HL Deb 13 July 1994 vol 556 cc1820-9

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 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 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 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 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 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 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.
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.