Lords Sitting of 2 June 1981

Preamble
The House met at a quarter past two of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Salisbury.

Lord Bishopston
The Right Honourable Edward Stanley Bishop, having been created Baron Bishopston, of Newark in the County of Nottingham, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Wells-Pestell and the Lord Peart.

Lord Beloff
Sir Max Beloff, Knight, having been created Baron Beloff, of Wolvercote in the County of Oxfordshire, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Blake and the Lord Marshall of Leeds.
The Lord Manton—Took the Oath.

Namibian Independence: Discussions
2.42 p.m.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will make a statement on the recent discussion by the Western Contact Group on measures to secure the independence of Namibia.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, the Foreign Ministers of the five Western Governments met in Rome on 3rd of May and in a communiqué, the text of which I am circulating in the Official Report, reiterated their Governments' commitment to an internationally acceptable settlement of the Namibia issue. Senior officials of the five have since met in Washington to consider ways forward.
Following is the text of the communiqué referred to above:
1. The Foreign Ministers of Canada, France, the Federal Republic of Germany, the United Kingdom and the United States of America met in Rome on 3rd May 1981, to review the situation in Namibia. The Five Ministers expressed their Governments' deep concern over the failure of the Geneva Conference and their regret over the outcome of the recent consideration of the issue by the Security Council. They noted, however, that the discussions in the Security Council indicated a general desire on the part of the great majority of participants in the debate for the five to continue their efforts in the search for a solution to this problem.
2. The five Ministers reiterated their Governments' commitment to an internationally acceptable settlement to the Namibia issue, one of the major problems of the African continent, the solution of which they see as essential for the stability of Southern
1108
Africa. The Ministers reaffirmed their conviction that only a settlement under the aegis of the United Nations would be acceptable to the international community.
3. The Ministers stated their belief that Security Council Resolution 435 provides a solid basis for the achievement of a negotiated settlement and agreed that continued efforts should be made to bring Namibia to early independence in accordance with Security Council Resolution 435. At the same time, the Ministers recognised that the settlement plan as endorsed by Resolution 435 with the complementary measures that have been added to it, such as the proposal for a demilitarised zone, has not proved sufficient to bring about implementation. They agreed that the search for a settlement should be intensified and that ways to strengthen the existing plan should be considered.
4. The Ministers believe that there is a need to establish understanding among all parties about the shape of the future, independent Namibia. Accordingly they instructed officials to develop proposals encompassing measures, including constitutional arrangements, with the aim of enhancing prospects of achieving a negotiated settlement. Senior officials of the five will meet in late May for this purpose.
5. The Ministers affirmed that the close cooperation of all the parties concerned is essential to the effort to bring about a negotiated solution. The Western five intend to consult with all interested parties in exploring and developing specific proposals which would facilitate a settlement.
6. Finally, the Ministers agreed that the Namibia issue has been on the international agenda for too long. They committed their governments to vigorous action in the effort to bring Namibia to independence at an early date.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Is it not the case that negotiations have been held up by the new American proposal? Does not that proposal depart from the settlement suggested by the five western powers and United Nations Resolution 435? In seeking a constructive solution, has the Minister noted the statement yesterday in Salisbury by Mr. Nujuma, the President of SWAPO, that he would accept a Lancaster House type of conference if South Africa's illegal administration was ended and United Nations authority accepted up to the election? Would not United Nations withdrawal of its support from SWAPO before the election be a contribution to a solution of this problem?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, if I may say so, that is a slightly involved supplementary question, but the short answer is that we must take all parties with us in these negotiations if we are to reach an acceptable settlement.
Lord Goronwy-Roberts: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that the advance which has been made is that the five-power initiative, which has been going on for about 18 months, is now, comparatively speaking, receiving American support? Will Her Majesty's Government very carefully nurture this support?—because without it even the best efforts of the European powers may prove fruitless.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the noble Lord is, of course, quite right that the five need to go forward with a degree of consensus in these matters and, of course, the position of the United States is crucial.
Lord Barnby: My Lords, is the Minister in a position to say that the United Nations has eased negotiations by revising its resolution that SWAPO is the sole authoritative voice for all the black African parties in Namibia?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the formal position of the United Nations in this matter is, of course, contained in the resolution of the Security Council and not in the resolution of the General Assembly, to which my noble friend has referred.
Lord Barnby: My Lords, is it not to be understood that the Democratic Turnhalle Alliance has yet been granted a hearing by the United Nations?
Lord Trefgarne: No, my Lords. It is, of course, the case that the DTA was denied a hearing at a recent United Nations meeting. We expressed our views on that at the time.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, does not the noble Lord realize—I am sure he does—that areas as primitive and tribal as Namibia cannot enjoy independence in any real sense, but that what we are really deciding is whose puppet Namibia will be? Surely it is important from our point of view that she should be the puppet of a friend of ours.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, what is important is that the people of Namibia should have a chance to decide these things for themselves.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, does the United States proposal for a Bill of Rights, which is now being considered by the five western Governments, include economic restrictions? Although one welcomes civil rights for the white minority, must we not be very careful not to contravene the African demand that natural resources should be nationally owned? Is this not particularly necessary, because 40 per cent. of the enriched uranium in this country comes from Namibia? The French Socialist Party, now dominant in France where our uranium is processed, has stated that it will break trade links with Namibia unless a satisfactory solution is reached.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I wish that I had the mental agility of the noble Lord and was able to offer him a comprehensive answer comparable with his supplementary question. I would simply say that it is important not to consider each of these matters in isolation, but to look for a solution to the whole problem.
Lord Davies of Leek: My Lords, may I beg the noble Lord not to assume that because we are white, with the arrogance of our civilisation—with its yobboes at football crowds and elsewhere, muggings and murders in the streets—we are more advanced than some of these so-called uncivilised people who live peacefully in the bosom of their gods?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I do not think that I suggested any such thing as was inherent in the noble Lord's supplementary question.

The Defence Estimates
2.48 p.m.
Lord Shinwell: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the
1110
Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they intend to revise the Defence Estimates which have been circulated; and whether a date has been fixed for consideration of the Estimates by this House.
The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Viscount Trenchard): My Lords, planned defence expenditure remains as published in the recent Public Expenditure White Paper (Cmnd. 8175) and the Supply Estimates 1981–82, though the latter will have to be increased to take account of the Armed Forces pay award. The longer term review concentrates on how best to apportion the increasing expenditure. As to the second part of the noble Lord's Question, a Motion in my name to take note of the Statement on the Defence Estimates 1981 will appear on the Order Paper in the near future. I understand that the debate will take place on Wednesday, 1st July.
Lord Shinwell: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount for that reply and should like to take the opportunity of congratulating him on having survived the massacre, which seems to me to be a tribute to the House of Lords. Can the noble Viscount clarify the issue somewhat because of what has appeared in the press media and in other quarters? Do the Government intend to revise any part of the Defence Estimates which have already been submitted to both Houses of Parliament, although we have not debated them? If there is to be a review, what is the intention? If there is to be any fundamental change, or if there are to be only minor changes, may we have an assurance that both Houses of Parliament will be able to debate the whole subject of defence before the Summer Recess?
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his congratulations. First of all, as my initial Answer was intended to imply, we are firm on the increase in real terms of the budget by approximately 3 per cent. per annum, the estimate currently being 8 per cent. over three years. So far as the revision of the estimate is concerned as a result of the long-term review, this stems from the over-expenditure of the current budget—which, as I have said, is being increased—and that in turn stems from the escalation of costs of modern equipment combined with the ever-changing threat backed by modern technology.
Against this background my right honourable friend, in the usual long-term review which takes place every year, has this year had to look with greater care than ever on how to allocate this budget as, due to the cost escalations I have mentioned, the bids for the budget exceed the increase being made. Both Houses of Parliament will obviously have opportunities to debate it, and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has announced in the other place that he plans to make a Statement in July, with time for a debate in the other House in July.
Lord Shinwell: My Lords, may I ask a further question? As there seems to be some dubiety about the

1111
intentions of the Government—and I say that without meaning any offence; this matter of defence should, in my view, be above party anyway—may I ask whether we can get an assurance, if it is possible to give one, that there is to be no weakening of our maritime strength, because, in the opinion of I think a majority of Members of Parliament of both Houses, that would be an action that would make our defence much of a nonsense?
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, I appreciate and indeed endorse the noble Lord's sentiment that defence should be kept as far as is possible above party. So far as the noble Lord's second supplementary about maritime strength is concerned, there is no question but that we have to meet all the possible threats from our potential enemies, including the maritime area. The review, against the background of the huge escalating costs of modern equipment, is how best to do that. I do not think I can go any further at this stage in anticipating the outcome of the current long-term review.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, by the time we have the promised debate in July will the House be told how many officers and men will be sacked by the Royal Navy? Does the Minister realise what enormous damage has already been done to the morale of the service by the threatened cuts? Can he say whether the cost savings which will be achieved by these cuts are more, or less, than the cost of the Trident programme?
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, I do not think that the noble Lord's question is really relevant to the situation. We are not cutting. We are increasing defence expenditure far more than previous Governments have done, and shall continue to do it. It is a question of how to allocate that increase. So far as the morale of the Services is concerned, including the Royal Navy, which will have an important role—and its submarine role for sure is expanding—I believe that it is much higher than is anticipated, and I say that against a short background of having been the Minister for the Navy as well as the Minister of Defence Procurement for a week.
Lord Clifford of Chudleigh: My Lords, does the noble Viscount really mean that the Government are not cutting defence? What does that mean to men in the Territorial Army who are having their man-training days cut?
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, I do not know whether I can be clearer on this point. The numbers in our Services since, say, 1951 have come down very materially as weaponry has become much more formidable and much more costly. This is the central long-term problem, apart from various short-term problems. This is the inevitable evolution of technology and the awesome power of modern weapons. As such there will be changes and there will be some cuts in numbers of some parts of the Services, but the overall situation is that our budget is being increased by 3 per cent. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State in the review he is carrying out has the greatest sympathy
1112
with the role of the voluntary reserves and territorials as he has stated in the other place in the recent debate. I can only ask the noble Lord to await the outcome of the review to see his decisions in relation to the Territorial Army and the reserves.

Ambulance Personnel: Training
2.56 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are in favour of advanced training for ambulance personnel undertaking emergency work, so that they are trained in the life support skills.
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: My Lords, there is evidence that advanced training may enable ambulancemen to provide an improved service to patients, but it is not yet clear that the overall benefits are sufficient to justify the cost, which would in any event need to be weighed against other claims on National Health Service resources. The Government will also wish to take into account the report we are expecting shortly from the National Health Service Working Party on Patient Transport Services. While this has not been considering training as such, its views on the more general role of the ambulance service could well have implications for training needs. A number of ambulancemen voluntarily undergo training in more advanced techniques and we are aware that some health authorities have their own schemes; this is a matter for them to decide in relation to other claims on the resources available locally.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord the Minister for that reply. Is he aware that the overall cost of disability arising from the lack of life support skills is likely to be far greater than the cost of training selected ambulance personnel in these skills? Is he aware that many casualty departments in hospitals have closed and that patients have to travel a long way? Is it right that there should be marvellous, expensive, highly skilled intensive care units and the patient dies, or becomes disabled, on the way?
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: My Lords, I think that this matter is slightly more complicated than it seems to be at first sight. First of all, of the work of the ambulancemen less than 10 per cent. is on emergency cases. The whole question of the role and structure of the ambulance service has just been reviewed. The report is in front of the regional health authorities at the moment. It will come to the Secretary of State probably next month, and the whole situation is being looked at.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, following on from that, may I ask the noble Lord whether the Secretary of State will take into consideration the situation in America and Australasia where paramedics very successfully undertake this work?
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: Yes, my Lords; the whole experience in this country of various experimental schemes and the experience abroad will certainly be taken into account. I know that there are very successful schemes in Australasia and America, although of course they are localised.
Lord Segal: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that in many cases lives have been saved by the skilled emergency treatment rendered by ambulance teams? Could not some distinctive badge of merit be awarded to those who have specially qualified in this highly skilled advanced training?
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: My Lords, I am certainly aware that many lives have been saved by ambulance-men. The noble Baroness is asking whether further advanced training should be given to them. This is a complicated matter which also affects the unions.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, is the Minister aware that of those who die from coronary thrombosis, about half die within the first two hours and that of those, about half die from rhythm disturbances which could be reversed with the right treatment at the right time, which is in the ambulance? Is he further aware that in Brighton, ambulance drivers have voluntarily submitted to training in monitored heart care, defibrillation and so on with quite spectacular results in terms of the saving of lives? If that can happen in Brighton, why can it not happen elsewhere?
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: My Lords, I am well aware of the Brighton cardiac scheme and the successes they have had there. The general view is that this must be for the local authorities to consider in line with the resources they have, and it is questionable whether the number of lives saved is satisfactory compared with the cost of the service. This is a very important matter and is one of the main aspects that will be considered.
The Countess of Loudoun: My Lords, is the Minister aware that expert resuscitation is vital to save oxygen being cut off from the brain, which causes mental handicap?
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: I am sure that is true, my Lords.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, when the Secretary of State is considering this matter, will special thought be given to the needs of rural areas, where casualty departments are often a very long way from the scene of the accident and ambulances must travel enormous distances before arriving at the place where the patient is suffering and is in need? Is the Minister therefore aware of the very special need that exists in some of the isolated parts of the country?
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: My Lords, I do not wish to disappoint my noble friend, but obviously this is a difficult matter when it comes to the rural areas. As the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, mentioned, the important thing is to get the ambulance to the patient very quickly. To do that in isolated rural areas would seem a very difficult thing to do.
Lord Porritt: My Lords, would the Minister be willing to consult the Medical Commission on Accident Prevention who have looked into this subject for the past 10 years, who are very knowledgeable about it, who run a number of very successful courses in the southern counties and who voluntarily give a certificate to those who become trained up to the point which we are discussing?
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: Yes, my Lords; all the people who are interested in this matter will be consulted and in fact have been consulted on the report which is now going to regional health authorities.
Baroness Hylton-Foster: Do ambulance personnel undergo regular refresher training to keep up with ever-changing modern techniques, my Lords?
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: I believe the answer is that it varies, my Lords. Certainly it is the intention that all ambulancemen should have, I think within two years, refresher courses; I am not able to say that they all have them.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, in view of the unsatisfactory reply which the Minister gave to my noble husband about rural areas, may I ask whether the Secretary of State and the Government will very seriously consider introducing a helicopter flying squad service for the rural areas?
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: I would rather doubt that, quite honestly, my Lords, because we must consider the costs of quite simple arrangements, and I think that to have helicopters flying all over the country to outlying areas would be a very advanced move and unlikely to be considered at any rate in the early stages.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, is the Minister aware that they have such a service in Southern Ireland?
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: I believe they do, my Lords.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, I think it would be appropriate if we moved on to the next Question.

Animals for Research: Acquisition
3.4 p.m.
Lord de Clifford: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware of the grave disquiet aroused in millions of pet owners by the reply to Lord Houghton of Sowerby's Question (columns 552 and 553 of the Official Report of 12th May); why it required an illegal act to discover that a stolen pet had been

1115
acquired for animal research; whether they will consider making it a condition of licensing research that the dealer or pet shop supplying the animals should be licensed under the Pet Animals Act 1951; and whether they will introduce legislation to ensure all animals for research under licence are bred specifically for that purpose.
Lord Sandys: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary is aware that many people are concerned about the possibility that pets may be stolen for supply to laboratories for experimental purposes. It would not be appropriate to attach a condition to licences issued under the Cruelty to Animals Act 1876 that animals used for experimental purposes should be obtained only from suppliers licensed under the Pet Animals Act 1951, since that Act applies only to businesses engaged in selling animals as pets. The theft or dishonest handling of stolen pets, however, are offences for which very substantial maximum penalties are available. The Government have announced their intention of introducing legislation when parliamentary time permits to modernise the Cruelty to Animals Act 1876, and the legislative proposals will include provisions extending control to the breeding and supply of animals intended to be used for experimental purposes.
Lord de Clifford: My Lords, while thanking the Minister for that reply, may I ask whether he would agree that it comes down to this: that an animal which is stolen may go for research, while one taken under legislation may not? Is it not a most extraordinary situation that an animal stolen may go for research while an animal collected as a stray may not?
Lord Sandys: My Lords, the position was set out very clearly by my noble friend Lady Young in her reply to a Question for Written Answer on 12th May 1981 from the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord to draw the attention of his right honourable friend to an article I wrote in World Medicine in January of this year from which, with the permission of the House, I will quote one sentence:
"No-one would risk experimenting with an animal whose history he did not know and which might have been planted on him by anti-vivisectionists after being mendaciously reported stolen to the police"?
Does not the noble Lord consider it a most extraordinary thing that an unknown dumb animal has been stolen and linked to an owner of unknown name and address? Is not that a feat unprecedented in the annals of detection?
Lord Sandys: My Lords, I shall certainly draw the attention of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary to the article written by the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, is the Minister aware that when the Government's forthcoming legislation to update the 1876 Act comes before Parliament, the public will look for a complete clean-up of the procurement and care of animals for laboratory
1116
use and that that must form an important part of the legislation?
Lord Sandys: My Lords, as I said in my original reply—I emphasise this—the Government are intending to include in legislation the breeding and supply of animals intended to be used for experimental purposes.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, are the Government satisfied that a most disgraceful affair actually took place and, if so, have Sheffield University apologised and expressed their regret and distress that the incident took place?
Lord Sandys: My Lords, I am not aware of any official reply or apology being sent to the Home Office or to any other source.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of your Lordships if I announce that dinner will be available this evening at the usual time. The House will adjourn at approximately 7 o'clock for approximately three-quarters of an hour. During that adjournment the Report stage of the Insurance Companies Bill and the Committee stage of the Food and Drugs (Amendment) Bill will be taken. It might also be for the convenience of the House if I announce that dinner will be available on Thursday of this week.
Local Authorities' Current Expenditure
Lord Denham: My Lords, with the leave of the House, at a convenient moment after 3.30 my noble friend Lord Bellwin will repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on local authorities' current expenditure. It has been agreed through the usual channels that a Statement which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales is making in another place, on local authorities' current expenditure in Wales, will not be repeated, but, with the leave of the House. I shall arrange for that Statement to be circulated in the Official Report.

Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill
3.10 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [Power to change year of revaluation]:
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 14, at end insert—
("Provided that that different financial year is not more than two years later than that originally specified.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the mysterious words of the amendment mean that whereas the Government propose (as in Clause 1) to give power to the Secretary of State to delay for an unspecified time the usual quinquennial review of valuations in

1117
Scotland, I seek to limit the delay to two years. Your Lordships will remember that in Committee I suggested that the period should be one year. I think that the suggestion met with a certain amount of sympathy, and the one noble Lord on the other side of the Committee who showed any interest at all in the matter came to the conclusion that two years would probably be right, and on that basis I withdrew the amendment. It might well be that had there been a Division there would have been a narrow defeat.
The point is that people in Scotland are now probably more sensitive than ever before about the question of rating, and of course everyone agrees that the rating system is wrong. The party opposite is committed to doing something about it, and many people are concerned that while the Government are spending all this time on local government, they are bringing forward no proposals whatever for any change in the rating system. A part of the rating system is concerned with the valuation of property, be it domestic, commercial, or industrial property. Rates are rising higher and higher—an aspect of the matter that we shall be discussing in relation to a later part of the Bill. The fact is that rates are rising higher and higher. There are inequalities in the valuations between one type of property and another, and the longer that that situation continues before there is a revaluation, an opportunity to put it right, the greater is the injustice done.
There is no doubt that the power to be taken by the Government is purely and simply to delay the revaluation. This is not unusual in England, but in Scotland there has been a delay only once since the quinquennial revaluations were instituted, and that was subsequent to local government reform. We can well understand why that was necessary at the time. The 1973 Act, reforming local government, introduced by the party opposite, delayed the coming quinquennial review by two years. I think that it was delayed from 1976 until 1978.
Bearing in mind the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, of a 2-year period, as well as past experience, including the Government's decision in respect of one quinquennial review which was delayed, I think it fair to propose a period of delay of not more than two years. That would still give the Secretary of State the power to delay, but his power would be limited. Taking into account the injustices that arise because of longer delays—and people in England will probably be well aware of this—I suggest that the delay should be limited to two years. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I sympathise very much with the noble Lord in what he has said, in particular his reference to the enormous increase in rates all over Scotland. I have looked up what I have been required to pay year by year and I find that in 1978–79 I paid £261, using rough figures. For 1979–80 it was £290. For 1980–81 it was £390. For 1981–82 it is £542. Things are getting into a ridiculous state, and I strongly support what the noble Lord has said about a 2-year period being quite enough. I shall listen with great interest to what the noble Earl the Minister has to say in reply.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (The Earl of Mansfield): My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Ross
1118
of Marnock, has told the House, we examined this matter in Committee and I undertook to take it away and consider whether an amendment which would in effect fetter the jurisdiction, or the discretion, of the Secretary of State might be applicable. I also recall that a number of your Lordships expressed sympathy with the view that a restriction be placed on the power contained in Clause 1 to postpone rating revaluations.
As the noble Lord, Lord Ross, has quite correctly said, different powers have been chosen as between Scotland and England and Wales. In England and Wales no revaluation will be held at all until such date as the Secretary of State for the Environment chooses to specify. However, in Scotland the assumption remains that revaluations will take place at 5-yearly intervals, as prescribed by statute, unless the Secretary of State provides otherwise.
On past experience of postponed revaluations it might be argued that there is something to be said for a 2-year restriction, as proposed by the amendment. So far as I know, previous postponements have been for no more than two years at a time, but as I explained in Committee, the Government have under review the rating system, in particular the domestic rating system, and it is possible that the results of the review could be such as would justify a fairly lengthy postponement of revaluation. Clearly, the exact timing would depend on the circumstances, but it would be inappropriate for the Secretary of State to find himself requiring to postpone a revaluation for, say, three years, but unable to do so because of the effect of an amendment of this kind.
It might well be that circumstances would require only a 1-year or a 2-year postponement, but equally it could be that a longer postponement would be justified. The uncertainty over the future of the rating system is such that I suggest to the House that there is a very strong case for maximum flexibility. I would remind your Lordships that the possibility does not exist that revaluation would be postponed far into the future in some capricious way, or on the personal whim of a Secretary of State. Any order under Clause 1 must come before both Houses of Parliament for approval and that, I suggest, is a considerable deterrent to any misuse of the power. I can see no reason for a postponement to be sought unnecessarily, given that revaluations serve to adjust rate burdens and to provide a more up-to-date basis for distributing rate support grant.
I entirely take the point of my noble friend Lord Strathclyde, and it is because people like him, indeed all of us, find ourselves in ever increasing difficulties, that the Government are considering with the greatest of care the whole system of rating, in particular domestic rating. But as I suggest, the situation shows that the maximum flexibility is desirable in this case, and it is for those reasons that I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Ross, will not press his amendment.
Lord Hughes: My Lords, I am quite certain that my noble friend Lord Ross will find that reply exceedingly disappointing. The Minister has reiterated that the Government have the rating system under continuing review. According to the figures quoted by my noble friend, the next revaluation, if there is no deferment,

1119
will not take place until 1983. So, given the two years which he has suggested as being the limit for deferment in his amendment, that means that the Government would have until 1985. Is the Minister seriously asking us to believe that the consideration, which presumably has been in their mind ever since they were elected two years ago, cannot be completed by 1985, assuming that electorally they are given the opportunity to carry on until then? It seems an extraordinary snail's pace at which to be considering this matter. It seems to me that the acceptance of this amendment, if it does not do anything else, at least should encourage the Government to put a little more speed into their consideration of the rating system. I therefore hope that my noble friend will not find it possible to withdraw this amendment.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Hughes is quite right: I found the reply very unsatisfactory. I cannot understand this repetition of the word "flexibility", as though it has some special virtue of its own, bearing in mind that we are being reasonably flexible. We are giving the Government two years' delay; and remembering that the Government will probably have to make up their mind about it at least a year before the revaluation (because they must start some time earlier in order to get the job done in time for that particular year), they will need to start virtually next year, probably, although we have not had the information that they are going to delay for whatever period they make up their mind about. Bearing in mind that 1983 might be a difficult year, because it will probably be the year of a general election, and a general election means work for the electoral officer (who, in Scotland, is also the assessor) and his staff, there could be difficulties. They would need to know fairly soon whether or not the Government are going to delay.
It should also be borne in mind that if there is a delay of as much as two years it means that for two years longer there may be injustices as between one property-owner or industrialist and another. This covers everybody, even agriculture, because agriculture is de-rated in Scotland, but not the farmhouse, the domestic premises. In fact, I have discovered a new injustice. Lord Strathclyde tells me of the increase in his rates over the past two or three years. I am amazed at how little he pays, because I can tell him that I pay far more. This is the kind of thing that we shall come to—how you get information and what right you have to put it forward in relation to your rates.
The injustice could possibly be remedied, but can only be remedied at the time of revaluation. If you want your rates reduced between revaluations, there has to be some substantial change in respect of your own property. So it is a very important amendment from the point of view of property-owners but also from the point of view of tenants, because it is the occupier who pays the rates. I just cannot understand this feeling that the Government might like three, four or five years. I do not think it is fair to anybody. It is not logical to me.
The Government say, "Things are under review in respect of domestic rates". How long have they been under review? We have had Royal Commissions.
1120
In fact, in the case of the last one, I do not think the party opposite, as a party, gave evidence to it. We had the Layfield Commission. What has happened? Nothing. That is a few years ago; and there is no guarantee at all that we are on the point of making some great breakthrough in relation to the rating system. Valuation depends on the rating system, and of course valuation is where you get the inequities that arise.
No, I am afraid I cannot withdraw this amendment. I would ask your Lordships to give serious consideration to supporting this element of justice to Scotland.
3.26 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 72; Not-Contents, 86.

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Leatherland, L.

Amherst, E.

Lee of Newton, L.

Amulree, L.

Listowel, E.

Bacon, B.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B. [Teller.]

Banks, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Loudoun, C.

Birk, B.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Bishopston, L.

MacLeod of Fuinary, L.

Blease, L.

Paget of Northampton, L

Blyton, L.

Peart, L.

Brockway, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Chitnis, L.

Porritt, L.

Clancarty, E.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Collison, L.

Robbins, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Rochester, L.

Darling of Hillsborough, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

David, B. [Teller.]

Rugby, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

St. Davids, V.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Stedman, B.

Evans of Claughton, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Gaitskell, B.

Stone, L.

Gardiner, L.

Strauss, L.

Glenamara, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Thurso, V.

Gosford, E.

Underhill, L.

Hale, L.

Vernon, L.

Halsbury, E.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Hampton, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Hankey, L.

Whaddon, L.

Hanworth, V.

Wigoder, L.

Henderson, L.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Winstanley, L.

Hughes, L.

Winterbottom, L.

John-Mackie. L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Adeane, L.

Davidson, V.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

de Clifford, L.

Ampthill, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Barnby, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Bellwin, L.

Elgin and Kincardine, E.

Berkeley, B.

Ellenborough, L.

Blake, L.

Energlyn, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Evans of Hungershall, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Exeter, M.

Buccleuch and Queensberry, D.

Falkland, V.

Ferrers, E.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Foley, L.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Gage, V.

Cockfield, L.

Gainford, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Gisborough, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Daventry, V.

Glenkinglas, L.

1121

Gridley, L.

Mottistone, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Newall, L.

Hillingdon, L.

Northchurch, B.

Hives, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Onslow, E.

Kemsley, V.

Penrhyn, L.

Kilmany, L.

Portland, D.

Kinnaird, L.

Romney, E.

Lauderdale, E.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Lindsey of Abingdon, E.

St. Germans, E.

Lloyd, L.

Sandys, L. [Teller.]

Long, V.

Savile, L.

Luke, L.

Selkirk, E.

Lyell, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

McFadzean, L.

Sligo, M.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Somers, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Swinton, E.

Mancroft, L.

Terrington, L.

Mansfield, E.

Tranmire, L.

Margadale L.

Trefgarne, L.

Mersey V.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Mills, V.

Vickers, B.

Milverton, L.

Vivian, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Westbury, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Widgery, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Clause 2 [Power to exclude certain lands and heritages from valuation or revaluation]:
3.33 p.m.
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, leave out lines 41 and 42.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in Clause 2 the Secretary of State takes a very wide power, in regard to any new valuation roll which is being made up, to introduce some new scheme which might apply to classes of lands and heritages as may be specified to be valued according to this new scheme. Then we get the new subsection (6A) which reads:
"… he may prescribe by order under this subsection (either or both)"—
he is taking no chances—
"a method whereby the net annual value of the specified lands and heritages shall be adjusted for the purposes of ascertaining their rateable value;
"such a method as regards the unspecified lands and heritages;
"and the order may prescribe different such methods as regards different valuation areas".
As I read this, it means that within valuation areas (which, for all practical purposes, are the regions) you will have a different method of valuing property in Strathclyde, in the Borders, in the Highlands and Islands and in the Grampian areas; whereas at the moment it is fixed and laid down by the 1956 Act in relation to the terms on which the Government indicate that the assessor must work. He is tied by the fact that in relation to property somebody would be able or prepared to pay to rent a property and the assessor must visualise that all the property is available for him to pick from. He is allowed no subjective treatments of any kind. This is what makes us wonder at times as to how things turn out as they do. Here we have some new system that we know nothing about applying only to certain properties; and the new method of valuation which is going to prescribe in an order and
1122
the order may prescribe different methods as regards different valuation areas.
This could have been understood if different classes had had to be valued, but it relates to different valuation areas. So you could be valuing property in one way in the Grampian region around Aberdeen and the North and in a different way in the Tayside or in Strathclyde. I think it takes a bit of believing that this is even contemplated. We did not have the opportunity of getting a full reason for this on Committee. We were very rushed on Committee, although the Committee sat until late at night.
I wonder whether the noble Earl will be prepared to give an explanation of this now and to tell us what is the intention of the Government, and to justify the inclusion of this particular power to prescribe different methods in regard to different valuation areas. I know that it will not take him long, but I hope that he can give a more satisfactory explanation than his last one. I see that he has some special adviser by his side, but I feel that the noble Lord the Chief Whip will be hurrying him along rather than giving him satisfactory wording for the House. But the reason why I moved this amendment is that I really want to know. I am mystified as to how it will work and I want to know why it was introduced at all. I beg to move.
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, this amendment was one of two linked amendments which were made in another place as a result of points which were made and accepted by honourable friends of the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock. In fact, the words which the amendment seeks to delete from the Bill in lines 41 and 42 of page 2 are of a piece with the requirement in the new subsection (6B) that the method of adjustment must be such as to preserve the pre-existing ratio of rateable values in each valuation area. It was concluded in another place that this was the fairest way to proceed and that an all-Scotland adjustment would risk inequity for the ratepayers in areas where the ratio of rateable values was significantly different from the Scottish average.
I can illustrate it in this way: it is essential in the interests of equity to have it possible to prescribe different methods for different areas. I can illustrate the distortions which could arise because for instance the ratios between domestic and non-domestic rateable values for Scotland as a whole at the 1978 revaluation was 1:1.8; in Dumfries and Galloway it was 1:1.5, while in Shetland, because of the Sullom Voe development, it was 1:24. A degree of flexibility as between areas is essential. But I stress that there is a major safeguard in that the flexibility is only in the method and not in the result to be achieved by applying the method. It must be such as will preserve the existing ratio of rateable values.
That is a sufficient guarantee that there is no possibility of using a partial revaluation to alter the distribution of the rating burden as between classes of property, which is what the noble Lord, Lord Ross, was most concerned about. Any method used will be fair and reasonable. As an added safety factor, the noble Lord will be aware that before prescribing a method or methods the Secretary of State must consult the Scottish Valuation Advisory Council and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. I hope that the noble

1123
Lord will see that the provision in the clause does not have the sinister quality which he might think and I hope that he will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, it is not a question of the sinister quality that I am concerned about. I am concerned about the actual facts as to how things will turn out. I am certainly glad to notice that there has to be consultation with the Scottish Valuation Advisory Council. Remember one of the duties of the Scottish Valuation Advisory Council when it was originally created in the 1956 Act was to try to get uniformity of valuation between property and property, not a ratio within an area.
As I was saying, it is to try to get uniformity between properties no matter where they be in Scotland. I remember an amendment being made to the Valuation Act which allowed anyone appealing against his valuation not just to cite a property within his own area or within his own neighbourhood but say someone in Ayr being able to cite what he regarded as a similar property in Aberdeen.
It is all very well for the noble Earl to, say, that this is to get the right ratio within the area between different classes of property. That is probably desirable from that point of view; but when he says that the result itself will not be out of harmony with the existing situation, I am afraid that I cannot believe him. In rating—although I am much more familiar in the actual practice of it in relation to rate support grant—what do you do there? You start at the end and work back to the formula. Here we are going to start from the method and work from the method and get a satisfactory result. I am perfectly sure that it is not going to be satisfactory between one area and another. Let us remember that aggregate assessment has a lot to do with the distribution formula when it comes to distributing rate support grant. This is why it is so important.
I do not care whether somebody in another place had ideas about this and honourable friends of mine in another place suggested that this should be done. I do not think that it is altogether wise. I certainly have not seen an adequate explanation as to how we are going to get fairness within the area and between the areas—far less between one occupier and another in respect of similar properties. When it comes to the allocation of rate support grant, there can easily be injustice. The Government themselves manipulate this in relation to fixing a formula between needs and resources. It used to be 1 to 4 and now it is 1 to 9.
The Government have all sorts of powers, but this is something that is going to last and recoil. I am not satisfied yet. If the Minister would like to have another go, I am prepared to be persuaded. If he will say he will have a look at this between now and the next stage of the Bill I shall gladly withdraw the amendment because I know he wants to beat a hasty retreat right now in relation to something that is happening near the Scottish Office.
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, with leave, I do not think that I can help the House further. This was something that was exhaustively considered in another place. We are not talking about different methods
1124
of valuation and revaluation but different methods of determining the ratio between a revalued and an un-revalued property. That I suggest is quite a different matter. There really is nothing more to look at. These provisions were put in in the interests of equity as a result of the points which were valid and acceptable and made by the noble Lord's friends. Who am I to say that they were talking nonsense?
Lord Ross of Marnock: You must not mix up friends with colleagues—
Several noble Lords: Order!
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, with respect to the noble Lord, this is Report stage and I think that the noble Lord has already spoken.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, I thought I was allowed to withdraw an amendment by speech. Since I am not allowed to withdraw it, I shall just sit still.
On Question, amendment negatived.

Local Authorities' Current Expenditure
3.48 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Bellwin): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to repeat a Statement which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a Statement on current expenditure by local authorities.
"My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales will be making a Statement later today, and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will be making a Statement shortly.
"My department has now analysed the revised estimates of local authorities in England and Wales for the volume of their current expenditure in 1980–81 and the budget plans of English local authorities for 1981–82. In the light of this analysis I have today put proposals to the Consultative Council on Local Government Finance.
"Honourable Members will recall that when local authorities in England and Wales originally submitted their budgets for 1980–81 these suggested a planned excess in the volume of current expenditure by local government as a whole of some £740 million at November 1979 prices. This was 5·6 per cent. above the Government's public expenditure plans. As a consequence, in June last year I called for revised budgets which led local authorities to reduce this planned excess to some £350 million at 1979 prices, or 2·6 per cent. above the Government targets.
"In order further to reduce this remaining excess, the Government asked the House to approve the withholding of £200 million from the increase order

1125
for England and Wales made in January 1981 on the understanding that we would be prepared to restore all or part of that sum if the outturn figures for 1980–81 showed an acceptable reduction.
"The analysis of the revised estimates for 1980–81 indicates that there will still be a volume excess, which the local authority associations estimate could range from £50 million to £250 million in England. Final figures for the outturn expenditure in 1980–81 are however not yet available. I shall have to wait therefore until more accurate outturn figures are available in the autumn before considering restoration of grant.
"Budgets of local authorities in England for this year—1981–82—indicate a volume of current expenditure about £800 million or 5·3 per cent. above the Government's target level at November 1980 prices. Local authorities have also made provision for higher pay and price increases than allowed for in the cash limits, and have thus budgeted for a cash excess of £1,250 million above the amount assumed for current expenditure in the rate support grant settlement. This is an inadequate response to the Government's request for lower public expenditure and protects the current consumption and staffing levels of local government at the expense of ratepayers whose ability to pay is already seriously diminished by the present recession.
"The traditional relationship between central and local government rests on the clear understanding that local government keeps within the overall financial policies of the central Government. The Government believe that this understanding must be upheld. I am therefore asking all local authorities to review their budgets for 1981–82 by the end of July in order to achieve levels of expenditure consistent with the Government's public expenditure plans.
"If the call for revised budgets does not produce a satisfactory response, I propose to ask the House in the autumn to approve a reduction in the total amount of grant available this year. I cannot be certain until I know the results of the revised budgets what would be an appropriate figure. But if the present spending plans remain unchanged the Government consider that £450 million would be the appropriate amount to withhold in grant. Authorities which achieve the Government's volume targets will not suffer from this reduction in grant. I also intend that those close to their volume targets will be partially exempted.
"I am placing in the Library detailed figures showing how this proposal would affect individual authorities. I shall be inviting detailed consultations about these proposals with local government. I must emphasise that it lies entirely in the hands of local government to revise its plans so as to achieve the necessary reduction of public expenditure and thus to avoid loss of grant.
"The House will want to know that over one-third of all local authorities, responsible for about 11 per cent. of local authority expenditure, have already budgeted within the Government's volume targets and thus will lose no grant from this reduction
1126
if they stick to their present plans. Over half of all local authorities, responsible for over one-third of local authority expenditure, would already be protected wholly or in part from holdback.
"The Government have not only to consider the consequences of excessive expenditure, but also the extent of the inequities in the way in which local revenue is raised through the rates. The Government therefore intend to issue a consultation document on the alternatives to domestic rates in the autumn. In the meantime we are considering further measures, including legislation next Session, which are needed to bring home to individual local authorities and their electorates the consequences of high-spending policies."
That is the end of the Statement, my Lords.
Following is the Statement made by the Secretary of State for Wales in the House of Commons, referred to by the Lord Denham at the end of Question Time this afternoon:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a Statement on current expenditure by local authorities in Wales in 1981–82.
"My department has analysed the local authorities budget plans for 1981–82 and these show that in aggregate planned current expenditure will exceed the Government's target by about 2·2 per cent. or £21 million at November 1980 prices.
"Any current expenditure excess is a matter of serious concern and I have given very careful consideration to the need for corrective action. In doing so I have taken account first of the fact that in recent years budgets have in aggregate over-stated the actual volume of current expenditure by proportions not dissimilar from the present indicated excess and, secondly, the considered view of the Welsh local authority associations that the Government's current expenditure target will be met.
"In view of these considerations, and noting that in aggregate Welsh local authorities have clearly made efforts to meet the Government's current expenditure targets, I have decided not to call for revised budgets or to withhold grant at supplementary report stage this autumn.
"In adopting this course my determination to see that current expenditure is kept at the level allowed for in the RSG Settlement is in no way lessened; rather I am deferring judgment on the need to withhold grant. If despite the local authority associations' views there is an overspend this year, I will take action to reduce the total amount of grant available by the amount of that excess. In so doing I would protect authorities who have made an appropriate contribution to the necessary expenditure reductions.
"This decision reflects my trust that Welsh local authorities will meet our expenditure target. It is entirely up to them both individually and collectively whether I will need to withhold grant at a later stage.
"I have communicated this decision to the Welsh Consultative Council on Local Government Finance. I have also told them that I shall be consulting them in due course about the matters concerning the rating system to which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment referred at the end of his statement this afternoon".
3.55 p.m.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement which was made by his right honourable friend in another place. May I say that it does fill one with total alarm and despondency at what has been happening between local government and central Government in this country. First, I think it is fair to say that the concept of overspending in this generalised way is really an invention. What local government is not able to do is to comply with arbitrary

1127
targets. Local government's record in spending has been very good over the last six years, and 1980–81 was the first occasion of excessive expenditure. I was also struck by the Secretary of State's remark on page 2, in that, two months into the financial year, it seems ridiculous to punish authorities on the basis of what they are going to do when he does not yet know the final outturn figures for 1980–81.
Thirdly, the targets are quite unrealistic, and this has been shown since 65 per cent. of local authorities, both Labour and Conservative, have been unable to comply with them. Fourthly, to take away a grant which has already been promised and to do it retrospectively with decisions yet to be taken, seems to me to be really quite scandalous. It is like penalising somebody and not letting them know what the penalty is likely to be until they have done something for which they incur the penalty.
I would point out that it was shown clearly that the people who voted in the elections of 7th May overturned in many authorities Conservative rule for Labour rule. This meant that four out of the six shire authorities who are now Labour-controlled were in fact voting against Government policies and for increased expenditure. These are people who, all over the country, are suffering from the tears in our social fabric in social services, education and everything that local government does. It seems to me that this is really an extra nail, if you like, in the coffin of local government. It is becoming more and more the puppet of central Government.
Finally, may I ask the Minister whether the last paragraph, where the Secretary of State talks about introducing legislation even before the consultation takes place, means that the Government intend interfering with the traditional rights of local authorities to make any shortfall in the block grant right by levying a supplementary rate? That is to say, do they intend to claw back even further sums from the block grant or to limit local authorities in the way in which they can raise certain rates?
3.58 p.m.
Lord Evans of Claughton: My Lords, from these Benches we would like to thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made by his right honourable friend. We also welcome the intention expressed by the Government to introduce a consultation document in the autumn on alternatives to domestic rates. That is something for which my party has been looking for many years, and I hope that in the consultation document serious consideration will be given to capital and site value rating and indeed to the possible introduction of a local income tax.
From these Benches we have always taken the view that local government expenditure has, on the whole, kept better to the public expenditure limits than have other public agencies. It seems, time and again, that a special and unfair case is being made in respect of local government. Would the Minister not agree that on the inadequate figures he has produced—as he himself admits—on the whole, local government is keeping fairly well within the limits in view of continuing inflation and of wage settlements that are very often beyond the control of individual local authorities?
1128
May I ask the Minister to try to ensure that if he does insist on further cutbacks they must not affect the education, social and welfare services and measures to reduce unemployment entered into by hard-pressed local authorities, particularly of inner urban areas, and particularly in view of the fact that the rate support grant has been biased against inner urban authorities in the last dispensation?
Finally, would the Minister not agree that the 1981 county council elections indicated fairly clearly that the ratepayers were dissatisfied with the way Conservative local government was going? Would he therefore not agree that local councillors have been elected to carry out local policies and should be left to get on with them?
4 p.m.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, to deal with the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, she was expressing—to quote her—alarm and despondency at what is happening to the central and local government relationship. I, too, have long been concerned about that, but it is certainly incumbent on local government now to be as responsible as it always was in the past, and to work within the framework set down by central Government. But we are seeing, possibly for the first time—certainly on the scale that is envisaged in the figures that I have given—central Government's policies being thwarted by local government, if local government is not willing to work within those overall parameters.
The noble Baroness said that local government's record is good. I entirely agree that, in the past, it has been good—certainly good in the sense that it has always come out very close to the original estimates—and would that central Government had always had as good a record in that respect. But what we are talking about is the position as it now is, and as the figures that we are talking about seem to indicate. If we are talking about alarm, then I should have thought one would have been very alarmed to see a potential overspend of the magnitude that I referred to a few moments ago, when I talked of £1,250 million. I should have thought that that was cause for much concern and for more than alarm.
No Government could idly sit by and simply accept that position and, at the same time, try to pursue the objective which this Government are doing, of reducing public spending. Policies of higher local spending are against the national interest, and against the long-term interests of those who work in the councils, because all they will lead to, in the end, is the closure of firms, losses of jobs and the out-migration of skilled and professional workers. There is evidence that that is so.
The noble Baroness went on to say that it is ridiculous to punish when the figures for 1980–81 are not known. What we are doing is not punishing at all. We are simply drawing attention to some information which is now available to us and which indicates that if nothing is done about it then we shall be in the situation that we foresee. I do not consider that it is one day too soon to be looking at that right away and asking: What is that we are doing today? We are asking local government to take this back and look again and see what they might do. In the time between

1129
now and the end of July, we shall certainly want to be talking and consulting with them to see what they feel able to do, what they feel unable to do and how far we can, if you like, help one another to get to where we must be at the end of the day. So that that certainly is consultation.
As regards the elections in May—and the noble Lord, Lord Evans, made the same point—one would really have to look very carefully at some of the statistics surrounding those elections, in order to get a true flavour of the extent to which they gave a mandate. I would point out that of the total local authority current expenditure, 60 per cent. comes from Exchequer grant, 24 per cent. comes from non-domestic rates, which are paid for by industry and commerce which have no vote at all, with the balance of 16 per cent.—and, in some cases, the figure is much lower than that—coming from people who are domestic ratepayers and who vote. It may well be said that that is all right, but the fact is that if no one is going to look to protect all these other bodies of people, we shall be in grave difficulties.
Yes, my Lords, it is a mandate and local government has always had one, but always within the boundaries set down by central Government. That was a fundamental tenet. Indeed, it was the proud boast of those of us in local government that that was our tenet, and we often did things that we did not like at all, because central Government were laying them down. But the rule is that Governments have to govern in the longer term interests of the total domestic scene. We believed it then, and I believe now that local government will respond as it has done in the past.
To comment very quickly on the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Evans, I think that I covered his point about local government doing it better, if you like, than central Government; and, on the whole, they have kept within their limits. He asked whether we would ensure that any cuts did not affect education, social services and so on. We have never set out to say how individual authorities should run their affairs or what their priorities should be. Only they can decide that, as the circumstances vary, as both he and I know so well. That is a matter for local government. But I hope that, in looking, they will be looking not just at the services, but at the cost of their provision and at other opportunities that may exist.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that many ratepayers, who have been shocked by the massive rate increases which have resulted from the increases in local government expenditure, will be very glad to see that the Government are now taking action in this matter? Is not the argument of the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, and the noble Lord, Lord Evans, that recent local government elections results show that the ratepayers do not mind this, vitiated by the fact that a very large number of local government electors are not ratepayers, and that the biggest ratepayers of all—the business ratepayers—have no vote?
Baroness Stedman: My Lords, from this Bench we should also like to thank the noble Lord for repeating the Statement. I wish that he had paid some tribute to the way in which councils have made really strenuous
1130
efforts to try to meet their spending targets and, at the same time, to maintain essential services for their electors. I am quite sure that this antagonistic approach towards local authorities is not the most effective way of getting them to reduce their expenditure.
The only part of the Statement that I can welcome is that part which refers to the fact that there is to be a consultative document issued to look at alternative systems in rating. Some of us have argued for a long time that we need to do something about it, or, if we are stuck with the present system, we need to have more regular revaluations. According to the Statement, this consultative document is to be issued in the autumn, but I ask the noble Lord: with whom will the Government consult, how long will be allowed for consultation and when can we expect the legislation to implement the decisions after that consultation has taken place?
We have had long arguments across the Table about grant related expenditure, grant related poundages, multipliers and so on, during the passage of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980. Section 59 of that Act provides that the multipliers can be used only to increase an authority's grant or to limit the increase over the previous year, and Section 58 provides that where an authority's total expenditure is at, or below, its grant related assessment, then changes in block grant must be proportional to the changes in the expenditure. Will those two sections of the Act be very fairly complied with and will they also apply to any supplementary reports, in the same way as they do to the rate support grant report?
There is something like 5 or 6 per cent. overspending in the shire counties and, with one exception, before the elections all those were Conservative controlled. How is this to affect those authorities when Essex is overspent by £24·7 million, Kent by £19·1 million and my own county of Cambridgeshire by £13·9 million? Will the formula deal with those counties as well, or is it arranged so that it will catch only the Labour controlled authorities, which is what we were afraid of during the passage of the earlier Act?
Also, will the grant reduction, if it conies about, take account of the fact that 60 per cent. of the money comes from the Government and, therefore, it is only 60 per cent. of that overspending that is really the concern of the Government in the reduction of the grant? It is not the local authorities who are being penalised; it is their ratepayers who will be penalised by having to pay supplementary rates to provide the services which local people think are essential. Once again—I must say it—it is the people on the ground who know best what is wanted in their area, rather than the man sitting in Whitehall.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, may I first thank my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter for his very helpful remarks, and may I also take the opportunity to wish him many happy returns of the day. May I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, who referred to an antagonistic approach, that this is anything but an antagonistic approach. If we are seriously concerned with a source which accounts for some 20 to 25 per cent. of all public spending—as we are and have to be—we must surely recognise that, in order to get to where we need to be, though not to where we necessarily

1131
want to be, we must go along together with local government. I, as much as anyone, would want that to be the approach. When I spoke of consultation that is what I had in mind. Yes, we shall consult. We do not consider that we are at all antagonistic. Conversely, I feel confident that those who are responsible for the leadership of local government will bear in mind what I said earlier, which I shall not repeat, about the responsibility which falls upon local government not to thwart the objectives of the national Government.
The noble Baroness asked: with whom would we consult? I readily tell her we shall consult with anybody who wishes to give an opinion and a view. We are saying that this has been "on the go" for so long that it cannot go on any longer, that we have to come to conclusions. There will be an opportunity for everybody to make a contribution, but we are not going to put it off beyond the time I have mentioned.
Turning to the noble Baroness's question as to whether these measures will affect only Labour-controlled authorities which are overspending, my answer to her is, certainly not. We are talking about everybody who is involved. If local government will give us what we need, there will be no need for any holdbacks. That would be the most desirable objective. It is what many of us want to see happen, and I hope we shall be pleasantly surprised by the response we receive.
As to ratepayers being penalised by supplementary rates, yes, that is one option. But if we reached that point, surely local government would be turning its back upon what the Government need to do. I am not so sure that local government will rush to do so, although there will be some authorities which will. On that point, I would refer the noble Baroness to the last part of the Statement.
Lord Sandford: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that I agree entirely with the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, and the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Claughton, when they say that hitherto it has been possible to claim—I have often claimed—that local government has been more successful in keeping within the limits imposed upon it by the policy of central Government than have most central Government departments and agents of central Government? However, I disagree entirely with my noble friend if central Government go on to say, as I think they do, that matters can be left as they are by the Secretary of State for a moment longer. A budgeted overspend of 5 per cent. is far too great to be tolerated. If one-third of local government have already succeeded in keeping their budgets within the limits needed, I am confident that a very substantial number of other authorities will be able to do likewise once the challenge has been put to them, as it has been by this Statement. I would urge my noble friend, however, to rely for as long as possible upon the good sense and responsibility of local government to do what is required of it before taking any further steps which can be interpreted and misunderstood as an interference by central Government in the affairs of local government.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend, to whom I gladly give the assurance that he called for in his last sentence.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: My Lords, there can be two interpretations of a 5 per cent. overspend. One is that local authorities are spending to the extent of 5 per cent. more than they should. The other is that the basic grant-related element—that is, the basic expenditure which the central Government are laying down—is too low. Therefore, in their consultations with the local authorities will the Government bear that point in mind and see whether there can be a negotiated agreement? It seems to me (I am expressing an opinion) that what has happened is that central Government have laid down a level of expenditure which in fact is too low and which local authorities are finding it extremely difficult to meet. There is a meeting point which for the last two years or 18 months we have been talking about and which seems to me to be the problem: that central Government have laid down a level of expenditure, that that level of expenditure is very difficult for local authorities to meet and that central Government are insisting upon their level of expenditure being met and are using a particular weapon which in fact does not help. All it does is to cause the ratepayers to pay more.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Pitt of Hampstead, has made a fair point. It is a question of what the level should be. I would only say to him that Governments have to decide what levels can be afforded in total. It is quite true that there are, and will always be, local situations where a good case can be made, but this does not in any way detract from the base of the argument which is: what can we afford? For very many years we have said, "We need this; therefore we must have it", but there comes a point where, as a Government, one has to say, "We cannot afford it". However, I take the noble Lord's point about the need to consult and I assure him that we intend to do so.

Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill
4.17 p.m.
Report stage resumed, on Clause 2.
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 3, leave out lines 9 to 21.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 3 which deals yet again with another power which the Secretary of State takes in respect of valuation and in respect of the power to exclude certain lands and heritages. One only has to read the words to see why I object to them. The words I propose to leave out include:
"(6D) The Secretary of State may by order under this subsection—
"(a) repeal or amend any enactment (including this Act) in so far as that enactment relates to the valuation of lands and heritages and such valuation is affected by an order under sub-paragraph (i) of the proviso to subsection (3)(a), or under subsection (6A), above".
This is a very wide power to give to any Secretary of State. It gives him the power to amend any enactment, including this one which we are asked to hurry up with.

1133
That this enactment itself amends an Act which this House passed about nine months ago shows how speedily a change of heart and mind can take place on the part of this Government. To give to a Secretary of State the power to repeal or amend any enactment, and to do so not by new legislation but by just an order, is asking for far too much and to my mind smacks of tyranny. I could not help but hear about the discussions which the English have had on their trials and tribulations regarding local government. They talked about parameters which are agreed, accepted and laid down happily. Here is one of the parameters: the exercise of a power by a Secretary of State to do anything he likes in respect of amendment or repeal. I am sure that with his usual flexibility the Minister of State will justify this in terms of democracy. I beg to move.
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, the new subsection (6D), which is what Amendment No. 3 seeks to delete (and Amendment No. 4 which is consequential to it, I dare say), is an enabling provision—nay, more than that—which will allow the Secretary of State by order to repeal or amend enactments relating to valuation where that valuation is affected by orders made under Clause 2 and also to apply, restrict or modify enactments relating to appeals.
The purpose of the provision is to allow a modest measure of flexibility in preparing for a partial revaluation to allow the adjustment of relevant Acts, by order, should this be found necessary. It would be difficult to say at this stage with complete assurance that every statutory reference to revaluation has been checked and found to be compatible with a partial revaluation as proposed by Clause 2; it would be unfortunate if some small impediment were found at a later date which held up the process, or if as an unforeseen consequence of a partial revaluation a ratepayer were inequitably treated. It is to help overcome such obstacles that we have sought the inclusion of subsection (6D) in the Bill.
Not only has the subsection no sinister implications but so far as its provenance is concerned—if that is the right word—it is remarkably similar to Section 6(5) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1975 (as amended by Section 1 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1978 enacted by the previous Administration) which relates to orders providing for the valuation by formula of certain lands and heritages occupied by public undertakings. The effect of that provision is to empower the Secretary of State to repeal or amend any enactment in so far as it relates to valuation and rating matters in respect of lands and heritages valued by formula.
I should point out that an order under this new subsection 6(D), which is in any case strictly limited in its application, would be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure of both Houses of Parliament, which, I suggest, would allow adequate scrutiny of any repeals or amendments which prove to be necessary.
On that basis, I hope that on reflection the noble Lord, Lord Ross, will see that the subsection perhaps does not have the somewhat sweeping powers which he alleged when he moved the amendment.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, like it or not, the sweeping powers are there. They remain. It may be that the intention of the Government is not to use them in a sweeping way—that I can understand—but, unfortunately, these words are there and nothing could be more sweeping than,
"repeal or amend any enactment (including this Act)".
The Minister pleads in aid that this same thing was done in relation to the method of valuation for certain public undertakings. I shall not go into that now, but the change of formula by order is a very different thing from amending legislation. If the formula is actually in legislation then one is quite wise and right to do it. I do not know that there is anyone in this House who could get up at this moment and tell me how the valuation process works in relation to, say, the Hydro-Electricity Board or British Rail and the other public undertakings. That was certainly one formula that I always reckoned only one Member of Parliament could understand; that was Tom Steele, and he is dead now. So we have a considerable loss in respect of what our civil servants in the Scottish Office think is an adequate formula in relation to the valuation of these particular public undertakings.
I do not think it is good enough, but the real answer came from the Minister. There might, in this Bill, be a change being made, and we have not had time to go through all the other pieces of legislation to put it right, or, in other words, to amend now as one usually does in a schedule, listing a whole series of changes which have to be made in consequence of what one is now doing. That is the real reason. So not only are the Government being tyrannical, they are being negligent and they are covering their negligence by saying "That is all right. If we discover that there is something we have missed, we will pass an order"—and more parliamentary time goes by the board. That is what it means and, if the Minister of State is prepared to accept that and to claim to the world that that is what they are doing, who am I to stop them?
I have no intention of taking this amendment to a Division, but I should like people in Scotland to know just what kind of Government they have and indeed what kind of House of Lords—one which is prepared to accept this kind of thing. We say that we perform a useful function here because we catch up on the mistakes of another place. We shall be agreeing to the mistakes of another place if we allow this to go through and allow a negligent Government to cover their negligence by a sweeping power which goes far beyond negligence. Irrespective of what their aim is or what they say their virtuous purpose is, it gives the Secretary of State the power to repeal or amend any enactment, and that is far too wide a power to give to anyone. However I am prepared not to press the amendment, having declared what I consider to be the true weakness of this particular subsection. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.28 p.m.
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 4:
Page 3, line 24, leave out ("or under subsection (6D), above").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is connected with the previous amendment, so I do not propose to move it.
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 5:
After Clause 11, insert the following new clause:
("Information to be furnished by assessors
. In section 12 of the 1956 Act (Information to be furnished by parties to appeal or complaint) such information as it is the duty of the assessor to furnish in sub-paragraph (a)(i) and (ii) shall be made available timeously on written respect to a ratepayer who is considering appeal or complaint.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment deals with the information that is furnished by assessors in respect of a person who, like the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, is worried about his rates and his valuation—very often he has not got available readily to hand the information he requires on which to base his appeal or his complaint. At the moment only when he actually appeals or complains is he entitled to get information from the assessor.
This amendment is a fairly simple one. It is to enable the person who is considering an appeal or a complaint to get from the assessor the information on which he can make up his mind whether it is worth while to appeal. It may well be that the assessor will say, "We are dealing with you on the same basis as we have dealt with so and so" That may well be satisfactory.
However, at the moment all the cards are on the side of the assessor. He lays down the figure on which he bases the assessment; he gives no information about it and he is not required by law to do so. It is a purely subjective judgment, but when you are appealing, when you are actually entering your appeal, you have to tell him the basis of your appeal and it is only later that you have that information from him that I suggest should be given to the would-be appellant or possible complainant. It is a simple and fair amendment and I hope that the Minister will be prepared to accept it. I beg to move.
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, I have some sympathy with the objectives and motivation on the part of the noble Lord, Lord Ross, underlying his proposed new clause. Valuation is a complex subject, and I accept entirely that the ratepayer who decides to take issue with his local assessor about the values which have been fixed has a difficult task in front of him if he is to pursue his appeal or complaint effectively. This applies particularly to the domestic ratepayer, who is unlikely to have the professional services of a rating surveyor or a lawyer.
However, I cannot agree to the addition of this new clause. First, it is technically imperfect because Section 12 of the Valuation and Rating (Scotland) Act 1956, to which the clause refers, has been repealed, and provision for the exchange of information between ratepayer and assessor is now contained in Regulation 6 of the Appeals and Valuation Appeal Committee Procedure (Scotland) Regulations 1978, so that if one did want to achieve what the noble Lord is setting out to achieve, one would not need to indulge in primary legislation; all that would be required would be to amend the 1978 regulations.
Taking the clause on its merits, Regulation 6 of the
1136
1978 appeal regulations requires the appellant ratepayer to provide the assessor with a statement of his grounds of appeal, and the assessor must then respond with a note of the basis of his valuation. Provision is also made for the exchange of lists of comparable properties at the instance of either party. The clause seeks to extend this principle by requiring the assessor to provide information to a ratepayer who is considering whether to lodge an appeal or complaint. I doubt whether this extension would have the intended beneficial effect for the ratepayer. A ratepayer will not appear before a local valuation appeal committee until he has discussed his case with the assessor, and during the course of these discussions both parties will learn a great deal about each others arguments. It may be argued that there is no harm in seeking to formalise an existing informal practice, but I am sure that formal written statements given to the ratepayer by the assessor would, if they were going to be really helpful, have to be supplemented by informal discussions of the sort which already take place. In short, then, the ratepayer would be no better off than he is at present, and assessors departments would have an additional and burdensome, yet unnecessary, task imposed on them. This would be particularly undesirable after a revaluation when inevitably they are under great pressure.
I should like to make clear that these informal discussion can and do take place before a ratepayer has formally lodged an appeal or complaint. There is no prescribed way of appealing. Though some may lodge an appeal as a first step and then withdraw it after discussion, or, as the case may be, pursue it before an appeal committee, others may start with an informal inquiry of the assessor and then lodge a formal appeal only if they do not receive a satisfactory answer.
As I have said, I have sympathy with the objectives of the new clause, and I would like to be positive in the matter. The Scottish Valuation Advisory Council has already started a review of the 1978 revaluation and this review also covers the associated appeal arrangements. So I will ask my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to put to the council the points raised by the noble Lord and they can be considered as part of this review, and any recommendations which the council makes will, of course, be given the most careful consideration. I hope, for all these reasons, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, I am no lawyer, but when the Minister of State suggests that this is all very well, quite unnecessary, that it is all covered by regulations, and all we need to do is change the regulations, all I can suggest to him is that he reads Section 12:
"Where an appeal or complaint is taken to a valuation appeal committee"
the regulations are hinged on that—
"it shall be the duty of the assessor if written request is made to him by the appellant or complainant at the time of lodging such appeal or complaint …".
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, I tried to say to the noble Lord that that has now been repealed.
Lord Ross of Marnock: The section has been repealed?
The Earl of Mansfield: Yes.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, I will certainly have a look at it before we come to the next stage of the Bill. I know what I am talking about in relation to this question of the informal discussions. I had two informal discussions, with two separate people who came to me, who were anxious that I should not proceed with an appeal. The noble Lord probably knows—or the Scottish Valuation Advisory Council will know—that they were probably deluged by appeals from the part of the town I lived in because of what was considered very considerable unfairness in terms of valuation. I am still to be supplied with a list of relevant properties on which the valuation was based.
As it works at the moment, all the power is in the hands of, and all the balance is for, the assessor. It is not every occupier, ratepayer, who has the time, the knowledge or anything else to go chasing round all the valuation rolls seeking out all the properties he would like to cite as favouring his particular appeal. Certainly by the time I deal with Scottish legislation in this place, I have very little time left, and I have not got the Scottish Office behind me to do all the work for me; I can assure the Minister that there are many people who would like to appeal. The information they have to supply, rather than the information they receive, is inimical to them. I am very glad, however, that the noble Earl is prepared to refer this aspect of it to the Scottish Valuation Advisory Council. On the understanding that that will be done and eventually we will get a report on this particular point, I am very happy to withdraw this amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 14 [Reduction of rate support grant where local authority's estimated expenditure excessive and unreasonable]:
4.40 p.m.
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 6, line 38, at end insert—
("( ) in paragraph (a) for the word "or" where it last occurs, there shall be substituted the word "and".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, now we come to the really important parts of the Bill. This amendment relates to Clause 14. We come to something that may have a familiar ring to English ears who listened through the statement that was made, because here, in Clause 14, we have the Government's proposals in relation to dealing with what they consider excessive and unreasonable expenditure in Scotland.
It was always cited that of course this power was always there, readily there; it was in Clause 8 of the 1966 Act, and this had been brought forward from times past to give the power to the Secretary of State to reduce rate support grant in case of default. There were two justifications for it. The main concern originally in respect of this default was that a local authority that was bound by statute to provide services was not providing reasonable services. Some of them were not providing the services at all, but they were rating for those services that were unprovided, and to that extent their rates were unreasonable and excessive. So the power was continued in the 1966 Act to allow the Secretary of State to deal with this question of
1138
"regard being had to the standards maintained by other authorities and boards … that the expenditure of any local authority … had been excessive and unreasonable, regard being had to the financial and other relevant circumstances of the area … concerned.".
To remove any doubt, my first amendment—I think we could probably deal with that one as one of the main aspects of this particular clause: the other two, Nos. 7 and 8, are not linked with this at all—is to link the two things together. When one is considering whether rates are unreasonable and excessive one must take into account whether the standards of service provided are unreasonable and excessive.
At this point I should like to pass on an apology from the noble Earl, Lord Minto, that he is not here today to battle away for Scottish local authorities. I think that he is the one noble Lord in this House who has experience of over six years of regional government, and this particular clause absolutely incenses him. However, he hopes to be here on Third Reading and to have an opportunity of saying, with even more emphasis than he has hitherto, what he feels about this matter.
I think that I have probably more experience of rate support grant than any other Member in this House—certainly in Scotland. I conducted meetings with the local authorities as regards this matter for eight years. Prior to that I was familiar with the Exchequer equalisation grant, and prior to that I was familiar with what I think was called the "general grant". For 33 years I have seen the whole thing develop. There once was a lovely time in Scotland when all one did was divide by 80 and multiply by 11. It was called the "Goschen formula". Whatever the expenditure on education was in England, Scotland received 11/80ths. As Scotland was much more enlightened as regards education long, long before England and took in the Roman Catholic schools and the Church of England schools and made them virtually local authority schools—that was 60 years ago—the pressures of events in relation to fairness to these schools in England and Wales meant that sooner or later, if we stuck to the 11/80ths, Scotland's flow-back from the increased expenditure in England would be considerably to Scotland's advantage. That, I am afraid, was wiped out by a Conservative Government, of course, at a time when it was becoming extremely suitable for Scotland.
However, what was said by a noble Lord during the discussions on the English rate support grant is correct. When it comes to the rate support grant one sits down with the local authorities and determines what is all the reckonable local government expenditure. It is not always agreed and has not been agreed in the past two years, but the Government decide that that is the sum. Then there is another chain, another decision to be made by the Government; namely, the extent to which they will support the rate support grant. In Scotland this year I think that it is between 64 per cent. and 65 per cent.
The Government have now warned the local authorities that no matter what happens they will only meet additional expenditure in relation to inflation of, I think, 11 per cent.—I think that that is written in—and 6 per cent. for wages, and the local authorities must meet the rest. There will be no change beyond that. What have this same Government agreed with

1139
the teachers?—over 7 per cent. What have they agreed with the police?—over 7 per cent. What have they agreed with the local authority workers?—over 7 per cent. How will it be met? It can only be met out of rates. This is not a failure of local government. This is why reckonable expenditure, despite what the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, says in respect of England anyway, is unrealistic. It is not facing the facts.
I do not know whether the noble Lord has seen the figures properly quoted in relation certainly to Scotland. As regards local government and central Government expenditure for 1975–76 as compared with 1981–82 at 1976 prices, the current expenditure of local government, taking 100 as the base figure, is now 97·1 in Scotland—that is a reduction. Central Government's expenditure has increased from 100 to 114. Local government have reduced their expenditure: central Government have increased their expenditure. The same is true of capital expenditure. Therefore, the record of local government is far, far better than that of central Government which themselves set the task. It is not local government, but central Government, which is out of control. It is quite wrong to come here and give the impression that somehow or other local authorities, be they in Scotland or England, have been failing the nation.
I remember what the Minister said on Second Reading. Indeed, this point strikes the noble Earl, Lord Minto, very sorely and he has given me the advantage of his notes in respect of this matter. The Minister of State on Second Reading—and he implied it again in Committee—said that as regards local government it was relevant to take the changes in expenditure from, I think it was, 1971–72 as compared with 1975–76. But he did not tell us what happened between 1971 and 1975. I remember being at a Scottish Labour Party Conference and being informed by telephone that the Government had decided to raise the school leaving age. I think that it was early 1970. It may well be that the noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel, will remember that decision—it was before the election, of course. But what were the implications for expenditure? The expenditure implications as regards local authorities were very much increased expenditure in relation to schools, secondary schools, further education as well as teachers. Now we have a Government of the same complexion coming along and telling us that they should not have spent that money and using it in an unfair comparison.
I was the Secretary of State who introduced the Social Work Act in relation to Scotland. It was, and is still, much more comprehensive than the Act in England and Wales, because we took over the aftercare service in relation to people leaving prison and supervisory services of that nature. That took place in late 1967. It took a year or two to go ahead. But by 1971 completely new expenditure was building up. We must remember that the periods that were quoted by the Minister of State were times when there was a Tory Government, when there was a great increase in local government expenditure—for example, health and personal social services; environmental services such as swimming pools. I can remember every Tory Member in the House of Commons demanding more. So it is pretty unfair to make comparisons with that
1140
situation—to meet the obligation of Acts passed by this House—and for the Government to come along now and say that that was then things got out of control. It is absolute nonsense.
Local government has been bearing a disproportionate share of the cuts that the Government deem necessary. It is unfair when the Government are increasing expenditure as they are, to blame local authorities, when all that they are doing is trying—many of them at a minimal stage now—to meet the obligations placed upon them. After local government reform the subsidies to transport in the rural areas, which county councils never had to bear, fell upon the new regional authorities. The subsidies for rural transport, at the demands of this House, are now used against local authorities as being unreasonable expenditure. Beyond the point of fixing reckonable expenditure, the Government decide what proportion of that expenditure they will bear. Having fixed an unreasonably low level, in the past two years they have been reducing the proportion paid by them. So it is easy to understand why our rates have gone up. If we ignore the services and look only at the rates, and talk only about one authority as compared with another instead of how the authorities have managed this without looking at how the Government have done, that would give a very unfair picture altogether.
I have plenty of examples of how people have desperately tried to meet guidelines. The rates in Strathclyde have increased by about 37½ per cent.—28p in the pound. If they had met the guidelines that the Government laid down, instead of going up by 37½ per cent. they would have gone up by 30 per cent. That is the Government's acceptance of reasonable expenditure, but not a reasonable rates rise. So the Government take action such as this to compel any local authority to rethink the matter, denying the authority the right to determine its own expenditure, but telling it that it must think again and that if it does not, they will take away part of its rate support grant.
The Government have not mentioned one authority yet. I do not know what authorities they mean. Do they mean the Borders or the Highlands and Islands? Of the 65 Scottish local authorities, 59 are above these guidelines. Seven regions, one Highlands and Islands authority and 10 district authorities exceeded the guidelines by up to 10 per cent.; between 10 per cent. and 20 per cent. 12 district authorities exceeded them; and one region, two islands authorities, and 26 district authorities—29 in all—were over 20 per cent. above the guidelines. Against which local authorities will the Government take action? I think that we are entitled to know. Will they ensure that the services provided are adequate and reasonable, or will they concentrate purely and simply on the question of the actual rate burden?
The Government can determine the rate burden, fix a low reckonable expenditure and fix a low percentage to be met by the authorities, and it must be met by the rates. Now they say that the rates must come down or they will reduce the rate support grant. The authority may say that it is an independent authority, that these are the services which it thinks are right and that it will meet the deficit by borrowing. But the Government say that it cannot borrow.
We have reached the point where there will virtually be no independent local government in Scotland. Those are not my words. The Scotsman, Scotland's national newspaper, in an article published on 27th May 1981, said:
"… Mr. George Younger will have the power to undermine the independence of local councils, making them mere puppets dancing to his instructions. No other conclusion can be drawn from the provision in the Bill which will allow him to cut the rate support grant to those councils, the estimated expenditure of which he considers to be 'excessive and unreasonable'. The bill also prevents an offending authority from borrowing to make good"
the shortfall, as they have the entitlement at the present time. I am trying hard to save the Government from an abyss into which they are racing headlong. I do not know what kind of Statement we shall have which will be equivalent to the English one that we have had today. What more can we do for Scottish local authorities?—or has someone had a brainwave?
By accepting this amendment and inserting an "and" instead of an "or", and linking the actual reasonable standard of services with the actual rates burden, we might get a different attitude from the Government. But I believe that it may well be too late even for that; that they cannot withdraw from the abyss.
During the past week I have done some reading and have read the White Paper entitled Reform of Local Government, February 1971. It says:
"The Government intend to seize the opportunity of reorganisation to secure for local government a new and improved status … If local authorities are to exercise more independent control over local affairs their relationship with central government must be recast. This involves a fresh look at the financing of local government".
That was a Tory White Paper. What is the result of their fresh look? They are hammering local authorities into the ground. I do not know what the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, thinks about this; I hope that we shall have one of his inimitable speeches. He had better be careful or I shall quote him the exact position in the Highlands. When we deal with all this we must take the kind of authorities that are faced with this situation and which cannot meet the guidelines. I hope that the Government will think again. This is the first of many amendments that I shall move in relation to this matter. I hope to hear some noble Lords on the Conservative side saying a few words about it.
During the Committee stage from the Conservative side of the House there was not one amendment—I do not know whether there were any more than two speeches, although we had a very outspoken speech from one noble Lord who is not present so I shall not mention his name today, but at least he had the courage to get up and state what he thought—to this Bill, which opens up the whole field of local government, and I am asked to take this place seriously! There was lack of interest. In relation to this I think it was the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene, who had tabled some Questions complaining about local government; he could have dealt with that in this Bill by tabling dozens of amendments and new clauses on any subject with which local authorities deal. That is the scope of this Bill.
The Government desperately want this Bill; they have even fixed the Third Reading for next week—the provisional date given to me was 9th June. But,
1142
of course, the Minister of State has let down everyone in the Scottish office. He could stand up to the political lobby, but he could not stand up to the disabled lobby and he is accepting amendments, so the Bill has to go back to another place, and the Government's timetable is seriously discommoded.
The Scotsman suggested that this was a questionable Bill. There is no question about the clause that I seek to amend. It is one of the worst clauses that I have ever seen. I sincerely hope that even at the last minute the Government will change their mind and pull away from this disaster of confrontation. I beg to move.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: My Lords, as the noble Lord has referred to me, I should just like to state that in the last three years—I am in Strathclyde, in the Isle of Mull—
Lord Ross of Marnock: You are very lucky.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: I am very unlucky, because our rates have increased three times and we have no extra service except garbage collection. But nobody wants garbage collection because we have always disposed of our own garbage. There appears to be no excuse for this exorbitant rise. Of course the reason is that it goes towards supporting council housing in Glasgow. It is my misfortune to be geographically in a Highland area—
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, would the noble Viscount allow me? The one thing the region does not do, has no control over, pays nothing at all towards, is housing. That is a district function.
Viscount Masseereene and Ferrard: My Lords, that may be so, but at any rate the point is that the rates have gone up, so far as f am concerned, three times. True enough they have doubled the staff in Tobermory, but that could not account for all the rise in rates. I am personally behind the Government in this Bill.
5.1 p.m.
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, I think that one matter on which there is agreement is that this is probably the clause which is at the heart of this part of the Bill and is of the utmost importance. As the noble Lord, Lord Ross, knows only too well, the major aim of the Bill's provisions, and in particular this clause, and those provisions which the noble Lord's amendment would vitiate—and I notice he had very little to say about his amendment in 21 minutes of earnest endeavour—is to give the Secretary of State power to act effectively against overspending by an individual local authority.
"What local authorities will be proceeded against?" asked the noble Lord. "We are entitled to know", I wrote down. Of course this was a question which the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, addressed to me, in effect, at an earlier stage of the Bill. I think that this would be the correct time in your Lordships' deliberations to respond. What I said on the last occasion—and at any rate in my submission I was right in saying it—was that it would not be proper if the Secretary of

1143
State were to act as if the Bill had already been passed, but certain preliminary administrative steps are necessary which will in no way presume passage of the Bill.
My right honourable friend thinks it highly desirable, as a matter of sound financial administration, that authorities who might suffer grant reduction should be made aware as far in advance as possible of that contingency, and of the basis upon which he had reached a preliminary view that their estimated expenses were excessive and unreasonable. Accordingly, therefore, my right honourable friend proposes soon to issue preliminary notice to certain local authorities in Scotland that the expenditure which they are planning to incur in 1981–82 appears to him to be excessive and unreasonable within the terms specified in the Bill which we are now discussing, and he will also inform them of his reasons for coming to that view. The cases would concern the most serious and urgent instances of expenditure which, prima facie, appear to the Secretary of State to be excessive and unreasonable. Such preliminary notice and the response to it would also assist my right honourable friend to establish as soon as possible the scale of any grant reductions which he may require to make, and in particular to ensure that any over-payment of grant to any authority with the need for subsequent clawback is avoided.
The procedure to be followed subsequently involves the laying of a report by the Secretary of State which specifies the amount of, and reasons for, the proposed reduction and sets out the local authorities' representations, and the resolution of another place, including the report, is required before any reduction in grant can be made. This is of course without prejudice to his formal reconsideration of the circumstances of each case if the powers are in fact granted to him. It should be appreciated by other authorities, whose planned expenditure does not appear to be at this stage of such a magnitude as would warrant preliminary notice, that the Secretary of State may subsequently decide that he is obliged to exercise his powers in their cases in respect of the current financial year.
It is in those terms that we have to consider the nature of the noble Lord's amendment. Under the 1966 Act the powers presently available to the Secretary of State allow him, with the approval of the House of Commons, to reduce grant only after an excessive and unreasonable expenditure has been incurred. The retrospective nature of the existing power means that the authority concerned has no opportunity to reduce expenditure, and any action which the Secretary of State might take under his existing powers would follow the fact of overspending and could only be punitive in nature.
The effect of the noble Lord's amendment, as I suspect he very well knows, would make a nonsense of the provisions in the Bill—and I see him nodding—because it would have the effect that the power to act on planned expenditure could only be exercised, together with the power to act on actual expenditure, in terms of the existing provision in the 1966 Act. Therefore, the proposals in the Bill are, as I have tried to illustrate, considerably different in their application and effect, if not in principle, from the existing powers, and to be effective the power requires to be available to the Secretary of State without its use being con-
1144
ditional on the availability of the existing power in the 1966 Act.
I am not going into a clause stand part debate although, and I do not say this in a sense of too much criticism, I thought that that was what the noble Lord, Lord Ross, was arguing. He, among other things, complained that the level of expenditure fixed for local authorities was too low. I say to him that the level of expenditure relevant for rate support grant taken into account for 1981–82 is more in real terms than actual expenditure in 1977–78, so that the expenditure targets are in no sense of the word unrealistic so far as 1981–82 is concerned.
Our proposals and our policy on public expenditure, which have been exemplified by a lot of Bills coming before this House, are vital to the wellbeing of the nation as a whole. These proposals in this Bill are an important part of the means of bringing that policy to fruition. So at the risk of raising the noble Lord's ire, and I think of an occasion last summer when I described one of his amendments as being wrecking in nature, I have to repeat that allegation today and advise the House that the Government cannot accept it. I hope that to save time, if nothing else, the noble Lord might see fit to withdraw it.
Viscount Thurso: My Lords, having listened to this argument and having heard the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, freely admit that the amendment is solely designed to wreck, I feel it would be difficult for me to follow him in this particular amendment. I dislike Clause 14 and I do not really like the Bill at all so far as it goes, but having got this far to this stage of discussion and examination, I am not sure that it is our duty to wreck the Bill completely. These are, after all, provisions which would wreck not only this Bill but would be critical of a Bill which was indeed passed by a previous Government for the control of local authority behaviour and expenditure, and so forth. I feel it would be difficult in this particular amendment to follow the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, much as I dislike the principle embodied in Clause 14.
Lord Hughes: My Lords, I suppose the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, can take a modicum of comfort from that qualified degree of support from the Liberal Benches. I am sorry that I cannot follow the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, along that line. Indeed, I did not intend to take part in this discussion until the Minister referred to what I had said about the clause at a previous stage.
We must remember that the greatest part of expenditure carried out by local authorities is in pursuance of duties and obligations laid on them by successive governments. Governments tell local authorities, "You must provide such and such a service" or "You must undertake such and such a duty", and successive governments of both parties, Labour and Conservative, as my noble friend Lord Ross pointed out, have placed such responsibilities on local authorities. If the present Government consider that in carrying out those responsibilities a local authority is spending too much money, they should say in what way they are overspending, because they cannot say they are undertaking services for which they have no legal right or obligation placed on them.

1145
If, therefore, in the carrying out of those responsibilities—as the noble Earl, Lord Minto, said at the last stage and my noble friend Lord Ross repeated today—59 out of 65 local authorities are unable to comply with the Government's guidelines, then we are reminded of the well-known Scottish saying, "They are all out of step except our Jock". It would appear that the Government are wrong in their guidelines because a majority of the 59 local authorities which are not complying with them are not Labour authorities; they include Labour authorities but they also include Independents and Conservatives, and they have been unable to comply.
When referring to what might be done, the Minister said action might be taken against certain authorities, and of course he did not specify which they might be. He might have been more helpful—I can understand him at this stage not wanting to name particular authorities—by indicating whether action is to be taken against all those authorities which are failing to keep within the Government's guidelines. Are all 59 at risk, or such number of the 59 as are unable to bring themselves within the guidelines? Or are we to understand that there will be a point at which failure to abide by the guidelines will be forgiven on the one hand and punished on the other?
It will be interesting in due course to discover at what point an inability to comply with the Government's guidelines will be regarded as a sin which will not be forgiven, or as a minor transgression which will be allowed to pass. It is obvious that if, at the end of the day, the great majority of Scottish local authorities are unable to comply with the guidelines, the Government will be unable to exercise the powers in such a way as to punish all of them. The conclusion which, I believe, will be drawn by local authorities is that it is the guidelines which are wrong.
If, therefore, the Government wish to reduce the expenditure which local authorities can properly undertake, they should be withdrawing the duties and telling local authorities, "You should not be doing such and such a thing and therefore we shall alter the law. We will withdraw your responsibilities for social work, education" or whatever the case may be; but the Government cannot leave those responsibilities as they are at present and then punish local authorities for carrying them out. It seems from the way the Government are acting that local government in Scotland is on a hiding to nothing.
Lord Wilson of Langside: My Lords, I am certain that nothing I am likely to say on this matter will bring comfort to the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield. I find myself broadly in agreement with what the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, said about Clause 14. I do so particularly in the context of the provisions of Section 5 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1966, a measure promoted by a Government of which the noble Lord, Lord Ross, and myself, for our sins or otherwise according to the view one takes of the matter, were members. Section 5, and in particular Section 5(2), empowers the Secretary of State to take action by making regulations for prescribing standards and general requirements in relation to any function of a local authority in Scotland. That colours my
1146
judgment in trying to assess the force of the arguments that have been presented against Clause 14 which, like the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, I do not much like. However, I do not feel that we, who were responsible for the provisions of Section 5 of the 1966 Act, can direct very serious argument against it.
5.18 p.m.
Lord Ross of Marnock: The 1966 Act, I think we will discover, was a consolidation measure, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside, who until recently I called "my noble friend", will find that the power to which he referred has been in existence for a very long time, and certainly was there prior to the Labour Government of which he spoke. I can also tell him that that power was never used because local authorities pretty well accepted the role and spirit of the understandings that existed between central and local government. That has been true until this very time, and the more this Government have been shouting for the past couple of years about how they were going to do something about it, the more they made confrontation with some authorities absolutely inevitable.
Be that as it may, we return to the point made by my noble friend Lord Hughes, namely that there are 65 local authorities and that the guidelines laid down by the Government are such that 59 of them—including Conservative, Independent (a lot of local government in Scotland is Independent) as well as Labour authorities—have not been able to meet them. I cannot understand those who try to ride away on the argument that while they do not like Clause 14, they are not prepared to vote against it. I would remind them that there is a Bill without Clause 14; there is a measure in relation to valuation, to getting rid of certain quangos and there are references to housing. We are dealing with only one clause of Part II of the Bill. But, having tasted the water and found it was unpleasant, they are not prepared to throw it out; they are going to drink it, and that surprises me. Well, I am disappointed—I am not surprised—at the reactions of the Liberal Party and the other party which sits up there: the Shirley/David playgroup. I had hoped that there would be something better than that from them in relation to their opposition to what to my mind is to be a very dangerous measure.
I am sorry that the noble Viscount who seemed to think that Strathclyde dealt with housing has left the Chamber. Housing is one of the things with which it does not deal, but evidently the noble Viscount did not appreciate even that the rate support grant does not include anything about housing, unless it is something in relation to interest rates. It is on this basis of ignorance that we are passing legislation and supporting a Government who themselves admit their own negligence. I am sorry about this from the point of view of Scotland and the good government of Scotland. There is no doubt that this particular clause is the heart of the matter.
I do not disagree with the wide sweep that the Minister of State took. Bearing in mind that this is the Report stage and that I am on my feet only once, apart from replying, I thought that I had better make the best of it and the most of it. I am sorry that we are approaching six o'clock and that some Scottish

1147
parliamentarians will not be on Horse Guards to see Beating Retreat.
The Minister told us about the report, the information from the local authorities, the response, the including of that within a report, and it coming to Parliament. All of that is in the Bill and has nothing to do with this particular amendment. I do not disagree with him there. But what we wanted to know—we shall be asking the question again—is which of the 59 local authorities are to be dealt with, even from a preliminary point of view. He now tells us that the Government have made up their mind about it. Which authorities are to be taken to task? I am perfectly sure that we shall get no more information on that from the Minister.
I regard this as being probably the most important part of the Bill from a local authority point of view. I tried, quite rightly, to change the principle of it and to get back more towards the 1966 Act. It was not intended to take away all the powers from the Government—far from it. They still have power. We are concerned about the retrospective powers that they are taking here and are applying to 1981–82—a period which has already started. We shall come later to the question of the actual timing, how long it is all going to take, and the extent to which your Lordships are to agree to give retrospective power to a Government. I shall not withdraw the amendment, but rather I shall proceed to a Division, and I shall do so fairly quickly—
Lord Wilson of Langside: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, and with the leave of the House, may I ask him on what basis he asserts that the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1966 was a consolidation statute? If in fact it was, what relevance does that have?
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, the point was that it was bringing forward into a Bill powers that were already there. There is a Joint Committee—I was once a member of it—of this House and the other House appointed to deal with consolidation, and the one thing that one cannot do with consolidation is to amend. It might well be that our names were connected with it because we happened to be there at the time, and to that extent we are culpable. But the Government had a consolidation measure last year, and now they are amending a part of that statute in this Bill. One could not do that in a consolidation Bill; one can do it only through new legislation. That was my interpretation of the situation. It might well be that as a whole it was not a consolidation Bill, but the matter that we are now considering was certainly included. The Government have admitted that the power in the 1966 Act has been there since the 1940s. Your Lordships can take it from me that it was there before 1945.
5.25 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 6) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 43; Not-Contents, 112.

CONTENTS

Bishopston, L.

Brockway, L.

Blease, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Blyton, L.

Collison, L.

1148

David, B. [Teller.]

Maelor, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Peart, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Glenamara, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Gosford, E.

Segal, L.

Hale, L.

Shinwell, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Hughes, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Stone, L.

Janner, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Jeger, B.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Underhill, L.

Kaldor, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Leatherland, L.

Whaddon, L.

Lee of Newton, L.

White, B.

Listowel, E.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B. [Teller.]

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Kilmany, L.

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Kimberley, E.

Ampthill, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Avon, E.

Kinnaird, L.

Bellwin, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Belstead, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Berkeley, B.

Lawrence, L.

Bessborough, E.

Long, V.

Blake, L.

Loudoun, C.

Boardman, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Bradford, E.

Luke, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Lyell, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

McFadzean, L.

Cockfield, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Cottesloe, L.

Mancroft, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Mansfield, E.

Cranbrook, E.

Margadale, L.

Crawshaw, L.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Daventry, V.

Milverton, L.

Davidson, V.

Monk Bretton, L.

de Clifford, L.

Newall, L.

De L'Isle, V.

Northchurch, B.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Onslow, E.

Drumalbyn, L.

Pender, L.

Duncan-Sandys, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Dundee, E.

Perth, E.

Elgin and Kincardine, E.

Portland, D.

Ellenborough, L.

Renton, L.

Exeter, M.

Renwick, L.

Falkland, V.

Rochdale, V.

Ferrers, E.

Romney, E.

Foley, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Fortescue, E.

St. Davids, V.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Sandford, L.

Gainford, L.

Sandys, L. [Teller.]

Garner, L.

Savile, L.

Gisborough, L.

Selkirk, E.

Glenarthur, L.

Sharples, B.

Glenkinglas, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Grantchester, L.

Spens, L.

Gridley, L.

Stamp, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Stradbroke, E.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Henley, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Hill of Luton, L.

Hillingdon, L.

Swinfen, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Swinton, E.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Tollemache, L.

Ilchester, E.

Trefgarne, L.

Inglewood, L.

Trenchard, V.

Ironside, L.

Trumpington, B.

Kemsley, V.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Killearn, L.

Vivian, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.34 p.m.
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 7, line 14, at end insert—
("(iv) after the words "local or" there shall be inserted the words "as the case may be"; and").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I do not think anyone will be able to understand this amendment unless they have with them a copy of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1966, because so much of this Bill is legislation by reference and is sheer gobbledegook. But in the interests of uniform drafting I thought we had better make this particular amendment:
"after the words 'local or' there shall be inserted the words 'as the case may be'; and"
I beg to move.
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, the amendment proposed by the noble Lord has the apparently admirable purpose of improving the drafting, not only of the Bill but of the 1966 Act. But the effect of the amendment would be to add unnecessary words to existing statute. The existing reference in statute which the amendment would modify is:
"to the local or constituent authority [of a joint board] in question".
The amendment would make the reference read:
"to the local or as the case may be constituent authority in question".
So the amendment, for all its admirable intention, would not I think in fact improve the clarity of the existing statute, and it is on that basis that I ask the noble Lord to withdraw it.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, nothing that I would insert in relation to drafting could make the Bill any worse than it is at the present time, particularly in relation to the amendments which are proposed to this clause. But far be it from me to cause any more troubled half-hours to draftsmen. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 7, line 14, at end insert—
("(v) after the words "opportunity of" there shall be inserted the words "and reasonable time for"; and").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this, too, is a fairly simple amendment, and I hope it will meet the desire of the Government to be helpful to local authorities. Under the original Act the Government, who are concerned about excessive or unreasonable expenditure, afford to the local or constituent authority in question (having missed out my words "as the case may be") an opportunity to make representations. What I am suggesting is that not only should we give them an opportunity to make representations but that we should give them a reasonable time in which to do it. That is the effect of the amendment: to ensure that where by statute they already have to afford an opportunity to the local authority to make representations, they give them a reasonable time in which to make those representations.
Your Lordships should remember that in a later part of this Bill, when the Government want information from the local authorities, they use, I thought quite
1150
gratuitously, the word "timeously". I thought of perhaps inserting a word like that, but then I thought, "Let us say what we mean, and that is to give them a reasonable time to make their representations". That is the purpose of the amendment. There is nothing wrecking about it, so the noble Viscount can rest assured that on this occasion he will be quite safe in voting for this. It is a reasonable amendment to give local authorities a reasonable amount of time to make their representations on something as serious as this—the possibility of loss of a considerable part of their rate support grant. I beg to move.
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, I am all for statute being clear and understandable to the reader, and equally that it should convey quite clearly to the Executive what the intentions of Parliament were in placing the provision on the statute book. But I have to say to the noble Lord that his proposed words would in fact have the effect of adding unnecessary surplusage to existing statute.
If we go back to Section 5(1) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1966 as it stands, we find that the Secretary of State is under an obligation to afford to a local authority or to a constituent authority of the joint board an opportunity of making representations before he proceeds to take steps to seek approval of the House of Commons to a proposed reduction in rate support grant. The words "opportunity of making representation" in the existing statute imply that a reasonable time must be allowed by the Secretary of State for representations to be made, the word "opportunity" embracing not only a reasonable time factor but also other reasonable factors which may be relevant to the making of representations in a particular case. I can assure the House that if and when the Bill is enacted and the procedures relevant to exercising the proposed powers to reduce grant by reference to planned expenditure are available, the authority concerned will have sufficient opportunity to put their case, in effect before the House of Commons, in the form of representation provided by the 1966 Act as it stands already.
The preliminary notices to which I made reference when speaking to Amendment No. 6 will, I suggest, assist in this matter; they will give full details of the case which the local authority will have to answer in their representations, and so far as this year is concerned it would extend the period which would otherwise be available for making them. In these circumstances the words in the amendment would neither tighten up the obligations imposed upon the Secretary of State by statute nor would they make the statute any clearer or more understandable. In those circumstances, I cannot recommend this amendment to the House for acceptance.
Lord Hughes: My Lords, I am quite certain that my noble friend will feel that tabling this amendment has been justified because it has extracted from the noble Lord the Minister the statement he has just made. One knows that any assurance given by the Minister will not form part of the Act and that if it came to a court decision the courts would not take any account of what the Minister said but only of what was in the Act. In this context, however, I believe that local

1151
authorities will note that the Minister has made clear that, so far as the Government are concerned, they intend that giving an opportunity carries with it a reasonable time in which to take advantage of that opportunity. From that point of view, what my noble friend has done was justified, and in extracting that statement from the noble Lord, the Minister, I believe that it will prove to have been worth while.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Hughes said, it is true the word is not in the Bill, and to that extent I prefer words which are actually in the statute rather than words which are only implied. The Act only makes reference to "an opportunity of making representations". The noble Lord went on to say that local authorities would be able to make a report before the House of Commons, but it is not the local authorities who report to the House of Commons; it is the Government who do that. The Government are commanded by statute because the 1966 Act states:
"and setting any representation made by the authority with respect to the proposed reduction …".
It is the Government who carry forward the representation of the local authority. It is for that reason, and knowing that local authorities will want to have some care as to what they want included in that report, that I felt it would be right to have in the statute that local authorities should be given reasonable time.
Tempers will become fairly frayed when this comes to be implemented on whatever local authorities might be affected. I know the Government may be thinking that I only put in this amendment in order to further delay matters. In actual fact the phrase "reasonable time" could be and has been construed before as being nothing to be afraid of; we have virtually a statement from the Government that they are going to afford reasonable time. To that extent and on the basis of other information we have received from the Secretary of State I am reasonably happy. But I want to impress upon the Minister of State the importance of the timing aspect, bearing in mind that the local authority do not deal directly in making a report to the House of Commons. Their representations are made to the Secretary of State and it is the Secretary of State who reports to the House of Commons and who includes within that report the local authority's representations. In the light of that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 7, line 27, leave out from ("which") to ("the") in line 30 and insert ("are in the opinion of the Secretary of State of a similar type to").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in relation to putting a local authority in the dock, the Secretary of State stacks up all the cards in his favour and against the local authority. The criteria he has to use in determining that the expenditure of any local authority or joint board has been excessive and unreasonable are listed here. The Bill states that the Secretary of State:
"(a) may (in addition to the matters to which in terms of that paragraph regard must be had) have regard …
1152
"(iii) to such other financial, economic, demographic, geographical and like criteria as he considers appropriate".
That wording is already in the Bill and will remain in the Bill. The subsection also states that the Secretary of State may have regard:
"(i) to expenditure or estimated expenses, in that or any preceding year, of other local authorities which the Secretary of State is satisfied are closely comparable (or as closely comparable as is practicable) with the local authority concerned".
I do not know how any Government could cover themselves, or how any Secretary of State could cover himself, so clearly with powers which could not be challenged, with wording such as,
"closely comparable (or as closely comparable as is practicable)".
I have asked for a definition of what that means but I do not think anyone could give me one. This is a case of over-cautiousness on the part of the Government in making a statute that contains words which are quite meaningless. From that point of view I think the Government have demonstrated their own fears in respect of the powers they are taking.
I hope the Government will think again about this. I do not believe it would affect the actual carrying out of the statute or the Government's intentions, but it would give an indication that the Government are prepared to be a little more reasonable rather than cover themselves with all these caveats, such as
"closely comparable (or as closely comparable as is practicable)".
If ever any judge had to define this—and I do not know whether there are any judges left in the Chamber—I wonder what he would make of it. I wonder what any judge would make of these two phrases. So I say, out with them. That is what I suggest. I trust that on this occasion the Government will see that my advice could be followed, and I beg to move.
5.49 p.m.
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, this amendment proposes that, in being satisfied that a local authority's estimated expenses are excessive and unreasonable, the Secretary of State be afforded discretion to have regard to other authorities of a similar type in place of the discretion presently in the Bill, to have regard to closely comparable authorities.
The amendment, it will be observed, does not do away with the need for making comparisons. These will still be needed to establish whether or not another authority was of a similar type. The object of giving the Secretary of State discretion to make comparisons is that any assessment he makes that estimated expenses are excessive and unreasonable should be as fair as possible. The clause directs his attention to other authorities which are as closely comparable as possible so that no valid comparison could be made which was not with an authority of a similar type to the authority planning to incur excessive and unreasonable estimates of expenses.
That is why the Bill requires the Secretary of State in having regard to other authorities to have regard to those other authorities closely comparable with the authority concerned; in other words, authorities which are sufficiently akin in as many respects as possible.

1153
The Bill therefore safeguards the authority in this respect while the proposed amendment would expose the authority to much wider and potentially less favourable comparisons. In other words, the amendment, if accepted, would lay a less onerous duty on the Secretary of State than does the existing provision in the Bill and it would or could be unfair to a local authority.
Lord Hughes: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl to give examples? There are very wide differences between local authorities in Scotland. Which authority, for instance, would be closely comparable to Strathclyde? Which authority would be closely comparable to the district council of Glasgow? These are two authorities which by the size of their populations are very different from any other. I wonder what the comparison would be.
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, the noble Lord has produced two examples which are incomparable. There is no other region like Strathclyde and no local authority of any sort, let alone a district, which is like Glasgow. What this provision does not do is to force the Secretary of State to do the impossible, to make comparisons where it is not possible or justified; but it enjoins him to seek to draw the fairest possible comparison that he can and then to make his judgment. I anticipate that it will far more frequently apply to district councils than to a region.
Lord Hughes: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his reply, the effect of which must be that there will be a substantial number of local authorities in Scotland who by the nature of either their area—perhaps some of the enormous territorial ones with little population—or by the nature of their population, stand on their own, and where this provision will not be available to the Secretary of State because he would not be able to compare like with like.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, I am fascinated by the tender regard that the Minister of State has for the local authorities that he does not want me to put in words which might make it easier for the Secretary of State and involve the local authorities in much greater difficulties. The trouble is that the words are already there. I wonder whether the noble Earl would look at the paragraph we are amending. The original words which were spoken about in Section 5 of the 1966 Act were:
"If the Secretary of State is satisfied—
that a local authority or a joint board have failed to achieve or maintain a reasonable standard in the discharge of any of their functions, regard being had to the standards maintained by other authorities and boards which are, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, of a similar type"—
These are the words I want to put in—
"to the local authority or, as the case may be, joint board concerned …".
So the noble Earl had better get busy on Third Reading, for I will have an amendment down incorporating the words that he said are irreplaceable and fair to the local authorities. We should require, in the interests of uniformity, to have them in that section as well.
I know, if I can exercise my powers of telepathy,
1154
that the two sections of the clause are different. One deals with standards. But if it is good enough for default in that that comparison should be made with other local authorities of a similar type then surely it is right that we should have it later on when we are dealing with default in respect of unreasonable and excessive rates. Let us bear in mind that the Secretary of State could have regard to them without coming to any conclusion. It would not determine or wipe out his power to act that if you cannot compare Glasgow with Edinburgh or with anywhere else that renders nugatory any action that he would like to take. That is only one thing that he will have to have regard to.
The trouble with this particular power being inserted in Clause 5 is that the draftsmen have been clever to do it this way; but it has defects. One of the defects is the fact that already there are things they have to have regard to; and here is another long list which duplicates and, in this particular case of similar types (and then there are the new words that the Government propose to put in) which conflict to a certain extent.
We are dealing with the 1966 Act and your Lordships have not got it before you. We are dealing once again in legislation by reference, amending by reference. I am sure that most of your Lordships do not know what we are doing. But noble Lords can take my assurance that the words I propose to put into the Bill are already there in the 1966 Act—so that they cannot have all these defects that the Minister of State ascribed to them.
I do not suppose that at this stage of the Bill a fine point like that will worry the Government very much. I do not know that it will worry the local authorities very much; but it amuses me as a person who has taken an interest in drafting Scottish legislation over the past 35 years and I have always been fascinated by the kind of excuse that is used to turn down amendments. The noble Earl need not worry about drafting amendments. He could accept them. They will go through another place easily. Now the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, has made sure that the Bill will go back to another place, provided that we accept the amendments that at his instance the Minister of State has put down on the Marshalled List. But, as far as this amendment is concerned, I think there is excessive caution on the part of the Minister. Perhaps I should withdraw the amendment and let us go on to something more important.
Amendment by leave withdrawn.
6 p.m.
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 10
Page 7, line 38, at end insert—
("( ) In the report to be laid before Parliament as mentioned in 5(1)(b) above the Secretary of State shall detail and explain the criteria which he applied and the categories of estimated expenses he thought fit to leave out of account.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in the report laid before Parliament as mentioned in Section 5(1)(b) that we have already heard about from the Minister of State, I think that the Secretary of State should detail and explain the criteria which he has applied and the categories of estimated expenses that he thought fit to leave out of account. I think this is out of fairness to the local authorities and out of fairness to the House

1155
of Commons who come to judge whether or not the Secretary of State was right in seeking to reduce the rate support grant of some particular authority.
One of the important things about this is the timing. Neither House of Parliament is very keen on retrospective legislation, but here we have the classic case. We heard the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, earlier today telling us he was not going to do something this year although some of his information is in relation to expenses this year. It is going to be next year to penalise the local authorities. Here we have the position where the Government are going to penalise the local authorities as from the start of this financial year, and in Scotland that financial year has already started. He has not the power to deal with it yet. Today is 2nd June. I do not know when he is going to get this Bill through. We have to have another stage in this House and then the Bill has to go, if amended, to the Commons. This is why the Government have set their face against any amendment hitherto until the power of the disablement lobby has got at them—I am very glad of it and I support them. If the Bill is amended, it will need to go to the Commons. From the Commons it will need to come back here.
Of course this takes us on. The Government then have to inform a local authority of their intention and give that local authority an opportunity—a reasonable time—to reply to this allegation of carelessness in the use of local government expenditure. That is going to take time. Then the order has to go to the House of Commons. Time has to be found in the House of Commons for it. I know that the Scottish Office are very careful because they have been rapped once or twice. They will make absolutely certain that that order is in keeping with the statute. It will be scrutinised by a committee and eventually debated because it will be an affirmative order.
How long is all this going to take? It is going to be the month of July at least. They had better hurry up because if its goes to the end of July they will have to wait till the end of October for they cannot use their power until after the House of Commons has had their say—so. What a mess they are going to be in then. Goodness gracious! the local authorities will be getting their estimates ready for the next year.
If the Minister of State goes to his department and finds out from that department the whole time-tabling of events in relation to rate support grant, he will find exactly how difficult the whole thing is going to be, from a time-tabling point of view. He will look twice and think twice before he institutes these proceedings. I see him getting into an unholy mess and the Government will only have themselves to blame. I want to see in this report full details of the use that the Government have made of these powers and the restriction placed upon them by Parliament in relation to the criteria that they have to use and in relation to the categories of estimated expenditure that the Minister thought fit to leave out of account. These words, of course, come from the clause because this is the last of the power given to the Secretary of State; he leaves out of account such category of expenses as he thinks fit.
We know quite well that he could leave out categories of expenses and he would make the sins of the local
1156
authority look even greater. You could leave out some categories of expenses and indeed the local authority could be very virtuous indeed. From that point of view, we have not got a proper definition. Our discussions have been very cursory on participation certainly. On the other side of the House they have been absolutely nil in respect of this Bill. They are prepared to shut their eyes and give what powers they like to the local authority. We have not a definition of the estimated expenses that he is going to leave out of account.
Bear in mind that the Secretary of State at Second Reading in another place said that he was not interested in individual category expenses; he was concerned only about the aggregate. With due respect, he has changed his mind about that. If he sees fit, he can leave out a certain category of expenditure which must of course be related to the rates. It is for that reason, because I think it would be fair to the House, the Members of the House of Commons and to the local authorities concerned, that I think we should lay down what should be detailed within the report that is laid before Parliament. I beg to move.
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, the noble Lord's amendment refers to "Section 5(1)(b) above" and as such is, if I may say so, inept because that part of the Act does not refer to "the report to be laid before Parliament". That is really a trifling objection to the amendment compared with the argument on the merits. Going back to Section 5 of the 1966 Act, the reports which the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament and which must be approved by resolution in another place before a proposed reduction in rate support grant can be made must state the amount of and the reasons for the proposed reduction and set out any representations made by the authority concerned with respect to the proposed reduction.
In other words, the report must set out in detail the case which the authority will have to answer and it would in any event have to do this by reference to the criteria laid down so far as is applicable to the particular case. It is quite unnecessary to spell out in the Bill, as proposed by the noble Lord's amendment, matters which could not be omitted from the report because they constitute some of the reasons for making it. The authorities have already been notified by a circular of the excluded categories of expenditure for 1981–82, such as capital expenditure, housing expenditure, loan charges and so on.
If the House of Commons is not satisfied with the reasons for a proposed reduction, approval to the reduction may well be withheld. Appropriate reasons could well go beyond the criteria to which the Secretary of State is allowed to have regard by the provisions of the Bill.
Practical operation of the provisions in the Bill would also mean that the categories of estimated expenses the Secretary of State thought fit to leave out of account in assessing excessive and unreasonable expenses would have to be made public long before any report in respect of a grant reduction were laid before Parliament. If the provisions in the Bill are to be effective, it is important that local authorities are informed in advance of finalising budgets the expenditure base on which the Secretary of State will assess

1157
whether or not expenditure is excessive and unreasonable. Such public indication has already been given in respect of the current financial year, which was one of the matters which the noble Lord, Lord Ross, complained about. On 4th March this year in the Scottish Office Finance Circular No. 7/1981 the Secretary of State intimated to local authorities the categories of estimated expenses which, if the Bill were enacted, he would exclude from consideration in any assessment that he might make under the provisions in the Bill. In this connection, I can assure the House that prior notice of this intimation was made in another place when the Bill was then being considered in Committee.
The amendment would do nothing to safeguard the position of a local authority who might be the subject of action under the provisions in the Bill; the provisions in the amendment are no substitute for the vigilance of the local authority concerned and of the other place in seeing that the Secretary of State presents all the information which existing statute at present requires him to present when proposing a grant reduction. Moreover, the amendment implies making public the basis on which excessive and unreasonable expenditure will be assessed at a stage in the proceedings when such intimation would have lost much of its value. In other words, it would be far too late. The amendment therefore would not in fact give the advantages which the noble Lord claims for it and I must ask him to withdraw it.
Lord Ross of Marnock: I do not agree with everything that the noble Earl has said and I do not understand this point of it being far too late. The report has to be made anyway. He cannot get the order without the report and the report must contain this information. Why does the noble Earl suggest it is far too late at that time? I do not think it makes sense what he has been saying about that. It has to be made public at that time. I have been trying to ensure that the things which are said are actually included in the report. Remember that the report is not in this statute that we are considering, but it was in the original statute. This is one of the difficulties about trying to mould a statute that is already there and to import new powers, and then take it for granted that certain things will follow.
I am reasonably happy about the answer from the point of view of the content of the report, but I want to make sure that we know at that time and that Parliament will know at that time just exactly that the Government have followed through. And of course some people will be vigilant and others will not be vigilant. Governments get away with an awful lot. The Minister need not shake his head. It has been discovered more than a year after a certain order has gone through the House that it was ultra vires, and I could list one or two statutes in respect of that. It may well be that the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, just happened to be preoccupied at the time so that this thing was allowed to happen and it would not be the first time that I have had to apologise to the House for this kind of thing having been done by the Scottish Office. It is important that we get everything as it should be. However, I shall not press this to a Division.
1158
I am satisfied with the answer, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.12 p.m.
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 11:
After Clause 14, insert the following new clause:
"Local referendum
. Before making an order under section 5 of the 1966 Act as amended by this Act, the Secretary of State shall cause to be held in the area concerned a local referendum of those electors entitled to vote at local authority elections to seek their approval of his determination; and the result of that shall be included in his report to Parliament if he decides to proceed with the order.".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move a new clause the effect of which would be that before the Secretary of State took this drastic action of overthrowing the authority of a local authority in Scotland he should cause to be held an advisory local referendum so that local electors would be able to tell him exactly what they thought about the local authority and the Government and their proceedings.
Noble Lords who were here will remember I suggested that the only people who had the right to question the wisdom or otherwise of a locally elected assembly such as a district or regional council, an islands authority or the like, were the people who elected them. I suggested that one of the mistakes made in local government reform was that it meant one could only have an election every four years, whereas traditionally in the Scottish burghs each ward had three members, and one member—a third of the council—went out every year; so each year a local population could give effect to its feelings about the particular people or the particular balance within the council at that time.
I said I would try to look at this and see whether we could bring back some of that opportunity of getting an annual point of view from the council; but it is not quite so easy because nowadays within any ward there is only one representative. It was always so on the county council anyway, that the area only had the one. But that left me with the choice of perhaps having annual elections. I do not think anyone would welcome that. From an administrative point of view it would have been far too burdensome. The other possibility would be to have the term of office of a local councillor made into two years instead of four years. That is also worth considering. It may well be that in all our reconsideration of local government that is something we should bear in mind, because the only people who have the right properly to discipline their local representatives are the local electors.
Then I felt that there is one other way which has been used before; and that is to have a local referendum. Referenda are not new to Scotland. We used to have a referendum on whether or not any particular area should become a "dry" area. If so many electors indicated they were dissatisfied with the position, they could force what was virtually a local referendum on the subject of "no licence, no change". There were many such elections held at one time. I would hasten to add that I drew up the Bill that wiped that out: I was not Secretary of State when it was passed but I felt that the time had expired for that procedure on such a narrow point.
However, in relation to something as important as interfering with the whole financial arrangements and the services provided by a local authority, it could be justifiable to have a speedy local referendum on the subject. I hope the Government will not say, as they did with the last one: "Ah, but it is imperfect in the drafting". I do not think that the last one was all that imperfect in the drafting. I think I included a "b", and also if I had said "of this Act" instead of "above" I should have been right. But this one I know lacks considerably in follow-through in respect of creating a schedule and a scheme, and the rest of it, but I wanted to get the feelings of the Government and of Members of the House on the principle. I do think that as regards something which has never been done before—taking away the authority of a local authority in its most important aspect of rates and the spending of money—we should think of being able to resort to a local referendum of the electors. Let them give the answer.
We heard something about this earlier on about local elections in England and what the Government were proposing to do in the Statement which was repeated in this House by the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin. Here is something which the electors have already elected—though of course the Scottish electors did not elect a Tory Government. There are 71 Members of Parliament for Scotland. There are 44 Labour Members and in respect of the Government there are 22; so they have no mandate for what they are doing. But the people who have a mandate are the local councillors.
It may well be that the local councillors have changed their minds and think that the Government are right. But the only quick way to find out without waiting for the next two or three years to pass, is to institute a system of a local referendum. I think it would be a form of discipline upon local councillors and also upon the Government because they would require to get the support of the local people. I believe I say in the amendment that the result of that poll should be included in the report to Parliament if the Government decide to proceed with the order. It is a simple way out of the dilemma we are in because of the changes that took place in local government reorganisation.
I tend to think that four years is far too long for a term for a local council. This is one fairly speedy way in which we could sound out the opinions of the people, and if the local electors agreed with the Government they would have no hesitation at all and everyone should be able to rest satisfied that they have had their say. But for a Government to come in and handle local councils in this way is tantamount to making a mockery of local democracy. This is one of the great dangers. The independence of local government is going with this Bill, the whole tradition of local democracy is being put at risk and, of course, so far as electors are concerned, this will lead to a very dangerous rise in scepticism about the whole business of politics and local government. So as a way out, I beg to move.
6.20 p.m.
Viscount Thurso: My Lords, when the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, hinted in the Committee stage that he was going to bring forward an amendment of
1160
this kind on Report, I was most intrigued, because for many years I sat on Thurso Town Council which, being a small burgh, was elected on the principle that one sat for three years and a proportion of the council stood for election every year.
It had a most salutary effect. It gave a certain stability to the council, because there were always some people who had not stood for election, who knew what had happened before, who were well acquainted with the commitments entered into by the council and so on. It also meant that a fairly large proportion of the council had to report again to the electorate, had to stand for election and had to justify the actions of that council of which they had formed part over the preceding period. I found it a very satisfactory system under which to serve, and I think that the people of the small burghs found it a very satisfactory way of appointing people to serve them on their councils.
I must say that I regret the passing of the system in the local government reorganisation. We have now lost the system and the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, has thought hard and long and has not felt it right to suggest that that system should be brought back in any way. He has instead suggested a system of referenda. I am not at all sure that I am happy about that, because, if you are asking an electorate to elect people, that is something which they can assess and can understand. They can look at the performance of people, watch them in action and read about their deeds and sayings in the local press and so on. They have as much of the information as it is possible to have upon which to form their judgment.
But if you suddenly spring upon them a referendum, then you must give them all the information about the subject which is being referred, and I am not at all sure that that is possible. I am not at all sure that it is even desirable that you should, in effect, be asking the electorate to be doing the governing. The point is that they should be satisfied with the level of service that they are getting from their councillors and, if that is what one is after, then the quickest route to achieving the kind of satisfaction which used to be obtained by the electorates of small burghs would be to institute a system of proportional representation, a single transferable vote system or something of that kind, as a method of electing councillors.
In that way, you would see that all shades of opinion were properly allowed for at election time, and would have a chance to reward those who served the community faithfully and well by giving them a good chance of re-election on merit and not on a sheer psephological swing. I do not think I can go along with the noble Lord, Lord Ross, on referenda, and I think it would be a very dangerous precedent to set by including them in this Bill.
6.25 p.m.
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, I was interested in what the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, with his long experience of local government, had to say on this matter. I suggest that the apparent locus which this amendment would impart to local referendums would be quite unacceptable, though not because it refers to local referendums. I do not at all dissent from the notion of local referendums, if they are held on purely local matters and when it is desired to measure local

1161
opinion. They can frequently be organised by local bodies of various kinds and there is much to commend them. But to impose a local referendum backed by the authority of statute would need very careful consideration by Parliament as to the extent of the referendum, the circumstances in which it might take place and the matters upon which it might express a view. The whole matter should, I suggest, be subjected to a rather more thorough inquiry and debate than is possible at the Report stage of this Bill. Such thorough scrutiny would be appropriate for proposals for referendums on questions connected with local government. At the very least, one would have to consider very carefully in detail the locus of referendums within the present system of locally elected councils providing local services and levying local rates, and I question whether this Bill is the proper place in which to introduce statutory referendums.
What the noble Lord, Lord Ross, is trying to do, with a certain ingeniousness, is to give a veneer or gloss of democratic decision-making to the process in Section 5 of the 1966 Act. One has to consider that the people who would express their opinion, on whether the expenditure of their own local authority had been excessive and unreasonable, would, in many cases, be electors who were not ratepayers, and in many other cases the people who did pay rates, such as local businesses, would have no vote at all. That is why I am led to condemn the proposal as a democratic gloss.
But there is a more important objection to the proposed new clause. In the existing legislation in the 1966 Act and in the provisions in the Bill, Parliament has laid, and is laying, a duty upon the Secretary of State to be satisfied that a local authority's expenditure, or planned expenditure, is excessive and unreasonable and it is for that reason that he may be of the opinion that grant should be reduced. Before a reduction in grant can be made the House of Commons must approve a report stating the amount of, and reasons for, the proposed reductions and setting out any representations by the authority concerned. This procedure is a fitting part of a system in which the House of Commons approves in a rate support grant order a total amount of money and how it is to be distributed, and subsequently votes the requisite funds.
Local authorities have a place in that system in that they are consulted before a rate support grant order is made and laid before the House of Commons. Local authorities are also afforded a place in the procedures for reduction of grant in Section 5 of the 1966 Act which also apply to the provisions in Clause 14 of this Bill; they must be afforded the opportunity to make representations and these representations, if any, must be reported to the House of Commons. But the proposed new clause attempts, in effect, to impart to a local referendum the apparent "privilege" of "approval" of any approach by the Secretary of State to the House of Commons, regarding his stewardship of monies voted to him.
I suggest that a local referendum cannot enjoy such a privilege. It cannot have any locus by way of approval of voted moneys. It is for these constitutional reasons that I ask the noble Lord to reconsider his arguments and, indeed, his amendment. There is also a drafting deficiency, in that the amendment refers to an order under Section 5 of the 1966 Act. There are no order-
1162
making powers of that nature in Section 5. However, I do not rely upon that argument. I rely, as I have said, on the constitutional and the general merits of the case.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, I am not surprised; I am astounded by some of the reasoning. Let me take the last reason: that local government has a part to play in the procedure of rate support grant, that they are asked how they feel about it and that their response is included in the report that is laid before Parliament. The noble Earl said that local ratepayers should not have a statutory power in relation to voted money. But we are not dealing only with the question of voted money. We are dealing with the power which is given to the Secretary of State to refuse local authorities their traditional right to raise monies to pay for their services. Not only have they had that right; the Government used to insist that they put money into those services. For about 40 years a housing subsidy could not be obtained unless the local ratepayers also paid a certain sum. It was part of the bargain. You got a subsidy from the Government only if you provided money levied from the local ratepayers.
Not only are the Government taking away part of the rate support grant that they have given; they are following it up by refusing permission to local authorities to raise from their own rates moneys to make up that loss. This has got nothing to do with voted money. It has got everything to do with the rights of local authorities. This is why we say that local authorities are losing their independence. The Government are taking away from local authorities an independent right which they have always enjoyed. It is one of the justifications for my amendment. I started on this road only because I promised the House that I would think about it and see whether or not I could find some way of bringing back that power for local electors as quickly as possible.
The noble Earl referred to who could vote and to the fact that some local ratepayers are denied that right at local elections. We have known about this for a long time and we have to accept this as a fact. This would have been one way of dealing with the problem. I do wish that the Government had come clean. The real reason why they will not do it is that it would take so long. Polling stations, ballot boxes, papers would have to be organised and prepared. It would frustrate the desire of the Government to hammer the local authorities and to hammer them quickly. I am perfectly sure that the thought has crossed the mind of the Minister of State, or some of his advisers, "This is Ross at it again, trying to frustrate the will of Parliament. He is putting in another hurdle". It did cross my mind that it would have the effect of slowing down the process. I seek to slow it down in order to give the Government time to think and, indeed, to think again. There is no harm in the Government thinking again, especially in relation to the nature of the step they are going to take.
I shall not divide the House. I am disappointed in the Government's reaction. Do they not see how desirable it would be to bring in the local electors? This is one of the weaknesses of the Bill. At the time of local government reorganisation the term of office

1163
was three years. In the burghs there was a changeover of one-third of the council every year. This was excellent, though in some cases this almost resulted in heart failure because there could be a complete swing in the balance of power on the council. It was suggested that because there was a loss of interest in local elections people were not voting, so it was decided to have elections every four years. It was thought that this would make the councils more independent, attract a better type of councillor and generate more interest in local elections. This has not proved to be the case. None of the prognostications about the future of local government after reorganisation was well founded.
I hope that the Government will think again about the term of office, about reorganisation into wards and about the number of people represented in those wards. We should return to elections at least every three years. At one time I had in mind elections every two years. This is a way of reaching the local ratepayers. The only people who have the right to discipline are the people who gave the mandate, and they should have the right to take it back. It is quite wrong for the Government, especially for a Government in the position in which this one is, having no mandate from Scotland, to handle people who have a direct mandate in this particular way. Sadly, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 15 [Redetermination and lowering of regional, district or general rate]:
6.39 p.m.
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 8, leave out lines 16 to 22.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, here we are dealing with the powers of a local authority to determine new regional, district or general rates. Once again, having determined the change he is going to insist upon, the Secretary of State can come along and may, by order under subsection (3),
"repeal or amend any enactment (including this Act) in so far as that enactment relates to the determination, levy or payment of a regional, general or district rate and such determination, levy or payment is affected by a determination under subsection (1) above".
Again I object to this. The Government are covering themselves against mistakes which they have made and against negligence. The Minister of State will of course get up and murmur again the word "flexibility". It is an appalling state of affairs if a Government can come along and in almost two consecutive clauses can say, "We may not have covered everything, but don't worry. If we discover that there is a mistake—that we have left out something that we should have put in or that something we put in should not be there at all—we'll change it, by order". That is not the way in which the Houses of Parliament used to work. In those days if you produced a statute you produced a statute amending it; you did not do it the easy way by order. I want to get yet another explanation from the Minister of State as to why these words are there. The same kind of answer that he
1164
gave us before will do for him, but it will not do for me. I beg to move.
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, what Clause 15 does in effect is to give local authorities which budget for excessive and unreasonable expenditure a way of avoiding the reduction in grant which might otherwise follow. Effectively, by enabling authorities facing the possibility of a cut in grant to reduce their rate poundage in the course of a financial year, it gives them the choice of either giving the money back to their own local ratepayers, or returning it to the Exchequer. The Government hope that authorities will have regard to the interests of their ratepayers and will follow the former course, and we aim to remove as far as possible any difficulties which statutes might place in the path of an authority which decides to redetermine its rate.
That is why Clause 15(3)—which this amendment seeks to remove—is included in the Bill. I am surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Ross, wishes to remove that subsection. It empowers the Secretary of State, by order subject to the positive resolution procedure of both Houses of Parliament, to repeal or amend enactments relating to the determination, levy or collection of a redetermined rate. The intention is to use the order-making power after full consultation with local authorities, to modify enactments which might hinder the smooth administration of a redetermined rate. The order-making power will be used to aid local authorities and so to press this amendment would be in no one's interest, least of all the local authorities.
In effect the noble Lord accuses the Government, and my department in particular, of negligence; in other words he asks why all these repeals and amendments which could be the subject of an order are not included substantively in the Bill. The answer to that is approximately the one that I gave on the previous occasion; namely, that comprehensive provision could not be made because of the difficulty in identifying all the statutory provisions requiring amendment in advance of detailed consideration by local authority and Government officials. As the noble Lord, Lord Ross, will know, the matters here are extremely technical and the need for amendment is only being identified after detailed consultation and examination and I suggest that these are matters which are appropriate for an order which can be made under subsection (3) rather than for primary legislation. Subsection (3) is really to help rather than to hinder the process and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Ross, will come to see it in that light.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, I am afraid that I do not see it in that light because I read subsection (1) and it is that which gives the power in relation to the reassessment of the lower rate, not subsection (3). At the present time in Scotland once the rate is fixed one cannot declare a supplementary rate to get further money or declare a new rate which is lower and give money back. That is not "on" in Scotland. I gather that in England and Wales a supplementary rate can be declared and so more monies can be obtained from the people.

1165
Subsection (3) is a different thing altogether; it means changes in relation to other statutes. The Government have been in such a rush to get this thing done and already they are out of time and it becomes retrospective legislation, so they put in this portfolio clause giving them power to
"repeal or amend any enactment (including this Act) in so far as"—
it relates to this. It is not the kind of power that Parliament is used to giving to Ministers and Parliament should not do it. If they feel they want to do something in respect of which they require additional powers they should comb through the statutes and make the changes in this statute. That is the way it is normally done and there is no justification for putting this in once again. This is not the first time because we have had it in the previous clause as well.
I am not really disappointed because I do not expect very much from the Minister of State, but I am disappointed in the draftsmen in the Scottish Office because I know from my own experience that they are very thorough and very dependable in what they do. It was decided that there was not time to search through all the statutes so they have covered themselves with this kind of subsection. This is not the matter of principle that was suggested by the noble Earl. It is once again a high-handed attitude in relation to legislation and it is one to which I take the strongest objection. I shall not withdraw this amendment, but I will allow it to be defeated without a Division.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, would he not agree that if some local councils and councillors had been more responsible in their management of the financial affairs of councils this Bill would not have been necessary? It has been the great extravagance of some councils and the extreme extravagance with ratepayers' money and borrowing a great deal of money which basically has been the cause of this Bill.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, in no way do I approve of unnecessary, undesirable and extravagant expenditure, but it is this House that has placed the local authorities in the position they are in—apart from the other place—by wishing upon them a tremendous number of duties and insisting that they maintain certain standards. That cannot be done without spending money. Because of the national aspect the Government have supported them up to a point but this Government have manipulated the formula in respect of rate support grant, in the calculation of the expenditure that they have to make, which they have kept deliberately low and then they have even more deliberately reduced their share of that expenditure. The result is that there must be an increase in rates, but the responsibility for that is not that of the local authorities; it is the responsibility of the people who manipulated the formula and that is the Government themselves. I am sorry that the noble Viscount was not present earlier to hear about what was included and what was not included in respect of categories of expenditure and he will be sad to know that one
1166
category of expenditure which is not to be taken into account is housing.
On Question, amendment negatived.
Clause 16 [Local authority's estimated expenditure relevant factor in calculating amount of resources element payable to them]:
6.49 p.m.
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 9, line 6, leave out ("the year 1981–82 or for any year thereafter") and insert ("any year after 1981–82.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is an important amendment because it introduces the whole question of the Government doing this and then applying it in the year 1981–82. The year 1981–82 has already started. Every Scotsman who is an occupier of property in Scotland has already received from his local authority the assessment of his rates. It has already been fixed and if any change is necessary it should apply not this year but next year and the Government then would be on fairly safe ground. I have listed the nature of the programme before us. The Bill is not law yet and we are well into the financial year 1981–82. Before he can act at all the Secretary of State has to make up his mind about which local authority he is going to deal with; having made up his mind about that he has to get in touch with them; he has to have all his arguments formulated and let them know what they have done and what he is going to do about it. They have to consider that, and the Minister of State has said that they will have a reasonable amount of time. The local authority have to reply and the Secretary of State has to consider the reply. Then he has to draw up a report and that report goes to the House of Commons.
The House of Commons is not sitting waiting for an order coming from the Scottish Office; it may be some while before it finds time to deal with this in the House because it will be a controversial matter; it is not the kind of thing that will go through on the nod. This takes us way beyond the month of June. We are into July. If the Government do not manage to get it finished before a certain event towards the end of July, when it is hoped Parliament will not be sitting, it means it will be the month of October, and probably towards the end of October, before they can do anything about this. This is to deal with the year 1981–82, when local authorities already according to their timetable are being hammered by the Government in relation to their estimates for next year.
This is one of the most dangerous things the Government are doing. They are going to run themselves into the ground in relation to timetables. Indeed, I have already heard some local authorities with whom I have been in touch suggesting that the whole time-tabling of all the things that are laid down for local authorities to do, and to do in co-operation with the Scottish Office, has gone sadly awry and changes will need to be made there. So I plead with the Government.
The noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, in his Statement said that they were going to take action in relation to England and Wales, but the action which is going to be taken is not this year but next year, and that is the

1167
proper way to do it. Have your legislation and then apply your legislation to the next financial year, not to a financial year already well worn. It is not good enough to say, "We gave warnings of what we were going to do to the local authorities". What matters in relation to legislation is the date of the passing of the Act and the date of the taking of the powers after the Act has been passed. I plead with the Government; this is a serious and very important amendment. I beg to move.
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Ross, moved and spoke to an amendment in Committee which was similar to if not identical with this amendment. I have listened for any new argument that the noble Lord might deploy to titillate the House to take a fresh view of the matter, but I did not hear any, and I am certainly not going to weary your Lordships by rehearsing all the arguments that I deployed on the last occasion. The ground has been well covered already.
The Government take the view that it is essential that the powers for which provision is made in Clauses 14, 15 and 16 of this Bill should be available in 1981–82. The Secretary of State has made it clear that he would not have thought it necessary to introduce these provisions at all if in recent years all local authorities had shown moderation and regard to the national interest in framing their expenditure plans, and to that extent I agree with my noble friend Lord Massereene. Unfortunately, it has not been the case. Unhappily, there are authorities which are planning to incur expenditure levels in 1981–82 grossly out of line with the national economic interest and the interests of ratepayers. As is well known, and has been well known for a long time, the Government firmly intend to take action under these provisions, and we say that the sooner they are able to do so the better.
I do not think I can help the House very much further. The noble Lord implied that these provisions were retrospective, but when I addressed the House in Committee I gave details of the notice that was given both to the House of Commons and to the local authorities on a number of occasions, and specifically in Finance Circular 16/1980, which was issued on 22nd December. The local authorities have been forewarned of what was in the Government's mind. We have been scrupulous in telling them what would happen in effect if they did not mend their ways. In the circumstances I am afraid there is absolutely nothing as between the Government and the Opposition on this matter, and I can only urge the noble Lord, in relation to the Division which we had on the last occasion, to withdraw his amendment on this matter.
Lord Ross of Marnock: No, my Lords, I think the country and Scotland are entitled to know exactly how determined the Government are to get this vicious legislation, and Scotland should have the right to know who votes for it and who does not. I have no intention of withdrawing it.
6.57 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 13) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 52; Not-Contents, 76.

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Longford, E.

Ardwick, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Banks, L.

McNair, L.

Blease, L.

Maelor, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Mishcon, L.

Brockway, L.

Peart, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Collison, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

David, B.

Rochester, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Stedman, B.

Evans of Claughton, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Foot, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Glenamara, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Gosford, E.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Hale, L.

Thurso, V.

Hooson, L.

Tordoff, L.

Hughes, L.

Underhill, L.

Janner, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L. [Teller.]

Jeger, B.

John-Mackie, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Kaldor, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Whaddon, L.

Kirkhill, L.

White, B.

Lee of Newton, L.

Wigoder, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Winstanley, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Lyell, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

McFadzean, L.

Avon, E.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Bellwin, L.

Mansfield, E.

Belstead, L.

Margadale, L.

Boardman, L.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Mottistone, L.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Newall, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Northchurch, B.

Cottesloe, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Orkney, E.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Davidson, V.

Pender, L.

de Clifford, L.

Renton, L.

De Freyne, L.

Rochdale, V.

De La Warr, E.

Romney, E.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Sandys, L. [Teller.]

Elgin and Kincardine, E.

Savile, L.

Faithfull, B.

Selkirk, E.

Falkland, V.

Sharples, B.

Ferrers, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Fortescue, E.

Spens, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Stamp, L.

Gainford, L.

Stradbroke, E.

Gisborough, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Greenway, L.

Gridley, L.

Swinfen, L.

Henley, L.

Swinton, E.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Trefgarne, L.

Kemsley, V.

Trenchard, V.

Kimberley, E.

Trumpington, B.

Lauderdale, E.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Vickers, B.

Long, V.

Vivian, L.

Loudoun, C.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
7.5 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, I think that this is probably the moment when we might adjourn the Report stage

1169
for the dinner adjournment until 7.50 p.m. Therefore, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Insurance Companies Bill
7.6 p.m.
Report received.
Lord Bruce of Donington Lord Bruce of Donington moved Amendment No. 1:
After Clause 13, insert the following new clause:
("Requirements to inform the Actuary and obtain his report
. After section 22A of the Insurance Companies Act 1974 there shall be inserted—
"Report on long term business.
22B. Regulations may be made placing a duty on an insurance company to provide the appointed actuary regularly with such information as he may reasonably require about the financial conduct of its long-term business and to obtain a report from him before making significant changes in that conduct.".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 1 standing in my name on the Marshalled List. Your Lordships will recall that in the course of the debate in Committee my noble friend Lord Jacques raised the question of the position that occurred in 1974, when two life assurance companies failed, causing considerable hardship to thousands of policyholders. My noble friend pointed out to your Lordships that one of the companies had failed because it had issued a large number of policies on the basis of a single premium and that arrangement was unsound. The other company failed because it had invested too much of its life policy funds in speculative property investments. My noble friend on that occasion moved an amendment that was designed to remedy that state of affairs by making it compulsory that the actuary be informed by the company of changes in policy.
I shall not weary the House by pursuing the detailed arguments that were put forward by my noble friend on that occasion. However, at the conclusion of the debate I did say, if your Lordships recall, that I would like the Government to give further consideration to this question, to see whether there was any way in which the interests of the policyholders could be protected by the company being required to give interim information to its actuary in order that the actuary could maintain a more constant vigilance over the activities of the company rather than, as it were, reporting ex post facto. The amendment that I am moving today is in different terms from the amendment moved by my noble friend and is put forward with the objective of inquiring whether the Government have any further proposals to add in this connection.
I am indeed well aware that the British Insurers' Association do not think that an amendment of this kind is necessary and I have had a similar communication from the Life Offices Association to almost identical effect. We in this House always, of course, receive representations from responsible organisations with a considerable amount of respect; but we cannot always feel ourselves bound by the sentiments that
1170
they express. That, so far as I personally am concerned, applies to this particular section. It may well be that the information which is required and the procedure under which it should be rendered, as incorporated in the new clause which I propose, may be inconvenient to the insurance companies.
That I willingly concede. But we in this House have a far wider responsibility than just to those who actually conduct the business; we have a very wide responsibility indeed to the public at large who take advantage of the various insurance facilities that are offered to them by the practitioners in this field. These individuals have a right, where we conceive it is wise, to the protection that we can give them. Therefore, I am hopeful that if the noble Lord on behalf of the Government is not prepared to accept the amendment that I have tabled, the Government are at least prepared to consider and, indeed, to declare what additional measures they propose in the light of circumstances that may arise between the times when the examinations by the actuaries and/or the auditors of the company take place.
The actions of a company's auditors are, of course, governed by statute. They normally produce a report some weeks, or perhaps even months, after the end of the financial year of the insurance company concerned. The responsibilities of the actuary are limited to a specific period of time. We seek to lay upon the company the responsibility of providing information to an actuary on an interim basis. It may well be that the wording of the amendment that I have tabled is legally defective in a number of ways and, of course, the arts of the parliamentary draftsmen are frequently denied to those of us who very often speak in a purely political capacity. Nevertheless, we are convinced that it ought not to defeat the ingenuity of Government to devise some means whereby interim protection can be secured. Therefore, I am hopeful that the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, who is always most courteous and receptive to matters of this kind, may be able to provide your Lordships and the public at large with some measure of reassurance. I beg to move.
7.12 p.m.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, the whole House will be very grateful, indeed very interested, to have heard, the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, proposing the amendment which, as he points out, is marginally different from the amendment and the similar new clause which was proposed by his noble friend Lord Jacques at an earlier stage in the Bill. Indeed, a similar new clause to the one that was proposed in Committee and similar proposals of that type were considered in Committee and at the Report stage in another place. Therefore I think that the House—indeed, all of us—would consider that this matter, which has been explained by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, tonight and indeed at an earlier stage by the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, has received very considerable and detailed attention. Certainly none of us would quarrel with that. The appointed actuary plays a very important—indeed, a crucial—role in respect of the company to which he is appointed. He depends very much on the information which he is given.
But this process of consideration has shown up the major difficulty which is raised by all the proposed

1171
forms of the amendment: the lack of proper consideration of its particular need and, therefore, of its possible scope. The Bill before us this evening was preceded by a lengthy process of consultation between the Department of Trade and the bodies which are representative of the insurance industry and, indeed, of the actuarial profession. All those who were consulted were invited to submit proposals for matters which were to be covered by the Bill and, indeed, some of those who were consulted submitted proposals and others did not.
The process of consideration of these proposals and, indeed, of the department's proposals for the Bill clearly showed not just the desirability but also the need to explore thoroughly any substantive new proposals in this field. The matter which is covered by this particular clause and this amendment this evening was not put forward by any major body concerned; nor, I understand, was there any consideration within any of them—that is, the Life Offices Association, the British Insurers' Association or, indeed, the actuarial profession—of even the possibility of putting forward an amendment or this particular clause. But it seems that a decision has been taken by those in the industry who have for sometime been pressing for these amendments to avoid any further discussion with various colleagues in the professions and, indeed, throughout the industry.
As a result of this, we are faced with a position where the need for statutory provision dealing with this grave matter—and I should say that the proposed provision has changed considerably during the progress of the Bill both here and in another place—has not been properly discussed by those who would be directly concerned with it. The Institute of Actuaries, in a recent letter to the Government Actuary about the proposal, pointed out, and was at pains to do so, that the Institute remains unconvinced of the desirability of dealing with these particular matters in the present Bill, even through the power to make regulations.
This then is the difficulty that faces the Government. Without proper consultations the need for further regulations, powers, or whatever, cannot be properly assessed, and without assessment the need for legislation is uncertain. But even if we were to suppose a need that legislation was required, its proper content could not be established if there was not full consultation.
I mentioned that the need had not been properly assessed, but without such assessment of what we might require, discussion of any details of the proposed new clause would be inappropriate. However, I certainly think that I could make one or two general comments on the proposed clause and I hope the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, might think that my reply will meet some of the encomium that he showered upon the department, possibly also on me.
Certainly the proposed clause emphasises the continuing role of the actuary; that is very reasonable. But we must remember that there are other important ways by which the policyholder and (as, of course, the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, mentioned at least twice) the public at large are protected. One of the ways is the actuary's annual report. We also have the auditors' investigation and, thirdly, the scrutiny of the company's
1172
annual returns by the Department of Trade and also by the Government Actuary's Department. Moreover, the transformation of the relationship between appointed actuaries and their companies, from one based on professional guidance and individual working practices to one based on statute, we believe could easily turn out to be an erosion rather than a reinforcement of the strength of the relationships which exist between the profession and the clients, which is evident at the moment.
But one new feature of the version of the clause which we are considering this evening is that it would depend upon the Secretary of State to make regulations. Such a device, laudable though it might seem, would not get round the basic difficulty that until the need for these regulations, or indeed primary legislation, was established and examined any statutory provision that might be necessary or indeed appropriate could not be worked out at least sensibly. Supposing a need were established, then we would find that the matters that could be covered by regulations under this clause could all be irrelevant, but the needs quite otherwise. But if we were to look at the clause as drafted, it seems doubtful whether the matters to be covered by regulations under the clause would add much to it.
In other words, this regulation-making feature might only be a device which we could just switch on and off at will. If so, this would really be unnecessary. Clause 37 provides that orders may be made bringing the Act into force on different days for different purposes. It would be very strange to have a section in the Act that was inoperative because of the way commencement orders had been drafted, but then it would not be common practice to include a clause which provided for regulations though not needing them, and which was only going to be rendered operative if a need and a prospective need, even a hypothetical need, were to be established. In view of all of this we believe it is not surprising that the framework would creak if indeed the foundation of the whole clause is faulty, and we believe that laudable though the objectives are the foundation to the clause is faulty. For that reason I am afraid that once again we could not accept this particular amendment and the clause that we have before us tonight.
Lord Banks: My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, gives his reaction to what the noble Lord the Minister has just said, may I say a brief word. I am still a little puzzled as to why the Government do not want this idea, even if they do not want the precise words of this amendment, to be adopted. It is not argued that this information should not be in the hands of the actuary. At least, I understand it is the case that it is generally agreed that the actuary should receive this information. As I understand it, actuaries are not saying that if they did receive this information a burden which was outside their professional competence would be placed upon them.
In most life companies the actuary will be an official of the company and he will be involved in all these decisions, and in many cases he will be the general manager. Therefore, he will know what is going on, and this information will flow to him quite naturally and automatically by his being a prominent, if not the

1173
leading, member of the management team. But where you have a new company they appoint consulting actuaries as a rule from outside their immediate employees; a firm of consulting actuaries who will be their advisers in this respect and will act as their actuaries. I should have thought that in those cases there was just the possibility that this information would not reach the actuaries as early as would be desirable through no fault of the actuary but through perhaps an oversight, or just a disinclination on the part of the company, and if this were a statutory requirement then that situation could not arise.
It would seem to me that what these various amendments have been trying to do, whether they have done it well or not, is just to reinforce what is already happening over the majority of the field, and to see that it happens in perhaps those areas where there could be a tendency for it not to happen unless such steps were taken.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I am a little disappointed by the reply that the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, has given to my remarks, in the course of which I introduced this amendment. The noble Lord spoke of no need having been established. I should have thought that the events of 1974 in which thousands of people lost considerable sums of money in fact established a need. The noble Lord spoke of the interested parties as though they consisted entirely of the insurance companies, or their associations involved. When he spoke of consultation with interested parties he was talking of the professional men involved; he was talking of the companies involved. But surely the people ultimately involved are the public at large.
Who is to speak for the public at large who are at risk when these malpractices take place? I may be a little old-fashioned, but I was under the impression that it was one of the prides of your Lordships' House that they, on occasion, could represent the public at large and put forward their views to your Lordships. All I am seeking to do is to make quite sure that those who may be at the receiving end of such malpractices as do occur, and as in fact occurred in 1974, receive an adequate representation in your Lordships' House, and also receive adequate consideration at the hands of Her Majesty's Government.
I willingly accept that ex post facto after the end of the financial year the reports of the actuaries may be in the hands of Her Majesty's Government, or of the appropriate department of state, and that the auditors' reports may also be made public in the normal way, and these reports may be available at varying lengths of time between perhaps six weeks or up to three months after the end of the financial year concerned. But what happens after the reports of the auditors of the insurance company and of their actuaries have been made if, seven days after the report and possibly a year before the next report is to be made, certain malpractices occur?
What happens, for example, if seven days after the approval of the previous year's accounts has been accomplished at the general meeting, and everybody is very happy about it, there is a sudden switch in investment policy which results in unsound investments being made? Is this to lie without any comment until a further year has passed? Until the auditors
1174
make their next report, or until the actuaries make their next report? What this amendment seeks to do is to lay a statutory responsibility on the company to report on a more current basis—if I may use a term which the noble Lord opposite, himself being an accountant, will readily understand, on a management accounting basis—rather than an annual basis so that if these defects occur they can be adequately dealt with at the time.
I realise that I have presented the Government with a formidable problem here. It is difficult to initiate and to draft measures that are capable of being used within ordinary commercial structures on a current basis, yet the risk to the public remains. We on this side of the House are bound to draw attention to it.
We sincerely hope the Government will bear those considerations very carefully in mind as they proceed, otherwise we shall be bound to return to the same theme in circumstances of our own choosing and which may not always be to the convenience of the Government. I do not desire to press the amendment at this stage, because I am well aware of its technical imperfections; but I am sorry to have received the reaction from the Government which the House has received tonight. With those sad concluding words, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 27 [Transfers of long term business]:
7.31 p.m.
Lord Lyell Lord Lyell moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 22, line 10, at end insert—
("(3A) In subsection (3)—

(a) in paragraph (a) for the words "is to be" there shall be substituted the words "has been";

(b) in paragraph (d) for the words from "on which" to the end there shall be substituted the words "of the first publication of a notice in accordance with paragraph (a) above".").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, subsection (3) of this clause amends a drafting error which is already apparent in Section 42 of the Insurance Companies Act 1974. The first part of the amendment proposes to add a new paragraph to cure two further faults of drafting in that section which were recently pointed out to the Department of Trade. Section 42 was clearly intended to allow the court to relieve a company petitioning to transfer long-term policies from the obligation to publish the notice that has to appear in the London, Edinburgh and Belfast Gazettes in two national newspapers as well. As drafted, it frustrates that intention by requiring the notice to be published in two national newspapers before the court can consider whether such publication is necessary.
The first part of that amendment puts the matter right. It will allow a petition to be presented, for the court to consider what publication is necessary, for such publication to take place and, after the required time, for the petition to be considered in full. The second part of the amendment avoids a lack of precision; Section 42(3)(d) refers to the date on which the notice is published. The notice may however be published on more than one date. The amendment

1175
avoids the imprecisions by referring to the first date on which the notice is to be published.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, we on this side are happy to support the amendment. Perhaps we may reflect as we consider drafting amendments of this type to an Act of 1974 that at that time, whichever Government were in office, they undoubtedly received the advice from their parliamentary draftsman that the clauses had been drafted impeccably and that no possible amendments were necessary; that they were the incandescence of all legal and draftsmanship wisdom at the time when they were prepared. There is a lesson here both for Governments and Oppositions who in due course will become governments. The lesson is that the parliamentary draftsman's wisdom is not always immutable and perfect, is not always the last possible word that can be conceived in presenting the political intentions of the Government in terms that should be enforced in law. With that reflection, I again express our support for the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.

Food and Drugs (Amendment) Bill
7.35 p.m.
Baroness Sharples: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Sharpies.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The Lord NUGENT of GUILDFORD in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Exemption of certain premises used for manufacture or preparation of food from requirement to register with local authority]:
Lord Airedale Lord Airedale moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 9, leave out from beginning to ("food") in line 12 and insert—
(""(3A) Nothing in this Part of this Act shall apply so as to require the registration under this section—
(a) of domestic premises, if the only food intended for sale which is prepared or manufactured on them is").
The noble Lord said: I suggest it would be for the convenience of the Committee to discuss Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 togethrr because together they achieve a single purpose. Section 16 of the Food and Drugs Act 1955 requires that premises used for the preparation of food must be registered with the local authority. It was never, I think intended that this provision should apply to organisations such as the Women's Institutes, whose members prepare food in their own homes. Recently, however, doubt arose about it and the Bill is the result of that, seeking, as it does, to exempt Women's Institutes and such organisations from the requirement of the 1955 Act.
People's homes are, of course, domestic premises, and the Bill therefore refers to domestic premises, but there are also others worthy organizations—notably the Scouts and Guides—whose members also prepare food in aid of good causes for sale on produce stalls and so
1176
on, and they prepare their food not in people's homes but in scout huts and the like. Therefore, these amendments, having referred first to domestic premises, go on to mention premises of any description provided that the food is not being prepared for sale in the course of trade. I trust that that adequately explains the purpose of the amendments.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: This is perhaps not the most important Bill we are discussing this Session, but it is of great importance to many groups of people; we have heard reference to Women's Institutes, Boy Scouts and Girl Guides, and there are co-operative women's guilds and many other organisations which depend for much of their vitality and livelihood on being able to produce food in their own homes for sale at sales of work, jumble sales and so on, and the intention of the Bill has the wholehearted support of the Opposition. My only concern is whether, if the amendment were made—we feel it is a worthy amendment—it would in any way impede the ultimate progress of the measure on to the statute book.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Cullen of Ashbourne, who I understand is to reply for the Government, will be able to tell your Lordships whether he feels that there would be any impediment to the ultimate progress of the Bill on to the statute book if the amendment were accepted. Our concern is to ensure that the Bill gets onto the statute book as soon as possible.
Baroness Sharples: I am delighted to accept the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, which has been supported by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede. I wish that all of our business could be carried out as easily as this. I wish to support the noble Lord, Lord Airedale.
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: I am glad to repeat what I said on Second Reading; namely, that the Government support the amendment. The Amendment is not confined purely to scout and guide huts; it relates to premises generally. But I can assure the Committee that this does not open the way for widespread circumvention of registration. This is because the exemption granted by the Bill will not apply if the person preparing the food is doing so in the course of his or her trade or business. Again, if premises have to be registered because they are caught by Section 16, the fact that on occasion food is prepared in them for sale for charitable purposes will not exempt them from registration.
The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, said that he was in favour of the amendment so long as it did not impede the passage of the Bill, and I understand that there is no danger of that.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Airedale Lord Airedale moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 16, after ("(b)") insert ("of premises of any description if the only food intended for sale which is prepared or manufactured on them is").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with the amendments.
[House adjourned during pleasure from 7.43 until 7.50 p.m.].

Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill
Consideration on Report resumed.
Clause 21 [Methods of fixing aggregate amount of housing support grants]:
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 10, line 35, at end insert—
("( ) In estimating the amount mentioned in paragraph (b) of subsection (2) above, the figure for rent shall be the figure for the previous year increased by the percentage allowed in rate support grant for price inflation.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, No. 14 takes us to Clause 21, and we have a change of subject because we now come on to the question of housing grants and the conditions applicable thereto. Quite a few years ago there was a complete change in relation to the support of housing and a move away from the individual subsidies applicable to each house for so many years. In the early days it was 40 years; after the war it was 60 years. A solemn pledge was given by Governments that they would support each house that was built by the figure that was put into that particular statute, on condition, of course, that a quarter of the total subsidy would be found by the local authority. So there was a very considerable interest in respect of that; and, of course, at that time there was no bar to a local authority further increasing the subsidy given for local authority houses by putting it on to the rates.
But now we have the whole question in relation to the housing revenues and housing expenditures that have accumulated, and then the striking of a figure and the Government determining what the rate support grant shall be and dividing it out among the authorities according to formula. This, once again, is a place where the Government can manipulate the formula, because if you read the clause at line 29—sub-section (1) refers to Section 1 of the 1978 Act; this, again, is one of the things which take us way back by reference, and the Bill itself is a bit of a mess-up—paragraph (b) says:
"the aggregate amount of relevant income (other than housing support grants) which could reasonably be expected to be credited to the local authorities' housing revenue accounts for that year".
I repeat, "could reasonably be expected to be credited". What does that mean? It means that the Government decide what should be reasonably credited as rents of houses. It is their figure. It is not the actual rent; it is their figure; and, of course, the higher they make that figure the less accrues to the local authority housing account in housing grants. The Government can determine it.
At the present time the Government are wishing upon local authorities a figure for rent increases which amounts virtually to a 40 per cent, increase; and it has been estimated that if this persists for about three years then no housing grants at all will be paid. To that extent it is a very long way indeed from the promised support that was given to local authorities who, in the years after the war, were encouraged by
1178
Governments of both sides. Your Lordships will remember Mr. Macmillan, and that he was going to build 400,000 houses. These houses were built; but the Government promised that for 60 years they would support the loans and the inevitable charges that fell on the local authorities, who were virtually the Government's housing agents.
But here we are now getting into a position whereby, with the Government fixing a notional rent, in effect the local authorities will be denied housing support grant. This is why I say in my amendment:
"In estimating the amount mentioned in paragraph (b) of subsection (2) above, the figure for rent shall be the figure for the previous year increased by the percentage allowed in rate support grant for price inflation".
That is fair enough. We are telling the local authority, "You have got to put your rents up to meet the inflation rate"; and, surely, the inflation rate which the Government have used in the estimates for rate support grant itself is a fair figure—11 per cent. If the Government tell me that, of course, that does not in any way meet the inflation for this current year—and we are talking about 1981–82 as the start of rate support grant, although not this particular change; but we shall come to that later on—then the Government are hoist with their petard of a lower figure, an unrealistic figure for inflation.
But the fact is that it is not an increase to meet inflation that the Government are insisting local authorities should add in respect of rents. They would scream the house down if the rates went up by 40 per cent. I think the average in Scotland is very much below that. But they are insisting that local authorities put up their rents by 40 per cent. They are going further than that, because if local authorities do not meet what they consider is the rate fund contribution guidelines then they are going to limit the local authorities in respect of what they will be able to build in future. In my day the Secretary of State used to appeal to the local authorities, "For goodness' sake build and build" because of the housing situation in Scotland. Even today in Scotland there are about 67,000 houses without a sink or a water closet. And the housing figures in Scotland have now fallen so that you would have to go back to the year 1925 to get a figure as low.
Coming back to the rent business, in a Written Answer given in another place on 6th March we learn that the local authorities which see the rate fund contribution guidelines at risk because of the rents include Tweeddale, Inverness, Lochaber, Nairn, Skye, Lochalsh, Argyll, Bute, Bearsden and Milngavie. They are not exactly centres of red revolution; not one of them has a labour council. Then, Inverclyde, as well as the traditional urban areas. What we see as a result of the manipulation of the formula is this. I know the Government will say that this formula is designed to get the people out of the distribution of housing grants, and that those who are making a profit on their housing should not be included in the calculations or in the distribution of housing grants. But what I am trying to draw attention to is the fact that the Government themselves can determine the extent to which local authorities are in profit in their housing revenue account. It extends to determining how quickly local authorities will be in a position, notionally, of having made a profit out of housing.
This is a very serious matter indeed for many local authorities in respect of being able to impose on the people concerned rents which are far too high. In Scotland about one quarter of all occupants of local authority houses are in receipt of rate and rent rebates—250,000 of them. I believe it was the Conservative Member of Parliament for Perth and Perthshire, Mr. Walker, who estimated that 50 per cent. of the tenants of local authority houses in the city of Perth, which has had the benefit of Conservative Government for a long time, have to obtain rent rebates, and that 25 per cent. receive a total rent rebate. This is a measure either of poverty or of the fact that the rents are far too high.
It has been calculated that meeting the increased demand for rent rebates resulting from increases in rent to the extent that is wanted by the Government would cost the Government—the English Government probably, because they pay more than a considerable proportion of the money used for rent rebates—some £19 million. This is how Government expenditure arises the more the Government wish this kind of tyrannical measure upon local authorities and compel them to do these things. There is no sense in it. There is fairness in what I suggest.
In these important calculations, where the Government estimate what can reasonably be expected to be credited to the local authority's housing revenue account, the rent element should increase year by year in accordance with the rate of inflation which the Government themselves write into their rate support grant. Next year that figure will be 11 per cent. It would make a very big difference to the position of people who are occupying local authority houses. Rents have been going up in Scotland and they are very high indeed, and there would be a further penalty on these tenants if the local authority cannot go very far because the Government are now reducing the capital made available for housing.
Even at 31 per cent. Glasgow would need to add another 20 per cent. to rates before reaching the taper area and recovering some of the housing capital allowance which will be cut off from the local authority there. Only if the rents were increased by more than 50 per cent. would some of the £10 million or £11 million which the local authority stands to lose be regained.
It is quite monstrous to suggest that in such an area as Glasgow, with all its problems, the Government and Ministers, who pay lip-service to housing, are out to help local authorities, when they are in fact impeding them in this way. It is simple justice that I want. It is not a question of freezing rents; it is a matter of allowing rent increases but limiting those increases to the inflation rate to which the Government themselves limit local authorities under the rate support grant. I beg to move the amendment.
8.5 p.m.
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, this amendment has the objective of requiring the Secretary of State to estimate the relevant income simply by increasing the income amount estimated by him for the previous year by an amount reflected only by the rate of inflation, and not necessarily having regard to the community's
1180
capacity for making local contributions—which has arisen, for example, from the movement in household earnings. The method of estimating income proposed in the amendment could not be held to be appropriate to the calculation of housing support grant. It is quite clear that Section 1 of the 1978 Act in its existing form, and in the amended form proposed by the Bill, requires the Secretary of State to form a separate judgment for each grant year about income and expenditure which takes full account of all the circumstances known at the time that the judgment is made. The amendment would radically alter the basis of the Secretary of State's responsibility in estimating aggregate income.
It is relevant that in Chapter 6 of the Green Paper of June 1977—the Scottish Housing consultative document, which was published by the previous Administration and propounded a system of housing support grant—paragraphs 13 and 15 set out the principles governing the estimation of relevant income, thus:
"Account will be taken of increased capacity for making local contributions which arise, for example, from the movement in household incomes. The Government consider that local contributions to these costs should keep broadly in line over a period of years, to rises in earnings generally".
Here, "costs" refer to the cost of the provision and maintenance of houses. It is clear that the Green Paper intended that in making assumptions about the level of income the Secretary of State should at any time have regard to what seemed reasonable then, and that no fixed relationship between rents from one year to another or between rents and specific indicators should be assumed. I believe that this flexibility should be retained.
The noble Lord's amendment presents a further difficulty in that it would disturb the calculation of housing support grant without necessarily affecting its amount. The duty of the Secretary of State is to estimate the aggregate amount of income which local authorities could be reasonably expected to receive. As many ratepayers know to their cost, low council house rents mean increased rate fund contributions, and if the estimate of the rental element of aggregate income were depressed, as the amendment might require, it would be reasonable in the light of experience to increase the estimate of rate fund contributions and so to produce the same aggregate as before. In May 1980 council house rents amounted on average to very little more than 50 per cent. of earnings. In my submission it is not reasonable to expect ratepayers and taxpayers to subsidise housing costs to more than 50 per cent. as they did in that year, and it is on this basis that I am unable to accept the amendment.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, I am glad that the Minister did not deny the figures which form the basis of my amendment. He suggested that we should keep in measure with increases in earnings. The Government lay down a rent figure to local authorities. In rate support grant calculations the Government are not going to support any increase of wages or salaries that go beyond 6 per cent. As I have pointed out, rates are bound to go up on that basis, because of the increase that has been allowed in respect of teachers, firemen, local authority workers and others in negotiations in which the main voice has been the voice of the Govern-

1181
ment. Why not accept 6 per cent? I have allowed 11 per cent. for inflation. The Government want to add on another 6 per cent., although within that inflation rate is an element for wages and something else as well. But it is unfair to tie down the local authorities in respect of the support they are going to get in respect of inflation and at the same time tell council tenants that they will have to pay a 40 per cent. increase—which many of them cannot pay. Who pays it?—the ratepayer and the taxpayer. The cost in Scotland has been estimated at £19 million—a strange way of saving money when you have to spend more.
From that point of view, I do not think that there is any justification in this whatsoever. Even that figure of £19 million is not the end of the matter. The other day Linwood closed its doors and that meant another 4,000 people unemployed. I hear today of another firm, the biggest firm in Cumbernauld—and there is an unhealthy balance about the size of the firms in that particular new town—which has already paid off more than 400 people and which yesterday announced that another 300 would be put off. It may be that the local authority will not be worried about that; it may be the new town authority who are worried about the ability to pay rent.
The Minister gives the impression that rents in Scotland have been standing still over the years. This is not true. It is a myth. The rents of local authority houses in Scotland are very much more reasonable than they have been for a long time. I used to get a lot of stick because I was not in favour of keeping rents down in Scotland but all for people paying a reasonable rent. But when it becomes unreasonable it is a different matter; and so many people are seeking rent rebates that it is obviously an indication of how unreasonable rents are. Because of the Government calculation, we are going to have this fictitious position that local authorities will be construed as being in a position of making a notional profit and of getting no housing grant—despite housing built from the time of the 1918 to 1920 Act, the Addison Act, the 1924 Wheatley Act and the 1931 Slum Clearance Act to the Sir Godfrey Collins Act in 1935 when he was going to clear the slums of Scotland in five years. Fifty years later there were more slums than at that time. This is the path of failure properly to deal with Scotland's housing problem.
There is still a housing problem in Scotland. The incidence of this carried through into a later clause will mean that there are areas of Scotland where houses were built in the 1920s and have been paid off. The loans were for 40 years. They now need modernisation. Some of these are pre-war houses and they have been denied modernisation because the Government have slipped back on a promise of continued support for Scotland and its housing problem. What I put forward was a reasonable suggestion and one which I must pursue into the Division lobby.
8.14 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 14) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 27; Not-Contents, 57.

CONTENTS

Bishopston, L.

Maelor, L.

Brockway, L.

Noel-Baker, L.

Collison, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

David, B. [Teller.]

Davids of Leek, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Glenamara, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Hooson, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Hughes, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Jeger, B.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Thurso, V.

Kilmarnock, L.

Underhill, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Lee of Newton, L.

Wigoder, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Winstanley, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ampthill, L.

Kemsley, V.

Avon, E.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Bellwin, L.

Long, V.

Belstead, L.

Loudoun, C.

Boardman, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Lyell, L.

Caithness, E.

McFadzean, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Cockfield, L.

Mansfield, E.

Colville of Culross, V.

Margadale, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Mottistone, L.

Crathorne, L.

Northchurch, B.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Orkney, E.

De Freyne, L.

Rochdale, V.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Sandys, L. [Teller.]

Drumalbyn, L.

Selkirk, E.

Dundee, E.

Sharples, B.

Elgin and Kincardine, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Faithfull, B.

Stamp, L.

Ferrers, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Gainford, L.

Sudeley, L.

Gisborough, L.

Swinfen, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Swinton, E.

Greenway, L.

Trenchard, V.

Gridley, L.

Trumpington, B.

Grimthorpe, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Henley, L.

Vickers, B.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Vivian, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
8.22 p.m.
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 15:
Before Clause 24, insert the following new clause:
("Abolition of fees for planning applications in Scotland
. In section 87 of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 the following amendments shall be made—

(a) in subsection (1) the words "or a planning authority in Scotland" shall be deleted;

(b) subsection (2) shall be deleted;

(c) subsection (8) shall be deleted.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this takes us back nine months or so when in an English Act of Parliament, for reasons best known to themselves, the Government decided to include Scotland and apply fees for those who were seeking outline planning permission, be it for a house, a group of houses or a new factory—development of any kind like that. The local authorities were told that they had to charge fees. In an order that was produced the scale of fees was laid down. For the ordinary purpose, depending on the size of the house, outline planning permission could cost about £160 or so; and, indeed, for the actual planning permission, if it was straightforward, it is about £40.

1183
The scale goes up to £1,000 or indeed £2,000. I am sorry I do not have the fees. I had them in my papers earlier but I passed over the requisite order to the Minister of State. But he can take my word for it.
There are also planning appeals, and of course all these are burdens on planning, and planning is an invention of this House to serve the community and to seek to get reasonable proposals in relation to development. It is not something that pleases the developer very much; and to put a charge on the developer, especially in Scotland where they are shouting out for people to build houses, factories and so on, it seems a silly way for a Government that make constant pledges that they are seeking this and that all for the good of Scotland.
I believe that the estimate is that this new planning procedure will bring into Scotland about £2 million. Creating all this fuss and bother for that! It is not something that local authorities wanted; it is not something anybody in Scotland wanted. The English and Welsh may wish to luxuriate in planning fees. I remember that we on this side of the House voted for the whole lot to be wiped out. It was put in in an English Bill, so let us take it out of a Scottish Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, the amendment which has been moved by the noble Lord—as he will know, and as no doubt the House will have observed—seeks to delete from the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 the enabling power to allow charges to be made for planning applications in Scotland. The system of fees for planning applications is based on the principle that local authority expenditure should in appropriate cases be offset by the charging of reasonable fees for local authority services. The Government consider it appropriate that the cost to local authorities of development control should be offset in this way, so that the burden is shared between the developer and the community.
The scale of fees which has now been embodied in the Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications and Deemed Applications) (Scotland) Regulations 1981 was formulated after full consultation with interested bodies. It is designed to be as simple as possible and to be constructed in such a way that no charge should be set at a level which would deter development. We are carefully monitoring the working of the system of fees for planning applications. Of course, we recognise that the application of this new principle to the development control system may in some cases have unforeseen effects. We therefore intend to consider, once the scheme has been working for a year or so, what improvements might be made. In the meantime, however, it would be inappropriate to seek to reverse in Scotland the principle of charging, which was accepted after full debate both in your Lordships' House and in another place, or to seek to nullify the effect of the detailed scheme of charges which was similarly approved as recently as March this year.
The noble Lord, Lord Ross, mentioned charges. I am advised—and no doubt he will confirm that we are right in this particular instance—that no charges are levied for planning appeals. That said, I regret
1184
to say that we cannot recommend this amendment.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, that is what I expected. I can assure the noble Lord that it will infuriate a certain person in a certain part of Scotland not unknown to his noble friend who is sitting beside him. I put the amendment down only because this particular person had never heard of it—and what idiots they call the people who wished this upon Scotland! I am not going to mention any names at all. I am going to send this person a copy of Hansard and let him know exactly who wished this upon Scotland and who has not had second thoughts about it. When we reiterate in Scotland that this is how development is aided and assisted by a Tory Government in the interests of freedom and all the rest of it, no one will have any doubt at all about who is to blame.
When the noble Lord said this was fully debated in this House and in another place and they have the records of majorities, he failed to mention that his Government have no majority in Scotland. As far as this House is concerned, it has no status at all in Scotland because it is non-elected; and anybody who can swallow that can swallow anything.
The fact is that I sought to give the Government a chance to redeem themselves in the eyes of many of the people who support them and could not believe that a Tory Government, with such distinguished people as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate, the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, and the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, there watching their interests, would allow this to be done. It was not something which slipped through. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate took a great part in that Bill, as he will remember; so he need not smile away his misfortunes and sorrows at being associated with such characters as sit beside him. So I think I have achieved my object in having that reaffirmation of the Government's determination to visit ill on the people and the development of Scotland, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.32 p.m.
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 16:
After Clause 24, insert the following new clause:
("Public Processions
.—(1) Any person intending to organise or conduct a public procession shall give notice thereof, of the route proposed to be taken, and of the date and time on and at which it is intended that such procession will take place, to the regional or islands council in whose area the procession is to be held, or if it is to be held in the areas of more than one such council, to each such council at their main offices, not less than seven days before the day proposed for such procession.
(2) Any person organising or conducting any public procession—

(a) without notice having been given in pursuance of the preceding subsection; or

(b) otherwise than in accordance with such notice (except where the proposals contained in such notice have been varied by an order under paragraph (a)(ii) of the succeeding subsection);

shall be guilty of an offence.
(3) (a) The said regional or islands council may make—

(i) an order prohibiting any public procession; or

(ii) such order as they consider necessary in the interests of public safety and order on the occasion of any public procession, and any such order may prescribe the route

1185
to be observed by any such procession and the date and time of the procession.

(b) Any person acting in contravention of an order made by a regional or islands council under this subsection shall be guilty of an offence.
(4) This section shall not apply in relation to a public or ceremonial procession regularly held.
(5) Any person who commits an offence under this section of the Act shall be liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or to a fine not exceeding £500 or to both such imprisonment and fine.
(6) Nothing in this section shall be in derogation of the Public Order Act 1936.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is very important new clause and one that will not cost the Government a penny. It is one that will meet a very considerable and important need, particularly in Strathclyde. The power I am seeking is a power that is already possessed by Edinburgh and the Lothians area. It is a power possessed by practically all of what were the burghs in Scotland and which have been continued under the Burgh Police Acts.
The position in Strathclyde—and the main part of it which is concerned is Glasgow—is that if there is a procession that the police consider might lead to public disorder, they cannot ban that procession. They have to ban all processions, except those that can be construed as exceptions under the Public Order Act 1936. The difficulties in Strathclyde started about two years ago when the Troops out of Ireland movement held a march in April and it was opposed, as naturally it would be, by a different faction. There were 19 arrests and there were calls on the police. The trouble is that one procession of that kind leads to another. In 1980 the National Front appeared in Scotland. They proposed a march on the 15th March in Glasgow; and the Anti-Nazi League, the Socialist Workers Party and many others made public the fact that they would disrupt the procession. The Regional Council, with the consent of the Secretary of State, made an order under Section 3(2) of the Public Order Act, banning in Strathclyde Region all public processions. Of course, that Act did not really apply to religious, educational, festive, ceremonial or similar processions in the region, but they had to ban all processions in order to stop one.
Then we had the same thing again, in June. The recent troubles in Ireland led to another procession. There was violence and opposition of an unacceptable level, and indeed 152 arrests were made. After that there was a ban for three months on all processions. Whatever form of words is used in an order under the Public Order Act, some processions which in no way threaten public order are inevitably prohibited and, in the case of the present order which expires on 2nd July next, the Regional Council are now endeavouring to secure the consent of the Secretary of State to alterations in its terms, with a view to allowing certain processions, such as gala days, anti-nuclear processions, or processions dealing with unemployment to go ahead.
The Lord Advocate may perhaps be concerned in these kind of problems, but the point is that such problems would not arise in Edinburgh, in Dundee or Aberdeen. It is because Glasgow and Strathclyde are not covered either by the previous legislation of a fairly local character or covered by the Burgh Police Acts that they are in this position. I think that any reasonable person would agree that the council and the
1186
police have to act at some time in relation to particular processions, and that is all that this power I am seeking here gives them instead of having to ban all processions to deal with one that is going to cause public disorder.
It is sad that we have to resort to this action at all in this day and age after the centuries of tolerance that we have had. I have always been worried that certain troubles would spread into Scotland. They have not; and it says a lot for the communities, particularly in Glasgow and the West of Scotland, that we have had so little trouble. It is greatly to our credit and to the maturity of the people there and of everyone concerned therewith. But there comes a time when it may well be necessary to stop one procession. Why should everybody else have to be similarly troubled about this? I am just looking at the date: 2nd July—that is a relief. I think it is on the 20th July that I have to open a gala day at Darvel, and my wife has to crown a queen. But it might well have been that that could have been stopped, as another procession. The police have shut their eyes in many cases to processions which they know will not cause trouble. But when we consider all that is involved in a small community when they suddenly discover that, because one particular procession had to be banned, all processions are banned and a function of theirs is thus completely disrupted, I think we will appreciate it is time we gave consideration to Strathclyde.
The Government will say: "Wait, we have in our minds a great new Civic Amenities Act". They have had that in their minds since the reconstruction of local authorities in Scotland, in an Act of 1973, eight years ago. When is it coming? At the earliest they would have their powers, I think, at the beginning of 1983. I repeat, that is at the earliest. When I was Secretary of State they were working on these Bills. This is not a great new reforming character: this is gathering together all the by-laws and local public order Acts and making sense of them in terms of the new structure of local government.
We have had to continue these powers from year to year, and if this House of Lords thinks that this Bill has taken a long time, I can assure them that the place will be packed when we deal with all the various Bills about washing-houses and hanging out things in streets in Edinburgh and other such strange things: we will have a field day. We shall have a field week of it. The noble and learned Lord does not know what is coming his way in respect of this. In my day, there were going to be two Bills, but now it is to be one mammoth Bill. So they do bits and pieces here and there and, in the meantime, everything is held up. Would it not be sensible to deal with this problem and get it out of the way? It is an urgent problem. It is urgent from the point of view of Strathclyde. It would be sensible to do it and it would not cost the Government anything.
I have in front of me the Edinburgh Corporation.Order Confirmation Act 1967 and the new clause follows that, virtually word for word. Strathclyde is not asking for any power that is not already there for Edinburgh; and, of course, it is now applicable to the area itself. In the interests of justice, of public order and of common sense, I urge this new clause upon the Government. If they are worried about the fact that this would mean that the Bill would go to another

1187
place, which is something that they do not want, I would point out that it is going there anyway. It will meet no opposition there. Here is a chance for the Minister of State to stamp his authority upon Scottish legislation and say "Yes, this is sensible. This will be done later on, anyway. Why not do it now when it is needed?" My Lords, I beg to move.
8.42 p.m.
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, this amendment has very considerable implications. I must do justice to the amendment and to the manner in which the noble Lord has moved it. I say that not by way of a threat, but more as a promise that I shall have to take a little time. In moving the inclusion of this new clause, the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, has raised a matter that, as he said, has, unhappily, been assuming considerable importance and occasioning much concern in certain areas of Scotland in recent months. The problem of controlling public processions in the interests of preserving public order is not an issue that has greatly exercised Scottish local authorities in the past, for until comparatively recently we have been spared the disturbances, the controversy and the violence that have from time to time accompanied processions of one kind or another in various parts of England; mainly, but not exclusively, in London. That happy position has shown signs of changing and of late we have seen several marches, or proposed marches, in Glasgow and elsewhere which have posed a real threat to the maintenance of public order. This is, therefore, a matter of considerable concern to Government and local authorities alike, and it is obviously something which will have to be corrected in due course.
At this somewhat late stage of the Bill's passage, I do not propose to range widely over the philosophy of public demonstrations. There is much that could be said: whether there is, or should be, an absolute right to process, or parade or demonstrate in public; whether this right should give way to the general right not to be impeded or incommoded by those who wish to process; whether there should be a right to limit or ban what is commonly seen as a basic freedom in a democratic society and on what grounds and by whom such a ban should be exercised. These are large and complex questions, and the answers are not at all clear, nor is there general agreement on most of them. I mention them simply to indicate that the subject of the new clause is highly controversial. I come to my first main point. I question whether it is right that, on a matter of such public controversy, a general power of the kind contained in the clause should be conferred on local authorities in Scotland at almost the final stage of this Bill, and without, as far as I know, any specific consultation with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities.
The noble Lord made the point that there are local powers available and I acknowledge that. There are powers available to Scottish local authorities to regulate and control public processions. But those powers are uneven. The position is complex and it varies from place to place. But that unsatisfactory state of affairs is well recognised and the Government are taking steps to rationalise the position, which is what I think
1188
the noble Lord would like to see happen.
Whatever happened when he was Secretary of State for Scotland, we outlined proposals last year to create a new code of civic government in Scotland to replace existing Scottish local legislation, including existing provisions relating to the regulation of public processions. A draft Bill was published last July for discussion, and in that Bill the Secretary of State set out provisions giving regional and island councils powers broadly of the kind proposed in the noble Lord's amendment, but containing a good deal more detail on procedure and on such matters as rights of appeal. These proposals, unlike those which the noble Lord, Lord Ross, is now putting forward, were the subject of full discussion with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and other interested bodies in Scotland, and the intention is that they should replace, and not overlap or duplicate, existing provisions.
Then we come to the Public Order Act 1936 which stands, as it were, behind the local powers. These are already available to regional councils throughout Scotland. Unlike the local Acts, which are unspecific about the reasons on which the prohibiting powers may be exercised, the powers in the 1936 Act can be invoked only where serious public disorder is feared. Action under the 1936 Act is triggered off by the professional judgment of the chief constable as to whether any procession or class of procession is likely to occasion serious public disorder, and not by any regard to the nature of the views which the procession is to promote.
These public order provisions are, as I have already indicated, presently available to regional councils and we think it would not be helpful in an already complex situation if, at this stage, there were to be added to them throughout the country, and to the existing local powers, a further layer of powers as proposed in the noble Lord's amendment. If I have any quarrel with him on what he said factually, an order made under the Public Order 1936 Act can be revoked, and has been this year; and although the idea is abroad that the 1936 Act cannot be used selectively, in fact it can, although I acknowledge that it is a very cumbersome piece of legislation.
Last year the Government—I am not talking only about the Scottish Office—put in hand a comprehensive review of the Public Order 1936 Act and related legislation, and the many complexities and problems inherent in this difficult area of legislation were documented in a Green Paper which was issued for discussion in April 1980. There has been a good response to that paper. We are currently considering the many and varied views expressed on it. So it would, I suggest, be singularly unfortunate if, at an advanced stage of this general and controversial matter, your Lordships' House were to step in and pre-empt consideration by conferring these additional powers throughout Scotland, and throughout Scotland alone.
I have spoken mainly so far in terms of Scotland, because the proposed new clause extends to all regional and island councils. But the noble Lord, Lord Ross, made it entirely clear that his real purpose is to provide within the Strathclyde region, and more particularly within Glasgow, powers akin to those available to the local authority in Edinburgh and also elsewhere. In the Government's view, however, to confer these

1189
powers at this stage as proposed is unnecessary, likely to lead to confusion and premature. I say "unnecessary" because, although it is intended to deal with the occasional serious public disorder, powers to do so are already available under the Public Order Act and, as has been demonstrated in Glasgow last year, and very recently, they work perfectly adequately.
I say confusing because, if it were enacted, the power given to regional councils to ban processions would operate alongside those existing powers which are available to local authorities in Scotland. It would be premature because the Government are presently reviewing in depth this complex matter and intend in the Civic Government (Scotland) Bill which is scheduled for introduction later this year to include appropriate provisions relating to public processions which will reflect not only the discussions already held with interested Scottish bodies but also the conclusions of the general review.
As I said earlier, I have sought to avoid dealing with general aspects of this very complex matter. I have confined myself to arguments relating to the proposed clause. I suggest to your Lordships that on an issue such as this which is surrounded by a great deal of controversy it would be unwise to enact this clause giving to local authorities powers which they do not need, which might well lead to confusion and which would pre-empt the outcome of the review in progress. For all these reasons and although I entirely accept the motivation of the noble Lord in moving his amendment, I suggest that this is not the right moment to write it into the law. I very much hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will be content to withdraw it.
Viscount Thurso: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, could he confirm that the Civic Government (Scotland) Bill is the one which was shown in draft to the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities?
The Earl of Mansfield: Yes, my Lords.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, I have raised this matter even though the Government have it in mind to do something about it. They realise that there is a problem. The hope was that a draft Bill would be introduced this session. Local authorities are now led to believe that it will be introduced next session. If that Bill were introduced next session, power will be in the hands of local authorities to ban particular processions, upon certain conditions, at the earliest by the year 1983. Nobody will stand up in this House and say that the kind of trouble we have had in the past in Scotland will not occur during the remainder of 1981 and throughout 1982. The Minister says that this clause is unnecessary, yet at the same time he says that it is desirable. He says that it is unnecessary because the Public Order Act can be used. But that Act can be used only if, in seeking to ban one particular procession, all processions for a period are banned. There is certainly the question of exemptions or exceptions, but as the Government have themselves admitted, this is a very difficult area in relation to words which may allow one type of procession to escape a seemingly total ban.
The Minister says that there will be confusion because
1190
local authorities already have powers. With due respect, there is already confusion because the Public Order Act 1936 applies to all local authorities, while local authorities in Scotland, as a result of powers given under the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act 1892, have other powers. The powers which I seek to give, which will be only temporary powers because they will be overtaken by the Civic Government (Scotland) Bill, are already in existence. They exist already in the case of Edinburgh and in the case of the other burghs. To suggest that all this trouble relates only to Glasgow and Strathclyde is a bit of a nonsense.
Some people will not like this amendment because it is controversial. Whenever a restriction upon freedom is imposed somebody will not like it. However, when such freedom is used to disturb order and to create not just controversy but strife, the Government are justified in doing what I suggest should be done, if only it be to cover the period 1981 and 1982. I have known Governments plan Bills, sit down in committees and work out priorities: which Bill should come first and which should come next. It is amazing how one year becomes two years, how two years become three, and how three years become virtually a lifetime. I remember that almost sacred on the shelves of St. Andrew's House there was a Slaughterhouses Bill which remained there for years and years. I do not understand why the Government cannot accept the amendment. It is so reasonable that even I, who seldom put forward anything which is unreasonable, must insist upon going ahead with it and pressing it to a Division.
8.56 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 16) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 19; Not-Contents, 69.

CONTENTS

Bishopston, L.

Maelor, L.

Collison, L.

Noel-Baker, L.

David, B. [Teller.]

Peart, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Glenamara, L.

Hughes, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Jeger, B.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

John-Mackie, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Underhill, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Wells-Pestell, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Airedale, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Dundee, E.

Ampthill, L.

Elgin and Kincardine, E.

Avon, E.

Faithfull, B.

Bellwin, L.

Ferrers, E.

Belstead, L.

Gainford, L.

Boardman, L.

Gisborough, L.

Bradford, E.

Glenarthur, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Greenway, L.

Caithness, E.

Gridley, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Grimthorpe, L.

Cockfield, L.

Hampton, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Henley, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Crathorne, L.

Hooson, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Kemsley, V.

de Clifford, L.

Long, V.

De La Warr, E.

Loudoun, C.

1191

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Sharples, B.

Lyell, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

McFadzean, L.

Stamp, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Sudeley, L.

Mansfield, E.

Swinton, E.

Margadale, L.

Thurso, V.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Tordoff, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Trenchard, V.

Mottistone, L.

Trumpington, B.

Northchurch, B.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Orkney, E.

Vickers, B.

Rochdale, V.

Vivian, L.

Sandford, L.

Wigoder, L.

Sandys, L. [Teller.]

Winstanley, L.

Selkirk, E.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Clause 26 [Consent to local authority incurring liability to meet capital expenses etc.]:
9.4 p.m.
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 12, line 24, after ("relates") insert ("and the Secretary of State shall accept liability for any frustrated expenditure incurred by the local authority concerned and claim for compensation that may arise from the action of the Secretary of State in operating the powers in this section.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Clause 26 deals with the consent to local authority incurring liability to meet capital expenses. The Government have certainly covered all doors, windows and bolt holes to ensure that the local authorities are completely imprisoned within the confines of this financial straitjacket (I am mixing my metaphors slightly and I hope I may be forgiven) and they are determined to ensure that the local authorities toe the line. In fact, they are taking the power to withdraw the terms of the consent that has already been given for capital expenditure, and I am sure that if some particular contract has got to a certain point the local authority will have incurred considerable liabilities. That may be to architects or to others or it may even be compensation.
If they are in that position as a result of a decision by the Secretary of State I think it is only right that the Secretary of State should accept liability for such frustrated expenditure and repay that to the local authority. Of course, we have had experience of this in Scotland before. If I should stray into the paths of football, I know it is a very touchy subject for the English because their behaviour is so disgraceful as compared with the Scots when we came to Wembley; having almost denied us the right even to be there, we not only got there but we won and we behaved ourselves. Not for the first time we have shown that the poor opinion that some people have of us is quite wrong.
Still on the theme of football, in Glasgow we have a unique stadium, the focus of all opinion and all the events in relation to football, and that is Hampden Park. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, will know it well, and he will also know the saga of Hampden Park, but it does not belong to the Scottish Football Association or to the Football League. It belongs to an amateur football club—Queen's Park—which I am glad to say has got out of the third division and earned promotion this year into the second division
1192
—indeed, I should say the first division; it is confusing because the top division in Scotland is called the premier division. Here all cup finals, all internationals, all World Cup games, and even the final of the European Cup have taken place in Hampden Park.
There was a great scheme involving the local authorities, the Government, the clubs, everybody: the go-ahead was given, plans were drawn up; work was virtually started when an edict went forth from No. 10 Downing Street to the effect that Government support should be withdrawn. The question was who was going to pay for the frustrated expenditure. On the belief that one can trust a Tory Government those concerned had started on this scheme and incurred a very considerable amount of expenditure. I am glad to say that eventually the Government saw reason and met the frustrated expenditure, up to a point anyway.
If it is right at that particular point, where contracts had been entered into and work had been done, for compensation to be paid, then it is right that the Government should pay compensation to the local authorities in respect of the expenditures we are considering. Those who say the Government should have the power to intervene in this way, at this time, should face up to the obligation of their support for the Government and support this new clause. I beg to move.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, we are all fascinated to hear from the honourary President of the Scottish Football Association about the doings of Queen's Park, but I hope the fanatics of the game will not care to read the noble Lord's remarks about third and second division. That would go down well North of the Border! Perhaps they might care to read his remarks just as they read those of us on this side of the House, but I think not. The noble Lord's remarks are on the record and we shall look forward to examining them tomorrow with great care.
All of us will sympathise, and especially the noble Lord, Lord Ross, with the concern that a local authority might be led, by the existence of a consent, into incurring some form of liability but then be left with nugatory expenditure when that consent is withdrawn. But I would hope to show that the noble Lord's anxiety is unfounded. I would take it that this is what the noble Lord intends by his phrase "frustrated expenditure"; indeed, I think this follows from the gist of the remarks that he had to make about Hampden Park.
It is as well that the House should consider how expenditure like this could arise. It could not arise simply because the local authority had entered into a binding contract arising from an existing consent, since, as the noble Lord and the House will see, subsection 1B) states expressly that a consent may only be varied or withdrawn where or in so far as a local authority has not incurred by binding contract the liability to which the consent relates. This qualification would seem to rule out the possibility of any claim for compensation being lodged by a contractor against a local authority in consequence of the Secretary of State's action. This is one of the circumstances to which the noble Lord's amendment is addressed.
But of course we do recognise that, quite apart from circumstances where legal obligations are

1193
involved, authorities frequently plan a series of projects where each will depend on another, and indeed good value for initial expenditure may not be obtained until the later stage is completed. To take one example, a playing field might be constructed as part of an environmental rehabilitation scheme but the pavilion or other facilities would certainly be needed before the playing field could be utilised adequately and to the maximum. Such cases as this, and indeed far more complicated cases, are common and are often the subject of particular attention in the financial plans of local authorities. Naturally, in setting allocations, the Scottish Office attempts to provide what are and seem to be sensible solutions within the resources available. But, of course, this kind of case has nothing to do with Clause 26—it is a matter for the normal annual process of setting allocations.
I hope that the House will bear with me if we examine the exact purpose of this particular part of Clause 26. The purpose of the new provision being inserted in Section 94 of the 1973 Act is to enable the Secretary of State to be more flexible in the management of the financial planning system. As part of this an explicit power to withdraw consent is necessary and, indeed, might be used in a variety of circumstances. Often this may be a routine matter where, because of some element of slippage, particular authorities may be unable to use the amounts for which they have consent, or where individual authorities may wish to transfer resources between their various service programmes. In such cases withdrawal of consent and the transfer of resources to another authority or to another programme would improve the management of these finite resources.
The power to withdraw consent is also, of course, necessary to enable the Secretary of State to take whatever action is required to safeguard the cash limit, should there be evidence during the year that expenditure is going faster than had been expected or, indeed, budgeted for. In such circumstances the Secretary of State might wish to restrict new commitments by withdrawing all or part of the amounts of consent which are unused. In those circumstances it cannot be emphasised too strongly that the proviso which is contained in the new paragraph would prevent the Secretary of State from taking any action which would render unlawful expenditure which had been incurred by an authority in good faith under its original consent. I assure your Lordships that the new power will be used as intelligently and responsibly as the existing powers, and in the light of that assurance I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Ross, not to pursue his amendment further.
Lord Hughes: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, pointed out that the clause as it stands excludes the situation where a binding contract, for instance, to put up a building, has been entered into. That will not be affected. The consent cannot be withdrawn in those circumstances. However, my noble friend's amendment refers to expenditure which a local authority may have entered into in good faith as a result of a consent given. I am thinking in the building context which is familiar to me. They may, in fact, have entered into a commitment with an architect. As we
1194
know, the Government have encouraged the employment of outside architects as a way of cutting down on the permanent staff that may be employed by a local authority. That is nothing new. They have been encouraging that for quite a long time.
If, in fact, an arrangement has been made with an architect and then the project has to be abandoned because the consent is withdrawn, would the authority be left to carry the burden of the payments which would have to be made to the architect? There are provisions in architectural commitments, as I think the noble Lord well knows, for standard payments to be made where there is a frustrated commitment. One does not just say to the architect, "Thank you very much. Goodbye". He has to be paid certain sums or certain percentages, depending which stage the job has reached. In those circumstances, would the local authority be left to carry the burden of the job which they were being prevented from carrying through to completion, or would there, without the type of amendment which my noble friend has suggested, be provision for the local authority having this taken into account either in grant or in direct compensation?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I had the feeling that the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, was attempting to lead me—indeed, he may well be leading me—down a slippery slope towards a major trap as far as the particular activities of architects are concerned.
Lord Hughes: My Lords, I would not think of it.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I take the noble Lord's word. However, I am sure that the noble Lord will see all the way through the particular paragraph that the local authority may vary consent. I think that the main reply to his query is contained in the words:
"incurred the liability to which the consent relates".
The word "liability" in line 23 would cover all forms of expense which would be appertaining to that particular class of expenditure by the local authority. There might well be other professional fees or other (shall we say?) intangible expenses which would be classified under this lump sum of expenditure, which would be covered by the remarks that I made earlier and, indeed, which are covered by the paragraph. That is as I understand the position. However, if I am wrong, perhaps I may communicate with the noble Lord in writing. As I understand it, the position is that liability covers all the points that he raised, especially in relation to architects.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, I hope that the Government are absolutely sure that these words are right and that they themselves are covered. I am more worried about the local authorities and the liabilities into which they enter. It may be preparatory that, having obtained the consent, a certain amount of expenditure is involved before they enter into the contract. I am perfectly sure that every local authority will look at these words very carefully in relation to what the Minister has said.
However, he will appreciate that to withdraw after a consent has been given or to vary the conditions after that has been decided is a very serious matter

1195
indeed. I hope that the Government will not use this power of withdrawal and variation lightly. The noble Lord will know what it has cost in relation to Hampden Park. I know that the Government do not like what they have done in relation to Scottish football to be mentioned or the odium that they have brought upon themselves by that decision. More or less within a week of having given written confirmation of what the Government proposed to do there, they came along and withdrew it. Of course, they discovered that because of what they did, expenditure was frustrated. The same kind of situation could arise with local authorities. Their lawyers will certainly look at this clause with some concern. However, I have no desire to delay the House, important though the matter that we are discussing is in relation to Scottish local government, the burdens that it has to bear and the perplexities and worries that it has as a result of this. Therefore, I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 32 [Abolition of advisory committee on conservation and provision of water supplies etc.]:
[Amendment No. 18 not moved.]
9.23 p.m.
Viscount Thurso Viscount Thurso moved Amendment No. 19:
After Clause 34, insert the following new clause:
(" Water escapes
. In the Water (Scotland) Act 1980, after section 10 (which provides for payment of compensation for damage resulting from exercise of powers) there shall be inserted the following section—
"Civil liability of water authorities and water development boards in Scotland for escapes of water.
10(A).—(1) Where an escape of water, however caused, from a communication pipe or main of water authorities or water development boards causes loss or damage the water authorities or water development boards shall be liable, except as otherwise provided in this section, for the loss or damage.
(2) Water authorities or water development boards shall not incur any liability under subsection (1) above if the escape was due wholly to the fault of the person who suffered the loss or damage or of any servant agent or contractor of his.
(3) The Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945 shall apply in relation to any loss or damage for which water authorities or water development boards are liable under this section but which is not due to their fault, as if if were due to their fault.
(4) In this section—

(a) "communication pipe" and "main" have the meanings assigned to them by section 109(1) of the Water (Scotland) Act 1980;

(b) "damage" includes the death of or injury to any person (including any disease and any impairment of physical or mental condition);

(c) "fault" has the same meaning as in the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945;

(d) "water authorities" and "water development boards" have the meanings assigned to them by sections 3 and 82(1)(a) of the Water (Scotland) Act 1980.

(5) This section shall come into force on such day as the Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument appoint"").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, last time I moved this amendment was at the Committee stage
1196
and I apologised then for the late hour at which I brought it before your Lordships' Committee. I am afraid that I have to apologise again for moving this amendment at a late hour in your Lordships' House. However, the last time I apologised for having moved it at rather short notice; this time, I have to make no such apology. This amendment was moved in Committee and I withdrew it then because I felt that the Committee had not had sufficient time to consider it and its implications. Now I move it in the knowledge that your Lordships will have had sufficient time to read it and consider its implications.
The intention here is to clarify the law, which is uncertain in this particular area. This is an area which is extremely important to owners of land, houses or other heritable property. Nowadays water mains are so large that a burst could cause danger to buildings or massive damage to land. Section 10(1) of the Water (Scotland) Act 1980 states:
"… a district council or water authority or water development board shall make full compensation to any person who has sustained damage by reason of the exercise by them of any of their powers under this Act in relation to a matter as to which he has not himself been in default".
You might think that any reasonable person reading this section of the Act would understand that the private person was indemnified against anything going wrong—a water main bursting or damage of any other sort. But unfortunately it appears that this is not so.
This section of course has never been judicially tested, and, although one might assume that if negligence were proved there would be recourse in common law to a claim against the water authority, counsel for the Scottish Landowners' Federation recently gave an opinion that a water authority was only liable during the exercise of its powers—that is, while a pipe is actually being laid or when a water track is actually being opened—and that there would be no liability in the event of a subsequent burst. It is also quite clear that water authorities in Scotland agree with this opinion. They consider themselves to be not liable should their water main burst and wash away your house; should their water main burst and wash away large chunks of your land or damage your heritable property in any other manner.
This was thought to be an inequitable situation in England. It was thought unfair that the private citizen should be exposed to such danger without any liability falling upon the person or authority who owned and operated the main, and in England a suitable amendment has been agreed to by the Government. In this case I am only asking for parity for Scotland. When I brought this up before I was given two answers by the noble Lord, Lord Lyell. He may remember them. He said:
"The question of strict liability was necessary in English law because in England and Wales a test case showed that compensation is payable only in cases of negligence".—[Official Report, 5/5/81; col. 107.]
Now we have a counsel's opinion which says that compensation would only be payable in cases of negligence in Scotland. So we can assume that the situation in Scotland is likely to be the same as that in England. But the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, would wish to have some poor chap have his house washed away, or his garage washed away, or his land washed away, then for him to go to the expense of taking a

1197
case so that he could become a test case, then to lose his test case, his money, his house; and then he would be willing to consider legislation. I think that this is a bit hard, and I think I would be not unreasonable in asking the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, to think again on that answer.
The other answer he gave me was:
"In this case the imposition of strict liability would have a substantial impact on the expenditure of Scottish local authorities."—[Col. 107.]
Well, are we to assume from that that vast water mains are bursting all over Scotland and that damage so caused would cause enormous claims to fall upon local authorities? Not so. What we are trying to do is to ensure that, if a water main bursts and causes very considerable damage to a small person in a small area, this damage is compensated by somebody who can afford to pay.
There are not an enormous number of water mains that burst all over Scotland every year, but if one water main bursts and washes your house away this is a very important matter to you and one which you can probably with difficulty cope with. It is likely that whatever your insurance is there will be some small print that will make out that you are not liable to get full compensation for it. I feel that if this is equity in England it should be equity in Scotland. It is for that reason that I bring this amendment before you.
It is rumoured that the Government may have some intention, after consultation, of bringing forward legislation similar to this amendment. If they will give me the name of the Bill in which they intend to insert such a provision and an assurance that such legisation will be brought forward, I shall be prepared to withdraw the amendment. If, however, they can mention no such Bill and will not give an assurance that such a provision will be introduced, and if they have no intention of giving cover to the ordinary citizen of Scotland against a burst water main, I shall have no option but to press the amendment. I beg to move.
9.31 p.m.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, the amendment, moved eloquently by Lord Thurso, is identical to one he moved at an earlier stage of the Bill. We have therefore discussed it at some length, but I hope he will find my remarks on the subject tonight a little different and that they may satisfy him rather more than he felt was the result of my reply at the earlier stage. The Government's position has never been negative; indeed, we are actively considering how the law in Scotland should be changed, but there are good reasons why action immediately would not be justified, and I shall explain the reasons, albeit briefly.
It is true that as yet there has been no test case in relation to such a disaster, not even in respect of one house, as explained by the noble Viscount, to determine the extent of liability under existing Scottish law. However, we understand, given counsel's opinion about the matter, that it is unlikely that anyone would wish to go to the trouble and expense of such a case. But the Government are certainly not sitting back waiting until a test case appears. On the contrary, we have already opened discussions with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and we intend to take an early decision on the matter. If we decide to legislate,
1198
I undertake that the Government will identify a suitable vehicle next Session. I therefore hope that any worries which may be in the mind of the noble Viscount, or in the minds of any noble Lords, about the need to test existing legislation, can be set aside.
Our consultations with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities must be genuine. It was possible for the Government to act expeditiously for England and Wales, and to accept the spirit of the amendment during the passage of the Water Bill, because English and Welsh water authorities are not local authorities; their practices are often different and they are financed in a different way. Basically, their revenue comes from charges to consumers, as with other statutory undertakers, such as gas and electricity boards.
All in all, a change in the law for England and Wales does not have the same public expenditure implications as a change in our law in Scotland might have. If the existing law in Scotland is causing hardship to farmers in particular—and I would emphasise that this point has not been quantified, although we in the department requested information from the NFU for Scotland and the Scottish Landowners' Federation well over a year ago—there could be serious implications both for public expenditure (albeit small overall, but large for the locality) and for the rates. In this rather thorny field we must make sure that the implications are properly considered before we enact legislation.
The amendment proposed by the noble Viscount is somewhat narrow. Well before the Water Act 1981 was enacted the department was in touch with the convention about the possible need to make similar provisions in our legislation, notably as regards common service pipes for housing, and water for various purposes, such as fire fighting. When the amendment relating to strict liability was introduced it was represented that it, too, ought to be discussed. The Government want to consider all these provisions together and of course to do so as swiftly and as expeditiously as possible.
I am entirely aware that compensation has been the subject of detailed discussions in the past between landowners and both the convention and the department. But the discussions covered a very wide field indeed and were not related to a model for legislation, as is now the case. On the particular problem of compensation for damage to agricultural land, the convention indicated in the discussions that it would not necessarily oppose legislative change. Therefore there should be scope for genuine discussion now and the department intends to proceed on this basis.
I hope that the noble Viscount will be aware—I am sure that your Lordships' House will be interested to know—that consultations are at present in progress with both the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the National Farmers' Union. I have instructed officials urgently to carry out further consultation with the Scottish Landowners' Federation in concert with the National Farmers' Union. Unless some difficulty arises from the consultations, I shall confirm the intention of the Government to introduce legislation on this subject, covered in the noble Viscount's amendment, to make in Scots law changes corresponding to those recently agreed for England and Wales. That is a firm commitment.

1199
I am sorry that I cannot give the exact name of the Bill because, as the noble Viscount will know, at present various ideas regarding legislation are in the pipeline. There are varying engines or machines which will carry the legislation sought by the noble Viscount in his amendment. I am afraid that we cannot be in time to act under the Bill which we are discussing this evening. However, I hope that the explanation, and indeed the commitment, that I have been able to give will be of considerable assistance and will satisfy the noble Viscount and the House.
Lord Hughes: My Lords, I should like to ask the Minister a question. I am not quite certain whether I heard him aright when he first spoke about a vehicle in which such provisions might be included in the next Session. I am not certain whether before that he said, "if the Government decide to legislate". But he might have done so, because when he came to what looked like being a very firm assurance of legislation in the next Session he preceded the assurance with the words "unless some obstacle arises", or words to that effect. What kind of obstacle or difficulty might arise which would stop the Government from proceeding with their declared intention of legislating in the next Session?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I would not want to go any further than to say, unless some difficulty arises from the consultations that are under way at the moment. I do not think that the noble Viscount would want us to select any idea which might arise in our minds and suggest that that should be the main stumbling block to enacting the legislation. We do not think that there will be any major difficulty, but we still have to allow for the possibility of some major difficulty arising in the consultations. However, I think that I have given a very firm commitment that we intend to meet the intention behind the amendment.
Lord Hughes: My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, will allow me, may I complete this point? I think that was helpful, because I believe that in the first instance the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, said "unless some difficulty arises", and in his second answer he said "unless some major difficulty arises". That, I think, puts a slightly different complexion on it.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, on the same point (if I can still be intervening in the noble Lord's speech) I would just ask whether there are any means whereby the noble Lord can confirm that, in relation to the kind of difficulty which he said might arise—he said, "unless some difficulty arises"—the Government themselves will not precipitate one of those difficulties?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, certainly the Government do not do things of this ilk. I am totally lost as to what the noble Lord is seeking, but certainly not.
Viscount Thurso: My Lords,
"If ifs and ands were pots and pans
There'd be no work for the tinkers"—
or, in this case, for plumbers. I really do not honestly know what sort of an answer I have received from the noble Lord. He says that the Government are not
1200
likely to put any obstacle in the way of legislation. He says that the matter has been fully discussed with COSLA and that they have said that they see no reason why farmers should not be compensated. If farmers might be compensated, why not a poor little householder; why not a crofter? He said that there are still many matters to be discussed, and that discussions have been going on for a long time. I really do not honestly know what sort of an answer I have.
I should like to invite the House to state what it thinks about the matter, because the Government can always knock this out again at Third Reading if they can come with a better story. I think that we ought to ask noble Lords, having heard this discussion, whether indeed they think there is any point at all in waiting for legislation which may or may not eventuate. We have not been given the name of any measure which is likely to carry this kind of legislation; we have not been given any firm commitment that it will go into any one measure or another. I feel that in this particular instance I should ask your Lordships' House to give a verdict in the matter.
9.43 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 19) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 21; Not-Contents, 55.

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Plant, L.

Bishopston, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

David, B.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Hampton, L.

Stamp, L.

Hooson, L.

Stone, L.

Hughes, L.

Thurso, V. [Teller.]

Jeger, B.

Tordoff, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Underhill, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Wigoder, L. [Teller.]

Loudoun, C.

Winstanley, L.

Peart, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Kemsley, V.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Lauderdale, E.

Ampthill, L.

Long, V.

Avon, E.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Bellwin, L.

Lyell, L.

Belstead, L.

McFadzean, L.

Boardman, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Bradford, E.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Mansfield, E.

Cockfield, L.

Margadale, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Crathorne, L.

Mottistone, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Orkney, E.

de Clifford, L.

Rochdale, V.

De La Warr, E.

Sandford, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Sandys, L. [Teller.]

Dilhorne, V.

Selkirk, E.

Drumalbyn, L.

Sharples, B.

Elgin and Kincardine, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Faithfull, B.

Sudeley, L.

Ferrers, E.

Swinton, E.

Gisborough, L.

Trenchard, V.

Glenarthur, L.

Trumpington, B.

Greenway, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Gridley, L.

Vickers, B.

Grimthorpe, L.

Vivian, L.

Henley, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
[Amendment No. 20 not moved.]
9.50 p.m.
Viscount Ingleby Viscount Ingleby moved Amendment No. 21:
After Clause 35, insert the following new clause:
"Access Officers
. Each local authority shall designate one of its officers to be the Access Officer who shall act as a liaison officer and coordinator in the area of that authority on all matters involving access for disabled people to buildings and other facilities and the application of the British Standards institution's Code of Practice, Access for the Disabled to Buildings', BS 5810: 1979, or such other code or codes as the Secretary of State may prescribe."
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in moving this amendment which is one of the recommendations of the Silver Jubilee Committee on aspects of concern for the disabled, I should like to draw attention to the fact that the Government amendment which we shall be considering shortly is concerned only with new buildings. There are of course very many more existing buildings which disabled people would like to use if they were accessible to them. One example came to my hand only today, in the May issue of the news magazine concerning the International Year of the Disabled. This reports the conference of the National Council of Women held in Edinburgh which was attended by some 350 women from all over the country. I quote:
"No woman present could fail to notice the problems of the disabled delegates coping with the access to Edinburgh University's tine modern common hall or the highly polished Gents with no hand rails".
We believe that every local authority should designate one access officer. He could act as a focal point for owners and developers who are seeking information and guidance on how to improve access to their buildings. He could also be in close touch with local action committees who do good work year in year out, bringing good-tempered, gentle, steady pressure on owners of existing buildings to make them accessible to disabled people. We believe that the right man in this job could achieve a lot as time goes on. I know that many local authorities in Scotland already have designated one of their officers as access officer. We believe all of them should do so; and not only in Scotland, but in England and Wales, too. I beg to move.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, I should like to say a few words in support of my noble friend's amendment. I think it would be helpful to have a known person to whom all general inquiries on access could be channelled. I should like to underline what my noble friend said about the access action groups which cover many types of disability, and not just the wheelchair but the blind and the ambulant disabled. They are necessary to keep a watchful eye open and to improve access at the grass roots. These groups cannot operate in isolation. They must co-operate with the local authorities. Therefore, this access liaison officer would be an essential and valuable member of any access action group.
Almost every local authority in Scotland has designated an access officer; so that it is not asking too much. I think it will be helpful to have it in the Bill to ensure that the few remaining authorities do likewise. I hope the Minister will be able to accept it.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I support this amendment. Your Lordships will know, I am sure, that the needs of disabled people are very varied according to their many different disabilities, and they need keeping up to date with changing circumstances. An access officer seems to be a necessary person to see that all their needs are catered for. It is most frustrating to go into a community hall, as f did last week, to find two newly-adapted lavatories for the disabled—one for men and one for women, well signed with a wheelchair sign—and to be dismayed to see that both have solid fixed rails on either side, thus preventing anyone in a wheelchair from using them. This is typical of the ambulant disabled being catered for and not those in wheelchairs. To give access to both, a movable rail should have been provided and not a fixed one. With the British Standards Institution's code of practice, Access for the Disabled to Buildings (BS5810: 1979), I hope that this sort of thing will not continue to happen. An access officer would, I am sure, be a most helpful and useful member of a local authority team.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I, too, should like to support this amendment. There is only one point I wish to make in regard to it. Your Lordships may feel it is a very important point. ft arises on subsection (2) which says:
"This section shall come into operation on such date as the Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument appoint".
By not fixing an appointed day for a very long time to come—perhaps years ahead—the purpose of this amendment could be completely frustrated. I am sure that your Lordships will feel that in this International Year of Disabled People the Government would wish to make the appointed day within that year. This is not going to be a very expensive way of helping our country to play its part in the International Year of Disabled People. Therefore one would hope for an undertaking from the Government in—as hope they may—accepting this amendment that they will say that the appointed day will come within this year, 1981.
Viscount Thurso: My Lords, it may help the Government to make up their minds if I were to tell them something of my own experiences in this matter. Even when everybody concerned is doing their best to provide access, it is sometimes difficult to do so. I was recently involved in adding a new public bar and games room to a small village pub in Halkirk. We decided from the start that there had to be access for people in wheelchairs. The architect was duly informed to design the building so that people in wheelchairs could use it. It was easy enough to get access from the street without steps, and to get up to another level we had a ramp. We also had a beautiful plan on paper for the toilets. I was there while the framing was being erected. I saw a nice large door frame for the toilet for the disabled. However, the door going into the lobby area where all the toilets met was of an ordinary size. Clearly, a disabled person would have to dismantle their wheelchair in

1203
order to get it through that door. They would then have to put it together again and enter the "loo". I pointed this out to the architect and builder and this was put right.
I came back at a later stage when the partition walls were up. I looked at the disabled people's toilet and said: "How does the disabled person turn round?" Nobody had thought of that. When they looked at the plan and checked the specification that they worked to they found they had constructed a toilet for an ambulatory disabled person; in other words, a person on crutches. Somebody in a wheelchair would have been able to enter because the door was wide enough, but all they could have done was to sit there and look at the "loo". That would not have done them very much good! It did far more good to take space from the ladies' toilet next door and use that in the disabled people's toilet.
That kind of thing occurs because there is not enough know-how. It would be immensely helpful if within the local authority there were people to whom anybody willing to help in this area could go for advice on these matters.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, I should like to add my support to the comments that have been made. May I draw attention to the fact that, as we all know, the blind make up a very large proportion of the people with disability in our country. I should like to ask the Minister to be quite certain that if officers are to be appointed, wherever they are appointed they should know every facet—and there are so many—of disability, including blindness. We have here today so many excellent speakers; but I should like to speak up on behalf of the blind.
10 p.m.
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, I appreciate very much the purpose behind this new clause and certainly there is an advantage in local authorities co-ordinating their policies and actions on the question of access for the disabled. But there are two main arguments against making it a statutory requirement to appoint access officers. First, it runs against current Scottish local government legislation which in general deliberately leaves the authorities themselves to determine the pattern and structure of their organisation in the light of their particular circumstances and needs. Secondly, in the present financial climate we think it would be wrong to impose on local authorities the requirement to designate staff as access officers because of the possible expenditure implications, and the designation of a statutory access officer may not in any case be the best means of promoting the needs of the disabled.
Having said that, it is of course already open to local authorities to make such appointments where they consider that to do so would be a good way of helping the disabled in their area. The convention accepted a recommendation from the Access Committee of the Scottish Council on Disabilities that local authorities should consider the appointment of access officers and commended it to individual local authorities at
1204
the end of last year. We understand that many local authorities have already acted on the recommendation, and it seemed to the Government best to proceed on this basis.
It is better, I feel, that authorities should make such appointments on a voluntary basis rather than be forced into the position of designating an official as "access officer". As the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), has said, most local authorities if not all have accepted the recommendation of the Access Committee of the Scottish Council on Disabilities and have already appointed access officers.
In the circumstances, it seems to us that this flexible approach is the best way forward since it leaves authorities to take account of the circumstances in their areas and then decide what is most appropriate. We are going to come a very long way in this Bill from when it first saw the light of day in the other place, and I would hope that in the particular circumstances which I have outlined in regard to this amendment it would be possible for my noble friends and those who have subscribed to this amendment to withdraw their new clause.
Lord Wilson of Langside: My Lords, I had not intended to intervene at this stage on this particular amendment, but, having listened with great interest to everything that has been said in the debate, I feel compelled to intervene, and for this reason: no one has spoken against the amendment at all. All who have spoken have spoken in favour of it. Two reasons have been advanced in answer to it. The first is that it is against the current approach of Government to Scottish local government problems. I find that a quite astonishing proposition in the light of the various powers which different Governments have taken to control Scottish local government operations since 1966. I must say I find this, the first of the two answers of the Government to this amendment, a little startling and certainly unconvincing.
The second head of the Government's answer thought even more startlingly unconvincing and even worse. That is the suggestion that somehow or other it has expenditure implications. I find it quite impossible to believe that in any local authority, even the busiest, there is not a suitably appointed officer to discharge the kind of functions envisaged here. Of course, there is a lot to be said for the voluntary principle.
All I rise to say, having listened to the debate on the matter, is that I should have thought, on balance, there was no doubt at all as to what, on the basis of the arguments to which we have listened, the answer of the House should be. But, of course, it is not for me to say and I shall quite understand if those who have put down this amendment prefer to withdraw it. I can see the force of leaving it to the decision of the people on the spot, and it is for others to decide whether they will withdraw the amendment. But having listened to the debate, I thought I should at least say what I have said.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, when I heard my noble friend talk about a flexible approach, I knew that

1205
this was damning with faint praise. We have been given no assurance that these officers will be appointed; we have merely been told that they can be appointed—
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, I very much hesitate to interrupt my noble friend, but if he had been listening he would have heard two speakers in this debate—the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), and me—say that, in fact, in nearly all cases they have been appointed.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, the whole point is whether it is compulsory and they all have them. It is a question of whether they ought to have them or whether they may have them. That is the point. We are told that it is a question of cost, when the job can be doubled up with another. Then we are told that this is against the Scottish custom. All I say is "fiddlesticks." I think that my noble friend's answer is really shameful. It is not for me to advise others, but I hope that they will press the amendment.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, I did not think that I would require to venture a word at all on this subject. I really thought that the Government would have accepted this amendment. If noble Lords who are now present had been here earlier, they would have heard exactly the kind of attitude that the Government have been taking towards local authorities and local authorities' expenditure. This is a Scottish Bill, although I think most of the House is now composed of people who are, generally speaking, less interested in Scotland. But they see an opportunity within the Bill that opens up the whole field of local authority work to do something in respect of the disabled.
Scottish local authorities, particularly the main ones, may be way ahead of this clause and may already have done the appointing. But I can remember when we started work under the Social Work (Scotland) Act in 1968 how many local authorities there were in Scotland who were very proud of what they were doing, and who gave the impression that they were doing so much in respect of personal social services. But when we came down to it, we discovered that they were doing virtually nothing at all. We made them appoint officers; so much so that the appointment of certain officers was under the direct control of the Scottish Office. It was not left to the voluntary wishes of local authorities as to whether they would appoint social work directors. In fact, all those noble Lords who are so interested in this Bill will realise that, having had so many years of it, the appointments of directors of social work do not now have to be approved by the Secretary of State, but they still have to be appointed.
We now appreciate the importance of this to a section of our community, which cannot do things that we take for granted, and cannot go to places which are open to a great many people; not in one area but in every area. I should have liked to hear from the Minister how many local authorities concerned have actually appointed. I see no reason at all why we should not put this into the Bill. As regards cost, my noble and learned friend Lord Wilson of Langside is quite right. The amendment does not say that they must
1206
appoint a new officer. It says that they must designate one officer to be the access officer. That is not going to cost all that much; it may not cost anything at all. However, it will achieve a considerable improvement in the facilities available to the disabled.
The point was rightly made by the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod of Borve, that we must not think of only one section of the disabled. A problem can be solved for one section and then we discover others about whom we have forgotten. The application of a lively mind is required to ensure that all these types of disablement are covered. That is why it is very important that one officer in each local authority should be designated for this purpose. I support the amendment.
Lord Drumalbyn: My Lords, I am inclined to think that in this case the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, has got it right. The word is "designate"; it is not "appoint". My noble friend may have used the word "appoint". It is a word which is often used as a synonym for "designate", but if one wishes to be accurate it is just as well to use the right word. A case has been made out for my noble friend to take back this point and look at it again.
If we consider what happens in industry, we find that constantly officers are being designated as safety officers and so on. This does not mean that somebody is being appointed specially to do this job and nothing else. It seems to me that this point was being argued by the Government on the basis of an officer having to be appointed at extra expense to do nothing else. I wonder whether my noble friend would look again at the matter in that light.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, if I may dare presume to poke my English nose into this wholly Scottish matter, I should like to support what the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has just said. I hope very much that the noble Earl will agree to reconsider the matter. If he is not prepared to do so, I hope that the sponsors of the amendment will not withdraw it. I think that it should be pressed.
Since this is a Scottish matter, perhaps I should turn straight away to the money side of it. What the noble Lord has said is entirely right. At the moment we have in England, Wales and Scotland a system of generic social workers under which all social workers employed by local government are regarded as universal geniuses who can take over different functions. No longer do we have children's officers, mental health officers and so on. We have generic social workers.
This is merely a requirement to designate one person to have responsibility for access. If anybody says that this will cost extra money, it cannot be so. There is no reason why it should cost extra money. That side of the argument is one which we should reject. This will involve minimal interference with the freedom and autonomy of local government, be it in Scotland or elsewhere. The requirement would be to designate one existing officer to do something which the noble Earl has admitted needs doing and ought to be done. He says that it is now being done by most local authorities. Surely it is the business of Parliament as a

1207
whole to make sure that if something is necessary it is done everywhere, not just in one or two places which choose to do it. I hope that the noble Earl will think again about this matter. If he does not, I hope that the sponsors of the amendment will press it.
Viscount Ingleby: My Lords, in view of the strong feelings which have been expressed on all sides of the House, I hope that the Government will agree to look again at the matter. If the noble Earl will agree to do so, I shall be very pleased to withdraw the amendment at this stage.
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, with the leave of the House, may I say that those who have followed the proceedings this evening will have seen that this is a starred amendment on the Marshalled List. This means that the Government have had very little notice of it.
I am impressed, as always, by the wealth of expertise and the obviously very strong feelings which have been expressed. It would be wrong of me in the circumstances to refuse to think again, although we are getting to a very late stage of a Bill which has almost passed through both Houses of Parliament. I will take it away, but I do not think it would be proper for me to give any commitment to do other than to consult and to reflect. I think that is what my noble friend would like me to do; that is what I undertake to do and I will communicate with him, at least, when and if I may come to any conclusion.
Viscount Ingleby: My Lords, on that understanding I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 36 [Planning applications and consideration of the needs of the disabled]:
10.15 p.m.
Lord Lyell Lord Lyell moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 16, line 5, leave out ("In determining any") and insert ("When granting an").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a minor technical amendment. As the clause is drafted at present planning authorities would have to ensure that developers were aware of their duty under the 1970 Act even where they had decided to refuse the application for planning permission. The amendment makes it clear that planning authorities are to be required to draw the attention of developers to their duties under the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 only in cases where it is their intention to grant planning permission. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Lyell Lord Lyell moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 16, line 7, after ("4") insert (", 5 and 7").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a technical amendment which removes from Clause 36 an unnecessary reference to Section 6 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970. That section in
1208
its application to Scotland relates to the consideration of the needs of the disabled in the special circumstances in which the owner of a building is ordered to provide sanitary conveniences. This duty does not, however, apply to the generality of developers who are providing buildings to which the public are to have access and it is therefore unnecessary to draw their attention to it. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Lyell Lord Lyell moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 16, line 12, leave out from ("duty") to end of line 19.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment removes from Clause 36 the references to the code of practice for Access for the Disabled to Buildings and the Secretary of State's power to substitute a reference to any subsequent code of practice. One of the effects of the amendment to the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 which has been accepted this evening would be to incorporate in the 1970 Act provisions similar to those to be removed from Clause 36. Thus, when a planning authority draws the attention of a developer to his duties under the 1970 Act he will be made aware of the existence of the code of practice. There is therefore no need to make specific provision in Clause 36 for the attention of developers to be drawn separately to the code of practice. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 25:
Page 16, line 14, at end insert ("These factors shall be material considerations in terms of subsection (1) of this section.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, if my reading of the Bill is correct, I think we have just wiped out the lines to which my amendment refers.
[Amendment No. 25 not moved.]
10.19 p.m.
The Earl of Mansfield The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No. 26:
After Clause 36, insert the following clause:
("Further provision as regards the needs of the Disabled
.—(1) In each of sections 4(1), 5(1), 6(2), 8(1) and 8A(1) of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 (which impose on persons undertaking the provision of public buildings etc. certain duties as regards the needs of the disabled)—

(a) for the words "provision, in so far as it is in the circumstances both practicable and reasonable" there shall be substituted the words "appropriate provision"; and

(b) at the end there shall be added the words "unless such body as may be prescribed by the Secretary of State is satisfied, after carrying out any procedures which may be so prescribed, that in the circumstances it is either not practicable to make such provision or not reasonable that such provision should be made.".

(2) After the said section 4(1) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
"(1A) In subsection (1) above "appropriate provision" in relation to any case means provision conforming with so much of the Code of Practice for Access for the Disabled to Buildings as is relevant to that case and "prescribed" means prescribed by regulations made by statutory instrument, which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament; and in the foregoing provisions of this subsection "the Code of Practice for Access for the Disabled to Buildings" means the British

1209
Standards Institution code of practice referred to as BS 5810: 1979.".
(3) After the said section 5(1) the following words shall be inserted as section 5(1A)—
"Subsection (1A) of section 4 of this Act shall apply in relation to the interpretation of the last foregoing subsection of this section as the said subsection (1A) applies in relation to the interpretation of subsection (1) of that section.";
and the same words shall be inserted as sections 6(2A), 8(1A) and 8A(1A) of the said Act of 1970.
(4) In section 28 of the said Act of 1970 (which empowers the Secretary of State to define expressions appearing therein), after the word "Parliament" there shall be inserted "—(a)" and at the end there shall be added the words "; or
(b) amend the definition of "the Code of Practice for Access for the Disabled to Buildings" in section 4(1A) of this Act.".").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, your Lordships will recall the full debate which we had when last we considered this Bill on the question of improving the existing legislation to ensure that the needs of disabled people are adequately considered and appropriate provision made for them in buildings to which the public are to have access. On that occasion I said I was impressed by the strength of feeling on the matter and agreed, despite the difficulties inherent in the various amendments under consideration, to consult my colleagues with a view to seeing what could be done.
We have considered the whole question very carefully and have concluded that it would be appropriate in this International Year of Disabled People for further provision to be made to ensure that those special needs are taken into consideration by those providing buildings to which the public are to have access. We have therefore decided that, subject to some drafting changes, we should accept the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy, which, as your Lordships will recall, met with widespread approval in our Committee. It is right that I should say that my noble friend was good enough to tell me that he had unfortunately to leave the House before these amendments were called, but that he is happy that the Government have adopted this course.
Your Lordships will also, no doubt, be pleased to know that it is the Government's intention that similar provision should be extended to the rest of the country by means of an amendment to the Disabled Persons (No. 2) Bill which is shortly to come before your Lordships' House. I hope that the House will therefore be able to accept the new clause, together with our Clause 36 and our proposed circular to planning authorities, a copy of which has been placed in the Library, and these measures will represent, we believe, a significant step forward in ensuring that proper consideration is given to the needs of the disabled in buildings to which the public are to have access.
Details of the procedure to be followed and the identification of the body which will adjudicate cases where the developer does not propose to make appropriate provision will require to be considered carefully. It is our intention to undertake wide-ranging consultation with interested parties before determining the content of the regulations which the new clause gives my right honourable friend power to make.
My noble friend Lord Renton raised the matter of the appointed day. What I have to say here is that there is a need to consult widely with all interests, and therefore I cannot give a commitment tonight to
1210
have the provision come into effect at any particular time. However, I do assure your Lordships that there will be no avoidable delay in working out the procedures that will apply. In these circumstances, I commend the amendment to your Lordships' House and beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, may I just very briefly thank my noble friend for his reference just now to what I said earlier, and apologise to your Lordships for having spoken to Amendment No. 20 which had not been moved, nevertheless making a point which has proved to be relevant to Amendment No. 26 which my noble friend Lord Mansfield has just moved. If I have understood my noble friend correctly, it seems that there is every intention, as well as hope, on the Government's part that this power will be used by the Government in this International Year of Disabled People. I do hope that is so, because, as I said earlier, it would be a pity to miss this opportunity of achieving at least that amount in this year.
Lord Drumalbyn: My Lords, may I say on behalf of my noble friend Lord Campbell that I know how very much he appreciates the steps that my noble friend has taken. I am sure that the whole House is extremely grateful to my noble friend for having taken this initiative, and indeed for influencing his colleagues to ensure that it extends to the whole country.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I am very pleased to be able to say tonight that I am Scottish. Having been born and bred in Scotland and having spent half my life there, I can tell your Lordships that the Scots have a pioneering and thrifty instinct. My noble friends who are disabled know only too well from bitter experience how difficult it is to cope with everyday life if they cannot get into a building; and once they have got in they must have suitable facilities. It is not surprising that we have had to turn to Scotland to persuade the Government that this clause was in everyone's interest. To have access planned in the initial stage without doubt saves money, energy and time. Buildings which are suitable for the disabled are suitable for everyone.
I welcome Lord Mansfield's amendment. I thank the Government and especially the Scottish Office for doing what England seemed slow to admit was necessary. I should like to ask the noble Earl the Minister just a few questions. Who will be the prescribed body? Will it be the local authority responsible for building regulations? Who will check on the facilities for disabled people? Will that be done at the same time as all the other regulations?
It is important that mistakes are not made. As the code of practice for Access for the Disabled to Buildings will be being used mistakes should not be made. If, however, the developer disagrees with the prescribed body, he will presumably be allowed to appeal against its decision. Will that appeal be, in the first place, to the Secretary of State or to the courts? If a developer does not provide the facilities required, what sanctions will the prescribed body have? Will they be identical to those under normal building regulations?
Finally, if an individual citizen or a local association for the disabled is unhappy with the prescribed body's

1211
opinion of what is reasonable and practicable, or is not satisfied that it has exercised their powers in an appropriate fashion, might they have any redress in the courts? Presumably, if the prescribed body takes no action at all, then the developer must make appropriate provisions. If he does not, is it up to an aggrieved individual to sue him or the prescribed body?
I am sure that there will be many people outside your Lordships' House who will also welcome this clause. Much has been done in the last 10 years by good authorities and caring people. But many mistakes have also been made and it is so important that what will be done in the future will be done correctly. Now when it becomes common practice to include the needs of the disabled people at the planning stage they will feel part of society rather than outcasts of an able bodied world. I hope, like the noble Lord, Lord Renton, that this legislation will be brought into force during this International Year of the Disabled.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, the proposed new clause by the Government seems to cover all the points made in Lord Campbell of Croy's amendment and I should like to thank the Minister for all the work that he has done on it, and the Scottish Office in general who have been very courteous and most helpful. I am delighted to learn that they are going to make similar provision in the Disabled Persons (No. 2) Bill.
I should like to make two points. The first has already been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, and the noble Earl and it concerns Amendment No. 28 dealing with when the new clause will come into force. I fully realise that the Government need time to decide which body and what procedures will be prescribed. But I remember only too well that a similar thing happened when there was a Government amendment to the Education Act 1976 which ensured that handicapped children would be educated where possible in ordinary rather than in special schools. That clause was to come into force on a date appointed by the Secretary of State, and the Minister introducing it said, "I assure the House that this is not a prescription for delay". Four years later it had never been brought into force and it was repealed in the Education Act 1980. Therefore, I very much hope that the noble Earl can tell us—I know that he has given some indication—that there will only be a delay of, say, a maximum of three months while the procedure is decided upon before the new clause is enforced. Perhaps also he will consult bodies such as the Scottish Committee on Access for Disabled People and the Commission on Restrictions Against Disabled People (CORAD) before coming to any decision.
My second point is not really to do with this clause, but as this is Report stage I had better get it in now. At the Committee stage the noble Earl said that the Government intended to issue a circular to make it clear that planning authorities have the power to impose conditions on planning permissions relating to provision for the disabled. I imagine that the proposed new clause does not, in fact, preclude the issue of such a circular. I see that the noble Earl is nodding.
1212
In a letter of 7th May to Mr. Peter Large, the chairman of CORAD, Mr. Giles Shaw, who is the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Department of the Environment, said:
"As you point out, planning is not concerned with the internal design of buildings nor with the provision of arrangement of facilities inside buildings. It would, therefore, normally be outside a planning authority's powers to become involved in issues such as the width of corridors or provision of wheelchair-accessible lavatories".
Paragraph 3 of the draft circular, which the noble Earl has put in the Library, says much the same thing; that planning relates to access to but not within buildings. This is why it is very important to have this new clause enforced as soon as possible.
However, it is very true that access around buildings and between buildings is also very important. For example, you can have a beautiful sports hall with all the facilities, and then the car park may be separated from it by steps. How do you get into it? In a pedestrianised shopping centre there may be obstacles that impede access between the buildings. Therefore, I think that it would be excellent if the circular could make it clear that planning consent could be refused if there was no provision for access from the surrounding area, such as a car park or between the buildings, and from the car park to the entrance of the building in question. I hope that the noble Earl will consider this and again consult organisations for the disabled on this matter.
Apart from the concern as to when the proposed new clause will be enforced, I am very grateful to the noble Earl and, indeed, to all noble Lords on every side of the House who have supported and worked so hard and, indeed, pressurised so effectively. I am very glad to support this amendment.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, I look forward to hearing the noble Earl's answers to the very pertinent questions put to him by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, and the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth). These are important questions. But in the meantime, as one who supported the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, and others who raised this matter in Committee, it would be churlish if I did not, on behalf of my noble friends on these Benches, express our indebtedness to the noble Earl for what he has done regarding this new clause, which is very important, and also for the very important assurance that he gave us with regard to steps which will be taken, concerning another measure which is shortly to come before your Lordships' House. We, too, on these Benches would like to say to the noble Earl how very grateful we are for the steps that he has now taken.
Viscount Ingleby: My Lords, I should also like to join in thanking the Government. Perhaps I could remind the House that our original amendment, on which this is based, was designed to create barrier-free access to new public buildings in order to put some teeth into the 1970 Act, which was a very good Act but there was no means of enforcing it. We hope that by putting the onus on the developer to show that it is not reasonable or practicable to provide access, this new amendment will just achieve that.
We are delighted that the Government have agreed to this. We are even more delighted that it is to be

1213
extended to England and Wales. I, too, should like to thank the Minister and all in the Government who must have been working very hard behind the scenes to bring forward this amendment.
I should just like to mention the circular which the Minister has deposited in the Library. With all respect, I can only imagine that this must have been drafted before the new Government amendment was put forward. I very much hope that there will be a redraft of it and that the Minister will undertake to consult with the organisations for disabled people. I very much hope that he will produce a rather different circular. With those words, I should like to join in thanking the Minister.
Lord Wilson of Langside: My Lords, in welcoming this amendment from these Benches, I would only say that, in order to support the view that this amendment is a significant step forward in the context of the needs of the disabled, there is nothing that I can add to what has already been said from all sides of the House, in particular by the noble Baronesses, Lady Masham and Lady Darcy (de Knayth), and the noble Viscount, Lord Ingleby. All of us are greatly indebted to the noble Earl for his efforts.
It would perhaps be a little churlish—particularly at this time of night—if I said that, when I heard him at the outset refer to the difficulties which were inherent in the earlier amendments, I saw, and many of us saw, no inherent difficulties in any of these amendments. There were a few little technical difficulties. I am bound to say, and I hope that it does not add a churlish note to the general welcome I gave and which everyone has given to this amendment, that I thought I detected every now and then—and I detected when some of us introduced the earlier amendments bearing upon this issue—a tendency (and I have said this before, but I make no apology for saying it again) on the part of Ministers to find a problem for every solution. But here I am happy to say that we seem to have found what I think for the time being will be a final solution.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, I think that the Government have shown themselves very responsive indeed to the powerful pressure brought to bear on Committee stage. The Government did the right thing and said that they would look at it again. If they had not given that assurance I think they would have lost the Division and it would have been amended. But the Government have used the time well. The Minister not only looked at it again but has produced a reasonable set of amendments, and I am grateful for that.
I take great pleasure in it because Clause 36 was introduced in another place by a Labour Member of Parliament, Mr. John Home Robertson. He had hoped that the Government would go further there, and that is why I had further amendments down in relation to that. But so far we have done very well indeed, and the Government have to be congratulated (a) on what they have done and (b) on their good sense in appreciating and being responsive to the mood of the House itself. I only hope that the noble Earl's promise to look again at the question of the designation of an access officer will bear the same kind of fruit.
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, I should like to thank noble Lords and indeed noble Baronesses for their welcome to this new clause. May I say to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside, that nobody is churlish with more charm than he. A lot of the questions that have been asked of me will be the subject of the wide-ranging consultations with all manner of interested parties that we shall have before my right honourable friend comes to determine the content and form of the regulations which will be published in due course. I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, asked me five questions. Most of them will be the subject of these consultations, but what I shall do in respect of both her questions and those that others have asked me is to look at the Official Report, and if their questions are not going to be the subject of the consultation procedure then I shall get in touch with them, I hope reasonably speedily, and possibly even before the Third Reading.
It is a matter about which I only accept congratulation on behalf of the Government, who have taken a view which is going to extend not only in Scotland but, as we now know, in England and Wales as well in a matter which is going to come before your Lordships shortly. It is on that basis that I thank noble Lords and noble Baronesses for what they have said.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 43 [Short title, commencement and extent]:
10.40 p.m.
Lord Lyell Lord Lyell moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 17, line 20, leave out ("section 6(7) of the 1956 Act or").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I will, with permission, speak at the same time to Amendment No. 35, as the two are closely linked. These are minor technical changes which will remove redundant entries from Schedule 4 and Clause 42. They are rendered necessary by a change to Clause 4 effected in the other place. The entry in Schedule 4 and the reference in Clause 42 which these amendments seek to delete were consequential on Clause 4 as originally drafted, but are now no longer necessary.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Mansfield The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 17, line 23, leave out ("Section 29") and insert ("Sections 29 and (Further provision as regards the needs of the Disabled)").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is consequential on Amendment No. 26. It reflects subsection (2) of the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy and provides that the new clause will come into force on a date appointed by the Secretary of State by order made by statutory instrument.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Relaxation of controls over local and other authorities]:
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 29:
Page 20, line 37, leave out paragraph 12.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment was motivated by my recollection of certain incidents that took place when I was Secretary of State in

1215
respect of certain aspects of police allowances, but it would not be fair at this hour to go into such matters of my personal curiosities, and accordingly I will not move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 29 not moved.]
Schedule 3 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
[Amendment No. 30 not moved.]
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 30, line 48, at end insert—
("New Towns (Scotland) Act 1968 (c. 16)
In Schedule 2 (Constitution and proceedings of development corporations), at end of paragraph 9 insert—
"9A. For the purpose of securing the admission, so far as is practicable, of the public including the press, to all meetings of Development Corporations themselves, the Public Bodies (Admission to Meetings) Act 1960 shall have effect.".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is designed to ensure that the public gain admission to meetings of the new town development corporations, and we have them in Cumbernauld, East Kilbride, Livingstone and Glenrothes in Scotland. Some feeling has been expressed by the public that they are shut out of what is happening in their own town. Originally, pleasant noises about the amendment were made by the Government, but then something happened and on Report in another place they were less happy about it. Whether they were nobbled by the new town authorities and the powerful influences therein, I know not. As we afford people the opportunity to attend district, region and similar meetings, it is common justice that they and the press should be allowed to attend meetings of the development corporations. What made the Government change their mind over this, having at first indicated they would incorporate such an amendment in the Bill? I beg to move.
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, as was explained in another place when the same proposal was put forward, it has been given very careful consideration because it is recognised that development corporations are public bodies spending large amounts of the taxpayers' money. However, after the most careful consideration, my right honourable friend, having met the chairmen of the development corporations on 13th March, wrote to them to say that he did not propose to direct them to open their meetings to the press and public as he recognised that the bulk of their business was of a commercial confidential nature and that there was a serious risk that fears of breach of this confidentiality might detract from the attractiveness of the new towns, especially in their important role of creating employment opportunities.
I am sure that noble Lords will appreciate, and indeed accept, that there is a difference between an elected authority, such as a district or regional council, and a new town development corporation. The former consists of elected representatives who attend under a direct mandate from the electors, while members of the corporations are nominated by my right honourable friend and are largely instrumental in carrying out his policies. The point about openness of government is well recognised and the new town
1216
chairmen are also well aware of the principle. Since the Secretary of State met them on 13th March some of them, I know, have been giving consideration to meeting the press on a regular basis, and it is hoped that all five corporations will in fact do so.
The noble Lord may also be aware that the National Union of Journalists has been actively canvassing on this matter both before and after the meeting on 13th March, and that the Government's view was outlined in an article which was placed in the press, so that the Government's views could be more widely known. Should the noble Lord wish a copy of the article (which in fact took the form of a letter from my right honourable friend to a fellow Member of Parliament) I shall be glad to make the necessary arrangements.
For the reasons that I have given we do not think that it is appropriate, nor indeed desirable, that new town corporations should be treated in the same way as elected local authorities, and thus we cannot see our way to meeting the wishes of the noble Lord in this matter.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, I can appreciate the importance of keeping commercial negotiations confidential, but I think that that point could have been got over by means of a slight change in respect of the amendment itself. I know that the Government had very considerable sympathy with this point, but if what we have been told is the Minister's view about it, I shall not divide the House this evening, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Mansfield The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendments Nos. 32 and 33:
Page 34, leave out from beginning of line 2 to ("(5)") in line 6.
Page 34, line 8, leave out from ("Parliament") to ("for") in line 11.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall move Amendments Nos. 32 and 33 together. These are technical amendments, consequential on the amendment to Clause 36 deleting the power in that clause to amend the definition of the code of practice for Access for the Disabled to Buildings. They remove the provisions which would have incorporated references to the deleted Section 26(4B) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972 in Section 273 of the 1972 Act, which contains references to the powers which are to be exercisable by statutory instrument and to the procedures to which the statutory instruments are to be subject. My Lords, I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 34, line 23, at end insert—
(".In section 49 (Provisions supplementary to sections 45 to 48) at the end of subsection (2)(a) there shall be added the words: "to which a member has been appointed or otherwise authorised by the body to attend".").
The noble Lord said: This amendment deals with the question of the attendance of councillors at meetings. A situation arose in a part of Scotland where, after the election of a district council, the ruling party,

1217
which was the Labour Party, took over all committees. I do not at all approve of that; I think it is most inadvisable and is bound to cause trouble. The other members of the council, who felt themselves denied, decided that they would attend the committee meetings as observers. There was nothing to stop that. But they went a little beyond that. They then claimed attendance allowance in respect of such meetings, and I do not think that anyone can justify that.
I gather that it is a rather moot point as to whether they are entitled as councillors/observers to go to meetings of the committees and then claim allowances in respect of their attendance there. They have not been authorised to go; they are not members of the committee. While I understand why they went, I cannot feel that they were justified in claiming attendance allowance for so doing. The chief executive of that area, or the finance officer, refused to pay the allowance, and I believe that at the moment the matter is being settled at law.
I think the Government's feeling about it was exactly the same as mine, but in another place it was suggested, "Well, the matter is going to be settled; we are going to get a judgment, so we might as well wait for that"—and they expected that judgment to have been delivered by this time. My understanding is that there is going to be no settlement of this issue in the courts until about the end of October at the earliest, after this Bill is passed. I think we are far better to apply our common sense and make the change proposed in this amendment, to say that there shall be added the words,
"to which a member has been appointed or otherwise authorised by the body to attend";
in other words, attending officially in respect of the actions which are being taken. That will legalise the matter and put things in the right position, and not leave it to the whim of the individual councillor who is not a member of the committee just to go along, not just to hear but then to claim payment for that attendance which he has decided upon for himself.
That is the purpose of the amendment and that is the history of the amendment. It is sickening and sad, I think, when you have to resort to this kind of thing, but it is equally wrong, I think, for people to claim an attendance allowance in those particular circumstances. I beg to move.
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, I am sympathetic to the motives underlying the noble Lord's moving of this amendment. These matters were fully ventilated during the discussions in another place, and as the noble Lord has quite rightly said, the matter is still the subject of an action in the sheriff court and it is now unlikely, in fact, that the outcome will be known until October. But we remain of the opinion that it would be prudent to assess the situation in the light of the court's judgment. If the court's decision makes clear that an amendment of the Act is necessary, then we shall take steps to give effect to this at an early opportunity.
There are three reasons why I am reluctant to accept the amendment until the need for it has been proved. First, there is no evidence elsewhere in Scotland, or indeed anywhere in England, that the alleged loophole has been exploited; and, generally, I am against legislating for legislation's sake. Secondly, I think
1218
we can rely on the good sense of councillors to operate in the public interest and not to claim attendance allowances unnecessarily. The Kirkcaldy circumstances are, I hope, quite exceptional. Thirdly, for myself, I think these matters should be considered in the courts, certainly first of all, rather than Parliament taking action which might prove to be precipitate.
Of course, it was not the intention of Parliament in 1973 to permit the payment of attendance allowance to councillors who sit in on the meetings of committees of which they are not members and which they have not been authorised to attend. On the other hand, I am equally sure that it was not the intention of Parliament that a controlling group should exclude minority groups from major committees to such an extent that members of a minority party could find out what was happening in some major committees only by sitting in the public gallery.
What has happened is that in the Kirkcaldy District Council the ruling Labour group, which holds 23 of the 36 seats, have in fact excluded the minority parties entirely from the policy and resources committee, although this is by no means uncommon, but also from the housing committee, which is one of the main committees to which a district council addresses itself. Of the remaining major committees—that is to say, environmental matters, planning, leisure and recreation and general purposes—the ruling group have allowed only two places to the non-Labour members on a committee of 12 or 14. The ruling group have also decided which members of the minority parties will in fact be invited to occupy the two seats. So one could say, I think without fear of contradiction, that the minority parties on the Kirkcaldy District Council have been totally excluded from some major committees, such as the housing committee, and grossly underrepresented on others.
Local government statute vests responsibilities not with individuals, as with Ministers of the Crown, but with councils collectively. If a council decides to behave as Kirkcaldy has done and excludes a minority party from a major committee to which matters are delegated, then the members of the minority party none the less have to share in the collective responsibility of the council for the actions taken by their committees and sub-committees without having any opportunity to contribute to the debate in committee on the policy decisions reached. Obviously this is a thoroughly wrong and unsatisfactory situation. One can well understand why members of the minority parties of Kirkcaldy District Council felt it necessary to press the point by the device of pressing for an attendance allowance for sitting in the public gallery at meetings of major committees from which they had been excluded. Having said all that, the obvious answer is that the majority party on Kirkcaldy District Council should behave as other majority parties of any political complexion on other district councils normally do behave.
I hope, particularly for the three reasons which I gave to the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, that he will not press his amendment now. The Government are very alive to the problem, but we think, for the reasons r have given, that we should wait for the sheriff's court to announce its judgment before rushing towards legislation.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, I thought I had explained that I have no sympathy with the action taken by the majority party on Kirkcaldy District Council, but what they did was legal. We may think that it was not the right behaviour, but it was legal. What the aggrieved parties then proceeded to do was to go and see what was going on in the committees. But not being authorised to be there as members of the committee or as observers, they were not there officially. The question now arises, what is it they have done in not officially attending but claiming an allowance? From my recollection of the intention of the 1973 Act, what they did was illegal. It is going to be settled by this test case and the noble Lord the Minister says the best thing to do is to wait; if the matter is settled to the advantage of the authority and as it was intended by Parliament, then that is that and nothing need follow.
But we have seen some surprising judgments at times in relation to the interpretation of statutes. I can remember one case in which a man who had been Solicitor-General in the Government passed an Act, or was concerned with an Act, and as a judge gave a judgment on part of that Act which threw the whole negotiating procedure in relation to teachers' salaries. There was a complete upheaval.
Since we know that there is the possibility of a loophole, would it not be far better to close that loophole? The Government say that if things go the wrong way then they will take an early opportunity to act. We have an early opportunity in respect of one Bill—I believe to do with water—with almost a pledge of legislation next Session. What will be an "early opportunity" for another Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill? I would say, nil. What about the great civic Bill we were promised? We were told it was going to come before the House this Session and now we hear it will be in the next Session; it might or it might not. "An early opportunity" does not mean a thing. Anybody who knows anything about the jostling for position on the legislative programme will appreciate that the Scottish Office are not masters of their own house so far as this is concerned; it is tied in with the Government's whole programme, and how many Bills are going to be passed? I think the Government are quite wrong not to take this opportunity to close the loophole.
I was fascinated by the Minister's statement that, simply because one local authority does something, it does not mean there should be legislation on it. Does that apply to Clause 14 of this Bill as well? The only local authority we heard about that necessitates action is one authority, and we have the most impressive legislation that Scottish local government has ever experienced in the history of local government. I am afraid that the flexibility of the Minister of State's mind, certainly in relation to the use of argument against the various parts of this Bill, just does not add up to sense. His attitude to this particular one is not good sense. At this point I do not propose to take the matter further.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 4 [Repeals]:
Lord Lyell Lord Lyell moved Amendment No. 35:
Page 40, line 38, column 3, leave out from ("buildings";") to ("and") in line 40.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment when moving Amendment No. 27. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
In the Title:
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth)Baroness Darcy (de Knayth) moved Amendment No. 36:
Line 5, after ("1980;") insert ("to amend the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 in its application to Scotland;").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is a paving amendment necessitated by the inclusion of the noble Earl's most welcome new clause after Clause 36. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.