Lords Sitting of 13 July 1994

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Peterborough.

Teachers: Funding and Redundancies
Lord Judd Lord Judd asked Her Majesty's Government:
What are their estimates of the number of teachers likely to be declared redundant as the result of the Government's not meeting in full the cost of this year's 2.9 per cent. pay increase and their cutback in funding under Section 11 of the Local Government Act 1966.
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, the Government accepted the recommendation of the School Teachers Review Body. Decisions about teacher numbers fall to be taken at the local level and it is for individual employers to judge how best to implement the award. It is for each recipient of Section 11 grant to decide how to proceed in 1994–95, although an encouraging number have notified the Home Office that their projects will continue unaffected. Information is not held centrally about the particular arrangements to be adopted by grant recipients in managing any staff reductions.
Lord Judd: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, according to research done by the Association of Teachers and Lecturers, as many as 5,000 teaching posts in the country as a whole may have been at stake? Is she further aware that the teachers most affected are often the more experienced and mature, and that their deployment to alternative posts is frequently blocked because of the appointment of younger, less experienced, cheaper teachers? Is she also aware of the damage being done to the work of integrating children of ethnic majorities in places such as south London and the West Midlands? What detailed research was undertaken by her department on the implications of all that before the present course was undertaken?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the survey of the Association of Teachers and Lecturers has not yet been borne out, and so we do not have, nor indeed does it have, information as to whether those figures are true because they are speculation on its part. We all know that it is better to have real evidence, and therefore I reserve comment on that matter. All I can say about the information that the noble Lord presents about mature teachers and schools taking on younger teachers is that it is very much a policy to be determined at local level by the governing body as to who it employs. We do not wish at government level to interfere with teacher employment and recruitment: policies.
1812
On Section 11, there is a good deal of evidence that local authorities are ensuring that, if their need to employ teachers to help children with second languages is a priority, they are doing so.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that rather than a cutback, since we came to power there has been a huge expansion in expenditure on education, from £25 billion in 1979 to £32.6 billion this year? Rather than a cutback, that is an increase in expenditure on education in real terms of £7 billion. I am sure that that is good value for money.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I agree with the figures given by my noble friend, and I can add to them. The real terms increase in teachers' pay, discounting inflation, is 57 per cent., and in case someone should stand up and say that the number of pupils has risen, there has been a 50 per cent. increase in real terms over 1979 on the amount spent on children. Class sizes are smaller than when we came into office in 1979 and more teachers are employed. Despite what the noble Lord, Lord Judd, has just said, there are 2,000 more teachers on the payroll today than there were this time last year.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I am sure that the House was interested to hear that it is the job of teachers' employers to manage the situation. Is the Minister aware that there are two categories in this area? The first is school governors, who have cash limited budgets on an annual basis and who are not permitted by law to overspend their budgets, and the other is the LEAs, which are in some respects employers of teachers but which have no power to intervene at the school level. When the Minister says that the employers should manage the problem, do the Government visualise giving more powers to LEAs to enable them to do that job or relaxing the restrictions on school governors so that they can do the job?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am not absolutely certain what message the noble Lord is giving in his question. Is he, on the one hand, asking for a totally open-ended budget for education? If that is the case, I would argue that it is not possible to divorce education from the need to live within the means of the country as a whole. Secondly, in terms of recruitment policy, the people best equipped to know what kind of teachers, competencies and expertise they need to employ at school level are the schools' governing bodies. That is where the power to recruit lies.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: My Lords, does the Minister accept that, if the funding under Section 11 is cut back and channelled through the single regeneration budget, it is unlikely to be returned in full measure to all schools that receive it? Does she further accept that that would do grave damage to the capacity of schools, particularly those with a high proportion of ethnic minority pupils, to deliver a proper education for their youngsters?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the right reverend Prelate is right to address the fact that a tension exists, because the single regeneration budget which will operate from next year is a wholly new system. The

1813
Department for Education is most anxious about how that should operate and that it should not operate seriously to disadvantage those areas of the country in which English as a second language is a particular priority. But we are not yet convinced that the reduction in the support for Section 11 spending is a serious issue and is resulting in large cutbacks in the numbers of teachers involved. However, the right reverend Prelate is right to be vigilant about how the new system will work.
Lord Judd: My Lords, the Minister says that she would rather rely on facts than speculation. Is she aware that as regards the schools specifically surveyed by the ATL, no fewer than 1,732 notices of intended redundancy had been issued, and that extended to the country as a whole that brings us to the figure of 5,000? What does the Minister's department intend to do about the loss of the most experienced teachers, the adverse effect on class ratios and the damage to the work in integrating children from ethnic minorities?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, if I went back over the past 10 or 15 years to look at what was happening at this time of year I should find similar speculation about the loss of teachers. Each year the situation is never as bad as people speculate that it will be. We can all carry out surveys and extrapolate their meaning across 25,000 schools. I make no apology for being more concerned with facts than speculation, because only facts will tell us what is happening out there. While we know that there are tensions about funding and spending, we also know that more money is being spent and more teachers are being employed. Those figures were given by my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing. The situation does not live up to the doom and gloom that are being peddled by the noble Lord.

Legal Aid: Expenditure
2.45 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they are taking to restrain the growth in the cost of legal aid to the taxpayer.
The Lord Advocate (Lord Rodger of Earlsferry):My Lords, the Government are taking many measures to control the growth in legal aid expenditure. These are set out in the Management Statement for the Legal Aid Board and the Lord Chancellor's Department's Strategic Plan, copies of which are available in the Library.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, notwithstanding that, is my noble and learned friend aware that legal aid is being provided in some very expensive cases— notably that of Hashim v. The Arab Monetary Fund, where the costs run into millions? Is there any indication that the Government are prepared to cut out the grant of legal aid in these expensive cases where large sums of money are involved and there is no question of poverty or relief?
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, your Lordships and my noble friend will appreciate that the present scheme must be applied in any existing case. My noble friend raised the question of whether something should be done to adjust the scheme. The type of case to which my noble friend referred—that is the Hashim case but there have been a number of others—obviously raises questions as to whether some adjustments in the regulations are appropriate. On the other hand, it is not a matter which can be rushed, and obviously my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has it under consideration.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, does the Minister recall the Question that was raised in the House some weeks ago relating to the Iranian gentleman who had received £4 million in legal aid? Is he aware of a report in last weekend's responsible press that further substantial sums of money are to be made available to that gentleman in order that he can continue his court case? It is a financial case, but I understand that fraud is alleged. Does the Minister believe that the Answers that he gave on that occasion and today satisfy people that there has been equal treatment in the allocation of funds for legal aid as regards the citizens of this country when a non-British national is afforded sums of money on this scale? When will the Government do something about it instead of just talking about it?
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, the legal aid fund is available to provide legal aid to any person who fulfils the criteria and who is involved in litigation in England and Wales. That includes people from overseas. As I said on a previous occasion, there are to some extent comparable schemes elsewhere to which British nationals have access. But the question raised by the noble Lord is whether in this case the payments have been properly made. On the previous occasion I indicated that the matter was carefully looked at and that eligibility was assessed by the benefit agency. There are mechanisms for an investigation of these matters. In the event of Dr. Hashim being successful in the litigation, there are mechanisms for those sums of money to be recovered by the Legal Aid Fund. Your Lordships must be satisfied that the matter is being properly conducted.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, the Minister must understand—
Noble Lords: Order, order!
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I have tried to get the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to explain why the cost of civil cases in Scotland is about half that in England. Will the Minister tell me whether it is because Scots lawyers are less long-winded or less greedy?
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, it would be rather contentious to start comparing the two sets of lawyers. However, it is fair to say that the legal aid schemes in Scotland and England are structured differently, and that may be reflected in different levels of fees. As I said on a previous occasion, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has several initiatives under way; in particular, in connection with

1815
the introduction of standard fees. We hope that that will lead to a reduction in some of the payments which have been made in the past.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, does my noble and learned friend agree that by far the most helpful advance in restraining the cost of legal aid in England and Wales lies in an appreciation of our civil procedures in the direction of shortening the length of cases and having a number of preliminary hearings in order to reach an alternative settlement of disputes?
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, my noble and learned friend refers to a very important aspect of the matter. Reform of civil procedures will, one hopes, bring benefits not only to the Legal Aid Fund but also to ordinary litigants who are not legally aided. As my noble and learned friend said, that benefit will feed through to the Legal Aid Fund.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord aware—I assume that he is—that at a minuted meeting in the Lord Chancellor's Department on 24th March last year between the Lord Chancellor and representatives of the legal profession and the advice agencies concerning the cuts in eligibility for legal aid, the Lord Chancellor stated in terms that he would like to reverse those cuts if opportunity arose in the future? Can the noble and learned Lord assure the House that it remains the Government's ambition to reverse those cuts if circumstances permit?
Does he accept that the effect of the eligibility cuts introduced in April last year is that only the poor or the very rich have access to the courts, and that middle-income Britain is left out in the cold?
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, I believe that all noble Lords will be aware that the legal aid scheme is very generous. According to latest available figures, expenditure on legal aid last year was £1,211 million, which was an increase of £118 million on the previous year. Therefore, it would be quite wrong to paint a picture of a miserly scheme. Of course, if in due course, as a result of the reforms that I have mentioned, it is possible to gain more control over legal aid expenditure, it would be desirable to admit as many people as possible to the scheme. But, first, we must get expenditure on legal aid under control.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, is it the ambition of the Government, in any event, to reverse those cuts if financial circumstances permit?
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, I believe that I have just answered that question.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, has not the action which the Government have taken to restrain costs been quite simply to delay the payment of fees?
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, no, not at all. As I said, there are several initiatives—in particular, initiatives to introduce standard fees. In that way we hope to avoid, for example, the delays in taxation of fees and so on. We hope that the initiatives will result in quicker payment of fees.
Lord Annan: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, is obviously right to say that there are certain cases for which legal aid is not appropriate. But does the noble and learned Lord agree that the way forward is that suggested by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham; that is, a reduction in costs to bring actions before the courts? In addition to the suggestions with regard to procedure made by the noble and learned Lord, will he also consider whether part of the costs is not due to the rapacity of the legal profession whose members seem to require large dollops of jam put on bread which is already thickly spread with butter?
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, I am sure that all noble Lords would agree that a reduction in the complexity of civil procedures is the way forward. The same also applies to some extent in relation to criminal procedures. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has set up a committee under the chairmanship of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, to look into civil procedures. Therefore, the opportunities for counsel and others to earn fees may be reduced. In that way, the overall burden may also be reduced.

Mr. Knud Munk: CAP Proposals
2.55 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington asked Her Majesty's Government Lord Bruce of Donington asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have considered an article by Mr Knud Munk entitled The Rationale for the Common Agricultural Policy and the European Communities Sectoral Policies; and whether they will give their views on the radical reforms proposed to the common agricultural policy.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Howe): My Lords, the Government consider that the cost of the common agricultural policy is too high. Our objectives for further reform of the CAP include reducing support prices so that supply and demand come into better balance; removing supply controls such as quotas and set-aside; phasing out compensatory payments; and targeting remaining support more closely—for example towards structural and environmental objectives. Our aim is to secure a more market-oriented CAP under which British farmers, with their relatively efficient structure and proven flexibility, would prosper.
The article by Mr. Munk contains many ideas which reflect the Government's approach. I welcome its contribution to the important debate on the future of the CAP.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I am glad that the Government have evidently considered it possible to read and understand the document. Is the Minister aware that the population of the United Kingdom is fed up to the teeth with the common agricultural policy, which means an extra burden on taxpayers of £2 billion per year and £20 per week on each family of four?
Will the noble Earl give the House an undertaking that in the Reflection Group of the European Council,

1817
which is to meet to discuss the inter-governmental conference proceedings in 1996, Members of the Government will give serious attention to the necessity for reforming the common agricultural policy out of existence, root and branch?
Earl Howe: My Lords, the Government are already making their views very clear in Brussels. We are taking three principal steps. In the short term, we are pressing hard for price reductions in this year's price fixing. My right honourable friend the Minister will continue with those efforts next week. We are also pressing for the reform of those sectors not covered in the 1992 reforms —notably, wine, fruit and vegetables, olive oil and sugar. Looking ahead, yes, we shall press for support prices to be reduced still further and we are making known our views at every suitable opportunity.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, is it the Government's view that British farmers are spoilt, too rich or incompetent? Will the Government replace the CAP by providing a fair deal for the agricultural community, which is responsible for feeding the British public up to the teeth?
Earl Howe: My Lords, the Government firmly believe that UK agriculture must prosper if we are to protect the countryside and if we are to have a healthy rural economy. But it is possible to imagine that without the high levels of production-related support which currently exist. To reduce that support will not be straightforward because we do not wish to see either the UK or indeed the Community placed at a competitive disadvantage on world markets.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, can my noble friend give us any idea when we can expect an assessment of the financial success or otherwise of the 1992 MacSharry reforms? What kind of sum has been paid out to British farmers for set-aside in the first year? Does the Minister have any idea of the fall in production which resulted from the 15 per cent. set-aside?
Earl Howe: My Lords, the cuts in support prices and the increase in direct payments, such as set-aside, which arose from the 1992 reforms will result in consumer savings but increased taxpayer costs. The main point is that the overall resource cost will be lower than it would otherwise have been in the absence of reform. When the reform is fully implemented, annual costs imposed by the CAP on consumers should be around £1 billion lower in the UK and around £8 billion lower for the EC as a whole. However, that calculation did not distinguish between individual years.
With regard to the last part of my noble friend's question, I believe I am right in saying—although I shall check the figure—that, across the Community as a whole, in 1993 cereal production was some 2 per cent. lower than it was in the previous year.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, can the Minister assure the House that the Government have the support of the French Government in the changes that they have in mind?
Earl Howe: My Lords, we enjoy the support of the French Government in many areas. We talk regularly to our opposite numbers in the French Ministry of Agriculture. I believe that there are signs that a note of realism is creeping in to French thinking which, of course, we welcome.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, despite the encouraging remarks that the noble Earl has just made, is he aware that every time the Government make such remarks the cost of the CAP seems to increase even more? Indeed, it is now running at the rate of £30 billion a year. Does the noble Earl agree that the CAP policy was formulated to suit a peasant agricultural system in a world of food shortages? As we now want a modern farming system and there is no world food shortage but a world glut, should we not work to abolish the CAP?
Earl Howe: My Lords, whatever its original aims and objectives, there is no doubt that the CAP is no longer fulfilling the role that it should. As the noble Lord rightly pointed out, the world has moved on. The budget for 1994 has been set at the level of the guideline, but the latest estimates indicate that expenditure will be well within it. The Commission is expected to propose an amending budget to reduce the CAP budget by around 1 billion ecu.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Wakeham): My Lords, I am afraid that we must now move on to the last Question on the Order Paper.

Azerbaijan
3.2 p.m.
The Earl of Shannon: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I declare an interest as the chairman of the British-Armenian All-Party Parliamentary Group.
The Question was as follows:
Whether they will make representations to the Government of Turkey concerning the proposal to recall the Turkish parliament to authorise the despatch of a Turkish peace-keeping force to Azerbaijan.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Lord Henley): My
Lords, we understand that Prime Minister Ciller is seeking parliamentary authority for Turkey to contribute to a possible CSCE (Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe) monitoring team which might be deployed in support of a cease-fire in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. We are not aware of any Turkish proposal to send a separate peace-keeping force to Azerbaijan and therefore have no plans to make representations on the subject.
The Earl of Shannon: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. In view of the Turkish support and even encouragement of Azerbaijan's invasion of the Karabakh, does the Minister agree that to suggest that Turkish forces would be suitable as a peace-keeping

1819
force would be about as intelligent as suggesting that the Nazi SS should send in peace-keeping forces to help the Israelis with the Palestinian problem?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I repeat what I said in my initial Answer. We are not aware of any suggestions that Turkey is planning to send in a separate peace-keeping force to Azerbaijan. We would certainly view that suggestion with considerable concern. Turkey is part of the CSCE process and is playing a full role in attempts to reach a negotiated settlement. As a result, Turkey has indicated its willingness, along with the United Kingdom, to contribute to any possible CSCE monitoring force to which the parties to the dispute agree.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that I recently sent my noble friend Lady Chalker a report about Turkish weapons, which I myself saw last week when I was in Nagorno-Karabakh, which Azerbaijan had been using in its war against the Armenians of Karabakh? Therefore, does my noble friend agree that that not only raises serious questions for Turkey as a member of NATO, but that it would also be very understandable if the Armenians of Armenia and those of Karabakh were to become deeply concerned about any pretence that Turkey might play any kind of impartial role in peace-keeping or even in monitoring?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I have to tell my noble friend that we have no evidence of Turkey supplying arms to Azerbaijan. In fact, Turkey has undertaken to respect the CSCE arms embargo to that region. Obviously, any evidence that my noble friend can provide will be taken with enormous seriousness. My noble friend Lady Chalker will examine such evidence with due care and take note of it. We would view any evidence that Turkey was supplying arms with extreme displeasure.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is most important to try to bring together the work of the CSCE and that of the Russian Government so as to secure peace in the area, rather than continuing with two separate initiatives? Despite what the Minister said in reply to the noble Baroness, does he also agree that it is vital to halt the flow of arms into the area? It is said that both the Greek and the Turkish Governments have been supplying arms to opposing sides in the region. Can the Minister tell the House what is being done to try to halt that flow from wherever it may come?
Lord Henley: My Lords, as I said, we have no evidence of supplies of arms from either Greece or Turkey. However, if there was such evidence of the supply of arms—and I gave an assurance that we would look at what my noble friend can provide in evidence —we would view it with extreme displeasure. As regards the first part of the noble Baroness's question, we are aware of the efforts of the Russians to promote a settlement between the parties. We are also aware of the cease-fire brokered by the Russians in May which seems to be yielding some results. Indeed, there have been only a few serious outbreaks of fighting since then.
1820
But obviously, as the noble Baroness said, it is highly important that those efforts are co-ordinated with those of the CSCE.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there has been a large build up of arms on the Azerbaijani side of the border? Further, what steps can the CSCE take to monitor the origin of those weapons so that the embargo can be properly enforced? Will the Minister suggest to the Turks that they themselves should bring pressure to bear on Azerbaijan not to embark upon a fresh offensive and not to attempt to import weapons against the CSCE embargo?
Lord Henley: My Lords, as the noble Lord will be aware, the whole region was, I think, awash with arms after the Russian withdrawal from the area. As I said, there is the CSCE embargo on arms supplies to the region. I repeat, we would view with extreme displeasure any breaches of that embargo. At present, we have no evidence of either Turkey or Greece breaching that embargo.

Business
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend the Leader of the House will, with the leave of the House, repeal a Statement that is to be made in another place on the Civil Service.

Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) (No. 2) Bill [H.L.]
Baroness Lock wood: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move on behalf of my noble friend Lord Ashley of Stoke that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.
—(Baroness Lockwood.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill
3.8 p.m.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Schedule 1 [New local government areas]:
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 130, line 16, column 2, leave out from ("Council") to end of line 17.
The noble Lord said: With the indulgence of the Committee, perhaps I may first make an apology for a statement that I made during the last Committee day on the Bill. At col. 706 of Hansard on 28th June I made reference to the fact that I had received a letter from the factor of the noble Duke, the Duke of Argyll, supporting the proposal that Luss be taken into Argyll and excluded from its old area of Dumbarton. I have since received a letter which makes it clear to me that I had misread the earlier letter, which actually came from the chairman of the Argyll and Bute District Council. I now have a letter from Mr. Fairweather, the factor of the Duke of Argyll. I had suggested that the other letter was impressive but this letter is even more so. I apologise to Mr. Fairweather for having embroiled him unfairly in this matter.
In moving Amendment No. 23 I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 24. This refers to the division of Renfrewshire into two areas. It already comprises two areas but it is proposed to divide it in a quite different way. There is little one needs to say because the people in Scotland are in no doubt at all that the boundaries were not drawn in an absolutely professional way. It appears that the boundaries were drawn to try to create a safer seat for certain people in another place than is the case at present. Subsequent to the original boundaries being drawn, local elections were held and the boundaries were amended slightly to make it even more likely that the existing Member would keep his seat.
I have received a great deal of correspondence from the people of Renfrewshire, as I am sure has the Minister. I understand that Neilston, Barrhead, and Paisley—I may have incorrectly referred to some villages—are now being split up. It is the first time that anyone has attempted to split them up since the Reformation. Since the Reformation they have always been in the Paisley presbytery of the Church of Scotland. It was suggested in Committee in the other place that even the earlier Stuarts could not split up those areas but the present Stewart has managed to do so rather successfully! The proposals are obviously very artificial.
I do not wish to add a great deal more except to say that I believe our amendments would be fairer. These boundaries were drawn in-house in the Scottish Office. There was no attempt to hold an investigation or to listen to voices in the local area. However, the district councils have listened to local voices and people in all parts of the area have said overwhelmingly that they do not wish the area to be split up in the way that is suggested in the Bill.
I hope the Minister will have some news to give us because promises were given in Committee in another place that this matter would be looked at again. I do not wish to go into too many details but there is a specific point which must be cleared up. I refer to the wrong numbering of a road in one of the schedules. As I understand the matter, the road in question is a long way from the Paisley and Barrhead area. I am sure the Minister will have details of that. I beg to move.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: It has been customary in these debates on the Scottish local government Bill for Members of the Committee to indicate their knowledge of the areas concerned, and their credentials for discussing those areas. I lived a large part of my life in Renfrewshire—the area that we are discussing today. The Gryfe area, referred to in my title, is in the heart of Renfrewshire. Therefore, I am reasonably familiar with the provisions of this Bill as it affects Renfrew.
Under the proposals of the Government, the boroughs of Barrhead and Neilston will become part of Eastwood and will be divorced from their long-standing association with the town of Paisley. I suggest that the whole economic life and the whole community life of these areas of Barrhead and Neilston are completely integrated in the economy of Paisley. Paisley is a booming place. It has a large and expanding airport. It has the largest pigments factory in Europe, Ciba-Geigy, which I had the pleasure of opening some little time ago. Paisley is at the heart of the area. So close is the relationship between Paisley and Barrhead that when I was a youngster the Glasgow tram cars used to run right round the tramway system, when we had one, from Paisley to Barrhead. Barrhead is totally integrated with the community life, the church life and the industrial life of Paisley. Under the Government scheme Barrhead and Neilston will be moved to Eastwood. Eastwood is an entirely different area. Eastwood is a suburb of Glasgow and it is a commuter area of Glasgow. People there have a rather splendid middle class existence in Eastwood, which is nothing like the industrial complex that surrounds Paisley. The whole culture of Barrhead and Neilston is related to Paisley. It has nothing in common with the economic and community structure which exists in Eastwood.
I do not subscribe to the conspiracy theory that all this has been plotted to help the Conservative MP in Eastwood. That may or may not be the case, but I would not argue about that. I am arguing on totally non-political grounds that this is not a sensible arrangement of local government. In these circumstan-ces I suggest to the Minister that he looks at this seriously and in a non-political way in terms of what makes sense for local government and local administra-tion rather than impose a divorce of Barrhead from its natural association with Paisley. Barrhead would be forced to be part of an entirely different area with which it shares no common feeling of community. Consequently, I support the amendment that has been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael. I appeal to the Minister to have another look at this matter because of the serious considerations which have been presented.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I hope that I may be forgiven, as a mere Englishman, if I intervene briefly in the debate on this amendment. My excuses—if I need excuses—are twofold. First, I received a civil and courteous letter from the managing director of the Renfrew district council. Secondly, I am genuinely, deeply and increasingly disturbed about the proposals of the Government for local government. Again and again

1823
one searches for some kind of explanation or some traces of popular welcome for what is proposed, without being able to find them. I very much hope that my noble friend will correct me if I am wrong, but my information is that the aims of the Renfrew district council are to provide first class services. That aim has been fulfilled with some distinction in that 64 per cent. of the population in the area of the district council are satisfied with the services that it provides. I am also advised— and the noble Lord who moved the amendment made this point—that the present area of the council reflects local loyalties and traditions.
I hope that my noble and learned friend will pay real attention to this issue. If the Conservative Party stands for anything, it is its concern with traditions and loyalties. On occasion there may be good reasons for disregarding them, but the reasons have to be extremely strong. The more I look at proposals for local government as they emerge, the more I begin to fear that those local traditions and loyalties are being widely disregarded over a large area.
I do not wish to be contentious or fractious in opposing the Government in this manner. However, I hope that my noble and learned friend will give answers to these questions. What advantages would flow from the reorganisation which the Government now propose as opposed to the present state of affairs? What gain would there be, and to whom, from splitting up an arrangement which seems to be working fairly happily? What would be the cost? And on what consultation have the present proposals been based?
I hope that my noble and learned friend will accept that the Government's proposals for changing local government are a source of great unease in England, Scotland and Wales. I hope that there will not be that rigid and maddening insistence that, "We have thought about the matter very carefully. We know we are right and all you people have got it wrong". This does not seem to me to be a party issue. It is of deep concern to many of us. It seems particularly strange that a minute county such as Somerset should be divided into three councils, the huge area of the Highlands should have only one council and the Government now propose to break up the Renfrew district council, which seems to be working perfectly adequately and which people of all parties are united in wishing to keep. There is a substantial burden of proof on the Government and I hope that they accept that.
I hope that my noble and learned friend will understand that I do not like standing up and challenging Ministers of a Government whom I wish to support. I hope that he will understand that I do so because I believe that the Conservative Party will lose a great deal of the strength which it ought to draw from its roots, which are embedded in just the kind of traditions and loyalties which the Government seem to be challenging now.
The Earl of Selkirk: I am very grateful to the noble Lord for raising this question. It is a very old one. I was a member of Edinburgh Town Council at the end of the 1930s until the war broke out, and ever since I have recognised a distinct feeling that people want to run
1824
their own affairs. However, if councils have to obtain permission before they can tackle any major issue there is delay and almost everybody concerned objects to that. That point has arisen in almost every area of Scotland when local authorities are formed. People want to have their own say in what those bodies should be. I am sure that that is right. They ought to be able to carry out that responsibility themselves rather than those bodies being nominated by somebody else.
I have received a particularly strong letter this morning from Kirkcaldy. Kirkcaldy is in Fife. The decision in relation to the airport has been extremely serious for the people there because it has left them with a great deal of unemployment on their hands. That need not have occurred if Rothesay had been used for the purpose for which it was intended. That is only part of the story. In essence Rothesay was a replacement for the Clyde. Some 30 or 40 years ago some half of the naval ships of the world were built on the Clyde. It has always been a mystery to me why that industry has gone, but no doubt others can explain why that happened. That should not be forgotten. Through the strength and ability of Rothesay something of the nature of that shipbuilding could be restored to Glasgow, the quality of whose shipbuilding has never been questioned or equalled anywhere in the world. Yet the shipyards have been swept aside after they did a great deal of valuable; work in the war building ships of the highest possible quality. We want to see that restored.
The same applies to a lesser extent in relation to steel. Steelworks in Scotland, particularly in the area of the Clyde, were of the highest order and the steel produced there was of the best quality. The problem was due to events and the fact that steel was not needed in such volume. It is objectionable that no one can find a purpose for it at the present time.
No one from England should think that they are disliked by the Scots. A story goes round occasionally to the effect that, "We have a new man, and he is only an Englishman". That occurs at times, but it should not be taken too seriously. A little humour is quite right and proper at times.
We want rather more control. I believe chat that would be greatly to the advantage of both England and Scotland. We want the power to have our own local government authorities, with adequate resources to do their work. They should not always have to comply with financial requirements coming from London. That is what is wanted.
I am speaking generally, rather away from the Bill, but I emphasise that that is the essence of what we should have. I do not believe that a great many people in Scotland will want more than simply to feel that their local authorities have authority and the necessary funding. That is what I wish to draw attention to on this occasion.
Lord Hughes: Unlike my noble friends who have spoken to the amendment, I have no particular knowledge of the area. Therefore, what 1 shall say arises from my ignorance rather than from my knowledge.
Am I right in thinking that when the Government first put forward their proposals for local authorities

1825
Eastwood stood as an authority on its own, and that it was during the Committee stage in another place that the proposal emerged in its present form? Having regard to the fact that the Under-Secretary of State who took the Bill through all its stages in the other place is the Member for Eastwood in this Parliament, I cannot believe that a reversal to the original proposal of Eastwood would be unacceptable to him, because I cannot think that the change was made with any enthusiasm on his part. I may be wrong but that was my impression. It was because those people were suggesting that Eastwood was being proposed in that form to suit the convenience of the Minister that alterations were made. Am I quite wrong on that?
Lord Mackie of Benshie: I put my name to the amendment purely to help the Government. Many nasty things have been said and I am afraid that some of them may be true. I therefore sit down happily to await the explanation which will put everything right.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: The boundaries in relation to Renfrewshire, as originally proposed in the Bill, have been subjected in another place to intense scrutiny. Indeed, as a result of the Government's willingness to pay attention to local opinion, two important changes were made to the Bill. My noble friend asked a number of questions about the basis of our local government reform. I offer no comment about those reforms proposed for England. I restrict my remarks to those proposed for Scotland. It is the fact that at the last general election every major party in Scotland in its manifesto was committed to the establishment of single tier local authority throughout Scotland. Perhaps I may say to my noble friend that what has to be understood about the Scottish position is that it is not simply a matter of moving boundaries between existing unitary local authorities but of removing a regional tier. For example, if one were to examine the volume of expenditure on local government in Renfrewshire one would find that about 80 per cent. of that expenditure was spent by Strathclyde Region. While I have no doubt that a considerable number of people in Renfrewshire district, the second tier, have a high regard for the services delivered by that district council, it has to be appreciated that in establishing those new unitary authorities we are giving them the complete range of local government powers and not dividing those powers between two tiers.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I know that the Minister does not wish to be unfair. However, he says that all parties wanted a single tier structure. He must add that on the part of the Labour Party that desire was based on the fact that there would be a Scottish Assembly or a Scottish Parliament to undertake the large strategic planning and so on. We could then move to a single tier. That factor should always be added when he makes that assertion.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I am not in the least keen to avoid making observations on that aspect. As I
1826
believe the noble Lord appreciates, it is clearly implicit within the proposals to establish an assembly that, far from devolving power to local levels, some of the existing powers given to local governments in Scotland should be centralised and taken to an assembly in Edinburgh. The noble Lord may rest assured that I have no reason whatever to attempt in any fashion to disguise the proposal of the Labour Party.
The people of Inverclyde argued strongly for a council based on existing district boundaries on the basis that links with the major part of Renfrew district were extremely limited and that there was no community of interest. There was a subsequent and second set of representations from the Ralston area arguing strongly in favour of a link with Paisley.
The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, is quite correct. Amendments were made in another place. However, they were the other way round: Ralston was proposed to be within the East Renfrewshire local authority area. As a result of those representations, it has been excluded from that and has been put into the Renfrewshire area.
The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, referred to a mistake in the original drafting of the boundaries of the East Renfrewshire council. That mistake disappeared when the Ralston part of the area was removed and put into the Renfrewshire-Paisley part of the council.
Lord Hughes: Was I right in thinking that when the Bill went into Committee, Eastwood stood on its own?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie; No, the noble Lord is wrong. Ralston was included within it and added on to it. But that addition has now again been subtracted.
If I am asked to give some explanation of the boundary proposed for the Barrhead, Neilston area, it represents the old historical and traditional boundary between Renfrewshire county and the royal borough of Paisley. As a boundary, it had the support of a number of local councillors in that area.
The East Renfrewshire authority now follows closely the existing boundary of the parliamentary constituency. It is not that the parliamentary constituency is to follow the local government boundary. In our view it represents a well balanced authority in terms of industrial areas and housing stock. We firmly believe that it will quickly establish a strong sense of identity and will be truly responsive to the needs of the local community. The new Renfrewshire council, with a population base of some 180,000 will be well placed to secure the delivery of high quality services effectively and efficiently.
If the amendment were to be accepted, the population of the East Renfrewshire council, which as presently constructed covers some 84,000 people, would be reduced to some 60,000. I should have thought that, if the sizes of authorities were to be consistent, a number of noble Lords might question that as a desirable reduction.
We believe that the structure for Renfrewshire now strikes the best balance among the range of factors that have to be taken into account. I hope that the noble Lord will accept that there was intense scrutiny of this part of the map of Scotland in another place, that significant changes were made, and that what is now proposed should stand.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: Perhaps I may bring the debate to a close by, first, commending the Minister's eloquence in defending the totally indefensible. If there is one proposal, among all the other matters in the Bill that is totally indefensible, it is the proposal in relation to this area of Scotland. I was particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil, for his contribution. He seemed to be more in tune with the feelings of the people in our area than the Government or those responsible for drawing up the proposals. At the risk of sounding impertinent, perhaps I may lay before your Lordships the set of circumstances and the sequence of events which brought us to the position that we are in today.
As the Minister said, in the original proposal the boundaries for the specific part of Renfrewshire which includes Eastwood was a reversion to the old parliamentary constituency of East Renfrewshire, which used to be so ably represented in another place by the late Betty Harvie Anderson whom so many Members of the Committee will remember with great affection and great respect. Those proposals included the area of Ralston. Like my noble friend Lord Taylor of Gryfe, I do not believe in the conspiracy theory. However, there was a by-election in Ralston during the consideration of the Bill in another place. A rock-solid Conservative-held seat, which had been held consistently over all the years by the Conservative Party at local government level, was lost overwhelmingly. In a blinding flash of reality, the Government decided that Ralston should not be part of Allan Stewart's constituency and should be removed. Instead, it should be replaced with Barrhead, Neilston, Uplawmoor, and Dykehead. When Dykehead was included, mistakes were made there as well. Scottish television had a hilarious time taking its camera teams to houses where the living room was in one council area and the bedroom in another. So keen were the Government to get the detail of the proposal absolutely right that they had houses in streets in Dykehead where the living room was in one council area and the bedroom in another.
I know that one of the architects of those proposals, Douglas Mason, who was also the architect of the poll tax, obviously did not know much about bedrooms, living rooms, or Dykehead—or anything. But the Minister really ought not to try to defend that kind of fiasco.
The Minister knows perfectly well the reality of the situation and there is no point in going back to historical links. My noble friend Lord Carmichael made it clear that Barrhead, Neilston, Uplawmoor and Dykehead have always been part, since the Reformation, of the presbytery of Paisley. He knows that Dykehead, Barrhead and Neilston have always looked to Paisley as their centre and identity. They have never looked to places like Newton Mearns and the other parts of Eastwood which I hold in high regard but which have nothing in common with Barrhead, Neilston and Dykehead. The Minister knows perfectly well that what influenced the Government was local opinion. I was about to say—and I apologise for it—that it was not
1828
local opinion, but it was local opinion expressed through the ballot box in Ralston. That is what influenced the Government.
I am sad that the Minister did not give us the same assurance as was given even at Report stage in another place that further consideration would be given to this matter. I make this appeal to Members of the Committee. We have it in our hands m the next few minutes to exercise the mind of the Goverment on this important issue from the point of view of the people who live in that area. In view of what I regard, with respect, as the unsatisfactory response from the Minister, I wish to test the feeling of the Commirtee.
3.42 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 23) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 79, Not-Contents, 125.

Division No.1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Ailesbury, M.

Jay, L.

Airedale, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Judd, L.

Barnett, L.

Kintore, E.

Bath, M.

Kirkhill, L.

Blackstone, B.

Listowel, E.

Blease, L.

Lockwood, B.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Bottomley, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Masham of IIton, B.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Mayhew, L.

Carter, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Monkswell, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

David, B.

Nicol, B.

Dean of Beswick, L. [Teller.]

Redesdale, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Richard, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Robson of Kiddingion, B.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Rochester, L.

Falkland, V.

Sainsbury, L.

Foot, L.

Seear, B.

Geraint, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Glasgow, E.

Shepherd, L.

Glenamara, L.

Stallard, L. [Teller.]

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Stedman, B.

Gregson, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Grey, E.

Strabolgi, L.

Haig, E.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Halsbury, E.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Haskel, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Tordoff, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hooson, L.

Westwood, L.

Howell, L.

Whaddon, L.

Hughes, L.

Wigoder, L.

Hylton, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Barber of Tewkesbury, L.

Abinger, L.

Blatch, B.

Aldington, L.

Blyth, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Alexander of Weedon, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Bruntisfield, L.

Alport, L.

Cadman, L.

Annaly, L.

Caldecote, V.

Arran, E.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Astor, V.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Balfour, E.

Carr of Hadley, L.

1829

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Marlesford, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Merrivale, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Mersey, V.

Colnbrook, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Courtown, E.

Milverton, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Davidson, V.

Mottistone, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Denham, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Nelson of Stafford, L.

Devonport, V.

Newall, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Norfolk, D.

Elles, B.

Norrie, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Northesk, E.

Elphinstone, L.

Oppenheim-Bames, B.

Elton, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Gainsborough, E.

Pender, L.

Geddes, L.

Pike, B.

Gisborough, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Goschen, V.

Rees, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Rennell, L.

Greenway, L.

Renton, L.

Gridley, L.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone,L.

Romney, E.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Saltoun of Abemethy, Ly.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Harmsworth, L.

Sandys, L.

Harvington, L.

Seccombe, B.

Henley, L.

Selkirk, E.

Hives, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Hood, V.

Slim, V.

Hothfield, L.

St. Davids, V.

Howe, E.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Strange, B.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Kenyon, L.

[Teller.]

Kimball, L.

Sudeley, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Swinfen, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Layton, L.

Torrington, V.

Leigh, L.

Trumpington, B.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Ullswater, V. [Teller.]

Long, V.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Lucas, L.

Vivian, L.

Lyell, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Wakeham, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Manchester, D.

Wynford, L.

Mancroft, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
3.50 p.m.
Viscount St. Davids: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

The Civil Service
3.51 p.m.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster about the Civil Service White Paper. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Madam Speaker, I wish to make a Statement on the White Paper on the Civil Service, published today.
1830
"It is nearly 150 years since the Northcote-Trevelyan Report first laid out the principles of a professional Civil Service, accountable through Ministers to Parliament, recruited on merit, politically impartial and dominated by a high ideal of the value of public service. Over the years since, the Civil Service has seen the demands laid upon it change in ways that could not have been imagined then. But the core principles established at that time have remained unaltered. They have served the country well: they continue to do so.
"So today's White Paper reaffirms those same fundamental principles. They help us to live in a decent society, but they have economic value too. No one should underestimate the advantage we get from the justified reputation we have as a country in which our public service is honest, competent, and apolitical.
"Nonetheless, no organisation can stand still in changing times. The public rightly expects to see continuing improvements in the standards of service in the public sector within the resources which can be afforded. That is why this Government has introduced a series of wide-ranging reforms, now brought together under the banner of the Citizen's Charter, aimed at delivering better service ever more efficiently. These include the Financial Management Initiative, the Next Steps Programme, the Efficiency reviews and the Competing for Quality programme.
"I believe this House should pay tribute to the way the Civil Service has handled these and other initiatives. They have already produced marked increases in both performance and efficiency. The size of the Civil Service is at its lowest level since the Second World War, and the new structures are showing considerable gains in efficiency. The White Paper published today sets out how the Government sees these reforms being taken forward, and draws together the implications for the future of the Civil Service.
"One central principle of management unites all these reforms; namely, that of delegation to and within properly accountable organisations. We should now take further steps in that same direction, building on what we know works, rather than going off in a new direction.
"But it is a fact that the most radical change so far has been in those parts of the Civil Service, much the largest in terms of numbers, which provide service directly to the public. The role of departmental headquarters and of the Cabinet Office and the Treasury now needs to change too. The central role should be to set tough targets, and to monitor performance on the basis of better information than we have at present. But staff throughout the Civil Service should be given the power to manage and operate in ways which best meet their particular tasks and needs, rather than within a single, central blueprint, adequate for all but well fitted to none.
"We therefore intend to carry the Next Steps process further.
"The Government propose that departments should take greater responsibility for deciding their

1831
organisational structures, the pay of their staff, and the best mix of efficiency measures to meet the never-ending pressure to raise standards within tight running costs. Departments themselves should judge, for example, how best to use privatisation, contracting out and market testing. Centrally-driven initiatives have shown in recent years how more competition and choice improves quality and reduces costs: departments themselves must now take these well-established policies forward if we are to see the full benefit from them. The central departments should continue to measure, monitor and report to Parliament but with less second guessing of departments' plans.
"To do this, we need better information systems and modern accounting practices. The Prime Minister has therefore asked the Efficiency Unit to conduct a scrutiny on management information systems and my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is publishing today a Green Paper on resource accounting and budgeting. The Green Paper paves the way for important reforms of the way we account for public money, and opens up the possibility of changes in the way the Government plan their spending, both of which will complement the changes I am proposing in this White Paper.
"Departments will be given the freedom to determine their own management structures at all levels matched to their own needs. We expect them to be tauter and flatter than now.
"The Government propose to extend the delegation of pay and grading—which at present covers around 60 per cent. of the Civil Service—to cover all civil servants, below the Senior Civil Service. I will return to pay arrangements for the latter in a moment.
"The Senior Civil Service needs to support both the collective responsibility of Government and the particular responsibilities of departments, and to underpin both policy-making and high quality service delivery. But it too cannot be immune from change. It needs changing qualities and skills to match its changing tasks. The Government published an Efficiency Unit report on these issues last winter, known as the Oughton Report, and this White Paper includes the Government's response. The Government accept the Efficiency Unit's main recommendations, but propose additional changes. Our main conclusions are as follows.
"To strengthen cohesiveness across the Civil Service and bring in all those with substantial management responsibilities, the Government propose to create a new Senior Civil Service including those broadly down to the present Grade 5 level. It will include up to three-and-a-half thousand people.
"There should be more interchange between this Senior Civil Service (and indeed the rest of the Civil Service too) and outside employees. Open com-petition should become a more normal part of the process for selecting people for senior appointments. It need not be used in every case, but it should be considered in every case. Such competitions must be
1832
superintended as now by the Civil Service Commissioners, independently of Ministers, to guard against the possibility of politicisation. I am publishing today, alongside the White Paper, a report on the future role of the Commissioners. I myself believe that if the Civil Service is as good as it should be at training and career development, most senior posts are likely still to be held by insiders, as they would be in most big firms; but we should set no targets one way or the other.
"Next, the Government propose to introduce explicit written employment contracts for members of the new Senior Civil Service. For the great majority they will provide for employment for an indefinite term, but with specified periods of notice. Fixed term and rolling contracts would also be used as appropriate.
"Madam Speaker, as figures in the White Paper show, it is a myth that the Civil Service is an organisation in which people serve as a matter of course until retiring age. Substantial numbers of senior staff have left early in recent years and this is likely to continue.
"Finally, the White Paper proposes that a new, more flexible pay system should be introduced for this group. There would be a range for permanent secretaries' pay, with the positions of individuals determined by a remuneration committee with a majority of non-Civil Service members. Below this, we propose a system of wider, overlapping pay bands broadly linked to levels of responsibility, with progression based on performance, giving more room for manoeuvre to departments to change their structure to fit their needs. As a first step, the Government will implement the wider pay ranges recommended by the Senior Salaries Review Body for the present Grades 2 and 3 and will ask the review body to recommend a pay range for permanent secretaries. These proposals will, in time, allow for greater differentiation in individuals' pay within the overall pay bill. No immediate pay increases are entailed.
"Madam Speaker, these proposals, for greater delegation to departments and reform of the Senior Civil Service, represent a considerable further challenge for the Civil Service. We are seeking to raise standards of service within tight control of running costs. Staff numbers will continue to fall, from 533,000 at present to significantly below 500,000, with reductions at all levels. Wherever possible, this will be achieved through natural wastage and by voluntary departures. From the autumn of this year, the Treasury will give special assistance to departments with any additional costs.
"The Government believe the Civil Service is fully capable of achieving what we have; asked of it. It will be helped to do this by the greater flexibilities and the management changes I have announced, against the background of the reaffirmation of the old strengths and values which underpin the Civil Service, which the Government have reaffirmed today, and with which, 1 believe, the whole House will concur. The Civil Service must continue to offer

1833
attractive and exciting careers to talented people who wish to serve their country in some of our most important and challenging jobs and it will be helped to do so by up-to-date organisations and structures.
"Madam Speaker, the Civil Service has a unique role maintaining our unwritten constitution. It does not belong to one government or party. The Government, therefore, plan to consult opposition parties as well as others with an interest in the proposals I have outlined today. And we will, of course, consider carefully the forthcoming report from the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee.
"The Government's objective in publishing this White Paper is to map a way forward for the Civil Service to the end of the century and beyond. The result will be a smaller Civil Service, more flexible in organisation, better able to respond to changing tasks, properly rewarded on the basis of responsibilities and performance, and offering challenging careers for both staff and managers with a reaffirmed commitment to the unchanging principle of public service. I commend the White Paper to the House." My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.4 p.m.
Lord Richard: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement made in another place this afternoon. The House will appreciate that it is a complicated Statement about a somewhat complicated issue. Before I comment further on it, perhaps we can see how far at least we agree with some of the matters spoken of by the Leader of the House.
No doubt every one in this House agrees that our existing Civil Service, particularly at the higher levels, has an enviable reputation for certain qualities: its impartiality; its independence of advice, irrespective of who is in government and the nature of that government; its continuity; and, finally, its sheer professionalism. Any Member of this House who has served in any Ministry will agree that the quality of our civil servants at the topmost level is absolutely first class. Let me say at the outset that I hope that those qualities will survive this latest upheaval. But I am bound to say to the House and to the Government that I have my doubts about that.
What is the object of this exercise? What are the Government trying to achieve from the tumult that they will cause within the ranks of the Civil Service? Is it suggested that somehow or other it will make the Civil Service more impartial, more professional and more independent; or that the quality of its advice will somehow improve? I do not think so. There is not a word about that in the Statement, nor indeed in the White Paper, at which I have had no more than a glance. Introducing a competitive element for all senior jobs, for example, is hardly likely to help the objectivity of those who are already in the service, when the Government themselves, certainly in relation to the very senior jobs,
1834
will be the body which does the appointing. It certainly does not do much to foster independence of outlook or advice.
As I understand the position—as I said, it is quite complicated—the Civil Service is broadly to be split. People will move from their previous grade in the present structure to Grade 5 and then join the newly labelled body called the Senior Civil Service, which I gather will contain about 3,000 people. I presume that entry into the Civil Service prior to Grade 5—for example, from the universities—will be as it is at the moment; in other words, there will be a competitive examination and if the candidate successfully passes that Civil Service examination he or she becomes a civil servant at the lower grade. He will then work his way up gradually to Grade 5 and then jump that hurdle to become a senior civil servant. Do the grades then disappear? Who is responsible for deciding who gets what promotion and on what basis is that judged? Not only that, how is one to know who has got the promotion and the basis on which it was awarded?
I understand that the contracts of service at that level will in effect now be an open-ended contract of service but with breaks; in other words, the traditional guarantee to the civil servant that if he (or she) came into the Civil Service at an early age, worked his way up, was competent at his job and preserved his independence and impartiality, then subject to cataclysms he had a job until he was 60. It seems that that guarantee now goes. I am not sure whether that is extremely helpful so far as the independence and objectivity of the Civil Service is concerned.
It is said in the Statement that:
"Open competition should become a more normal part of the process for selecting people for senior appointments".
I am not very happy with that. It seems to me that, given the nature of the Civil Service, particularly at the topmost level—it is designed to provide impartial and independent advice to government—the onus should be the other way round; in other words, that prima facie the civil servant should be entitled to be considered first, but if in fact there is good reason, then perhaps there could be an open competition with people from outside.
The proposal seems to us to be a menu for accelerated privatisation of the Civil Service. Certainly there will be considerable job losses. The Statement itself mentions figures somewhere in the region of 50,000. It is a concept that is somewhat difficult to accept. I am not sure whether the abolition of the existing structure of pay bargaining will achieve what the Government believe it will achieve. Do we really wish to see each department negotiating its own pay contracts for the civil servants within the department? Do we believe that a civil servant in the department of education should be paid more or less, as the case may be, than a civil servant in the department of health? What will that do so far as concerns transfer from one department to another? The difficulties I foresee in relation to that part of the policy are legion.
What about quangos? Will the quangos be subject to those rigorous new conditions? Or perhaps, having been appointed, they will go ahead independently, in their own sweet way, with just a general accountability to

1835
Ministers and thereby, it is said, by some sort of osmotic or almost mystical process also be accountable to Parliament? If there is concern about the quality of the public service in this country at the moment, I can say to the Government that there is much more concern about the way in which more and more power is being given to quangos, which by definition are unelected, unresponsive and unaccountable, than there is about the operation of the topmost ranks of our Civil Service. Will the conditions of people employed by quangos come under the new system or will they be left where they are?
Two specific matters in the Statement cause me to raise my eyebrows. First, on page 2, the Government say,
"The central departments should continue to measure, monitor, and report to Parliament but with less second guessing of departments' plans".
What does that mean? Which are the central departments? Is it the Treasury and the Cabinet Office? Are the Government really saying—if so it will be welcome and I shall be delighted to hear it spelt out —that if a specific department wishes to pursue a specific policy then the central department—namely the Treasury—will not second guess that department's plans? If it means anything, that appears to be what it means. I shall be grateful to the Leader of the House if he can tell us what it means. If it means what I think it means and what I said it may mean, then I welcome it.
Secondly, is it seriously suggested that permanent secretaries should be paid different rates depending on the ministry in which they happen to be permanent secretaries? I find that an astonishing proposition. If one is in a Ministry which controls a large budget and which must take unpopular decisions, will the permanent secretaries be paid less—or more as the case may be —than the permanent secretary of the Foreign Office or one of the permanent secretaries of the Treasury? I do not see how one can differentiate between civil servants at the permanent secretary level in the way in which the White Paper appears to do.
Finally, I return to where I started. What is the aim and object of the exercise? On the whole, the Civil Service in this country has served the country well for a long period of time. Why are we fiddling with it in the way in which the Government appear to be doing in the White Paper? If somebody can tell me what the vision is, then perhaps the details may fit into place. At the moment, all I see is a degree of interference which causes me to have grave doubts as to the continuing efficiency of the Civil Service.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, we on these Benches also wish to thank the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement. While we agree with some of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Richard, we certainly do not take so overwhelmingly conservative a view of the Civil Service as he does.
We welcome the degree of decentralisation proposed in relation to the great mass of civil servants below the new Senior Civil Service group which is described in the White Paper. We believe that greater flexibility in the management of what are in many cases straightforward executive jobs carried out by the
1836
department—jobs very different in kind in different departments—is highly desirable. There should be more decentralisation and more flexibility. If that means of course, as I think it must—I believe that the noble 'Lord, Lord Richard, was hoping it would—less rigid Treasury control over what is to be done in different departments, that surely is something which the whole House must welcome. There cannot be a single person in the Chamber—certainly not on the Labour Benches—who has not been critical of the iron hand of the Treasury holding back developments which we all recognise to be entirely desirable. We therefore do not decry all the changes put forward in the White Paper.
I want to say particularly that I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Richard, on one point. If we are to obtain this greater degree of flexibility and accountability in relation to what goes on in the Civil Service, who is appointed to jobs and how jobs are obtained, there must be a cost funding way of approaching the work done by the quangos. As I am sure the Leader of the House recognises, it is becoming a positive scandal that so much work, which is comparable to the work being done by civil servants in their respective departments, is undertaken by people who are appointed without any competition so far as we are aware, without any availability for people to apply for the jobs and with the public quite unaware of what are the terms and conditions of payment for people in the quangos. The Government must tell us why, when what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the: gander, what is good for the Civil Service is not also good for the quangos.
As I said, we are not totally critical of the proposals in the White Paper. In fact, I should particularly like to welcome one aspect. It is suggested that the Senior Civil Service will bring in all those with substantial management responsibilities. When I had the privilege of serving on the McGaw Committee for the pay of industrial civil servants, one factor which was most noticeable and most disadvantageous, we felt, from the point of view of the competent running of the Civil Service was the way in which people throughout the country who had big management responsibilities in running huge departments, spending large amounts of money, did not have anything like the same status, career opportunities or pay as the people in the policy-making departments. If the change means that the people who are responsible for those important jobs will be in the same rank and receive the same promotion opportunities and pay as people in the policy-making department, that is a development which we would welcome.
When one looks at what is being proposed for the Senior Civil Service a number of questions arise. Management has been the flavour not only of the month, alas, but of months. Of course we all welcome good management. But management is a tool; it is a means to an end. It is not a purpose and end in itself. So often in proposals put forward by the Government, and in today's proposals, one has the impression that they are thinking that, if they obtain not necessarily the right but the most fashionable and up-to-date management system, that will be the end of their problems. I repeat, management is only a tool. My old managing director

1837
used to say that accountants are extremely good servants but damn bad masters. Sometimes it would be a good idea for that old-fashioned view to be brought forward again.
As the Statement said, the object is to maintain the principles of the Civil Service. In that regard I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Richard. If we are to have a Senior Civil Service which, without fear or favour, gives opinions to Ministers which they may not like, how will that reflect on their opportunities to have their contract renewed or to obtain advancement? That is something which we cannot sacrifice. If using the most fashionable management tools to assess performance in higher level jobs means that we lose the objectivity, the courage to stand up and say what needs to be said to Ministers when they follow some foolish will-o'-the-wisp—as Ministers are not unknown to do—that is too high a price to pay. And, as we are reforming the Civil Service, have the Government thought that the Civil Service, which gives such excellent advice to the Government most of the time, might in some small measure be made available to give advice to Opposition parties?
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I am not quite sure that I can give an on-the-spot answer to the noble Baroness's last question. But, when I was a departmental Minister I always believed that it was very much in my interests to be as helpful as I could to Opposition spokesmen, particularly in providing them with the information and the other things that were necessary for them to make their own judgments. I am not too sure about advice, but it is an interesting point which I shall think about.
I start with some hesitation in view of the noble Baroness's strictures on accountants. I stand here as an accountant, but I shall nevertheless try as a humble accountant to give the best answers I can to the extremely large number of points which were made in the two contributions we have just had. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Richard, for some parts of what he said and to the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, for rather more of her points. She found more to satisfy her than did the noble Lord.
The White Paper strongly reaffirms the Government's commitment to a first-class Civil Service based upon the fundamental principles of honesty, dedication and impartiality. But that is not enough. It also has to map a way forward for the Civil Service beyond the end of the century. The Civil Service cannot be immune from change and the public has a right to expect continuing improvements in public sector standards without increasing taxes.
Perhaps I may answer the noble Lord, Lord Richard, directly as to why the Government are proposing the White Paper at the present time. I can do no better than to quote from Sir Robin Butler's foreword to the paper which will be sent to the staff of the Civil Service:
"I welcome the Government's decision to publish this White Paper. It confirms the Government's commitment to a key role for the Civil Service in supporting Ministers in policy work and in managing and delivering public services. It stresses the continuing importance of the values on which the Civil Service has been built".
1838
That is the basic position from which we start and that is why we have published the White Paper at the present time.
The noble Lord asked about entry to the Civil Service. There is no intention of moving away from recruitment and promotion on merit. All recruitment must be fair and open, with selection on merit. The White Paper makes that clear. It also makes clear that decisions for promotion are for permanent secretaries and not for Ministers.
The noble Lord also asked whether civil servants could reasonably expect to continue in their careers until they reached retirement age. I have to say to the noble Lord that he is thinking about a world which has long since gone. The position is not that now. Some 50 per cent. of those leaving the top three grades of the Civil Service in the past seven years retired for one reason or another early. Seventy per cent. of those who retired early did so through some form of management action.
On the influx of outsiders into top positions, it is not as if the White Paper produces a revolutionary idea. At present two-thirds of the heads of all the executive agency posts have been filled by open competition. Eight out of the 35 permanent secretaries have been recruited directly from the outside. The Civil Service greatly benefits from their skills and expertise. As each vacancy arises departments and agencies will be required to ask themselves whether it is appropriate to have an open competition. But this will not be a political appointment. It is very important to stress that any appointments from outside the Civil Service will be subject to the scrutiny of the Civil Service Commissioners. The White Paper stresses that no government own the Civil Service and it strengthens the independent safeguards against political interference.
The noble Lord suggested that this is somehow a smokescreen for privatisation. That is not so. There is nothing in the White Paper to support that view. The White Paper reaffirms on many occasions our belief in a strong Civil Service with the basic principles which we have had in this country for a long time and with which we shall continue.
The noble Lord did not quite appreciate how much change has been taking place. The reductions in the size of the Civil Service have been going on right from the days when the noble Lord's party was in government. The peak of the Civil Service, at 748,000, was in 1976. In 1994 the figure is 540,000. We envisage a reduction of some 50,000 over the next four years, which is not a huge increase in the rate when one recognises that some 33,000 have left the Civil Service over the past 15 months.
The noble Lord asked about central pay and the advantages of a delegated system. The experience of the Civil Service has shown that there are many advantages to a delegated system. Central systems are no longer judged to be flexible enough for a Civil Service which carries out a huge number of tasks and covers a wide variety of services. The noble Baroness recognised that. We believe that there is a strong case for delegated systems to encourage a clear link between an individual's pay and the contribution he makes, and therefore a much less rigid approach, giving greater

1839
opportunities for rewards for good performance, but within a system which has tight control of running expenses.
The noble Lord asked about second guessing and I think he had the Treasury in mind. I do not have a list of what are the central departments but the noble Lord mentioned both the Treasury and the Cabinet Office. Most of those who have had experience of government would include both the Treasury and the Cabinet Office in their list of central bodies which might from time to time carry out an element of second guessing. The noble Lord is quite right. What we wish to see is less second guessing by the Treasury—and he welcomes that—and less second guessing by the Cabinet Office. We want to see efficiency plans prepared by departments and reviewed by the centre so that there is less need for detailed oversight. That gives more scope for management initiatives within the departments. But we shall of course expect there to be tight control over running costs. We see that as a means of achieving increased efficiency.
The noble Lord asked me about quangos. The White Paper does not formally cover non-departmental public bodies, but many of the principles that we expect to see —and that we do see—in the existing Civil Service we expect to see also in quangos. I have with me the guidance which the Treasury sent to public bodies in June of this year. It is a note of the guidance as regards the code of conduct and the code of accountability for National Health Service boards which the Secretary of State for Health issued in April. We are determined to maintain high standards in quangos. Ministers remain responsible and accountable for them. We believe in that system.
The noble Lord also asked me about pay for permanent secretaries. Permanent secretaries are on spot rates which do not allow flexibility to reflect the respective responsibilities of individual posts. The Government think it right to change the system to take that into account. What the new system will mean for individuals will depend upon the Government's decision on the extent of the range on which we are seeking advice and on how in practice individuals are placed within it. I should have thought that it would require only a few minutes' consideration of the problems to recognise that the degree of responsibility of the permanent secretary at, for example, the Treasury is probably higher and greater than that of a permanent secretary in a relatively small department. We need to reflect that in the pay structure.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness. I believe that I have answered her specific points. She is right to stress the benefits of decentralisation. She is also right to make the point that management systems are not the be-all and end-all. The policy is the responsibility of the Government. The Civil Service plays a big part in working out the management systems, but that is not the same thing as getting the policy right.
A moment ago I quoted some figures about numbers in the Civil Service. Our view is that, as present plans develop, the numbers are expected to fall significantly below 500,000 over the four-year period, although the White Paper does not set out a target figure. Indeed, we
1840
do not believe that the right way to run these matters is by setting targets for numbers. We believe in efficiency in running costs and in leaving a great deal more flexibility to individual managers so that they can determine the number and level of staff that they need to deliver their responsibilities.
4.34 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, first, can my noble friend say something about the reduction in numbers to which he referred, which, as I understand it, is quite substantial, going up to 50,000'' Is it the intention that some work that is now done by civil servants will be moved from the Civil Service to secure that reduction or is it intended that the existing Civil Service staff will have to do rather more work? In other words, is it intended to shed some responsibilities to secure that reduction or is it intended simply to concentrate more work on those in the service?
Secondly, I was glad to hear my noble friend speak about flexibility in pay a moment ago. I am sure that there is a great deal to be said for a difference in the reward that is appropriate for a permanent secretary in one of the major departments as compared with one of the smaller departments. However, with whom will the decision about the pay of major permanent secretaries lie? Will it be with the Permanent Secretary to the Treasury or with the Chancellor?
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, the answer to my noble friend's last question is that it will lie with a remuneration committee on which there will be a majority of non-civil servants. It will not be a decision for Ministers. It will be decided partly by senior civil servants and partly by non-executive outsiders who are brought in to advise on this matter.
The changes that are occurring in the Civil Service will mean that the process of having a smaller number of staff in the Civil Service, which started in 1976, will continue. Our target is not to reduce the numbers; it is to achieve better efficiency within the Civil Service. Therefore, we shall seek to run those functions which remain within the Civil Service more efficiently at last. There is also a policy of market testing—that is, of testing to see whether significant savings can be made. It should be remembered that in many cases where we have indulged in market testing, the Civil Service operation has been demonstrated to be the most efficient. That is a very good thing. Therefore, the answer is that it will be both of the alternatives which my noble friend mentioned rather than one or the other.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, perhaps I may speak as one humble accountant to another. I am sure that the noble Lord will correct me if I am wrong, but his central argument appeared to be that because the Civil Service is 150 years old it must therefore be changed. Why, if it is working well? The noble Lord accepts—I doubt whether anybody would deny—that our Civil Service is the envy of the world both for its impartiality and for its incorruptibility. In those circumstances, what is the noble Lord's central case?
Is the noble Lord aware that I would accept that in certain circumstances the contracting out of work can be

1841
both helpful and efficient? I do not deny that for a minute. My noble friend the Leader of the Opposition related some of this to the way in which quangos work. I have not had an opportunity to read the White Paper, but the noble Lord told us that the bodies concerned would not relate to quangos. However, when he repeated the Statement he said that they would be, as he put it, "properly accountable". Can the noble Lord spell that out? How will they be "properly accountable"? Quangos are certainly not properly accountable, but the noble Lord said that this does not relate to quangos. How will those bodies be properly accountable to Parliament?
I turn finally to the question of pay. The noble Lord said that there would be a committee to decide levels of pay—presumably at all levels—on which there would not be a majority of civil servants. Can the noble Lord give us any kind of assurance that the levels of pay for the chairmen of some of the quangos will not be on the same scale as the pay of, say, the chairmen of the electricity or water boards?
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I think that I can answer some of the noble Lord's questions but I am not sure that I am in a position to answer them all. The central point that I am seeking to make is that this is not change for change's sake. The central point that the Statement was seeking to make was the Government's reaffirmation of the central principles of the Civil Service which has served us well for so long; and to set out how we intend to keep those central values intact and, indeed, to build upon them. This is not change for change's sake; it is to conserve what we believe to be fundamentally right and valuable. However, it is naive in the extreme —I know that the noble Lord will not mind me using that expression as one humble accountant to another —to suggest that the Civil Service is still performing the same function now as it performed 150 years ago.
The Civil Service cannot have the idea that it does not have to change, does not have to bring in new expertise, and does not, on occasions, have to recognise that it needs outside skills and that in some cases there is no way that the Civil Service can do some of the jobs —for example, in the information technology world— better than outside bodies. Our proposals are designed to manage that inevitable change.
With regard to pay, Civil Service pay will not be determined totally by outside bodies. There will be negotiations with the unions and all the things that exist now. The Civil Service management will determine the bulk of the pay of most civil servants, but there are some civil servants at the top, in particular permanent secretaries, and it will not be frightfully easy for them to determine their own pay, for obvious reasons. At that level we will have the remuneration committee to assist in determining the appropriate remuneration.
As the White Paper made clear, we are not tied down to every detail of every point. While recognising the central thrust of what we are doing, which I should have thought was self-evidently right, there are points where
1842
the wisdom of the noble Lord, with his great experience, and of others, will be valuable in determining the way forward.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, I learnt, naturally with some slight regret, that the present system of filling senior posts in the Civil Service is not thought to be very satisfactory. I must confess that there have been moments in my career when I wondered why anyone from outside would want to be, say, the Permanent Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department. Nor incidentally would I think it "frightfully" easy—to use the noble Lord's word—for outsiders to assess the pay for that post, and some others I have in mind.
I have just one question. Where does the Foreign and Commonwealth Office fit into all this? The Statement, I think, was silent on that point. Is it in the same position as all the other departments? Will it have to consider whether its top posts should be advertised, and so forth?
For the rest, the Statement raises questions of some importance which it is impossible to discuss in the few minutes left to us. I wonder whether the Government are contemplating allowing some time for a debate on the White Paper and the associated reports. As it happens, I have down a No Day Named Motion on the Civil Service, but there is not an abundance of time available for Cross-Bench debates, even if my colleagues thought that that was a good idea. I hope that some government time will be made available for a debate upon what is an important issue.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his contribution and questions. He is right, we shall have to find the best way for there to be a debate on this matter, if for no other reason than that it will enable the noble Lord and others, with their great experience, to express their views at greater length than they can through questions. I am happy to discuss that matter in the normal way through the usual channels. I hope that I did not say that I was dissatisfied with the appointment of heads of departments. I pointed out that two-thirds of the heads of executive agencies are filled at the moment through open competition; that eight of the 35 permanent secretaries have been recruited directly from outside. That is an indication that the Civil Service has already moved substantially in that direction. We seek to recognise that with a more formal structure.
The question will not be decided by Ministers; it will be decided by each department. Each department, as a vacancy arises, will ask itself whether it is appropriate to have an open competition. That decision will be supervised by the Civil Service Commission and not by Ministers. The noble Lord asked me a question about the Foreign Office. The position of the Foreign Office is covered in the White Paper which states:
"The Diplomatic Service is a separate branch of the public service with its own particular needs and structures. The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth affairs will be putting parallel action in hand to cover the areas considered in the White Paper"
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, perhaps I may just ask my noble friend for information.

1843
There is an important but small element in different departments of the Civil Service which has to be legally qualified with specialised knowledge with a specialised career structure and methods of recruitment and selection. Is there anything in the White Paper, or does my noble friend know anything, about whether there is any change in those posts, and, if there is, in what way?
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, such people will be covered by the broad thrust of the White Paper. There are no proposals in the White Paper for wide-ranging reform of those posts, or, in particular, as my noble and learned friend is aware, of the highly specialised experts whom the Government value greatly, especially at this time of the year. I refer of course to those who draft the Bills and the amendments to them.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord the Leader of the House for what he has said, about which I should like to ask one or two questions. It is a pity that the White Paper does not cover quangos, because they have proliferated and now form a major part of this country's public service. How much of the diminution in the number of civil servants is a result of people who have merely been transferred to quangos?
Secondly, the noble Lord pointed out, quite rightly, that one of the great virtues of the Civil Service tradition has been its political impartiality. We have seen in answer to Questions tabled in this House that the appointment of people to quangos is highly politicised. What steps are to be taken to deal with that question? It is a grave defect of the White Paper that it does not deal with how people are appointed to quangos. Will the noble Lord please tell us whether any steps will be taken to ensure that quangos are not overwhelmingly politicised, as they have been shown to be up to date?
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I do not accept the premise behind the noble Lord's question—that the appointment of people to quangos has been over-politicised. What is important is that they should operate to high standards. Government departments responsible, plus the Treasury, have been active in assuring that standards within quangos are improved. Of course accountability for quangos is with Ministers in this House and another place. I believe that that is how it should continue to be.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I have a leading question to ask the noble Lord the Leader of the House, if he does not mind. It has been in my mind ever since he first started the Statement this afternoon. Have the Government any reason for self-doubt in these matters? Have the Government considered whether they themselves have the intellectual competence and administrative competence to make decisions of this kind? I ask the question because, over the past few years, as indeed has been revealed by the National Audit Office, the Government have spent £500 million on consulting outside consultants. These are questions of grave public principle of the utmost importance to the nation as a whole. They are about public standards
1844
during a time when, under the leadership of the Government, there has been an abysmal decline in those standards.
The Government have spent £0.5 billion on outside consultants. The remarks made by the noble Lord today, in particular those about market testing—although I do not know what relevance market testing has to the composition of the Civil Service—are trotted out in the words of management consultants' reports. In fact, the noble Lord's whole speech reeked of it; it completely lacked originality.
I put it to the noble Lord, who is an accountant like myself, that it would be far better to take the whole proposal back to the Cabinet and to say to them, in as friendly and chummy a manner as possible over the Cabinet table, "Do we really know what we are talking about or have we merely taken the words of consultants, dressed them up in gloss and presented them to an admiring public?".
I cannot help believing that the noble Lord, being as intellectually honest as he is, will not have the slightest hesitation in taking that course, in particular in view of the fact that, on all public counts, all accountability and all means of measure, this Government are probably the most incompetent since that of Lord North and the departure of the American colonies.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, of course, the whole House enjoys the noble Lord's contributions. I realised that the time was moving towards 20 minutes but I did not want to stop him in full flow, not that I had any intention of doing so. However, I am not too sure that there is much for me to answer. I believe that the charges are wild and unsubstantiated, and I refute them absolutely and completely. The noble Lord appears to have missed the essential points of the Statement. I recognise that perhaps it came a little quickly for him and I suggest that he reads it and studies it a little more carefully.
The noble Lord said that the Government are arrogant—he used other phrases which trip off his tongue like everything else—and that they spent £0.5 billion on outside advice because they did not know the answers to the questions. Those ideas do not hang together; one cannot be arrogant and then say that one does not know the answer. The fact of the matter is that a great proportion of those consultancy fees was spent on trying to obtain management consultancy advice on acquiring information technology systems and computer systems for social security and so forth. The Government freely admit that. There is no one in the Civil Service who knows as much about those systems as those in the outside world, where there is a great deal of expertise. The Government should be congratulated on seeking expertise where that exists. We must bear in mind that the Government's annual bill for information technology is approximately £2.2 billion per year. A government who have been in office for however long they have—and are likely to be in office much longer —need to spend a great deal of money on information technology and I should have thought that they would be congratulated on trying to do the job properly.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, has consideration been given to a two-way movement between the Civil Service and outside bodies, such as industry and commerce? If so, how is that to be monitored? Is it borne in mind that that approach was valuable during the war and that its value subsisted afterwards? In particular, could that not be applied to the point mentioned by my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham, for which the American system might be a model?
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I agree with a great deal of the noble and learned Lord's question. There is a considerable amount of interchange between the private and public sectors. I would wish to encourage that as much as possible, which is a view that goes right through Whitehall.
I have doubt about the final part of the noble and learned Lord's question. I am not attracted to too many fixed-term contracts in the pattern that one sees in the United States, although they have a part to play. It imposes upon the Government and the Civil Service pressures of the kind which are totally undesirable in the nature of attempts to become political. I am in favour of two-way exchanges at all levels of the Civil Service and would like to see that encouraged. However, other than in special circumstances, I am not in favour of fixed-term contracts. They have a part to play but we should not encourage too many of them.

Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill
4.45 p.m.
House again in Committee on Schedule 1.
[Amendments Nos. 24 and 25 not moved. ]
Schedule 1 agreed to. Clauses 2 and 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Convener and depute convener]:
The Earl of Minto The Earl of Minto moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 3, line 2, at end insert (", and in the case of an equality of votes the convenership shall be determined by lot as between those who received an equality of votes.").
The noble Earl said: The purpose of this amendment is to make it clear from the outset that in an election of the convener of a council the convenership shall be determined by lot in the case of a tied vote for such office.
Section 3(1) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973, which this Bill repeals, mentions specific provision for the situation in which there is an equality of votes in the election of a council's chairman and requires the drawing of lots. Schedule 7, paragraph 5(ii) of the 1973 Act, which is not repealed by the Bill, provides for the person presiding at the meeting of the council not having a second or casting vote where there is an equality of votes in the election of a councillor to any particular office or committee, in which case the decision is by lot.
I suggest that it is preferable to follow the example of the draftsmen of the 1973 Act and to make it clear in the legislation that, in the case of equality of votes in the election of a chairman of a council, at any time the election shall be determined by lot. I believe that
1846
explicit provision for a solution to this matter should be made on the face of the Bill, rather than having to refer back to a general provision in the earlier Act.
This is a simple amendment and I hope that it will find favour with the Committee. I beg to move.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I support the amendment. The justification is that Section 3(1) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 makes special provision for the situation in which there is an equality of votes in the election of a council chairman and it requires the drawing of lots. I must admit that until I saw the amendment tabled in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Minto, I had thought that that was the done thing because it has happened in a number of cases. It happened in Falkirk and it certainly happened a couple of times in Cumbernauld and Stirling. Therefore, I agree with the proposal.
It is preferable to the prolonged methods that were used and suggested otherwise. As long as there was agreement that that is the right way to proceed, it was reasonable. Therefore, for the sake of efficiency in local government, I hope that the Committee will support the noble Earl's amendment.
5 p.m.
The Earl of Balfour: As Amendments Nos. 26, 26A and 27 are grouped together, I should like to speak now to Amendment No. 27. But, with great respect, I hope that the noble Earl, Lord Minto, will have an opportunity to speak to Amendment No. 26A because I do not believe that he has yet done so.
Perhaps I may deal now with Amendment No. 27. This is a unique occasion for me because it is the first time in all the times that I have tabled amendments to various Bills that I have received support from other noble Lords. I take this opportunity to thank the noble Lords, Lord Hughes, Lord Kirkhill and Lord Mackie of Benshie, for their support.
Before the Union of the Crowns of England and Scotland, there were a number of Royal appointments in Scotland: for example, the Lord Lyon King of Arms, the Lord Advocate and the Lord Provost of certain Royal burghs. I believe that the title Lord-Lieutenant goes back several centuries. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, has also studied the position of Lord Provost. He was Lord Provost of Dundee. He knows something about the ancient royal boroughs which had a royal charter.
To bring us more up to date, lieutenancies in Scotland are appointed by the Reserve Forces Act 1980 (c.9). The special position of the Lord Provost of a city, being by virtue of his office the Lord-Lieutenant of that city, is covered by Section 131 of that Act.
I shall quote the relevant parts of Section 131 as it will read, as amended by paragraph 119 of Schedule 13, which is to be found at page 210 of the Bill.
Subsection (1) will state:
"Her Majesty… shall appoint a lord-lieutenant for each area of Scotland; and… may appoint lieutenants for each area of Scotland".
Your Lordships can read subsections (1A) and (1B) on page 210. Subsection (2) of the 1980 Act states:

1847
"The Lord Provost of the cities of Aberdeen, Dundee, Edinburgh and Glasgow shall by virtue of his office be lord-lieutenant for the district of the city concerned and Her Majesty may appoint lieutenants for each such district".
Subsections (3) and (4) are being repealed. Subsection (5) will state:
"In this section, 'area' does not include the cities of Aberdeen, Dundee, Edinburgh and Glasgow".
Personally, I should not object to the chairman of a council constituted under Clause 2 being called "provost". But in the past, a provost has usually been associated with being the elected chairman of a town or borough and not the rural area of a county or district.
However, as only four cities in Scotland have their own elected councils, I do not believe that Her Majesty or Her Majesty's councils should ever be placed in an awkward position by another local authority choosing the title of Lord Provost for its chairman.
This amendment is designed to remove any doubt which may exist in the future and to preserve in statute the very special and, I believe, unique position of the chairman of a city council being both Lord Provost and Her Majesty's Lord-Lieutenant of a particular city.
Lord Hughes: I support what has just been said by the noble Earl, Lord Balfour. One of the other supporters of the amendment is my noble friend Lord Kirkhill who was Lord Provost of Aberdeen.
It is interesting to note that in this century, Glasgow, Aberdeen and Dundee have had Lord Provosts who were in this House. It is extraordinary that Edinburgh, the capital city of Scotland, as far as I know, has never had a Lord Provost who reached this House, although there was a very distinguished Lord Provost who became Member of Parliament for an Edinburgh constituency. He was Lord Provost Darling of whom it was said that he knew that he was very well known in Scotland but he did not realise how well known he was in England until he got off the train at King's Cross station and was greeted by charming ladies who said, "Good evening, darling".
I looked at the 1973 Act which reads exactly the same as the present Bill, except that it includes the words:
"with the consent of the Secretary of State for Scotland".
I know that in later miscellaneous legislation in about 1990 those words were taken out. The argument was that the Secretary of State did not think that it was proper that he should tell a local authority what it should call its chairman.
I was tempted to add the words in the 1973 Act, but I reached the conclusion that as there are so many parts of this Bill in which the Secretary of State is taking powers to tell local authorities what they should do, it was not for me to give him yet another opportunity to do so. The amendment tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, which states "other than 'Lord Provost'" asserts the situation without giving power to the Secretary of State.
The argument advanced that the Secretary of State did not want to tell the local authorities what they should do does not gel with the general picture, because he is telling the four cities what they must do: they must call their civic head a Lord Provost. Of course, I am quite certain that none of the city councils will object to that provision.
1848
The wording seems to indicate that the Government's. intention is that the title of Lord Provost should be confined to those four cities. But will it be possible to carry out that intention if the Bill gives authority to any other council to call its civic head by any title that it chooses? Will the Minister assure me that he is satisfied that the Bill as it stands will prevent any other council calling its civic head "Lord Provost"?
The noble Earl, Lord Balfour, referred to the use of the word "provost". If one looks at Whitaker's Almanack, it will be seen that, with one or two exceptions where the council has not given any information as to what it calls its civic head, the ones under the city have either chosen the title of provost or convener. Basically, where the authority is predominantly a burghal area provost was chosen and where it is a county area the word convener has been chosen, There are two exceptions to that and, strangely enough, they are both in Tayside. Perth and Kinross, which is. definitely county, calls its civic head provost and Angus. which is a very proud county title, also calls its civic head provost. However, in all the other areas, the title was convener.
Therefore, at present, the title of Lord Provost is used only in the four cities. If the Minister is not prepared to accept the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, I hope that he will assure us that the Government believe in powers to stop other authorities using that title. I hope that they will not say at the end of the day that Lord Lyon King of Arms is the man who can stop the others. I believe that he has already had to intervene in a case: where someone was using an improper title. Incidentally, I was speaking to Lord Lyon when he received that information. do not necessarily believe that it was related to Lord Provosts; indeed, it may have been something which had nothing to do with civic titles. As I said, I hope that the Minister will accept the amendment so that the matter is placed beyond any doubt. However, if he does not accept the amendment, perhaps he can given Members of the Committee the assurance that the title will be confined to the four cities.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: I support the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, and the noble Earl, Lord Balfour. At present, the wording of the Bill seems to me to be highly ambiguous and would leave it open to other authorities to aspire to call their leader the Lord Provost. I do not know how apocryphal the story is, but I am reminded that for many years. Perth had a. Lord Provost along with the other four cities. The story goes that Queen Victoria, while travelling from London to Balmoral by train, often used to leave her sleeper and get off at Perth in the early hours of the morning to have breakfast in the station hotel. On one occasion, perhaps feeling a little sleepier than usual, she inadvertently referred to the welcoming provost of Perth as "My Lord Provost". He was not slow to take advantage of that royal slip of the tongue. I do not believe that we want future slips in that respect. Therefore, we need clarity on the matter.
Lord Kirkhill: I intervene because if anyone in Aberdeen found out that I had not spoken in the debate, I would probably be hung, drawn and quartered, or whatever the modern equivalent of that particular phrase may be, when I returned to the city. I must apologise to the Minister for not being present at Second Reading or indeed at any earlier Committee stage. However, I believe that the Minister knows that I have certain responsibilities in the Council of Europe. That means that my attendance here is sometimes of a sporadic nature.
I support the remarks made by the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, and the noble Lord, Lord Hughes. I should especially like a reassurance from the Minister that the Bill as drafted does mean that only the four cities will be able to call their civic head Lord Provost. In my view there are two principal reasons why a distinction needs to be made. First, there is the historic reason. Traditionally, citizens of the four principal and main cities want that area of demarcation and, if you like, embellishment for their civic head; indeed, it is part of the tradition of those four cities. Secondly, there is the question of the lieutenancy which is involved in the case of each of the Lords Provost.
Perhaps I may be anecdotal for a moment. During my four years in office in the City of Aberdeen between 1971 and 1975, on certain occasions I found that I might spend almost one week on lieutenancy duties. In part, that was because Her Majesty is frequently within the city boundary of Aberdeen because of the proximity of Balmoral. However, there is very much more to it than that. For example, foreign embassies in London constantly got in touch with one because one was Lord-Lieutenant of the major city, and so on. I need not develop that point, because I am sure that Members of the Committee will get the thrust and the impulse of my remarks. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, and the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, said all that can be said on the matter. I give general support to the amendment of the noble Earl.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: I always admire the meticulousness with which the noble Earl carries out his research. His reasoning is impeccable. The amendment is easy to understand and, I believe, has the support of the whole Chamber. The Minister now has the chance to accept his noble friend's amendment which is a very simple one. Indeed, he does not need to give any other assurance: all he needs to do is to accept the amendment. However, if he does not accept it, he will arouse great suspicions in my mind as to his motives. I trust that the Minister will be able to allay those suspicions, which are not of a nice character, by accepting the noble Earl's amendment.
The Earl of Minto: With the leave of the Committee, I am afraid that, due to the length of the debate on the Statement, I completely forgot about the groupings. I therefore failed to move Amendment No. 26A.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Alport): I must remind Members of the Committee that we are discussing Amendment No. 26 at present.
The Earl of Balfour: Perhaps I may point out to the noble Earl, Lord Minto, that the three amendments are grouped together. With the greatest respect to the noble Earl, I must remind him that he now has a chance to speak to his amendment, but it is not a question of moving it at the moment.
The Earl of Minto: The noble Earl is very kind to have clarified the position I am most grateful to him. The object of Amendment No 26A is very simple indeed: it is to ensure that it is not a question of choice but that it is a question of certainty that the council,
"shall make provision for—

(a) the duration of the term of office (which may not extend beyond the next ordinary election of the council);

(b) the procedure for early removal from office, of the convener and the depute convener"

who would be elected under the terms suggested in Amendment No. 26.
Lord Hughes: Following on from the remarks made by the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, on the Lord Provostship, I should have said that I also wanted to support the noble Earl, Lord Minto, on Amendment No 26 Incidentally, in the unlikely event of the Minister accepting the amendment, perhaps he will ensure that the spelling of "convenership" agrees with the Bill and reverts to the Scottish spelling instead of this bastard English term.
The noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, was anecdotal as I now propose to be There was an occasion way back in 1947 when the Lord Provost of Dundee died in office and another Lord Provost had to be elected by the council When the Lord Provost was not in the building, the chair was occupied by the senior bailie. Two candidates were nominated for the position: one by the organisation which in those days called itself "the moderates" and the other by the Labour Party. The senior bailie was a Labour member When it came to a vote, each candidate obtained 18 votes, whereupon the senior bailie in the chair gave a casting vote in his own favour. He only held the office for the remainder of the deceased Lord Provost's term, but during that time grave doubts arose as to whether he had been properly elected Lord Provost I do not think at that time it was generally understood that this matter would be decided by the drawing of lots The noble Earl, Lord Minto, has made it absolutely clear that a case like this should not be decided by the casting vote of whoever happens to be in the chair.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I shall deal, first, with the amendment moved by the noble Earl, Lord Minto, Amendment No. 26. The raft of local government legislation prior to this Bill is certainly complex. There have been some repeals, but as the noble Earl clearly appreciated, there are some provisions that remain extant Indeed, as he indicated, paragraph 5(2) of Schedule 7 to the 1973 Act already requires all appointments, in the case of an equality of votes, to be decided by lot Therefore there is nothing between those who have supported this amendment and the Government As I understand it, the only purpose that the noble Earl ultimately had in moving the amendment was that he considered it might be more appropriate to

1851
have such a provision on the face of the Bill. I resist his proposal for the following reason. There would, in our view, be an unnecessary duplication in statute of a provision on which we are both agreed. It is on that narrow point that I would invite the noble Lords to withdraw their amendment.
I have no doubt that the Committee has listened with interest to the accounts of the origins of the position of Lord Provost in Scotland. Undoubtedly in the great cities of Scotland for many years it has been a proud office. As the clause makes clear, it is intended that,
"The convener of each of the councils of the cities of Aberdeen, Dundee, Edinburgh and Glasgow shall … be known by the title of 'Lord Provost'".
There is no intention that that should be removed or altered. The only question that arises is whether some restriction should be placed on the face of the Bill to prevent any other presumptuous local authority trying to usurp that proud distinction which has been conferred on the four cities.
I believe it was my noble friend Lord Balfour who referred to my following point. Back in the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1981, the requirement that the Secretary of State's consent be sought if any special title were to be taken, other than convener, was repealed. Given that, it would be simple enough to attempt to do so if some presumptuous rural district council wished to have at its head a Lord Provost. So far as I am aware, none has sought to do that at any time. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, has correctly identified, both Angus, and Perth and Kinross, have resolved that their convener should be known—and indeed is still known —as Provost.
I would have thought it extremely difficult for any non-city council to prove any historical title to call its convener Lord Provost. I cannot vouch for the authenticity of the tale which has been told about the city of Perth. I do not know whether that city has a sounder basis for calling its convener Lord Provost. I invite the Committee to allow this amendment to be withdrawn because I would like to check this matter through rather more thoroughly. I would not like to deprive Perth, or Perth and Kinross, of the title if they have a valid claim to it. I would have thought it inappropriate to exclude them from such a title if they have a valid basis for claiming it. I also wish to ensure that this is not an area in which Lord Lyon should give a ruling. It would appear to us to be a matter of precedence. It may be that he exercises an interest in the precedence because, as has been pointed out, those four Lord Provosts who are at present in post in Scotland are always ex qfficio Lord-Lieutenants. However, this is a matter that I should like to explore more thoroughly with him. The broad intention to which the noble Lords have spoken is understood and it is in large measure shared by the Government, unless there is some unlikely authority that could claim that title by historical right.
I now turn to Amendment No. 26A. I can certainly appreciate the sentiments that prompted the noble Earl to table it, but it cuts across the general principle that as much as possible relating to local management should be left for local decision. Under existing legislation once
1852
a convener or depute convener is appointed, he remains in office until the next council elections. There is no mechanism for removing the incumbent at an earlier date. It might be invidious to try to identify an example where, under existing practice, that might have been desirable, but looking to the future it is in harmony with the thrust of our proposals for the review of internal management that Clause 4(3) gives authorities flexibility and freedom to decide for themselves whether or not to introduce standing orders on these matters. I would not wish to impose greater rigidity than is necessary. For those reasons I hope that the noble Karl will withdraw this amendment.
Lord Hughes: I am glad that the Minister has said that he would like to consider this mailer further. I am not certain that he is on strong ground when he said he doubts whether any other authority would be so presumptuous as to take the title we are discussing. Perth has been mentioned. I believe that there is a real danger, if the Bill remains as it stands, that Perth will seek to have its head called Lord Provost. The city of Perth had a Lord Provostship until 1973, but then it wa.5 the city of Perth. It was not as it is now—and as it will be—the county of Perth and Kinross. It would be totally inappropriate if the county of Perth and Kinross chose to claim the title of Lord Provost.
As a former Lord Provost of Dundee, I admit that Perth had a Lord Provost long before Dundee had one. I believe it was in the time of King James VI that there was an argument as to whether Perth or Dundee was the more important place. The King said, "We prefer our loyal burgh of Perth to our loyal burgh of Dundee". In the hierarchy the Lord Provost of Edinburgh was followed by the Lord Provost of Perth. It remained that way for a long time until the Lord Provost of Glasgow, on the occasion of processing to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, said that he was prepared to march behind the Lord Provost of Edinburgh, but if he had to march behind anyone else he would go home instead. The Minister must take into account the fact that if the Bill remains as it is, there is no one who could stop the county of Perth and Kinross claiming, for the first time in history, that a county could have a Lord Provost.
The Earl of Balfour: I wish to add a few more words to what the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, has just said. Let us suppose that that happened. Does it mean that Her Majesty must appoint the Lord Provost of Perth as a Lord-Lieutenant, because I think that the two are distinctly connected? That is one of the reasons that I have put down the amendment. She, through her counsel, can choose virtually any worthy person to be the Lord-Lieutenant for any other area in Scotland However, it is the strange and unique position that the Lord Provost of a city is virtually the elected head of that city, who then becomes Lord-Lieutenant. That is one of my reasons for putting down the amendment.
5.30 p.m.
The Earl of Perth: Perhaps I should intervene because the discussion is about Perth. As the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, said, 20 years ago we enjoyed the

1853
privilege of having a Lord Provost. The situation changed and we became the counties of Perth and Kinross. The situation may change again at some stage. Therefore, it is right that the Minister should have another look at the matter rather than accepting it now.
There was a time when St. Johnstone was the joint capital with Edinburgh. These matters need to be considered very carefully. Perhaps there should be a reservation that the matter should be subject to the approval of the Secretary of State at the time. That would allow flexibility. None of us knows what will happen in the next 20 to 30 years.
Therefore, I hope that those who move the amendments will accept that the right course is to have another look at the matter and perhaps make the provision a little more flexible given that history changes.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: I am disappointed that the Minister has to investigate these matters. I should have thought that the Scottish Office would have officials who would know about these matters and that he could have obtained the information that he wants by means of a simple message to the Box. However, I have no doubt that investigations will go on and on.
Lord Hughes: If the noble Earl withdraws his amendment I agree with him on the basis of the assurance we have been given.
The Earl of Minto: With the leave of the Committee I should like to withdraw Amendment No. 26. However, I remind the Minister that Amendment No. 26A, which I shall not move, has an influence upon a later amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 26A and 27 not moved.]
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 [Elections and term of office of councillors:]
The Earl of Minto The Earl of Minto moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 3, line 38, leave out ("third") and insert ("fourth").
The noble Earl said: This is an amendment of quite a different consequence. I believe it to be very important. Its object is to retain the existing period of local government elections every four years.
In 1995 councillors to the new authorities will be elected for a four-year period. The proposed reduction to a three-year cycle will create difficulties not only in terms of the initial acclimatisation and adjustment of new councillors but also because many aspects of local authority work which may be proposed by a councillor could not be brought to fruition within the three-year timescale which is envisaged.
I had the privilege yesterday morning of chairing the council of which I am convener. It was the first meeting that we have held for such business since the elections in May. It was very interesting to note how the new council reacted to the short space of time it has between now and the elections in 1995 and how councillors tried
1854
to adjust their minds to the fact that some people would be serving on that council in a year's time as well as on the existing regional council.
Half of our councillors are new members. It came as a rude shock to them to realise that, because of shortage of time, any pledges that they may have made during the past election were not going to be honoured and that money would not grow on trees in the intervening months. That illustrated to me as clearly as it has ever been illustrated before that in the first year following an election the new councillors are dependent upon the policies of the previous council.
A council can only start to change its policies in preparation for the second year. It then has to wait throughout that period for the capital programmes and many other decisions to come to fruition. Very few of the strategic policies which are projected by a council can be implemented and fully recorded in the eyes of those who voted for the council in a period of less than four years because the council gets the jitters in the fourth year as another election approaches. Therefore the two years in the middle are of the greatest possible importance.
I am fully aware of the fact that Members of the Committee must by now know that I am convener of a council. I should like to make it clear that it is on public record in Scotland that I do not intend to stand for election in 1995. Therefore, anything I say is not said in relation to any interest on my own behalf. So it was with genuine satisfaction that I noticed when reading the Committee stages in another place that the Minister, Mr. Stewart, in concluding that elections should be held every three years, stated that the Government are attempting to strike a balance between giving the new authorities a reasonable period during which to formulate and implement their policies while remaining accountable to their electorate. I thought that that was a very fair statement.
It was also argued by the Minister (and this I did not agree with) that the present system allows the electorate to cast their local government vote every two years and that votes every three years rather than four years will enhance local authority accountability. That is not factual because the two-yearly elections are for two tiers of authorities which have absolutely no interchange of fundamental policy. Therefore, I do not believe that that statement bears any great merit.
However, I was encouraged when the Minister stated in Standing Committee on 17th February 1994 (at col. 417 of Hansard):
"that reasonable arguments can be made on both sides of the issue. In the end it is a finely balanced argument".
I believe that it is a finely balanced argument, but I believe that it is imperative that we bear in mind the lessons of experience.
The sound local government principle that those to whom services are provided should be involved in their planning is absolute. That is particularly important in terms of capital. In relation to projects, the provision of new schools or community centres takes time and we shall not be able to do that in the period under discussion. With considerable financial assistance from the Government my own council has recently built a

1855
high school. It cost £9 million. It took the period of the life of the council to deal with Her Majesty's Government, with the Scottish Office education department, with our own finances and then to get the project off the ground and built. It would be absolutely tragic if we cut off the possibilities which may apply through a four-year period by limiting it to three years.
In Scotland we are sometimes accused of being hypersensitive. But if a four-year period is good enough for England and Wales why is it not good enough for Scotland? I meet my colleagues from local government in England and Wales at conferences, and so on. Their arguments make it clear to me that they would be desperately unhappy if the period changed to three years, as is now proposed.
We also have to consider those people with whom local authorities work; for example, a health board. It has a four-year period. It would be unfortunate to lose such coterminous understanding.
One has also to project one's mind a great deal further down the corridors of time. Voters are becoming tired of voting. Although it is a marginal reduction, it is not uninteresting to note that with a three-year cycle there would be a conflicting election every 15 years rather than every four years. When one considers the European elections conflicting with local government elections, it is better if one can extend the period. In Scotland at present the voters are absolutely exhausted. They have been voting in one election after another during the past 18 months. The voters may have to vote yet again in two years' time, or whenever. From the Government's point of view, the question of cost does not lack significance.
Although I have dealt with delivery of promises, I return to the subject. If one puts democratic powers into the hands of elected persons, those persons should not stand before the electorate making promises that they cannot fulfil. They must be given an opportunity to fulfil their promises. For that reason, probably above all else, as a long term regional councillor I hope that the amendment will find favour with the Committee.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: The noble Lord admirably covered the points. We believe that four years is a marginally better period. I remember the days when one-third of the council was elected each time. It was slightly disconcerting, but it had its positive side too. Councils have much higher budgets now. I hope that the Minister will see some value in the four year period.
The Earl of Balfour: With great respect to the noble Earl, Lord Minto, and the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, I must point out that before 1974 local elections were held every three years and that appeared to work well between 1947 and 1974. What happened before that period I do not know.
If the term of office of a local councillor is to be four years it may discourage many young and very able persons from standing. No one will stand for election unless he knows that he can serve at least two terms. I am concerned that with the lives that many young people lead many will not be able to envisage their
1856
future for more than six years ahead. They have to contemplate a two-term period. We might lose very able people if they have to look eight years ahead. That is the only point I make in asking the Committee to consider the three year period.
The Earl of Perth: We should listen carefully to the noble Earl, Lord Minto. He has had practical experience of local government. We are considering one-tier local authorities. Therefore, the work that those authorities undertake is important and involves local people closely. One is no longer referring to a region where one might feel, "We don't know those people".
A four year period has much merit from the efficiency point of view. It is a matter of judgment. Some might believe that it is better to have change all the time but people do get fed up with elections and say, "Not another lot of papers. Not another election". There is much merit in that four year period. It gives people an opportunity to get into the ways of local government.
It is true that eight years is a long period as is six years. However, there is no certainty if one does not do well that one will even attain that period. I therefore hope that the Minister will consider seriously the four year period.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: Most of the electorate are not tired of voting because they do not vote. If they do not bother to vote every four years, they will not be bothered to vote every three years.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I have listened carefully to the arguments advanced in favour of holding elections every four years. It was indeed one of the issues considered last year by the Internal Management Working Group which comprised representatives of CoSLA, local authorities and the Scottish Office. The period between elections subsequently formed part of the internal management consultation paper.
An interesting cross-section of views emerged from that consultation. Some favoured the system which obtained prior to 1975 whereby elections were held annually for a proportion of council seats. However, the overwhelming majority favoured whole council elections. Periods of both three and four years between elections found their supporters.
In the final analysis, a decision had to be reached. In reaching the decision that three years was appropriate, we took into account the fact that prior to 1975 councillors were elected for three year periods, as my noble friend Lord Balfour has remarked.
The current system gives electors the opportunity to cast a local government vote every two years, albeit for different tiers of authority. We concluded, very much on balance, that the argument lay in having a local electorate cast its local vote every three years rather than every four.
The noble Earl, Lord Minto, quoted my ministerial colleague, Mr. Allan Stewart.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: Perhaps the Minister will allow me to intervene. For the sake of the record perhaps I may point out that before 1975 elections were not held every three years but every year on the basis that

1857
one-third of the council retired each year. Electors were not asked to vote every three or four years but every year.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: If the noble Lord had listened to what I said, I said that representatives were elected for a three-year period, not that there were elections every three years. I went on to say that a proportion of the seats were up for election every year.
As I was saying, my ministry colleague, Mr. Allan Stewart, said that our proposals gave the new councils a reasonable period during which they could formulate and implement their policies and keep them regularly accountable to their electorate. I do not pretend that there is any overwhelmingly powerful argument in favour of three years as opposed to four. At the end of the day, it was after consideration of where the better balance lay that we concluded that we should go for the three-year period, not least because it returned to the pre-1975 position.
The Earl of Minto: I am getting slightly muddled. I was in local government before its reorganisation and I do not remember there being total elections of the council once every three years. I do not think that the noble and learned Lord suggested that. He suggests that a council had a revolving role which frequently gave a longer life to representatives than the three years that is suggested. It came from the very fact that one was working with people who came back again and again. Frequently there was the same council time and time again, almost to the point of danger.
I do not agree with the noble and learned Lord that there are no benefits. I have the document The Internal Management of Local Authorities in Scotland with me. I looked at paragraphs 6.1, 6.2 and 6.3 on consultation and reminded myself of what they said. I believe that there is an important significance in the reference that I made to the Minister in another place. Paragraph 6.1 of the document states:
"Any elected body needs time to formulate a programme and to carry it into effect, and conversely the electors should be given adequate time to judge whether a council's policies have proved satisfactory".
I am sorry to say that I do not consider that on the evidence I have attempted to give the Committee this afternoon three years is sufficient time to meet those two points. If it is not sufficient time in England and Wales, why should it be sufficient in Scotland? I am being forced into a position against my wishes, but if the Committee must be divided on this, then it must be. Why should the noble and learned Lord say that in Scotland we need less time to achieve results than in England? It is simply not true.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: Before the noble Earl decides what he wishes to do with the amendment, the Minister has indicated that it was a nice—a difficult —decision to make as to the time. The noble Earl made the point that a revolving council is a totally different situation from everyone out and a whole lot of new people coming in. Therefore, perhaps my noble and learned friend will consider the matter between now and Report stage and decide whether there is merit in having
1858
another look at a four-year term for the whole council. Bearing in mind that the position before 1975 was totally different from what we are considering at the moment, that might be the way forward.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: Some confusion has emerged over this. One has to remember that prior to the reform of local government, different systems obtained in different parts of Scotland. Elections took place every three years in every area other than in the cities and the boroughs. It was in the cities and boroughs that there were rolling annual elections for a third of the council; a third of the council was up for election each time.
I can only come back to this: it is a matter of balance. The noble Earl is a distinguished convener of an authority in Scotland. He makes the point that a four-year period is desirable, as he perceives it, to ensure that the programme that the council wishes to take forward is taken to a satisfactory stage of implementation.
Against that has to be set the desirability of the electorate having the opportunity to decide whether it thinks that the council is doing a good job. In the final analysis, on a narrow balance, our view was that three years was preferable to four. I think that careful consideration has been given to this, not only in the internal management review but in another place. Everyone appears to be agreed that there is no absolutely correct answer but that it would be desirable to leave it as it stands in the Bill.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: Before the noble Earl makes his decision on whether to divide the Committee, I must say to the Minister that his response is worrying. On a matter such as this he could easily have accepted the advice of his noble friend Lord Sanderson of Bowden and taken the matter away to re-examine it.
No evidence has been presented to suggest that the four-year term which was introduced in the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 has produced any problems whatsoever. The Government have produced no reason for the three-year period contained in the Bill. It seems to me eminently sensible for the Minister to take the matter away and come back in the autumn at Report stage for further consideration. If we are going to get bogged down on simple issues of this kind, it is a fair indication of the suspicion in the minds of many of us that the Government seem determined to railroad this Bill through the House in its present form. I have to say firmly to the Minister that that is not acceptable.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I think that that is ungracious of the noble Lord when, just in the course of the last set of amendments that we considered, I thought that it was accepted that the offer I had made to the Committee was that we should take the matter away and consider it. So it is an ungracious observation.
Of course, if the noble Earl wishes to divide the Committee it is a matter for him. Clearly we shall not conclude the passage of the Bill through this House before we rise for the summer. There will be an opportunity to reflect upon it. But I am bound to say that it would be difficult for me, after the consideration that was given to the matter prior to the Bill being produced

1859
and following its passage through the other place, to give any indication that in taking it away I am in any sense making an undertaking to reconsider it.
Lord Hughes: The Minister is talking about all the consideration that has been given to this. However, is he merely talking about the consideration that may have been given by his civil servants? Was this matter extensively discussed in Committee in another place? I doubt it.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: If the Committee wishes me to say that I will take the matter away, I will. We have a great deal to get through. The noble Lord may take the summer to read through what consultation there was on it and he will discover that, following the consultation, there was a narrow balance of view in favour of three years rather than four years. If we can make progress, I will undertake to take the matter away and consider it.
The Earl of Minto: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for that assurance and in that case I withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 3, line 43, at end insert:
("( ) A person shall not be disqualified from being nominated as a candidate for election as, or for being elected, or for being a member of a local authority by reason of the provisions of section 31 (1) (a) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 unless he holds such paid office or employment as falls within sections 1 to 3 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 or such other paid office of employment or other place as the Secretary of State may specify by order.
( ) An order under this section shall be made by statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.").
The noble Lord said: This is a very important amendment. Under Section 31 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 council employees are not eligible to stand for election to the council which employs them. Employees may stand for election to councils other than those which employ them, with the exception of certain restricted posts. The current two-tier system of local government has, therefore, generally allowed a regional council employee, such as a teacher or an engineer, to stand for election to a district council in the same area. Similarly, district council employees have been able to stand for seats on regional councils. Island council employees have, however, been barred from serving as councillors in their own areas, given those councils' unitary status.
The establishment of unitary authorities throughout Scotland will have a significant impact on the availability of people willing and eligible to serve as councillors. The pool of people able to stand for election would be substantially diminished, as is already experienced by three all-purpose Island councils that we have in Scotland at present. The effect of continuing the existing qualification rules under the Bill's proposals would be to debar 280,000 employees—that is, approximately 7 per cent. of the adult population — from standing for election to local government. That clearly reduces their rights as citizens. If a commitment
1860
to attracting elected members of a high calibre to serve in local government exists, then this problem needs to be addressed.
The noble Lord the Minister will be aware that at Committee stage in another place the Under-Secretary of State, Mr. Allan Stewart, in rejecting an Opposition amendment which restricted the exclusion of those unable to stand for election to those who are already excluded under Sections 1 to 3 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989, stated that,
"the problem is not that people have not considered the issue; many people have examined it. No one has presented a satisfactory answer other than the Government's. If the Opposition present a new proposal between row and Report, the Government will consider it".—[Official Report, Commons, First Scottish Standing Committee, 17/2/94; col. 467.]
However, no such amendment was tabled at Report stage, largely in recognition of the problem of dealing with this matter adequately by including such a scheme on the face of the Bill. That is rather an important point.
In recognition of the complex nature of the issue balanced against the need to avoid debarring nearly 280,000 people from standing for election as councillors, this amendment seeks to bestow upon the Secretary of State the power to make regulations indicating what type of local authority employee is eligible to stand for election to the authority which employs that person. This course of action, while continuing to debar those included under Sections 1 to 3 of the 1989 Act to which I have already referred, would allow the Minister to decide among the remainder of the local authority staff who should be debarred from standing as a councillor because of the introduction of the unitary authorities.
For instance, the Minister may be minded to allow home helps employed by the social work department to stand for election to the council, while requiring that person not to take part in decisions relating to the operation of that department. The major advantage of the amendment, however, would be that it allowed greater time to be taken in considering the problems relating to this matter rather than imposing a blanket ban as is presently proposed. Further consideration and public consultation could be undertaken prior to the final decision being agreed.
The Minister must realise that there is quite a distinct difference now that we have gone from two-tier to one-tier local government and that a lot of very good people will be lost if we do not introduce some easing of the restrictions that already exist. I beg to move.
6 p.m
Lord Mackie of Benshie: This amendment is grouped with Amendment No. 102B, which refers specifically to the Island councils, and I shall cite particularly the example of the Western Isles. The Western Isles suffers, as do many Highland areas, from the difficulty of finding sufficient people of good calibre who are willing to spend the time on council work In the Western Isles the problem is much worse than elsewhere. The figures are these. The total population of the Western Isles is 29,600. Of that total the number of economically active persons—that is a curious phrase; I suppose it means those who are in work—is 13,385, of

1861
which 2,336 are employed either full-time or part-time by the council. So 17.45 per cent. of the employed workforce in the area is disqualified from standing. That anomaly needs looking at.
This amendment would be helpful in overcoming the difficulty in that it says quite simply that, where 12.5 per cent. or more people in the area are employed by the council, then certain exceptions can be made. It does not ask for senior employees to become members. The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, has already given examples, but Ministers do not need telling the difference between the Highlands and other places. This is an example where the Government ought to give some positive answer that they will look at this and make an exception which would improve the quality of representation on the Island councils.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I should first declare my interest in this matter, since I am an adviser to the trade union UNISON. The union is extremely concerned about the loss, as it sees it, of the civil rights of its membership. Since it represents most of the employees who are in local government in Scotland—about 280,000, I believe—that is a very legitimate interest. The number of people who work in Scottish local government, as we have heard, represents something like 10 per cent. of the total electorate. That will not happen in England under the unitary authority system as I understand it. So there is a particular problem in Scotland.
As my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, said, in relation to Scotland this matter needs special consideration because of the very high proportion of the population who will be disfranchised. We must bear in mind the interests of the staff, which I have already mentioned, and the value of such people to Scottish local government. They have a great deal to contribute —experience, commitment; it is all there. We should not debar such people from serving in a voluntary capacity, with proper safeguards. I understand the problems; I was a leader of a local authority in England —of a county borough council in Reading. We should not under these circumstances disbar people with commitment and experience from serving their communities and their colleagues in the new Scottish local government system. I hope therefore that the Minster will consider very seriously what has been said.
Lord Kirkhill: I wonder whether I might just add one point to the remarks that my noble friend Lord Stoddart has just made. As to my noble friend's latter point, I do not entirely agree with him, and I shall say why. I had considerable experience of local government, as some who are present may know, up until 1975. My experience of the system as it then was was that, if domiciled within the city concerned (in my case Aberdeen), employed though you might be by the local authority, you could stand for election. I saw and experienced no problem whatsoever with the system as it then was. Those who sought election became valued councillors, and they brought an extra dimension to decision-making. They could sometimes challenge an official view emanating from the cadre of professional
1862
advice open to the councillors as a result of their experience, sometimes gained at a different level. That brought a more interesting dimension to the decision-making process. My view is that this present Administration and their predecessor have treated most harshly those who serve local government in an employee capacity.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My noble friend Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove in introducing this amendment said that the effect of the Bill's proposals would be to debar 280,000 employees. As was said by the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, and my noble friend Lord Kirkhill, when it comes to the Island communities, we are working on a much smaller scale. In the last elections in the Western Isles there were many areas in which no one stood for the local council. That is a very serious matter. I do not know whether it has to do with employment in the local authority. However, when we reach a situation in which people cannot fill an electoral ward in local elections, democracy is at risk. If there is to be an imposition upon local authority employees, democracy becomes even more diminished.
For the life of me, I cannot see why people are considered to be suspect if they work for a local authority. What is wrong with them? Do they not have honesty or integrity? How did they obtain their jobs in the first place? Why cannot they stand for the local authority and get on with their jobs, declaring an interest? That situation may well be reflected in another place this afternoon. The Speaker of another place is about to tell Members how to behave. "Mother" Speaker—if I may call her that—is about to tell Members of the other place what they can and cannot do. Let us have the same thing in local democracy. If someone is elected as a Member of Parliament but does not know how to behave that is his or her problem. I see that the Minister is perhaps suggesting that I should not say such things, but I shall say them. Here we are debarring people from taking part in local democracy while in the other place they are debating how Members of Parliament should behave. I want to make the point that there is a lecture to be given next door and Members of Parliament are to be told how to behave, but it appears that members of the local authority are not to be trusted.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: The noble Lord made reference to my gestures. I was just a little concerned with the propriety of what the noble Lord was saying. He made an interesting point and I understand the parallel that he seeks to draw. I just wanted to be sure that what he says meets the proprieties of this Chamber.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I do not see that I am doing anything wrong. I make no apologies. I am grateful to the Minister for his comments. The people of this country are entitled to know why Members of Parliament have to be told how to behave and at the same time the Government debar perfectly reasonable people from participating in local democracy. The whole thing is a contradiction in terms. I say no more than that.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: I wish to support Amendment No. 29. I should declare that I was a local authority basic grade social worker for many years. I believe that it would be a most serious case of disenfranchisement for the whole local government staff group in Scotland if those people were to be ineligible to stand as local councillors. It is very important that local government employees should be given the opportunity to take the decisions which directly affect the industry to which they are committed.
I accept the proviso that a councillor who is a local government employee should not be involved with his or her departmental committee. Obviously, conflicts of interest could arise. I can also understand that the hypothetical situation in which all the elected members are also employees of the council would be unacceptable, perhaps verging on being incestuous. I doubt that that would ever happen.
In the search for high quality councillors there is a wealth of knowledge and talent among the local authority staff which should not go untapped. That would be equally true for the staff member's own employing council as well as his or her neighbouring council. In the industrial belt of Scotland that would be very practical and likely.
Finally, I am unhappy about the provisions for excluding higher paid local government officers from standing for election. In the district council elections of 1992, there was the galling situation in Clackmannan district whereby a most effective leader of the district council had to stand down for no better reason than that he was paid above the prescribed level, despite being a field grade officer. That was not a triumph for local democracy.
6.15 p.m.
The Earl of Balfour: I am genuinely concerned about this amendment because I feel that no local authority employee who is elected as a councillor should ever have the opportunity to criticise a senior local government official in a meeting. I realise what is behind the amendment. However, there is that very serious risk.
I also feel that, from the employee's point of view, if he is elected as a councillor of the local authority and criticises his senior officials for some reason or other, that may be the end of any chance of him ever getting any promotion. That is why I am not happy about the amendment.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: Let me say immediately that we are fully aware that the eligibility of local government employees to stand for election to their employing council is an extremely difficult issue. The difficulty with each of the amendments before us today is that neither tackles the fundamental problem of the potential conflict of interest that is inherent in any proposal to allow local authority employees to stand for election to their employing council.
I am sure noble Lords will agree that there are conflicting issues which offer up no easy answers. That has been the experience of previous inquiries which have examined the issue, such as the Widdicombe
1864
Committee in 1986 and the Montgomery Committee which looked into the issue in 1984 in the context of the Islands councils.
More recently, it was one of the issues on which views were invited in the context of the review of the internal management of local authorities in Scotland. The consultation paper, which was based on input from a joint central government/local government working party, set out as impartially as it could the arguments for and against change to the existing rules,. That exercise benefited from input from local authorities at both elected members and officials levels.
The responses to that consultation were particularly revealing inasmuch as they served to highlight the sharp division of opinion that exists both generally and within local government itself. Some argued for no change to the existing rules. Among those who advocated change, there was no consensus over the extent to which the rules should be changed or precisely how that might be achieved. For example, some councils argued for "guidelines" to be established to prevent a conflict of interest; others suggested identifying a range of "restricted" posts or "politically sensitive" posts.
In reaching our conclusions in favour of retaining the existing rules—this is a point that should be emphasised —we paid particularly close regard to responses from local authority organisations, such as the Society of Directors of Administration (known as SODA).
While expressing some reservations about the numbers that would be affected if the existing rules remained unchanged, SODA pointed out, quite rightly, that the statutory prohibition, which is a long-standing one, exists in order to remove the conflict (or, indeed, the potential conflict) between the public and private interest that would otherwise occur in respect of the councillor/employee concerned. SODA further pointed out that there could potentially be considerable problems in respect of the relationship that the employee would have with his employing authority or his manager through his also being a councillor.
I made reference in passing to the Widdicombe report. What it had to say at paragraph 6.36 was:
"The existing ban on local authority employees being members of their employing council is soundly based. No person in the public sector should be his or her own employer".
Similar views were expressed in the Montgomery report and in the views that Highland Regional Council offered. It was said that there would appear to be no scope for workable exceptions to that rule. Those views were shared by a substantial number of local authorities from different parts of the country. Interestingly, though reference was made to the Islands councils, where there may be a significantly greater proportion of the population employed by the authority, both Orkney Islands Council and Shetland Islands Council were firmly against any change to the rules.
Other proposals were put forward such as that those who were employees may stand for election provided they are prepared to take unpaid leave of absence during the period in which they are councillors. Frankly, that seems to me to be an extremely unattractive proposal. I cannot see those in the employment of local authorities the length and breadth of Scotland queueing up to take

1865
advantage of any exception of that character. While I understand the basis on which the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, puts forward his proposal and seeks to find a distinction, it would be extremely difficult to identify in Scotland at any time whether the specific percentage figure came into play or remained constant.
For all those reasons and on the basis of all the information available to us, we do not consider it to be right to change the existing rules across Scotland as a whole or in relation to specific areas which may meet the criteria of the amendment, however difficult that may be. What we suggest is in line with the findings of the Montgomery Committee and also in line with the Widdicombe proposals. Also, from what I think is underlying an earlier intervention, it is in line with the existing rules not only in England but also in Wales. It is also consistent with existing rules which prevent serving civil servants from standing for election as Members of Parliament.
While I do not dispute that it is a difficult issue, what has come clearly through from extensive consultation is that no one can set out a workable exception or offer any clear distinguishing line. On that basis, the weight of evidence adds up to a formidable case in favour of the retention of the status quo.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: Before the Minister sits down perhaps I can ask him, from a position of pure ignorance—if there is such a position I speak from it —whether the Widdicombe Report considered the position of small communities such as the Western Isles where, in Lewis and Harris, for example, the communities are made up of only 30,000 people. Earlier we were talking about areas of 280,000 people and so forth. But the percentages become greater the smaller the community becomes. That is one of the great problems within the local community which I tried to emphasise when I made my earlier remarks. Did the Widdicombe Report carry out any research in the Western Isles in relation to the desire of professional people and so forth to become local councillors? Perhaps the Minister could enlighten the Committee as to the conclusion the Widdicombe report reached in relation to the Western Isles.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: The Widdicombe report was a more general application. But the Montgomery report had specifically within its remit to look to the Islands councils and at paragraph 16.4 it said,
"We recognise that this disqualification is a cause of real disappointment to many council employees in these [existing] single tier [island] authorities. We have given serious consideration to how this might be overcome, if not for all employees, then at least for certain designated groups. However, we find it impossible to draw any satisfactory distinction between those who should remain disqualified and those who should not".
My answer therefore is that the matter was carefully examined and what proved to be extremely difficult, if not impossible—there have been a large number of conflicting proposals none of which seem to have found much favour—is that no real distinction can be sustained.
Lord Kirkhill: Perhaps I can again intervene briefly. I do not wish to protract the proceedings unnecessarily,
1866
though there is a good political reason on the Opposition for always wanting to do so. However, I am now too old a Peer to want to sit around too long in an unnecessary manner. Perhaps the Minister can help me. There never was a good reason for trying to make a line of delineation. He says that there are lines of delineation that were considered but that it is difficult to know where to draw them. Why draw them at all? Why is it necessary? I return to what was said by my noble friend Lord Macaulay of Bragar: it disenfranchises perfectly honest, straightforward, good people. Why?
Lord Hughes: The only alternative is that under the present set-up of a two-tier structure an employee for one authority may be a councillor in one of the other authorities. Is it still a condition, as I presume it is, that one can only be elected to an authority in which one resides? Is that still part of the law? If not, then somebody living in the area of one authority may seek to be elected to another authority even though he does not reside there. I do not believe that that is possible, but it may be.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Perhaps I, too, can make a point because this is an important matter. As everybody observed, we are disenfranchising around 10 per cent. of the Scottish electorate from serving on local authorities. We must understand that it is not easy to persuade people to serve on local authorities. It is an unpaid, grinding job that councillors do on behalf of their fellow countrymen. We must understand, therefore, that it is not easy to obtain councillors.
However, I well remember when we had an education committee in the county borough of Reading. It was composed of 18 members, two of whom came from the technical college which was run by the county borough council and two of whom were representing teachers. There was no conflict of interest in that committee. Where decisions impinged upon their conditions of service, the members did not vote and declared an interest. But on all matters to do with the administration of education and so forth, they could vote. They did not always do so; they were intelligent enough to know when they should and should not vote. That is the case for all local authorities.
The difficulties being put forward could be overcome as they were overcome on the statutory education authorities, at least throughout England and Wales. I am not an expert on Scottish matters but that may be so also in Scotland. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will take that into consideration. It has been done, and is done, in all sorts of ways. It is done in industry where there are consultative committees; employees serve on them and may want to criticise their boss. I often did and never got the sack.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I recognise that it is a difficult decision to make but the longer we postpone it the more difficult it will become. It only needs someone to grasp the nettle at some point. I remember the days when a councillor, if he was serving when council house rents were reduced, was not allowed to benefit from the reduction, whether or not he voted. He was a councillor and the council voted and he

1867
was not allowed to benefit. A close friend of mine was, in Whitehall terms, a low-grade civil servant. When he was adopted as a parliamentary candidate—this is within the past 10 to 15 years—and turned up at his office the next day the manager ran down in a panic with a rubber to rub his name out of the book because he had broken some Civil Service law. He had been a councillor but when he became a parliamentary candidate it broke the Civil Service rule. The Government are worried about a conflict of interest. Many of the councillors in the big cities are contractors with important connections with the council. They will be asked not to participate in voting but no one can tell me that they do not have an influence with their friends when they are sitting round the tea trolley or wherever they may be.
I know that the Minister would probably like to find a way out of this problem, but this is a decision by the Government. If the amendment is not accepted, the Government will be making decisions for the electors. We should let the electors know exactly what the person's job is and let them decide whether they want him. It would also be very healthy if councillors had a few people from the slightly lower echelons of the council sitting on committees or even just discussing matters with them. I have found that local authorities tend to have too great a reliance on their most senior officials. Without being disrespectful to them, many of the most senior officials learnt their skills a long time ago. Perhaps they received their degrees 30 or 40 years ago. It might be a big advantage if they listened to some of the younger people who are in the technical jobs.
I have sympathy with the Minister, but I hope that he will have sympathy with the 10 per cent. of people who will be disenfranchised.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I am in danger of repeating myself but three positions can be taken. The first is that there should be no restriction whatever. If such a position were to be adopted, there would be very real risk of a public perception that this was a cosy little number where people were both councillors and employees. That, in a single line, is the conclusion reached by the Widdicombe Committee and many of those consulted in Scotland. There may be a middle position: is there a line or a level of responsibility below which those employed by local authorities can nevertheless be councillors? As I have sought to point out, while a number of different proposals have been put forward, no one has come forward with any point at which disqualification should bite and has secured any general level of agreement on that.
This matter was carefully looked at in the context of the Island authorities where the problem might be thought to be most acute. The firm conclusion was that no distinction could properly be drawn. Orkney Island Council, for example, was particularly concerned about the public perception if there were to be any such change. I do not deny that it is a difficult issue but I believe that Scotland should march in step with England and Wales on this and stick with the existing rule.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I wonder how European law will look on this. Perhaps my noble friend Lord Stoddart of Swindon has advisers on European law. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clauses 6 and 7 agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Establishment of new local authorities:]
Lord Ewing of Kirkford Lord Ewing of Kirkford moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 130, line 41, at end insert:
("( ) For the purposes of the direction required by paragraph 1(1) above the number of councillors should be no less than 1680.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment: deals with the number of councillors who are due to be elected to the new authorities. Before I enter my argument I say at once to the noble and learned Lord the Minister that I am very impressed by his constant reference to the lack of consensus as a defence for his position and then to the presence of consensus as a defence for his position. One is seen as an argument for not changing the Government's position. The consensus is seen as a ganging up against the Government and therefore an argument again for not changing his position. I hope that we can get away from this consensus argument.
Perhaps I may leave your Lordships with the story of a seminar I attended only three weeks ago. I never spent such a fruitless day in my life as I did at the seminar which dealt with the responsibilities of corporate directors. The lecturer gave the 15 students a pro forma in which it was assumed that we had all been abandoned in the desert. Fifteen items were listed and we had to place in order—one to 15—the most important items for our survival. Because all 15 of us did not come up with the same answer we were told that we could not work as a team. I found that consensus argument to be absolutely amazing. I hope that the Minister gets away from that.
In moving the amendment, it is important to stress to the Minister that we are within nine months of the election to these authorities. We still do not know— there is nothing in the Bill and the Government have said nothing—how many councillors there will be in the election to these authorities. It is true that in the White Paper the Secretary of State, Ian Lang, said that it was the intention of the Government—certainly at that stage —to follow the existing district council boundaries. I say to the Minister that at the moment there are 1,601 local authority seats in mainland Scotland, of which 445 are regional seats and the balance of 1,159 are district council seats. If the district council boundaries are followed, as was suggested in the Government's White Paper, the number of councillors in Scotland would be reduced from its present level to about 1,000. Our amendment is designed to ensure that the number of councillors does not fall below 1,680.
There are good and sound reasons for that. The Minister referred extensively in the previous debate to the Widdicombe Report. Perhaps I may refer the Minister to the very same report. The report points out

1869
that the proportion of councillors to electors in Scotland is very much smaller than it is in England and Wales. We come back almost to the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Minto, in relation to the constant difference between the democratic process and democratic accountability in Scotland and in England and Wales.
To be fair, the Widdicombe Committee went on to say that during its investigations, particularly in relation to Scotland, it discovered that most of the people it interviewed could name their councillor—which is more than they can do of their Member of the European Parliament or some of the other people who are elected and most who are not elected as well—and most had had some contact with their councillor. The committee did not find that in England and Wales.
The Widdicombe Committee made another very interesting point. Local authorities in the United Kingdom as a whole have a far smaller proportion of councillors to population than the rest of Europe. Examples were given from Germany and various other parts of Europe of councillors representing smaller electorates than is the case in Scotland.
If the district council boundaries are followed, the Minister must accept that there will be major disparities between different areas of Scotland. In certain parts of mainland Scotland, a councillor could represent up to 5,000 electors. However, in the cities of Aberdeen, Dundee and Perth, and especially in Glasgow and Edinburgh, a councillor could easily have to represent 10,000 electors according to the district council boundaries. I can remember parliamentary constituencies that did not have as many as 10,000 electors. All right, that is not the case now—
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: They were Labour.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: The Minister says that they were Labour. He had better check his facts. Those are the kind of disparities that would be produced by following the district council boundaries.
My noble friend Lord Macaulay referred earlier to the Islands where councillors would represent 2,000 electors. So, at one end of the scale, a councillor would represent 2,000 electors on the Islands whereas at the other end of the scale in, say, Glasgow or Edinburgh, a councillor would represent 10,000 electors. The Minister must see at first glance that there would be grave disparities throughout Scotland in relation to the number of electors each councillor would have to represent.
The other point that Widdicombe made should not pass unnoticed by the Minister. Widdicombe carried out a major examination of the position in Scotland after the passage of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973, making the point that the balance between elected representatives and the bureaucracy—that is, the executives—was very delicate. He said that it was absolutely essential to preserve the balance between those who were elected to the local authorities and those who were appointed to administer those authorities. During the debate on the 1973 legislation, I can well recall making the point that one of the effects of that legislation would be to reduce the number of councillors
1870
in Scotland by 50 per cent. I forecast then what would happen: that, as the democratic element was reduced, the bureaucratic element would increase. That is in the very nature of bureaucracy and that is something that we must guard against. Therefore, when the Minister replies to the amendment, I hope that he will be able to give the Committee and, indeed, Scotland, an indication of the Government's thinking about the number of councillors who would be elected to the new authorities.
Perhaps I may leave the Minister with this final word. I hesitate to make this point. The Minister should understand the effect of reducing the number of elected councillors to 1,000. Those 1,000 elected councillors would have to be set against the 7,500 people whom the Secretary of State has appointed to serve on quangos. I know that the Minister's response to that will be to say to me, "Well, you're one". That is why I was so reluctant to make that telling point, but it is a telling point because those 7,500 appointees have the power to spend two-thirds of the budget of the Scottish Office, leaving only a small part of the budget for the 1,000 elected councillors.
By moving this amendment, I hope that I have given the Minister an opportunity to spell out in detail exactly how many councillors will be elected. We need to know how many places there will be on the new authorities for elected councillors because to date—that is, only nine months from the date of the first elections—we have had absolutely no indication of that whatever. I beg to move.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: The role of the councillor is wide and varied and it is proper that we should have the opportunity to discuss the number of councillors under the new structure of local government that is proposed for Scotland. This was also one of a range of issues considered in the context of the review of the internal management of local authorities in Scotland.
The clear message from that consultation is that each new authority area must be considered individually. The number of councillors needs to reflect local needs and circumstances. The issue does not lend itself to the setting of a minimum number, nor indeed to the setting of a maximum number.
As the noble Lord rightly stated, already, throughout Scotland, we see wide variations in the numbers of electors for district wards: for example, in Sutherland, the average is about 750 electors per ward. In Glasgow, the rations about one councillor for 8,000 electors.
The question of council size was also considered at the time of the last reorganisation by Lord Wheatley. That report recognised that a balance had to be struck between the important representative side of a councillor's work and the need to ensure the efficient despatch of council business. A maximum council size of 75 was suggested. This, I think, serves to illustrate the point that the issue is not best approached by setting maximum, minimum or even target levels for Scotland as a whole. A flexible approach is required.
What we have proposed, therefore, is that the normal rule which should be adopted for drawing up the new

1871
ectoral areas is that these should be based upon the district wards which are currently being reviewed by the Local Government Boundary Commission.
We made clear in our White Paper that we would depart from this general principle only where necessary to remove anomalies or to reflect local circumstances such as where this would produce councils that would be too large. In such cases, we would, of course, first consult with the existing councils concerned and publish proposals for public comment.
That reflects the assurances contained in the White Paper. We believe that this is a sensible approach for a number of reasons. In the first place, it will mean that in the great majority of areas, the electoral wards will be up to date and newly reviewed. This is clearly more satisfactory than any attempt to draw completely new lines on the map. Secondly, in the great majority of cases we believe that this approach would produce a sensible number of councillors for the new councils.
Balances have to be struck and other solutions investigated, but I believe that our proposals strike about the right balance. However, I remind the Committee —I made this point earlier—that our initial proposals will subsequently be subject to regular independent review by the Boundary Commission.
Perhaps I may deal with the question of whether the figure of 1,200 or so councillors, which would emerge under our proposals, is too low. As I have sought to say, it is our view that this is not a meaningful approach. What matters, ultimately, is the power of councillors to represent their constituents properly and to get things done. Single-tier local government will significantly strengthen the status of councillors in their communities, identifying them with a single local authority for the area. It will increase their ability to get things done across a range of services in a way which is inevitably restricted under a two-tier system.
I accept that the whole issue of councillor numbers is not going to be easy, but I believe that the approach we have adopted is sensible administratively and will provide in most cases councils of a size that is appropriate to their areas.
At earlier stages and, indeed, in this Committee, we have been accused of being inflexible. I must underline and emphasise our willingness to be flexible in particular areas. We shall be listening carefully to what councils and others have to say to us. Indeed, in some parts of Scotland that dialogue has already begun. While the noble Lord is correct that we do not as yet have a complete picture of the number of councillors there will be around Scotland, I have set out what we believe to be the starting point. We intend to be flexible and, where we depart from the basic rule, to go out for public comment and discussion. Accordingly, I do not believe that the amendment will be helpful to the process of drawing up the new electoral map. With that explanation and indication of flexibility, I hope that the noble Lord will be prepared to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: I am grateful to the Minister for his flexible approach, but I notice that his flexibility was within his 1,200-councillor flexible limit.
1872
I hope that we can move him a bit from that between now and Report. On that basis, I am happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Minto The Earl of Minto moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 132, line 5. leave out from ("1994") to end of line 7.
The noble Earl said: The amendment is grouped with Amendment No. 32 to which I shall also speak. The purpose of Amendment No. 31 is to remove the power of an existing authority, where a casual vacancy occurs after 16th November 1994, to co-opt a member rather than hold a by-election. There is a problem here. At present, if a vacancy arises on a council within six months of an ordinary election, there is no need to hold a by-election. That is widely agreed in local government as being acceptable. But paragraph 6 of Schedule 2 would disallow by-elections to an existing council between 16th November 1994 and April 1996—a period of 17 months. I believe that that is too long.
The amendment seeks to permit by-elections until October 1995, which is much more reasonable because that is six months before the abolition of the present council and is as presently required under the 1973 Act. That takes care of the purpose of the amendment with regard to timing, but there is another part of Schedule 2 which also causes me deep concern and which comes within the same amendment.
It is undemocratic to carry through the suggestion that one can co-opt a member of a council, who would be selected by the council itself. We have democratic-ally held elections within local government so that the electorate can have its say. It is unworthy to place us in a situation where someone could be co-opted onto a council for the whole period of 17 months. There are in Scotland a number of hung councils. There are others where the political majority is small. I am not sure how the selection of a member in those cases would be carried out. Will there be guidance as to how the person should be selected?
Should the person be of the same political persuasion as the majority of the council or of the same political persuasion as the member who has left the council? It is possible that the individual might be an independent. What does one do then? This is not a good situation in which to find ourselves. The amendment takes care of it. However, I accept—I know that the noble and learned Lord is likely to aim this comment at me—that it will require electoral registration officers to keep a second record, because the amendment would require that the present electoral rolls are kept. I suspect that a cost would be involved, but I consider it to be a small cost in the interest of the democratic process. On that basis, it would be in the interest of Members of this place.
Amendment No. 32 deals with the election of a convener. Once again I say categorically that I have no personal interest in the matter. At present there is a requirement to elect a convener in April 1995 and again in April 1996. I do not believe that it is in the best interests of any council to have a convener elected in one year for a period of one year. It would be

1873
destabilising. Come 1996, it would be most unfortunate if someone chosen the previous year were asked to stand down.
As it stands, the Bill allows for a council to remove a convener if it does not want one. I consider that the matter should be left that way and that the necessity to hold an election of a convener in two concurrent years, just once, for the first time in the life of a council, is something which I hope the noble and learned Lord will accept is an unnecessary burden and destabilising. With those comments, I beg to move.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: As we get nearer to the dinner break the Minister becomes more and more reasonable. I wonder whether I can persuade him to reconsider seriously and give a commitment, if that is possible, that the Government will return on Report and withdraw the proposal relating to co-option in the event of a casual vacancy. Let me frighten the life out of the Minister and put him off his dinner. At present, on Stirling District Council there are 10 Labour councillors and 10 Conservative councillors. The Conservatives have the majority because the provost drew the joker of clubs while the Labour candidate drew the seven of diamonds. It is as simple as that.
Let us picture for a minute that the casual vacancy is caused by the departure, for whatever reason, of a Conservative councillor. I shall give the Minister an absolute guarantee, and I should be the first to encourage my Labour colleagues to do it, that the casual vacancy will be filled by a Labour nominee. If the roles were reversed, the Conservatives would fill a Labour vacancy with a Conservative nominee. But if my original presentation is right, I can just picture Michael Forsyth hammering on the Minister's door wondering what on earth is going on and saying, "How did we get into the position where the balance of power was changed not by the electors but by this clause?". The Minister has an opportunity to save himself, if not from my wrath certainly from that of Michael Forsyth. I should have thought that that was something that would appeal greatly to the Minister.
Lord Hughes: I was going to refer also to the situation in Stirling. In the business of co-option it has been generally accepted that a party would bring in another candidate of the same political party so that the balance of power in the council did not change, but there is no legal compulsion to do that. I should not go so far as my noble friend and say what I would encourage because, after all, I have no right to stick my nose into the affairs of Stirling. The temptation for a political party to change the majority position of a council would be very great. I am certain that if the situation arises in Stirling, whether a Conservative or Labour group is faced with the temptation either is likely to succumb to it.
The Government have proposed a period of 17 months before there can be a by-election. That is a tremendous departure from the existing position and the best solution would be that proposed by the noble Earl, Lord Minto. If that were not possible, would it be possible for the Secretary of State to give administrative
1874
guidance to local authorities, stating that if during that period a vacancy occurred as a result of death or resignation the council should fill the place with a representative of the same party? I know that that does not deal with the situation of independent councillors, which was raised by the noble Earl, Lord Minto. Theoretically, none of them has anything to do with any of the others. Obviously, the most suitable suggestion is that contained in the noble Earl's amendment.
Lord Kenyon: No doubt the Minister will recall that in the Welsh local government Bill a similar clause exists. However, it does not contain the final two sentences to which the noble Earl is objecting. Will the Minister explain clearly why there is that difference between Wales and Scotland? In Wales, if a councillor dies after the cut-off date there is no need to replace him; but in Scotland the replacement is to be elected by the council.
7 p.m.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: The example of Stirling was clearly interesting. I must say to the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, that in such an eventuality I would have a greater faith in the honourable conduct of Labour councillors on Stirling District Council than does the noble Lord.
There is a difficult course to steer between making a whole host of detailed provisions that would cover all eventualities during the transitional period and making no provision at all.
In coming forward with paragraph 6 of Schedule 2, we have sought to steer a middle course. I should like to emphasise also that the provisions that we have proposed follow very closely those which applied at the time of the previous reform and I am not aware of any difficulties arising from them at that time. I cannot say what the position has been in Wales but we are following through what was the position in Scotland in previous reorganisations.
We have taken the view also that those in local government are responsible people and they would not seek to abuse the trust implicit in the provision relating to the filling of casual vacancies.
I turn specifically to Amendment No. 31. This seems to accept the principle of having a cut-off date for the holding of elections to fill casual vacancies on existing councils in the run up to the shadow elections and during the shadow year.
We are firmly of the view that it makes sense not to hold elections in such circumstances. Besides the time and costs involved, there is the point made by the noble Earl about electoral registers having to be compiled on the basis of new and existing councils.
There is also the question, which we approached in previous debates, of whether candidates would be willing to come forward in such circumstances. That said, I recognise also the anxieties that have been expressed over the concept of co-option to fill casual vacancies during the transitional period. A number of perfectly valid points have been made.
As I said, there are strong grounds for not holding elections in such circumstances but I do not believe that

1875
there is a case for permitting vacancies to remain unfilled during this period. In any event, some kind of provision is necessary in the Bill to cover, for example, the eventuality not of one councillor in Stirling falling under the proverbial bus but possibly a large number of members doing so. This is, of course, in practice most unlikely to happen; but, nevertheless, it must be covered.
In the final analysis, this provision will be short-lived, given its transitional nature. As regards the 1973 Act, the transitional period was also about 17 months. It then operated satisfactorily and we see no reason why that should not prove to be the case on this occasion.
Turning to Amendment No. 43, I have to say that paragraph 7 of Schedule 2 was inserted into the Bill for a very specific and, it was intended, helpful purpose. Its removal would in practice fetter local authorities rather than assist them.
It may be helpful therefore if I explain to the noble Earl the thinking behind this provision. Clause 4(3) permits local authorities, if they so wish, to make standing orders providing for the duration of the term of office and for the procedure for early removal from office of convener and depute convener.
The effect of this amendment would be to remove the requirement to hold an election for the offices of convener and depute convener at the first meeting on or after 1st April 1996. However, this would deny authorities the opportunity to benefit from the provisions of Clause 4(3) until 1999 at the earliest.
In other words, because the council could not elect a convener on 1st April 1996 under any revised standing orders that had been drawn up in the shadow year, the convener elected in 1995 would have to remain in office until the elections in 1999; there would be no authority under the Bill to remove him.
By providing for the convener and depute convener to be elected in April 1996, councils are given time in their shadow year to make standing orders if they wish to do so. These could make provision relating to the convener's term of office or to early removal from office and could apply from the effective vesting date of the new authorities on 1st April 1996. They would thus apply to any convener or depute convener elected on or after that date. The existing convener could of course stand for re-election in April 1996.
While it is not intended that there should be regular elections and re-elections of conveners, this rather complicated device is intended to ensure that once the local authority is up and running any revised rules allowing for removal should be in place at the beginning of that period. I regret that the matter is somewhat complicated and I hope that in reading the explanation the noble Earl will appreciate exactly why we have had to resort to this somewhat elaborate mechanism.
The Earl of Minto: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his explanation of both amendments. I am not happy with his explanation of Amendment No. 31. I was surprised that the situation was similar in 1974. I must openly admit that I had not realised that. I am uncomfortable about the possibilities of there being
1876
some form of undemocratic process taking place behind the scenes which, if we had taken action, we might have prevented.
I think that I understood what the noble and learned Lord said in respect of Amendment No. 32. I am not sure whether I am still a convener because the issue appeared to be inexplicable. I shall do my best to read what was said; and on that condition, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 32 not moved.]
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Lord Annaly: I beg to move that the House do now resume. In moving that Motion, I suggest that the Committee stage begin again not before ten minutes past eight.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Firearms (Amendment) Bill
7.10 p.m.
Lord Renton: 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.—(Lord Renton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The VISCOUNT ALLENBY OF MEGIDDO in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Possession of firearm or imitation firearm with intent to cause fear of violence]:
Lord Monson Lord Monson moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 8, leave out ("imitation") and insert ("replica").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 1 which seeks to substitute the word "replica" for the word "imitation". At the same time, I shall take the opportunity to dispose briefly of Amendment No. 3. At the time that I tabled my amendments, I had assumed that Amendment No. 3 was consequential on Amendment No. 1. However, on re-reading the Second Reading debate and on examining carefully the 1968 Act, I realise that that is not necessarily the case.
Section 20 of the 1968 Act, to which Amendment No. 3 refers, deals with trespass. By definition, trespassers are up to no good and they should not be carrying even the most unconvincing imitation weapons when they are on someone else's property. Therefore, I am wholly content to allow the present wording in Clause 2 to stand and I have no intention whatever of moving Amendment No. 3.
However, Amendment No. 1 is a different matter. I am unhappy about the present wording for two reasons. On Second Reading I tried to establish the precise meaning of the word "imitation" as opposed to the word "replica", which is fairly unambiguous. By definition, a replica implies a fairly exact copy.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, speaking for the Opposition, suggested that a flimsy toy gun would not be judged by the courts to be an imitation.

1877
However, the noble Lord, Lord Renton, took a somewhat different view. He said that a water pistol could constitute an imitation gun, and you cannot get anything much flimsier than the average water pistol.
Subsequent to the debate, I met somebody who appeared to have considerable expertise in this field. He went even further than the noble Lord, Lord Renton. That individual who, for various reasons, I cannot name, claimed that what constituted "imitation" depended entirely on the circumstances; that in the dark, for example, even the most improbable objects could be held by the courts to constitute imitation firearms. Indeed, how many dozens of films has one seen over the years in which people carrying sticks under folded raincoats successfully frighten bank tellers and thus get away with large sums of money from banks; or where the hero, temporarily deprived of his actual firearm, sticks a fountain pen into the villain's ribs saying, "One move and you're dead"?
In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Swansea, on Second Reading, both the noble Lord, Lord Renton, and the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, expressed the opinion that under the Bill as it stands, a householder could lawfully use an imitation firearm to frighten off a burglar. That is certainly reassuring; but there must still be grey areas.
Let us take the case of a householder who has no garage and therefore has to park his car nearby on the public highway. In the middle of the night he hears somebody breaking into his car, obviously with the intention of stealing the car radio. The householder grabs a length of broken broom handle or brass curtain rod, dashes outside, sticks it into the thief's ribs—it is a dark night—and says, "This gun is loaded. Don't move a muscle while I call the police". Would that be legal under the Bill as it stands? I await the answer with interest.
Perhaps I may now take the rather more fanciful case of a teenager who is being driven by his father to an evening sports function. The father's car is "cut up" by an aggressive driver in a hot hatchback who keeps on overtaking and then braking, having become irritated with the father for some reason. Exasperated, the teenager grabs his father's telescopic Taiwanese umbrella, which you can buy in most department stores for about £7.95, winds down the window and sticks the umbrella out of the window. Of course, in the dusk it may look like a single-barrelled sawn-off shot gun. The teenager shouts, "Lay off or I will shoot up your rear tyres".
I admit that the second scenario is somewhat far fetched, although not impossible. The first scenario is all too likely in the era in which we live. But either of the people concerned could be caught by virtue of the use of the word "imitation" rather than "replica". I await with interest the noble Lord's reply.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, perhaps I may offer a little assistance in this fascinating but small problem from a somewhat different angle—not as a lawyer but as a former professor of English Literature.
1878
When considering this amendment, I was driven to consult that invaluable work of reference—The Oxford English Dictionary in its complete form, some 20 volumes. I was intrigued to know precisely what the difference between a replica and an imitation might have been held to be over the centuries. I find, and I offer to your Lordships without prejudice in case it may be of any use, the fact that the word "replica", coming as it does from the Latin replicare, originally and etymologically means no more than a reply. It first appeared in the English language as late as 1824 in reference to:
"A copy, duplicate, or reproduction of a work of art; properly, one made by the original artist".
It is only by transference, form b, that it becomes:
"A copy, reproduction, facsimile".
That does not appear until 1865 in a work of fiction by Ouida.
On the other hand, an imitation is a word of much greater antiquity. In its noun form, substantive 2 in The Oxford English Dictionary, it is described as:
'The result or product of imitating; a copy; an artificial likeness, a thing made to look like something else which it is not; a counterfeit".
And to my surprise and delight, the first recorded version in English was in 1601 in Shakespeare's Julius Caesar, Act IV, Scene 1, line 37. The first reference to the word itself in a slightly different form goes back to 1502.
Therefore, it seems to me from a purely linguistic standpoint that a replica must be an imitation but an imitation need not necessarily be confined to replication —to being a replica. It may be that your Lordships will have to consider whether the Bill should contain the wider or very, very much narrower form because a replica must be the reproduction of something which actually exists. I offer that with my best regards.
Lord Annaly: It is the Government's view that to introduce a further category of replica firearms would only serve to create confusion and misunderstanding. An imitation firearm is defined in the Firearms Act 1968, and its definition has not caused any problem in the past. For the benefit of Members of the Committee I shall read out the definition. An imitation firearm is defined in Section 57(4) of that Act as,
"any thing which has the appearance of being a firearm… whether or not it is capable of discharging any shot, bullet or other missile".
Lord Renton: If I may say so, I rather rejoice that the noble Lord, Lord Monson, has moved the amendment —although one could not possibly accept it—if only because it has given us the pleasure of hearing the erudition of the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris. By much deeper methods than I was prepared to deploy, the noble Lord has reached the same conclusion as I have regarding the difference in meaning between an imitation and a replica.
However, I return now to the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, when moving the amendment. I shall come shortly to the three reasons why, in my opinion, Amendment No. 1. is unacceptable. But before I do so, perhaps I may set the noble Lord's mind at rest. The answer to all the potential circumstances that he described is the same answer to be

1879
given in each case. In every case the court will have to decide two things: first, whether an imitation firearm has been used; and, secondly, whether it was used with the intent,

"(a)by means thereof to cause, or

(b)to enable another person by means thereof to cause, any person to believe that unlawful violence will be used against him or another person".

In other words, there has to be proof that something that looked like any kind of firearm—not a flimsy imitation or a little bit of pink plastic—was used. That is the first thing that the prosecution must prove and the court must decide. It must then be decided whether or not it was used with the "intent" described in Clause 1 of the Bill.
Having said that, I turn to the three reasons why I suggest that the amendments cannot be accepted. I must point out that it will involve my repeating, to some extent, the two excellent speeches that we have already heard. The first reason is the clear difference so vividly described by the noble Lord, Lord Morris, between the meaning of the words "replica" and "imitation". A replica would have to be an exact copy—the noble Lord mentioned a reproduction—of a particular weapon. That might be very difficult to prove; indeed, it would not necessarily be the sort of thing that had been used.
The second reason has also already been mentioned. It refers to the fact that, whereas all replicas are imitations, not all imitations are replicas. However, the third—and, I believe, the most conclusive—reason is that in this branch of the law the word "imitation" is already to be found in the statutes; it is understood; and it has proved the test of time as regards its usage. But, on the other hand, the word "replica" has not so far been used in the context of firearms legislation. If I may say so with respect to the noble Lord, I believe that it would be unwise for us to introduce it now.
Lord Monson: I thank all noble Lords who have spoken. I, too, looked up the OED as it happens, but I consulted the two-volume copy rather than the full version which the noble Lord, Lord Morris, perused. I came to the same conclusion. Indeed, we all agree that the meaning of replica is very much narrower than that which applies to the word "imitation". There is no doubting that fact. However, my amendment is a probing amendment. It was really designed to ascertain whether the use in the dark of objects which have no connection with a gun, such as piping, doweling or whatever, could be taken as using imitation guns.
I am still a little unclear on the latter, but I suppose that there is a let-out in that in the cases that I described there was no intention to cause serious harm to anyone. Indeed, it could be argued that the individuals were merely protecting themselves, even though it was not within the four walls of their own homes where they have rather more right to engage in self-defence than they have out in the streets or on the open road. I am still a little worried about this point, but I suppose one can rely on the Crown Prosecution Service not to launch any frivolous prosecutions. With that hope, rather than total assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Monson Lord Monson moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 17, leave out ("10") and insert ("5").
The noble Lord said: Although I fully appreciate that the 10-year maximum sentence proposed by the Bill as it stands would rarely be used—indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Renton, explained that to us on Second Reading —it still worries me because it seems to be disproportionate. I shall no doubt be corrected if I am wrong, but, as I understand it, in the Bill we are not talking about using an imitation firearm in furtherance of a robbery or similar crime. That offence is already rightly covered by other legislation. We are talking about merely using the imitation gun to frighten people, for whatever reason, as an end in itself. That is a fairly serious business, but does it really merit a maximum of 10 years' imprisonment?
Further, one reads in press reports that Mr. Michael Howard, the Home Secretary, proposes to introduce legislation which would impose a seven-year maximum sentence for possessing a sawn-off shotgun. A sawn-off shotgun is an extremely lethal weapon; but an imitation gun, for all the worry that it may cause people, is not lethal. Therefore, can the noble Lord who is speaking for the Government or, indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Renton, explain the discrepancy in the maximum sentence? I beg to move.
Lord Annaly: The Government support the view that the maximum penalty of 10 years, as opposed to the five years proposed by the noble Lord's amendment, is appropriate for the offence which is created by Clause 1. We are talking about a very serious offence. In the Government's view, the offence should carry a penalty which will act as a substantial deterrent to those who seek to misuse firearms or imitation firearms in that way.
The noble Lord made particular mention of the increase in the sentence from five to seven years for shortening the barrel of a shotgun to less then 24 inches under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill. The noble Lord is quite right to say that that is a most serious offence. However, just to put the matter into context, perhaps I may tell Members of the Committee what other offences would attract a sentence of seven to 10 years. For example, there is the offence of reconverting a deactivated firearm to fire live ammunition without being a registered firearms dealer for which one would receive a sentence of five to seven years. For possessing a sawn-off shotgun or a reactivated firearm, one could expect to receive the same sentence. Finally, for the offence of carrying a loaded firearm in a public place or that of trespassing with a firearm in a building, a sentence of five to seven years would be imposed. The seven-year sentence in relation to a sawn-off shotgun is for simple possession. Here we are talking about threatening behaviour. The purpose of the Bill is to deal with threatening behaviour. I think that that probably answers the noble Lord's question.
Lord Renton: I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Annaly for giving the Government's reasons for sticking to the maximum penalty of 10 years. I would remind the Committee, and especially the noble Lord, Lord Monson, that a maximum penalty is not to be regarded as the usual penalty. It is the maximum penalty

1881
for the worst example to come before the courts from the nature of the offence, which is of course described in the statute.
However, each offence can have varying degrees of severity in its application. Also, we have to consider that we are dealing sometimes with the worst type of offender. I hope I may give an example. Let us suppose that a man who has been imprisoned several times already for offences of violence uses an imitation firearm in order to perform a bank robbery and succeeds in getting a large amount of money that way. Let us suppose that he has already been sentenced for that —he may be sentenced to seven or eight years, although a maximum penalty may be much more—and the police happen to find that he has in his possession an imitation firearm with intent to cause another person to believe that unlawful violence will be used. The police would be justified in saying, "This is pretty bad. We will have to bring him before the court", in spite of all the warnings that he has been given in the past and the attempts to redeem his character in prison. In order to protect the public we need to have for this particular kind of offence the possibility of a high deterrent sentence for the worst type of case.
I do not need to repeat what my noble friend Lord Annaly has said about other cases, but I shall just mention one or two points. We need to bear in mind that the various degrees of maximum sentence that we impose by statute for somewhat similar cases bear some relation to each other. Already under the Criminal Damage Act 1971, for example, merely threatening to damage property carries a maximum penalty of 10 years' imprisonment. Under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill which completed its Report stage last night, simple possession of a prohibited weapon also now carries a sentence of 10 years. If we did not make the maximum penalty 10 years under this Bill, it would not give the right message to those to whom it should be conveyed. Therefore I hope that on reflection the noble Lord, Lord Monson, who was fully justified in putting this amendment down, will feel that there are good reasons for retaining the maximum sentence in the Bill for the very worst type of offence.
Lord Monson: First of all, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Annaly, for his explanation of the various maxima applicable to various firearms offences. I must say it still seems to me, looking at the whole gamut of the offences he read out, that a suitable maximum for this particular offence would be nearer seven years—possibly five may be too low—than 10. However, I agree that this is perhaps a matter of fine judgment.
As I said in my opening remarks, I appreciate that the maximum is only rarely used. Nonetheless it sets a marker for the trial judge as to what the right sentence ought to be. If 10 years is the maximum for this particular offence, it seems to me, logically speaking, that it should be in line with that for the possession of a sawn-off shotgun. However, I agree that this is a matter of judgment and no doubt the department has thought the matter through clearly and arrived at what will prove to be the right decision.
1882
Any Private Member's Bill, as opposed to a government Bill, which proposes a maximum sentence for anything—whatever it may be—of as much as 10 years ought not to go through both Houses on the nod. It went through the other place on the nod but I hope it will be agreed that it is right that this should not go through this House on the nod. Some questions ought to be asked, and they have been asked. They have been answered, if not to my total satisfaction, then to my reasonable satisfaction. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Application of sections 20 and 46 of 1968 Act to imitation firearms):
[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]
Lord Monson Lord Monson had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 4:
Page 1, line 25, leave out ("imitation") and insert ("replica").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 4 deals with Section 46 of the 1968 Act which gives JPs, and sheriffs in Scotland, the power to issue search warrants for guns, and by extension imitation guns, and to seize and detain them. On reflection, there is not much danger that warrants will be issued for the seizure and detention of broom handles, curtain rods or telescopic umbrellas. I do not therefore propose to move this amendment.
[Amendment No. 4 not moved.]
Clause 2 agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.

Civil Service (Management Functions) (Northern Ireland) Order 1994
7.38 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Baroness Denton of Wakefield)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Baroness Denton of Wakefield) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 3rd May be approved.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the order will make provision for the management of the Northern Ireland Civil Service broadly corresponding to the effect of the Civil Service (Management Functions) Act 1992 in respect of the Home Civil Service. The latter legislation was examined in great detail during debate in your Lordships' House. It may nevertheless be helpful to the House if I comment briefly on the order and then say a few words about the detailed provisions.
The purpose of this order, and I would stress its only purpose, is to enable the Department of Finance and Personnel to allow managers in individual Northern Ireland departments and agencies to take more direct responsibility for the management of their staff. Under the Civil Service (Northern Ireland) Order 1986, the Department of Finance and Personnel is charged with responsibility for the general management and control of the Northern Ireland Civil Service, an organisation of some 30,000 people.
That workforce includes not only administrators dealing with almost the whole range of government, but also engineers, lawyers, economists and scientists. It has a common objective in its responsibility to serve the public of Northern Ireland. Otherwise the Northern Ireland Civil Service, like the Home Civil Service, is a group of discrete businesses with varying purposes and modes of operation; yet it is managed in such matters as pay and grading, allowances, promotion, probation, staff appraisal and so on as if it were a homogeneous unit.
The Government believe that the public service should be organised so as to allow its component parts to focus on their objectives and thereby provide a coherent management framework and offer a more responsive and cost-effective service to the public. That is why nine executive agencies have been created already in Northern Ireland with clearly defined aims, performance targets and budgets.
If we are to build on the progress already made in our reform of the management of the Civil Service in Northern Ireland, it is important that managers in these agencies, and in other business units, are allowed the flexibility to take the necessary decisions to achieve results within a proper framework of accountability. Within the present legislative framework, the Department of Finance and Personnel has been able to give departments and agencies only a measure of discretion in the management of their staff and then only within its responsibility to exercise general management and control. This order will permit the central department to delegate personnel functions and allow civil service managers the flexibility to meet quality of service targets and appropriately to reward and motivate staff, rather than having to apply centrally agreed conditions of service, which are recognised more and more as unsuited to the diversity of circumstances in which the Civil Service now operates.
I want to stress, however, as did my honourable friend in another place, that this order does not facilitate market testing and privatisation of civil service functions. It is concerned only with the management of Northern Ireland civil servants, not with a change in status.
The draft order was published as a proposal to give interested parties, and in particular Northern Ireland Members of Parliament and the Civil Service trade unions, the opportunity to comment. The comments received were very carefully considered and responded to in detail but did not result in any changes to the draft order.
Among the comments made, the view was put forward that delegation of personnel functions is inappropriate to the small scale of the Northern Ireland Civil Service. The Government believe that the diversity to which I have already made reference makes it appropriate that managers in the Northern Ireland Civil Service should be able to have flexibility in personnel matters where that will help them to meet their business objectives. The order does not oblige the Department of Finance and Personnel to delegate its management responsibilities, and departments and
1884
agencies will decide where delegated authority will help to improve the performance of their organisation both in terms of efficiency and service to the public.
The Government recognise that in the difficult circumstances of Northern Ireland its Civil Service has been a force for stability and that it enjoys a reputation for impartial service to the public, for promoting equality of opportunity and for high standards of conduct. I can assure your Lordships that departments and agencies will be required to exercise delegated authority within the basic principles of government policy and that essential standards of conduct will continue to be subject to whatever central rules are deemed necessary.
I want also to emphasise to those who may have a concern about the effect of this legislation on the morale of the Northern Ireland Civil Service that the order does not in itself change terms and conditions of service. Changes will come about only if departments and agencies see a need for them, and then only after consultation or negotiation with the staff concerned and their representatives.
I shall outline briefly the main provisions of the order. Article 3 permits the Department of Finance and Personnel to delegate functions related to the personnel management of the Northern Ireland Civil Service to other servants of the Crown. This defines the application of the order and ensures that it cannot be used to move the management functions or staff out of the public service.
It is intended that where a department or agency takes a delegation it should be given maximum flexibility, but only within a proper framework of accountability. The order provides that the Department of Finance and Personnel may attach conditions to the exercise of the delegation and may withdraw the delegated authority at any time. Furthermore, the right of Parliament to raise questions about the management of the Northern Ireland Civil Service is unaffected by the order.
Article 4 of the order deals with the management of civil servants who are appointed, and have their terms and conditions determined, under statutory provision. Thus their management is not governed by the Royal Prerogative, which is the subject of Article 3. Examples are the staff of the Land Registry and the Public Record Office in Northern Ireland. Typically the Department of Finance and Personnel is required to approve their terms and conditions of service, and the order permits the waiver of the statutory requirement for such approvals. It would be inconsistent if provision were not made to permit the same flexibility in the management of those bodies, as would be available under the order to the rest of the Northern Ireland Civil Service.
Those are the main provisions of the order. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 3rd May be approved.—(Baroness Demon of Wakefield.)
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for the extremely clear and helpful way

1885
in which she introduced the order to the House and for some of the assurances which she gave in the course of her remarks.
It is a coincidence that we should be discussing this order on the same day as the House debated a Statement on the White Paper on the future of the Civil Service —The Civil Service Continuity and Change. That prompts one or two observations on the order, which we do not intend to oppose from these Benches.
First, as the noble Baroness said, the Northern Ireland Civil Service is some 28,000 strong and is responsible for a budget of £700 million. That is a much higher ratio of civil servants to population than in the rest of the United Kingdom. The Northern Ireland Civil Service is not perfect and I dare say it is not always efficient and responsive, but we should recognise the extraordinary job which it does in difficult circumstances.
I was struck by the remarks of the noble Baroness on morale. I believe that there is an ethos in the Northern Ireland Civil Service which it is important not to destroy in the quest for efficiency. It is important to try to retain a sense of a particular role in Northern Irish society and not to allow the Civil Service to become too fragmented. When I hear the Government talk of market testing (and I recognise that the noble Baroness said that there is no question of this order relating to market testing) I sometimes think that if they did a little more test marketing and a little less market testing we should all be better off.
My question for the noble Baroness is, who is answerable for the actions of the agencies in relation to delegated powers and subcontracted activities? Her honourable friend Mr. Ancram in another place drew the following distinction:
"Recipients of delegations will be made clearly responsible for the exercise of a function, but the ultimate accountability of a Minister to Parliament remains intact". —[Official Report, Commons, 30/6/94; col. 979.]
In the White Paper that was discussed earlier today, the words appear,
"delegation to and within properly accountable organisations".
One of the anxieties that people have who welcome the move to executive agencies, as we do on these Benches, is how accountability operates day to day and year to year. For instance, should the executive agencies have to set such clear objectives that deviations from those objectives can be discussed by Parliament annually? The answer is, yes probably. One could say of the old-fashioned Civil Service department that the Minister was responsible. How can ordinary citizens in Northern Ireland who feel that in some way they have not received the service which they expect and who wish to raise matters through their constituency MP receive a satisfactory answer if the line of delegation is so strung out? How does the noble Baroness see that system operating in practice?
I have one final question about personnel. It is envisaged that there will be more recruitment from the private sector. That will probably be a good thing. However, can the Minister assure us that legislation to ensure fair employment, which is so important in Northern Ireland, will be rigidly adhered to? The report of the Fair Employment Commission reveals that the
1886
proportion of public sector appointees who are Protestant men is still greater than the proportion of applicants who are Protestant men. That is an important factor. I do not say necessarily that there is anything wrong with that. However, it is important to know in the context of Northern Ireland. Will such monitoring continue under the new agency structure? Will affirmative action such as has been so notably progressed in Northern Ireland be maintained? At the same time, will positive discrimination be resisted? I shall value the noble Baroness's response.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Baroness for explaining so pellucidly the order. But I regret that we on these Benches cannot welcome it at all. Is it not ironic, as the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, said, that it comes to us on the very day when we have heard the Statement about the strange future predicted for the British Civil Service—a future for which many have not been slow to predict a dismal doom?
We are opposed to the provisions of the order because they will, in our view, have the effect of dismembering and dismantling the Northern Ireland Civil Service for which we have a great regard, endangering the pay and conditions of its members, and severely undermining their morale which we are concerned to retain. They will be living in an atmosphere of steadily increasing uncertainty at a time when certainty, stability and assurance are more than ever vital to the work that they do.
These changes appear to have been brought forward with very little regard paid to the views and fears of the civil servants themselves, consulted though they have been, and they strike us as manifestly unnecessary. The Civil Service in Northern Ireland is unquestionably small by any standards —some say that the number is 30,000; some say 25,000 and one at least says 27,661. That is no larger than a small government department in Great Britain. Why, then, is this Irish devolution required so insistently? Is it not wasteful of taxpayers' money to insist that every department, every agency, whatever its size, must be given the right to set up and manage all its systems without benefit of any larger structure? Where, above all, is the evidence that managers in the Northern Ireland Civil Service want this new flexibility, which is being pushed down their throats?
What the order will certainly do is to contribute to what has been called "a culture of insecurity" in the terms and conditions of the Northern Ireland Civil Service. Public service is not best given in an atmosphere of fear and greed, and constant uncertainty about the operation of the system is a threat to the civil servants' efficiency.
Perhaps I may ask the noble Baroness—I do not ask her to do so when she replies tonight because it is not easy to give such answers off the cuff; if she does so I shall be even more grateful—to do two things. First, perhaps she will demonstrate how this order does not make Ministers less accountable. I contend that it must

1887
do so because there will always be other new people who can be blamed and circumstances beyond normal control which can be taken into account.
Secondly, will she define precisely what is meant by the phrase "servant of the Crown" in Article 3? When this question was asked in another place, the Minister replied that,
"The term is limited to those in Crown service".—(Official Report, 30/6/94; col. 988]
To my simple and untutored mind, that signifies no more than that a servant of the Crown is one who is in the service of the Crown. I should be grateful for any further enlightenment that can be offered.
We do not like this order. We wish it were not here. I shall not, of course, delay the noble Baroness's dinner and disarrange everyone else's by asking the House to express an opinion, but I am obliged to state that we on these Benches —both of us—are very resolutely Not-Content.
Lord Blease: My Lords, I join with the noble Lords, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, and Lord Holme of Cheltenham, in thanking the Minister for the clear and precise manner in which she outlined the order. I wish to say, too, that I wholeheartedly support what the two noble Lords on the Front Benches have said in opposition to the order, and indeed in probing the real objectives of the order.
The absence of objectives clearly defined in the order is one of the matters on which I express concern. There is no precise objective of seeking to obtain efficiency, management control or parliamentary responsibility. We have to note that the order was debated in another place on 30th June and agreed only after a Division on which the Northern Ireland elected Members joined the official Opposition in the Division Lobby. As was stated, the Statement debated today in this House about the Civil Service reforms does not make the order any more acceptable to the vast majority of the Northern Ireland Civil Service employees.
I wish to put two points to the Minister. They are both relevant to the discharge of duties regarding management efficiency and overall accountability in performance and financial terms. As has already been stated, the total number employed in the Northern Ireland Civil Service is equal to some of the smaller departments of the Home Civil Service, as it is described. The professionals, specialists, and management lines of communication are spread throughout Northern Ireland in different departments, as has already been outlined by the Minister. Here all those aspects would be employed in possibly one ministry.
The strengths of the Northern Ireland Civil Service to deliver services are the current span of command and lines of communication between divisions and departments. The manner in which the order proposes the discharge of duties, and for the Department of Finance and Personnel to issue authority and responsibility, takes away the great opportunities for, and awareness of, career prospects which already exist. We ought to foster and promote such opportunities in Northern Ireland. The breakdown into smaller units that the order proposes will destroy that upward movement
1888
and morale, and the incentive to complete the task with regard to delivery of services to the public. I believe that that destroys the position that exists in Northern Ireland.
To shorten what I have to say, I feel that what we are considering here is a total disruption of the pyramid structure of command within the existing Northern Ireland Civil Service. The Minister has outlined what is a cellular form of structure where each department or service would work isolated in a set compartment or cell. There would be no mobility, no lines of communication or of co-ordination. There would be no quick return if a parliamentary request were made for accountability of a particular service. The proposal destroys that. That is what I feel ought to be addressed in the order.
In essence, the Department of Finance and Personnel is the department at the top of the pyramid and it would take on the duties. Why should we have all these different departments and permanent secretaries in Northern Ireland? We want an efficient Civil Service there. The present one is quite able to adapt to the needs in Northern Ireland, which are different from those here. Much more could be achieved financially by management structures and in the services, provided financial services took over one department and let the other permanent secretaries fall into line in that management structure.
There is no need for the cellular development with little components of management accountability. It destroys the real thrust that Parliament can have on accountability and prolongs the line of communication and the response to what Parliament needs in this procedure. For those reasons, I oppose the order as it stands, verbally, but not in any way in the Lobby.
8.2 p.m.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I thank those who have participated in this short but involved debate. First, perhaps I may say how delighted we are to see the noble Lord, Lord Blease, with us today. I am sorry that since I have had the privilege of being appointed to the Northern Ireland post he has not been able to be with us. I am also sorry that he should return to business which gives him considerable displeasure.
I believe that noble Lords have less faith in the Northern Ireland Civil Service than we have. I think that there will be no lessening of standards, and standards and fair employment principles will be maintained. The ethos and ethics are in the people, not the structure. That allows the people to have greater flexibility. Those closer to the staff and to the people whom they serve will be able to make the decisions. They will be able to help their young people to grow, which I know will give the noble Lord, Lord Blease, pleasure. We are not looking at a structure of command but at nurturing the staff and working with them to enable us to deliver the best possible service.
I am delighted to say to the noble Lords, Lord Holme and Lord Morris, that it may be ironic that we are discussing this on the same day as the Civil Service White Paper comes out, but it is no more than a

1889
coincidence. Had it been possible not to take the business on a Northern Ireland public holiday I am sure it would have been much appreciated.
I thank noble Lords for their tributes to the Northern Ireland Civil Service. They are well deserved. The service carries great responsibility in difficult situations which will not become easier. However, we believe that it will be possible for people in the service to work in a manner which will deliver a better service. I assure noble Lords that the accountability does not change; there is no risk. The Department of Finance and Personnel, as a delegator, remains responsible for the performance of the delegation. The Secretary of State retains ultimate responsibility, both in the right of the DFP and also in the right of the other department to which the function has been delegated, because both departments are subject to his control and direction.
Perhaps I may assure noble Lords that if they, as a Minister, were to ask a chief executive in an agency to agree the objectives for the coming year with them as Minister, they would watch closely to see that the objectives were being maintained. The order will give such people the right not only to have objectives but the right to be able to make the necessary decisions to achieve them. There is no question of delegating ultimate accountability. Furthermore, it is the intention to provide Parliament with an annual statement of the delegations granted.
The noble Lord, Lord Morris, questioned the meaning of the words "servants of the Crown". The term is limited to those who are in the service of the Crown. The easiest way to look at the definition is that it cannot apply outside the public service; it refers to the public service and not to the private sector.
I shall look carefully at Hansard and if I have not replied fully to any points raised I shall write to noble Lords. I am grateful for their contributions to the debate this evening. I commend the order.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down perhaps I may ask one question, as a matter of interest and for information. We on these Benches support the delegation but the noble Baroness said that the Department of Finance and Personnel has ultimate responsibility. What guarantee of minimum standards is there? How absolute is the delegation on pay and conditions of work? Are minimum standards laid down with which people have to comply although they can be varied within certain limits? How does it work?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I am pleased to tell the noble Baroness that the delegation is within the Government's policy on such matters. The issue is that where one delegates something which is visibly not working there is the right to take the delegation back in order to ensure that it meets the standards in general. The individual detail will have to be worked out and proposed between the same civil servants who work together today.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions)(Northern Ireland) Order 1994
8.7 p.m.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield Baroness Denton of Wakefield rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 24th May be approved.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the main purpose of the order is to rationalise or update certain existing legislation falling to the responsibility of the Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland. Noble Lords will be pleased, I suspect, that I do not intend to go through the order article by article, but I believe it would be helpful to the House if I remark on significant aspects.
Article 4 will allow the Department of Agriculture to provide grant aid to a wide range of proposals and development plans aimed at breathing new life into many of the deprived rural areas in Northern Ireland. The department has already promoted and financed successful pilot projects under the Northern Ireland Agriculture Act 1949, but the wording of that Act is limited in relation to rural development. The powers under this new article will enable the programme to expand to its full potential. We see the work in rural development as one of the main planks of government policy.
Article 16 of the order also provides new enabling powers to allow the Department of Agriculture to introduce charges for the use of the only lock on the Northern Ireland side of the recently reconstructed Shannon-Erne waterway, and for the use of effluent disposal facilities provided by the department for cruisers on the wider Lough Erne navigation system. This development of the waterway is something of which people on both sides of the Border can be very proud.
Turning to the other main aspects of the order, Articles 10 to 15 will amend existing legislation on the welfare of animals to provide greater protection to animals. I am pleased to assure the House of that. In particular, the order will allow legislation to be made on the welfare of animals at market, on ensuring that stockmen are given instruction and guidance on welfare codes of practice and also on livery establishments or other such premises where horses are kept as part of a business and have been outside legislation up until now.
Articles 19 to 23 make a number of amendments to the Diseases of Animals (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 —again, I am sure noble Lords will be pleased to know —to strengthen the powers available to control disease in line with existing Great Britain legislation. The main practical effect of these is to enable legislation to be made dealing with situations where disease is suspected of being present and to make specific provision for inspectors to take samples or test animals. Other technical amendments are intended to give greater flexibility in applying existing provisions and in setting or amending rates of compensation for diseased animals. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 24th May be approved.—(Baroness Denton of Wakefield.)
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, this is much better. May I say straight away that we are happy to welcome this order, which may well do something to improve the state of affairs in rural areas. It makes some necessary and timely adjustments to the distribution of grants and the collection of levies.
I have just two questions. If the noble Baroness can answer them across the Dispatch Box—well. If she would prefer to consider them and write to me, I would be equally content.
Article 3 imposes a general duty on the department to achieve a reasonable balance in discharging its functions in relation to land between these four considerations: efficiency; social interest; conservation; and public enjoyment. Good. But has this not been a duty on the department in times past? Has it not always been obliged to consider the natural beauty and amenity of the countryside, for example; and if not, why not? Such good practice has long been a staple of legislation in England, Scotland and Wales. Why is Northern Ireland so out of line?
Much in Article 3 reads oddly. Can the noble Baroness explain, for example, the clause:
"so far as is consistent with the proper and efficient discharge of those functions"?
It seems to me otiose, redundant, pointless and slightly beyond comprehension. I would be grateful for enlightenment.
My second question relates to a deeper suspicion. When this order was considered by the third standing committee on statutory instruments in another place the Minister of State was asked about safeguards for the welfare of animals in transportation in Article 10. This, I am sure we would all agree, is a very sensitive political issue at this time. The Minister replied:
"The Government remain committed to ensuring the best possible welfare standards for animals in transit".
Then he went on to describe some quite irrelevant activity about some Greek presidency compromise proposal at a meeting of the Agriculture Council. Will the noble Baroness be so kind as to explain precisely how Article 10 increases the safeguards on the welfare of animals in transit? I am sure that she will be easily able to satisfy my genuine curiosity, and my welcome for this order will then be all the richer and deeper.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness for her introduction of this order. It is a thoroughly practical order. It was not opposed in the Commons standing committee, and we have no intention of opposing it tonight. The fact that it is practical should not, however, blind us to the fact that it deals with a very important subject; namely, in the first part of it, rural development.
The proportion of the Northern Irish workforce who are employed in agriculture is of course three times the proportion in GB. So any emphasis on rural development is extremely important. What will it mean for the agricultural population in Northern Ireland? One hopes that rural development will be good for the people
1892
who were in farming. But that is a question on which I should be interested to hear from the noble Baroness when she responds.
I ask her this specifically. Article 3—quite rightly, in my view—recognises that environmental considerations must be balanced against economic interests. But I would value an elucidation of what "a reasonable balance" means. Are civil servants to be given any greater guidance than those words, "a reasonable balance", when we have important trade-offs between the environment and economic development?
Perhaps I may say just one word on the facilities on the Shannon-Erne Waterway. It is an occasion to record again what a triumph of cross-Border initiative this whole waterway is. It has cost about £30 million, and has been funded predominantly by the European Union and the International Fund for Ireland. I just wonder what implications it has on the course of the current talks in which the Government are engaged behind the scenes on the prospect for other practical cross-Border agencies that can get the two parts of the island working together in a non-contentious way on matters that are as much in their joint interest as this is.
Finally, I should like to say how much we on these Benches welcome the greater protection that is given to animals in the animal welfare measures in the later part of the order.
Lord Blease: My Lords, I welcome this particular order. It is designed to help and assist one of the major parts of the community in Northern Ireland, the farming community. The noble Baroness is playing a leading part. I sincerely thank her for her kind words earlier on.
I wish to make two points. While in the order there are a number of recommendations and a number of objectives set, I find it difficult to understand—indeed, I am backed up by some authorities into which I do not want to go at this late hour, but in particular the Ulster Farmers' Union and the president of the Veterinary Association—why both of these orders are backed only by codes of conduct. In our export and importation of animals, there is no form of law laid down that prohibits or seeks to prevent imports into Northern Ireland of diseased animals. There is no legislation laid down that prevents the pollution of the rivers or sets objectives for the environment. I feel that the codes of practice should acquire some greater strengthening by some form of legislation. Given those few remarks, I certainly welcome the order.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, seeing my noble friend, it is like being back in the old times regarding agriculture. Many was the time when I had to present such orders in my noble friend's place. I have to say that I did so at considerably greater length. My noble friend has been admirably concise tonight.
Perhaps I may ask her three or four questions on a number of the articles. First, on Article 3, where we have already had a look at the duty of the department to balance the interests, in looking at paragraph (a)
"the promotion and maintenance of a stable and efficient agricultural industry",
I hope that my noble friend and her department will do everything that they can—that they will shout, speak,

1893
eat and drink for Northern Ireland—at all the exhibitions of Northern Irish food and at the world food exhibitions in different countries, not least at SIAL—the world exhibition that is to be held in Paris later this autumn. I hope that my noble friend and her department will make the usual very strong impression on behalf of the Northern Ireland agricultural industry on a world scale in Paris.
Secondly, I am delighted to see in Article 4 that grants are to be continued. I hope that my noble friend will continue with the great motto: "Act fast while grants last", which was the saying of the farmers heading for Dundonald House. I am delighted that they will find the grants and will find my noble friend taking very good care. Indeed, the noble Baroness opposite seems to recall the happiness that was expressed by the fanners. I seem to recall that there was not a great deal of happiness expressed in my department.
With regard to Article 8, I notice a change in name from "Livestock Marketing Commission" to "Livestock and Meat Commission". I am sure that careful consideration and thought as well as enormous consultation went into that change. But I hope that my noble friend understands that the word "marketing" concentrates the minds of farmers-producers and all those involved in the industry that we are considering this evening.
My noble friend also mentioned Article 16—the Erne navigation charges. If any major change is to be made in the charges, perhaps she will be able to let me know at a later stage. I am intrigued by the term "drainage" in that article. In Irish terms one should never use one word when two will do and I understand that the technical term is "watercourse management", particularly that involving the Ballyconnell canal.
Finally, I support most strongly everything that my noble friend said with regard to Articles 22 and 23 on the examination and prevention of diseases and the work of the first class inspectors in the Department of Agriculture. The three major diseases—infectious bovine rhinotracheitis, Newcastle disease in poultry and Aujeszky's disease in pigs—were very rigorously controlled in Northern Ireland. We just have to look at bovine spongiform encephalopathy and examine the damage done by that disease to the beef industry, which spills over into Northern Ireland. Also, if the excellent inspectors in the Department of Agriculture do not take a very firm line on all those diseases and on all diseases as they arrive, the first class status of Northern Ireland's animal health will be jeopardised.
Finally, I ask my noble friend to check whether all the watercourse management activities carried out in the Caledon demesne in the Blackwater drainage scheme and the remedial work that was promised in my time and promised since 1991–92 have been completed. I hope that she can keep an eye on them.
I wish this order well. Perhaps my noble friend will wish to write to me. Certainly, I do not expect to hear from her this evening.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I thank everyone for their contribution to this order. Even in
1894
very brief speeches many queries were raised. I give the assurance that if I cannot answer them now—I shall try to be brief—I shall certainly write to noble Lords. However, I know that Northern Ireland at the moment is taking precedence over Scotland and that gives me no pain.
In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Holme, the Shannon Canal came slowly and steadily but was opened this year. Usage is already showing up well. I believe with him that the more examples there are of the successes of working together to the benefit of the communities on both sides, the more we can hope to achieve.
I assure the noble Lord, Lord Blease, that we are greatly concerned about the environment. Codes of practice certainly apply in Article 10; but there is legislation—fines—in other orders. We have recently seen an unfortunate example of the pollution of rivers. But I was delighted in that case to hear that the person responsible behaved very ethically and the matter was quickly reported so that it could be dealt with.
With regard to Article 3—the tightrope article—the noble Lord, Lord Morris, was absolutely right to say that the department will now legally be required to do what it has in effect been doing for some time, following the commitment given by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in December 1987 that the spirit of the provision in Section 17 of the Agriculture Act 1986 would be observed in Northern Ireland. But to ensure balance in the economic development of the agriculture industry is a matter of judgment. As the noble Lord, Lord Holme, said, it is one of our most important industries, it is of considerable size and we must be aware of the issues.
In answering on the welfare of livestock, my honourable friend moved quickly to the national scene, as it was so topical at the time that the order went through in the other place. In the new requirements this particular article will ensure that stockmen, who are responsible for marketing moves, are made aware of welfare codes and are given appropriate guidance and instructions on the provisions. That will help protect welfare.
The changes in the regeneration of rural areas must be supportive of the fanners; and, I may add, the farmers' wives who play a considerable role in rural development. We aim to do that. The name of the Livestock Marketing Commission was changed at its request. Let me say to my noble friend Lord Lyell that I understand why he is so much missed in Northern Ireland. I shall endeavour to promote the interests of Northern Ireland food—which is wonderful —around this country and others. It is one of our greatest assets; but I have to confess that I doubt whether I can drink in that job with his capacity or style.
Let me also confirm that the grants are there. It would be nice if farmers would also concentrate on getting their applications right first time so that we can pay them more quickly.
Given that my noble friend was responsible for the Blackwater scheme, I am sure that his wishes were respected. I shall check and write to him. I can assure him that it has nothing whatever to do with this order. Having said that, I commend the order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill
8.27 p.m.
House again in Committee.
Clause 8 [Transfer of employees:]
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 4, line 24, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
The noble Lord said: We come to a set of amendments which are vital to the Bill and are of particular importance to this side of the Chamber. I am sorry that my noble friend Lady Turner of Camden is not present. It is a subject with which she is extremely familiar and in fact she is quite an expert on it.
In my interpretation, Amendments Nos. 33 and 34 are paving amendments and vital for our other amendments, Amendments Nos. 35, 36, and 37. The purpose of the proposed powers under the new paragraphs is to ensure that protections equivalent to those provided in a transfer situation by the European Union Acquired Rights Directive and by the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations —known as TUPE, and I shall say more about them in a moment —are applied to staff who are transferred to a new authority as the result of local government reorganisation.
That would result in all staff in post on transfer day being transferred to a new authority on the same pay and conditions of service as they enjoyed with the old authority. By framing the amendment in that way, instead of referring to the regulations and the directive, and specifying that they will apply, any ensuing difficulty in interpretation is avoided by dealing with the substantive issue and specifying quite simply that all employees will be transferred. It also ensures that when employees are transferred from existing to new authorities their salary and conditions of service in the short term remain unaltered and in the longer term are "not less favourable" than their existing salary and conditions of service. The provisions incorporate Sections 216(2) and 216(3) of the 1973 Act.
The proposed reorganisation will have a major impact on staff in local government. In looking to the future staff are entitled to expect that their interests will be protected by statutory provisions. The present reorganisation proposals are causing great anxiety among all local government staff. Despite assurances about the majority of staff being transferred, ministerial statements referred to job losses and redundancies which, when coupled with the limited scope of current draft compensation regulations for England and Wales, are creating a great deal of insecurity in the minds of employees. The consequent effect on staff morale will inevitably affect the delivery of services. There is therefore an urgent need to remove that uncertainty by amending the legislation.
In the last reorganisation of local government in Scotland the legislation ensured that all staff would be transferred to new authorities with pay and conditions of
1896
service protected on a "no less favourable basis". The same standard of protection should therefore be provided in the current proposals.
The European Union Acquired Rights Directive and the UK Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations are intended to provide legal protection to employees in transfer situations. It is now generally accepted that TUPE applies to the contracting-out of services under compulsory competitive tendering and to a wide range of other situations, including the transfer of a single employee. A legal opinion provided in connection with the reorganisation in England and Wales stated that in many instances TUPE would probably apply; and in addition UNISON, the main local government trade union, asked the European Commission to initiate measures to ensure that the Acquired Rights Directive was applied to local government reorganisation.
However, some doubt remains. Against that background the best way to avoid continuing uncertainty and probably judicial intervention is to amend the legislation to ensure that there is a clear commitment to transferring all staff in post on transfer day to the new authorities. Also we received assurances from the European Union that everyone's pension provision must be available.
A number of educated people and people who are thought to be reasonably sophisticated are continually asking what is meant by TUPE. Though it may be slightly unusual, at this point I should like to read into the record what are the basic elements of TUPE. The Transfer of Undertakings booklet states,
"When there is a change of employer to which the Regulations apply, the Regulations have the following effect: Employees' contracts of employment are transferred from the. old employer to the new employer. Employees have a limited right to object to the transfer. Collective agreements are transferred. The new employer is obliged to maintain trade union recognition arrangements. There is a duty on the old employer and the new employer to inform and consult with recognised trade unions before the transfer. Employees who are dismissed for a reason connected with the transfer can claim unfair dismissal".
I am sure that a large number of local authority employees will be reading our debates with interest and I thought it was important therefore that those points should be recorded. I beg to move.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Hughes: My noble friend spoke so completely in relation to this group of amendments that my contribution at this stage will be extremely small. I confine my remarks to Amendment No. 33 which seeks to substitute "shall" for "may". That is a general part of the clause which governs all the rest and reads,
"Subject to the provisions of this section, the Secretary of State may by order make provision with respect to (a) the transfer of employees from an existing local authority to a new authority with effect from 1st April 1996; and (b) any matters arising out of or related to such transfer".
I cannot imagine any circumstances where the Secretary of State will not make an order. Employees must be transferred, so what objection can there be to substituting "shall" for "may"? If the provision states that he "shall" make an order, it is merely saying what

1897
must definitely take place. I hope therefore that the Minister will find it reasonable to accept the amendment.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: I rise to support the amendments. The noble Lords, Lord Carmichael and Lord Hughes, stated the important points. I merely want to stress in relation to Amendment No. 35 that it is necessary for employees to know that their pay and general conditions of employment will be transferred on the same basis as when they were previously employed. If afterwards they are then made redundant or sacked —whatever one calls it—at least they will be sacked or made redundant on the terms on which they were previously employed. That is the least that we can do. It was done in the 1973 reorganisation to give some reassurance to people who must be extremely worried about their jobs, their futures, their homes and their mortgages. The least we can do is to repeat that reassurance.
The other point is that we shall have a larger number of directors of education; for instance, directors of work and so forth. People in big jobs will be employed in small jobs. It would be foolish to lose their capacity by trying to reduce their pay. It would be more competent and economic to employ the good people who were carrying out bigger jobs to do the smaller jobs and yet be left satisfied. There is not a tremendous pool of ability to draw upon at will and it is important for all sorts of reasons that these people are reassured that their pay and conditions will not be reduced because of government action.
Those are the points I want to stress. First, I want to remove uncertainty about pay and conditions in relation to the transfer; and, secondly, I want to ensure that able people who may be employed in a smaller job stay on and use their experience for the benefit of the community.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: The noble Lord, Lord Mackie, is right to stress the problems which staff suffer when reorganisations of this kind apply. Those who have not been through this do not understand exactly what staff and their families are going through. They do not know whether next week, next month or even next year they will have a job, a job which they thought was theirs for life. I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Minister will take that into account.
My noble friend Lord Carmichael gave the arguments as to why, bearing in mind the TUPE regulations, we should pass these amendments: that there should be no shadow of doubt that we have done the right thing; that there is not a case to be taken to the European Court; that we have done everything correctly and above board; and that the Government cannot be challenged either in the courts of this country or in the courts of the European Community. My noble friend was right to stress that and I hope that the Government will take it on board. After all, the existing functions of Scottish local authorities are being transferred virtually intact to the proposed successor councils which assume
1898
full legal powers and responsibilities from 1st April 1996. Therefore, it must surely be logical that the staff of the existing authorities should be transferred en bloc.
There are possible financial benefits in doing just that. While some of the immediate revenue gains may be postponed, the transitional costs are also postponed and, indeed, may be reduced through extended opportunity for the redeployment of staff. We have seen in all kinds of other reorganisations staff being made redundant, with all the costs that that incurs, only to be taken on by the same organisations in sometimes similar capacities only a few weeks, or perhaps a month or two, later. There is also the necessity to avoid employing temporary staff. That is bad in itself and shows a bad example to the people who have been displaced by such temporary staff. Many opportunities will exist in the new authorities for retraining staff and redeploying them to cater for the needs of the new authorities, thus minimising the impact of the transitional costs themselves.
Furthermore, there are organisational benefits as new authorities will need time to determine their most efficient and effective management structures. Unless all staff are given the opportunity to transfer to the most appropriate authority, the new authorities may very well find that they have got rid of the very staff they most need to run the new organisation.
It seems to me that the amendment offers the Government the opportunity to do everything right: to do it right from the point of view of law so that they cannot be challenged in the courts; to do it right from the point of view of future organisation; and to do it right for the staff who will be moved and have their lives disrupted. For all those reasons the noble and learned Lord and the Government should accept the amendments.
8.45 p.m.
The Earl of Minto: As one who works daily with local government officers and staff I feel very strongly on this matter and I spoke to it at Second Reading. It is important for your Lordships to remember that the success of this transition will depend entirely upon the good will of our staff. Equally, it is important to remember the debt we owe them in having taken it for so long without any form of assurance. I am greatly encouraged by the fact that the noble and learned Lord said twice to me earlier today that since something was in the 1973 Act it must be there for good. In 1973 we did things correctly and I think that we owe our present staff as much attention now as we did then.
I would have to say to your Lordships—I am sorry if I have emphasised the fact that I work in local authorities—that there is a great deal of worry. It cannot be underestimated. I feel strongly that this amendment should receive the support it deserves. I am genuinely fearful that if it does not it could result in a great deal of hardship which would go far beyond the hardship of this Chamber and into the families of those whom we employ. On that basis I urge support for this amendment.
The Earl of Balfour: I am sure that everyone will have a great deal of sympathy with the amendments but the drafting of some of them, such as Amendment No. 35, leaves quite a lot to be desired. I must point out where I am a little concerned about guaranteeing employees work. Perhaps I may draw your Lordships' attention to Clause 8(4):
"No scheme … shall be made without the consent of the new authority or authorities".
We must be careful not to insist that the new authorities take on perhaps more staff than they really need or that staff are paid at a higher salary than they are at present. I feel that these matters should be ironed out by the staff commission. Equally, if there is a failure of such consent, the Secretary of State comes in to protect the staff and protect everyone else.
Those are my only concerns. Local authority staff are some of the most dedicated people I have ever met. They are extremely loyal. I have sympathy with the amendment but we cannot dictate to the new authorities that everyone should be taken on.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: Everyone recognises that the issue of staff is a particularly sensitive one. The provisions in relation to staff will have been studied with particular care by all those who are affected, but it is important in this connection not to paint a false picture. The vast majority of those employed in local government will be transferred. Plainly, a school which comprises a number of teachers of say, French or science on 31st March 1996 will need the same teachers on the following day, so the teachers will transfer. As I have said, the vast majority of staff will transfer, so we are talking about a relatively small number of people who will not transfer. That is the first point.
The Committee will also note that the provisions in this chapter form a coherent whole. Clause 8 provides the mechanism for transferring employees. The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, described this as a paving amendment—the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, also spoke to it—which seeks to provide that the word "may" shall be replaced by "shall". I understood it to suggest that all employees should transfer. I acknowledge that that was the broad pattern of what happened in 1973. However, the question for the Committee is: what is best for the employees? We could include in the Bill some mechanism whereby all employees would transfer on 1st April 1996. The question of exactly to whom they would transfer would need to be considered. It is not feasible to have them transfer en bloc, as the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, suggested. The noble Lord will appreciate that we cannot transfer all the employees of Strathclyde Regional Council to one single authority. That is why there is a reference to "the appropriate authority". That suggestion is not even an option.
One must also ask: what will happen on 1st April 1996 and thereafter? My noble friend Lord Balfour points the way on that because, as he said, the new authorities must consider what is the appropriate staffing level for them. It would be wholly unreasonable for us to inflict new staff on the authorities. Of course, we could do that, but it would mean that the real decision on staffing was being postponed until that date. The Committee must consider whether it is wise —or
1900
even kind—to those who are going to be affected by the decisions to allow them to be artificially postponed until some time after 1st April 1996, thereby leaving those people in limbo between the date on which the Bill becomes an Act and the date on which the transfer occurs.
Would it not be much better to ensure that the shadow authorities themselves have to consider the staffing that will be appropriate for the new authorities when they take over in April 1996? Would it not be better to decide that as early as possible so that decisions can be taken as early as possible and those who are going to transfer will know as early as passible—and those who are not going to transfer will know as early as possible what package is available to them and can make their arrangements accordingly?
Lord Mackie of Benshie: The Minister appears to be putting the responsibility onto the shadow authorities. If that happens, the new authorities will have no choice. They will have to accept the staff provided by the shadow authorities. We are simply trying to ensure that any authority dealing with staff (and making them redundant) does that according to the terms and conditions under which those staff were engaged.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: The shadow authority considers what will happen when the reorganisation takes place. That is the whole point. It will have to consider what staff it will require. The Government believe that that is the best way forward. That is why Clause 8 provides for transfer orders to be made by the Secretary of State. As a result of an amendment made in the other place, there will be a scheme to provide for the employees who are to be transferred. Clause 9 shows the effects of such a transfer order. In very broad terms, the employees will be transferred with all the rights that would relate to their contracts if TUPE were to apply. Clause 10 provides for somebody who transfers to another local authority employer after only a short interval. Clause 13 provides the framework for compensation for those who, at any time after the passage of the Bill, find that they are to lose their jobs. That clause provides regulations governing their compensation scheme. The provisions of Clause 14 govern re-employment by a new authority. That is the broad outline of our thinking. We believe that those provisions are the best way forward.
We believe that in certain cases—perhaps in a large number of cases—TUPE will apply. There can be no suggestion—I am surprised to hear this being suggested even remotely—that UNISON has gone to the Commission in Brussels to ask it to ensure that the provisions of the Acquired Rights Directive (or TUPE) should apply. The Acquired Rights Directive binds the United Kingdom as a member state. We have fulfilled our obligations under that by introducing the TUPE regulations. The European Court of Justice has commented on our interpretation of them, but that is what we have done. TUPE is part of United Kingdom law, so there is no need for UNISON to go to the Commission to ask it to ensure that TUPE applies. There was no need for UNISON to waste its money in that way. A visit to the local tribunal or court would

1901
have been a visit far enough because TUPE is part of the law of Scotland, as it is of the law of any other part of the United Kingdom. We do not need anybody to tell us that.
The simple fact is that the Acquired Rights Directive is part of UK law by virtue of TUPE. We do not need to be told any more about it. Indeed, I was interested to see the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, championing European law in that way. That was unusual, but inspiring. The noble Lord can rest assured that the tidal waves of European law have reached high enough up the estuaries of Scotland for us to be quite confident that TUPE and the Acquired Rights Directive apply.
However, those provisions do not apply in all cases. As with any other legislation, one has to consider the provisions alongside the facts of a particular case. One has to decide whether particular employees are or are not covered by those provisions. If they are covered by them, they can invoke those provisions as they could any other piece of law. If they are not so covered, they cannot invoke them. We believe that some employees will not be entitled to invoke the Acquired Rights Directive. Some of them may be transferred by virtue of the transfer orders of Clause 8. That will depend upon the circumstances. Where they are not covered by such an order, or the TUPE regulations, they may apply for one of the jobs in an open competition and they may obtain a job.
In that connection, Amendment No. 37A which forms part of this group of amendments and is in general part of the same issue seems to suggest—I understood it to be suggested during the debate—that when people apply for a new job they should carry with them all the terms and conditions of their existing jobs. That seems surprising. If one advertises a job surely the people who apply for it apply for it under the terms upon which it is advertised. It would be strange if someone who happened previously to be a director of some service on a particular salary could not apply for a new job except upon his existing salary terms. If that were to be the case, it is hard to see how he would ever win a job if other candidates were applying for it on other terms. With the greatest of respect to those who put forward the amendment, that seems to be muddled and not something that happens in the real world. Surely we expect that, on the reorganisation, those who are not transferred and choose to apply for jobs will apply for them and be appointed to them on the appropriate terms.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: Has the noble and learned Lord ever considered how such a person would feel? If an able man has to apply for a lower job at less money he will feel upset and look elsewhere. We shall lose that man. That is a human characteristic.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: I recognise, of course, that someone who loses a job in which he is paid a high salary and who has to apply for a job at a lower salary will find that disagreeable. That does not mean that it makes any sense for a smaller council, which may not be able to afford to pay such a salary or which might find that its whole salary structure was distorted by the payment of such a salary, to employ a person if that
1902
person could be employed only on his previous salary. That does not seem to be a realistic solution to the problem. If there are people who lose their jobs—it is accepted that there may be some—they should be free to apply for other jobs on the same terms as anyone else.
Although I understand the sentiments lying behind the amendments, they are not sensible in the overall context of the Bill. One must hope that when the reorganisation takes place people will understand as soon as possible their position and make the appropriate arrangements in the light of that. As I say, the amendment would not solve the problem. The TUPE regulations do not solve it. Even under the TUPE regulations it is recognised that economic, technical and organisational reasons are reasons for dismissing people. The regulations provide no panacea. There is no panacea for such a situation. When there is a reorganisation the best thing is for people to find out as soon as possible what the position will be. That points strongly in favour of the policy enshrined in the Bill.
Lord Hughes: I did not catch what the noble and learned Lord said in relation to Amendment No. 33 relating to "may" and "shall". Would he be kind enough to repeat what he said?
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: I said that in so far as the amendment was not just a paving amendment, and if its intention was to oblige all employees to be transferred on 1st April 1996, that could be done. One could have a Bill which provided, as the 1973 Act did provide, for everyone to be transferred and for orders to be made transferring everyone on 1st April 1996, but that would solve none of the real problems. The best way is for a decision to be taken in advance as to which employees should be transferred. Those who are not to be transferred should be able to know their position and make their arrangements accordingly.
Lord Hughes: Amendment No. 33 has nothing to do with all employees. It merely alters the clause as it is at present. It provides:
"Subject to the provisions of this section, the Secretary of State may by order make provision with respect to".
The amendment relating to "all" is the subsequent amendment, and is not affected by Amendment No. 33. Perhaps I may point out that we should be consistent in Clause 8. Clause 8(5) reads:
'The Secretary of State shall by order".
I see no reason why subsection (1) states "may" while subsection (5) states "shall". It is obvious that under subsection (1) the Secretary of State will make an order. If there is anywhere that there might be doubt it is subsection (5) rather than subsection (1).
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: I took the amendment in the same way as it was taken by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, when he opened the debate. He understood that it was a paving amendment for Amendment No. 35. The word "shall" would imply that an order relating to all employees had to be made. That is undesirable. I am happy to say that the Secretary of State will be making such orders. There is no question about that. What he

1903
will not be doing is making them in respect of all employees. In connection with the other amendment, I was taking that as a paving amendment.
Lord Hughes: The noble and learned Lord is entirely overlooking the fact that the amendment can stand even if none of the other amendments comes into effect. Obviously, it can be regarded as a paving amendment, but it can stand on its own.
It is ridiculous to provide that the Secretary of State "may" make an order but not that he "shall" do so when in the same circumstances subsection (5) provides that the Secretary of State "shall".
It has always been said that one should be consistent by using the same terms. Nowhere would that be more appropriate than in one particular clause of the Bill. The noble and learned Lord must do one of two things; he must alter "may" to "shall" in subsection (1) or he must alter "shall" to "may" in subsection (5). If the noble Lord says that that will be done anyway, it does not matter which way it is done provided that each case is the same.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: I do not wish to prolong this particular debate. I am sure that the noble Lord is familiar with the fact that the formulation in subsection (1) is well precedented and is often used in connection with an order-making power. That applies whether or not it is likely that it will be used.
The noble Lord wished to know why "shall" appears in subsection (5). I understand that it results from a concession that was made in another place to help to protect the special position of the fire brigade and the police force. The use of "may" is precedented and I have already said to the noble Lord that we envisage that such orders will be made.
Lord Hughes: All I can say now is that I give up!
Lord Monkswell: One of the purposes of the amendment is to provide reassurance to local government employees who face a difficult time ahead because they do not know what their future will be. The noble and learned Lord mentioned one category of local government employees—the teachers. I wish to press him a little further on that subject. Will the Government assure us that if the reorganisation occurs at the same time as a reduction in the revenue support grant for education, with the implication that some teachers must be made redundant, the transfer associated with the reorganisation will not be used as an excuse for making teachers redundant?
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: Of course, there is no intention of doing that. The employment or non-employment of teachers will be a matter for the new authority. I was simply making the point that if on 31st March a local authority had a school in its area the new authority taking over on 1st April will have to man the school in the same way as did the previous authority on the previous day. In that situation, the teachers in that school will transfer, unless there is some peculiar circumstance. The vast majority of the services which had to be carried out on 31st March, will have to be carried out on 1st April.
1904
The idea that this will be an occasion for a huge number of redundancies is beside the mark. The number of redundancies will be comparatively small and will be in certain grades rather than those in those which, for example, cover teachers.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: This has been an important debate because we have been talking about human beings, about staff. I am getting worried about myself because I am beginning to feel sorry for the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate. He has my sympathy because this is not the first local government Bill that the noble and learned Lord has dealt with during this Session. He had ministerial responsibility in your Lordships' House for the Welsh local government Bill. He must be confused. In the Welsh local government Bill, that scheme is now clearly laid out. In relation to the transfer of staff in that Bill, for which the noble and learned Lord was responsible in your Lordships' House, there is now an undertaking that the new authorities will take over all the contractual obligations of the existing authorities. That was contained in a statement made in another place by Sir Wyn Roberts in Hansard of 16th June.
The statement went even further. Sir Wyn Roberts laid out the redundancy payments scheme, explaining that an employee under 50 years of age who was made redundant—in other words, who did not transfer because the new authorities could not find a place for him—would receive a maximum payment of 66 weeks' salary and there would be a minimum floor below which the payment would not fall.
The crucial point and the major difference is that in the case of the Welsh local government Bill, for which, as I say, the noble and learned Lord was responsible, a clear scheme is laid out to protect the employees. The local government employees in Scotland, as in Wales, have contracts of employment. It was noticeable that the noble and learned Lord did not deal with the question of those contracts. I admire his confidence. He used the example of teachers. He said that if the new authority had a school on 31st March, the same number of teachers would be needed on 1st April. But that is not what the new authorities are about.
I apologise to the Committee for returning to the example of Central Region. If the new Stirling unitary authority has a primary school which is under-pupilled and the new Clackmannon unitary authority has a primary school which is under-pupilled, there is a strong possibility that one or other of those two authorities will buy the spare places in the primary school which is under-pupilled. In those circumstances, one of the schools will close. Therefore, there is no guarantee that all teachers will transfer on 1st April 1996. In my view, the only two groups of local authority workers who can have any confidence in a continuation of employment are police officers and firemen. I do not: see any other guarantees which could be given to any other groups of employees.
Perhaps I may deal now with the whole question of TUPE. The noble and learned Lord went into some detail about the directive and about its inclusion in UK

1905
law as a result of an amendment to employment legislation. There is now a strong body of legal opinion that says that if an employee is made redundant as a result of a transfer under local government reorganisation, that would be an unfair dismissal. The economic, technical and organisational question would not apply. There would be strong grounds for those employees pursuing a case of unfair dismissal.
The noble and learned Lord said that there will be no large-scale redundancies. I know what the Government are depending upon. They are depending upon the present authorities encouraging staff to take redundancy payments or to accept severance arrangements between now and April of next year, or certainly between now and 1st April 1996, so that the cost of those redundancies does not fall at all on the new authorities. That is where the Government's estimates of the cost of reorganisation go awry because they are depending heavily on the existing local authorities bearing the costs brought about by fairly substantial redundancies before reorganisation takes place. That is how they reach their 700 to 800 figure.
When one talks to local authorities a more realistic picture is presented. The figure of expected redundancies is certainly much higher than 700 to 800. That figure is for redundancies under the new authorities, not under the existing authorities, and not as a result of the transfers, amalgamations or changes to unitary authorities or single-tier authorities. It has nothing to do with that. The Government expect existing authorities to encourage present employees to accept severance arrangements in anticipation of the authorities disappearing. I am no professional, but my strong advice to staff would be not to bite that carrot; they should not take it. They should wait until the new authorities come into being.
I return to the proposals contained in the Welsh local government Bill. I am not sure whether that Bill will return to this Chamber. I see that the noble and learned Lord indicates that it will not do so. But even the regulations that the Secretary of State has given an undertaking will be laid by November 1995, following the initial elections, will be published in three sets. First, there will be the regulations for those who do not wish to transfer, setting out the conditions upon which they will be treated; secondly, there will be another set of regulations for those who do transfer; and, thirdly, there will be yet another set of regulations for those who are made compulsorily redundant, although the Secretary of State naturally hopes that there will be no such redundancies.
That is a vast difference from the way in which local government workers in Scotland are being treated. At least local government workers in Wales at present know roughly—though not down to the last detail— where they stand. But no one can say that about local government employees in Scotland. Indeed, they have absolutely no idea of what will happen. To suggest that all that should be left until the new authorities come into being is only adding uncertainty to uncertainty.
In conclusion, I must tell the noble and learned Lord that, in my view, we need time to give this part of the
1906
Bill further consideration. It is not a trivial matter. One of the greatest resources that Scottish local government has is its staff. We must treat that resource with the greatest of respect. Therefore, we need time to give further thought to the matter. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment on the absolute guarantee that we shall return to such matters on Report.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 34 to 37A not moved.]
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clauses 9 and 10 agreed to.
Clause 11 [Remuneration of employees of local authorities]:
Lord Thomson of Monifieth Lord Thomson of Monifieth moved Amendment No. 38:
Page 7, line 51, at end insert:
("(9) An order made under subsection (8) above shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a Resolution of either House of Parliament.").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 38 follows very much the discussion that has just taken place. We now find ourselves with a series of clauses that deal with the more sensitive of the human issues regarding the changes that will flow from the Government's proposals for local government reform. I have no doubt that there will be a debate on whether the clause should stand part of the Bill, so I shall confine myself to the rather narrower point that I should like to make by way of my amendment.
I speak from these Benches, but I am really commending to the Government the views of the 10th report from the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee of this Chamber. In dealing with Clause 11(8) the Committee drew attention to the contents of the clause and suggested that this Chamber might wish to consider whether the negative resolution procedure would be appropriate for orders made under that provision.
I notice from the report of the committee (under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy) that the Government said that they were ready to consider the matter further. I shall only add that it is an extremely sensitive matter for which there are views on both sides. Indeed, they are views about the problems of excessive expenditure in terms of the transfers that finally take place and there are also very strong views about equity and justice for the people who are affected.
The clause proposes that the Government should be bound by an advisory body that they propose to set up, but without the final possibility of parliamentary review by the annulment procedure. We have had some discussion, inevitably, in the course of our debates on the degree to which the Government seem to resort to quangos in terms of their policy-making. I should have thought that, in view of the extreme sensitivity of these issues, the Government would be well advised to adhere to what is certainly the implied advice of your Lordships' own Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee and ensure that at the end of the day there is a parliamentary recourse and that an annulment procedure is available. I beg to move.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: I think it is sufficient if I indicate to the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, that the

1907
Government are happy to accept the amendment which he has moved. It does, as he said, put forward the view of the scrutiny committee. It brings the second order-making power in this clause into line with the provision on the first order-making power. I agree that it is entirely appropriate and I am happy to accept the amendment.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: This moment feels like Cowdenbeath winning the European Cup. This is the first amendment that we have had accepted. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, on his eloquence. I will take a leaf out of his book and not talk too long. This provision, to a certain extent, meets only in a minor way the objections that we have to Clause 11. Although now the Secretary of State will have to lay an order and that order can be annulled by both Houses, I think it is worth while pointing out that the sweeping powers that the Secretary of State takes in Clause 11 are unprecedented in employee/management relations. There is the power to control increases in salaries; to decide the level of an offer that should be made to staff, and to interfere in almost every aspect of employee/management relations. That is unprecedented in the field of industrial relations. From time to time we have referred to the 97 items in the Bill which give powers to the Secretary of State, a substantial number of which are contained in Clause 11. But having said that, and against the background of the acceptance of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, I am content to leave my comments at that.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: Before the Question is put, I wish to express my thanks to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate for agreeing to this amendment. In our long hours of work here it is a rare experience to have an amendment accepted by those on the Government Front Bench and we want to make the most of it. I thank the Minister very much.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 39 and 40 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List. ]
Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 12 [Staff commission:]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Grantchester): I must inform the Committee that if Amendment No. 41 is accepted, I cannot call Amendment No. 42. I now call Amendment No. 41.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 41:
Page 8, line 37, leave out paragraph (a).
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is to delete the power of the Secretary of State to give directions to the staff commission. The principal intent of the proposed amendments to Clause 12 is to specify in the primary legislation the exact role of the staff commission. The intention that the Staff Advisory Committee and the subsequent staff commission is to be an independent body is not doubted. However, the perceived independence of the staff commission is questionable if the Secretary of State has powers to direct the staff commission. The power of the Secretary
1908
of State to give directions to local authorities should only be at the request of the staff commission in carrying out its statutory functions. Only by removing that power of the Secretary of State to direct the staff commission can it be perceived to be operating completely independently in respect of its remit.
Amendment No. 43 is grouped with the amendment. The purpose of that amendment is to delete the wording as indicated in the amendment. I beg to move.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: The effect of the amendments would be to remove the provision specified in relation to the staff commission. There is no intention on the part of the Secretary of State to interfere with the independence of the staff commission. The intention is that the Secretary of State might give the staff commission directions to ensure that it carried out its functions in an acceptable manner. For example, he might direct that it should establish an appeal mechanism to hear cases relating to employees who felt that they had been unfairly treated. That is the type of action which is envisaged in the provision.
It is also envisaged that in certain circumstances it might be appropriate for the Secretary of State to direct the commission to investigate the arrangements being proposed by a particular authority where those arrangements seemed to be out of line with the general arrangements of other authorities. The purpose is to provide the Secretary of State with advice on that particular matter.
The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, did not speak to Amendment No. 43, which covers the second part of subsection (4) (c). It relates; to the payment of expenses incurred by the commission in doing anything requested by a particular authority. The purpose of that provision is that the Secretary of State could give a direction to an authority where that authority had asked for a particular service from the staff commission. In that instance it would be thought appropriate that a direction should be given as to payment for that particular service which had! been requested by the authority.
The amendments appear to proceed on the basis that the provisions in the Bill are designed in some way to fetter or interfere with the independence of the staff commission. I can assure your Lordships that they are not. They are intended to deal with the type of situation which I have outlined.
The Earl of Minto: It was my pleasure to welcome the Staff Advisory Committee to my region not long ago, since Borders Regional Council happens to be the first council in Scotland to have established a joint advisory committee with four districts in preparation for Royal Assent of this Bill. During the meeting, which lasted for about two to two-and-a-half hours, it was my clear impression that the Staff Advisory Committee was made up of strong-minded and independent members —both female and male—under the chairmanship of Mr. Peggie, who is a highly respected chairman. He has in the past been chief executive of Lothian and an ombudsman. I find it extraordinary to consider that the Secretary of State should wish to take powers over and

1909
beyond the body which has been set up to act eventually as a staffing commission. I am not taken by the arguments of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate. I do not believe that they pertain. If the Staff Advisory Committee (as it now is) is doing its job, it ought to have sufficient knowledge—I am certain that it does—to take account of the points raised by the noble and learned Lord. I support the amendment.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate sounded very reassuring. We shall wish to read what he said. However, I hope that he understands the sensitivity of trade unions in this matter. They may well see the issue as a threat to their negotiating rights about many factors including superannuation, conditions of service, and so on. I hope he understands that the amendment is relevant. There are serious fears that the Secretary of State might have wished to interfere in reasonable arrangements which have been continuing successfully for a long period of time. As I said, the noble and learned Lord sounded very reassuring. We shall read his remarks with interest.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I also felt that the noble and learned Lord was reassuring. I am sure that he spoke with total good faith. However, what happens ultimately will not necessarily follow the thoughts genuinely conveyed to the House.
What worries me about the Bill is that although we spend a great deal of time on boundaries, and the concept of the Bill was to make democracy better by changing from a two-tier to a single-tier authority, we now seem to be in a position which is dangerous and important for many public employees. It is the wrong thing to say to the Scottish Office, but the matter is Treasury led. Every measure seems not necessarily to improve democracy but to reduce staff quite drastically. If that is so, after all these years in power the Government have not been able to use their considerable influence to slim down local authority staff. If, as it appears, there will be a large number of redundancies, I find the situation very threatening.
However, the noble and learned Lord's statement on the independence of the commission was reassuring. We shall keep a careful eye on the whole matter as it develops. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 42 to 44 not moved.]
Clause 12 agreed to.
Clause 13 [Compensation for loss of office or diminution of emoluments]:
Lord Ewing of Kirkford Lord Ewing of Kirkford moved Amendment No. 45:
Page 9, line 31, at end insert:
("( ) Without prejudice to subsection (2) above, the regulations made under this section shall amend Regulation E2 of the Local Government Superannuation (Scotland) Regulations 1987 so that any person who—

(a) is the holder of any such office or is in any such employment as may be prescribed for the purposes of this subsection; and

(b) attains or has attained the age of forty-five on or before 31 March 1996 but has not attained the age of 50 at that date; and

1910

(c) fulfils such other conditions as may be prescribed, shall be eligible to receive the benefits payable to or in respect of him under the relevant superannuation scheme on the date he attains the age of fifty.").

The noble Lord said: On behalf of my noble friend Lord Macaulay of Bragar, I beg to move Amendment No. 45 and for the convenience of the Committee, speak to Amendment No. 46.
The amendments deal with pension rights and severance payments for staff of local authorities who are made redundant as the result of the reorganisation. Amendment No. 45 suggests that the pension age for those who are made redundant and who are entitled to receive their pension at the point of redundancy should be reduced from 50 to 45 years of age. There is a good reason for arguing that case.
Before I present that reason to the Committee, perhaps I should explain that the present position is that any local government employee who is made redundant under the age of 50 has to wait until he is aged 60 before he can receive his superannuation pension payments. Any local government employee who is made redundant at the age of 50 or over receives his superannuation pension payment immediately he is made redundant.
The reason we argue for that in Amendment No. 45 is this, and we urge the Government to accept the amendment. The Minister himself said earlier this afternoon that substantial numbers of people had left local government service over the past few years. They have been of the older age group and therefore the age profile of the staff who work for local government is now much younger than it has ever been in the history of local government in Scotland. A strong possibility is that anyone made redundant as a result of this reorganisation could easily be under the age of 50 because local government in Scotland has run out of elderly people to make redundant. That is a proposition which I hope the Government will seriously consider. The age at which a person is made redundant and can receive his superannuation straightaway should be reduced from 50 to 45.
I turn to Amendment No. 46 and severance payments. In an earlier debate, I mentioned the arrangements that have been announced in another place in relation to Welsh local government workers. It may seem strange to the Committee that in Amendment No. 46 I argue for much more generous arrangements in relation to local government workers in Scotland against the background of the Bill. The precedent for my submission is the treatment that local government workers in England received when, first, in 1986 the Greater London Council was abolished, followed quickly by the abolition of the metropolitan counties. At that stage, local government workers who lost their jobs as a result of the abolition of those local authorities received up to a maximum of 86 weeks' severance payment. We argue for the same treatment under this Bill for local government workers in Scotland as was received by local government workers who lost their jobs as a result of the abolition of the GLC in 1986 on the one hand and the metropolitan counties on the other.
This evening of all evenings, it is possibly worth while mentioning that until the present time—and we do not know what the future holds, we are in the same

1911
position tonight as many civil servants, we do not know what the future holds for them—the maximum number of weeks that a civil servant would receive if he were made redundant is 156 weeks, three years. We are not asking for that, but we certainly ask for the same treatment as was given to the GLC workers and the metropolitan county workers.
There is one other point before I resume my seat. It is the question of employees who are made redundant and who are over the age of 50 but not yet 60. It is common practice in most public authorities and many private companies that in such a situation the employees are given added years to enhance their pension as if they had worked to the age of 60. Amendment No. 46 would have that effect as well. It is quite common practice throughout many public authorities and in private industry that where employees are made redundant over the age of 50 they are given the opportunity to uprate their pension as if they had worked up to 60.
I hope that what I have said has persuaded noble Lords opposite at least to have a detailed look at this matter. If we cannot get a generous response from the Government tonight, perhaps we can find them in a much more generous mood in October when this House returns.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: I rise to support the noble Lord in Amendment No. 45. Obviously, I also support Amendment No. 46, but this particular amendment is very important. I was not sure whether the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, made it quite clear that what we are trying to do here is enable people who are made redundant over the age of 45, when they reach the age of 50, to trigger the superannuation benefits.
I know some young people of 45 and over who are looking for jobs. It is perfectly true that today it is extraordinarily difficult to get one. Employers look for people who are developing and very often, for some extraordinary reason, people of that age are considered to be past it, although they are in the prime of life, having been removed from the job that they know well. All that we ask in this amendment is that such people, if they so wish, can trigger the superannuation benefits when they reach the age of 50. The Government must see that this is a reasonably fair process and that it would certainly alleviate the distress that is bound to be felt by many people who are made redundant at that age.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I, too, hope that the Government will accept these very reasonable amendments. As has already been pointed out, once people are over the age of 45 they are virtually on the shelf. We have to emphasise that the staff of local government in Scotland did not ask for this reorganisation. It has been foisted, or at least imposed, upon them against their will. Many of them believe that the existing forms of local authority have performed reasonably well and they do not wish to alter them. This is being done against their will.
Undoubtedly, bearing in mind that there is still high unemployment not only in Scotland but in the rest of the United Kingdom, those people will find difficulty in
1912
getting work. They are therefore entitled to be treated generously. The people in local government in Scotland would be entitled to feel outraged if they were treated any worse than were the staff of the metropolitan authorities. Those of us who do not live in Scotland —we may have some connections with it but live in England—are very sensitive to the views of our countrymen north of the Border. We do not wish them to be treated any worse than people south of the Border. They are entitled to equal treatment. We do not like them to feel resentful against their southern compatriots who, after all, wish them well and wish them to be treated decently and equally. Therefore, I hope that the Government will get up and say what marvellous amendments these are and that they are prepared to accept them with alacrity.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: Hope springs eternal, but it is not always realised. I cannot fulfil the noble Lord's hope on this occasion.
I stood at this Dispatch Box on a number of occasions, during the passage of the Welsh Bill. During the course of that Bill I had the pleasure of hearing a not entirely dissimilar speech to that delivered by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart. Let me make quite clear that I am more than well aware of the provisions relating to the same matter in Wales. I was roundly criticised on a number of occasions during Committee and Report stages for not having brought forward for Wales at those stages the particular draft regulations proposed in connection with this matter. The position is that they have become available for Wales only very lately.
The reason why the regulations are not available for Scotland at this stage is that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, having gone to all the double of setting up a staff advisory committee (which in due course will be a staff commission)—a body whose membership has been widely welcomed—has thought it right, in the spirit of the legislation, to seek its views on the regulations which might be made in terms of Clause 13 when in due course that power is available.. Had he not done that, I have no doubt that noble Lords opposite would have been ingenious in criticising the Government. He will wish to consider the committee's advice as to whether there are any particular circumstances in relation to Scotland which would have a bearing on the regulations which he should make for Scotland.
I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, that in broad terms one would expect the kind of compensation for Scotland to be similar to that available under the current proposals for England and for Wales. That seems to me to be a true comparison rather than a comparison with the provisions for the GLC in 1986. It seems to me that if the provisions for England, Scotland and Wales are the same or broadly similar, it fulfils the necessity for equality which I and I am sure all Members of the Committee entirely accept.
Having said that, my right honourable friend rightly wishes to consider any particular observations that his advisory committee might make in respect of the regulations. It is for that reason that they are not yet available.

1913
At this stage I cannot predict the content of the regulations. However, noble Lords may have seen the provisions for Wales and those for England, which will give some indication of what is in mind. So far as concerns pensions, there is no need for any new set of regulations for people of 50 and over. They are already covered by regulations made in 1979 which deal with their pensions, provide for additional years and so on. What the regulations will provide for those who are differently placed is a matter to be considered once the advice of the committee is available. In due course, the regulations will be available. No doubt they will be consulted upon and at that stage noble Lords will make known their views. I believe that that is the correct way forward; the amendment seeks to pre-empt, in a way which is not proper nor desirable, the content of the regulations. In due course the content of the regulations will come into being, once consultation has taken place.
The Earl of Balfour: Before my noble and learned friend sits down perhaps I can ask a question. Under Clause 13 the Secretary of State deals with compensation for loss of office and so forth. I was wondering whether the matter would be improved if the staff commission, found under Clause 12, which is to investigate the position, was brought into the provisions of Clause 13. The staff commission is not mentioned in Clause 13 and I feel that it should be.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: The Committee will have observed the terms of Clause 12 and in particular of subsection (2) (c) which, as part of the functions which may be conferred on the staff commission, includes the function of advising the Secretary of State as to the steps necessary to safeguard the interests of members of staff. That would cover the situation to which my noble friend referred.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: I am a little disappointed in the reply of the noble and learned Lord. I thought he would comment on the specific plight of those aged 45 and over who are made redundant. It is a human situation, particularly in today's economic climate and the difficulty that people experience in obtaining work. Can the Minister comment specifically as to whether or not he thinks that marginally it must be right that if someone over 50 is entitled to claim the benefits, then someone who is still redundant at the age of 46 or 47 should be able to do so also when he reaches 50?
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: Obviously the plight of the group to which the noble Lord refers can be serious. There are other situations which are also serious. I accept that. But I cannot say what is the appropriate method of dealing with that group. It is a matter which must be considered. The Secretary of State is considering the views of his advisory committee on the appropriate compensation regulations. I have no doubt that the plight of those people will be one of the matters which in due course he will wish to consider. What the appropriate result will be I cannot predict.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord. He encourages me to withdraw the
1914
amendment on the basis that, if the staff commission recommends to the Secretary of State that the age should be reduced from 50 to 45 and if the staff commission recommends to the Secretary of State that those retiring over the age of 50 should be given the same generous treatment—not too generous—as was given to the workers in the GLC and the metropolitan counties, that is advice that the Secretary of State will seriously consider. I hope that the job will not be done the other way round; in other words, that the Secretary of State tells the staff commission what he wants it to say.
I shall withdraw the amendment on the basis of what the noble and learned Lord said. I am always interested when I hear potential "wearers of the red jersey"—as we say in Scotland—talking about pensions. For those Members of the Committee who do not know what potential "wearers of the red jersey" are, it means High Court judges. Whenever I hear potential High Court judges discussing pensions I am always interested in their views.
My final word, before I withdraw the amendment, is to my noble friend Lord Stoddart of Swindon. I will never accept that anyone over 50 is on the shelf. I can find many people who will testify to that. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 46 not moved.]
Clause 13 agreed to.
Clause 14 agreed to.
10 p.m.
Clause 15 [Transfer of property:]
Lord Ewing of Kirkford Lord Ewing of Kirkford moved Amendment No. 46A:
Page 11, line 19, at end insert:
("( )An order under this section shall require a new authority (that is a local authority, residuary body, joint board, or water and sewerage board), to establish a professional property management and advice facility, within its core management structures; and with the object of managing the procurement and care of all property transferred to the authority, and providing a professional advice service to the managers of devolved properties".).
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak at the same time to Amendment No. 48A. I say at once that I did not think up the amendments, nor would I claim the credit for them. They come from the Association of Chief Architects of Scottish Local Authorities which is worried about the whole question of transfer of property.
Local government has three major assets. The first has been mentioned extensively in our debates. I refer to the staff. The second is the finance that is available to local authorities. The third is the crucial asset of property. It is not the case that property will just be transferred from one local authority to another. Much of the property will be transferred to ad hoc bodies. The joint boards that are to be established will have property transferred to them: in the case of the police, the police buildings and police property; in the case of the fire brigade, the fire brigade property. Substantial amounts of property will be transferred from local government to these ad hoc bodies.
I support the view of the Association of Chief Architects, as contained in the amendments, that there

1915
should be a professional input at core management level in relation to the transfer of property. I hope that the Minister will give this the most serious consideration because it involves high-value property in respect of which professional advice is of the utmost importance. I beg to move.
The Earl of Balfour: Although there is provision in the Bill for property to be transferred—perhaps from an existing regional council to, for argument's sake, a water board—I wonder whether there should be a provision as existed under the old feu charters, whereby the new authority could not dispose of a transferred property without the approval of the successors to the original owners of the property. In other words, in the case of a water board property, the new authority would have to go back to the local authority and get approval before it could dispose of the asset. There needs to be some provision within the legislation in relation to this point. The old-fashioned feu charters might be a way of doing that.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: The noble Earl put forward an interesting proposition. One problem that might have to be confronted if his proposal were adopted is that some of the bodies from which the property might be transferred might, in law, have disappeared. It might be difficult in some circumstances —I am not saying that it would be difficult in all circumstances—to discover whether or not those bodies had given their consent or approval to such a transfer. Nevertheless, I am happy to reflect on what has been said.
I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, that the property of local authorities in Scotland is an extremely important matter, as is the value of their experienced staff. I entirely agree with the noble Lord further that, where property is to be transferred, it merits careful and professional consideration. I say with some reluctance that where we may part company is that the amendment would insist that local authorities should make that provision in a particular way. Some councils may, for example, choose to use outside contractors for much of their work. Like any other function, that is a matter for the councils themselves to decide. Therefore, in our view it is inappropriate for such a restriction to be imposed. If anything, we are seeking to loosen the reins on local authorities and the ways in which they choose to organise themselves. Although I do not depart from my agreement with the noble Lord on the importance of ensuring that that is done properly, it seems unduly restrictive to insist that it is done in a particular way.
As we have reached amendments dealing with property, I hope that I can assure the Committee that the Government will be giving careful thought to the contents of any transfer orders. As the Committee will be aware, our intention is to discuss the detail with local authorities and with the property commission, if such a commission is set up—I stress the conditionality of that —before making any orders. Therefore, although I do not disagree with the intention of the noble Lord (or those who invited him to table the amendment which has enabled us to have this short debate) the suggested route seems unduly restrictive.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: Before the Minister sits down, perhaps I should point out that it is now 10.7 p.m. and, so far as I can see, we are now one-third of the way through the evening's business as projected on the Marshalled List.
Is it proposed that we sit here until goodness knows when tomorrow morning to discuss these matters of great importance to the people of Scotland? These matters deserve our attention and should not be treated as an adjunct to the parliamentary procedures of the United Kingdom. I am supported not only by my noble friends when I say that it is absolutely disgraceful—it could be put more strongly than that—that we should be considering such a major piece of legislation (which runs to goodness knows how many pages) at this hour of the night.
I say that particularly in the light of what the Secretary of State said in the other place about taking another look at Scottish legislation. He referred to how Scottish legislation will be dealt with so that we can all talk about it in Scotland, and all that nonsense However, here we are with about 20 or 30 Members of your Lordships' House present to discuss such a major change to Scottish legislation and it looks as though we shall have to be here until two or three a.m. I can tell your Lordships that I am not prepared to sit here until three a.m. although we are discussing matters of great importance to the people of Scotland. If that is what the; Government want, their representative, the noble and learned Lord, should tell the people of Scotland that that is how they want us to discuss such matters of great moment to the people of Scotland. He should send a message home telling the people of Scotland that we have to discuss such business at two or three a.m. How many people in the world could discuss such things rationally at two or three a.m.? I can think of an answer to that.
How many people make serious decisions in their lives at two and three o'clock in the morning? It is projected that the debate will go on until two o'clock in the morning. I am not going to sit until that time discussing the lives of the people of Scotland. I speak from the Back-Benches. I have no authority to speak for anybody else, but I hope that my Front Bench colleagues will support me. I have not even discussed it with them, but I think that it is disgraceful.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I am not sure what to say to the noble Lord. I have discussed matters in the past with the noble Lords, Lord Ewing and Lord Carmichael, rationally, in detail and with great expertise until much later than three o'clock in the morning. I do not want to sit unnecessarily late; but we have important matters to discuss. I say with respect that if the noble Lord had been here over the past one and a half hours, he would have heard some extremely sophisticated debates on matters of great importance. I hope that we can now continue to make some progress on the Bill. It is important that we do so.
Lord Hughes: In the other place, the Committee considered the Bill much longer than we are going to be doing, but at least it considered it under provisions where it stopped at 10 o'clock at night.
Lord Stodart of Leaston: I am spurred to my feet by the noble Lord's remarks. We are all a bit older than we used to be, and as a rule I come here to make what my noble and learned friend tells me are unhelpful speeches in support of the Government. I am bound to say when I hear that we should not be sitting until two o'clock, that takes me back to what I call the vintage days in another place. I remember the late Lord Ross relishing keeping us up until three in the morning, with no sign of fatigue or anything like that. I well recall when discussing a Bill to do with credit lending in Scotland being kept up until half past three discussing numerous amendments, and then tottering off to catch the five o'clock aircraft to the Highland Show in Edinburgh.
One was younger then; but I must say that I think the Opposition are losing their spirit a little if they are complaining. The noble Lords on the Front Bench are carrying out a remarkable exercise of speaking for a certain length without giving the slightest impression that they are spinning matters out. I do not believe that they are. I would not dream of suggesting that. It takes one back again to the days when the great exponents of Labour Party opposition (Mr. Ross and Mr. Willis) would talk for an hour on the difference between the words "shall" and "may". We endured it all, and we came up smiling. I strongly recommend to the Opposition that they do not give the impression of lacking the spirit and lustre of opposition.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: Before returning to the amendments, perhaps I can say that the only reminiscence I will share with the Committee is that many times, at five o'clock in the morning, when I was in another place, I used to say to myself, 'To think I left the Post Office to get rid of these early rises"! That was in the days when I never got to bed, so perhaps we could continue for some time yet.
I am grateful to the Minister for his constructive comments on the amendments. Against the background of those constructive comments, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 15 agreed to.
Clause 16 agreed to.
10.15 p.m.
Clause 17 [Educational endowments]:
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 47:
Page 13, line 18, at end insert (", and any such scheme shall continue in effect the provisions of any scheme made by an existing authority in accordance with section 105 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 the terms of which have been agreed by a new authority or authorities.").
The noble Lord said: I shall not comment on the timing in the other place except to say that noble Lords who were Members there will remember that on some mornings, in particular during debates on the Finance Bill, you were grateful for the terrace because you felt like jumping over to cool down. Perhaps when looking back one takes a slightly romantic view, but at the time it was pretty dreadful and I am sure that the noble Lord will accept that.
The justification for the amendment is that the transfer of educational endowments should as far as possible be achieved via agreement between authorities rather than a decision of the Secretary of State, whose powers should be used only when no agreement between authorities can be reached. Subsection (7) limits the Secretary of State's powers to make no more change than appears to him to be necessary or expedient following local government boundary changes. In reality, that is a wide-ranging power and it allows decisions that should be made locally to be taken by a central authority.
Subsection (6), although detailing the extent to which the Secretary of State may act, overlaps with Section 105 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980. It is important that clarification is given by the Minister as between this provision in the Bill and Section 105 of the 1980 Act. No provision is made in the Bill to allow local authorities the possibility of reaching agreement on the transfer of educational endowments. We believe that safeguards are required to ensure that endowments are not weakened in their effect or operation and that the original purpose intended by the people who left the endowment is not lost during the transfer.
One of the ways in which that may be achieved is to ensure local relevance by providing for and facilitating the operation of agreements between authorities where an endowment has to any extent been vested in the existing local authority, which may be divided by this Bill into different unitary authorities. Many such cases must occur in Glasgow, Edinburgh, Lothian and Strathclyde in particular.
The amendment allows the new authorities to reach agreement among themselves on the future of the endowment rather than passing that power to the Secretary of State. The local authority, through its local knowledge, will be able to ensure that the spirit of the original endowment is continued.
The noble Lord, Lord Stodart, will remember that in relation to one of the health Bills for Scotland there were tremendous problems with endowments to hospitals. Two days were spent in Committee discussing a famous case in Edinburgh. Great delicacy was required in obtaining agreement with local people as regards the intention of the person who left the endowment. Such problems will arise in connection with educational endowments, in particular as boundaries will be changed. Someone may have left an endowment for a particular area—perhaps a small area—but after the new boundary changes all will be different.
I do not know what will happen to some of the endowment for Paisley Grammar School. We were talking about Eastwood earlier today—it seems a long time ago now—and we wondered what would happen. Under the new set-up, many endowments to Paisley Grammar School will not necessarily go to the catchment area of the old grammar school. If we are going to keep faith with the intention of those who have left the endowments the matter must be treated with great delicacy. I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: The amendment would require that any scheme which is made under Clause 17,

1919
the terms of which were agreed by the new authority or authorities concerned, should also continue in effect the terms of any earlier scheme made under Section 105 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980.
We believe that such a provision would unnecessarily restrict the Secretary of State's ability to promote schemes which best reflect the circumstances of a particular endowment in relation to the effect of local government reform. Such a restriction would, we believe, be undesirable.
Of course, on frequent occasions there will be cases where a scheme put forward by an existing authority is fully acceptable to the new authority or authorities concerned and is fair and reasonable in itself. In that situation there will be no cause for the Secretary of State to intervene and he will be able to accept it as presented.
In other cases, however—perhaps involving several authorities—the degree of agreement may be less clear-cut or the overall reasonableness of the scheme may be less evident. The Secretary of State needs freedom to consider all the relevant factors in drawing up a scheme in those cases.
I hope that it will be appreciated that given the divisions that there may be into a number of new authorities, such freedom should be given to the Secretary of State. If well-prepared schemes are put before him and the division is obvious and fair, clearly he will not wish to intervene at all. But a residual discretion would seem appropriate to guard against an unreasonable proposal that is put to him.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: Of course, I accept that there may be problems and that someone must have the ultimate responsibility for solving them. I hope that the noble and learned Lord has expressed differently the sentiments that I was trying to express. I hope that this matter will be treated with great delicacy because of the local nature of the property. We should respect the wishes of the people who have left the endowments. I hope that that message will be accepted and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 17 agreed to.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 48:
After Clause 17, insert the following new clause:
("Interim committee

.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, the Secretary of State shall establish an interim committee with the power to consider, and as it deems appropriate to approve, applications for grant aid from voluntary organisations in good standing funded by existing councils in 1995 whose funding applications to existing councils for the year 1996–97 and/or to new councils for the year 1997–98 have been refused or delayed.

(2) The committee shall number not less than five and not more than seven members chosen from among people with knowledge and experience of the voluntary sector, at least two of which shall be chosen from a list drawn up by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and at least one of whom shall be chosen from a list drawn up by the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations, with a convener appointed by the Secretary of State.

(3) The committee shall operate from an appropriate date in 1995 to an appropriate date in 1997 as determined by the Secretary of State.").

The noble Lord said: This amendment is based on the fact that the Scottish local authorities provide voluntary
1920
organisations with funding of around £100 million per year. With their narrow financial margins, voluntary organisations are exceptionally vulnerable to the loss of council funding or to delays in council funding decisions.
The transition to a new structure of local government will create a risk of both cuts in funding and delays in funding decisions. Those delays can be quite catastrophic. Extremely efficient organisations may be threatened and may even disappear because of cash flow problems. In the past 10 years we have seen many businesses fail because of those problems.
Local councils will probably have to absorb some of the costs of local government reform. They may view their discretionary funding of voluntary organisations as a soft option and may cut that funding. However, I should say that the councils in my area which an; looking after voluntary organisations will go a long way towards making sure that they are able to continue with their work.
Region-wide organisations funded by regional councils which are due to disappear will be particularly at risk. Of course, the scope within which regional councils are able to operate is considerably greater than may be possible in relation to the smaller councils which are to be created. Successive councils will not only have to agree in principle to continue funding but they must agree also on how to share the costs when organisations straddle the borders of the new local authorities.
The transition will also generate considerable scope for delays in budget planning and funding decisions. In 1995–96 the staff of existing councils will be uncertain about the future. The existence of shadow councils from 1995 which will have powers to withhold approval of funding decisions relating to over £100,000 revenue or £1 million capital will carry its own potential for delay. When the new councils assume authority in 1996, they will still be struggling with the managerial and financial uncertainties of transition.
The proposed addition seeks to give voluntary organisations a "last resort" funding facility in the form of an interim committee established by the Secretary of State with the power to award grant aid to voluntary organisations whose funding has been cut or delayed during the transitional period.
The proposed interim committee could operate on behalf of the Secretary of State under his various powers to grant aid to local authority organisations. To discourage local councils from offloading their funding of voluntary organisations to the interim committee, the Secretary of State may need the power to recoup the value of any grant aid from the next year's revenue grant to the council in whose area the funded voluntary organisation operates.
I believe that the arrangement as suggested in the amendment is a neat arrangement. I hope that the Minister realises the very important work voluntary organisations carry out. Of course, he may be aware that the amendment has really been sponsored, because of a great deal of worry on the part of the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations. I hope that the Minister will treat it with sympathy. I beg to move.
The Earl of Balfour: I am rather anxious about the proposed new clause, although I have much sympathy with the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove. My worry is that the committee will be almost entirely made up of persons who are connected with the voluntary sector or with voluntary organisations. In such cases, I believe that they might even be fighting among themselves. Very often it is much better to have a committee that has no direct interest—which, of course, the proposed committee is bound to have—in its own affairs. You must have independent people. That is the part of the amendment that I do not like.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: I support the amendment, which seeks to prevent difficulties during the transition from the existing arrangements to the new councils and, in so doing, to protect the position of those voluntary sector organisations which have a definite need for local public funding, rather than relying on direct donations by the public through charitable collections. I have in mind those vulnerable voluntary organisations whose work is useful and necessary but which will never be seen as having much popular appeal.
Such organisations are those seeking to help people with problems of alcohol, drugs, domestic violence, offending behaviour, cultural discrimination, victims suffering from various diseases and those in other unpleasant situations. In many respects those organisations need to operate in a somewhat covert manner so that they can protect their client groups and gain their confidence. All such organisations, whether they be, by my definition, popular or covert, need to secure and maintain a steady flow of funding to enable them to carry out their task in the Scottish community.
I believe that the provision of an interim committee to oversee the transitional period and to act as a longstop would have merit. I recognise the fact that the new councils will have the complete right and opportunity to make their own decisions about funding once they are in place. It would be a great pity if any voluntary organisation had to close down its operation due to a temporary hiccup in funding during the transitional period.
10.30 p.m.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: I have great sympathy with this amendment, although I find myself in considerable agreement with the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, over the potential composition of the suggested committee. But certainly the all-party Scottish children group is very worried about funding for voluntary organisations during the transitional period because a break in funding could easily mean the total collapse of a particular organisation. The work which these organisations do in support services for, particularly, special needs children is very valuable indeed; and once it was lost it could never be replaced.
Lord Hughes: I cannot agree with the criticism which the noble Earl made when he said the committee appeared to be composed almost entirely of people from the voluntary organisations. The committee will
1922
comprise no fewer than five nor more than seven members; and of these only one is referred to in the amendment as being,
"chosen … by the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations".
Two shall be chosen by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. They may be taken as representative of the people who at the end of the day will have to find the money. Therefore, I believe, a balance is achieved there.
The other two members, or the other four as the case may be, will be appointed by the Secretary of State for Scotland. He will appoint people who have knowledge or experience of voluntary organisations. They of course could include people who were not members of voluntary organisations but who were familiar with the type of work which they did and were familiar with the causes which experience has shown could not be financed from either national or local taxation but were dependent on moneys which these voluntary bodies could provide. I believe the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, was supportive of the amendment but also wondered whether too much emphasis was being laid on the voluntary organisations. I hope that what I have said has allayed their fears in that regard. This committee will be a balanced body as two of its members will be selected by the spending authority and others by the Secretary of State for Scotland.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: I have strong sympathy with the purpose that lies behind this proposed new clause. I will not comment on the composition of the text of the clause; but I would say to the Government that one of their reasons for justifying radical local government reform is that the nature of operations of local authorities has changed greatly over recent years and in many ways they enter into partnership with outside providers of services rather than doing things for themselves as they have done in the past. Of course one of the most fruitful partnerships that has grown up is between local authorities and voluntary organisations. It is, I think, vitally important to find a mechanism for the transition period that enables that partnership to continue uninterrupted and not become destabilised so that when the new structure is finally in place that kind of partnership can continue to flourish.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I fully recognise the anxiety that local government re-organisation should not cause disruption to voluntary organisations. I recall that on Second Reading the noble and learned Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochbroom—who is, I believe, honorary president of the SCVO—made his worries over this matter clear. I note that the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, said that this amendment has at least been prompted by that organisation. I should say at the outset that there is one matter on which I have some disagreement with the noble Lord and perhaps he might explain to me—not on this occasion but on some later occasion—how he gets the figure of £100 million. I certainly accept that a considerable amount of funding is provided to voluntary organisations in Scotland from

1923
local government; but my understanding is that it is less than a third of the figure that the noble Lord gave of £100 million but we might discuss that at some—
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: When the Minister considers that this figure includes capital as well as revenue, it may be bigger than he thinks. However, I will try to check up on it.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I should be grateful, as a matter of information, to know how that figure is arrived at.
We value very highly the important role played by the voluntary sector and volunteers within our society. We are anxious that any disruption should be minimised and that the voluntary sector should be well placed to take advantage of the increased opportunities, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, indicated, for partnership with local authorities by playing a greater role in the delivery of services in the new unitary authorities.
SCVO has met with my honourable friend the Minister for Local Government and Industry at the Scottish Office. SCVO suggested a number of actions which might smooth the transition for voluntary organisations. My honourable friend gave SCVO two undertakings.
First, he undertook that the Scottish Office would give guidance to the new authorities in their shadow phase on the key role of the voluntary sector and the importance of avoiding disruption and delay in decision making.
Secondly, he undertook that the Secretary of State would make a direction under Clause 56 of the Bill requiring each existing authority to inform shadow authorities of all the funding which the existing authorities presently give to voluntary organisations, whether by means of grant, service agreement or contract. That direction is designed to ensure that the new authorities are aware of the full extent and purpose of the existing authorities' funding of the voluntary sector and, in particular, of the full range of annual discretionary grants. That information will then inform their decisions on assistance to the voluntary sector.
In addition, it was pointed out that the Bill provides that all existing liabilities, obligations and contracts entered into by existing authorities are to be transferred to the new councils. That will clearly safeguard contracts with voluntary bodies.
Also discussed at that meeting with my honourable friend was the proposal currently before us in new Clause 17 that a central committee be set up on an interim basis with a power to give grant to voluntary organisations whose funding application had been refused by one of the new authorities.
I am grateful for the contributions of my noble friend Lord Balfour and the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, and the anxieties that they expressed. We would also be anxious that such a proposal would be unworkable. It would involve the setting up of an administratively complex system which would require the obtaining of information from local authorities and others to enable a centrally appointed committee—not a local government appointed committee—to make properly informed judgments on what could be a very large number of
1924
cases. It would probably require the recouping of part of the revenue support grant from local authorities to finance the reserve grants.
More importantly, it would remove the decision making process from the local level, where I would have thought that it would be agreed on all sides of the Chamber that it rightly belongs. We would be setting up a central committee whose only role would be to substitute its decisions for those of local authorities. We do not think that proposal is either workable or wise. When I contemplate how many times the Secretary of State has prospectively been criticised for intervening unnecessarily, that would seem to me to be a power and circumstance of appointment that he would not wish to take on.
While I have to indicate that we do not accept this particular proposal and I invite the Committee to reject it, we take the concerns of the voluntary sector seriously. We understand the problems and we are giving careful consideration to a further proposal which was put to us; namely, that the total amount which is paid by local authorities to voluntary bodies by means of annual discretionary grants should in some way be protected or ring fenced. I appreciate that there are those with a background and experience in local government who are wary of any proposal to ring fence any funding in local government. It is for that reason that we wish to give careful consideration to the matter. I hope that it will be accepted that we wish to consider the matter very carefully because we recognise the concerns which have been expressed to us.
The proposal before us raises some complex administrative issues. If it were decided to go ahead with the proposal on ring fencing, the Bill contains special grant powers in Clause 165. However, I think that we would wish to reflect carefully on the points made in the debate before reaching a decision on whether to use the powers available.
I do not think that it is necessary at this stage to engage in further elaboration or discussion of the issue, but I hope that those who have a concern at SCVO, and others who have written to noble Lords, will offer their views on the matter and we shall see how we can take it forward. The issue is not without complication. However, I hope that it will be appreciated that we understand the concerns and would like to resolve the problems.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: The Minister has given us a little hope. I do not think that any of us believe that ring fencing will exist in perpetuity. After all, local authorities review contributions regularly. The councillors know from experience in their areas that organisations have done their job, or that new organisations exist. There is a continual movement. We should not be too worried about the idea of ring fencing. I should be quite happy if the Secretary of State were to agree to make good for a limited period before the handing over to the new local authorities. I do not say that it is an easy matter. Voluntary organisations may be involved in harder work: instead of going to the big authority they might need to go to many smaller organisations to obtain the same money. Nevertheless,

1925
the Minister has given us a little hope. I hope that the voluntary organisations feel that at least he is sympathetic.
I am still worried about the money aspect. The £100 million may seem a high figure. I am sure that the Minister has a fair idea. However, I shall seek to find out the figure. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 48A not moved.]
Clause 18 agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Residuary bodies:]
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 49:
Page 132, line 30, leave out from ("and") to end of line 32 and insert (", provided that not less than one and not more than three members shall be appointed from amongst members of a council or councils within the area covered by the residuary body and nominated by them; and the members of the residuary body shall appoint one of their number to be Chairman and may appoint another to be Depute Chairman of that body.").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 49, it may be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak also to Amendments Nos. 50 to 53.
This group of amendments is important. It is important that decisions about the future use and destination of local authority property should be informed by an understanding of the area and of the historic and the current operation of the councils within it. It is therefore important that the membership of the residuary body should include elected representatives from within the area, nominated by the relevant councils. This is an essential provision to ensure democratic accountability of the workings of the residuary bodies and to ensure that any decisions on local authority property take into account the needs of services provided by local government and not simply the maximising of the value of the assets.
With regard to Amendment No. 50, it is important for corporate bodies responsible for dealing with assets in public ownership and created under statute to be publicly accountable and to be seen to act solely in the public interest. Any suspicions in the public mind about the motivation for decisions on public assets and public funds undermines the effectiveness of the body and the general trust in the discharge of their business. There is perhaps also, of course, the future possibility of being able to build up the funds and assets that have been so helpful. To avoid such consequences many bodies, including local authorities, are obliged to maintain for public inspection registers of the interests of their members.
There is no reason why the same principles should not apply to residuary bodies which will be dealing with the future destination of assets acquired through time out of public funds. Therefore, all members of such residuary bodies should be obliged to notify any interest which they have and those should be recorded in a register which is open for public inspection. This is a minimal safeguard for the public interest and applies already to many similar bodies.
I hope that the Minister will take the parallels with the Palace of Westminster and the importance of
1926
disclosure. In the other House there is a register—not in this House where we do not expect anything, but by and large people make clear what their interests are.
On Amendment No. 51, members of residuary bodies should be subject to the same penalties for non-compliance as members of local authorities, given that they are dealing with local government assets. For example, it would be unjust if a member of the residual body, who was also a property developer, did not disclose a personal interest which he or she may have in an asset to be disposed of by the residual body. That is an obvious point, but also one which we should make sure we emphasise.
Amendment No. 52 makes it clear that local authorities should be obliged to make information about their meetings available to the public in advance and hold their meetings in front of the public and the press, except where—the usual conditions—private or confidential information is dealt with. As residuary bodies will be dealing with local authority assets and are likely to be taking decisions affecting assets which have been acquired with public funds over the years, it is right that their proceedings should be open to public scrutiny under the same rules as local authorities. This amendment therefore seeks to apply those rules as laid down in the access to information legislation to the proceedings of residuary bodies.
Finally, the purpose of Amendment No. 53 is to make it a statutory obligation of the residuary body to prepare and publish an audited statement of accounts. The accounts of a residuary body should be subject to scrutiny by an independent accounts body and the same requirements to prepare and publish audited accounts as in the case of local authorities, in accordance with the provisions of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973.
These are technical amendments, but I think that they are the least which should be asked of the residual bodies which will handle a large amount of valuable assets. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will be sympathetic. Although he may not like the exact wording I am sure he could find the correct form to meet the spirit of the amendments. I beg to move.
10.45 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: I shall not detain the Committee for long, I shall simply give my rough notes on this group of amendments. First, ensure local elected members have a knowledge of the area. The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, has made that point. Secondly, check people's financial connections and punish them if they do not disclose the connections. Lastly, the same access to information should be given by the residual body as by local authorities, and accounts should be kept and audited.
This appears to me to be a good summary of the need for the five amendments. I hope and trust that the Minister will give us a sympathetic answer because they appear to be very practical indeed.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I can fully appreciate the concerns which have motivated this group of

1927
amendments. If a residuary body is appointed then every local authority in the area in which it will operate will have an interest in its actions.
That said, I am not wholly convinced that the approach proposed in the amendment is a sensible way of proceeding—particularly, at this point, in Amendment No. 49. Leaving aside the possibility that it leaves open the scenario of a residuary body comprised entirely of local authority members —in which case why have such a body in the first place? —I think that there are real dangers in a selective approach which would allow representatives of some authorities in the body's area to be members of that body while others were not represented.
While I would do nothing to cast any doubt upon the integrity of any local authority member, I think that such an arrangement could give rise to dissatisfaction among the authorities directly affected by the actions of a residuary body.
Those authorities which did not have a representative directly on the body could feel that their interests might be adversely affected in comparison with other authorities that were represented. That would not be helpful in a situation where the residuary body's principal function was to ensure the fair and equitable distribution of assets.
Nevertheless, I fully agree with the sentiment expressed by the noble Lord that the residuary body should have a good knowledge of the local authorities with which it is working. I am therefore happy to give the Committee the assurance that in appointing members of any residuary body the Government will give careful consideration to the need to have good links with the councils concerned.
We envisage the appointment of a residuary body as being very much something that will be done with the agreement of the local authorities in a particular area, as a response to their view that such a body would facilitate the restructuring process in that area.
I wish to stress that any such body would not be set up in opposition to local government, or indeed as an alternative to it, but as a facilitator. The provisions of Schedule 3 should be seen in that light.
Turning to Amendments Nos. 50 and 51, I have listened to the arguments advanced by the noble Lord. I agree that their aim is laudable: to ensure financial propriety in appointments to a residuary body. I do not think that there would be any Members of this Chamber who would disagree that it would be wholly inappropriate for any member of a residuary body to have any financial or other interest which he or she did not declare and which might affect that person's performance.
In practice, however, I do not think that these particular provisions are required. Paragraphs 4,5 and 9 of Schedule 3 are tried and tested provisions. Similar provisions can be found in the Enterprise and New Towns (Scotland) Act 1990 and in the Natural Heritage (Scotland) Act 1991, and they establish a standard code of conduct relating to appointments to non-departmental public bodies in Scotland.
Turning briefly to Amendments Nos. 52 and 53, again I have listened to what the noble Lord said. What
1928
is common to the amendments is an attempt to apply similar disciplines to local authorities and to residuary bodies. Indeed, that imposition of a discipline is the very purpose of Clause 18(2) of the Bill. This allows any existing local government legislation to be applied with or without modifications to residuary bodies. So, while I have great sympathy for what the noble Lord has put forward in terms of his amendments, my rejection of them is not on the basis that they are unworthy but simply that they are unnecessary. On that basis, I invite him to withdraw them.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: The Minister certainly gave us a fair amount of hope in what he said. We always know that the wording that we put forward is never satisfactory to the Minister and to the department.
The real point that we are trying to make is that nothing should be done that would weaken public trust in a residuary body or an elected council. With the assurances that the Minister has given me, and in the hope that we shall get the right wording at some point —or that the Bill covers it already, which he seemed in large measure to suggest—I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 50 to 53 not moved.]
Schedule 3 agreed to.
Clause 19 agreed to.
Clause 20 [Joint committees and joint boards]:
The Deputy Chairman (Baroness Cox): I should point out that if Amendment No. 54 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 55.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford Lord Ewing of Kirkford moved Amendment No. 54:
Page 17, line 8, leave out from beginning to end of line 15 and insert:
("(c) it appears to those authorities that incorporation of that joint committee (or proposed joint committee) as a joint board would provide for the more effective discharge of its function, the authorities may resolve to establish such a joint board.").
The noble Lord said: This series of amendments has four main themes running through it, with which I shall deal quite briefly. That is not to diminish the importance of the issues that we are discussing.
The first main theme running through these amendments is to take away from the Secretary of State one of the powers that Clause 20 of the Bill gives him - to establish or convert joint committees into joint boards. Amendment No. 54 makes it absolutely clear that the joint board should only be established at the request of the local authority and that the Secretary of State would then either give or withhold his consent. It should not be for the Secretary of State to convert a joint committee to a joint board. I should add that if the Secretary of State retains those powers, there is a serious danger that through the creation of compulsory joint boards the Secretary of State could, in effect, reorganise local government yet again by instructing joint boards to be created and passing the responsibility from either a

1929
politically controlled council or a non-politically controlled council to a council of a different political complexion.
The second theme is the whole question of the local authority asking the Secretary of State's permission to convert a joint committee to a joint board, the Secretary of Stage giving his permission and ipso facto agreeing to the establishment of a joint board. Our amendment suggests that the Secretary of State should not then retain the power to dissolve the joint board, having given his agreement to the establishment of the joint board in the first place.
The third theme is the requirement on a unitary authority to publish in a national newspaper its joint arrangements. The example I draw out is that the people of Clackmannan would be entitled to know whether the social work services were being provided not by Clackmannan council but by Fife council. The whole reason for the Government's reorganisation is that the local authorities were getting out of touch with their electors. In order to keep them in touch, in our view it is necessary to ensure that people who live in that local authority know from where their services are being provided, especially in the joint arrangements.
The fourth and final theme is that of the requisitions demanded by the joint boards. We argue in our amendments that those requisitions should be disregard-ed for capping purposes because the councils will have no control over the requisitions levied by the joint boards. Therefore, it seems to us to be inequitable to have those included for capping purposes. On that basis, I beg to move the amendment.
11 p.m.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I appreciate that the concise fashion in which the noble Lord has dealt with this matter does not understate his concern that this particular issue should be examined carefully. Clearly, not only in this Chamber but in another place and generally in Scotland, this is a matter that has caused some concern.
Before I consider the amendments in detail, I should like to make it clear that the Government see this clause as increasing the options available to local authorities in deciding the best methods of service delivery. The concept of setting up joint boards using secondary legislation is new, but it was supported by the vast majority of those responding to the Government's consultation paper on internal management. It offers local authorities the opportunity to set up stable and binding arrangements with each other should they wish to do so.
Turning to the individual amendments, I believe that Amendments Nos. 54 and 56 reflect a misunderstanding of what the clause intends rather than a difference of intention. The main difference between a joint committee and a joint board is that the latter is much more difficult to leave than the former.
This is important for local authorities since it offers members of a joint board an assurance of stability: they know that one awkward member could not simply walk away from an arrangement. To do so it would need the
1930
Secretary of State to lay a new order under the provisions of the new Section 62C being inserted in the 1973 Act. Amendment No. 54 would take away that safeguard and leave a joint board no better than a joint committee. As such, I do not think it would be supported by local authorities.
Turning to Amendment No. 56, which seeks to ensure that the membership of any joint board is confined to members of the relevant authorities, the Committee may wish to note that Section 235 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 already defines a joint board as,
"consisting exclusively of persons appointed by the local authorities".
There is therefore no question of anyone such as the Secretary of State having a say in who is appointed to a joint board. The reference to the new Section 62A(2) relates purely to such things as the total number of members, which has in any case to be agreed by the councils concerned.
Moving on to Amendment No. 55, a similar amendment was of course considered in another place. At that time my honourable friend the Minister for Local Government pointed out a number of aspects that did not appear to have been considered. From what has been said today, further thinking has clearly taken place on this provision and the Government have some sympathy with the thrust of the amendment. Accordingly, I can indicate to the noble Lord that I can take this amendment away to consider whether an appropriate amendment can be brought forward by the Government at a later stage.
Amendments Nos. 57 and 58 effectively delete the Secretary of State's power to insist on a joint board should councils patently fail to provide a satisfactory service. I should make it quite clear—and I hope it will be understood—that this power will not be used lightly. Indeed, the Secretary of State and his ministerial colleagues would hope that they will never have to use it. It is essentially a reserve power of last resort. However, should it be needed, it would be subject to full parliamentary scrutiny, with the affirmative resolution procedure required.
Turning to Amendment No. 59,I agree that this also has some merits. However, it has one major disadvantage which in the Government's view rules it out. Effectively the amendment would mean that an individual council could block indefinitely the abolition of a joint board on which all the other members were agreed. That would seem to us to be unfortunate. I can assure the Committee that the Secretary of State would not intend to use the power to dissolve a joint board against the wishes of all its members, except in the type of circumstance I outlined.
Finally, turning to Amendment No. 60, it was argued that the levy demanded by a joint board could lead to a council breaching its capping limit. I would hope that in practice councils would be more sensible than to allow that to happen. It certainly does not occur at present. The members of existing police and fire boards come to mutually acceptable arrangements for the funding of these bodies. There is no reason why similar arrangements should not be negotiated in future.

1931
I invite the Committee to resist Amendments Nos. 54, 56, 57, 58, 59 and 60. But, as I indicated to the noble Lord, I accept the principle of Amendment No. 55 and am happy to take it away for further consideration.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: The great secret in politics is to quit when one is ahead and even when nothing is ahead for me. I beg leave therefore to withdraw Amendment No. 54.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments No. 55 to 60 not moved.]
Clause 20 agreed to.
Clauses 21 and 22 agreed to.
Clause 23 [Duty to prepare decentralisation schemes]:
Lady Saltounof Abernethy Lady Saltounof Abernethy moved Amendment No. 61:
Page 20, line 31, after ("councils") insert ("or, when no Community Council exists, other organisations representing broad community interests").
The noble Lady said: I beg to move Amendment No. 61 standing in my name and in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, who has hurt her leg and is obliged to rest it. She is very sorry indeed that she is unable to be present to introduce the amendment herself.
The noble Baroness put down the amendment after consultation with the Scottish Community Education Council, of which she is an Honorary Fellow and past chairman. Clause 23 requires each new authority to draw up a draft decentralisation scheme and to make it available for public inspection and comment before it is finalised. Subsection (4) requires, in addition, that the local authority consults the community councils in its area about the draft scheme. That is only proper since they are the bodies best placed to reflect broad local opinion as to the convenience and user-friendliness of the proposals.
The weakness is that many urban and rural areas are not covered by community councils. Recent research by Strathclyde University suggests that at present this amounts to a quarter of Scotland, with a particularly uneven spread in urban areas. Even allowing for any new community council schemes which local authorities may set up under Clause 22 of the Bill, coverage is still likely to be far from universal. This amendment would ensure that, where community councils do not exist, communities would be consulted by way of some other organisation in a position to reflect broad public opinion.
Bodies which could be consulted vary widely. In some urban areas and housing estates, organisations exist which are representative of a particular neighbourhood; for example, the Drumchapel Community Organisation Group, which, interestingly, has turn-outs at its elections greater than those of the district council. The Government recognise other representative community bodies in their urban regeneration programme, examples being the Wester Hailes Representative Council and the Castlemilk Umbrella Group. Elsewhere a council for voluntary service might be suitable, or in rural areas a village hall committee; and so on.
The wording of the amendment is probably not perfect, but we hope that at this stage your Lordships and the Government will accept that a widening of the provision in subsection (4) is necessary. The success of the new councils will be heavily dependent on sensible decentralised ways of working and on the public being aware from the outset that they are being listened to and considered. That, after all, is what the Citizen's Charter is all about.
LordFraser of Carmyllie: I am grateful to the noble Lady for moving the amendment. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, takes a particular interest in this matter and it is very regrettable that she is unable to participate at this time in the Committee stage of the Bill.
We have a great deal of sympathy with the objective behind the amendment. It seeks to ensure community participation in the formulation of decentralisation schemes and that is, of course, eminently to be desired. The difficulty with the amendment relates to the imprecise nature of the term,
"other organisations representing broad community interests".
That contrasts with the community councils referred to in the Bill, which are statutory bodies. In practice it would be very difficult for authorities to identify all such organisations falling within that broad definition.
I believe, however, that there is in practice very little between the position as currently set out in the Bill and that proposed by the amendment. Clause 23 provides for the new councils to publish their decentralisation schemes in draft form and to consider any representations about their proposals. There is ample scope, therefore, for all community organisations to have their say in respect of all areas—not just those where community councils are not in existence.
We have already seen in Highland an excellent example of community involvement. Although it will ultimately be for the new councils themselves to determine the nature and scope of decentralisation for their areas, Highland Regional Council has produced a consultation document on decentralisation with a view to exactly what the noble Lady would wish—that is, stimulating debate on this very important issue. Several thousand copies of the council's consultation document were distributed to community councils, public bodies, voluntary organisations and the general public. The council's document has been the subject of much media interest and has been considered at a number of meetings across the Highlands.
Noble Lords may also wish to be aware that a recent study carried out by the Community Councils' Resource Centre in Glasgow showed that each of Scotland's district and islands councils had established community council schemes. Out of a possible 1,346 community councils, 1,119—that is 83 per cent.—were active. That is a substantial figure and I hope that the numbers of active community councils will continue to grow. That is, however, a matter for communities themselves.
To sum up, I believe that the provisions as currently set out in the Bill, coupled with a responsible and positive approach to decentralisation by the new councils—there is no reason to believe that they will

1933
adopt anything other than such a positive and responsible attitude - could provide a framework within which there can be maximum participation by local communities, not just community councils. In view of what I have said, I hope that the noble Lady will be reassured and feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his full reply. I hope and trust
1934
that this will work out as he anticipates. My personal reservation is that, unless there is some onus on a local authority to consult some specific body, the kind of consultation that the Minister envisages (through advertisements etc.) will fail by reason of public apathy - exactly that same apathy as leads to so few people coming out to vote in local authority elections. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 23 agreed to.
11.15 p.m.
Clause 24 [Transitional provisions: finance]:
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 62:
Page 21, line 11, leave out from beginning to end of line 34 and insert:
(""Transitional provisions.
Section 94(2) above shall not apply in respect of financial year 1996/97." ").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, it may be convenient if I also discuss Amendment No. 63. These are important amendments. I hope that the Minister will realise that they are transitional and that we are not trying to do something by the back door. As the Minister knows, Section 94(2) of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 provides the legislation on which the Secretary of State's council tax-capping powers are based. Under those powers, he can seek a reduction in an authority's council tax level if he considers that its expenditure is excessive or that its increase in expenditure is excessive. In the normal course of events, the basic expenditure is measured by comparing the authority's budget for the relevant year with its grant-aided expenditure for that year. The increase in expenditure is measured by comparing the authority's budget for the relevant year with its budget for the preceding year.
In considering the new authority's budget for 1996–97, no directly comparable preceding year's budget will be available against which to measure the increase. Any attempt to create a comparable budget for that purpose would be inappropriate and would inevitably incorporate subjective and questionable assumptions. If the amendment is not accepted, the Secretary of State will be given the power to create a figure which will be used as the basis for comparing the new authority's expenditure in the first year.
To create a figure which truly reflects what the budget of the new authorities would have been in 1995–96 will be impossible. It will not merely require most regional and some district budgets to be disaggregated—that would be an extremely difficult and complicated task—it would also require account to be taken of the varying economics and/or diseconomics of scale which apply in each region.
The possibility of applying any consistent basis of year-on-year comparisons would also be affected by the inclusion of transitional costs, and, in particular, by the fact that residuary bodies may be set up in some areas while in others the wind-up will be carried out by the new authorities. The figure decided by the Secretary of State will, however, be crucial to the new authorities, depending upon the capping rules applied. It would effectively set budget limits for the new authorities for many years ahead.
Amendment No. 63 is designed to provide for the full costs of the shadow authorities to be met by the Government outwith the local government settlement, and to ensure that no additional costs fall on council tax payers. The Secretary of State's public expenditure plans, announced in December and confirmed in Committee by the Minister for Local Government, contains provisions outwith the local government
1936
settlement of £23 million in 1995–96 to cover the estimated costs of the new authorities during the shadow period. It is presumably from that provision that the Secretary of State will make the grants identified in the clause.
The Minister will know that the CoSLA report, Local Government in Scotland: A critical evaluation of costs, states that the cost of preparing for change could be as much as –75 million, although it makes it clear that some of those costs will be met by the old authorities prior to the shadow authorities being formed. Borrowing consent will allow the shadow authorities to spend beyond the level of grant received, but the overspend will require to be funded by increased council tax bills in 1996–97.
During consideration of a similar amendment in another place the Minister, Mr. Stewart, rejected the amendment as giving the shadow authorities a licence to print money. But that is not the case, given that shadow authorities will not be involved in the delivery of services; rather they will be concerned with establishing themselves and planning for the future. However, given that the Secretary of State has at present allocated only £23 million to cover the costs of establishing the new authorities, while it is suggested that the actual cost will be much higher it is wrong that the additional costs will be borne by the council tax payer.
Therefore, the amendment seeks to ensure that the Government finance the full transitional costs required to create a local authority structure upon which they have insisted. It was the Government who wanted it, not the local authorities. The amendment provides also the opportunity to air more fully than was possible at an earlier stage the whole question of how accurate or otherwise is the Government's overall estimate for re-organising local government in Scotland.
In that context, the transitional and the ongoing cost estimates provided to date by the Government have been questioned, and severe doubts have been expressed in many quarters as to their validity. With that in mind, it is not just essential to ensure that as the re-organisation proceeds sufficient new money is made available to fund the expenditure of the shadow authorities; there requires to be confidence in, and confirmation of, the overall level of expenditure which will be incurred. That is particularly so given that the Secretary of State has confirmed that the financial implications of the re-organisation will fall to be met wholly within his Scottish block allocation. It follows, therefore, that in the unlikely event that the Secretary of State's estimates are correct—we are always suspicious of them—to the extent to which the transitional costs are not all met from ongoing savings, they will require to be funded at the expense of other essential public services in Scotland.
However, if as is widely considered likely the transitional costs turn out to be higher and/or the expected ongoing savings do not materialise, the impact on those essential services and on council tax levels could be significant and crippling. These various issues can be given a wider airing.
We have a sheaf of notes that the Minister may want to peruse, although I am sure not at this time of night.

1937
We have plenty of available and well-documented evidence to show that this is a real danger. We hope that the Minister will look at the points that have been made and give them serious consideration. I beg to move.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: I wish to comment on Amendment No. 63. The Secretary of State is to provide money that he considers appropriate, which appears to me to be a little too narrow. Having paid £55,000 for a Touche Ross report, it gave figures which varied widely. The whole transitional period must be fraught with difficulty and be very difficult to estimate.
We have experience of the 1973 reforms when, I understand, the costs were vastly greater than estimated. In this case, it is reasonable to say that the money will be provided to meet the costs. I noted what was said by the Minister of State about it being a licence to print money. However, during the transitional period the transitional bodies have no reason to throw money about and the Secretary of State can still have a great deal of control. Considering the inaccuracy of the forecasts which have been made and the experience of the past, the amendment is sensible.
Lord Hughes: I suppose that when the Secretary of State decides to make available such money as he considers appropriate, he will be taking account of what money has been spent. If it appears to him that the authority cannot be accused of having thrown money about needlessly it is unlikely to suffer in the result.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: The purpose of Amendment No. 62 is to prevent my right honourable friend from using his capping powers against the planned new councils in 1996–97. We regard it as essential that capping arrangements should apply to the new councils in their first year of operation. It will come as no surprise to the noble Lord if I say that we are unable to accept the amendment.
Clause 24 makes special transitional arrangements relating to the year 1996–97 to enable the Secretary of State to propose a reduction in the level of council tax set by a local authority; in other words, to cap it if necessary.
Section 94 of, and Schedule 7 to, the Local Government Finance Act 1992 enable my right honourable friend to take capping action against an authority where he considers that the planned expenditure of that authority for the year ahead is excessive, in absolute terms, or where there has been an excessive increase in its planned level of expenditure as compared with the previous year.
Without special transitional arrangements provided for in Clause 24, it would not be possible for my right honourable friend to use the second leg of his capping powers—namely, the power to cap an authority where he considers that the year-on-year increase in its level of planned expenditure is excessive. This clause, therefore, gives him the power, after consultation with CoSLA, to specify a notional budget for each new authority for 1995–96 against which the actual budget for 1996–97 can be compared in order to determine whether there has
1938
been, in the Secretary of State's opinion, an excessive year-on-year increase in any authority's level of planned expenditure.
As many noble Lords will no doubt recall, the last reorganisation of local government in Scotland in 1975 saw a distinct surge in local authority expenditure. The powers available to the Secretary of State in Clause 24 would prevent any repetition of this on this occasion, and they are vital therefore in order to protect local taxpayers from any of the new authorities indulging in excessive expenditure in their first year.
Clause 25 at present provides that the new local authorities will be funded during their shadow period —that is, from the date of the first elections in April 1995 to 1st April 1996 when the new authorities will become operational—either by grants provided by the Secretary of State or by borrowing subject to the consent of the Secretary of State. I wish to make it clear that the Secretary of State has not yet reached a decision on which of these funding methods should apply or, indeed, whether it would be sensible to have a combination of the two options.
The effect of Amendment No. 63 would be to oblige the Secretary of State, if he decided to grant-aid the shadow councils, to pay not such grant amounts as he considers appropriate but whatever amount the shadow councils actually decide to spend. In other words, acceptance of this amendment would effectively mean that the Secretary of State was signing a blank cheque as regards the payment of grant to the shadow councils. Patently the Government could not countenance that.
The clause as it stands enables my right honourable friend to exercise an appropriate measure of control over the shadow authorities' expenditure, and that is entirely in keeping with his responsibilities. I can assure noble Lords that my right honourable friend recognises fully the need for the new councils to incur expenditure during their shadow period. He made provision for estimated expenditure of £23 million in his 1993 public expenditure plans, and he has made it clear that he will consider sympathetically requests for either grant or borrowing consent in order to fund that expenditure.
In the light of that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I am sure that the Minister did not believe for a moment that I thought that he would accept the amendment. The new authorities will need some guidelines on which to work. I hope that the Secretary of State will at least be able to make life rather easier for those new authorities. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 24 agreed to.
Clause 25 [Financing of new authorities prior to 1st April 1996):
[Amendment No. 63 not moved.]
Clause 25 agreed to.
Clause 26 agreed to.
Clause 27 [Valuation areas and authorities and appointment of assessors etc.]:
[Amendment No. 64 not moved.]
Clause 27 agreed to.
Clauses 28 to 30 agreed to.
Clause 31 [Education]:
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy Lady Saltoun of Abernethy moved Amendment No. 65:
Page 26, line 31, leave out ("three") and insert ("four").
The noble Lady said: I am not very happy that Amendments Nos. 65, 66 and 67 are grouped with the other amendments because they have very little to do with them. I hope that the Committee will agree to take those three amendments separately.
I must also say that these amendments and many of the others which I shall be moving at a later stage, except the ones concerning the transitional arrange-ments, would not be necessary if we could be certain of having comprehensive legislation for children in Scotland during the next Session of Parliament. It is because we are not that the amendments are so important.
The three amendments seek to ensure that all education committees will contain at least one member with expertise in the requirements of children with special educational needs. Of course, it will still be the case that each new council will have a duty to provide for children with special educational needs, but there can be wide divergencies in how well that duty is carried out.
There are a number of particular reasons why it is important that education committees should have adequate expert advice in special educational needs. Before needs can be met they must be properly assessed. That is a complex process which should draw on many professional sources, as well as fully involving the child and the family. There must be expertise at a senior level to ensure that each council has both the staff and the system to carry out assessments. Those assessments are vital, not just for individual children but also so that there can be proper planning for the future, especially for educational needs which are not currently being met.
With so many more councils it could be more difficult to plan services for children with specialised needs who are relatively thinly spread across Scotland. We hope that there will be co-operation between councils for those children, but that would be greatly helped by having experts on each education committee. Obviously the amendments would help to ensure that sufficient importance is attached to special education.
When allocating scarce resources there may be a temptation to focus on the needs of mainstream pupils at the expense of the smaller group of children with special needs. Some groups of children, such as those with emotional and behavioural difficulties, may not be particularly popular with other parents or with councils. In particular, provision should be made as local as possible. Smaller councils may find it easier to buy in places at special schools and to provide local, integrated support services which are increasingly what parents would prefer. I beg to move.
11.30 p.m.
The Earl of Balfour: I very much sympathise with what the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, is proposing. However, what concerns me is the fact that the clause talks about an education committee. I feel that the noble Lady is suggesting that we should have a probably very highly qualified person dealing with children who have special educational needs. The other "persons" who are to be appointed to the committee under the clause are,
"one representative of the Church of Scotland"—
that is fair enough—
"one representative of the Roman Catholic Church",
and paragraph (c) sets out further particulars as regards one or two further persons. However, in my rather limited knowledge of education they do not seem to me to represent the kind of person whom the noble Lady wishes to introduce. I say that because I believe that she would like a very special person to be included on the committee. I wonder whether we shall be able to find such a person to sit on the education committee. Perhaps such a very special person should be on the education staff, or even available to the staff, where he or she is really needed. I fully sympathise with the noble Lady's proposal, but I am not sure that the amendment is the right way to do it.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: I am not sure whether it would be appropriate at this stage to speak to the amendments in this group—Amendments Nos. 67A, 68, 70B, 162 and 163. I fully understand and support the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, in her submission that in many ways her arguments are completely different from the arguments contained in these amendments. Briefly I shall just explain these amendments.
Amendment No. 67A suggests that,
"two teachers employed in educational establishments under the management of the authority",
should be nominated to serve on the committee and be,
"nominated in such a manner as may be determined by the authority".
It may well be that the authority will ask the professional associations representing the teachers to nominate two of their members to serve on the committee. I need go no further on that.
Amendment No. 68 concerns the number of members on an education committee. This amendment merely fills out the detail that the Government have in their own clause. It puts some meat and some flesh on the bones of the Government's clause. I really do not see that there can be any objection to the Minister accepting that amendment.
Amendment No. 70B concerns a much wider matter and deals with the director of education. Perhaps even at this late hour it provides the Minister with an early opportunity to indicate the Government's thinking in relation to the director of education. Amendments Nos. 162 and 163 are merely consequential and follow from the other amendments to which I have just spoken.
The Earl of Balfour: I hope I may return to this amendment. I thought the two groups of amendments were being taken separately. As regards the amendments on which the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, has just spoken, I would like to point out that the words of the

1941
proposed subsection (7) in Amendment No. 68 are almost identical to subsection (5) of Section 57 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973, which deals with the appointment of committees. The provision in the Act covers all committees: the provision in the amendment would cover only education committees. Section 57 deals generally with the appointment of committees and follows on from Section 56 which deals with the arrangements for the discharge of functions by local authorities. From that point of view I feel that certainly the middle part of Amendment No. 68 is not required. I am not an expert on education and I am not quite certain how Schedule 10 to that Act would apply in this particular case.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: In view of the request by the noble Lady that we deal with certain amendments —I think she was moving Amendments Nos. 65 to 67 separately—I have my response slightly confused. I hope I will be forgiven if I do not put it together as coherently as I would like. I will certainly be prepared to respond again if I have omitted anything in error. I recognise, though, that the noble Lady is concerned about the effect that local government reform may have on the provision for special educational needs, and that she has put forward these amendments to ensure, as she sees it, that this sector of education is represented on any committee that may be set up to deal with education. I hope that she will accept that we are wholly in agreement that the education of children with learning difficulties should not in any way be compromised. However, I am convinced that the changes which the Bill proposes will not have that effect.
The purpose of Clause 31 is to give the new authorities maximum flexibility in their internal organisation. It will in future be a matter for an authority's discretion whether to appoint a committee to deal with education and, should it do so, to decide what expertise members of such a committee should have. Only one half of the members of that committee need be members of the authority. There is, therefore, ample opportunity, should that authority so wish, either to appoint one of its own members with expertise in special needs or to co-opt someone else who has such expertise.
We believe that education authorities must be given discretion to establish structures which best suit their local needs and interests. As I have said on previous occasions, to involve any degree of prescription in that way would cut against the grain of our general intention.
Amendment No. 67A seeks to reinstate a requirement for educational committees to include teacher representatives. The arguments here are again similar to those I have just explained. We wish to give the authorities maximum reasonable discretion in decisions on their own internal management. That is why we have limited the requirements on membership of committees of education to require only that, as at present, such committees should include three Church representatives. The Churches have taken part in this way for
1942
many years and the consultation that we carried out on internal management last year did not show a strong desire to change this.
No other group of staff has the right to sit on committees. The present requirement to appoint teachers is not consistent with our policy of trusting authorities to organise themselves according to their needs. However, I stress that the new authorities will still have the power to appoint teachers to committees if they so wish.
Without wishing to be unpleasant, perhaps I may point out that the amendment is technically defective.
The group of amendments to which the noble Lady took some exception—and I understand why she did so —also contains a more general set of propositions. It may be helpful if I explain briefly why we decided that new councils should have a discretion in this particular area. They were not simply dreamt up. Our proposals emerged from a working group which included representatives of CoSLA, the Local Authority Accounts Commission in Scotland and the Commissioner for Local Administration in Scotland. That group concluded that the statutory requirement for an education committee would unnecessarily restrict authorities which should have the flexibility to establish committee and management structures that best reflected local needs and circumstances.
We consulted extensively on these proposals: 51 per cent. of those who commented favoured repeal of the statutory requirement for a committee; 52 per cent. were against the post of director of education being retained.
Be that as it may, these proposals do not in any sense, and are not intended, to devalue the importance of the education service. Nor do they reduce in any way local authorities' statutory duties in relation to education.
I turn now to the substance of the other amendments. I wish to resist Amendment No. 68. It seeks to add three subsections to the new Section 124 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973. The first two are unnecessary as they duplicate existing statutory provisions. The third is defective as it refers to Schedule 10 to the 1973 Act, which is to be repealed in terms of Schedule 14.
Amendment No. 162 will also be resisted. It reintroduces a definition of the term "education committee" which would be required only if Amendment No. 68 were accepted.
Amendment No. 163 is a very important amendment, and I have no doubt that Members of the Committee have received a volume of carefully developed representation from some very serious individuals involved in education in Scotland. The amendment would seek to reintroduce a requirement to appoint directors of education. As I have explained previously, our position is that that should be for each authority to decide. Perhaps I may also say that the amendment is technically deficient.
What we regard as important is that, even if we were not repealing the statutory requirement, Amendment No. 70B would be both undesirable and unnecessary because it would achieve no more than is already possible under the present statutory arrangements. For example, Amendment No. 70B proposes that directors

1943
should be suitably qualified and experienced, but without explaining what qualifications or experience would be suitable. Education today encompasses a broad spectrum from pre-fives to 16 to 18 year-olds and from special educational needs to community education. Its very width argues against a specific qualification, and even the Association of Directors of Education in Scotland—I met it recently—did not argue in favour of that.
As regards the responsibilities of directors of education, these already extend to services other than education. For example, the director for Orkney has responsibility for leisure and recreation; and the director for Dumfries and Galloway has responsibility for library services.
The proposal that directors should have the length of their contracts determined when they are appointed is also unnecessary because authorities may already do this.
I emphasise again that the thrust of our reforms is to increase flexibility and local accountability. I do not believe that our proposals are intended to put the education service at risk, and I would be concerned that anyone should think so. They are designed to strengthen local government by giving local councils a discretion to take the decisions according to the needs as they see them. It is on that basis that we would resist the amendments, not because we undervalue the importance of those who participate in education in Scotland.
11.45 p.m.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: Before we return to these matters after the parliamentary Recess, I hope that the Minister may be ready to give at least some further consideration to the continuation of the statutory post of director of education. I do not wish to take up time at this stage. However, education is a very vital and important part of the whole Scottish tradition. The post of director of education is deep in that Scottish educational tradition. It is a distinguished post which carries great weight in Scottish life. To consider abolishing the statutory requirement to have a director of education on the basis of some poll is a very serious step to take. I listened carefully to the Minister; he seemed to say that he had a 52 per cent. poll in his favour.
I do not wish to press the matter further at this stage. But I think that to make optional the statutory position of the director of education in Scotland, so proud of our education tradition—I believe that that position is being preserved in both England and Wales—seems a very grave step indeed.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I recall that the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, invited me to give a statement on how we saw things at this time, rather than to reach a definite conclusion on the issue. I do not place particular emphasis on the 51 per cent. and 52 per cent. figures that I gave.
I place some emphasis on this. I hope that the noble Lord will read what I say. There was wide consultation on this matter, and that was the conclusion that was reached. Again, I can only conclude by emphasising
1944
this. It is not to underestimate the value of directors: of education. I would anticipate that a vast number of local authorities in Scotland, if not all, will appoint directors of education. It is to give them the flexibility to determine their own arrangements that we resist the amendments. It is not because we do not believe in the traditional importance attached to education in Scotland.
Lord Hughes: As the noble and learned Lord indicated, the only restriction being placed on education authorities is that not less than half the members must be elected representatives and they must appoint three or, in the case of the Orkneys, four representatives of religious bodies. I believe I am right in thinking that all or most of the other amendments put forward can be put into effect by an education authority at its own decision.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: If I have understood exactly what the noble Lord said, my answer is shortly, yes. There is a limited requirement on who must be on such a body. The very discretion that we propose they should have I hope would allow those local authorities to cover just the kind of anxieties that the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, indicated in opening the debate on this group of amendments.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: I think it is appropriate that the noble Lady should have the last word on these amendments. I rise simply to indicate to the Minister that I give notice that we will want to return to this at Report stage. It is a very important issue and the Minister has called in aid a poll that was taken. As I understand it, that poll was from within the professions but the problem has been created for us—not by us—by the approach taken in the original response to the White Paper by the chief executives of local authorities. That is what is behind the problem. The System Three poll was also commissioned by Strathclyde Regional Council and in it a substantial majority of the other element in this argument, the important element of parents, expressed the opinion that directors of education should continue to be a statutory requirement. Having said that, I give notice that we will want to return to this at Report stage.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: After 14 years in this House, it comes as no surprise to me that my amendment is defective. I think that I have only once had an amendment accepted lock, stock and barrel and not been told it was defective in all that time.
I am not suggesting that small councils cannot provide good services, because some of the current smaller councils have a strong commitment to high quality special education services and the integration of disabled children. However, they admit that such an option is expensive and requires a strong political commitment. We need a mechanism to encourage the same degree of commitment, and that is one of the things that the amendment was designed to provide.
I was interested in the contribution of the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, which seemed valid to me. Meantime, I would like to read what the noble and learned Lord and other noble Lords have said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 66 to 68 not moved.]
Clause 31 agreed to.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy Lady Saltoun of Abernethy moved Amendment No. 69:
Before Clause 32, insert the following new clause:
("Further provision relating to special education
..After section 22D of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 there shall be inserted—
Further provision relating to special education.
"22E.—(1) An education authority shall submit to the Secretary of State for his consent any proposal of theirs to which this section applies and shall not implement such a proposal without his consent.
(2) A proposal to which this section applies is one to—

(a) discontinue a special school or a pan of it;

(b) amalgamate a special school or a part of it;

(c) change the site of a special school; or

(d) discontinue a service provided primarily to meet the needs of children with special educational needs;

where the number of children attending the school or, as the case may be, using the service, who reside in an area other than the area of the local authority is greater than 30 per cent. of the total number of children attending the school or using the service."").
The noble Lady said: I wish to speak to Amendments Nos. 69 and 70. The new clause in Amendment No. 69 would ensure that a school or service for children with special educational needs which is used by significant numbers of children from outwith its council area cannot be closed by the council without the consent of the Secretary of State.
At the Second Reading of this Bill, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, gave a welcome reassurance that, following reorganisation, children with special needs could continue to attend the same school as before. However, that reassurance will apply only if that school continues to exist.
There is a very real possibility that specialised services will be at risk, particularly in the inevitable disruption of the first few years following reorganisation. Some authorities will inherit special schools with a large number of children from other areas. They will be paid by the other councils for those children but they may still feel that the buildings, facilities and expert staff should be used for their own children. They will have no guarantee that the other councils will continue to send children to the school. They will not hold the records of needs for all the potential future students, so planning will be uncertain.
For all those reasons a small council may decide that it cannot sustain what is a resource for a much larger area. Even a large council such as Glasgow may not be prepared to continue to run a disproportionate number of the special schools in the Strathclyde area.
There is a consultation procedure before a school can be closed, but parents of children from outside a council's area have no votes and therefore have relatively little effective clout. As the law stands, a school which is more than 80 per cent. full cannot be closed without the consent of the Secretary of State. The amendment simply extends that provision to a wider group of special schools and facilities.
The 80 per cent. rule on its own is not adequate protection. Special schools may be very small and two
1946
children leaving could take a school which was virtually full outside of its scope. Also, the rule only covers schools and not other specialist facilities. This amendment is not intended to prevent the change and development of services. It is a fallback power to ensure that vital services are not lost.
Turning to Amendment No. 70, children with special needs do not depend only on schools but on a range of people and resources, including educational psychologists, learning support teachers, and sometimes specialised aids for particular impairments. There will be a number of cases where the resource or employee will be transferred to one council and some of the children using the resource will transfer to another. Of course, the authority where the child lives will have a duty to meet the child's needs, but they will be dependent on another council to meet that need. As the Bill stands, that other council will have no duty to help the children who formerly benefited from the service that they have inherited. It would hardly be surprising if, in some cases, they decide to direct resources away from services which benefit children throughout a wider area to services for their own children.
There is recent experience of the problems that can arise where one body has the statutory duty while another body has the necessary facilities. Many children with special needs require speech therapy. Where that is included in a record of needs it is the responsibility of education authorities to ensure that the child receives it. However, speech therapists are employed by health boards. The assumption was that boards would co-operate with education authorities, but sadly that is not always the case. It was not until the media uncovered hundreds of children without speech therapy and many took legal action that effective steps were taken to resolve the situation. This amendment seeks to avoid the same thing happening again.
As well as protecting individual children, this amendment could help to ensure that specialised expertise is not lost. For example, each council will have an educational psychology service. However, a council may not inherit a psychologist with particular skills in, for example, deafness. The duty to co-operate would give an impetus for the council which does employ those specialists to allow them to assist deaf children over a wider area rather than undertake a more general role within their own council. I beg to move.
Lord Addington: I rise to my feet at this very late hour to speak very briefly for the first time on this Bill, for the simple reason that the noble Lady's amendments make tremendous common sense to anybody who knows anything about dealing with special needs.
As the term "special needs" would suggest, it covers a vast range of difficulties. It is almost inconceivable that any one authority of any size will have all the necessary expertise to deal with all those difficulties. You are talking about everything from motor difficulties, movement difficulties and wheelchair difficulties to people with perceptual difficulties. All those will come under the heading of special needs.
It is very common practice in all parts of this country to transfer people between authorities and to other forms

1947
of teaching, and also between other forms of support outwith the education system when people are inside it. I hope that the Government will be able to see their way, if not to including these amendments, to making sure that this type of facility is allowed for in this Bill. There is no way that providing children and young people with the education that they need can be guaranteed unless you are able to pool the resources of all those authorities that can physically be reached.
Midnight
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for his brief contribution to this important debate. I am sure that on all sides of the Chamber there is a very real anxiety that the provision made for children with special educational needs should continue to be protected. In that I am sure that we are at one.
But my response to Amendment No. 69 tabled by the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, is that in our view it is unnecessary because there are already in place extensive safeguards for the stability of special schools and for necessary services for children with special educational needs.
The Education (Publication and Consultation etc.) (Scotland) Regulations 1981 apply to special schools in just the same way as they apply to other schools. The noble Lady narrated some of the circumstances in which the Secretary of State is already involved. Our conclusion would be that he is so involved that there are no changes of significance affecting special schools which do not require that participation by him.
Our conclusion is that the amendment would not add to the safeguards in any meaningful way. However, the noble Lady provided some detail. I shall read carefully what she had to say and if I consider that there is some supplement that might be given to the protection that she wishes to ensure is there, I shall advise her before we return to this matter at a later stage.
I wish to resist Amendment No. 70 for the following reasons. First, the amendment seems to be based on something of a misunderstanding of the effects of the Bill and the statutory provision for special educational needs. Specifically, no services as such are to be transferred from the old authorities to the new.
The Bill creates new authorities. In making the new authorities education authorities, the Bill automatically makes them subject to the same statutory duties as existing education authorities with regard to children and young persons with learning difficulties. Therefore they will be bound by law to ensure adequate and efficient provision for pupils with such special educational needs. To carry out such a duty effectively, authorities will need to ensure access to the necessary support services.
In view of those safeguards, I hope that the noble Ĺady will understand that her amendment is unnecessary. But, as I indicated, I shall look to see whether there is any additional matter in what she said.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: I listened very carefully to what the noble and learned Lord said. I wonder whether we are slightly at loggerheads on
1948
Amendment No. 70—or rather that there is a slight misunderstanding. It is not that the services would have moved, but the places that they were would be in a different authority from the authority where they had formerly been situated.
However, I shall read carefully what the noble and learned Lord said. I am grateful to him for his undertaking to do the same by me. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 70 not moved.]
Lord Thomson of Monifieth Lord Thomson of Monifieth moved Amendment No. 70A:
Page 27, line 51, at end insert:
("(4A) Every council shall have regard to the desirability of providing an adequate common service for the stocking and professional support of libraries in the schools for which it is responsible and for this purpose shall take account of such services of this nature as have been provided by existing regional councils in its area.
(4B) Where two or more councils are of the opinion that the most satisfactory means of providing such a service as is mentioned in paragraph (a) above would be by establishment of a joint service they shall exercise their powers under subsection (2) (a) above whether or not a joint board or committee for the carrying out of other education functions has been established.")
The noble Lord said: This amendment deals with the central back-up services for school libraries, which are at present provided by all nine regional councils in Scotland and which I believe are seriously at risk as a result of the degree of fragmentation into smaller authorities caused by the reorganisation. The amendment is identical to one moved in Standing Committee in another place. I mention that because I believe that it was the only amendment moved in the committee on an all-party basis; that is, all four parties in the committee put their names to it. The amendment would require all new councils to have regard to existing school library services.
I understand that in the discussions in another place, although the Government resisted the amendment, they stated that they accepted its purpose and undertook either to table their own amendment or to deal with the point by means of regulations made by the Secretary of State under Clause 57. My understanding is that the Government have since decided that they prefer the second option of regulations and gave assurances to the Scottish Library Association, which is anxious about the matter, that it will be consulted not only in general on the point, but also on the actual text of the draft regulations.
The Scottish Library Association is grateful to Ministers and to the Scottish Office for their understanding on this important issue. I mention that because I want to place their appreciation on record in your Lordship's Chamber. However, I want to press the Minister a little further and ask that, when his officials are implementing the undertaking—which I hope he will endorse this evening—he ensures that there is some degree of pressure on the matter. It will not be enough for the regulations simply to allow councils to co-operate in running joint services for central school library back-up services. What is needed in the

1949
regulations is something like the text of the amendment: an obligation on councils to co-operate in the quality of the service.
The regulations should make clear that councils should consider acting jointly on this important aspect of education even if they decide not to act jointly on other aspects of educational functions. I can foresee that, for all sorts of reasons that we all recognise—political and otherwise—councils may not want to pool the entirety of their education services. But we do not want to see Scotland's excellent school library services imperilled as a result of the reorganisation. I do not believe there is any need for that, and I hope that the Minister can give the Committee, and those concerned with the school library service in Scotland, reassurance and confidence on those points. I beg to move.
The Earl of Balfour: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, for tabling this amendment because it gives me an opportunity to discuss what I always felt was one of the disadvantages of the present system of local government in Scotland; that is, that education and school libraries are run by the region, but that the general libraries to which most of us can go are run by the district council. This is a lovely example where I am glad to say that they will both now be run by the same authority.
This is a field where I hope that grants and assistance can be available to provide books. Children must be able to obtain books and learn the valuable lesson of reading books of all sorts. Equally, it is awfully nice if their parents can borrow from a library the books that are so often necessary. Unfortunately, books are ever increasing in cost and it is a great expense.
I am extremely grateful that the amendment was tabled. It is a most important issue and a situation where I should like to see special assistance given. I know that some of my local schools have suffered recently because they have not been able to obtain the books that they wanted.
The Earl of Minto: I wish to make one brief comment in regard to what was said by the noble Earl, Lord Balfour. In point of fact, not all regional authorities in Scotland share the responsibility with the districts. Some have total responsibility for both schools and the public library service.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: As the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, indicated in moving the amendment, when an amendment on similar lines was tabled in another place it did indeed enjoy all-party support. Following the debate on that amendment the Government gave a commitment that the spirit of the amendment would be met either by a government amendment at Report stage or by regulations tabled by the Secretary of State. In the event it was decided that secondary legislation would be the preferred and more flexible route. I should like to take this opportunity to indicate to your Lordships that the commitment made then still stands. The Government will be consulting in due course on the proposed regulations. I should like to make clear, in answer to the question which the noble Lord addressed
1950
to me, that I am happy to give the further undertaking that the Scottish Library Association, to which he referred, will be consulted before the regulations are tabled. I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising this matter and to the other noble Lords who contributed to the debate.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: I am obliged to the noble and learned Lord the Minister. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 32 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 70B not moved.]
Clause 33 [Structure plans]:
[Amendment No. 70C not moved.]
Lord Mackie of Benshie Lord Mackie of Benshie moved Amendment No. 70D:
Page 28, line 10, at end insert ("and shall fully take account of the need to integrate land use and transport policy.").
The noble Lord said: The words of the amendment sound like a maxim on which one cannot be contradicted. It is quite obvious that in any structural long-distance planning one has to take into account how the rivers run, how the towns have been, where industry should go, where industry should not go, where shopping centres should be situated and the whole social and environmental life of the area. The area needs to be a properly structured area. This is a very competent amendment which, although it appears to be simple, is very necessary in the shaping of a joint structure plan area.
The second amendment to which I wish to speak is Amendment No. 71 A. It is an important amendment and one on which the Town Planning Association and the Royal Town Planning Institute in Scotland were particularly helpful. They were particularly insistent that a structure plan needs a plan board. It is not enough to have a joint committee. The essential thing is that the strategic planning and transportation joint board should have a separate existence and a separate purpose. Indeed, it should be motivated by that. Although it is a joint board, its separate existence and purpose are extremely important.
The question of having a joint committee should be resisted because such a committee would not have that separate existence and separate purpose. If you have a joint committee, it is apt to concentrate on the needs of its own council area and to have an attitude of "not in my back yard" or even of "in my back yard" in the case of desirable areas, while not taking account of the needs and development of the whole area. Again, it appears to us that the joint board must be instituted. We must not depend on joint committees.
Strategic planning will become more and more important in the future because of the environmental dangers that are evident in this hot spell. A Los Angeles-type smog is descending on London. Such factors need to be taken into account.
In speaking to Amendments Nos. 70D and 71,I shall not say any more other than that the establishment of the joint board, with its own existence and purpose, is essential for long-term strategic planning.
12.15 a.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: Although I did not move Amendment No. 70C, that was not an intellectual decision; it was a matter of not managing my papers well. I should like to speak to Amendment No. 71 and to point out that if the Government were to accept it, they would have to incorporate the provisions of Amendment No. 70C also.
As the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, said, the purpose of Amendment No. 71 is to ensure that before the Secretary of State designates structure plan areas, he consults with planning authorities affected, adheres to objective guidelines and has a duty to secure economy, efficiency and effectiveness in designating areas.
It is essential, when the Secretary of State designates the structure plan areas under the powers given to him by the Bill, that he can demonstrate that the areas he so designates are wholly appropriate for the delivery of an efficient structure planning system. Thus, the Secretary of State must ensure that there is acceptance among the local authorities concerned that the area defined is the correct one for effective strategic planning.
Local authorities will be required to work jointly on the preparation of structure plans in the areas defined and it is essential that these local authorities can have confidence that the area covered by the structure plan is suitable for strategic planning purposes. On this basis, provisions should be included in the Bill, which requires the Secretary of State to consult with the local authorities concerned before finalising any structure plan area.
During the debate on structure planning in the House of Commons, the Minister, Mr. Stewart, said:
"On determining the areas for structure plans, I can give the Committee the assurance that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will consider those relevant matters and will consult with the authorities involved".—[Official Report, Commons, First Scottish Standing Committee, 10/3/94; col. 1088.]
CoSLA, which is involved in such matters, believes that such a duty should be included on the face of the Bill, as indicated in the amendment, given the importance of structure planning.
In the event that the Secretary of State does not agree with the representations made by local authorities in response to proposals for structure plan areas, it would be extremely helpful, in the interests of openness and in making clear the parameters within which the Secretary of State wishes to see strategic planning developed in any area, that he makes clear in writing to the authorities what view he has taken of the representations.
It should be stressed that joint arrangements for structure planning will have less chance of success if there is a lack of acceptance by the authorities involved in the joint process that the correct area has been identified. I commend the amendment to the Minister. There are a number of amendments grouped with this amendment which I support, and I support the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie.
The Earl of Minto: My name is associated with the amendments spoken to by the noble Lords, Lord Mackie of Benshie and Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove. They have given such a clear explanation of the amendments that I do not wish to add much. I would like to say
1952
merely that from experience there is a great difference between the reactions of joint committees and those of joint boards.
When the Bill was first published it was that area of the Bill above all others which was drawn to my attention by the whole of my council. One does not get areas of Scotland working well if it is left entirely to them in joint committee structures. There is a serious need for joint boards on this occasion. That may surprise the noble and learned Lord because he has heard me speaking against joint boards on a number of amendments and on Second Reading. There are places for them within authorities, and I believe this to be one. The Scottish Society of Directors of Planning and the Royal Town Planning Institute have produced amendments for us to bring before the Committee which have considerable merit from the point of view of local government in Scotland.
The Earl of Glasgow: I support my noble friend Lord Mackie, the noble Earl, Lord Minto, and the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, on this group of amendments. One point that has always disturbed me about the whole Bill is the assumption that single tier systems are, by definition, good, more efficient, more labour saving and more accountable and that two-tier systems are almost by definition bad. That is rather like the presumption that privatisation is necessarily good and nationalisation is necessarily bad. Sometimes the thinking seems to stop there.
I suggest that in some cases single tier government is good and more appropriate for one particular area of Scotland and in other cases two-tier government works better. Large conurbations such as the Strathclyde conurbation can be seen to work better under a two-tier system. One of the reasons why it works better is that the Strathclyde conurbation, which consists of about one-third of the population of Scotland, has an umbrella body—Strathclyde Regional Council. At the moment it is responsible for strategic planning and an integrated transport system. That is something that cannot be handled comprehensively by individual authorities within the conurbation.
I know that the Government recognise the importance of strategic planning. Yet, as my noble friends have mentioned, the present Bill leaves that to joint committees. The Government accept that joint committees, which represent the relevant local authorities, will inevitably have conflicts of interests as regards strategic planning for the whole area.
At least joint boards, as proposed in the amendment, would have some real authority and could make overall planning and transport decisions that were independent of any individual local authority. The joint board would then be responsible for the structure plan for its area that would go forward to the Secretary of State for approval. At present, a number of alternative plans are submitted to the Secretary of State by, almost certainly, dissenting local authorities, all with their own axes to grind.
With the imminent abolition of, as I see; it, the workable two-tier system, in particular in the Strathclyde area, the set of proposals in this group of amendments is at least preferable to the joint committee

1953
scheme proposed in the Bill. They can preserve at least something of what is best in the present two-tier system. I sincerely hope that the Government in their hearts will believe that too. I add my support to this group of amendments.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: Perhaps I may deal with the amendments in a slightly different order. Amendment No. 71 seeks to impose a duty on my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to have regard to certain specific issues and to consult planning authorities before making an order designating structure plan areas. I repeat that our underlying objective in this legislation is to give the new authorities the flexibility in the making of their own arrangements to reflect the different circumstances of the different parts of Scotland. That applies as much in relation to earlier debates on education and other responsibilities as it does in relation to planning.
I emphasise that in drawing up structure plans, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will have regard to matters of economy, efficiency and effectiveness in the use of their resources, as Amendment No. 71 suggests. But he will also want to consider a wide range of other matters, including roads, transportation and the way people travel to work, shop or search for a house. While I do not reject the importance of concentration on these particular matters, I must say to the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, that I would consider it inappropriate to single out any specific issue in the Bill. Indeed, if this amendment were accepted, it would be necessary to decide what other topics ought to be considered in a similar matter.
Amendment No. 70D deals with joint planning and transportation committees. I am not at all displeased that there is a desire on behalf of those who contributed to the debate to ensure that land use and transportation policies are integrated in the preparation of structure plans. However, I am bound to say that I do not consider that the particular method of achieving this is appropriate or necessary.
The current legislation in respect of structure plans is widely cast and structure plan authorities are free to include and to co-ordinate land use and transportation issues in their plans where they consider it appropriate so to do. Thus, there is no bar whatever to co-ordinating these matters in structure plans and there is no intention to alter these arrangements under the new structure. Accordingly, it seems to us that specific reference on the face of the Bill is unnecessary.
The noble Earl, Lord Minto, correctly anticipated that, were it not for the lateness of the hour, I should take some pleasure in twisting his tail because he and others have so vigorously rejected the idea of joint boards; and yet as we deal with specific areas of local authority responsibility, it is those who were opposed to Clause 20 who are now enthusiastic advocates of its use in a particular set of circumstances.
We still wish to persist with our objective of leaving the maximum discretion with the new councils, leaving them to devise their own arrangements for fulfilling their functions in relation to the preparation of structure
1954
plans. But of course I appreciate that there may well be circumstances—and I bow to the noble Earl's greater experience of local government—in which it may prove difficult to achieve that without the use of joint boards.
Of course, under Clause 20 local authorities will be able to request my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland to establish a joint board in the event of failure to settle matters sensibly. But even if the parties do not make the request and even if they are at each other's throats to such an extent that they will not make such a request to him, I should highlight the fact that Clause 20 enables the Secretary of State to set up a joint board and to direct planning preparation by one or more of the authorities.
Contrary to the view expressed by the noble Earl, we hope that it will not be necessary to establish joint boards. However, I hope that he will be reassured by the knowledge that should it prove to be necessary, powers exist for that. Therefore, what is proposed in this group of amendments is essentially a duplication of powers already provided in the Bill.
12.30 a.m.
The Earl of Minto: Perhaps I may pursue one matter with the noble and learned Lord. We spoke earlier about flexibility for the new authorities. The Minister will not be surprised to learn that I am strongly in favour of that. He has my complete support in that regard.
It is helpful to know whether or not something works from experience, but there is no experience to show that what is proposed in this Bill will work. That is what is fascinating. We have experience of joint boards and we know that in certain circumstances they work amicably, without friction. It is unfortunate that we should be invited to wait until things go wrong. The odds are that that will be the case. I am sorry to say that in these circumstances the —I hate the word—NIMBY syndrome may prevail and selfishness may play a leading role. Sooner rather than later, the Secretary of State may find that he must view this particular circumstance and he may wish that he had taken on joint boards in the initial stages.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: Due to the lateness of the hour I shall not continue the argument. I believe that the Minister has made a tremendous mistake by not agreeing to the creation of joint boards, with their definite purpose and separate existence. The noble Earl, Lord Minto, agrees with me in that regard. Of course, joint boards may have different purposes and different applications. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 71 to 74 not moved.]
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 75:
Page 28, leave out lines 20 to 22 and insert:
("(5) An order under this section shall be made by statutory instrument which shall not be made unless a draft of the order has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament." ").
The noble Lord said: The designation of structure plan areas is a most important matter and one which should be approved by both Houses of Parliament. The

1955
amendment would require parliamentary time to be found to debate such important matters and allow Members of both places to comment on the proposals and raise matters of concern. I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I am a little confused. I do not wish to be discourteous to the noble Lord, but I thought that we had already dealt with this amendment.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I apologise. In the circumstances, I shall not move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 75 not moved.]
Clause 33 agreed to.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford Lord Ewing of Kirkford moved Amendment No.75 A:
After Clause 33, insert the following new clause:
( "Emergency planning areas
.—(1) The Secretary of State shall by order designate areas (emergency planning areas) in respect of which authorities shall provide an emergency planning service.
(2) Every local government area in Scotland shall be included in an emergency planning area.
(3) Each area designated by the Secretary of State in terms of subsection (1) above shall be of such a size as will be capable of providing an effective strategic emergency planning service.
(4) Authorities whose areas are included in an emergency planning area shall engage suitable staff sufficient to provide the service detailed in the foregoing subsection.
(5) Where an emergency planning area includes the area of more than one authority the authorities concerned shall perform the emergency planning service in accordance with such arrangements as they might agree for that purpose under sections 56 (discharge of functions by local authorities), 57 (appointment of committees) and 58 (expenses of joint committees) of Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973.
(6) An order under this section shall be made by statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.").
The noble Lord said: The proposed new clause deals with the requirement placed on local authorities to establish emergency planning areas. I need not speak at any great length on the matter because I am sure that the Minister understands and accepts the essential need for the designation of such emergency planning areas. I shall give Members of the Committee three brief examples all of which I know well. In my old constituency of Falkirk and Grangemouth, which is a very high-risk area because of the petro-chemical sites, there is at present a strategic planning area to deal with emergencies.
If the Government's position prevails in relation to three local authorities in Central Region, as distinct from the one that I would like to see, the problem is that, in the event of an emergency at Grangemouth, most of the serious casualties would not be taken to Falkirk but would be taken to Stirling. There would be a need to co-ordinate between the three authorities as regards emergency planning procedures.
The same difficulty does not apply in Fife where they have the electric gas plant at Mossmorran and the terminal at Braefoot Bay. However, in my view, a difficulty would prevail at Hound Point terminal, the off-shore terminal in the river Forth. It is all those high-risk areas where, thankfully, we have not had any major incidents. Of course, we have some serious incidents but none of a major nature where there has been a substantial number of casualties. Nevertheless, the risk remains. Therefore, I believe that it is necessary
1956
to write into the legislation by way of the proposed new clause the need to establish such emergency planning areas. I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I entirely agree with the noble Lord that it is indeed important for local authorities to have in place effective arrangements to mitigate the effects of any disaster which may befall the community. It is for that reason that in recent years we have encouraged local authorities to make use of their civil defence grant in the most flexible way. For some time now local authorities have aimed to provide for a proper and effective response to any eventuality.
Our view is that the existing legislation is fully compatible with that flexibility and that it achieves a maximum value for money from the civil defence grant that we pay. I am pleased to report that in Scotland much progress has been made under that approach and an excellent level of emergency preparedness now exists. That was borne out not just in theory but also by the local authority response to the major disasters at Lockerbie, on the "Piper Alpha" and, more recently, to the Tayside flooding and the "Braer" incidents.
In conjunction with the local emergency services, local authorities have developed planning arrangements appropriate to their local circumstances. We believe that they represent a sound basis on which to ensure continued, effective emergency planning in the revised local government structure that we now propose.
Again, we believe it is appropriate for the new authorities to determine, in the light of their local circumstances, the precise arrangements which are necessary to ensure an appropriate level of emergency preparedness. The noble Lord has given the example of those authorities around his former constituency. They will have particular circumstances to which they ought to be prepared to respond, and in our view it would not be right for us to prescribe what their arrangements should be.
While I acknowledge, of course, that the present regional structure will in one sense disappear, it is worth emphasising that the existing police force and fire brigade areas will continue and these could well provide a basis for continuing co-ordination among the relevant emergency planning agencies. While, as I indicated, we consider it is for local authorities to consider the feasibility of their arrangements, we stand ready to assist and to continue to work closely with the local authorities and emergency services on the ongoing development of local emergency preparedness. My officials have in fact contacted chief executives regarding the possibility of discussing the way forward and I am sure that in due course these talks will help to shape the delivery of both civil defence and emergency planning under the new proposed revised structure. With that explanation, I hope the noble Lord will be satisfied that we share his concern to ensure the right arrangements are in place.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: This has been a brief but reassuring exchange of views on emergency planning areas. I am grateful to the Minister for what he has said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 4 [Amendments of the 1972 Act:]
Lord Mackie of Benshie Lord Mackie of Benshie had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 75B:
Page 136, leave out lines 31 to 41.
The noble Lord said: These amendments with regard to the police have been put forward by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and seem to us to be extremely sensible. The purpose of Amendment No. 76 is to ensure that the impact of an amalgamation scheme on police effectiveness and local accountability is taken into account. That is obviously very important. Section 20 of the Police (Scotland) Act 1967 empowers the Secretary of State to amalgamate police forces in the interests of efficiency. The amendment seeks to include on the face of the Bill—
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I believe we were on Amendment No. 75B. The noble Lord is now addressing himself to the very important Amendment No. 76. But I think that Amendment No. 75B was considered along with the structure plan amendment.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: Is the noble and learned Lord suggesting that Amendment No. 75B has been discussed?
Noble Lords: Yes.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Can I take it that the amendment is not moved?
[Amendment No. 75B not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 75C and 75D not moved.]
Schedule 4 agreed to.
Clause 34 agreed to.
Clause 35 [Amalgamation Scheme]:
Lord Mackie of Benshie Lord Mackie of Benshie moved Amendment No. 76:
Page 30, line 11, at end insert:
("( ) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) above, in making an amalgamation scheme, the Secretary of State shall have regard to the effect of said scheme on local accountability and the ability of the police forces concerned to discharge effectively their duties under this Act.").
The noble Lord said: I am grateful to the Committee for allowing me to proceed. I apologise if I made a mistake earlier. I think I can go straight ahead from where I left off, if the Committee can remember that far back. The whole point is that the amendment seeks to include on the face of the Bill a requirement that the Secretary of State will also have regard to local accountability when considering an amalgamation scheme. In the present trend towards, we hope, more local policing, I think this is important. There is anxiety at the recent trend of removing power from the local level in terms of police funding to a centralised point in recent years.
While policing policy currently emphasises the bringing of the police nearer the community through such policies as increasing the number of constables on the beat or placing an emphasis on neighbourhood policing, merely allowing an amalgamation scheme to progress solely on the grounds of efficiency ignores the points I have made. That is true, and it is recognised by a number of people. I believe that Amendment No. 76 deserves the support of the Government.
The purpose of Amendments Nos. 77 and 79 is to incorporate the provision contained in the Police (Scotland) Act. CoSLA welcomes the Minister's rejection of a national police force but is concerned that local inquiries are rejected as being merely time-consuming. We believe, in the context of amalgamation schemes, that local inquiries have an important part to play.
The purpose of Amendment No. 79 is to ensure that an amalgamation scheme is approved by both Houses of Parliament. I am sure that everyone will agree that that is essential in view of the importance of an amalgamation. It is important that local accountability is taken into account as well as efficiency. I beg to move.
12.45 a.m.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I am delighted that we now have the right amendment. In answering the noble Lord, I shall similarly speak also to Amendments Nos. 77, 79 and 159.
Section 20 of the Police (Scotland) Act 1967 empowers the Secretary of State to make amalgamation schemes if he considers it expedient to combine police areas in the interests of efficiency.
Amendment No. 76 refers to effectiveness. Changes made in the Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill will provide for references in the Police (Scotland) Act for efficiency to be construed as including effectiveness.
The amendment refers also to accountability. In considering in future the desirability of changing the combined police areas to be established under the Bill, I have no doubt that the Secretary of State for Scotland would give a high priority to ensuring local accountability. Indeed, accountability is one reason why we are not proposing changes to the existing police areas in the Bill.
I see no reason, therefore, to include the amendment and I invite the noble Lord to withdraw it.
Amendment No. 77 would largely reinstate the existing provisions of Section 20 of the Police (Scotland) Act requiring a public inquiry in the case of amalgamation schemes proposed by the Secretary of State. Amendment No. 159 would have a similar effect on Section 36 of the Fire Services Act 1947 in relation to administration schemes.
I am well aware, from previous Bills dealt with in this Session, of the strong feelings which may arise from changes to police or fire areas. We would not wish to ignore local views or to decline to respond to local objections which are put forward. But we see serious disadvantages in the elaborate public inquiry procedures which apply in the current legislation.
Under present arrangements, if the Secretary of State is inclined to initiate compulsory amalgamation of police areas, he is required to publish details of the proposed scheme, to invite objections and then, if any of the interested police authorities object, he is obliged to set up a local inquiry. Once the inquiry has been held the Secretary of State must consider the report and may then determine whether the amalgamation should proceed. While the Secretary of State must listen to the views of the inquiry, he need not follow them.

1959
Similarly, what is proposed in Amendment No. 159 is that any change in the structure of the fire service should be the subject of a public inquiry unless all the fire authorities concerned agree to it. This would mean that, although most of the fire authorities concerned and the Secretary of State were all in favour of a proposed change, one recalcitrant authority would be able to impede that proposal for a considerable period by insisting on a public inquiry.
If the Secretary of State were to propose changes to the combined police and fire areas established under the Bill, he would consult fully and would be obliged to give his reasons for not accepting objections put to him during consultation. We believe that to be a less protracted and expensive procedure but one which nevertheless gives sufficient opportunity for objections. I hope that the Committee will accept that that is a reasonable procedure.
With regard to Amendment No. 79,I can appreciate, as always, the attraction of affirmative resolution procedure for police amalgamation schemes. Perhaps the noble Lord has noticed the provision for affirmative resolution procedure in equivalent provisions for England and Wales in the police Bill. However, those English provisions are by no means identical to ours. In particular, amalgamation schemes under the police Bill could amend primary legislation. No Scottish scheme could achieve the same. It is for that reason that I draw a distinction and invite the noble Lord also to withdraw that amendment.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: Before the noble Lord indicates his intention in relation to the amendment, perhaps I may indicate that in view of what the Minister said in relation to Amendment No. 159, it would not now be my intention to move Amendment No. 79A.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: Perhaps I may invite the noble Lord to reconsider that.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: With that kind of temptation, who can resist?
The Earl of Minto: My name is associated with Amendment No. 77. With the leave of the Committee. I understand what the noble and learned Lord says. In point of fact it would be terribly easy for this specific system to be abused. The point of the amendment is to ensure much more rigorous and open examination of any amalgamation proposal. I do not believe that the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, will necessarily wish to press the amendment. However, we should make a point on the issue.
There is concern in Scotland about a single police force. It would not be difficult—I do not suggest for one moment that it is in the mind of the Government at present—for such a situation to be arrived at. I believe that the tightening up contained within Amendment No. 77 has a good point to it. It is for that reason that I was pleased to put my name to the amendment. I shall leave it to the noble Lord to decide what to do about the amendment.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: I do not think that I shall make as big a mess of withdrawing the amendment as I did on moving it. However, that shows the dangers of plugging on at this time of night when we are all becoming rather weary and hot—the air conditioning seems to have gone off a little.
It is an enormously important subject. There are many fears. The noble Earl has expressed fears about the move towards a single force. We shall read what the Minister said and may return to the issue at a later date In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 77 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 78 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendment No. 79 not moved]
Clause 35 agreed to.
Clause 36 [Fire services]:
Lord Ewing of Kirkford Lord Ewing of Kirkford moved Amendment No. 79A:
Page 32, leave out lines 34 to 41.
The noble Lord said: With bated breath and eager anticipation, I merely beg to move formally Amendment No. 79A standing in my name on the Marshalled List.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I rather agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, that perhaps we have gone far enough tonight. However, I thought we might just go to this amendment. I wish to explain to the Committee that the amendment is essentially a technical one relating to the preparation by fire authorities of establishment schemes for their areas. I simply wish to say to the noble Lord, so that he does not think I am in any sense pulling a fast one on him, that he may have a point with this skilfully debated amendment promoted by him.
I propose to take the matter away and look at it again before Report. It may be that I shall return with an amendment to meet the point that he has so skilfully made.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: The age of miracles has not yet passed. I am very grateful to the Minister for his generosity and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 36 agreed to.
Clause 37 agreed to.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

European Union (Accessions) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.
House adjourned at four minutes before one o'clock.