HL Deb 16 October 1973 vol 345 cc191-263

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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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- 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 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 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 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 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 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 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- 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 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 moved Amendment No. 80:

Page 210, line 20, at end insert— ("5A. In section 26(1) (power of regional water board to lay mains)—

  1. (a) in place of paragraph (b) there shall be substituted the following paragraph:—
  2. (b) at the end of the subsection there shall be added the words—

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 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 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 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 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 (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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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. 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 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 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 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.

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 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 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 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 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 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. 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 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 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 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 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 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 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—

  1. (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;
  2. (b) in paragraph (b) of subsection (1) the, words from "but as if in" to "a local authority" shall be deleted;
  3. (c) subsection (2) shall be deleted.

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

  1. (a) subsection (3) shall be deleted;
  2. (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";
  3. (c) in paragraph (a) of subsection (4) there shall be added after the words "structure plan;"the words "and";
  4. (d) in paragraph (b) of subsection (4) the words from "but he shall not" to "of the authority and" shall be deleted;
  5. (e) paragraph (c) of subsection (4) shall be deleted.

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

  1. (a) after the word "authority" there shall be inserted the words "shall keep under review any local plan adopted by them and";
  2. (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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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)—

  1. (i) before the word "burgh", where second, third and fourth occurring, there shall be inserted the word "former";
  2. (ii) the words "continue to" shall cease to have effect;
  3. (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)—
  1. (a) for the words "parish council", wherever occurring, there shall be substituted the words "islands or district council";
  2. (b) subsection (3) shall cease to have effect;
  3. (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)—

  1. (a) for the words "county or burgh" there shall be substituted the words "islands area or district";
    2. 243
  2. (b) the words from "or, in the case" onwards shall cease to have effect.").—(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 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 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—

  1. (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";
  2. (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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 sent of the Board in certain cases. I beg to move these Amendments.

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 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 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 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 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.)