veto to any great extent, and it would be very unlikely, except in a most abnormal situation, that a senior officer would be compelled to stay on when he wanted to retire. We felt that in the circumstances it was not necessary to provide a right of appeal against an objection to retire; that this was a matter for management, and management in the form of the new authority administration, and that the decision should be left to them, that they should be trusted to make a proper decision in cases of this kind. I think it is perhaps a slight slur on the reputation of local authorities as employers to suggest that they would not make reasonable and fair decisions.
My Lords, there is another problem over this Amendment; that is the suggestion of the noble Lord—and it sounds a very reasonable suggestion—to bring in the Staff Commission as the arbiter, the court of appeal. The Staff Commission is of course already in existence but it does not, and should not, have any executive function, and as constituted it is an entirely advisory body. Therefore the only way that it could be dealt with would be to have the appeal to the Secretary of State and to use the Staff Commission as his adviser. I am sure that technically that is the only way it could operate. I therefore suggest that, while I think we all have sympathy with people who might be in this position, it might be a mistake at this stage to carry an Amendment which has this fault in it regarding the nature of the Staff Commission and its functions and abilities, and we should leave it to the discretion of local authorities to act as good employers, as we all hope they will be.
LORD HOY: My Lords, I would not disagree that in the main local authorities are good employers, but what the noble Lord is saying is that the decision as to whether a person can or cannot retire is to be left with the local authority. It seems to me that there ought to be a little more than that in it for the employee. I
252
would it put it in this way. As some of your Lordships know, I have had a lifelong connection with the Trustee Savings Bank. A few years ago we decided to introduce a whole system of computerisation (if that is the right word), and we had a number of employees who were getting to the age when it was possible for them to retire without going to the maximum. I refer, of course, to the period between 60 and 65. It seemed to many of them that it would a foolish exercise, if they had already reached the age of 60 or over, to go in for this complete training when by the time that they had finished it they would have reached retirement age. They regarded it as a great waste of effort and time. They therefore chose to retire. We did not have the power, nor should we have used it if we had, to say to them: "You cannot go; we need you." This has been the argument of the noble Lord. He said that local authorities will find themselves in difficulty if these people go, and so local authorities will be saying to them: "We will be in difficulty. You are not to go." That seems to me to be taking it a little too far.
I made the suggestion about the Commission, but it may well be that it would have to be done through the Secretary of State or someone else. I do not want to take this to a Division if it can be settled amicably. I should have thought that the Government would do well to have a look at this to see the actual working and what is happening. I should not like the House to let this Bill go without at least being able to give some verbal assurance to the people concerned that we will look after this particular point. I agree with the noble Lord that local authorities, on the whole, behave well to their employees. But we can have difficult local authorities; we can have difficult noble Lords at times, too, and we cannot legislate against them. What I should like is an assurance that if it should arise more particular attention will be paid to this problem. If the noble Lord is able to give me that assurance then I shall seek to withdraw the Amendment.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, would this not be covered by Clause 219(1)(c), where it says:
"…advising the Secretary of State on the steps necessary to safeguard the interests of such staff."
LORD HOY: My Lords, I have had experience of somebody getting up and referring to Clause 219(1)(c), and I know how difficult it is to answer on the spur of the moment. However, there may be something in that point, and perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Polwartn, will look at it. However, if he can look at that and also give me the assurance I want, we can get on with the business.
LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, I will indeed look at the point raised by my noble friend Lord Selkirk, but I am hound to say that on a quick reading of that provision I should not have thought it applied to individual cases, but to general interests of classes of employees and so on. The noble Lord, Lord Hoy, spoke about the question of retirement at some time between 60 and 65. But we are here considering a rather different case, not of people who have reached the bracket of normal retirement, but of people who want to go early and in the process are entitled to retirement benefits which we think are fairly generous. If it will help the noble Lord and allay his fears, I can say that we will be prepared to recommend to local authorities that they should make use of their powers of objecting only as a last resort. We will certainly bring this to their attention. This is probably the most sensible way to handle this problem.
LORD HOY: My Lords, I may say that I was using the 60 to 65 period because I thought it would be better to use an example that would be understood. I am grateful to the noble Lord for that assurance, and beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 225 [Property commission for Scotland]:
LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, Amendment No. 130 is purely a matter of clarification in relation to the use of the term "water board". I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 139, line 33, at end insert—
("(7) In the foregoing provisions of this Part of this Act "water board" means a regional water board or a water development board, or both, as the context may require."). —(Lord Polwarth.)
Clause 226 [Local Acts and instruments]:
LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, Amendment No. 131 removes the reference to a local telephone undertaking in Scotland for the simple reason that there are no such undertakings. The Post Office telephone comes under a different category, and while I believe there is one local undertaking South of the Border, there are none North of it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 142, line 16, leave out ("any telephone undertaking").—(Lord Polwarth.)
Schedule 28 [Amendments of Burgh Police (Scotland) Acts 1892 to 1911]:
LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, Amendment No. 132, and Amendments Nos. 133, 134, 135, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 151, 152 and 153, I can speak to together. I will simply say that they are a number of small drafting Amendments to the Burgh Police (Scotland) Acts from 1892 to 1911 which have been picked up in the course of consideration of the Bill and which it was considered simpler to lay together as a composite Amendment. If any noble Lord wants to query any particular Amendment, I will do my best to meet his doubts. I beg to move.
LORD HOY: My Lords, I do not want to object, but would it be in order for me to make the suggestion at this stage that if we are going to have all these Amendments together it would save a considerable amount of time if they could be put together? I do not know whether that can be done.
LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, if that is in order, as I understand it is, I should like to proceed by moving Amendments Nos. 132 to 135 inclusive. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 279, line 26,. at end insert—
(" . In section 330, for the words "burgh general assessment" there shall be substituted the words "general or district rate".").
Page 280, line 1, leave out paragraph 54.
Page 280, line 9, leave out from ("authority") to end of line 12 and insert ("and for paragraph (4) there shall be substituted the words "and the islands or district council

255
may from time to time make byeiaws and issue notices and orders prohibiting or regulating public processions.".").
line 35, after ("from") insert (" "and").—(Lord Polwarth.)
LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 138 to 145 inclusive are all in connection with the Burgh Police Act. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 281, line 12, leave out ("in both places") and insert ("in each place")
Page 281, line 27, leave out ("islands or district council") and insert ("local highway authority")
Page 281, line 35, after ("court") insert ("as the case may be")
Page 282, line 3, at end insert—
("( ) for the word "town", where first occurring, there shall be substituted the word "district".")
Page 282, line 6, at end insert ("the")
Page 282, line 13, leave out ("(1)") and insert ("(2)").
Page 284, line 17, leave out from ("an") to ("council") in line 18 and insert ("the council of an islands area or district")
Page 284, line 20, leave out ("an islands or district council") and insert ("area of the said council").—(Lord Polwarth.)
Clause 234 [Orders, rules and regulations]:
LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, Amendment No. 146 corrects an omission. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 146, line 23, leave out ("or 212") and insert ("212 or 222").—(Lord Polwarth.)
Clause 237 [Savings]:
LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, Amendment No. 147 again is drafting due to the passage of Acts. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 149, line 2, leave out ("1972") and insert ("1973 ").—(Lord Polwarth.)
Schedule 29 [Repeals]:
LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, Amendment No. 148 is consequential on Amendment No. 103 I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 285, leave out lines 25 and 26.—(Lord Polwarth.)
LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, Amendment No. 149A replaces a previous Amendment No. 149 which has now been withdrawn. The references in this Amendment repeal provisions of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1889 which have been overtaken by the provisions of other Acts or by this Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 285, column 3, leave out lines 53 and 54 and insert—
("In section 11, subsections (1), (3) and (5).
Section 14.
Section 16.
Sections 39 to 42.
Section 58.
Section 67.").—(Lord Polwarth.)
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 150, and I will speak to Amendments Nos. 154 and 158.
Page 286, column 3, leave out lines 45 and 46 and insert—
("Sections 3 to 25.
Sections 42 to 48.
In section 54, the definitions of "police burgh", "Public Health Acts", "Education Acts" and "burghs".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, although these Amendments appear to be a formidable array, their aim is in fact very simple. The intention is first of all to repeal as much as possible of the Local Government (Scotland) Act. The vast majority of the provisions are static. In Section 36 of the Act of 1894 parish councils were given powers in relation to property belonging to the church in particular in regard to parish burial grounds. Under the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1929 the powers previously related to parish councils became the powers of the county and town councils. Section 22 of the Church of Scotland (Property and Endowments) Act 1925 made certain provisions regarding burgh churches. It is necessary to preserve the position of the Church of Scotland under these provisions in relation to church buildings and burials grounds which have been

257
taken over by local authorities already and to continue to allow local authorities to have certain functions in relation to such burial grounds and other properties. These Amendments to the 1894 Act and to the Church of Scotland Property and Endowments Acts are solely to preserve the status quo by putting the powers presently exercised by county and burgh councils on the new district and island councils. I beg to move.
LORD HOY: My Lords, all I want to say is that having heard that speech for the second time in the last 20 minutes I must say that the clarity with which it was delivered on this occasion made me understand it a little better. We are grateful.
Page 289, line 58, at end insert—

("15 & 16 Geo, 5.

The Church of Scotland (Property c.33.and Endowments) Act 1925.

In section 22(4), the words "continue to".

In section 32, subsection(3), and in subsection (4), the words "or other local authority" in each place where they occur."

—(Lord Drumalbyn.)

LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, Amendment No. 155 and the next Amendment are drafting Amendments to correct an error in the order of the Repeal Schedule entry for the Performing Animals (Regulation) Act 1925. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 290, line 5, column 3, at end insert ("and in subsection (7), the words "subject to payment of the prescribed fee".").—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, Amendment No. 156 repeals the whole of Section 49(c) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act and consequential to the addition to the Bill in Committee of Clause 116(6). I beg to move.
Page 291, line 32, at end insert—

("23 — 24 Geo. 5.

The Church of Scotland (Property c. 44. and Endowments) Amendment Act 1933.

In section 2(2), the words from "or, in the case" onwards."). —(Lord Drumalbyn.)

LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, Amendment No. 159 and Amendment No. 160 are drafting Amendments to repeal a Schedule which wrongly contains an entry for Section 18(2) of the
LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 151, 152 and 153 are a further series of drafting Amendments to the Burgh Police Act previously referred to. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 288, line 30, column 3, after ("from") insert ("and").
Page 288, line 43, column 3, after ("words") insert ("the").
Page 288, line 50, column 3, after ("court") insert (", as the case may be").—(Lord Polwarth.)
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, Amendment No. 154 is another of the Church Amendments. I beg to move.
Amendment moved —
Amendment moved—
Page 290, column 3, leave out lines 11 to 13.
—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, what I have just said in regard to the last Amendment applies to Amendment No. 157 as well. As I said before, Amendments Nos. 155 and 156 deal with the same point. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 290, leave out lines 51 to 55 and insert—
("Section 49(3) and (4)").—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, Amendment No. 158 is another Church Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Water (Scotland) Act 1967, rather than Section 18(2) of the Water (Scotland) Act 1946. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 292, line 41, column 3, at end insert —("Section 18(2)").—(Lord Drumalbyn.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, Amendment No. 160 follows on paragraph 9 of Schedule 9 as amended in Committee and deals with the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1947 and makes minor amendments. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 293, line 57, at end insert ("(f)").— (Lord Drumalbyn.)
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, Amendment No. 161 is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 296, line 11, column, 3 before ("Section 30.") insert—
("In section 11(2)(b), the words "or, in Scotland, each electoral division".").—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
7.40 p.m.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL THE DUKE OF ATHOLL moved Amendment No. 162:
Page 297, line 31, column 3, leave out ("subsections (2) to (4),") and insert (" subsection (3)")
The noble Duke said: My Lords, I am afraid that this galloping process may come to a slight halt, though I hope no more than down to a canter. This is a very simple Amendment and I can explain it briefly. The Bill as it stands repeals subsections (2), (3) and (4) of the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) (Scotland) Act 1951. My Amendment would I repeal only Section 10(3) of that Act. Subsection (2) provides that a board must appoint a river inspector. Subsection (4) provides that:
"A person may be appointed a river inspector for two or more Purification Board areas."
but a board must not appoint as river inspector for that area a person who is an official of the council of any county or burgh whose district is comprised wholly or partly in the area. I am not particularly enamoured by the last part of subsection (4) and I see little reason why that should not go, but I should have thought that the provisions that a board should appoint a river inspector and that if convenient two boards may share a river inspector were useful. I am wondering why the Government should wish to repeal these two particular subsections of Section 10 of the 1951 Act. I beg to move.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, the point here is quite clear, namely, that in general the power to appoint such officers as they think fit is left to the authorities concerned, and a great many of the mandatory provisions requiring the appointment of special officers are repealed—these are left to the bodies concerned. The new Section 10(1), contained in paragraph 2 of Schedule 16, enables a river purification board to appoint such officers as they think necessary for the proper discharge by the hoard of their functions. This subsection is clearly wide enough to enable a board to make whatever appointments they wish, and there is no sufficient ground for retaining the office of river inspector as a statutory appointment, particularly as at the present time, for example, the Lower Clyde and Forth Boards both call their chief river inspectors by other names. The fact is that the name "river inspector" is now out of date. The inspector now has to deal with many other responsibilities, including managerial ones, and he will be the "proper officer", to use the term of the Bill, so far as the river purification boards are concerned.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, I need not say I am not particularly enamoured of the title of river inspector and I am quite prepared to accept what my noble friend says. Before asking leave to withdraw my Amendment, however, I should just like to ask the Minister whether he anticipates that the boards will appoint an inspector or officer, by whatever name he is known—because I do think this is an essential matter.
LORD DRUMALBYN: Yes, my Lords, they are bound to have an executive officer of some kind.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.43 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 163:
Page 300, line 40, column 3, at end insert—("In section 168(1), the words" or other area".").
The noble Lord said: This is a purely technical Amendment which rectifies an omission in Schedule 29 dealing with the keeping by the sheriff's clerk for each county or other area of a register of clubs

261
registered to supply liquor. The omission came to light as a result of an Amendment which was put down at Committee stage by my noble friend Lord Balfour, and we are much indebted to him for his energy and diligence in this matter.
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 164:
Page 300, line 43, column 3, at end insert—
("In section 175(1), the words from" or, if the premises "to" to a magistrate "and the words" or magistrate".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is another purely technical Amendment and rectifies yet another error which was discerned by my my noble friend Lord Balfour. He did not put down an Amendment at that time, on the understanding that an Amendment to this effect would be moved by the Government at Report stage. The effect of it is that references in paragraph 19 of Schedule 24 to a burgh magistrate should cease to have effect. Reference should accordingly be made in Schedule 29 to the repeal of the relevant words, as the Amendment proposes.
THE EARL OF BALFOUR: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for having moved this Amendment. I thought he could move it a good deal more quickly than I could.
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved Amendments Nos. 165 to 167:
Page 302, line 42, at end insert—
("In section 4(2), the words" and approved for the purpose by the Board".").
Page 302, line 44, at end insert—
("In section 5(3), the words" and approved for the purpose by the Board".").
Page 302, line 49, at end insert—
("In section 44(1), the words" with the consent of the Board".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendments 165, 166 and 167 together deal with the Weights and Measures Act. They remove the need for the con-
Page 310, line 3, at end insert—

("1969 c. 41.

The National Mod (Scotland) Act 1969.

The whole Act".)

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment repeals the National Mod Act. I may say that it has been done
262
sent of the Board in certain cases. I beg to move these Amendments.
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 168:
Page 304, line 13, at end insert—("Section 11(3)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Section 11 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act provides for a grant to local authorities for expenditure due to immigrant population. Subsection (3) defines "local authority" for this purpose. A separate definition from the main definition in Section 46(1) of the Act will not be necessary following local government reorganisation. I beg to move.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move Amendment No. 169.
Amendment moved—
Page 305, leave out line 49.—(Lord Drumalbytz.)
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, this is also a drafting Amendment. I beg to move Amendment No. 170.
Amendment moved—
Page 306, line 12, at end insert—("In Schedule 2, paragraph 13").—(Lord Drumalbyrn.)
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 171:
Page 307, column 3, leave out lines 42 to 44.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment consequential upon an Amendment made during the Report stage in another place, the effect of which is to retain the need for the Secretary of State's approval to applications by local authorities or voluntary organisations for the emigration of children under care. I beg to move.
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 172:
with the consent of the author of that Act. Also, An Comunn have been informed of the proposal and they agree that the

263
Act no longer seems to be necessary. The present Bill makes two major changes in the position of contributions made by local authorities to entertainment. At the present time Section 132 provides that contributions may be made by a local authority only where the entertainment concerned is either within its own area or in a place convenient for residents of that area. The power is now given, and the present Bill replaces this with the new Regional Highlands area and district councils, and gives these councils the power to incur expenditure for cultural or recreational purposes, whether inside or outside their own area, without further conditions. Therefore, the National Mod Act is no longer necessary.
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 173:
Page 312, column 3, leave out lines 17 to 22.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. I may inform your Lordships that lines 17 to 22 duplicate lines 10 to 16. I beg to move.
Clause 239 [Short title, commencement and extent]:
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 174. This is a consequential Amendment to Clause 239.
Amendment moved—
Page 149, line 34, after ("214") insert ("and paragraph 64 of Schedule 17").—(Lord Drumalbyn.)

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SUCCESSOR PARISHES) ORDER 1973
7.49 p.m.
LORD GARNSWORTHY LORD GARNSWORTHY rose to move, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Local Government (Successor Parishes) Order 1973, laid before the House on June 29 last (S.T. 1973 No. 1110), be annulled. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. The Local Government Act, 1972, reorganised the areas and
264
functions of district and county councils and, as a consequence, most towns and cities lose their individual status, being absorbed by amalgamations. Provision has been made in certain instances, however, for the setting up of what are known as successor parish councils, and the Local Government Boundary Commission was required to make proposals accordingly. These successor parishes are intended to be places with a clearly distinguishable community and, in general, they should have a population of up to approximately 20,000 people and a representation on the district council of less than 20 per cent. of the new district of which they form a part. Their councils will have the same powers as existing parish councils will enjoy under the new Act. The Act gives them the right to adopt town status and to continue to have a town mayor.
Borough and urban district councils were invited in January 1973 to consider whether they wished to apply to a parish council for the whole or any part of their area, having regard to guidelines issued to the Local Government Boundary Commission by the Secretary of State for the Environment, as detailed in paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of the Local Government Boundary Commission for England Report No. 3. May I here pay a tribute to the clarity of that Report and acknowledge the work that the Commission have undertaken, even if I may seem to be rather dissatisfied with the conclusions to which they have come, believing them to be too limited. I believe the total number of authorities which applied for successor parish status was something over 400. The Local Government Boundary Commission reported on May 31, 1973, and recommended that 269 urban districts or boroughs in non-metropolitan and metropolitan counties should be so constituted and this Order is the outcome. This has left a considerable number of dissatisfied applicants. Among them I believe are boroughs like Andover, Barnstaple, Chichester, Darwen and Truro; and urban districts like Wellington (Salop), Newton Abbot, Felixstowe, Denby Dale, Colne Valley, Potters Bar, Winsford, Saddleworth, Holmfirth, Meltham and Westhoughton, to mention a few. Quite a number of them wrote to me before I tabled this Motion and some since I tabled it.
I fully appreciate that the Secretary of State for the Environment has shown an awareness of this dissatisfaction and discontent, and that consequently he requested the Local Government Boundary Commission in August to consider the representations he had received following the publication of their Report No. 3 to which I have referred, and the Order which is the subject of this debate. It may therefore be asked why to-night I am pursuing my Motion since those aggrieved can have their claims further considered, with the possibility of a further Order being laid to give them the advantage they seek of retaining elected parish councils on the changeover to the new local government system next April. The reason is that Orders of this kind cannot be amended, and if there is to be any worthwhile review of what ought to be done, the time is surely now, before any further Order is laid.
I shall content myself with reference to only a few of the authorities who feel strongly that they ought to have the status of successor parish councils. First, may I mention Chichester, a city which has a history which goes back to pre-Roman times. My noble friend Lord Stow Hill will have something further to add on that aspect of the claims of that city. It has that lovely cathedral; and lately the creation of the Chichester Festival Theatre has brought to the city added lustre and interest. I was there recently on a market day, and once again was very impressed that here was a place which very definitely has its own identity. It is not just another commercial sales centre of concrete and glass, it has its own individuality, character and traditions; and on the occasion of which I speak I was impressed by the citizens who were collecting signatures for a petition supporting the application for parish status. It seemed to me they gave meaning to the claim that Chichester "has enjoyed the privilege of self-government" since 1135, when the granting of its Charter is first recorded.
I believe that here is a case where the application for successor parish status should be conceded and ought to have been included in this present Order. Certainly if the guidelines set out in Report No. 3 on pages 1 and 2, paragraph 3, section 2, are to be taken at face value, Chichester's case is indeed a very
266
powerful one. It has a population of 20,649. This is certainly slightly in excess of 20,000, but paragraph (a) of Section 2 reads: "no absolute maximum figure is prescribed". And in this very Order parish status is being accorded to Leighton-Linslade with a population of 20,550; Wokingham, with a population of 21,300; Chesham, with a population of 20,480, and at Golborne, the two wards of Culcheth and Newchurch have been granted parish status with a population of 28,290.
True, Chichester will have 11 representatives among the 50 members of the new district council which includes, in addition to Chichester itself, a substantial part of the present Chichester rural district, the Midhurst rural district and Petworth—places where, it should be noted, there are existing parish councils where there is a population of any size at all. Surely, having regard to the architectural riches, the buildings which bear testimony to the part the city has played in the past and present, Chichester is entitled to consultation through an elected local council with a power to consult on planning matters, with the same opportunity as those smaller parishes to which I have referred. Paragraph (b) of Section 2 reads:
"If the town comprised more than one-fifth of the population of the district it would not normally qualify for parish status."
But we are also informed, "no rigid limit is suggested". The position here, so far as Chichester is concerned, is indeed very marginal.
On the other criteria it seems to me there can be no argument. May I just make a further point on the mayoralty. The alternative to having an elected council, which in turn elects its mayor, would be in Chichester for the 11 new district councillors acting as Charter Trustees to choose one of their number to hold that office. That is a procedure that adds nothing to the dignity of the chief citizen of a town. It has been said elsewhere that a mayor without the support of any council with powers, albeit the limited powers of a parish council, could be something of a nonentity. I can recall what nonentities Portreeves became when they had no council to which they were responsible.
The noble Baroness, Lady Emmet of Amberley, I am very glad to say, will be

267
speaking later and adding what I am sure will be a very influential voice, from more local knowledge and experience than I have, to the points that I have tried to make. I know that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chichester would have spoken had he been present. Indeed, he has written to me and said:
"I would have indeed wished to support your plea, and would be glad if you could quote my advocacy of its case.
"Chichester has strong claims, not only for its antiquity, but because of its strong and varied modern community life … the cathedral, as a centre of the diocese which embraces the whole of Sussex, is approaching its 900th anniversary. It is an educational centre. It is a cultural centre with its own Festival Theatre. It has been the home of the County Regiment throughout its separate existence; and of course it is the administrative centre of the County of West Sussex."
The Bishop goes on at length and I am cutting short what he had to say, but may I quote him just a little further:
"But above all … it is an extremely lively and varied community with its own characteristics, and it could not be merged into a wider area of government without destroying much of its civic life and vitality. … To us in Chichester it seems unthinkable that this City should be deprived of an independent status within the wider framework on what must appear to be purely technical grounds. We have a very strong case for consideration, and I want to add all my support to the plea you are making."
I hope due note will be taken of what the Bishop has had to say.
The noble Viscount, Lord Monck, will I believe be speaking in regard to the particular claims of Andover, so I shall not touch on that. I will turn to a quite different part of the country: Yorkshire. My noble friend Lord Rhodes would certainly have spoken to-day if he could possibly have been present. I am sure he would have urged very strongly that Saddleworth should have parish council status, and if a further Order does not meet that claim I venture to think the House will be hearing something from him. I put it to the Minister that surely the case that the Saddleworth Urban District Council submitted met substantially the whole of the criteria laid down in the Guidelines. Its population of 21,260 is marginally above the 20.000 figure, but it is less than one-tenth of the new Oldham Metropolitan District, and I have already pointed out that others with populations in excess of
268
20,000 have been successful. I am sure the Minister knows of the great disappointment felt in this part of the country, and the revival of hope that successor parish status will now be granted to places such as Colne Valley, Denby Dale, Holmsfirth and Meltham, among others. I could detail their claims, but at this stage I will content myself by saying they are places which seek to preserve the identity of local communities and to retain some measure of self-government. One hopes their claims will be given not only a further hearing but a most sympathetic hearing, and that when a further Order is laid their names will be included. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Local Government (Successor Parishes) Order 1973, laid before the House on 29th June last (S.I. 1973 No. 1110), be annulled.—(Lord Garnsworthy.)
8.6 p.m.
BARONESS EMMET OF AMBERLEY: My Lords, I should like to say a few words in support of the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, especially in the case of Chichester. I know I may be reproached for special pleading, but I think it is the duty of Parliamentary representatives to plead for special cases and for minorities which might otherwise be swallowed up in the quicksands of Civil Service departments and put away in pigeonholes. Chichester is my home town and it really has a very remarkable history and (if one can say this of a town), as a result, a personality particular to itself. If it has a certain civic pride and has applied for parish council status, I think this is justified both on its past history and on how it is moving with the times at present: one can look at the new theatre which has been built, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, and its tremendous archælogical interest, discoveries and pursuits.
It may astound the Minister to hear that we believe that the City of Chichester started before St. John wrote the Book of Revelations, so you can go back quite a lone way in its beginnings. It was occupied by the Romans in 43 under Vespasian, and we have a relic of the Roman Wall still there. It then was under the Saxon Kings and obtained its name from one of the Saxon Kings' sons,

269
Cissa; hence, Chichester or the Custra Cissa. Then the Danes came, and the legend of King Canute and the waves and his courtiers is supposed to have taken place in Chichester Harbour. Then under the Norman rule it acquired its first Bishop, St. Wilfred, and the cathedral started to be built in 1043. It doubled its numbers and flourished as a trading centre. Its first Charter was given to it in 1135 by King Stephen. The last Charter, interestingly enough, relates to when the Corporation Act was passed in 1835. The first mayor of Chichester dates from 1239. Of course, in all this we must not forget St. Richard of Chichester who was a great saint both of the Roman Calendar and of our own Church. I am rather proud to say that the house I inhabit at one time belonged first to St. Wilfred and then to St. Richard. I feel therefore always very happy when I am at home under their protection. The first mayor of Chichester, who, as I say, was established in 1239, was the senior mayor of the whole of Sussex and has remained so. What is a mayor going to do without a corporation of a council? It is like leaving off his shoes or omitting part of his dress. It is a most hopeless position to put anybody in.
We must also remember that Chichester played a very important part during the war. It was the centre of the A.R.P. control for the whole of that part of the coast—as I know to my cost, because at certain times I spent more nights in county hall than. I did at home. It has throughout always played its part, whether as a cathedral town or as a capital (which it is) of our county. I understand that it has failed in its application, partly on grounds of population census, and I see, to my surprise, that East Grinstead has been granted parish council status. I was a Member for East Grinstead at one time, and anybody who knows that part of the world must know that any figures connected with East Grinstead will be fictitious in another couple of years or three years' time. It is growing at such a progressive rate that I think it will quite easily surpass the 20,600 figure which is the one for Chichester. To my mind, population is a very dangerous thing on which to base approval or otherwise, when we think, for instance, of what has happened to the population of London: when we
270
think how high it was and how rapidly it has gone down in recent years. To my mind this is not a real measure to go by in applying this particular Act.
One way and another, I have been in local government for 45 years, and what appealed to me in local government was the word "local". I am afraid I was not an aficionado of the Redcliffe-Maud Report. I am not at all sure that I am very fond of the present new Local Government Act because of its (to my mind) disregard of the word "local". Where we can help and support a real local interest and the importance given to it, such as the application of Chichester for parish standing, it seems to me to be a very little mind that would refuse it on the ground of the population being 100, 200 or 300 above a certain limit. If we are going to keep the spirit of a city like Chichester alive—and it is a very live spirit—and all the interest which is shown in various directions, I appeal to the Minister to put it strongly to the Boundary Commission, which I understand has the last word, that this is a very special case: a case of a cathedral town, of a capital town, of a thriving town, a beautiful town—and a town that deserves its own personality.
BARONESS SEEAR: My Lords, speaking from these Benches I should like to support briefly the Prayer of the noble Lord. Lord Garnsworthy. As the noble Baroness, Lady Emmet of Amberley, has just said, since the passing of the 1972 Local Government Act many of us have been afraid that it might he for administrative reasons that the local character was going out of local government, in the interests of size and efficiency. If this happens, then local democracy, which is, after all, the root from which all democracy, springs, will suffer with it. Moreover, we are told repeatedly that there may be a social disease today: the disease of alienation, of people feeling that they belong nowhere. This is all too true in many parts of this country and in many sections of society. Where we have a community to which people feel that they really belong and of which they are rightly proud, then surely this is a treasure to he preserved, and where this feeling exists surely it is right and proper that it should he reflected in the right of the people of that community to have direct control over their own affairs,

271
in so far as it is possible. It would be possible by the simple act of reversing the decision which has been made and restoring to the people of Chichester at least a limited right of control over their own affairs which, as we have already seen and as we surely know, they have managed so excellently in the past.
8.15 p.m.
LORD STOW HILL: My Lords, I hesitate to intervene in this debate to add a point of view in support of the three moving speeches to which we have already listened, in so far as they touched the City of Colchester. If I may, I should like to support those arguments. I have not the advantage that the noble Baroness, Lady Emmet of Amberley, has, of being able to say that Chichester is my home city. Possibly I have a slight qualification as an entrant into this debate in that I may describe myself as having some claim to be a Boshamite. I do not know whether your Lordships know what a "Boshamite" is. A Boshamite is a person who is closely united in sympathy and affection with Bosham, which is a most lovely place close to, and in a sense almost part of, Chichester, four miles away and with a similar history. In the years well before the First World War I often went to Chichester and enjoyed the general feeling, even at that young age, which its great antiquity inspires in a visitor.
One is tempted to seek to conduct your Lordships on an antiquarian tour of Chichester, but I will resist the temptation. But, having studied the 1972 Act, and in particular the lines of guidance laid down by the Secretary of State for the Local Boundary Commission, it seemed to me, when I looked at paragraph 2(c) at any rate, that one could draw the conclusion that the broad purpose envisaged by the registration and its interpretation by the Secretary of State was this: that there are some communities which, as it were, are set aside by their tradition, by their antiquity, by their special characteristics and feelings. It is fair and in the general interests that those particular communities should have their own special elected bodies which can be relied upon to be specially sensitive to the needs and feelings of the denizens of those communities. I
272
should have thought that Chichester was eminently such a community.
I have spent hours walking and enjoying the ancient cathedral cities of this country: Chichester is a very special cathedral city. It has been pointed out that so far as population is concerned, broadly speaking it conforms to the "norm" (if I may use that rather inelegant term) laid down in paragraph 2(a) and (b) of the Minister's Lines of Guidance. But when one comes to subparagraph (c) one finds that the historic character of the city is particularly to be taken into account in interpreting those lines of guidance. I should have thought that anybody sensitive to the atmosphere of Chichester, when he treads its pavements feels himself uniquely in the presence of history. It is a city which I think almost more than any other of our ancient cities provides a direct link between our bustling modern age and Roman times. It is laid out as a Roman city; the Roman walls are still there, partially preserved. One feels almost that beneath every yard of it, if one were to dig down and excavate, one might find traces of the Roman civilisation which, after all, was so important in the development of our country.
I think I am right in saying, but historians may correct me, that the Downs to the North were in Roman times thick forests, and therefore the flat land between the sea and the Downs was the area in which the Roman civilisation deployed itself to the uttermost. Therefore it is, I think, that one finds in Chichester such a direct link with the earliest development of civilisation in this country. I promised to be short, but I should like to add my urgent plea to those that have been voiced by the three previous speakers in their very cogent and moving speeches, that Chichester should be given the opportunity of parish status. A representative of a ward thinks of a ward; a representative of a parish thinks of a parish. This is natural. I hope that your Lordships may feel that it is desirable, having regard to the very special characteristics of this ancient and venerable city, that it should enjoy the privilege of having as its governing authority elected members who can be relied on to be peculiarly conscious of its atmosphere, peculiarly sensitive to the special wishes,

273
desires, longings and feelings deeply held of those who have lived all their lives, and still live, in Chichester, following in so many cases forebears over so many centuries before them. I beg to support the Motion.
8.21 p.m.
Viscount MONCK: My Lords, I feel certain that the noble Baroness who will reply for the Government will be familiar with that famous work The Anatomy of Melancholy, written by that great man Robert Burton, slightly before my time and considerably before the time of the noble Baroness. He passed away in 1640. He wrote:
"No rule is so general which admits not some exception".
In view of this I have always been very wary of supporting anything which is called a special case, but the case which I wish to mention tonight is so exceptional and outstanding that I make no apology for bringing it up.
My Lords, in Hampshire as from next April one of the new district councils will be the Test Valley District Council; that will cover an area in which 45 parishes will be represented by 45 parish councils, and the Boroughs of Romsey and Andover. The 45 parishes will continue to have their parish councils. The Borough of Romsey has also been granted successor parish council status. This leaves Andover alone, the only one out of the 47 units without any local representation at all, and no local body to speak for the borough. I do not consider that this is either fair, right or sensible, and I most sincerely trust that without any further delay the Borough of Andover may be granted successor parish council status.
8.23 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT (BARONESS YOUNG): My Lords, we have all listened to very interesting and at times very moving speeches on the subject of this order, and I should like to say at the beginning that no one appreciates more than I do the strength of local feeling. It is one of the great strengths of British local government that it attracts to it so many who care so
274
much about the standard of service that it provides.
Before turning to answer, if I can, some of the points raised, I should like to say something about the background to the successor parish exercise and its purpose, so as to make clear at the beginning that local government reorganisation leaves existing rural parishes untouched. There are about 10,000 of these, and they will remain. The great majority of them have populations under 5,000, although it is true that some range up to and over 20,000. There are many existing small boroughs and urban districts of a similar size and character to these existing parishes. These authorities will cease to exist next year when their areas are absorbed into large districts. When the 1972 Act was being considered, it seemed to us right that these small towns should continue to have a local council and the aim was to achieve continuity at this most local level of representative government. This meant carrying out an exercise limited in scope by the need to fit it into the main local government reorganisation timetable. So we provided for the Local Government Boundary Commission to examine the claims of existing local authority areas to parish status. Had a more complicated process been carried out, which might have involved partitioning of existing areas or the drawing of new boundaries, this could not have been accomplished in time for the Act to come into force, as it does, on April 1, 1974. As a result of this first exercise 269 successor parish councils will be added to the existing rural parish councils. I wish to emphasise this point because the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, spoke about people feeling that local authorities were no longer local —a point which I think was also made by my noble friend Lady Emmet—and that people feel out of touch. It seems to me that what this exercise has done is not only to keep the existing role parishes, but to add to them. What we are discussing is whether in fact that list should be extended further.
My Lords, the powers of those parish authorities have certain new characteristics which should be borne in mind. They are not just informal neighbourhood groups but statutory representative authorities. They have independent functions relating particularly to pathways, open spaces, and provision for

275
recreation. They act as a focus for community feeling, but have quite substantial functional and money-spending powers which make them most appropriate in relatively sparsely populated rural areas and in small country towns which form distinct communities.
As a result of the Local Government Act 1972, a parish is entitled to call itself a town and to have a town mayor. The preservation of local civic dignities may well be—and I think the debate this evening has shown this—one of the concerns of successor parish councils. But I should remind the House that in cases where a new district does not seek borough status, the dignities of any former borough in the area will be protected without the need for a parish council. The 1972 Act provides in such circumstances for district councillors for the former borough to be a body corporate, by name the Charter Trustees, with the function the name suggests, of preserving the civic dignity of the former borough. This provision will help to meet the need for local civic leadership, since one of the powers of Charter Trustees is the right to appoint a town mayor. I appreciate that this is not exclusively an argument of Chichester for wanting parish council status, but I have spelt it out because I think it would be helpful for Chichester to know that in any event they can, if they so wish, continue to have a mayor.
Noble Lords have talked about the guidelines laid down for the Boundary Commission. They were to take account of local wishes, of the identity of a town both as a community and as a physically separate unit; they were to take account of its historical background and size. What was said in the guidelines was that acceptable proposals, unless an exceptional case were put forward, should normally involve a town with a population under 20,000 and less than 20 per cent. of the population of the new district. The functions of parishes as third tier authorities and their task in acting as a focus for local views points to a relatively small unit and, of course, most existing parishes have populations far below this upper range of 10,000 to 20,000 as set out in the guidelines.
The noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, raised an example of a parish, and I
276
think he was mistaken in the figures he gave with regard to Golborne. The wards of Culcheth and Newchurch, have a population of 9,626, not 28,000 which he named.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, if I made an error it was on advice. I accept without hesitation the correction. I did mention a number of other places; I do not know whether the noble Baroness is going to question the accuracy of those.
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, I wished only to put the Record straight on this matter. This is the advice I have been given, and I think it is rather important to get the figures right. I do not intend to go down the complete list and give the noble Lord all the figures, but of course if there are any figures he would like, or any other noble Lord would like, I should be happy to provide them.
The basic criterion on the proposals for the successor parishes is in fact comparability with existing parishes. As regards the figure of 20 per cent. of the district population, towns with a much greater proportion of the district population than this should have considerable influence on the new district council and therefore less need for a local body of their own. Indeed, local councils for important towns in new districts could be rather a divisive influence, because the new districts will want to administer their district as a coherent unit. Perhaps I may say in passing that an historic place such as Winchester did not apply for parish status since with a population of 30,000, which was nearly one-third of the new district, the city council clearly felt that parish council status would not be appropriate.
The Boundary Commission had a difficult task in considering the many applications for parish status they received. I think their report clearly indicates the care that they have exercised and refutes the charge that they have been either rigid or dogmatic in the interpretation of the guide lines. They have looked basically at the concept of the parish, which is the key to the guidelines, and the members of the Commission have wide experience of local government and for many different areas of the country. However, because of the exigencies of the timetable allotted for the exercise to which

277
I have already referred, the Commission were not able to carry out the full procedure which they would expect to carry out after 1974, including the publication of draft proposals for local consideration which will normally take place.
It rapidly became clear from many representations we received after the publication of the Commission's Report that there was very strong local feeling in a number of areas about the Commission's findings and our endorsement of them. Some of the points raised by these representations were new ones, and it seemed to us right that we should give the Commission the chance to give those cases which had been raised with us the sort of further consideration they would have received had the Commission published draft proposals and there then had been further time for local comment to be considered before final recommendations were made. It is for this reason that all the further representations have been passed on to the Boundary Commission, and they will be producing their Report in November.
May I say to noble Lords that I have read with great interest the many letters that I have had about Chichester, from the town clerk, from the Civic Society, from my noble friend Lady Emmet, and that I have listened with very great interest to everything that has been said on this particular case this evening. The Government have decided that the final decision on successor parish council status shall rest with the Boundary Commission. I am quite sure that everything that has been said in the debate this evening will be read with great interest by the Commission when they come to consider this review of Chichester, and, as my noble friend Lord Monck has said, of Andover, and indeed of the other towns that have been mentioned. It is their responsibility. They will have the facts before them.
I would only add in conclusion that I think they are trying to achieve what is always a very difficult balance. Everybody listens with sympathy to the special cases that are put forward, not only because of the cases themselves, but because naturally we should like to do what would please the local people. But we have entered and are entering a new period of local government, on a two-tier system, in which the second tier, the districts,
278
should be representative of local opinion, and it is therefore very important that we should not introduce an element which could in fact make that district level less effective, less democratic, and in any way less responsive to local needs than it might have been. I think this is the other side of the argument that must be weighed up.
I very much hope that the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, will not press this Motion this evening, because, of course, should it be carried all those parishes that have successor status would lose it, and I am sure this is not what he would wish to happen. I will give this assurance, that all the representations we have received have been passed to the Boundary Commission. I feel certain that they will read with great interest what has been said, and I think we must await their Report, which will come in November.
8.37 p.m.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for the care she has taken in replying to the points raised in the debate. We have listened for two days to our Scottish colleagues debating Scottish matters, and I found it something of a pleasure to turn to English affairs and at this late hour in the evening to be able to put up an all-Party point of view, and it is an all-Party point of view that has been expressed this evening. I hope the Boundary Commission will take note of that fact, because although I shall not press my Motion to a Division this evening I could give no guarantee that if the next list is not more satisfactory I shall not feel on that occasion under an obligation to press matters further.
I take complete responsibilty for the error so far as the Golborne Urban District Council figures are concerned: I ought to have checked the figure that was provided to me. But it does bring out a point. One wonders what on earth the wards of Culcheth and Newchurch have been given parish council status for and the rest of the urban district not. I take issue with the noble Baroness when she suggests that we ought not to introduce a new element in a new district that is going, as I understood her to say, to press a special case for that parish, when we have two very clear instances quoted this evening: Chichester not

279
having a voice and the parishes within the new district having a voice, and the opportunity to do the very thing the noble Baroness said she hoped would not take place. Clearly, a place like Chichester will be placed at a disadvantage with its neighbours.
But the case made by the noble Viscount, Lord Monck, seems to me to be even stronger. I suggest that there is need for a little further thinking. Although he spoke with brevity, I thought the case of the noble Viscount was a very strong one indeed. The dignities of a mayor will not benefit from his having no elected council to support him. I do not know what the status of the mayor is likely to be without a council. I should have thought that in those places where it has been demonstrated that they wished to make the election of a mayor a democratic reality consideration would be given to this fact. I hope the Boundary Commission will take note of it.
I do not want to give the impression that I am unappreciative or over-critical of the replies the noble Baroness has given, because she has been extremely considerate and has gone to very great lengths to deal with the points that have been raised. Chichester has been raised as an outstanding example, and so has Andover; but I should like to make the point that there are other areas which feel they have equally serious claims. I hope that the Local Government Boundary Commission, when they next report, will be a little more flexible than they appear to have been. I should have liked to feel that the Government would have widened the guidelines they have given. I suppose that it is too late for that.
One small suggestion. When the Local Government Boundary Commission report and state the places that they propose should be given successor parish status, it would be useful if the population figures for the new parishes that are to be created were printed in the Report. I made one slip this evening, but I think it has been useful in demonstrating that one part of a district is going to benefit and the other parts are not. I have instanced—and I think that I am correct generally in the instances that I have given —that new parishes have been created in excess of the 20,000. I am grateful
280
to those Members of the House who have stayed, and I hope that they feel that this debate has been fully justified. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

WRITTEN ANSWERS

  AIRCRAFT ENGINE NOISE RESEARCH
  LORD KENNET LORD KENNET asked Her Majesty's Government:
  What research into the reduction of aircraft engine noise has been carried out in the last two years at the National Gas Turbine Establishment at Pyestock, whether any forecasts of possible reductions have been made, and if made published, and if they have been made but not published, when they will be published.
  LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, research on engine noise at the National Gas Turbine Establishment in the last two years has formed part of a continuing effort sustained over about fifteen years. Work is aimed at improving the appreciation of scientific principles and methods of prediction, and at solving the engineering problems involved. Topics studied in the last two years include all major sources of engine noise, including high speed jet noise and jet noise supressors; co-axial jet noise; compressor and turbine noise; tailpipe noise and appropriate absorbers for both tailpipe and intake noise; improved noise instrumentation. In addition, a new major acoustic test facility is nearing completion and part of it is now in use. The Establishment works in close co-operation with industry. Many people engaged in this and similar work have expressed personal opinions but the establishment has made no official forecasts of aero-engine noise reductions.

  NORTH SEA OIL RIGS
  LORD KENNET LORD KENNET asked Her Majesty's Government:
  If, as appears from the Written Answer of 17th July, the Department of Trade and Industry do not know where the oil-rigs are in sectors of the North Sea other than the British, how they expect mariners to avoid them.
  LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, information promulgated by the Hydro-graphic Offices of the countries concerned, and also by the Hydrographer to the Royal Navy, enables mariners to keep their charts up to date.

  BAIL: HOME OFFICE REPORT
  LORD GARDINER LORD GARDINER asked Her Majesty's Government:
  When they expect to receive the Report of the Home Office Working Party on Bail and whether it will be published.
  VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: Within the next few weeks. The question of publication will be considered then.

  EASTER ACT 1928
  LORD GARDINER LORD GARDINER asked Her Majesty's Government:
  What is now holding up their making an Order bringing into force the Easter Act 1928.
  VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: This still depends on when agreement can be reached between the main Christian denominations.

  SERVICES CATERING: DONALDSON REPORT
  LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH asked Her Majesty's Government:
  Whether they will make a Statement on the Report of the Committee under the Chairmanship of Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge into the financial control of catering in the Services.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DEFENCE (LORD CARRINGTON): The Report of the Donaldson Committee was published on August 29. Her Majesty's Government welcome the Report and are most grateful to Lord Donaldson and his colleagues for the careful consideration they gave to it and for their hard work. All the recommendations in the Report
  282
  have been accepted in principle with the exception of those in paragraphs 121, 123 and 125, whose implementation would require additional manpower and which are still being studied. The main recommendation in the Report that food supplies for the Services should normally be obtained from Service or NAAFI sources has been accepted and will be put into effect. We are examining how to overcome the practical difficulties, which the Committee recognised, in order to adjust the prices of NAAFI messing items on the lines suggested by the Committee. The new system will naturally be kept under review.

  E.E.C. IMPLEMENTATION OF DIRECTIVES
  LORD O'HAGAN LORD O'HAGAN asked Her Majesty's Government:
  To explain in detail how far they have put into effect E.E.C. Directives 72/159, 72/160 and 72/161; and to summarise the object of these directives.
  EARL FERRERS: Directive No. 72/160 has been implemented within the United Kingdom with effect from September 1 last by means of the Farm Structure (Payments to Outgoers) Scheme 1973 and the Agriculture Act 1967 (Amendment) Regulations 1973. The implementation of Directives numbers 72/159 and 72/161 has not yet taken place and is not required until January 1, 1974.
  The stated purposes of the Directives are as follows:
  No. 72/159: the modernisation of farms;
  No. 72/160: to encourage the cessation of farming and the reallocation of utilised agricultural areas for the purposes of structural improvement;
  No. 72/161: the provision of socioeconomic guidance for and the acquisition of occupational skills by persons engaged in agriculture.
  House adjourned at nineteen minutes before nine o'clock.