Lords Sitting of 14 July 1994

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Peterborough.): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

Falkland Islands: War Crimes Inquiry
Lord Campbell of Alloway Lord Campbell of Alloway asked Her Majesty's Government:
When a decision will be taken whether or not to prosecute any of those who served in the Armed Forces in the Falklands as a result of the investigations instituted by the Secretary of State for Defence.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, the Director of Public Prosecutions has today announced that she has concluded her consideration of the inquiries carried out by the Metropolitan Police into allegations that criminal offences had been committed by members of the Parachute Regiment during their operations in the Falklands Islands in 1982.
Her consideration was assisted by advice from First Senior Treasury Counsel. She has concluded that the evidence is not such as to afford a realistic prospect of conviction of any person for any criminal offence and has therefore decided that no criminal proceedings should be instituted.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the Law Officers, whom she consulted and who separately considered the case, agree with this conclusion.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I thank my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor with a sense of heartfelt relief and gratitude for the statement that he has made. I also thank all Members of your Lordships' House on all sides for their sterling and steady support in this rather sad affair.
Will it be possible in future to adhere to the tradition that if our men on active service are to be charged with murder of enemy forces the matter might remain within the remit of the Judge Advocate General and not the civil prosecuting authority?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the question of whether the matter can be within the remit of the Judge Advocate General depends on the circumstances of the individual at the time of the investigation. As I said to your Lordships earlier, I understand that the Judge Advocate General did not consider that it was appropriate that he should be consulted at any stage in this matter. It was a matter for the Director of Public Prosecutions in the circumstances of the case and I believe that the correct procedure has been followed in this difficult matter, with the result that I have intimated to your Lordships today.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, is not the position that the Metropolitan Police report was delivered to the Crown Prosecution Service three-and-a-half months ago, that the director considered it fully and with anxious care, that she would have consulted with the Attorney-General and taken the advice of Treasury Counsel, and has reached a wise and considered conclusion which gives pleasure to the House?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am grateful. It is worth saying that in this investigation there were allegations other than those contained in the book: to which reference was made earlier during the course of these matters. Statements have been taken from more than 400 witnesses and the documentation that was produced as a result was extremely considerable. The amount of work that had to be done after the report was received was voluminous and important and it required a degree of deliberation that it has now been able to obtain. I am grateful for the remarks made about the nature of the decision and the process by which it was reached.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, is it not a great relief to all of us and may we not express the hope that other countries will follow our example in applying the rule of law in the most extreme circumstances?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that observation. It is always difficult to undertake an investigation of this kind, in particular when it becomes a matter of public record. On an earlier occasion the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, said— and I thoroughly agree with him—that we must be seen to carry out our international obligations in this matter and, when we do so, do it thoroughly and well. That is what has happened here and I believe that this is a good example for others to follow in similar situations.

New British Library
3.6 p.m.
Lord Donoughue Lord Donoughue asked Her Majesty's Government:
When the construction of the new British Library began, how much has so far been spent on the project, and when it is expected to be completed.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, construction of the British Library began at the St. Pancras site in April 1982. To the end of May 1994 a total of £336 million had been spent on the project. It is not possible to say when the whole building will be completed until solutions have been found for the various technical problems that were discovered in the first phase of the building. We hope to have them by the end of August, after which time a programme for the completion of Phase 1A can be drawn up. Progress on the completion phase of the building continues satisfactorily and construction is on schedule to be completed during 1996.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I thank the Minister for confirming that this monstrous white elephant has taken years more than scheduled, that most of the £450

1963
million budget has been spent and that the Government still have no idea when it will be finished or how much it will finally cost. Will the Minister further confirm that among the scandals already exposed are miles of cabling installed and ripped out, ceilings totally ripped out because one piece of insulation tape was hanging from them, 27,000 roof tiles bought and rejected because the natural colour was felt to be "not quite right" and vast sprinkler systems and shelving installed and removed at great cost in time and money?
In the light of that, can the Minister honestly deny that, under the responsibility of her department and, to be fair, her predecessors—but not political predecessors —this piece of administrative and management bungling is, as one high official close to it described, the worst piece of management and administrative malpractice in Whitehall history?
Baroness Trumpington: Well, my Lords, what a charming way to start the day!
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, it is only the start!
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the main technical issues affect the first phase of construction. The principal difficulties, as the noble Lord said, relate to damage to electrical cabling and concerns about the longevity of the sprinkler system. The earlier problem of the book shelving installation has been fully resolved to the satisfaction of the British Library. Until the faults were discovered, there was no reason to believe that there were problems with the arrangements in place for quality assurance. Clear responsibility for quality control rested with the installing contractors, the construction managers, the design team and project managers. The Government do not abdicate from their responsibilities for the project but they had to rely on those parties for the proper execution of the work. It was they who had the only source of expertise while acting as our agents.
Lord Annan: My Lords, does the noble Baroness recollect that on 11th December 1991 I asked an Unstarred Question on this very matter? I drew attention to the mismanagement that had dogged this enterprise for many years. I asked whether one project manager could be appointed so that the buck was not continually passed from the OAL to the PSA, from the PSA rapidly to Laings and from Laings to sub-contractors. Does the Minister also recollect that her noble friend Lord Astor gave me an assurance that new management techniques and principles were in place and that costs were firmly under control? Has one project manager ever been appointed? That is the only way in which you can control the mismanagement that has taken place.
Is it also true that some of the incidents to which the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, referred are in fact corrupt practices? Is it true that quite unnecessary work has been done in order to keep the pot boiling and the sub-contractors milking the public purse from the public udder?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the construc-tion of the building is the responsibility of the
1964
Government. Once complete, it will be transferred to the library's ownership. The memorandum submitted in evidence to the National Heritage Select Committee for its hearing on 30th June set out the management arrangements and the positive steps taken to improve those arrangements. A copy of that memorandum has been placed in the Library.
With regard to allegations of impropriety, two allegations have been made during the 12-year life of the project. They have been investigated and no evidence of fraud was found. No further action is currently being taken. If the noble Lord, Lord Annan, has any specific evidence, we should be happy to pursue the matter further.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, will the Minister give some indication of what is now the revised budget of the project? Will she give us an indication also of the size of the claims which I presume will be made against those who are responsible for the overrun?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the Secretary of State gave evidence to the National Heritage Select Committee on 30th June during which he stated that because of the technical problems, the £450 million cash budget was likely to be exceeded; and the Treasury is aware of that. The Secretary of State said that it remains his intention to return to the cash budget when all the commercial issues are resolved and final accounts settled.
It is not possible to say by how much the budget will be exceeded while we are still discussing the technical problems and before we are able to draw up a programme of work. We shall need to discuss figures with the Treasury when we are clear about the position. It would be unwise to make our commercial strategy known publicly.
Viscount Eccles: My Lords, while I agree that there have been many disappointments along the way, I believe that the House should realise that when it is completed, it will be the finest national library anywhere. It will be far better than any library in America or in Europe. We shall be extremely proud of it when it is finished.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I really am grateful to my noble friend. I agree entirely with what he said. On the question of costs, perhaps I may draw a comparison with the Bibliothèque Nationale de France which is costing £800 million to £900 million.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, would not a fairer comparison be with the cost of the splendid new Glyndebourne? I recognise that that is on a different scale, but it is not irrelevant. Is the noble Baroness telling us that no one can be identified as being responsible for all those technical problems? Those technical problems are being used as an excuse. Who has been sacked or who has got into trouble over that matter?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, with regard to the comparison with Glyndebourne, in principle, no doubt it would have been better to have gone ahead

1965
quicker but availability of public funds for Phase 1A did not permit that and so design and construction took place in parallel.
As to who is to blame, it will be a complex matter to establish the extent of liability of the many parties who may be involved. We have set up a high-powered team to deal with the commercial issues. It would be unwise to comment at this stage on the question of blame while sensitive issues are being considered and delicate negotiations undertaken with contractors.
Earl Russell: My Lords, does the Minister agree that this story is becoming rather like the story of Penelope's shroud? Can she convince us that anyone in government circles has the cunning of Odysseus needed to deal with it?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I thought Penelope had a box.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, is not one of the unfortunate consequences of this sad affair that the arts feed from the same departmental udder, which is why I pressed the then Prime Minister as long ago as 1987 for a total separation of the funding for this project, so that it would not have an affect on the arts budget? Will the Minister assure the House that if it continues to milk from the same udder, the arts will not be affected by the ongoing expenditure?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I believe that my noble friend Lord Crickhowell would do well to read the Secretary of State's recent reply to the Select Committee. He would find a great deal of information which might add to his knowledge.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, contrary to the remarks of the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, I have made many inquiries about this monstrosity at King's Cross and I understand that even when it is complete, it will be totally inadequate for the purpose for which it was intended. Is it not a sobering thought that despite our modern equipment and technical knowledge, it will have taken longer to complete that building than it took to replace this whole building after the great fire?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I apologise for the length of my answers, but I cannot do anything about it. There will be 130 more seats than there are at present. Readership patterns have changed since the plans were first drawn up. Advanced computerised systems will enable the more efficient use of readers' seats and will mean a faster turn-round of readers. An increasing number of readers now avail themselves of the library's services at some distance from the reading rooms. Documents are delivered to them. Continued developments in new technology are likely to increase that trend.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that, indefensible though the history of the building has been, according to the plans that I have seen, I believe that when it is completed, the building will be a matter of pride for the country?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins.
Noble Lords: Next Question, next Question.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, there is only one more Question on the Order Paper. Before the Minister finally sits down, perhaps I may say that although the Minister and I often enjoy jokes together, this is a serious matter. Will she not confirm that the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, is absolutely spot on? When the last budget allocation for arts was made, there; was the first ever cut in the Arts Council's allocation. It was stated specifically at that time that that was because of the huge amount of money allocated to the British Library project.
Will she confirm that there have been four inquiries into this matter—two by the Minister's department and two by the National Audit Office? None of that has been put into the public domain. Would it not be helpful if the Government were to announce a full and proper public inquiry into this scandal?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, there is a difficulty with regard to an inquiry because, for example, Kennedy and Donkin has prepared a report on the electrical cabling and that report is commercially sensitive. I know that the noble Lord will understand that. But, as promised, the Secretary of State sent a copy of the report to the National Heritage Select Committee on the understanding that confidentiality is observed. It is a very serious question. We all wish to be extremely proud of the library when it is completed and I assure your Lordships that my department is taking every possible step to ensure that the building is completed in 1996.

Public Expenditure
3.20 p.m.
Lord Orr-Ewing Lord Orr-Ewing asked Her Majesty's Government:
What was the public expenditure in the last year for which figures are available on education, health and social security; and what percentage change this represents since 1979–80.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Lord Henley): My Lords, general government spending in 1993–94 as published in the statistical supplement for the PSBR on education, health and social security is estimated to be £33.7 billion, £36.2 billion and £87.1 billion respectively. Those figures represent real increases in spending since 1979–80 of 30 per cent. on education, 58 per cent. on health and 76 per cent. on social security.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for those most startling figures in real terms. Is it not a fact that if he were to commission an opinion poll around the country —and we have seen the satisfactory results from the Opposition's point of view in that respect—it would show that most people believe, and constantly say in every newspaper and on every channel, that there have been cuts and

1967
underfunding in almost all those areas? Can we get the true story across to the country so that people know that this Government have provided benefits in all those areas?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for providing us with the opportunity today to reassure the House and the country that we have been able to increase funding in those vital areas for both the vulnerable and for investing in the future by the amounts that I have been able to announce. However, it is right to draw my noble friend's attention to the need to control Government expenditure. We are committed to that and we shall continue to do so. But, as I said earlier, we shall continue to ensure that the appropriate investment is made for those who are vulnerable and for those on whom we depend for the future.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, does the Minister accept that the increase in social security expenditure and the rate of increase on all the estimates will continue to grow over the next 10 years or so? In those circumstances, is it not now clear that there is a case for a serious inquiry as to whether any government can support future levels of social expenditure on the present basis?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Lord is right to draw attention to the rate of increase in social security; indeed, it has increased by something in the order of 3.75 per cent. annually in real terms since 1979. I believe that we need to take steps to control the rate of that growth and, at the same time, create a modern system which is effective in meeting genuine need while encouraging independence through greater work incentives. I can assure the noble Lord that we have taken the first steps in that regard with the reform of invalidity benefit and with the introduction of the jobseekers' allowance. Obviously there is more to be done and we shall certainly keep a fundamental review of social security spending to ensure that that continues.
Lord Merlyn-Rees: My Lords, in view of the figures given by the Minister, can he say what has gone wrong in society both before 1979 and since that time? There has been a 76 per cent. increase in social security expenditure. What is the cause of it? What has happened?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the figure has risen for a large number of reasons, many of which are demographic; for example, there is an increased number of elderly people relying on pensions. In addition, spending on the long-term sick and disabled has increased by about 225 per cent. over the years. I can assure the noble Lord that the increase in social security expenditure has not come about as a result of the increase in unemployment. It has grown by some 3 per cent. a year, even if one excludes unemployment.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, among the figures that he announced the Minister indicated a very substantial increase in spending on the National Health Service. Can the Minister tell us why very prestigious and non-political bodies such as the BMA—and, lately,
1968
the health service ombudsman—are very severe in their criticisms of the NHS under the present Secretary of State? In the interests of people who rely on the NHS, is it not to be hoped that she will be one of the first casualties of the reshuffle?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am tempted to say, "Well, they would wouldn't they?" However, I can assure the noble Lord that expenditure on the health service increased in terms of a percentage of GDP from 4.5 per cent. to 5.7 per cent. At the same time, over 52 per cent. more patients were treated in 1992 than in 1979. The average in-patient waiting time is down from nine months to five months since the waiting times initiative began in 1987. Indeed, I could continue and give the noble Lord many more statistics, but I shall simply tell him that we are spending more on the health service and we are spending it much more effectively.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, if the perception of the National Health Service is as low as has been alleged, can my noble friend the Minister explain why it is extremely rare to have more than 10 people at a statutory annual general meeting of a trust hospital?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot answer my noble friend's question. I believe that the point my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing was trying to make is that a certain amount of disinformation has been circulated over the years about levels of government spending on such vital services. We are trying to make it quite clear to the party opposite, and to the whole country, that spending on health and on social security will be maintained at an appropriate level.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I listened with interest to the figures given in real terms. However, is the Minister aware that the 1980 public expenditure White Paper changed the definition of the word "reality"? For example, is he aware that expenditure on books is now quoted in relation to the RPI and not the price of books? The Minister quoted a figure for the increase in social security spending. Can he give the House the comparable percentage figure for increases in the number of people on income support?
Lord Henley: My Lords, if the noble Lord is suggesting that we have fiddled the figures I utterly reject that allegation. As I made quite clear in my initial Answer, we have increased spending in those three areas; for example, on education by some 30 per cent. on health by 58 per cent. and on social security by 76 per cent.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is not just a question of how much money is spent but whether or not we are getting value for money? The general perception by people is that the services that were mentioned are now worse than they were in 1979. Therefore, is it not a fact that a great deal of the additional expenditure to which the Minister referred has been wasted due to sheer incompetence and the ridiculous reorganisations that have taken place under this Government?
Lord Henley: My Lords, perhaps I may give the House the figures from the three departments concerned to refute what the noble Lord says. First, I shall repeat what I said about the health service. Some 52 per cent. more patients are now being treated on the NHS. As regards education, we have now seen the staying-on rate for 16 year-olds grow from about 42 per cent. in 1979–80 to 72 per cent. in 1992–93 and the figure is still rising; indeed, it is now possibly 73 per cent. As regards social security, I return to the increases in spending on the long-term sick and disabled where we have seen increases in real terms of some 225 per cent.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, how can the Minister say that the Government are determined to maintain payments to the long-term sick and disabled when legislation passing through your Lordships' House not many weeks ago was designed to change the entitlement to payments for those people from a six-month qualification period to a 12-month qualifica-tion period. Is that not an action designed to reduce expenditure rather than to maintain it?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the incapacity Bill which has just passed through your Lordships' House was not designed as a cost-cutting measure; it was designed to ensure that the benefit went to the appropriate people. I believe that the noble Lord would be the first to agree that invalidity benefit should go to those who are incapable of work and not to those who should, quite properly, be seeking work or on unemployment benefit.
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree that the reason that public expenditure has increased in those areas is partly because of the long-term success of the economic policy of the Government since 1979? Further, so far as concerns social security benefits is not my right honourable friend the Minister of State right to insist that those people who are taking benefits incorrectly and illegally should be rooted out? Should not every party support the Government in that regard?
Lord Henley: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely correct. I understand that a possible leader of the party opposite has been making noises to exactly the same effect; namely, that benefits should go to those who are entitled to them. For that reason, we sought reforms to invalidity benefit to ensure that it went to exactly those people who needed it and not to those, as I said earlier, who are capable of work.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, will the noble Lord confirm to his noble friend Lord Clark that in the period we are discussing the economy has grown by 24 per cent. which is the lowest rate in real terms in any comparable period since the war? Will he also confirm that in this period social security expenditure has increased by 76 per cent. not because individual benefits have increased in real terms but because the number of benefit recipients—the number of people forced to live on benefit—has increased over this period? Is it not clear that this Government have created a dependency culture defined by the denial of opportunity to so many of the British people and perpetuated by a Government
1970
who use their own economic failures as an excuse to cut those programmes which would give people the skills and employment opportunities to enable them to help themselves?
Lord Henley: My Lords, as I made quite clear earlier, if the noble Lord had been listening to me, the vast majority of the growth in the social security budget has been as a result of demographic changes and of greater spending on the long-term sick and disabled. A very, very small proportion is as a result of increased unemployment. As I said, the social security programme has grown successively by some 3¾ per cent. in real terms. If you exclude unemployment from that, it has still grown by 3 per cent. per annum in real terms.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister can help me. Is it correct that the figures he quoted for patients treated in the National Health Service contain, in some cases, patients who have gone to hospital for a number of small complaints and, having gone from department to department, have been counted as a separate case by each department? Is that the case?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I cannot answer the noble Baroness precisely but what I can say is that the number of individual patients who have been treated—that is the vital thing—has increased quite dramatically in the years we have been in office when we have increased funding on the health service.

Business
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lord Cranborne will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on defence, Front Line First.

Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill
3.32 p.m.
The Lord Advocate (Lord Rodger of Earlsferry): 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 Rodger of Earlsferry.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 38 [Roads]:
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 80:
Page 33, leave out lines 17 and 18.
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 80 I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 81 to 87, 87A, 88 to 93, 93A, 94 and 95. This group of amendments paves the way for the more important amendments on transport. These amendments all seek to enforce the powers of local authorities who will be responsible for local roads after the Government have made many of their roads trunk roads.
Amendment No. 93A is a technical amendment relating to the proposed register which roads authorities will have to keep under the terms of the New Roads and Street Works Act. The register shows each road for which the authority is responsible and information relating to proposed or executed works on the roads. The amendment will allow the islands' councils to avoid having to subscribe to a proposed computerised register which could cost up to £1 per head of the population per year. Instead they propose to keep paper records. Roads advisers have welcomed the amendment.
This group of amendments comprises a long list of amendments. I repeat that the grouping contains Amendments Nos. 80 to 87, 87A, 88 to 93, 93A, 94 and 95. As I said, the purpose of the amendments is to clarify the position of local authorities who have responsibility for some roads but not trunk roads. In the transfer of local roads to the trunk roads authority, the identification of property and other non-fixed assets which transfer to the Secretary of State should be the subject of an agreement between the Secretary of State and the local roads authority. Should no agreement be possible between the parties, any dispute should be the subject of arbitration as specified in the Bill.
Property and equipment are generally used on an area basis and are not necessarily dedicated to a particular element of the road network. The transfer of property and non-fixed assets should certainly be the subject of an agreement between the relevant parties and should not be mandatory or done solely at the discretion of the Secretary of State. The Minister will be aware that the Secretary of State may own the bulk of some plant and equipment—for example, snow clearing equipment that may be used at certain times of the year. However, one would hope that there would be an agreement that that equipment would be made available to local authorities to enable them to keep their local roads open.
Amendment No. 94 seeks to prevent the Secretary of State from removing traffic management control from a local authority without its agreement. We know that the Secretary of State must have subsidiary powers for the whole country which would apply to Scotland, but at the same time we hope that he would be tactful enough not to use those powers unless he had the agreement of the local authority concerned. In Amendment No. 95 we hope to remove certain restrictive powers of the Secretary of State in respect of local roads. We would hope that the Secretary of State would not use his restrictive powers undiplomatically.
Amendments Nos. 97, 95D, 96 and 96A all seek to provide that all fines imposed in the district courts are payable in full to the relevant local authority, and should not be paid —as is sometimes the case at present—in whole or in part to the Exchequer. The next amendment seeks to highlight the specific powers of local authorities in regard to the roads. I beg to move.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: Amendments Nos. 93 and 93A stand in my name and I wish to speak briefly to them. I think it is quite possible that the amendment may receive a sympathetic response from the Government Front Bench because we are giving the Secretary of
1972
State more power. However, in this case, I hope we are giving him power to do good. I believe that the authorities on islands such as Orkney know everything about their roads in any case. A central register would be enormously expensive and quite useless on those islands. In small communities simple registers are much easier to keep and are all that one requires. I believe the figure involved—I suppose it may be plucked from the air—is an extra £17,000. That may be considered peanuts in some circles, but in Orkney £17,000 is a useful sum.
The purpose of the amendment is threefold. First, it seeks to ensure that the Secretary of State has the power to exclude from a central register the three island areas. Secondly, it seeks to require him—assuming that he nevertheless insists on including the island areas in the register—to set the contributions to the costs of it which are required to be paid by the islands at a level which reflects the fact that the use of the register there will be lighter than elsewhere, if it is used at all. Thirdly, the amendment seeks to make the Government recognise that the high capital and revenue costs involved in installing and maintaining a digital system compatible with a system for the exchange of electronic information, are not justified when a manual system, aided by computers, can be as effective.
I hope that we shall receive a decent reply to the amendment, of a practical nature, from the Government Front Bench.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: I shall begin with Amendment No. 93A, with which the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, began followed by the noble Lord, Lord Mackie. I am happy to be able to welcome the principle behind the amendment. The points in its favour have been explained by the noble Lords. It was not appreciated at the time when the New Roads and Street Works Bill passed through the House that there could be circumstances in which the provisions could be unreasonably burdensome for certain authorities. In those circumstances it seems appropriate to make some provision.
There are one or two issues, such as the matter of consultation, which we wish to consider adding to the kind of clause which is envisaged. Perhaps the noble Lords will be content to withdraw the amendment on the basis of an undertaking that I shall bring forward a similar clause at Report stage which includes consultation requirements.
Perhaps I may treat the other amendments in the same way as the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael. He dealt first with Amendment No. 93. That amendment relates to the control and use of equipment and other property which has been used on roads which are made trunk roads by the Secretary of State. I acknowledge that property associated with new trunk roads may also need to be used on local roads and that safeguards as to the continued use of that property should be available to protect the local roads authorities.
On the other hand, the amendment would restrict the matter to circumstances where there is agreement between the authority and the Secretary of State. That provision could lead to disproportionate difficulties and

1973
to impasse. Instead, we have in the Bill a provision that the Secretary of State must make arrangements with the local roads authorities as to the use of such property. As the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, pointed out, the Bill includes procedures as to arbitration to safeguard the position of authorities which consider particular arrangements unacceptable. I believe that that is a perfectly workable scheme. In the light of that explanation I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw that amendment.
The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, also spoke to Amendments Nos. 94 and 95. These relate to the results of the introduction of a number of smaller local authorities. In that connection it will be necessary to have a greater degree of co-operation and co-ordination, particularly in urban areas, between road and traffic authorities, which for that purpose would include the Secretary of State. That would be necessary if they are to achieve the expeditious, convenient and safe movement of traffic on their own roads.
In relation to Amendment No. 95, in reaching that goal it is the intention that the Secretary of State should issue guidance on the exercise of powers which may affect roads and traffic in adjoining areas. The Secretary of State will naturally consult the local authorities and the emergency services before issuing that guidance. As a matter of common sense it is anticipated that authorities will recognise the practical need to comply with the guidelines. However, should they fail to do so then it is right that there should be reserve powers in place to ensure that the Secretary of State can intervene where one authority pursues its traffic and roads policy to the detriment of another authority and to the overall proper arrangement of traffic.
Amendment No. 94 would also require the Secretary of State to reach agreement with traffic authorities which had failed to make satisfactory joint arrange-ments to secure a system of traffic control extending across their roads. That agreement would need to be reached before he could use his reserve powers.
Were the amendments to be carried there would be no means available by which to ensure that two adjoining traffic authorities co-ordinated traffic control across their boundaries. That seems wholly undesirable. For that reason it seems inappropriate to amend Clause 42 in that way.
I hope that with that explanation the noble Lords will accept that it is reasonable for the Secretary of State to have reserve powers in order that any conflict between the authorities may be resolved fairly and therefore will feel able to withdraw the amendments.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: I listened with interest to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate. It was noticeable that he did not apply himself to the implication in the amendments and the clauses to which the amendments are addressed should the Secretary of State decide through the executive roads agency to increase the trunk road network.
Throughout we have been told by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, that the purpose of the Bill is to give more power to the local authorities.
1974
However, the purpose of the clauses as they stand in relation to the road network is to take power away from the local authorities and give it to the Secretary of State. For example, every time a road is upgraded to a trunk road that comes within the powers of the Secretary of State.
Perhaps I may give a simple example. An old lady in West Calder in Lothian wanted a pelican crossing in order to be able to go to the post office to collect her pension. Because the pelican crossing was on a trunk road the application had to be made to the. Secretary of State rather than her dropping in to her local councillor's surgery.
If the Secretary of State were to increase the trunk road network it is clear that he would be taking powers away from local government.
There is also the question of capital and revenue costs. If the trunk road network is increased and the executive roads agency is given the powers proposed in these clauses in the Bill, then it follows as surely as night follows day that the capital resources made available to local authorities will be reduced. Those projects which have been proposed by the local authorities will be incapable of implementation because under the clauses we are discussing at present the powers are being taken from local authorities and transferred to the Secretary of State.
I was encouraged by what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate said to the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie. It is only on that basis that we are prepared to withdraw the amendment, but again with an indication that after further consideration we may wish to return to the amendments at Report stage.
The Earl of Balfour: Perhaps I may raise two points. First, if a road is taken over by the Secretary of State, surely the expenditure on the upkeep of that road is borne mostly by the Secretary of State rather than out of council tax in the ordinary way.
Secondly, so far as I can see under Section 12F, the provisions appear to apply only for a three-year period, which allows for the transition between the old and the new authorities.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My noble friend is absolutely correct. If a road is made a trunk road the responsibility for its upkeep will indeed be transferred to the Secretary of State. It is not at all unknown for local authorities to be only too happy to have a road "trunked". Members of the Committee will notice that there are also powers in the clause, not referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, to "de-trunk" a road. Therefore the power can work both ways.
My noble friend is correct. The provision applies only for three years after 1st April. That, of course, ties in with the whole point of the powers. New Section 12A(1) states:
"where … it is necessary or expedient as a result of, or in connection with, the establishment of new local government areas on 1st April 1996".
That is within the context of reorganisation. In the Roads (Scotland) Act there are other powers relating to the trunking of roads.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: Before we conclude the debate, will the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate indicate to whom the fines for parking offences will go? Under these proposals will they go to the local authorities or to the Treasury?
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: There is no intention to change the present arrangements. As the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, is aware, the present arrangements are that in Scotland, district court fines are kept by the district courts except for certain fines including road traffic offence fines. By contrast, in England all magistrates' courts fines go to the Treasury. There is no proposal to change the position in Scotland.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 81 to 93 not moved.]
Clause 38 agreed to. Clause 39 agreed to.
Lord Annaly: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Defence
3.52 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall now repeat a Statement being made in another place this afternoon by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence. The Statement is as follows:
"The end of the cold war saw major changes in the international situation. In response, along with all NATO countries, we have reduced the size and adjusted the balance of our Armed Forces. We believe that our plans for the Armed Forces reflect the challenges that we are likely to face. We are determined to maintain that position and not to drop our guard. Accordingly, I have no proposals to announce that would reduce the fighting strength of our Armed Forces.
"Defence is expensive. This year we are spending £23 billion, a higher proportion of our gross domestic product than most NATO countries. That amount is being reduced, as announced last autumn. There is a continuing need to ensure that the administration and support of our Armed Forces is subjected to the most rigorous analysis. Only by doing that can we make sure that the money available for defence is being spent properly and in a way which contributes to our fighting capability.
"That is why we set up Front Line First, not to look at fighting strength, but to look at headquarters, stores, infrastructure, manning and all other aspects of defence administration and support.
"It has also been determined that we should benefit from the experience and ideas that are to be found within all parts of the Armed Forces and in the
1976
Civil Service. Accordingly, we invited service and civilian personnel to contribute their ideas, and they did so to a splendid and unprecedented degree. Over 3,000 proposals were received. All those proposals were considered and many endorsed.
"We recognised from the start that strong and efficient support is of course a necessity not a luxury. Unless the Armed Forces are recruited, trained, clothed, fed and supplied in a professional and successful manner their operational capability will suffer. Accordingly, every recommendation for change was examined against one major criterion. Would it directly or indirectly affect the operational capability of the Armed Forces? We relied heavily on the professional advice of the Chiefs of Staff. If it was concluded that a proposal would damage the fighting capabilities of the Armed Forces it was rejected.
"The proposals which have now emerged are set out in detail in the report published today. I have placed copies in the Library of the House. I do not have time in this Statement to go through every proposal, but I would like to set out the most important of our decisions.
"A number of themes have emerged from the work that has been done. First the Ministry of Defence and other headquarters at all levels are too large, too top heavy and too bureaucratic. Secondly, there is scope for far more delegation of responsibility down the management chain. We can simplify working practices and increase personal responsibility and accountability. We should try to bring to our peacetime working practices the reliance on personal responsibility which the Armed Forces show so effectively in operations. Thirdly, recent experience shows that military operations are increasingly conducted on a joint service basis. Our structure should reflect that.
"We intend to reduce the Ministry of Defence in central London still further from over 5,000 to a central core of 3,750, a reduction of over 25 per cent. on previous plans. They will be housed in the main building and in the old War Office instead of four separate buildings as presently planned.
"We have decided to form a permanent joint headquarters at Northwood to replace the current approach where headquarters staff are drawn together ad hoc in response to developing crises.
"The Procurement Executive headquarters will have 500 fewer staff. We will go ahead with the planned relocation of the executive at a single site at Abbey Wood near Bristol but it will now be collocated with another headquarters which will allow significant capital savings.
"We have looked in depth at our arrangements for holding and distributing stores for the Armed Forces, such as clothing, food and fuel. We have found that modern supply techniques mean that we can reduce inessential holdings enabling us to rationalise storage facilities while improving our ability to get stocks to the front line. This will allow the closure of 17 depots in the United Kingdom of varying sizes. They are identified in the report published today which I have

1977
placed in the Library and details have been sent to those Members of Parliament in whose constituencies they lie. All together the changes in our logistic arrangements set out in the report will save the defence budget over £200 million a year and will improve operational capability by providing a more efficient supply chain better able to deliver essential stores to the front line.
"A number of the studies took a fundamental look at the arrangements for recruiting servicemen and women and our procedures for managing and training personnel. The total cost of our recruiting activities amounts to £100 million each year and is unacceptably expensive, especially when recruiting needs are low. At present it is costing between £5,000 and £15,000 for every recruit.
"It has become clear that there is scope for closer co-operation with the Employment Services Agency. Subject to the successful completion of a pilot trial, we intend to use the facilities of the 1,300 jobcentres as the first point of contact for those wishing to join the Armed Forces. This means that we can replace the existing network of over 200 careers information offices with a much smaller specialist regional organisation. We expect the proposal to save us £25 million a year.
"Given the joint service nature of military operations, we believe that it is right to combine command and staff training at the senior level and create a joint services staff college. Further work is in hand to examine whether this should be located at Camberley or Greenwich and whether junior command and staff training should take place on the same site.
"Front Line First identified a number of ways in which we could reduce the cost of flying training. We intend to establish a single defence helicopter flying training school for all three services at Middle Wallop, near Andover, or at Shawbury, near Shrewsbury; increase the involvement of civilian instructors and contractors in much of our flying training activity; and rationalise training. This means that RAF Finningley and RAF Scampton will no longer be necessary and they will be closed.
"Skilled medical support is essential for the Armed Forces, but at present service hospitals have substantial over-capacity and there is considerable scope for closer links with the National Health Service. We intend therefore to reduce the number of service hospitals in the United Kingdom from three to one which will be situated at Haslar in Gosport, and at the same time to establish regional military district hospital units in National Health Service hospitals at Derriford and at two new sites and to retain a presence at Catterick.
"We have also looked at military music. This is part of the fabric of our Armed Forces and makes an irreplaceable contribution to morale and fighting spirit. We have therefore decided that the numbers of musicians and bands which I announced last year should remain. But there is a need to rationalise and reduce the costs of training. The Royal Marines believe that training their musicians at Deal has
1978
become prohibitively expensive. The maintenance demands of the buildings, and other running costs, have resulted in costs per musician trained of up to £300,000. We therefore intend to transfer Royal Marine music training to a new location by April 1996.
"I now turn to naval infrastructure. In 1993 it was decided that the Portland naval base would close by 1996, which would leave four bases at Portsmouth, Plymouth, Faslane, and Rosyth. Over the last three years the number of ships in the Royal Navy has reduced further and over-capacity has increased. We should not be spending large amounts of money on bases unless there is an operational requirement to do so. The money spent on excess base capacity could and should be spent on enhancing the Navy's fighting capability. The Royal Navy therefore has examined whether the number of bases could be safely reduced.
"The conclusions were that Faslane on the Clyde should remain in view of the operational need for a strategic submarine base. It is also necessary to retain at least two surface ship bases, given the substantial size of the Royal Navy. Of the three surface ship bases, Rosyth is the smallest and is designated as the base for two of the three squadrons of minehunters and the fishery protection squadron.
"The Royal Navy has concluded that there is no strategic need to keep these ships permanently at Rosyth. We have therefore decided to move one squadron of minehunters to Faslane on the Clyde, which is closest to its normal area of operations. The second squadron and the fishery protection vessels will move to Portsmouth. That is sensible as the fishery protection squadron operates almost entirely off the coast of England and Wales. The Scottish Office provides a fishery' protection service around the Scottish coastline.
"Rosyth will not, however, close. There is a continuing need for other Royal Navy related activities at the Rosyth naval base site. These include necessary support for Rosyth Dockyard, storage, accommodation, defence research agency activities, and the defence land agent. Rosyth base will therefore become a Royal Naval support establish-ment continuing alongside the Rosyth Royal Dockyard. We will also retain the option of using Rosyth as a forward operating base should it become necessary to establish such a base on the east coast of Scotland. All in all, these proposals will mean that over 900 civilian and service jobs will remain at the Rosyth base. Seventy new jobs will be created on the Clyde. Around 700 civilian jobs will go; around 600 civilian jobs will remain.
"We expect these proposals to save about £22 million a year with no operational disadvantage. A consultation document on our proposals for Rosyth is being issued today. The Royal Dockyard at Rosyth is not affected by these proposals and, as announced last year, can look forward to a substantial programme of surface ship refits.
"We have also looked at arrangements for the shore basing of naval aircraft. We have concluded that the naval air stations at Culdrose and Yeovilton

1979
should continue and that the Lynx squadrons now accommodated at Portland could be moved to Yeovilton without any detriment to operational effectiveness. This will save about £12 million a year. The air station at Portland will close by 1st April 1999. This will involve the loss of 400 jobs at Portland, though some of these and about two-thirds of the service personnel based there will transfer to Yeovilton.
"In the aftermath of the cold war there is no longer a requirement for the Maritime Headquarters at Pitreavie. We therefore intend to close it in 1996. We intend to transfer some staff, together with Flag Officer Scotland, Northern England and Northern Ireland, to Faslane. The rescue co-ordination centre for the whole of the United Kingdom which we had planned to move to Pitreavie will now be set up at RAF Leuchars in Fife.
"The Special Boat Service Headquarters will be transferred from Poole to Portsmouth where the facilities will meet our requirements. This will enable the closure of Royal Marines Poole. We are also rationalising Royal Marine Barracks at Plymouth, and subject to the outcome of current studies we hope to transfer certain units to Chivenor, which is no longer required by the RAF.
"We have also looked at our requirement for ranges. We have concluded that we can provide the Armed Forces with all the range capacity required and at the same time make savings of £7.5 million a year. This will involve the closure of the ranges at Kircudbright, Pendine and Hum. There will, however, still be a need for the ranges at Aberporth and at Benbecula in the Hebrides.
"Finally, so far as RAF Germany is concerned we have also decided that we only require one air station. The Harriers and helicopters currently based at RAF Laarbruch will accordingly be redeployed to existing operational air stations in the United Kingdom. This will have operational benefits because the aircraft now based at Laarbruch often have to train over the United Kingdom.
"Change on the scale envisaged in Front Line First is bound to have painful consequences. The overall impact of the package will mean net job reductions of about 18,700 over three years. Compared with previous plans the number of civil servants in the Ministry of Defence will fall by almost 7 per cent. or 7,100; and the total of uniformed personnel will fall by 5 per cent. of which the Royal Navy will reduce by 1,900, the Army by 2,200 and the RAF by 7,500. These cuts will fall on all levels of service and civilian personnel. We anticipate that more than 20 senior military and civilian posts—that is, major-general level and above —will disappear. This will bring the total reduction in senior posts since 1990 to about one-third.
"A proportion of these reductions will require redundancies in the Armed Forces and the Civil Service. We will wish to deal sensitively and fairly
1980
with those who have served the nation well. The terms on offer will be the same as have applied to other recent redundancies.
"It will be seen that manpower reductions are higher for the RAF. This reflects in particular the conclusions of work set in hand by the Air Force Board some two years ago. The work addressed the scope for reducing costs by civilianising or contractoring out uniformed jobs. It also looked at savings to be derived from introducing new engineering work practices and from reducing the number of expensive aircrew occupying ground posts. The Air Force Board endorsed the outcome of this work, which is reflected in the measures I have announced today. Like all the other proposals I am announcing, these manpower reductions will not adversely affect our front line fighting capability.
"I should now like to outline our plans for the future of the Territorial Army. The Government remain committed to making greater use of the reserves. There has been a detailed study of the structure and manning of the TA. One option was to make a major reduction in the size of the TA to reflect the reduced home defence role.
"We have decided, however, to reject that option. In future, the role of the Territorial Army should be to act as a general reserve to the Army. It will remain an integral component of our defence forces on mobilisation and we intend to make greater use of it in peacetime. Our previous plans were for a TA with formed units of 59,000, plus a recruits pool of 4,500. The latter is no longer necessary, but we intend to retain at its current level of 59,000 the formed units of the TA.
"We shall consult widely within the TA about whether there should be some re-roling of units or other changes within the 59,000 total and will announce the outcome later in the year.
"We do not under-estimate the challenge the proposals I have announced represent for all those involved. They will have a significant impact on the lives and prospects of many who serve in the Armed Forces as well as the civilians in the Ministry of Defence. The changes are, however, essential if we are to focus our resources on sustaining and enhancing our operational capability and fighting strength. Front Line First has enabled us to do this. In particular, Front Line First has allowed us to make a number of highly significant enhancements to our front line capability which I would now like to outline to the House.
"For the Royal Navy I am able today to announce key equipment improvements across a range of capabilities that will enhance the Royal Navy's ability to sustain operations as well as being of value to Britain's warship building industry.
"We will complete the modernisation of our amphibious capability. Last year we ordered a helicopter carrier and today we are announcing that we shall shortly issue an invitation to tender for two new assault ships to replace HMS "Fearless" and HMS "Intrepid".

1981
"We will also extend the Royal Navy's capability for anti-ship and anti- submarine warfare well into the next century with the invitation to tender for the design and build of a new class of nuclear powered submarine—the Batch 2 Trafalgar class—which will replace the Swiftsure class.
"We are able to carry forward our programme to build a force of 25 modern and highly capable mine counter measures vessels. Accordingly, we are today placing an order with Vosper Thornycroft for a further batch of seven Sandown single role minehunters.
"Four Type 23 frigates are currently on order. We plan to issue invitations to tender for a further batch during the coming year. The Government will assess the case thereafter on the basis of price and operational need.
"For the Army, we can now confirm the order of a further 259 Challenger 2 tanks from Vickers Defence Systems. This will enable us to field an all Challenger 2 fleet of tanks, improve the quality of the United Kingdom's contribution to NATO's rapid reaction corps and ensure that we have a continuing capability to make a significant contribution to the type of coalition operation we saw in the Gulf. This order will be very good news for Vickers and its workforce of nearly 2,000 at both Leeds and Newcastle and to the company's sub-contractors throughout the country. An order is also being placed with Royal Ordnance at Glascoed, Gwent, for 400,000 rounds of 51 m.m. mortar ammunition. Finally, we will use some of the additional 3,000 personnel made available last year for the field army to allow the Royal Armoured Corps Training Regiment, currently the 9/12 Lancers, to be roled as a third and additional armoured reconnaissance regiment and to take its place in the front line.
"For the RAF, we are placing a production order for the mid-life update of 142 Tornado GR1 aircraft. This will provide improvements to the aircraft's avionics, navigation and armaments systems. It will maintain the operational effectiveness of the RAF's long range attack capability well into the second decade of the next century and help to preserve British Aerospace's manufacturing base at Warton, Lancashire, in the run-up to production of Eurofighter 2000.
"Turning to weapons programmes, the Gulf conflict demonstrated the value of precision stand-off weapons to allow targets to be attacked accurately while reducing aircraft vulnerability. We are therefore placing an order for advanced laser-guided bombs with the associated thermal imaging and laser designation pods. The bulk of the work will be done in Edinburgh and elsewhere in Scotland, in the West Country, and on the south coast. In addition, the Government believe there is a good case in principle for a new long-range air to ground missile— CASOM. They will continue to examine the case for CASOM carefully and, subject to the outcome of that examination, intend to open discussions with industry later in the year.
1982
"This is a substantial programme of investment in new equipment. The orders I have announced today and orders resulting from the invitations to tender should together be worth in the region of £5,000 million and are expected to sustain directly over 10,000 jobs. These decisions represent a major boost to British industry as well as providing vital enhancements for all three services.
"The success of Front Line First has also identified resources which can now be used to deal with other pressing priorities. I have decided that the most important priorities are to reverse the hollowing out measures of recent years and to increase levels of operational training.
"To this end I can announce that the success of Front Line First has enabled me to increase RAF operational force levels by moving 12 Harrier GR7 aircraft from the reserve fleet to the front line. In addition, I can also inform the House that the frigate and the submarine previously planned to go into mothballs within the next few years will remain in service as part of the operational fleet. These proposals will, I know, be particularly welcome within the Armed Forces.
"Equipment levels are themselves of little consequence unless they are backed up by intensive and highly developed training arrangements. Here, too, I am able to announce proposals for all three services. For the Army we shall be improving our training areas in the United Kingdom and in Germany. This will enable there to be an increase in such training of between 50 per cent. and 100 per cent. particularly at the battle group level. And we shall be acquiring additional training aids to allow more complete simulation training.
"For the RAF it is important that pilots should have sufficient regular flying to preserve and enhance: their skills. As part of our shift of resources to the front line, I have decided that the current level of aircrew flying training hours will be increased progressively over the next three years. When completed, the increase will bring the level of flying training for each aircrew member up to 20 hours a month, a total increase of 8,000 hours a year for the fast jet force.
"For the Royal Navy we shall be purchasing additional anti-submarine and gunnery targets to allow more realistic training for ships and naval aircraft deployed away from usual target facilities.
"One of the most important achievements of Front Line First will be progress in tri-service operational capability. I have already referred to proposals for a joint headquarters, a joint staff college and a joint helicopter school.
"I am pleased to be able to indicate our intention to develop a joint rapid deployment force. We have already the fighting elements of rapidly deployable forces such as the Royal Marines, the Parachute Brigade, and 24 Air Mobile Brigade. We shall be looking at how best we can develop the capabilities of these forces to enable them to intervene even more effectively and speedily together. We shall be providing additional communications infrastructure

1983
to improve their effectiveness and many of the equipment enhancements outlined earlier will contribute directly to improving this important area of capability. The concept of the joint rapid deployment force is one that can be built on, and the overall ability of our forces to operate at speed and effectively in the kind of situation described above will be a high priority for the future.
"In the changed strategic environment, there is a wider range of operations in which our forces may be deployed. In this context, for the Navy, we are therefore also examining the case for acquiring and committing to NATO conventionally-armed Tomahawk land-attack missiles and will be seeking information from the US Government and from industry.
"I am conscious that the changes that the Armed Forces have undergone since the end of the cold war have been painful and demanding for them as well as for civilian staff. The nation already owes them a great debt and successful implementation of the proposals I have announced today can only increase that indebtedness. This process of change needs to be managed with sensitivity and care for our people, and that we will do.
"These changes are necessary and justified. They will enable us to preserve the front line and proceed with a programme of investment necessary to maintain its operational effectiveness. Today we have demonstrated the determination of the Government to preserve and enhance our fighting strength and to ensure that our Armed Forces, soldier for soldier, pilot for pilot, and ship for ship, remain the best in the world."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.21 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Viscount for repeating the Statement made in another place. It is long and complex. Indeed, it has taken 29 minutes for the noble Viscount to repeat it. I do not complain about that. If we ask for Statements, we must expect what we get.
My response to the Statement will, I hope, be brief. It will be brief, first, because in two weeks' time there will be a debate in this House on the Defence Estimates when a considered response will be made from these Benches, and, secondly, because, despite extensive leaks—either from Ministers or departmental officials, I know not who—giving some idea of what the Statement was to contain, there is still a lack of information, as the Statement admits.
As regards the consultation document on Rosyth—a report, or possibly two reports, published today, which may or may not be in your Lordships' Library—I was told that if I wanted a copy I had to apply to the office of the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne. Therefore, I find myself at some disadvantage in responding fully to the Statement.
One has to recognise the genesis of the whole exercise. Front Line First is a nice jingle: no doubt someone in the PR department of the Ministry of
1984
Defence invented it. But the fact of the matter is that the Treasury said to the Ministry of Defence, indeed, said to the Secretary of State —it was announced by the Chancellor in a Budget Statement, not by the Secretary of State for Defence—that the defence budget needed to be cut. Various figures were bandied about but the central figure seems to have been around £1.3 billion. I am led to believe that at the same time studies were being undertaken in the Ministry of Defence on all sorts of matters concerned with the issues that the noble Viscount put to us today.
So the two things came together. It was not a case of the Secretary of State saying, as the Statement says:
"That is why we set up Front Line First".
That is all for the birds, if I may so put it. It was the Treasury who said, "This is what we want and this is what we are going to get". It coincided with a number of studies going on inside the MoD.
What is odd is that the studies in the MoD came up with savings of a figure much greater than the Treasury asked for. They discovered, in the words of the Statement:
'The Ministry of Defence and other headquarters at all levels are too large, too top heavy and too bureaucratic"—
possibly with too many Ministers. I understand that they also discovered that 70 per cent. of all spare parts right across the range of the Armed Forces have never been used and are sitting in depots up and down the country.
Therefore, the first question I have to ask the noble Viscount is this: as the Government have been in power for 15 years, why has it taken them so long to find out that the Ministry of Defence and other headquarters are,
"too large, too top heavy and too bureaucratic"?
Why has it taken them so long to find out that 70 per cent. of spare parts are not even used and that depots are redundant? What have they been doing all this time? Should not we have an answer?
We find that there will be unemployment resulting from the changes proposed. I ask myself and the noble Viscount: is not this just a case of a direct transfer from employment in the Ministry of Defence and its related activities to unemployment payment from the Department of Social Security? Where in that does the Treasury save?
The noble Viscount made great play of the surpluses over the savings required by the Treasury which, we are now told, will be used for extra procurement which will enhance our activity. I must say to the noble Viscount that I am rather suspicious about some of the announcements that he made. For instance, there is the replacement for HMS "Fearless" and HMS "Intrepid". The project was announced in 1992. It was repeated in 1993 and confirmed in the Defence Estimates in 1994. There is the plan to issue invitations to tender during the coming year for a further batch of Type 23 frigates. That was announced for the second time in April 1994. With regard to the Army, the noble Viscount said:
"We can now confirm the order of a further 259 Challenger 2 tanks".
That has already been announced three times. The Statement says that:
"For the RAF, we are placing a production order for the mid-life update of 142 Tornado GR1 aircraft".
That was announced in May this year.

1985
I shall not go on in this vein. It seems to me that the noble Viscount is trying to cover up a rather serious difficulty that he has in not being able to announce genuinely new projects and is simply repeating announcements that have been made not necessarily once, not necessarily twice, but three times.
I ask the noble Viscount: what, in this Statement, is truly new? How much money will be spent on the truly new projects that the noble Viscount has in mind? How much employment will thereby be generated on the new projects that have not been announced before?
I turn very briefly to Rosyth. As I said, I have not had the opportunity to read the consultation document because I have not yet applied to the noble Viscount's office for a copy. I challenge the idea that the fishery protection squadron should be removed from Rosyth. After all, Rosyth is close to the principal operational areas within the UK 200-mile fishing limits which will become our exclusive economic zone when the Law of the Sea Convention comes into force on 16th November 1994. That being the case, will the noble Viscount explain why those vessels—which are not just being moved to Faslane; I understand that they will be moved to the south coast of England—should be moved when the steaming distance to the North Sea grounds where their major operational activity occurs will cost enormous sums of money—much more than will be saved at Rosyth? However, I leave Rosyth because we shall no doubt have plenty of time to debate that in the future.
Two major questions arise. First, what is the "front line"? I am told that in the Army 94 per cent. of resources are devoted to logistical support of the front line. What do the Government mean by "front line"? Do they mean NATO out-of-area operations? What are we talking about? Until we understand what they mean by "front line", we cannot understand why the Government are producing a defence cost study in terms of defence cuts. Why are they producing it as a front line operation?
Secondly—and I ask the noble Viscount to think seriously about his answer—is this the last of the cuts? I have been privileged to be defence spokesman in this House for nearly five years. I have stood at this Dispatch Box and been assured by Ministers that Options for Change and subsequent proposals notwithstanding, this was it; this was the end of the story. Now we are faced with another one.
I want the noble Viscount to say that this really is the end of the cuts. If he says, "Oh well, the Treasury may walk in tomorrow or next year with the Budget and say it wants to knock another £1 billion or £2 billion off the defence budget", then he must say that outright. It is easy to blame the Treasury. But the Treasury is government and these cuts were accepted and endorsed by Cabinet. It is not just the Treasury as an extra-terrestrial body saying that this is what is required; it is the Government themselves saying, "This is what we propose to do".
I conclude simply by saying that the noble Viscount repeats the Statement on Bastille Day, the French national holiday. I remind your Lordships, although your Lordships' historical knowledge is outstanding, of
1986
what happened when the mob successfully stormed the Bastille on 14th July in those days of the French Revolution. They expected to find a well-armed fortress. They expected to find guns in proper operation, properly supported logistically. When they got through the gates they found nobody there. There were no guns; nothing worked. I only hope that what the Government are doing does not land our country in the same situation.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, in thanking the noble Viscount for repeating the Statement I must say that his package of cuts has been most carefully gift-wrapped. Fortunately, neither the noble Lord, Lord Williams, nor I were born yesterday. We remember and assert that the primary purpose of Front Line First was not to improve the forces, but to save money. And those savings will not go to the forces; they will go to the Treasury.
I can say to the noble Lord, Lord Williams, that the Statement contained two or three new positive proposals; for example, the joint rapid deployment force, which is a good idea; the new Batch 2 Trafalgar class submarines—I believe that to be new also. But as the noble Lord showed so convincingly, almost all the rest of the positive proposals are simply confirmation of old pledges that have been repeated more than once in the past, whereas the cuts are new and very formidable. There are far too many of them for me to comment upon. I have not had time to read them all or to consult the documents now available. But perhaps we can return to some of them in the forthcoming debate.
In relation to Rosyth the blow is less heavy than had been feared at one time, but we register our admiration and sympathy for the workforce and the community Perhaps I can ask one question of the noble Viscount. How long will it take in an emergency to reconstitute Rosyth as a base? He envisaged the idea, but how long will it take? If it takes a long time that certainly weakens the front line capability of the Navy.
The heaviest proportional cuts seem to be for the top posts in the services and in the Ministry of Defence. Top brass has always been an easy political target. No doubt some reduction is called for. But I cannot help remembering the extraordinary speed and efficiency with which our expeditionary forces to the Falklands were assembled and provisioned. Much credit for that goes to the holders of the posts which the Government are now abolishing.
We still have the Falklands commitment and I ask myself whether we still have the supply back-up and the front line forces to honour that commitment. I shall return to that in our coming debate. I feel extremely worried that the answer is no and that there is a growing gap between some of our commitments—-notably the Falklands—and the capability of our forces to honour them.
I agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Williams, when he asked whether this was the end of the cuts. I have been a spokesman for a much longer time than the noble Lord, Lord Williams, and I have had to answer more often in regard to piecemeal cuts by the Government in our defence forces. There are worries about that in all parts of the House and in the debate we shall look for a convincing defence from the noble Viscount.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am grateful to both Front Bench spokesmen for much of what they said, though I was highly diverted at the picture of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, as the last defender of the ancien régime in your Lordships' House. If I may, I shall be reasonably brief in answering the many points raised by both noble Lords. As they observed, we shall have another opportunity to debate these matters in greater detail fairly shortly. However, I want to try to address some of the questions which both noble Lords raised.
In relation to the lack of information, I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, did not find the necessary papers in the Library and I will ensure immediately that he will be able to do so. Being able to apply to my office, particularly in view of how busy it has been during the past few days, is not perhaps the best way to enter into the noble Lord's esteem.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, asked why it has taken so long to come to the conclusion that the Ministry of Defence and much of its administration was too bureaucratic and so forth. There are a number of reasons for that. First, as he rightly observed, those characteristics have been characteristics of which the management of the Ministry of Defence has been conscious for some years. The noble Lord observed that a number of studies had been in train for some time to try and address those deficiencies. I need only refer him, by way of example, to the prospect study of 1991. It made our job, particularly for me who is the ministerial sponsor for the studies addressing the question of management and financial control within the Ministry of Defence, very much easier in that there was so much fine work, solidly based, looking at reforms on what seem to me to be entirely the right lines on which we could base the analysis under Front Line First. We were able to accelerate and deepen those reforms and bring them to fruition in what is a highly complex organisation. At the same time as making those reforms we must be able to maintain the defence capability to which both noble Lords rightly paid tribute this afternoon.
I also draw to the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Williams, a point to which the Statement made reference. The end of the cold war has meant a reduction in the size of our Armed Forces and it has also meant that we have had to look fairly radically at what we want our Armed Forces to be capable of doing and to assess where the threat is. Therefore, to change in the light of the end of the cold war was an imperative: not an imperative going back to 1979 and the first time that we had to begin to forget the effects of a socialist government but something that came as a result of the end of the cold war. I would ask the noble Lord to bear that in mind, particularly when he comes to considering the remarks that he will make during our defence debate in a few days' time.
The noble Lord also asked where the Treasury is saving. I remind him that, quite properly, the duty of the Ministry of Defence is to provide this country with defence capability. I am sure he would be the last to advocate that the Ministry of Defence should spend defence pounds on support capability which is surplus
1988
to its requirements. He would not advocate such a thing and I certainly would not do so. Therefore, it is only right that the support element, to which the noble Lord rightly drew attention as being an essential part of our defence capability, should only be great enough and should be taut enough to be able to supply the front line cutting edge.
The noble Lord also asked—and the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, made reference to this—what is new in the equipment announcements. The noble Lord is perfectly correct to say that we have planned to provide a number of the pieces of equipment to which the Statement refers. We have planned to provide them for some time. He was also right to say that not the Treasury but the Government as a whole made a judgment on public expenditure in the last PES round. It was a judgment to which the entire Government subscribed. If they had not subscribed to it there would no doubt have been resignations. So far as I know, there were none. One of the beneficial effects of the Front Line First exercise and the savings, as a result of the greater efficiency, that we think we will be able to make is that we are able to confirm those orders and not cancel them in spite of the reduced amount of government expenditure devoted to defence in the PES round. We ought to be proud of that rather than suggest, as the noble Lord does, that this is a source of criticism. It is also fair to say, as the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, pointed out quite correctly, that the Statement referred to a number of innovations and new equipment announcements.
On top of that, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, will not underestimate the effect of the reversal of what is known in the trade as "hollowing out". It is something which I know has been worrying the Armed Forces for a number of years. We have taken a significant step towards making sure that the ships, regiments and aeroplanes available to the Armed Forces of the Crown are not merely there for show but can actually deliver what we say they can. That is where the reversal of hollowing out has been so important.
The noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, referred to what he called the top brass. Of course he is right. Without their extraordinary professionalism it would have been impossible to have mounted either the Falklands campaign or the Gulf campaign. The fact that we are reducing the number of senior officers in the Armed Forces in no way undermines the validity of what the noble Lord said, but it is only fair to say that with smaller Armed Forces it is right that we should not become too top heavy in the matter of the number of generals we employ. It has been pointed out by a number of Opposition politicians, and indeed by newspapers, that the number of very senior officers nominally in the British Armed Forces is higher in ratio than for a number of other armed forces. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, would not wish us to be overburdened in that direction in spite of their own manifest competence.
Is this the last of the cuts? I must say to both noble Lords that this exercise will enable us to preserve the front line and to proceed with the programme of investment necessary to maintain its operational

1989
effectiveness. I cannot anticipate, as the noble Lord well knows, the outcome of any future PES round. But I can say to the noble Lord—and I hope that this will be of some comfort to him—that the programme of new equipment and operational improvements which we announced today is a clear indication of the direction in which the Government intend to head.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Bramall: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount very much for his frank if rather curate's egg-like Statement on the Front Line First exercise which now requires very careful study, a stripping away of the gift-wrapping and a full debate, which I am glad we are going to have.
At this stage I merely make two observations. First, whatever the merits and demerits of the proposals—and I am sure they involve both—they must be viewed and considered against the background of all the draconian cuts in front line manpower, support services and pressure on budget holders which have been imposed since the beginning of the decade. By 1997 those cuts will have reduced defence expenditure by 25 per cent. in real terms to bring it down to below 3 per cent. of the gross national product: all in a world where we have replaced the comparative stability of the East-West balance with the far greater uncertainty and instability of a volatile and kaleidoscopic world. It is therefore very important that we get an assurance from the Government that at least in their lifetime there will be no more cuts to sap further the confidence and professionalism of our uniquely expert and reliable Armed Forces and indeed distract them from the real problems of the future.
Secondly, I am sure the House will wish to analyse and to question the Minister most carefully not only on whether these cuts in manpower and civilianisation are sensible in the real world in which we live and can be made without detriment to our front line—whatever that may be, as the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, said —and the capability and quality of our Armed Forces, but on whether the so-called good news which the noble Viscount mentioned really does represent enhancement in areas which are so in need of it rather than being largely cosmetic or, as has already been said, tardy announcements of equipment items already in the programme. I am sure that we will be looking for reassurance from the noble Viscount on that and he may like to quote an add-back figure to reassure us.
It is excellent that we are having a debate before the Recess but I wish to register my disappointment that yet again it is being held on the last day of the Session. I am sure that the noble Viscount of all people will agree that something as important as the whole future of our national security and the support to our foreign policy should never under any circumstances be marginalised.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am grateful that the noble and gallant Lord welcomes at least some of what the Statement announced today. I must refer him to what I said to the noble Lord, Lord Williams, when he asked for an assurance about whether there would be any more depredations to the defence budget. I hope that
1990
the spirit of what I said a little earlier is one which we will be able to maintain and one into which the noble and gallant Lord will be able to read something positive.
Are these enhancements cosmetic? Perhaps the best way I can attempt at least to reassure the noble and gallant Lord is by saying that, when it became apparent that there was additional money over and above the reduction in the defence budget that we had been asked to find in the current PES round, Ministers immediately consulted the Chiefs of Staff. We have taken the very clear advice of the Chiefs of Staff about how that money should be spent. I am content to rest on their judgment
As regards the date of the defence debate, like the noble and gallant Lord, I am grateful that we are at least holding it before the Recess, unlike another place. If he is still worried about the debate being held on the last day, that is a matter for him to take up with the usual channels rather than with me.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, can my noble friend the Minister tell the House whether the Government have changed their plans about Rosyth as a result of the campaign?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, the short answer to that is no. The proposals are exactly as they first emerged from the study groups about what the proper balance of capability should be at Rosyth. I am grateful to my noble friend for enabling me to make that clear
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, as regards the decision to move the Royal Marine band training school from Deal in Kent to some other place, if there is not already in place a lasting memorial to the members of the band who lost their lives in the horrific bomb attack there about four years ago, before the band and the school of music is moved, will the Government ensure that there will be a lasting memorial put in place in Deal to the memory of those young men who lost their lives in that horrific event?
I turn now to Rosyth. I have not read the consultation document. Does the noble Viscount appreciate that the feeling in Rosyth, which the Government should take on board, is that Rosyth is being asked to accept a much heavier share of the cuts, as; a result of what is. loosely described as the "peace dividend", than any other part of the United Kingdom? Rosyth in particular, and Fife in general, see history repeating itself because in 1921, after the First World War, it was the Rosyth naval base which was closed down and moved to Portsmouth. Here we are, 73 years on, with the same kind of announcement. Whatever the noble Viscount says, at the end of the day there will be between 700 and 800 fewer jobs in the Royal Naval base at Rosyth and possibly 1,000 fewer jobs in the county of Fife because of the proposals for Pitreavie which is only up the road from Rosyth. Fife and its economy simply cannot stand that kind of measure of job loss, having made a major contribution to the two world wars in 1914–1918 and 1939–45. It is really time to put a stop to asking Rosyth in particular and Fife in general to bear more than their share of the cuts in this regard.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, as regards the noble Lord's suggestion for a memorial at Deal, I am

1991
very conscious of the tragedy which occurred there. I shall at once remit his suggestion to the proper authorities. I am most grateful to him for making it.
As regards Rosyth, I challenge the noble Lord's assertion that it has suffered more than any other part of the United Kingdom as a result of Front Line First. My own constituency of South Dorset included the naval base at Portland. As a result of Options for Change and now Front Line First, not only will they have lost the Flag Officer Sea Training and the main activity of the naval base, but also HMS "Osprey". That will have a terrible effect on employment in my old constituency.
I have to accept the overwhelming reasons why it was necessary to do so. But I certainly challenge—in the same way, as I believe the people who work at Eaglescliffe would—that particular assertion by the noble Lord, particularly when one considers that for the first time for many years now the average rate of unemployment in Scotland is lower than the average for the whole of the United Kingdom. I also point out to the noble Lord that there will remain 630 civilians and 335 servicemen and women working in Rosyth. A number of the 700 civilian posts lost will be redeployed. I am always sorry when people lose their jobs and I know that the noble Lord is, too. I hope that he will not yield to the temptation, despite his understandable links and loyalty to his own hearth, by exaggerating too much the effect of what he describes.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I wish to ask the Minister the question of which my noble friend Lord Russell gave him notice. Have the Government made any attempt to estimate the cost to the social security budget of the cuts which they have just announced and is the estimate of savings from this review gross or net of such cost? Perhaps I may also repeat to the Minister the question which I asked the other day. Has any decision been made on replacement of the elderly Lockheed Hercules aircraft? If not, how are our troops to get to the front line?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Earl for giving me advance notice of that question. I point out to the noble Lord that it is not possible to estimate the effect of staff redundancies on the social security budget. However, the effect is likely to be small in the light of compensation payments made on termination of employment. For those over the age of 55 any occupational pension payable is likely to affect entitlement to unemployment benefit.
As regards replacement of the C-130, we plan either to replace or to refurbish the first half of the RAF's Hercules fleet by the end of the century. We are assessing the price and performance data which we have received for the new buying and refurbishment options for both halves of the replacement need in order to determine the most cost-effective option. We hope to take a decision before the end of this calendar year.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, perhaps I may add my voice to those who have been stressing the importance of stability following a period of four years of unparalleled turbulence, reduction, redundancy and
1992
so on. The more that can be said the better to stress that this process is now over, even allowing for the fact that for the next five or six years there will be reorganisation and redundancy to be faced in all three Services. I welcome the emphasis which has been placed on "jointery". I hope that we can be reassured that joint staff training will first ensure that single-service knowledge is well established in the mind of each and every officer. Such an officer cannot bring to a joint operation or staff project proper advice unless he is well informed himself.
The importance of rapid redeployment seems to underline the importance of the last point which the noble Viscount touched on regarding the refurbishment or replacement of the C-130 Hercules. I hope that we can have an early announcement about that.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble and gallant Lord. As far as the joint staff college is concerned, he will not be surprised to hear that that point has been made repeatedly by members of all three Services. I am sure that I can give him the reassurance that he seeks. I can only refer once again to the answer which I gave to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, and to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, on the subject of stability. It is a point which I know all members of the Armed Forces would echo. We must look at the circumstances at the time. I can only reiterate what I said a little earlier.
I am grateful to the noble and gallant Lord for what he said about the C-130 replacement. I am sure that his remarks will receive keen attention from the people in my department.
Lord Howell: My Lords, we are grateful for the detail that the Minister gave, but I am sure that he will understand that it will take quite a bit of time for us to appreciate the criteria and rationale behind parts of the Statement. At the beginning of the Statement, the noble Viscount said something to the effect that this was not an exercise in looking at the size of our Front Line forces. Indeed, if we take the Front Line forces and the Reserves together, we can see that the Statement does not produce any additional Front Line servicemen.
As my noble friend Lord Williams and other noble Lords have said, many of us find great difficulty—I am certain that this is true of people throughout the country—in reconciling the various Statements that we have heard, starting with Options for Change, and many other Statements and defence White Papers since then, leading to this Front Line exercise and what the Government are doing in terms of the size of our Armed Forces, with the political commitments which the Government have undertaken and which those Armed Forces have to meet. That point is absolutely fundamental, so I plead with the Minister to ensure that when we debate these matters in two weeks' time the Government will try to reassure us on that point.
We have to remember the situation in Northern Ireland, the dangers of the situation in eastern Europe, the Gulf, the middle east, the far east and Africa as well as the demands made upon us by NATO and the United Nations. I hope that the Government will be able to reconcile what they are doing now in terms of the future

1993
size of our Armed Forces with all those commitments. So, the short question that I want to ask the Minister is whether he can assure the House that under all circumstances, in any theatre of the world, the size of our Armed Forces (which he has just announced) will be adequate to meet any demands that are made of us.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, the concern raised by the noble Lord, Lord Howell, has been articulated by many Members of your Lordships' House—certainly since I became a Member. I am grateful to the noble Lord for acknowledging the complexity of the Statement. I certainly acknowledge how difficult it is to make a thorough analysis of the situation based purely on listening to my reading a Statement, and I also acknowledge how much we are asking in expecting your Lordships to do that.
I draw the noble Lord's attention to the new armoured reconnaissance regiment, to the plans to place frigates in extended readiness being revoked, and to the increasing strength of the RAF Harrier squadrons as examples of the increases which the noble Lord might not have felt were being made as a result of this exercise. On commitments, I advise the noble Lord that we have tried to be as open as possible about how we relate our defence capability to our commitments. I refer the noble Lord once again, as I know I have previously —I hope that he will forgive me for raising this point again—to the 1993 White Paper which revealed that a great deal of work had been done on that subject. We shall keep that analysis up to date in an attempt to be able to justify our provision of defence capability to the noble Lord and to other Members of your Lordships' House, and so that we shall be able to give an affirmative answer to questions such as the noble Lord has asked.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, first, can the noble Viscount say whether any study has been undertaken as regards how much of the saving that will be made by these cuts in personnel will be absorbed in unemployment benefit, income support and so forth? Secondly, have the Government any plans to bring any new industry to the Dunfermline area around Rosyth where I understand that unemployment is already about 20 per cent? Finally, turning to the Army, the noble Viscount announced considerable additional training programmes, but with overstretch at its present level, how is the time to be found for that extra training?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, taking the noble Lady's last point first, I advise her that the Government are still committed to their prediction of an average emergency tour interval of 24 months by 1995-96. I have made that commitment many times in your Lordships' House and we are still sticking to it. I hope that the noble Lady will find that at least some comfort in her allegation of overstretch.
On the question about bringing new industry to Dunfermline, I hope as much as the noble Lady that new industry will go to Dunfermline where, as she knows better than I do, there are considerable industrial skills. Although it is not the business of the Ministry of Defence to bring that investment to Dunfermline, I can
1994
advise the noble Lady that my honourable friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement has set up close lines of communication with other government departments. That is designed to ensure that the Ministry of Defence can be as helpful as possible to the efforts of those departments which are responsible for attracting investment to particular areas which have suffered as a result of defence closures.
The noble Lady's first question seemed similar to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. As I said then, it is not possible to estimate the effects of staff redundancies on the social security budget. I refer the noble Lady to the remainder of the answer that I gave to the noble Lord.

Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill
5.6 p.m.
House again in Committee.
[Amendment No. 93A not moved.]
Clause 40[Establishment etc. of Strathclyde Passenger Transport Authority]:
[Amendment No. 93B not moved.]
Clause 40 agreed to.
Schedule 5 agreed to.
Clause 41 agreed to.
Clause 42 [Power to secure management of traffic control system]:
[Amendment No. 94 not moved.]
Clause 42 agreed to.
Clause 43 [Guidance as to exercise of traffic powers]:
[Amendment No. 95 not moved.]
Clause 43 agreed to.
Clause 44 agreed to.
Lord Mackie of Benshie Lord Mackie of Benshie moved Amendment 95A:
After Clause 44, insert the following new clause:
Rights of individuals
("Draft strategy for rights and obligations
.—(1) Every Council shall have a duty to prepare a draft strategy for their area regarding the provision of advice and information concerning an individual's rights and obligations.
(2) A draft strategy shall contain a council's proposals for the administration of the provision of advice and information concerning an individual's rights and obligations within the whole area of the council and shall specify the date or dates by which such a draft strategy shall be implemented.
(3) Every Council shall before 1st April 1997 give public notice of the fact that they have prepared such a draft strategy and of the places within their area where copies of the draft strategy may be inspected, and any such notice shall invite the public, within a period of not less than eight weeks from the date of the notice, to make to the council representations as regards the draft strategy.
(4) Every Council shall, during the period mentioned in subsection (3) above, consult the community councils within their area, and the providers of advice and information services both locally within their area and nationally and such providers shall include national and local voluntary organisations and statutory bodies.
(5) After considering any representations made under subsection (3) or (4) above, the council may amend the draft strategy (whether to take account of those representations or otherwise) and shall adopt the strategy.
(6) After the strategy has been adopted, the council shall give public notice of such strategy and inform the consultees under subsection (4) above.
(7) Where a strategy has been adopted, it shall be the duty of the council concerned to implement the scheme by the date or dates specified in the strategy.
(8) The council concerned shall have a duty to review the strategy within two years of the date of implementation to ensure that the existing strategy makes adequate provision of information and advice concerning an individual's rights and obligations.
(9) Following such a review, a council may amend a strategy adopted under this section or revoke and replace such a strategy but the amended strategy or, as the case may be, new strategy will be subject to the consultative process specified in subsection (3) and (4), and shall then be adopted in accordance with the provisions of this section, subject to such modifications as are necessary.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is an attempt to improve the service of the citizens advice bureaux. It is backed by a number of bodies, including the Tenants Information Service, Enable, the Federation of Independent Advice Centres, the Scottish Council for Single Parents, SCVO, Scottish Women's Aid, TPAS, the Scottish Anti Poverty Network, the Scottish Asian Action Committee and the Scottish Council for Single Homeless. As the Committee will know, all those bodies act throughout Scotland through a variety of voluntary centres and citizens' advice bureaux. As in all such matters, they encounter great difficulties in getting to the right people for the information that they seek. The well-known skiver, about whom people are so fond of talking, knows everything and he or she can find out the information required, but a great many people throughout Scotland do not know what help they can get or what advice is available.
Therefore, the amendment is an attempt to improve the availability of advice of various sorts throughout the country. It encourages local councils, wherever they may be, to consider the giving out of information and advice and, with the co-operation of voluntary bodies and by consultation, trying to plan ahead for that. The amendment endeavours to improve the location of citizens advice bureaux, co-operation between the various financial voluntary bodies and the advice that is available.
The amendment may not be perfect and it is somewhat elaborate, but the idea behind it is good. I hope that the Government will appreciate it. I beg to move.
Lord Kirkhill: I rise to give general support to the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie. I, too, am unable to judge whether the new clause in every aspect of its drafting will achieve the aim which he seeks and which those who support it seek. However, my comments are based, as it were, on 20 years hard labour in local government and I can say that, in the main, citizens advice bureaux tend to be located in side streets, behind principal buildings and are difficult to locate. The reasons are the usual commercial reasons; usually these bodies cannot afford rent in a principal street where people can find them readily. If a draft strategy were to be published and implemented it would be of considerable assistance to the citizens advice bureaux if only for that reason. We might then see them located in principal areas where the populace who need to use them might easily be able to do so.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My noble friend Lord Carmichael and I lend our support to the new clause, which was so ably moved by the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie. AH Members of the Committee, whether or not they have been Members of another place, will during their political life and public representation have had experience of dealing in particular with the citizens advice bureaux. As was said by my noble friend Lord Kirkhill, the CABs need easy accessibility. One of their features is the way in which they are located in back streets. My experience during the past 25 to 30 years has been that the local authority has acquired a property to demolish at some future date and in order to keep that property tenanted between the time of acquisition and demolition the tenants happen to become a branch of the citizens advice bureaux. That is not a satisfactory approach to this very valuable service.
Their value has not been-and I am sure that they would not claim to be-that they are the people who solve the problems. But, my goodness, theirs is certainly the organisation which points people in the right direction towards others who can solve their problems. There are many people in this country who, when faced with a problem that they see as insurmountable, first approach the citizens advice bureaux and other voluntary organisations. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, my noble friend Lord Kirkhill and I have encouraged the Minister to respond positively to this helpful and valuable new clause.
5.15 p.m.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie): The intentions which lie behind the proposed clause are very commendable. However, the Committee may be interested to know that in the wake of the White Paper on open government, a working group has been set up to review the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985.
The working group comprises officials from the Scottish Office Environment Department, DoE, local authority associations in England and Wales and CoSLA. Alongside this, I understand that CoSLA proposes to draw up a voluntary code of practice on making information available to the general public. I have no doubt that the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, will approve of that.
I believe that this working group is ideally placed to take this initiative forward and to ensure that anything proposed does not cut across existing statutes since rights of access to information are enshrined in many separate pieces of legislation. Perhaps I may point Members of the Committee to Clause 139. An amendment was proposed on much the same topic by much the same bodies as those to which the noble Lord referred. That clause enables local authorities to assist voluntary organisations to provide information and advice relating to individuals' rights and obligations. It was added to the Bill during its passage through another place.
If the noble Lord looks to the language of Clause 139 and of the clause that he proposes, he will see that the objectives are much the same. However, the proposal in his clause that councils should have a "duty" to prepare

1997
a strategy is firmer than what is provided for in Clause 139. Nevertheless, I consider Clause 139 to be a useful addition in this field.
I have no problem with the motivation behind the new clause and I am not surprised that it is supported by the Opposition Front Bench and the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill. However, I suggest that a joint local and central government working group is the best means of furthering this matter. In view of this important and ongoing work, all of which is part of the Citizen's Charter activity, I hope that the noble Lord will consider that he can withdraw his proposed new clause.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: I thank the Minister for that helpful reply and for drawing my attention to Clause 139, which of course I had read. The main purpose of the amendment was not that the authorities should assist—we know that they want to do so—but that they should plan ahead in order to obtain the most efficient structure. However, in the light of the Minister's helpful reply, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford Lord Ewing of Kirkford moved Amendment No. 95B:
After Clause 44, insert the following new clause:
("Management of Regional Park or Country Park
.Where more than one local authority is responsible for the management of a Regional Park or Country Park previously managed by a regional council, the Secretary of State may by order establish a joint board for the purpose of discharging that function.").
The noble Lord said: This new clause deals with the management, funding and development of country parks throughout Scotland. In moving it, perhaps I might leave with the Minister the suggestion that a joint board should be established. I know that it is strange for someone such as me, who has been so critical of the number of quangos created as a result of this legislation, to suggest that yet one more should be established in order to run the country parks. In this case, the joint board would be made up of representatives from local authorities in the area.
There are numerous examples throughout Scotland, but in order to be brief I shall not go into them. A joint board will be necessary where a country park falls into different authority areas. Those different authorities may well have different priorities as regards the development, funding and management of these country parks. As a result of the development and availability of leisure facilities throughout Scotland, not least the country parks—and I pay tribute to all concerned—it is essential not only that we should retain them but that they should be developed and properly funded. For that reason, I have pleasure in moving the new clause.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I do not know whether the noble Lord recollects—I certainly do—that in 1981 I took through a Private Member's Bill entitled the Countryside (Scotland) Bill which established in Scotland not just the country parks to which he referred but also the larger regional parks. I am pleased to say that there are now four well-established and very
1998
successful regional parks in Scotland. The noble Lord is probably familiar with the one in Fife—the Lomond Hills.
Lord Kirkhill: Will the Minister tell the Committee to which of those parks he refers? He said that there are four of them and I should be interested to know to which four he is referring.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: At present, there are four regional parks in Scotland: one at Loch Lomond; one at Clydemuirshiel which is up behind Greenock; the Pentland Hills; and finally the one which encompasses the Lomond Hills and the water, the name of which I forget.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: Lochore Meadows.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: Lochore Meadows. I am obliged to the noble Lord for the benefit of his local knowledge. Those parks are all extremely successful and it may be that more parks will be established in Scotland. For that reason, I understand the noble Lord's anxiety that where the management of such parks would require joint co-operation on the part of a number of local authorities, there is a danger that that co-operation may not be forthcoming.
As the noble Lord anticipated, I warm to his support for joint boards because I reflect upon the harsh words that he had to say about the proposals to allow such joint boards to be established in Clause 20.
I have no objection to such regional or country parks having joint boards. However, if local authorities wish to have such an arrangement, the power is in place for them to ask the Secretary of State for it.
The parks are a success story in Scotland. Local authorities have a wide range of options open to them to ensure that that success continues. If it is considered that a joint board is the best way forward, this Bill allows for that.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: In view of what the Minister said, I shall certainly withdraw the amendment. However, I do so with the reservation that in the event that local authorities do not ask the Secretary of State to establish joint boards, he should use the powers that he is taking in the Bill to establish them. I merely leave that matter for the consideration of the Minister.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra moved Amendment No. 95C:
After Clause 44, insert the following new clause:
("Trading Standards functions
.—(1) It shall be the duty of the new authorities to draw up proposals to ensure that the duties, functions or powers of a local weights and measures authority under the Weights and Measures Act 1985 or under any other related legislative provision ("the Trading Standards functions") in Scotland are from 1st April 1996, carried out by not more than 12 bodies, being local authorities or Joint Committees of local authorities, and, in any case where a proposal involves the creation of a Joint Committee of local authorities, such related functions as the Authorities forming the Joint Committees may agree.
(2) The membership of any Joint Committee established under subsection (1) shall be composed of at least one member for each of the authorities belonging to it.
(3) The Secretary of State shall before 1 February 1996 consider whether the proposals drawn up under subsection (1) are satisfactory, having regard in particular to the desirability of

1999
ensuring as far as practicable that the Trading Standards functions will be discharged in Scotland in the most effective manner which, in particular—

(a) ensures economy and efficiency in its use of resources;

(b) promotes consistency and uniformity in the application of the Trading Standards functions;

(c) achieves an operational scale to ensure the availability of specialist skills; and

(d) protects the health, safety and economic interests of consumers of goods and services.

(4) Where it appears to the Secretary of State that any proposals which have been drawn up under subsection (1) are not satisfactory, or will not be or are unlikely to be in force by 1 April 1996, he shall, before that date, by order establish not more than 12 bodies to discharge the Trading Standards functions in such areas as may be specified").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of the new clause is to ensure that following the restructuring of local authorities in Scotland, the essential elements to deliver an effective trading standards service which meets local needs of consumers and the strategic concerns of trade and industry are retained.
The trading standards function is currently based on nine regional councils and three island councils. The proposal for the creation of a new structure of 32 unitary authorities will not provide a satisfactory basis for the future delivery of an effective and efficient service.
The suggestion that adequate service provision can be achieved through voluntary arrangements has proved not to be a viable alternative. In England, following the abolition of the metropolitan councils, they have, with only one fragile exception been disbanded. I have been involved in the trading standards scene for many years as past president of the Institute of Trading Standards Administration. I can confirm that the role of trading standards is becoming increasingly complex. It is heavily influenced not only by large amounts of legislation emanating from this Parliament but also from Brussels. That has required the development of increasingly expert staff and the establishment of specialist premises fitted out with expensive, sophis-ticated equipment in order that the service can remain effective and keep up with the increasing flow of detailed legislation. The creation of almost three times the number of separate departments in Scotland would inevitably lead either to expensive duplication or a reduction in the level of service.
I remind the Committee that great importance is attached by businesses to consistency and uniformity with regard to trading standards. I quote from a letter which the Director General of the CBI wrote to the president of the Board of Trade on 25th January on this subject. He said:
"There is growing concern amongst CBI members about the fragmentation of regulatory services which may follow local government reorganisation.
"Our members do not have much confidence in the effectiveness of joint boards constituted voluntarily by local authorities. There is a risk that the participating authorities will take a purely local view and that the necessary co-ordination will not in practice be seen".
Almost without exception, that view is represented by all the leading trading organisations.
I should point out also that in our main competitor countries in western Europe, trading standards are co-ordinated on a smaller-number basis. For example, in Germany, the trading standards organisation is based on
2000
the 12 lander. In France, there is a 32-region structure for the whole country. Britain will stand out as a country which had a concentrated trading standards function which will be divided if the proposals go ahead.
There is no doubt that trading standards is a strategic service. That is why the amendment proposes that the new unitary authorities should be obliged to ensure that trading standards remain based on 12 units in Scotland. If that does not work, then the Secretary of State should review the situation. I beg to move.
The Earl of Balfour: I sympathise greatly with the idea behind the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra. I am quite certain that he is correct to say that voluntary arrangements will not work.
However, the decision to bring local government back to a single tier may cut out some of the present duplication between the regions and districts. Consumer protection and trading standards are at present regional functions; but markets, food hygiene, standards and labelling are district functions. Therefore, under the new proposed single structure of local government, the whole operation can be managed by the environmental health department.
I find it interesting that although environmental health departments have among their staff some of the most dedicated and highly qualified personnel, I have not received a letter from them saying, "Please preserve the director", because they never had one.
I should also like to refer to Amendment No. 157A in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury. It refers to a scientific services agency. Perhaps I may express an opinion. We have had public analysts on the staff of local government. Of all the officials we have, I believe that the term "public analyst" is very misleading. I wish that those concerned had chosen the term "professional analyst". That is what they are; indeed, they are very highly qualified people.
I may be out of turn in speaking to another amendment—although, I hope not—but I believe that many Members of the Committee have the matter very much in mind. I shall be most interested to know what the Government propose to do in respect of this general subject. I should also like to know how the smaller authorities will be able to get the technical services they need without necessarily employing their own and, equally, whether there will be cross-border support from some of the bigger authorities.
5.30 p.m.
The Earl of Halsbury: Perhaps I may intervene to assist the Committee on the matter of public analysts. The first qualification is a first-class honours degree in chemistry. They must then qualify in a master's degree from the Royal Society of Chemistry—as a Master of Chemical Analysis. The combination is about seven years, together with a period of training in the office of another public analyst. They are highly skilled people; indeed, they are the cream of the cream of applied chemistry.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: I am content to leave the question of public analysts until we come to that debate. I shall concentrate my remarks on the proposed new

2001
clause of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra. As we proceed through the Bill, there is a danger that if someone does not rise from the Opposition Front Bench to express support for a new clause, especially one as important as that now before the Committee, it will be thought that we do not support it. Therefore, I suppose, we are damned if we do and damned if we do not.
We are discussing a most important issue. If any local government service is consumer orientated, it is certainly the trading standards department. As I understand the proposed new clause, so ably moved by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, its aim is to concentrate trading standards operations on 12 authorities rather than each of the unitary authorities having its own trading standards officer.
We keep returning to Central Region, and I am pleased to see the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, is with us today. However, it provides a very good example of the kind of chaos that could prevail if, say, Stirling had its own trading standards officer; if Clackmannan had its own trading standards officer; and if Falkirk, likewise, had its own trading standards officer. The truth of the matter in Central Region is that people in Clackmannan shop in Stirling, people from Stirling shop in Alloa and people in Falkirk shop in both Stirling and Alloa. If we had different trading standards approaches in those three small areas, that would obviously not be to the benefit of consumers.
My experience over the years has been that trading standards officers have certainly raised the awareness of those selling goods about the need to ensure that the standards set in legislation are met. We can all give examples from our case files of how consumers have been deceived by those selling goods. A new development that is taking up a great deal of the time of trading standards officers is the fictitious labelling of goods. We all know what goes on as regards perfume, aftershave lotions and garments such as polo-neck sweaters. The Open Golf Championship is taking place at Turnberry. I am absolutely certain that some fictitious goods will be on sale there during the next fortnight. Trading standards are absolutely essential. It is a very good new clause, and I am pleased to support it.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: I must apologise for not having heard the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, speak to the amendment. Therefore, I speak in ignorance, although I have had a discussion in the Border Region recently with those who operate in this area and also in environmental health. All I would say to my noble and learned friend is that those in my part of the world are concerned that the matter should be dealt with by 12 areas in Scotland. They feel quite comfortable about arrangements for the future in dealing with 100,000 souls in the area and see no reason why the Government's view, as portrayed after consultation, should not be upheld in the Bill.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: I support the remarks made by my noble friend Lord Ezra. In the days when I was chairman of the Advertising Standards Authority, I had a good deal to do with trading standards officers who were then at an early stage of their development. However, I formed a very good impression of their
2002
professional standards and of their general integrity and usefulness. It is one more case of the kind of service that is put seriously at risk through being dealt with by a large number of small authorities. The noble Earl, Lord Balfour, pointed correctly to some of the complications in such matters; for example, the way in which various environmental health matters are dealt with at district council level. The noble Earl raised the question as to how the new smaller unitary authorities will be able to provide themselves with the necessary technical expertise to perform the trading standards function. That is essentially the point my noble friend Lord Ezra made.
There is a certain critical mass that is required in terms of the organisation here as regards the level of expertise. If trading standards are to operate properly, highly specialised people are required as well as some very expensive and highly specialised equipment for use in certain areas. Therefore, there is no alternative in the new structure of local government that the Government propose to trying to make joint arrangements of some kind. The essential issue is whether those arrangements are to be piecemeal and voluntary or whether they are to have some systematic and coherent framework. That is what my noble friend Lord Ezra proposes.
It is not only the interests of the consumer that are at stake; it is also the interests of commerce, business and industry. In the modern world where such matters are of great significance, it is most important to have some kind of consistency, uniformity and coherence. Indeed, it is most important in terms of our relations with the European Union and the directives that flow out of Brussels.
My noble friend Lord Ezra quoted from the CBI. In conclusion, perhaps I may quote from the CBI in Scotland. The confederation says that it,
"believes that Trading Standard:; organisations benefit from the economies of scale for the purpose of specialist equipment and the employment of suitably trained staff. We therefore consider that introducing smaller units than those currently in operation may lead to fragmentation and inefficiency (resulting in increased business costs) of the services available to business and should wherever possible be avoided".
I hope that the Government will give a positive and sympathetic response to the points made by my noble friend.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, for having made it clear that, despite the wording of the proposed new clause which refers to a,
"Joint Committee of local authorities",
what he has in mind is not a set of voluntary bodies coming together, which could be dismantled at any time, but rather statutory joint arrangements. However, in the context of the Bill, the latter would, I think, be best described as a joint board rather than as a committee which conveys, certainly in this context, the idea that it is a voluntary arrangement which could indeed be broken up at any time.
I wish to say immediately that I am well aware of the concerns of different trading standards professionals over the effect this reorganisation may have on their service. I should also say that my ministerial colleague at the Scottish Office, the Minister for Industry and Local Government, Mr. Allan Stewart, has met, and is

2003
indeed due to meet again, Sir Gordon Borrie and representatives from the Institute of Trading Standards Administration to discuss further these very matters. I am not entirely sure when that meeting is to be held but I understand that it will be held shortly.
As a number of those who have contributed to this debate have made clear, I am also aware that it is not only the trading standards professionals who have expressed anxiety about this matter. The anxiety that was revealed in the comments of the CBI in Scotland that were mentioned today is also shared by a number of companies and consumer organisations in Scotland. I am not surprised at that because this is an important service. The skills required are probably becoming ever greater and a number of the problems that have to be resolved require an ever greater expertise. However, as my noble friend Lord Sanderson of Bowden made clear, there is no unanimity as regards the way this matter might be resolved. If the Border Region with its population believes that the areas we are discussing are of a sufficient size to provide the necessary expertise, we consider that that is essentially a matter for that region.
In contrast to the proposal that the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, made that there should be 12 such bodies in Scotland, there have been those who have lobbied with equal vigour that Scotland is of such a size that there should be only one body for the whole country. Against that background of a wide range of conflicting advice we have come to the conclusion, which is part of a theme throughout this part of the Bill, that local authorities should retain the right to decide how they will deliver their own trading standards services. Expertise can and is already being shared by councils who can and do buy in specialist advice as and when necessary. There is no reason why similar arrangements should not continue to apply. Alternatively, councils in this field might wish to share staff.
The Bill contains a number of provisions—we have discussed them on a number of occasions in the past few days —aimed at offering local authorities as much flexibility as possible. For example, Clause 57—which we shall discuss later—makes it clear that councils are entitled to buy in services from one another. Clause 20 allows councils to ask the Secretary of State to set up joint boards in their area.
Given the range of advice that we have received and the lobbying as to the appropriate number required in this case, I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, that I would be reluctant to determine now that 12 was necessarily the right figure. It would seem to me that the preferred course would be to allow the local authorities, as they are established, to determine what arrangements they think are most appropriate. If they were to choose to establish joint boards, and if the total number came to 10, 12 or thereabouts, that would clearly cause the Secretary of State no difficulties at all. However, at this time we certainly wish to maintain a flexible approach to accommodate the range of views we have heard from those in the Borders through to those people who want a single arrangement for all of Scotland.
I do not underestimate the importance of this matter. We are discussing an important area of services
2004
delivered by local government, but I hope that after this useful debate the noble Lord will feel that he can withdraw his amendment.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Ezra: I thank the Minister for his thoughtful response and for the views expressed by other Members of the Committee. The issue is really quite an important one. There is a re-organisation of local government into smaller units but there are certain functions of local government which many feel need to continue to be provided on a larger regional basis. Trading standards, by general accord, are one of those services. I very much fear that the Government's approach, as explained to us, will introduce a good deal of uncertainty into the situation. At the moment the trading standards organisation in Scotland is working very effectively. It has the equipment and it has the personnel to do the job for which it was set up. This is all going to be put at risk while the larger number of unitary authorities make up their minds as to whether they want to do the whole job themselves, to buy in services or to join with others. I can see a period of major disturbance of this important service arising from that, as each of the 32 new authorities make up their minds as to what they want to do.
The Government should reflect seriously on this problem. There may well be strong arguments in favour of this larger number of unitary bodies but there are equally strong arguments for maintaining well-established regional services which are of the sophistication and the skill required in the case of trading standards. I would not like at this stage to press the amendment to a vote but I believe that this is a matter we shall come back to at a later stage. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 45 agreed to.
Clause 46 [Proceedings in district courts: transitional provisions]:
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 95D:
Page 44, line 15, after ("shall") insert ("no later than 31st March 1996").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 95D. This amendment is important from the Scottish point of view. I am not sure that I can speak for the rest of the United Kingdom but I believe that Scotland has always been fairly far advanced in its provision of social work, originally through the churches and the parishes. Then we had the Poor Law. It was in many areas an enlightened Poor Law, although not in every area-
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: I hope I may correct my noble friend Lord Carmichael. He is so enthusiastic to meet the Government's wishes to make progress with this Bill that he has jumped one group of amendments ahead. He is to be highly commended for that. As he is being so co-operative, I hope he will receive a co-operative reply from the Minister when he replies to the debate. I shall now speak to Amendment No. 95D which deals not with social work, which we shall come

2005
to shortly, but with another aspect of social life in Scotland; namely, the district courts. Amendment No. 95D seeks to ensure that the records of the district courts are handed over to the new authorities no later than 31st March 1996. The choice of date is obvious because the new authorities come into being on 1st April 1996.
This could lead to some confusion if, for example, an accused person appeared in a district court and the case was not finalised before the new authority and the new district court took over. There could be some confusion in that case. I believe this amendment would impose a discipline on the district courts to ensure that their records are handed over timeously. Amendments Nos. 96, 96A and 97, in this grouping, are basically probing amendments. The purpose of the amendments is to establish the destination of fines levied in district courts.
Earlier today when we debated traffic matters I asked the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate who would retain fines for certain traffic offences such as parking fines and so on. He kindly indicated that the local authorities would retain those fines. The amendments are tabled as probing amendments and to encourage the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate to ensure that fines levied in district courts go to the local authorities.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: The purpose of Amendment No. 95D has been explained by the noble Lord, Lord Ewing. Nonetheless, the Government cannot accept the amendment. I should point out to the noble Lord that the provision in the legislation reflects the equivalent provision made at the time of the last reorganisation. We are not aware of any difficulty which occurred on that occasion.
The date with which we are concerned, 1st April 1996, will be a Monday. The courts will sit until the previous Friday. It will therefore be necessary for a large number of case papers to be retained in the courts until Friday, 29th March. As the noble Lord will appreciate, unless the case will be continued on the Monday there is no need to impose upon the people concerned with the administration of the district courts the necessity to come in over that weekend in order to transfer papers. Of course the papers must be transferred in time for the next relevant stage of the case. However, we are satisfied that those who are involved with the district courts—who have to deal with a great many papers— will see the need for all case papers to be transferred in time for the next relevant sitting of the court. That was how the matter worked out last time, and we are confident that it will be the case again.
For that reason we do not believe that the specific deadline which the noble Lord proposes in the amendment is necessary. It would impose an unnecessary rigidity. We are confident that those involved, who are very conscious of deadlines, will make the necessary arrangements.
On the matter of fines perhaps I may repeat what I said when the matter arose earlier—when I did not expect it to arise. The position is that in England and Wales magistrates' courts do not retain any fines. They all go to the Exchequer. In Scotland fines are retained. However, that is subject to an exception in certain cases,
2006
in particular in connection with road traffic offences. In that instance the fines are remitted to the exchequer, after deduction of a percentage which allows for recovery costs.
As I am sure the noble Lord is aware, over the years there have been discussions about this matter. At this stage we have no intention of reviewing the overall district court system. We are satisfied that it is working well. There has been remarkable growth in the responsibility of the courts over the years since the system was introduced in 1975. We do not propose an overall review of the system. In the absence of such a review it does not seem appropriate to single out this one aspect.
In the light of that explanation I hope that the nobles Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I was fascinated by the noble and learned Lord's explanation of the difference between the Scottish and English legal systems. He said that in Scotland fines for road traffic offences, with some exceptions, were put back into the local court system. I was not aware of that. Can he say whether that is a clawback or something extra? I can hardly believe that the Treasury would let us get away with that.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: I always feel that local government finance is one of those mysteries which one enters at one's peril. My overall impression is that in England and Wales the fines are not retained in order to pay for maintenance because support is provided from central government for the magistrates' courts system. At the end of the day the system works in a different way.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: Can the noble and learned Lord tell me where the parking fines go, and whether parking attendants work on a quota basis?
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: I am sure that they do not work on a quota system. I am not sure whether the fines are retained locally. I should not like to get that wrong so I shall write to the noble Lord.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: Far be it from me to enter an opinion when the noble and learned Lord is not quite sure of the matter. However, my understanding of the situation in relation to parking fines is that the local authority retains them. If someone wants to appeal against a parking ticket it is not the chief constable to whom that person should write but the chief executive of the local authority. I have always been told that that is how they are able to buy the traffic wardens' uniforms and that is why most of them are so well dressed these days.
I am reasonably satisfied with the noble and learned Lord's explanation in response to the amendment. However, it is important to note that when the 1973 local government Act went through Parliament the courts were not reformed. They were reformed as a result of Scottish civic government legislation in 1975. In those days some local authorities did not even have

2007
borough police courts. The stipendiary magistrates prevailed in both Glasgow and Edinburgh. The situation is different now.
Having said that, I am satisfied with the noble and learned Lord's reply. In begging leave to withdraw the amendment I do not want to stand in the way of the determination of my noble friend Lord Carmichael to move on to the next set of amendments. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: Before the amendment is withdrawn, I should like to apologise to the noble Lord. When I referred to reorganisation I was thinking of the reorganisation of the district courts.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 46 agreed to.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 95E:
After Clause 46, insert the following new clause:
("Social Work
. In section 161(1) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973, for the words "a regional or islands council" substitute "as section 2 of the Local Government etc (Scotland) Act 1994").
The noble Lord said: I am grateful to my noble friend. I was so eager earlier because the noble Lord the Deputy Chairman tried to coax me to rise. We know each other well. He is too big for me; he can get away with anything.
Amendment No. 95E relates to a matter which has caused a great deal of worry in Scotland. Rightly or wrongly, Scotland believes that it has always had a fairly forward-looking attitude to social needs and the Poor Law generally. That started with the church parish system, which developed into a semi-professional system. That continued when the Poor Law itself was introduced. There were problems, but for its time it was a fairly enlightened Poor Law system.
Subsequently there were public assistance Acts. There were directors of public assistance, and they were followed by directors of welfare when local authorities took over more of the work. The directors of public assistance or of welfare were always people who could be held responsible for the general working of the officers, male and female, in their departments. The big breakthrough came following the Kilbrandon Report prior to 1967,I think, when the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 came into force. It is a long time ago now. It is incredible to think that it is more than 20 years ago.
That was a quite seminal Act for its period—a far-reaching and thorough piece of work. The buck stopped with the social work director. He or she was the final arbiter in the training of social workers, and in the organisation of social work generally. He or she was answerable to the community at the end of the day for anything that went wrong.
There is a certain worry that after all this time the director of social services and the social work committee, as we know them, will be dispensed with and replaced with a system which has much less chance of critical, impartial examination. The idea seems to fit well with having small local authorities. If local authorities are small, it makes it difficult to think in terms of a social work director.
The Minister will be aware that in the Local Government (Wales) Bill an effort was made to repeal the statutory provision for directors of social services and committees by an amendment which was rejected. There is now the assurance that in Wales there will be a continued provision of directors of social services and social work committees. I may be wrong; I may be chauvinistic. But why should Scotland—I believe that over a long period it has set a high standard in the responsibility and professionalism of its social work —lose the director of social services and the social work committees which have been such a help in so many ways?
I am not sure of the situation as regards Wales, but in England probation officers are in a different category from social workers; whereas in Scotland the director of social services is also the person responsible for the probation service. As a result, partly, of the Kilbrandon Report, we have a reasonably well integrated social work service. I hope that the Minister will give the amendment serious consideration and will accept it. I beg to move.
6 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull: Noble Lords may wonder why I, who live in England, should speak with passion and feeling for the social work service and directors of social services in Scotland. I presume to do so, because first, I am half Scottish, secondly, I spend my holidays in Scotland, and, thirdly, I have been a director of social services.
I have two questions for the noble and learned Lord. What is wrong with the present system? Why is it being changed? Do we change a system for change's sake or to improve it? What is wrong with the present arrangement of having a director of social services and social work committees? Secondly, if the Minister is able to prove that that system is wrong and poor work is being done, how will the proposed system be better? How will it improve the service?
As the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, said, the provision regarding Wales was passed in this House, but the position has been reversed. I understand that there is now provision in the Local Government (Wales) Bill for social work committees and directors of social services. Why has the position been changed regarding Wales but not Scotland?
The duties of a social services department, and therefore of the director of social services, are wide ranging. They involve family care, adoption, mental health, the disabled, the elderly and the vulnerable—and community care is slowly but surely being introduced. That being the case, who will administer the social services? Where will the social services be placed in the local authority with such wide ranging services? What is the purpose of the move? What is the purpose of the alteration?
I submit that social services committees throughout Wales, Scotland and England have had a sense of great responsibility. Local people have always known the members of the social services committees, and to

2009
whom they could apply. My experience is that members of the social services committee were really committed to helping the vulnerable in the area in which they lived.
From the point of view of a director of social services, I have to say that with wide ranging duties one needs a qualified and trained leader of the work to whom the community and the committee know that they can turn. If we do not have social work committees or directors of social services, I suggest that the service will deteriorate. There will be vague accountability. Who will ensure that standards are maintained? Will there not be fragmentation of the services? Will there not be a lack of direction?
I have visited Scotland on many occasions. I have attended many of the panels in Scotland. I have visited colleagues in local authority social services. Furthermore, I am closely connected in Scotland with Barnardo's and the mediation services. It may be presumptuous of me to tell Members of the Committee from Scotland, but I understand from the voluntary organisations that those bodies give a very good service. Those organisations are worried. To whom will they go? With whom will they co-operate? Who will be responsible for co-operating with the health authorities, the hospitals, education and other services? Unless there is a structure, we shall have great difficulties. I support the amendment moved by the noble Lord and beg the Committee to give a second thought to this provision.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: I support everything that the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, said. In order to carry through the continued development of the services required in the social work area, it is absolutely vital that there is leadership and political commitment at local levels. The statutory requirement for a social work committee and a director of social services has ensured that those services have had a clear focus for many years. It would be a great pity if we were to throw that focus away.
The Earl of Minto: During the first day of the Committee stage and throughout most of today so far, I have found myself welcoming the support of the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael. I have also been pleased to support him. However, on this issue I am afraid that we differ.
I believe that I can safely say that no one within local authorities has a greater respect for the directors of social work than I do, and I have tried to find a purpose to the Bill. I think that it is important for us to remember that we in local government have complained for many years about interference by central government in our internal affairs. The Government's proposals, which were initially contained in their consultation paper on the internal management of local authorities in Scotland, sought to give greater freedom to local authorities as regards managing their affairs. In my view, there is no reason why local authorities should be required by statute to have social work committees, any more than any other committees normally found in a local authority. I believe that we must have that flexibility.
Similarly, there is no reason why, in my view, local authorities should be required by statute to have a
2010
director of social work any more than other directorial posts normally found in a council's management structure or directorial posts which will be found in the structures of the future.
I bow to the great integrity of the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, in all the comments that she made. It has been suggested that if the statutory requirements are lifted, then local authorities will act irresponsibly in the management of the services at both member and officer level. I do not believe that that is true, nor that there is evidence for it. Given the Government's intention to free up the internal management of local authorities, I believe that it would be extraordinary for local authorities to contend for or support this issue.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: I wish to speak against Amendment No. 144. It will not surprise the noble Lords, Lord Ewing and Lord Carmichael, that I am reluctant to see future councils tied to such a detailed job description for the director of social work. In particular, I am unhappy about subsection (4) which aims strictly to limit the director's work. It is the plan in Clackmannan to administer social work and housing within a personal services department. As a social worker, I have spent most of my time on the telephone with housing departments as well as social security departments. It is an essential part of the reorganisation process that each new council makes its own unique decisions about how it will organise itself and deliver its services.
The Earl of Perth: From listening to the debate, it is all-important that the social services, in particular for handicapped children, should continue to work as well as they do at present. I well understand the anxiety that that causes in the sense of keeping exactly the same form of structure as we have today. I think it would be a mistake to insist on social directors as such, but it is vital to ensure that the various local authorities either get together or do a proper job on the two issues. I am particularly anxious about that because of the short timetable. There is a short time in which to get all the provisions functioning. I am fearful that in the hiatus between what exists and what is to come in the future there will be serious difficulty in relation to some of the work.
Thus in one way or another I very much hope that the hiatus —if I may put it that way—can be avoided and the work of the social services, particularly for children, will go on. Whether that requires officials, as under the drafting of Amendment No. 144, I am not so clear.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: Perhaps I may breach precedent by making a contribution before the Minister replies. I have been worried about the contributions of the noble Earls, Lord Minto and Lord Mar and Kellie, both made from different standpoints. The noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, spoke from the point of view of a small local authority which will simply not be able—if I may say so with respect—to provide its own social work services. It will have to buy them in. Therefore,

2011
there will be no need to have a director of social work in Clackmannan—the authority will have to buy in its services. It is as simple as that.
I suspect that the objection of the noble Earl, Lord Minto, is to the statutory nature of the appointment and the conflict that that causes between the chief officers and the directors of social work. It is something of which I am conscious and my experience, not of local government but of discussing such matters and examining the problems with which we are faced, is that there has been conflict with the statutory nature of the responsibilities of the directors of social work. They are able to say to the elected representatives on the one hand and the chief officers on the other: "These powers are laid down in legislation for us to discharge and there is nothing that you can do about that". I am not sure that that is the framework that we should follow in future.
However, I am absolutely certain that we need a professionally qualified person to head social work departments. Whatever designation that person has, we need a professionally qualified person. My mind is open as to whether he is called the director of social work or the chief social work officer or whether some other bright term can be thought up to designate such people. My mind is open on that, but it is closed on the whole question of the need for professional expertise in administering the discharge of social work services.
We know, and the Minister knows, that the sheriff principals and the sheriffs in Scotland have expressed anxiety about the possibility of there being no designated social work officer. I should have thought that that kind of concern should weigh heavily with the Minister. I hope that, if we cannot resolve the matter today, when we come back to the issue at Report stage the Minister will indicate in his response that he will return with a proposal which will reach a compromise. At the end of the day I suspect that that is what we shall do. I hope that we shall reach a compromise which is acceptable to all sides in this important debate.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: We have already had a number of important debates during the Committee stage this afternoon and doubtless we will have further important ones this evening. However, I hope that it will not be taken amiss if I say that I regard this debate this afternoon with particular concern and anxiety. I am not the Minister for local government in Scotland, but within my portfolio is the responsibility for social work in Scotland. I hope that it will be appreciated that I am as keen as anyone to ensure that the high quality in the discharge of social work services in Scotland is maintained. I would not wish to be party to any change which brought about a diminution.
I am, of course, familiar with all the directors of social work in Scotland. Like the noble Earl, Lord Minto, I have the highest regard for their professional ability and commitment to their responsibilities. Perhaps I might be allowed to say—some Members of the Committee will have heard me say this already, but perhaps those who have contributed to our debates in Committee for the first time will bear with me—that the thrust of our policy in this Bill has been to give local
2012
authorities as much freedom and flexibility as possible in determining the structure and management of their affairs. The removal of the statutory requirements in question should not in any sense be seen as an implied criticism of social work committees in the past or of past or present directors of social work in Scotland.
I was interested to hear the historical analysis of the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, of how we arrived at the position of creating directors of social work. The noble Lord is absolutely right. In 1968 there was very good reason for making statutory provision because social work was still a new and developing service. It is now very well established among the range of services for which local authorities are responsible and, again, I recognise the contribution that social work committees have made. They have been central to the introduction of the major initiatives we have launched in the areas of Care in the Community, child care and criminal justice. Directors of social work have provided very sound professional oversight and should take credit for some very innovative thinking in the way, particularly in the last year, Care in the Community has developed. I compliment them for that activity.
The noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, asked if we are making change simply for change's sake? I answer her question immediately. No, we certainly are not. It is because we want to give the new authorities greater flexibility that we have proposed the changes. We were not alone in considering that to be immediately desirable. The majority of responses to our consultation paper were in favour of removing the statutory requirements. For that reason our proposals reflect that view. I have no doubt that many, if not all, of the new proposed authorities will wish to establish a so-called social work committee and also appoint a director of social work along the lines of what is the present statutory requirement. That is one way of delivering the requisite services. As I indicated, in the past they have been well delivered following that model. But, as the noble Earl, Lord Minto, indicated, why should it be that central government should force authorities in law to follow that particular route?
The point was raised that for Wales a change had been made as that Bill completed its passage through the other place so as to bring back in, or retain, social work committees. But my understanding—and I approach this matter cautiously, not being intimately acquainted with the detail —is that the key difference in Wales is that the director of social services is not required to be professionally qualified and can take on other responsibilities.
It has to be appreciated that if the statutory requirements with regard to a social work committee and a director of social work are to be removed, that does not in any sense remove from local authorities the statutory duties imposed upon them in respect of the wide range of important services they provide. One looks across the fields of criminal justice, care in the community and, some might think most importantly of all, in relation to children. None of the statutory duties presently imposed is affected by the changes. I say to the noble Earl, Lord Perth, that there are within the Bill important provisions requiring existing authorities to

2013
co-operate with shadow authorities to provide information to them to ensure the smooth transition in relation to handicapped children and others to which he rightly draws our attention.
I have met with the directors of social work and discussed this matter. I am very much aware of the wide range of views expressed on the subject in the correspondence received, I believe, by all of us in some volume. I am also aware that, as this very interesting and useful debate has revealed, there are sharply conflicting views at the moment as to what is the best way forward. I listened with particular care to what the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, said and the suggestion he made that there might be some path we could follow that lies between continuing with the status quo in all its detail and the removal of these provisions in their entirety, as is presently proposed. I should like to take the opportunity of the time that we shall have before we return to the Report stage of the Bill to reflect not only on what the noble Lord said, but on what other noble Lords said. It would seem to me appropriate that the noble Lord should withdraw the amendment at this stage because I wish to reflect carefully on what he and others said.
Baroness Seear: Before the noble and learned Lord sits down, can I ask him a question? I hesitate very much as a mere Sassenach to enter the debate on this Scottish matter, but I well recall that after the reorganisation of the social services in England a number of people who were most emphatically not qualified social workers were put in charge of departments running social work, with pretty disastrous results. Can he assure us that the people in charge will be qualified social workers? Otherwise, I warn him: he will rue the day.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: As the Bill stands, the requirement to have a director of social work with qualifications would be removed from the existing arrangement. I am aware of a number of the instances to which the noble Baroness refers. I emphasise again that the statutory duties with regard to the various client groups that are imposed upon local authorities in Scotland are in no sense altered by the proposals we make. However, I accept that there is a very real concern, when considering some of the existing duties of directors of social work in Scotland, that there should be some statutory officer who is directly answerable for particular duties (let us say, in relation to the court) and that a particular individual should be identifiable. As I said, I listened very carefully to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, and I understand those concerns. For that reason I shall be grateful if the amendments can be withdrawn to allow some further time for reflection.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: The Minister has certainly taken much care over his answer, and it would be surly of us if we did not respond. When he spoke about the Welsh situation he had at his side his noble and learned friend who put the Welsh Bill through. He could probably have found out from him what was the difference between the situation in Wales and that in Scotland, and why there was a difference. I do not think that he quite cleared up the matter.
2014
There is another point of difference. The noble and learned Lord talked about consultation. I do not doubt that there was consultation and that results showed that people were quite happy about not having a social work director. But one of the problems with the Bill is that there has been very little public awareness of consultation with local authorities about its contents. One noble Lord said that he wondered for a long time what was the purpose of the Bill. There could have been better consultation. I believe that we could have been better informed.
The Minister mentioned the volume of correspondence and mail that he had received. I have never known a Bill on which I have had so much correspondence as this one. It has been quite unbelievable. The volume of correspondence generated has been well above normal.
The Minister has been very helpful. He tried fully to explain why he came to this complicated decision and the purpose of it. The promise that he will look at it again before we come to Report stage gives me hope. Therefore, I withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 47 [Amendment of District Courts (Scotland) Act 1975]:
[Amendments Nos. 96 to 97 not moved.]
Clause 47 agreed to.
Clauses 48 to 51 agreed to.
Schedule 6 agreed to.
Clause 52 [Records held by local authorities]:
Lord Ewing of Kirkford Lord Ewing of Kirkford moved Amendment No. 97A:
Page 46, line 2, after ("the") insert ("professional custody,").
The noble Lord said: In this group, Amendments Nos. 97A and 97B have been tabled in my name and the names of my noble friends as well as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochbroom. Amendment No. 98 stands in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Balfour and again the noble and learned Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochbroom. All the amendments deal with archives and the Keeper of the Records. They are designed to ensure, if it is at all possible, that archives built up in Scotland since the reorganisation of local government in 1973 survive the reorganisation.
There has been a tremendous increase in the availability of information through the archives which have been built up. It will be a sad day if, because of the reorganisation and the emphasis that the new local authorities have to place on other aspects of policy, we were to lose the resources that have been built up over the years.
The amendments also give the Keeper of the Records a bigger say about the way in which the records are kept, access to the records and the professional advice that would be made available. In that respect the amendments are quite important.
I shall leave the Committee with just one anecdote about the archives and the archivist in the Royal Borough of Stirling at the time when I represented Stirling. The local paper asked me to write an obituary for a very dear friend—whom the noble Earl, Lord Minto, may well know, and I can name him because,

2015
sadly, he is no longer with us. I refer to Councillor Michael Kelly, who was one of only three members of Scottish local authorities to serve for 50 consecutive years. I asked if he was dying and was told that he was. I went to the archives and took out all the relevant material and typed up the obituary. However, before I handed in the copy to the local editor, I thought that I would go to see Michael on his deathbed. When I went to see him he was out feeding his pigs. Nevertheless, I kept the material.
The point I make is that the material was valuable. Happily, Michael lived for another 10 years after that time. But it would be a shame to lose all that material. The purpose of the amendments is to preserve it. I beg to move.
6.30 p.m.
The Earl of Balfour: I should like to add a few words on these amendments because my name is connected with one of them. At present Clause 52(2) reads:
"A local authority may dispose of any records which they do not consider to be worthy of preservation".
In that respect I should like to give the Committee one example of the value of such records. It happened when the reorganisation of local government was taking place under the 1973 Act. That Act did away with the keeping of fiars prices. Some counties kept those records and some did not. However, they were kept by the sheriff's office and they were a record of the average agricultural crops for each year. My own county, East Lothian, had a compilation of such records which went back well over 300 years. They would have been of no interest to the sheriff's office. They had nothing to do with local authority functions. I was glad to learn about the fiars prices and on one occasion I had to use them for agricultural purposes. I followed the 1973 Bill during its passage through this Chamber.
I am glad to say that the records are now in the Scottish Record Office. I have the highest admiration for the Scottish Record Office. It does an absolutely superb job. I tabled the amendment purely to give the Scottish Record Office an opportunity to say what it would like to keep and what it would not like to keep. The present subsection does not cover that point.
The Earl of Minto: I wish to support these amendments. Nothing is more important than the preservation of archives. One is apt to find that those who do not know about the matter can make mistakes and it is of great importance that one should have expert opinion, particularly before any question of disposal arises.
I can think of many cases in which people have said, "We will tear these records up. They are taking up space. Let us get rid of them" and it has been a tragedy for the local authorities. They may well think that those records are not of importance but in fact they may well be of great importance. The need to consult with experts —that is to say, the Keeper of the Records—is essential.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: This is not a debate on whether the clause should stand part of the Bill.
2016
However, it might be as well to begin the debate on the amendments by reminding the Committee that Clause 52 requires exactly what my noble friend would like to see done; namely, that a local authority shall make proper arrangements, not just for the preservation but also —as an amendment was introduced during the passage of the Bill—for the management of any records. The clause then goes on to describe that and states that the local authority shall:
"before putting any such arrangements into effect, or making any material change to such arrangements, consult the Keeper of the Records of Scotland, and have regard to any comments which he may make on the proposed arrangements or changes".
There is little doubt about the desirability of local authorities keeping their records in a proper state—not only preserving them but also managing them. But our concern is that it should not be for local authorities to consult the keeper on each occasion on which they wish to dispose of a record. As drafted, the amendment would apply not simply to historical archives but to every piece of official paper produced by the new authorities. In our view it is administratively unworkable. It would also be at odds with the general policy that local authorities should be allowed to operate autonomously within an agreed framework such as that established by Clause 52.
I say to those Members of the Committee who have contributed to the debate that I am sure that the keeper has been fully involved in the preparation of the clause and that he supports its provisions. Indeed, he is already in contact with local authorities with regard to Clauses 52 and 53. There will be further contact between the keeper, my officials and local authorities to ensure that transitional arrangements go smoothly and that the records provisions are properly observed by the new authorities.
The clause as drafted ensures that the general principles to which each local authority will work in disposing of records will be discussed with the keeper. There is no need for a discussion on the disposal of each individual document thereafter and the keeper does not have the resources to enable him to consider each and every item of which a local authority wishes to dispose.
The proposed Amendment No. 97A would impose a duty on local authorities to use the services of professional archivists for their records management. As I explained, under Clause 52(1) local authorities are obliged to make proper arrangements for the preservation and management of their records and must consult the Keeper of the Records of Scotland before putting any such arrangements into effect. The keeper will be seeking to encourage the best possible professional standards and practice. That will clearly include encouraging the use of professional archivists wherever possible whenever the keeper considers it necessary to enable the authority to fulfil its statutory duty. However, we do not wish to impose a duty on local authorities to do so but rather leave it for them to decide how best to make proper arrangements once they have consulted with the keeper and had regard to his comments.
Turning to Amendment No. 97B, the duty set out in the clauses is for local authorities to consult the Keeper of the Records about arrangements for the preservation and management of their records and to have regard to

2017
his comments. However, we do not consider that local authorities should be obliged to obtain the keeper's formal approval before putting their arrangements into effect. I should like to point out that working relations between local authority archive staff and the Scottish Record Office are good and the latter are very much aware of the practical and financial constraints under which authorities operate. Allowing local authorities to decide for themselves is the most effective and generally acceptable means of encouraging enhanced archive provision without requiring local authorities to go further than their resources allow.
In providing advice to local authorities, the keeper will stress not only the professional benefits of a properly managed archive for purposes which the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, and others may find valuable, but also the benefits in terms of an increase in administrative efficiency which a proper records management system can provide. In addition, storage costs can be reduced by the selection for destruction of records not worthy of preservation. In recent times local authorities which introduced such a system more than covered their costs by the savings made. Accordingly, with that explanation, I should be grateful if the noble Lord will consider withdrawing the amendment.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: One piece of documentation that I can think of for selection for destruction is this Bill. But with that comment and with the comments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser, ringing in my ears, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 97B and 98 not moved.]
Clause 52 agreed to.
Clause 53 agreed to.
Clause 54 [Restriction on disposal of assets and entering into contracts by existing authorities]:
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 99:
Page 48, line 6, leave out subsection (4).
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 99 seeks clarification. Subsection (4) (a) defines the "relevant successor authority" as being,
"the new local authority within whose area the land will be situated".
The new authority within whose area the land or property is situated may not always be the appropriate authority to consult prior to disposal. Perhaps the Minister can deal with that point. I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: Clause 54 as drafted requires that existing councils must have the consent of the appropriate successor council before they can dispose of land for more than £250,000. Under the provision, land also includes buildings while the successor council is defined as the one within whose area the land or buildings are situated.
I am sure your Lordships will agree that that is a satisfactory definition of "successor authority" in the vast majority of cases. I acknowledge that there may be a few instances where the definition of successor authority is inappropriate, but I wonder whether that will prove to be a problem in practice. More to the point,
2018
I wonder whether it is a real enough problem to merit imposing the additional constraints on councils which a change to the drafting would involve.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: Perhaps the Minister can clear up one point—it may be that I am not very good at reading Bills. Is the interim period the difficult period? Is it the case that the old authority may start disposing of land or property before the new authority takes over and therefore the successor authority must have some interim powers?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: It is for the interim period. As I say, there is a definition included within the section which settles when it is that one has to go to a single successor council to ensure that there is agreement or approval of what it is proposed to dispose of.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I thank the Minister for that explanation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 54 agreed to.
Clause 55 agreed to.
6.45 p.m.
Clause 56 [Power and duty of existing local authorities to assist new authorities]:
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 100:
Page 50, line 23, leave out subsection (5).
The noble Lord said: This amendment again seeks clarification. It removes the Secretary of State's power to regulate the exercise by local authorities of the power to contract with other authorities. I want to avoid any possibility that the Secretary of State will be leaning over the shoulder of the local authority all the time in order to control those with whom it makes contracts. That part of the Bill may be a little obscure to the layman. I beg to move.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My name also is attached to the amendment. One of the things about which we require an explanation is that the language, which is beautifully direct, states that,
"The Secretary of State may direct an existing local authority to do anything which in his opinion is appropriate for the purpose of putting a new authority in a position to carry out their functions".
It seems a little tough to me.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Mackie. It appears to be a widely drawn provision. However, perhaps I can emphasise and repeat what my honourable friend the Minister for Local Government said in another place. This is a reserve power which, provided councils co-operate sensibly with each other, will not be used. It will be used only if new or existing authorities require assistance which could reasonably be expected to be provided by another existing council but which is not forthcoming.
In order to underline the assurance given by my ministerial colleague, I should like to make it clear that the power will certainly be used with care, if at all. It will certainly not be used by the Secretary of State to

2019
block, for example, service developments by an existing council simply because they are at odds with what may be the political philosophy of the Government. I take the noble Lord's point, but I hope the explanation and assurance that the power will only be used in rare circumstances, if at all, will enable him to feel that he can withdraw the amendment.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I thank the Minister for that explanation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 56. agreed to.
Clause 57 [Further provision as to discharge of Junctions by authorities]:
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy Lady Saltoun of Abernethy moved Amendment No. 101:
Page 51, line 5, at end insert:
("(3A) The Secretary of State may direct that local authorities enter into agreements under this section in relation to social work services where such agreements appear to him to be necessary to protect the interests of users of out of area services.
(3B) In the event that a direction under subsection (3A) is made, and it appears to any authority affected thereby that an agreement will not be entered into within a reasonable period, that authority may refer the matter to the Secretary of State.
(3C) If a referral is made under subsection (3B) above, the Secretary of State may, after consultation with the respective local authorities, specify terms to be included in the agreement and direct that it be proceeded with, and the prospective parties to the proposed agreement shall comply with any such directions.
(3D) In this section—

(a) "social work services" mean services which a local authority are under a duty or have a power to provide, or to secure the provision of under the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968, or any of the enactments mentioned in section 5(1B) of the said Act;

(b) "out of area service" mean a social work service which is transferred by the operation of this Act to a local authority outwith the local authority area to which the user of the service belongs.").

The noble Lady said: Amendments Nos. 101 and 103 have been grouped together but they are not about the same matter. Therefore, with the leave of the Committee, I should very much like to speak to them separately.
Amendment No. 101 is directed at the needs of some of the most vulnerable groups in society such as children with special needs, disabled adults and elderly people who rely on the services of social work departments. Many of these people will find that the service they use will not be run by the council covering their area. Sometimes this will be because of the way the boundaries are drawn—for example, people with learning difficulties in Helensburgh normally attend adult training centres in Dumbarton—and sometimes it will be because the resource is a specialised one which can be afforded only if it is used for people throughout the region with a particular disability, such as children who are both deaf and blind.
Clause 57 of the Bill partially covers it because it allows councils to buy such services from each other. The problem is that there is no guarantee that they will do so. Councils may be under different political control from others and so may not co-operate very effectively. The uncertainty about whether places will be taken up
2020
by other councils may make it too risky to continue investing in an expensive and specialised resource such as a day centre for people with multiple disabilities. Sadly, the political will may not be there to continue a service in such an uncertain climate, particularly with the less popular client groups. One example of a service at risk—the Blindcraft factory in Glasgow—was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, at Second Reading.
The Government appear to believe that this can safely be left to the new councils to sort out. At Report stage in the Commons Lord James Douglas-Hamilton said:
"There are various means whereby the needs of those currently receiving out-of-area services can be assessed fully and properly".—[Official Report, Commons, 18/5/94; col. 871.]
It would be helpful if the Government could state what those means are and how, without this amendment, they will ensure that needs are not only assessed but actually met.
This amendment would mean that the Secretary of State could step in as a last resort where services of strategic importance were at risk. I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I am happy to have these two amendments discussed separately since they raise important issues. The noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, expressed during an earlier debate her concerns about the implications of reorganisation for certain important aspects of community care. I am glad to have this opportunity to clarify the Government's position on these matters.
This amendment seeks to protect the position of users of so-called out-of-area social work services; that is, services which typically, because of their highly specialised nature, are not provided in every local authority but are purchased, and are already purchased, by one authority from a neighbour or a supplier authority further afield. The amendment seeks to ensure that after reorganisation authorities continue to make sensible contracting arrangements for the purchase and supply of a minority of specialist services and it envisages that the Secretary of State would intervene directly in this process by issuing directions about the exercise by authorities of their contracting powers by dealing with cases where agreements have not been entered into by himself specifying the content of such agreements and by insisting that the local authorities concerned uphold and implement such agreements as he may specify.
While I should like to make it clear that I have no difficulty with the prime intention behind the amendment—to ensure that the users of specialist services are not disadvantaged in any way by reorganisation—I only differ from the noble Lady in a view of what is the most appropriate means towards that very desirable end. For many years now social work authorities have co-operated with one another over the purchase and supply of these specialist services. Section 86 of the 1968 Act enables an authority providing a service to a person outwith its area to recover the cost of that provision from the authority in whose area the person lives. The proposed amendment suggests a certain lack of confidence in the good sense and

2021
judgment of the new authorities. This lack of confidence is reflected in the proposed role for the Secretary of State. While I understand the noble Lady's concern we do not believe that the degree of compulsion implied is either necessary or desirable. It is not necessary because it will clearly be in the financial interests of authorities which inherit or develop specialist facilities to keep them fully utilised. They will have a positive incentive to cultivate contracts with purchasers and authorities which have clients requiring specialist services and which are unable to provide those at their own hand and will have an equally pressing interest in purchasing these services rather than attempting to create their own. As I said in a previous debate, this will probably be in discharge of a statutory duty incumbent on them.
The Government wish to see local authorities develop their role as enablers contracting not just with each other but with a wide range of service providers in both the voluntary and private sectors. We would be reluctant to contemplate arrangements which fixed the focus of contracting on inter-authority trading.
I trust I have gone some way to reassuring the noble Lady that we share her concern and wish to ensure that reorganisation does not bring about any diminution in these specialist services. I hope that she will be reassured that, following on reorganisation, we are confident that this high quality standard of service can be maintained.
The Earl of Perth: I have listened to the reply and I think the noble and learned Lord goes a long way towards meeting our concerns. The Minister said that there is probably a statutory duty. Does that mean that the Scottish Office will keep an eye on what is happening; and that if it is not going right, it will intervene? That is what this is all about—the worry as to whether in fact these defenceless children can be safely left to the local authority. I am sure that in broad principle it will happen but it is important to know what will happen if it goes awry. Will the Scottish Office keep an eye on the performance of the various new authorities?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: Where a statutory duty is imposed on a local authority and it fails to discharge it the noble Earl will be reassured to know that it will not be for the Scottish Office to keep an eye on the local authority; that matter might well be brought before the courts. Any failure on the council's part to provide services in discharge of a statutory duty would be enforced by the courts in Scotland. Certainly, as part of the central government responsibility through the Scottish Office to ensure that this wide range of specialist services is properly maintained and delivered throughout Scotland, I can give an assurance that we shall keep a very close eye on that.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: I support Amendment No. 101. Social work services in Scotland cover a very broad range of activities designed to meet the needs of a very disparate group of generally unfortunate people. It is sometimes a feature of their situation that they do
2022
not want to seek help in their own area but prefer to do so in a neighbouring area, usually for fear of being recognised.
I offer two examples. First, while helping to set up an alcohol counselling service in Strathspey. I found that potential users of the service would have preferred to come to Inverness for the sake of anonymity. Secondly, while working on an intensive probation project in Falkirk the fear was sometimes expressed during interview by future participants that they might be jumped by the Casuals—their rival gang—while on their way to the project. There is a need for considerable flexibility in the provision of social work to meet individual needs.
7 p.m.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: I have listened carefully to the noble and learned Lord. I still have a little niggle of worry that there could be a situation where the providing authority suddenly decided that it needed all its facilities for its own children and therefore the smaller enabling authority would be in great difficulties.
As regards the amendment, the noble and learned Lord has guaranteed that children with special needs who attend a particular school before reorganisation will have a right to continue doing so. It is sad that a similar guarantee could not be given to those who rely on the social services. Will the noble and learned Lord think about that? I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar Lord Macaulay of Bragar moved Amendment No. 102:
Page 51, line 6, leave out subsection (4).
The noble Lord said: I have read Clause 57(4) with great care and have tried to apply what I care to call my legal mind. I find that it is one of the great exercises in administrative gobbledegook. I cannot understand what subsection (4) is meant to achieve. I have read it from beginning to end and backwards and it does not make any sense.
The amendment is tabled to enable the Government to explain what precisely the powers of the Secretary of State under subsection (4) mean. He appears to have ample powers without the convoluted subsection (4). I shall not go into the minutiae of the matter; I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: The proposal to remove the Secretary of State's regulation-making powers under subsection (4) would change the nature of the provision. As it stands, the clause is in line with the commitment given in the White Paper that authorities would be provided with a flexible legal framework to enable them to choose from a wide range of providers including, in most instances, other local authorities.
The Government do not, however, consider that work subject to compulsory competitive tendering should fall within the powers granted to local authorities under the new provision, given that there is a clear private sector market for such work. As such, therefore, the Secretary of State would intend to make regulations excluding

2023
CCT contracts from the new arrangements, but the amendment would remove the Secretary of State's power to make such regulations.
The clause provides a flexible framework for local authorities and ensures that the new powers will be used sensibly. The noble Lord will be interested to know that the Government intend to consult on regulations made under this power and would obviously consider carefully representations made about their scope.
On the proposal to allow authorities to set up a service delivery agency, the Government recognise that many authorities will wish to consider a wider range of service delivery options than has been the case in the past. However, there is already a wide range of options available to authorities. In addition to Clause 57 they can arrange for the provision of services through a joint committee, by a lead authority, by an in-house team or by purchase of services from the private or voluntary sectors. As such, the Government do not consider that this amendment would provide authorities with any additional powers. I hope that the noble Lord finds that explanation satisfactory and that he welcomes our intention to consult on regulations.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I am grateful to the Minister for that answer. I am always pleased to hear that the Secretary of State will behave sensibly. We shall await the outcome of this matter. As regards Clause 57(2) (b), will the Secretary of State have power to regulate the payment between joint authorities and joint agreements? What happens if the authorities fall out as regards the question of payment? Subsection (2) (b) states:
"An agreement under this section may include such terms as to payment as the authorities concerned consider appropriate".
What happens if the authorities fall out? Is the Secretary of State then entitled under subsection (4) to impose himself on the authorities? I merely ask because a great many people are concerned about this matter. Before I formally withdraw the amendment, I wish to know what the Minister has to say.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I do not believe that there will be any involvement of the Secretary of State here. If the authorities cannot come to an agreement, then presumably they would not agree to discharge the services jointly. Alternatively, if they have an agreement and they fall out about it afterwards, the noble Lord may find himself employed in the Court of Session.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: That is always a daunting prospect. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 57 agreed to.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 102A:
After Clause 57, insert the following new clause:
("Service agencies
.—(1) Where two or more local authorities consider it appropriate, they may set up a body or bodies to be known as a service agency, or service agencies, for the purpose of providing to the local authorities such services as they may require.
(2) A service agency may provide such services and carry out such tasks for the local authorities as the agency and the local authorities may agree and in such terms and conditions as they may agree.
(3) A service agency may do anything a local authority may do in terms of the Local Authority (Goods and Services) Act 1970.
(4) A service agency shall be a body corporate with a common seal.").
The noble Lord said: I believe that this amendment was taken with Amendment No. 102. I listened to the Minister's explanation. I was satisfied as far as one can be that we are not going to get any further on the matter.
[Amendment No. 102A not moved.]
[Amendment No. 102B not moved.]
Clause 58 [Local Acts and instruments]:
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy Lady Saltoun of Abernethy moved Amendment No. 103:
Page 52, line 14, at end insert:
("(4A) The Secretary of State shall be regulation make such provision as he thinks fit regarding the exercise by local authorities of the power conferred by this section in relation to the inspection by a local authority of services provided or arranged under the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 or the registration of establishments under section 61 of the said Act").
The noble Lady said: This amendment concerns the inspection of residential care. Currently, local authorities have a duty to register private and charitable residential care homes in their area and to inspect both their own homes and those run independently. This is a vital protection for the residents of care homes, many of whom are extremely vulnerable due to age or disability.
The amendment is intended to highlight concerns about how this function will operate in future, particularly given the possibility that such responsibilities will be contracted out to other authorities. First, the Secretary of State should confirm whether Clause 57 means that one council could actually take over the job of registering homes in the area of another council. So far as inspection is concerned, there are a number of potential problems if the job is to be carried out by the new smaller councils. Not all homes are the same, and the smaller authorities may not have the range of specialist staff to properly inspect the homes for people with complex or unusual needs.
There is also a fear that in smaller councils it will be more difficult for the inspection unit to be truly independent. This applies particularly when they are inspecting the councils' own homes. But even homes in the private sector will normally be operating under a contract with the council. The council may be reluctant to endorse any criticism which might lead to charges going up.
With more councils, there is also a danger that standards will fall if homes move to the areas with the least rigorous inspection. In some areas, joint inspection teams set up under the clause may be a partial solution, but this raises the problem of accountability. Will the Government monitor the quality of inspection by the new councils? Is a move away from inspection by local authorities to a more independent arrangement under consideration? Most importantly, will the Government undertake to ensure that the social work inspectorate publishes authoritative guidance on standards of inspection?
Some years ago there was great public concern about what were called "granny farms". That was at the time when the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson of Bowden, spoke from the Dispatch Box. I remember having some discussion and correspondence with him, particularly about the desirability of independent inspection and inspection without notice. I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: The concern of the noble Lady that some of the new local authorities may not be large enough to sustain a credible and robust inspection unit with the necessary degree of independence from the social work department is one that has been expressed by others in Scotland. However, I would not wish to make too much of that, particularly the size factor.
Some of the current inspection units are quite small. A number serve populations considerably smaller than those of some of the proposed authorities yet they function perfectly well. It is a matter of the calibre of the staff and of their management rather than of the size of the authority itself.
Following reorganisation we will encourage new authorities to make good use of the expertise which the current inspection units have built up since their inception in 1991. We would be glad to see joint arrangements for inspection emerge as a result. There is already a precedent for contracting between authorities for the inspection of services.
I can assure the noble Lady that the advice and guidance already given by the social work services group will continue. We are confident that the new authorities will be able to make the necessary arrangements for inspection and registration without the need to give the Secretary of State power to make the regulations. With that reassurance, I hope that the noble Lady will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
The Earl of Balfour: I rise only to point out to those of your Lordships who are interested in the Bill that there are three references in Clause 58 to Section 176 when it should be Section 179.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I am grateful to the noble Earl for that observation.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: I shall read and consider carefully what the noble and learned Lord said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 104:
Page 52, line 47, leave out subsection (6).
The noble Lord said: This is a small amendment on which I hope that the Minister will be able to comment. I refer particularly to lines 47 to 51 on page 52 of the Bill. The purpose of tabling the amendment is to delete subsection (6) altogether or, at the very least, to obtain an undertaking from the Minister that local provision will be continued indefinitely. I hope that the Minister can help. I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I hope that I can deal with the amendment briefly. The move to single-tier authorities necessitates the review of local legislation promoted by existing authorities to ensure that such
2026
legislation operates satisfactorily under the new system. The new councils must consider whether the existing legislation is appropriate, given changes to the boundaries and the new regime which will exist. The subsection which it is sought to remove ensures that this is done but within a realistic timescale.
Rightly, the new councils will have various options available to them; namely, to promote new legislation, to seek postponement of existing legislation if this cannot be achieved by 31st December 1999, or to apply to the Secretary of State for exemption from repeal. All such requests will be considered sympathetically.
If the amendment were accepted, there would be no requirement on the new councils to review their legislation and this would result in it being incompatible with the new regime. I am sure that the noble Lord appreciates that that would be unsatisfactory. It is desirable to set a timescale within which proper consideration of the legislation is undertaken and a change made.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: But there is no time restriction placed on the Secretary of State.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: This is a matter for consideration by the local authorities. The role of the Secretary of State is to allow for an extension if the local authorities find that they cannot complete their review of the matter within the appropriate timescale. As I said, the Secretary of State may allow an extension and will, consider any request sympathetically.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: That is an interesting answer. Given all the thousands of possible disputes that could arise, I wonder whether there is not some catch-all clause somewhere to give the Secretary of State retrospective powers. I am surprised that there is not, but perhaps the legal brains at St. Andrew's House are so well organised that no loopholes are possible. I thank the Minister for his explanation and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 58 agreed to.
Clauses 59 to 61 agreed to.
Viscount Goschen: I beg to move that the House do now resume. In moving the Motion I suggest that the Committee stage of the Bill be resumed not before 8.15 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Lerwick Harbour Order Confirmation Bill.
7.15 p.m.
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936) deemed to have been read a second time and reported from the Committee.

County Archive Offices
7.16 p.m.
Lord Renton Lord Renton rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what proposals they have for the future of county archive offices, in the reorganisation of local government in England.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in tabling this Unstarred Question, I am genuinely seeking information about the Government's attitude rather than arguing what should be done in the various changes that may be made.
The Local Government Commission has proposed that there should be unitary authorities in almost every county but, in doing so, for example in the case of the big new county of Cambridgeshire, it states:
"the Commission expects the new authorities to work together closely to ensure that specialist expertise is not unnecessarily broken up and that the existing levels of efficiency and effectiveness in the provision of relatively small-scale but important functions such as … archive provision … are maintained".
Let us consider how county archive and record offices operate at present. In most of the larger historic counties —most of them, but I name particularly Kent and Hampshire —the present arrangements are admirable. They not only have splendid arrangements for keeping voluminous collections of ancient documents, but the archives are well housed in ample buildings, conserved in accordance with modern scientific skills, and are made accessible to the public. The situation is different in some other large counties where the custody is decentralised, as in Cumbria where records are kept in four different places but where the records management and conservation skills are concentrated in Carlisle.
A different situation arises in modern Cambridgeshire, which I happen to know so well, where in the past 30 years four small historic counties which, frankly, did not have much in common historically although adjoining, were formed into one big county. Theoretically, the archives are under one administration, but they are kept in more than two separate places in Cambridge and Huntingdon, where they are stored in buildings which are too small. Indeed, because of the overcrowding in the local office, many of the Huntingdon archives have to be stored in another building eight miles away to which the public do not have access so the records have to be brought to the office if somebody should want to see them. I understand that the joint arrangements (which were made under the aegis of the former metropolitan counties where there was an amalgamation of several boroughs each with its own archive) did not work well. I mention that in passing.
Having regard to the diversity that now prevails, it is obvious that, when unitary authorities are established —and let us assume that, broadly, the recommendations of the Boundary Commission will be accepted by Parliament, no one solution will be suitable for everywhere in England. Decisions will have to vary with local circumstances. I wish to stress that they must vary with local circumstances.
Five noble Lords who cannot be here tonight have asked me to mention their interest in the future of our record offices and have asked me to make representations on their behalf. However, the time limit on the debate prevents that. I am delighted that no less than eight noble Lords, with their particular knowledge and expertise, have decided to speak in this debate and I look forward to hearing their speeches.
One of those who cannot be present tonight, is the noble Viscount, Lord Falmouth, Her Majesty's Lord Lieutenant of Cornwall, who of course is Custos Rotulorum there. Many Members of your Lordships' House are Lords Lieutenant, and each is Custos Rotulorum. Some are more active in that capacity than others. In my opinion, each should be consulted before any new arrangements are made.
The second noble Lord who cannot be here tonight is the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning. He is now aged 95 and in possession of his faculties to a most remarkable extent. He was chairman of the Royal Commission on Historical Manuscripts and he welcomes this debate. It is also welcomed by my noble friend Lord Rippon of Hexham and my noble friend Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, who is Professor of Archaeology at Cambridge. Naturally, he is anxious about archaeological records, which are indeed important. My noble friend Lord Inglewood cannot be here but he told me what I have already revealed about the archives in Cumbria.
In conclusion, I wish to stress that all parts of England are amazingly rich in ancient documents, which are a fundamental part of our heritage. We have a duty, and the Government have a duty, to ensure that they are carefully conserved, fully recorded and made accessible. That cannot be done without adequate financial resources, suitable buildings, sound administration and expert staff. I trust that my noble friend Lord St. Davids, who I am pleased to say will be replying to this debate, will assure us of the Government's determination to enable success to be achieved in this vital matter.
7.24 p.m.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: My Lords, when I spoke in an earlier debate on the Local Government Commission, I expressed my anxiety as a former chairman of English Heritage and former president of the Museums Association about the effect which the breaking up of traditional rural counties will have on the heritage, conservation and related areas such as libraries, museums, support for the arts and archives. I am delighted, therefore, that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, has given us the opportunity tonight to debate in more detail the perceived threat—I use the word "percieved"—that these projected changes pose to our national archive services.
It is a service that has grown from small beginnings over the past 50 years. It provides high quality storage and display which will ensure that this vital raw material of our history will survive for the future. One must not forget that it also provides facilities and help for the growing number of people who want to use the material for research.

2029
It is a local service which meets local needs. It is necessarily a small service and to make it smaller—to split up collections which have been carefully and zealously brought together over the centuries and to share them out, as sharing out remains, among the new unitary authorities—ought to be, and I am sure is, unthinkable. I do not believe that it is part of the Government's policy.
The reasons are obvious. It is a service in which there is great local pride. That is why it has flourished and been cherished and supported especially by gifts of archive material. Like so many other valued local government services, it needs to be delivered at the strategic level that our counties can provide. In Hampshire, for instance, we are very proud to have a fine, purpose-built new record office which was opened by Her Majesty the Queen last November. Of course, we in Hampshire believe that it is the best in the country. But Hampshire is by no means alone in making such provision. In recent years, two of our neighbouring counties, West Sussex and Dorset, have also opened new record offices. There are many others elsewhere in the country. Such development would not happen if these services were held together only by voluntary joint arrangements, which the Government apparently favour under the projected new regimes.
Sadly, new archive centres would be way down at the bottom of any priority list for new capital expenditure or, indeed, annual revenue expenditure. Archive services are naturally a service for counties but also for the nation and indeed the world. For instance, in Hampshire, men and women have played a significant part in the world's affairs and our records are in Hampshire where they should be. We also have the papers of two high-ranking 18th century diplomats and an Irish Archbishop, manuscripts of early Handel operas and also, I am sure your Lordships will be delighted to hear, the papers of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning. Those records are used by historians the world over and the new building also houses a film and sound archive.
County archive services have another important function. Whereas at Beaulieu we look after our own archives, the Hampshire Archives Trust gives us help and advice and makes services available to education.
One of the options put forward by the Local Government Commission for Hampshire is that it should be divided into seven unitary authorities. There is anxiety about what will happen to this service if its future depends on the voluntary co-operation of seven independent bodies. What will happen in Lancashire, where the commission's preferred option is eight unitary authorities? Can anyone imagine eight unitary authorities volunteering, let alone agreeing, to share costs equally? The administration would be a nightmare.
The problem at the moment is that we lack any clear government lead, with the result that the archive services are badly demoralised about their future. If they an; over-reacting, perhaps one cannot entirely blame them. I hope that tonight the Government will give some
2030
assurance that they will consider building in proper, watertight safeguards for the continuation of these and other vital services at the time of reorganisation.
Surely a nation must be judged on how it conserves its archives. Our future depends on our past and we must make sure that it is always available.
7.28 p.m.
The Marquess of Hertford: My Lords, I share my noble friend's anxiety about the future of county archive offices and the services that they render not only to their counties or local districts but to historians from all over the world. I do not claim to know about the national scene but from recent personal experience I know about the County Record Office in Warwick. My family archives happen to be there. They have been carefully and efficiently sorted out, put in order and listed and preserved for posterity and for anyone who wishes to study them for use in historical research. I hate to think what might have happened to them had they been left in boxes in a cupboard in my estate office.
When I started using the record office, I was surprised by the large number of other people making use of the services of the admirable staff who are there. I suppose that I used to think that all those archives just sat there doing nothing, gathering dust; but not at all. The record office is a busy place with a busy and highly efficient staff providing an admirable service to all sorts of members of the public. Their work is of local, national and international importance and I hope sincerely that it will continue.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Montagu of Beaulieu referred to the 50 years of development of county record offices. My memory of using a county record office goes back a little more than 50 years. I remember in—it must have been—1936 examining some of the records in Chester Castle which was then the record office for the county of Cheshire. My chief memory is the amount of dust that got into my lungs and the time it took me to recover from that piece of research.
Since then, a great deal has happened. There is now more professional expertise on the conservation, preservation and presentation of archives and above all, as has been mentioned by the noble Marquess, the deposit in county record offices of an increasing number of records which are, by their nature, not part of the county's own administrative history but which belong to families and other organisations within the geographical boundaries of the county. Therefore, one must think of county archive offices today as scenes of a great deal of activity. Students come to them from all over the world and they require professional guidance.
There is one particular activity which I have been asked to mention to your Lordships because it is of very great importance; that is, the development and further compilation of The Victoria History of the Counties of England. That has necessarily and naturally been done largely in the counties themselves and the obvious place for that work to be done has been in the county record offices.

2031
There is certainly anxiety on the part of the editor of The Victoria History of the Counties of England that because of the uncertainties that have been referred to about the way in which county records are in future to be looked after and financed, the counties may find affording houseroom and assistance to that particular project something which is more difficult to contemplate. I understand from the editor that a number of counties have already indicated that their plans for the future are not clear because of the uncertainties to which the noble Lord, Lord Renton, refers in the Question.
Of course, it is not the case that anyone suggests seriously breaking up the archives, even if the counties are divided into separate administrative units. But the matter still seems to require a degree of certainty before those changes come into operation. One could not wait for six months, a year or two years while districts, which will have many other functions devolved to them, make up their minds as to how they finance and organise the archives. We cannot possibly allow that to happen.
The question for Her Majesty's Government—and it is phrasing the Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, differently—is whether there is a government policy in that regard and whether there will be government suggestions to the new authorities as to how they discharge that particular responsibility. That seems to me to be a matter on which your Lordships' House has already expressed its concern and I do not doubt that the remaining speakers in the debate will echo that very real concern for one of the major aspects of our cultural heritage.
7.35 p.m.
Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords, concern about archives has been expressed very ably by my noble friends Lord Renton and Lord Montagu. I share that concern because like my noble friend Lord Hertford, I too come from Warwickshire. The proposals from the local commission have been published and I note that there is an expectation that the archive services will be maintained intact.
We have heard this evening how popular archive services are becoming and how much greater is their use. In view of the service provided, I believe that there should be more than mere expectation. Perhaps the Minister will confirm that there will be something more than expectation or the hope that unitary authorities will maintain a county-wide archive service; that provisions will be made which have real teeth in the shape of a statutory requirement that unitary authorities will maintain a county-wide service or that there should be an enforceable joint arrangement so that revenue and capital funding are both ensured for the future.
After all, archives are probably rather vulnerable. They do not immediately spring to the top of the list of priorities in the minds of electors or councillors. Other matters may seem to be more important or more immediate and they are likely to grab their attention. People may ask, "What is an archivist or a librarian less here and there? A day when the archives are closed does not really matter". But I remind your Lordships that death by a thousand cuts is still death. The Government
2032
should be aware of that anxiety. I hope that they will be able to allay our fears about the future of what everyone agrees is a national treasure.
7.37 p.m.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I am deeply grateful, as are all those who have spoken, to my noble friend Lord Renton for raising this important issue.
I speak as the chairman of the Royal Commission on the Historical Monuments of England which, since 1989, has been charged by the Government, under our Royal Warrant, with exercising the lead role for sites and monuments records in England on behalf of our sponsoring department, the Department of National Heritage. That enables the work of the SMRs and the Royal Commission's own national monument record to be more effectively co-ordinated. On the eve of the local government reorganisation, the Royal Commission accordingly carried out a detailed review of the ways in which the SMRs were currently organised and reviewed the way in which they and we could best develop to meet the needs of the future.
Therefore, I strongly urge that all new unitary authorities, however they may be devised, should be required to discuss their plans for the support and delivery of heritage services with both the Royal Commission, as the national lead body for SMRs, and with English Heritage, whose interest my noble friend Lord Montagu has already identified, as the Government's adviser on the management of the historic environment.
As has already been said, sites and monuments records are a special kind of archive. They were set up with the support of English Heritage and the Government primarily to allow information and advice about archaeological sites to be available to the local authority planning system; but also —and it is most important also—as an educational and cultural resource. Those SMRs are small, specialised units maintained by county councils. If the county system is abolished or radically restructured, the sites and monuments records will be especially vulnerable to disruption and above all, to underfunding.
Like other noble Lords I am concerned about the risks of fragmentation and also about the whole issue of funding. At present, local authorities maintain the SMRs voluntarily under government advice. Their loss would have serious consequences for the historic environment and for the nation's heritage policy. The maintenance of sites and monuments records should constitute a formally recognised responsibility of every county or unitary planning authority in England. The cost of maintaining that responsibility should be included in, and specific provision made within, the standard spending assessment of any such local authority.
The records of sites and monuments and their future are of importance. Information about archaeological sites and historic buildings must continue to be freely accessible at both local and national level. We all have an interest in our past and it is very much part of our future. I should like to take this opportunity to support

2033
what my noble friend Lord Beloff said about The Victoria County histories. We feel most strongly that that is something which needs special support, and that it is a matter of concern. I was glad, but not surprised, to hear of the interest and support for my noble friend's Question on the part of my most distinguished predecessor the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will be able to give him and us constructive support.
7.40 p.m.
Viscount De L'Isle: My Lords, I too am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Renton for giving us the opportunity to discuss the matter this evening. Perhaps I should preface my remarks by declaring an interest as a co-opted member of the Kent Archives Advisory Committee and as a private depositor with the Centre for Kentish Studies, which is in fact the Kent Archives Office.
I believe that there is broad support for the view that an archive service should not be fragmented in any reorganisation resulting from the recommendations of the Local Government Commission and the Government's subsequent implementation of them. However, as many noble Lords have said, there is at present no guarantee that that protection will be secured as the Government intend to rely on voluntary arrangements between authorities.
Experience gained from the outcome of the metropolitan counties reorganisation shows that reliance on such voluntary arrangements is dangerous. Joint management committees quickly break down and funding is reallocated elsewhere, resulting in the loss of an important service and of irreplaceable archive material. To repeat that folly would be negligent in the extreme.
I turn now specifically to the Commissioners' draft recommendations for Kent, which, I suspect, were run off on the same word processor as those for Cambridge. They refer to the expectation that the two proposed unitary authorities of North West Kent and Medway would,
"work together with neighbouring districts and the County Council, to ensure that specialist expertise is not broken up and that existing levels of efficiency and effectiveness in the provision of relatively small scale but important functions such as ✶ archives provision are maintained".
How will that be achieved?
Whatever the aspirations and hopes of the authorities for co-operation, can they really guarantee that the same level of service will be available across their whole joint area? Regrettably, the answer to that question must be no. There can be no such assurance with the three of the four options on offer, which will, in varying degrees, leave some areas of the county without easy access to an established archive office. That must be of concern to the many thousands who use the archive service for academic research and the growing band of amateur genealogists who, to coin a phrase, are and will be "digging up their roots" in churchyards, parish registers and archive offices across the county, both now and in the future.
The only option which does offer assurance that services will be maintained is the current two-tier
2034
system county wide, which will leave in place the pattern of service and both formal and informal partnerships and agreements which have stood the test of time.
The expertise available to public bodies, private owners and users all over Kent is considerable. Further, the current archive office has invested heavily in environmentally-controlled accommodation, the expansion of facilities for public access and the development of plans for computerisation. Here perhaps I should pay tribute to the forward thinking of the last three county archivists—a tribute which I am sure could be repeated many times in other counties across the country—who have, with the support of their elected members, developed a first-class service over a period of 25 years.
I urge the Commission and the Government to think very carefully before recommending changes which do not fully recognise the strengths of the current county-based system. They have been responsive to the need of both depositors and researchers, while concurrently earning the trust and support of private owners. There is too much at stake to leave the future safety of such valuable services to the capricious whims of voluntary arrangements.
For Kent, speaking as a private depositor of an archive collection which is consulted regularly by academics from all over the world, I urge the commission to keep in mind its own concerns for archives and to realise that the only sure option for Kent archives is the status quo.
7.45 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Renton, for introducing the Question, I am speaking for every historian I know at every level on either side of the Atlantic and of the Pacific. A country's sense of its own identity depends extremely heavily on its own historical memory. I did not realise quite how much that was so, until I went to live for a while in the United States which was once described as the only country in the world in which the majority of the population is homesick.
County record offices were first proposed in Parliament in 1614. It takes quite a long time to get an idea through to fruition, but in recent years this one has come to fruition. It is of very great value. Moving is not good for records. The Custos Rotulorum in times gone by used to be what his name actually says: he used to have physical custody of the records. On occasion, when the Custos Rotulorum was dismissed, his successor used to send along a cart to collect the records. Naturally, that sort of thing was not particularly good for preservation.
There is also a very strong case for preserving the integrity of collections. I listened with interest to the noble Viscount, Lord De L'Isle and Dudley on the integrity of the Kent record office where I have worked many times. I agree with everything that he said. Further, I thought that dividing his own family collection—which I have been extremely grateful to read—would be a gross act of vandalism and, indeed, almost impossible. There would also be a great problem as regards separating the documents from the catalogues. For example, could we imagine running this

2035
House with the Public Bill Office in Glasgow and the Printed Paper Office in Edinburgh? I believe that that would cause quite considerable confusion, and the parallel is not overstated.
The provenance of records also tells us something quite important about them on occasion. It is also worth remembering that the historic unit for most of English government, society and administration has for a very long time been the county. I am reminded of the story of Arthur Balfour at a dinner party. The lady next to him observed in a stage whisper, "The gentleman next door has put his hand on my knee and I can't make him let go". Arthur Balfour asked, "How long has it been there?" She replied, "Since the fish". "Well then", he said, "I'd let it stay there".
The English counties have been gathering records for a thousand years. That is a good deal longer than, "since the fish". Our counties are like Burke's trees: they have grown. One cannot imagine splitting up estate collections and having the estate documents in one place with the Quarter Sessions records in another. The task of dividing Quarter Sessions records between different districts really makes one's mind boggle.
The Minister may say that the matter should be left to the authorities concerned. In my experience—some of it bitter—whenever one leaves to local authorities the job of funding anything that happens outside their boundaries, one runs into difficulties. The standard of many local authorities in the care of their archives could not be improved upon. For example, I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, said about Hampshire, where I have spent many happy days.
However, it is difficult to persuade one's local electors to fund things outside the boundary of the local authority area. It goes against the very nature of the local authority. If there is to be a proper funding of records in their historic units—which I believe is the only way they can appropriately be kept—we must have a clear government directive because otherwise they will not be funded. If they are not funded, our Ph.Ds will not be completed—a matter which causes the Government enough distress. Foreign postgraduates will not come here in the numbers in which at present they do, and that will be a loss to our balance of payments, to our revenues, and to our international reputation. In fact, it will be a vast collection of losses simply for not bothering to think about it. That would be a very great pity.
7.51 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Renton, was, I am sure, absolutely right to raise the issue of archives tonight. I think we all accept that reorganisation of local government is a worrying time for all the staff, though some of their worries could perhaps have been alleviated if the Staff Commission had been more constructive. However, I must say, as an archive-trained historian myself and also as someone from local government, that I believe some of the fears we have heard expressed tonight, are overstated and exaggerated. There is no question of historic archive material being splintered and dispersed, nor the staff
2036
who will conserve it. I do not know any body, either the Government or the Local Government Commission, the Audit Commission, the Association of District Councils or any district authority, which is calling for that. The depositors would not permit it, nor do the users and citizens want it. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, is right, that would be vandalism were it to happen. However, no one is proposing that, which is why I believe some of the debate tonight has perhaps missed the issues.
What is more, no new unitary authority could afford a new archive office with its storage and conservation facilities, at a cost of about £2 million a building, for its specialist facilities. Collections will be kept up and collections will be kept together, save perhaps only for those new records of management that are essential tools for the legal and planning departments of local authorities to which new authorities will require access, perhaps by new technology.
Our historic archives will remain in one site— generally the county town, its present home—as now. As for the service, I should describe what currently happens in Norfolk. Norwich and Norfolk ran a joint archive service until 1974. When the county borough lost its status and became a district council, there was thereafter a joint archives committee between the county council and the seven districts. After reorganisation—the preferred option, we trust, will be the five unitary districts referred to today —nothing, but nothing, will change. It will be a case of the same place, the same documents, the same staff, the same joint arrangements, the same level of service, the same councillors and almost certainly the same budget, because so much of the work of archives—I think perhaps this has not been explored—is statutory because it is based on the statutory conservation of local authority, NHS and court records. Therefore, across the shire counties of England there will, I suspect, be either joint arrangements or lead authorities which, as the noble Lord, Lord Renton, said, will be adopted according to which best suits local circumstances.
There is nothing new about that. There are already numerous joint arrangements in existence now which work and work well. They work well between district and district on, for example, specialised housing needs, or between districts and counties on museums, airports, economic development or the arts, or between county and county, for example on secure units for children. As regards a local authority buying a service from a lead authority, as the Audit Commission has said, that is no different from that same local authority buying it from a private body, which is what local authorities are now required to do under compulsory competitive tendering and under voluntary arrangements. Local authorities do that now. Where they are based on a willing partnership between equal authorities, joint arrangements and lead authority arrangements work well and work now.
Therefore, what is the problem? If it is not that of a dispersal of material, because that will not happen, and if, because they already work well and are satisfactory, it is not a problem of devising new arrangements that will be unsatisfactory, what is the issue? I believe that the worries focus on finance. But again, are those worries realistic? Most county archive services have a

2037
small budget. My own service has £300,000. I have been looking at the CIPFA statistics and that figure is not out of line with the usual county archival budget. Because it is a small budget and because most of the work—perhaps 90 per cent. of the existing collection —is statutory and therefore predictable as regards workload, there is little difference between a high budget and a low budget in archive work. I believe that that is a crucial point, because if there is little difference between a high budget and a low budget there will not be much room for argument, for disagreement, for political divide, because there will not be much to disagree about. Relative harmony prevails, except of course when we talk about the acquisition of a family's papers. However, there, of course, the debate will be antiquarian rather than financial.
I believe this is a worrying time for staff and I understand those fears, exaggerated though I believe them to be. That is why, like other noble Lords, I would warmly commend proposals which have been aired by the Association of District Councils; namely, that the final year of the county council's budget—plus inflation —should be projected into the first two years of reorganisation and then be apportioned on a population basis, and that thereafter we should move into five or 10-year management agreements such as we have seen in many parts of the country with regard to the museums service. I personally would welcome—I am sure local authorities would—government guidance to that effect.
In conclusion, we should remind ourselves that all new authorities are voluntarily entering a network of joint arrangements and lead authority arrangements. Different authorities will be lead authorities for different services. All will have an interest in locking each other into agreed and stable policies and budgets—joint arrangements for the future. Of all those joint services, archives, I would suggest, are the least tendentious, the least problematical, the least political and the least divisive. There really should not be a threat, because individual local authorities cannot opt out even if they should wish to, and they do not wish to do so.
I suggest to noble Lords that the real threat to quality local government services is not reorganisation but the cutting and capping of local government itself by central government. I hope that, following today's debate, not only may we receive guidance from central government to local authorities on budgetary processes, but that the archive world itself may devote some of its attention to encouraging central government to recognise that local government needs the finance it should have to protect and preserve the services we are all entitled to ask for.
7.58 p.m.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, I should like to thank your Lordships for your interesting contributions to this debate, and especially my noble friend Lord Renton, who has given us the opportunity tonight to discuss this important subject. I also thank my noble friend for giving me prior notice of a number of issues which he wished to raise. I hope that in my reply I will be able to answer them fully.
The value and quality of local archive collections are widely recognised. The Government are firmly of the
2038
view that these collections have, and will continue to have, a significant role to play in the lives of our local communities. We can look with gratitude to the late Lord Ridley of Liddlesdale for the current vibrant health of the local archive services. It was he who, in 1962, introduced a Private Member's Bill which became the Local Government (Records) Act. That Act places beyond doubt the power of local authorities to rescue, preserve and make available the local archives of England and Wales.
Under the 1962 Act, county councils, London boroughs and metropolitan districts, together with certain district councils designated by order, have a power to buy, or accept as gifts or on deposit, other records of local interests, including, for example, family records. It was that Act which gave statutory foundation to the county and city record offices which were already established, and it has been the cornerstone of their development over the past 30 years. More than £20 million is now spent each year on providing county record offices, at an average cost per head of the population of just 50 pence.
County record offices do, of course, contain not only archives of local interest, but also authorities' own records. All authorities have a duty under the Local Government Act 1972 to make proper arrangements for the custody of their own records and documents. I should like to reassure my noble friend Lord Renton that in no way is that duty changed.
How authorities choose to exercise their powers is, of course, a matter for them. The Government have never sought to prescribe the level of funding, the organisation of archive services in relation to other local authority services, or any other aspect of the service, such as access arrangements and conversion to other formats. These are matters for which an individual authority is answerable to its electorate and its local auditor.
There is no question that the general standards of storage, conservation, cataloguing and accessibility to the public have improved steadily over the years. We must all be grateful to local authorities for the crucial role they have played in the preservation of the country's archival heritage. Many of the items held are unique, irreplaceable and widely consulted. The Royal Commission on Historical Manuscripts advises that the present county record offices care for about one-third of all manuscript collections in publicly funded reposito-ries, amounting to about 300,000 metres of shelving in all. Of those holdings, about 30 per cent. are authorities' own administrative records, and 60 per cent. have been given or lent by private owners. My noble friend Lord Hertford referred to the valuable work which local archive services have undertaken in preserving his family records. The work which archive services have done to preserve such records is widely recognised and will continue.
We are fully aware of the importance of archives, and the valuable, and much valued, services provided by the county record offices and other local government managed archive collections. The establishment of the Department of National Heritage in 1992 demonstrates our commitment to the preservation, promotion and

2039
profitable use of our heritage. Archives, which contain the primary records of our past, are the very essence of that heritage.
At present, central government policy responsibility for matters covered by local government Acts rests in England with the Department of the Environment. But public libraries and museums come within the ambit of the Department of National Heritage, while the provision of local information (including local historical information) is an essential and integral part of the core library service, and museums also often have archive collections. The two departments work closely together, but we are presently considering the case for transferring responsibility for policy on local records to the Department of National Heritage.
Many noble Lords have expressed their anxiety about the future arrangements for administering county record offices and archive collections. Those concerns embrace the implications of the reorganisation of local government for standards of storage, conditions of public access, the risk of duplication of specialist services and even the possible splitting of collections of archives, many of which relate to the whole of a county. We are well aware, too, of similar concerns among archivists and their professional associations, local history and family history groups and individual members of the public.
We have listened very carefully to those wholly understandable concerns, and we are adopting a course of action which I believe will meet them. We have given a great deal of thought to this matter, and, as I shall explain, our proposals are intended to ensure that the quality of archive services will be maintained, and indeed improved, as a result of the forthcoming changes to local government structure in England. I said "improved". There will undoubtedly be opportunities in the future to consider the more widespread use of new technologies—for example, microforms, photocopies and optical discs—to make unique material more immediately accessible to people at a local level.
My noble friend Lord Hertford referred to the valuable work which local archive services have undertaken in preserving his family records. The work which archive services have done to preserve such records is widely recognised and will continue.
My noble friend Lord Willoughby de Broke raised the question of the resources which local authorities decide to devote to archives. There is no reason to believe that new authorities will take less seriously their obligations for archives than do existing authorities.
My noble friend's Question relates to the local government review. The purpose of the review is to secure convenient and effective local government which takes account of community identities. There is no national blueprint. Decisions will be based on what is most appropriate for each area. To respond to a point raised by my noble friend Lord Renton, the Government have said that Lords Lieutenant will be consulted before any decisions are made about their counties. We have not ruled out two-tier structures, though we believe that unitary authorities can improve accountability, cut out duplication of services and improve cost effectiveness.
2040
My noble friend Lord De L'Isle referred to the draft recommendations for Kent. It would not be right for the Government to comment at this stage on the commission's independent review. However, I hope that my noble friend will take the opportunity of the current consultation to make his views known to the commission.
We recognised at an early stage of the local government review process that special attention needed to be given to the archives function of local authorities. Particular points for attention are the need to maintain the assets themselves; the need to preserve existing specialist advisory services, and the need to devise effective arrangements to take the service forward.
Noble Lords will be aware that the general principle is that, where unitary authorities are established, they will be responsible for all relevant local functions, with the exception of law and order and fire services. However, the guidance to the Local Government Commission recognises that this would not always be practical, and asks the commission to look at the need for other arrangements for services which may be better carried out over wider areas. The arrangements the commission may recommend depend on the nature of the service, the structure proposed and local circumstan-ces. In some cases authorities may need to collaborate in order to retain centres of expertise and specialist facilities, to achieve economies of scale or to gain a strategic perspective.
We do not see ourselves as having a prescriptive role in the development of structures for local solutions. I mentioned that our policy up to now has been that authorities should decide for themselves how to exercise their powers and duties. A variety of approaches has evolved, and authorities will be able to learn from each others' experience in this field. Local solutions are usually more satisfactory than centrally imposed ones. I believe that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, is over-pessimistic about local authorities' ability to establish for their archives sensible arrangements reflecting local circumstances and local needs.
Where collaborative arrangements are appropriate, our preference is always that such arrangements should be made on a voluntary basis, because in that way they will benefit from more local accountability. Collaborative arrangements, whether they are of the partnership or lead authority models, work well in many areas. However, in order to protect the users of services, the Secretary of State has powers under the Local Government Act 1992 to impose joint authorities if he considers that satisfactory voluntary arrangements have not been made or, if they have been made, are not working properly.
In response to my noble friend Lord Beloff, perhaps I may say that the Government have a very clear policy on local archive services. They wish to see the progress which has been achieved since the enactment of the 1962 Act continue. We see our role as a facilitator—to see connections between activities and promote policies, structures and networks to assist independent free enterprise. That is why we are actively collaborating with the Royal Commission on Historical Manuscripts, the Public Record Office, the Department

2041
of National Heritage, the Society of Archivists and the Association of County Archivists on the production of central guidance to the new local authorities about archive services. That will help to establish best practice and advise new authorities on co-operation arrangements. The aims of the guidance will be to help avoid the unnecessary dispersal of collections and to maintain a high quality of storage and access to the service.
My noble friend Lord Montagu of Beaulieu spoke of the perceived threat to the archive service. I believe that that is indeed an over-reaction; and I was pleased to note that the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, agreed on that point.
A draft guidance note has already been circulated for consultation and contains material on such matters as the definition of records, relevant standards to be adopted, the resources necessary to achieve them and how to deal with transitional periods. It is intended to have the guidance in place before the first new authorities come into being.
In response to a point raised by my noble friend Lady Park of Monmouth, we are much aware of the importance of sites and monuments records. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage is working closely with the heritage agencies to ensure that satisfactory provision is made for archaeological advice and the maintenance of records.
Many valuable lessons have been learned and much experience gained by archive services in the former metropolitan counties in the years since their dissolution. That experience can, and will, be drawn on to help us avoid the potential pitfalls. With the production of guidelines and wide-ranging discussions in which we are engaged, I am confident that the future of archive services in the present English counties will be secured. I hope that I have indeed reassured your Lordships that we fully recognise the importance of local authority archive records, and will do everything possible to ensure that after the reorganisation of local government, they continue to be something of which we can all be justifiably proud.
Earl Russell: My Lords, before the noble Viscount sits down, will he reply to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, and the noble Baroness, Lady Park, about the Victoria County Histories? Those points are causing intense anxiety to those working on the enterprise.
Viscount St Davids: My Lords, we are now extremely short of time. It is a complex issue. I shall, of course, write to all noble Lords and to the noble Baroness on those matters.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do adjourn during pleasure until 8.15.
Moved accordingly and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.13 to 8.15 p.m.]

Local Government: etc. (Scotland) Bill
House again in Committee.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 105:
After Clause 61, insert the following new clause:
("Joint Boards for local government areas
.—(1) The Secretary of State shall, before 1st April 1996, establish Joint Boards for the local government areas comprised in each of the combined areas set out as follows for the provision in the combined area of the services required by the Water (Scotland) Act 1980 and the Sewerage (Scotland) Act 1968— Grampian Tayside Central Lothian Strathclyde Aberdeenshire, Moray, City of AberdeenAngus, City of Dundee and Perthshire and Kinross (except for water purposes the former County of Kinross) Clackmannan, Falkirk, Stirling (including for water purposes, the former county of Kinross) City of Edinburgh, West Lothian, East Lothian, Midlothian Argyll and Bute, Dumbarton and Clydebank, City of Glasgow, East Dunbartonshire, North Lanarkshire, South Lanarkshire, Renfrewshire, Inverclyde, East Renfrewshire, North Ayrshire, East Ayrshire, South Ayrshire.
(2) The provisions of sections 62A and 62C of the 1973 Act shall apply to a Joint Board established by an Order made under this Schedule as they apply to a Joint Board established by an order made under the said section 62A.
(3) The water and sewerage areas mentioned in subsection (1) above and in column 1 of Schedule (Water and Sewerage Areas) to this Act comprise the areas for the time being respectively described in column 2 of that Schedule.").
The noble Lord said: In moving the amendment, for the convenience of the Committee I speak also to Amendments Nos. 106, 106A and 107 to 114. The Minister will not be surprised that we consider this probably the most emotive part of the Bill. Therefore, without wasting time, I intend to go through the; argument fairly closely and exhaustively.
The Minister will be aware that in November 1992 the Secretary of State invited views on his consultation paper Water and Sewerage Services in Scotland— Investing for our Future. It concerned the future-arrangements for water and sewerage services in Scotland. The consultation document was rather disappointing. It was felt that it was superficial and much less than even-handed in its treatment of the background to those services, the perceived need for change and possible options identified by the Secretary of State.
Many respondents to the consultation paper looked in vain for logical and cogent argument as to why change was being contemplated, and the possible merits or demerits of the various options canvassed. The whole exercise had a look and feel of simply being cosmetic.
Members of the Committee will be aware that regional and islands councils in Scotland, and their predecessor water and sewerage authorities, during the past 150 years have reason to be proud of their achievements and the levels of service which have traditionally been provided to domestic, industrial and commercial customers. It is noteworthy that there was no suggestion from any quarter that the services are other than efficiently and effectively managed and delivered, or that customer satisfaction is other man extremely high. Indeed, surveys have indicated that levels of consumer satisfaction with water and sewerage services in Scotland are higher than for other public or private sector services in any part of the United Kingdom.
Recognition of that success has even been given in a letter from the Prime Minister to the President of CoSLA indicating that,
"local authorities in Scotland for many years provided highly effective water and sewerage services which the public rightly appreciate".
Given the undoubted success of water and sewerage services under the control of local authorities, I urge the Committee to support the amendments, retaining responsibility for water and sewerage by local authorities under the existing boundaries.
Amendment No. 105 outlines the water authorities as they currently exist and the water authorities that we would like. It is a new clause. The regional and islands councils in Scotland and their predecessors have been extremely efficient in providing water services. Recognition of this success has come from all quarters. Some years ago I was given the rather nice duty of being honorary president of an organisation that was set up to rehabilitate a fountain in Kelvingrove Park in my old constituency. The event was to celebrate the 150th anniversary of bringing water from Loch Katrine to Glasgow. The water was and is such that there is not a high sale of mineral water in the Glasgow area—a fact that may be taken two ways. The water from Loch Katrine comes straight through the taps and can be drunk without any filtering other than a gauze filter to take out solids. One of the problems is that it is so pure that you can put it straight into your car battery without the slightest worry. We believe that we have a system there about which the whole population of the west of Scotland is pleased.
When water and sewerage were privatised in England, immediately prior to the privatisation there were 10 regional water authorities responsible for sewerage and water in England and Wales. Those public sector quangos were similar to the ones being proposed by the Secretary of State. They were seen by many as a stepping-stone to full privatisation, as happened in England and Wales.
Through the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, the people of Scotland commissioned consultants to report on the economic, social and public health implications of the privatisation of water and sewerage in England and Wales. The report was submitted to the Secretary of State and I am sure that the Minister either has a copy or has seen one.
The picture emerging should be a warning to all, but a few key points can still be highlighted. An important argument put forward for privatisation of water and sewerage services in England and Wales was that the new water companies would be freed from public expenditure constraints. However, the consultants' report does not suggest that that freedom was warmly welcomed or even used. Almost no new equity capital has been raised from the shareholders of privatised companies; rather, the majority of new investment has been financed from current revenue. That is, it was paid for by the consumer through increased charges. Inevitably, that has reflected itself in excessive increases in water and sewerage charges very much above the annual rate of inflation. There is no doubt that with the
2044
poverty levels increasing in Great Britain, the privatisation of water and sewerage services in England and Wales has led to a sharp rise in the number of disconnections of supply from domestic properties. That is something which we hope never happens in Scotland. It cannot happen now; it is illegal to cut off water and sewerage supplies to any dwelling in Scotland.
The Minister will know that the Strathclyde regional authority carried out a survey of public opinion, of which I have a copy. A number of comments were made as to the questions asked, but I am sure that the Minister has had a good look at them. They are professionally laid out, the collection was carried out by the Electoral Reform Ballot Services Limited and there was no question about the result. The simple question was asked: "Do you agree with the Government's proposal for the future of water and sewerage services? Please mark a cross in one box only". The referendum was conducted by the electoral reform body and the result was absolutely astounding. Of those voting, 97.2 per cent. or 1,194,000 voted no; 33,000 voted yes, with a turnout of 71.5 per cent. With his knowledge of local government, the Minister will surely agree that for any local government effort that is a very high turnout indeed.
Therefore, to say the least, I think that it would be highly unwise if the Government ever reached the point of going towards privatisation. But then, there are so many things with this Government, even with the good will of the Scottish Ministers. I have great respect for the noble and learned Lord who will answer tonight and also for Sir Hector Monro who dealt with the Bill during the Committee stage in the other place. He said that the new water authorities would have access to the National Loan Fund probably by broadly similar amounts as in England, although exact figures would depend on each year's public expenditure service settlement. That too would be public expenditure and would add to the PSBR. What Sir Hector was really saying was that it will not be allowed to be added to the PSBR so that the money will be spent. It will give the dividends that they are speaking about, and after the purchase of the water undertakings charges will be raised. Of course, the Government have said that they will not do it —there is no chance of them doing it. I wish I were as happy about that idea as the Government appear to be.
Before I move on to the other amendments, I should like to confirm that I am speaking to Amendments Nos. 105, 106, and 107. Amendment No. 105 outlines the water authorities as they exist now. The purpose is to retain responsibility for water and sewerage within local government and also to retain the existing boundaries of the water and sewerage authorities. Would it be convenient if I went through each amendment singly or should I deal with them en bloc?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: If I may interrupt the noble Lord, I understood that Amendments Nos. 105, 106, 106A and 107 to 114 were grouped together. I intended to respond to the noble Lord in a single reply.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: Yes, that is fine; it is probably the most economic way from the time point of view. Amendment No. 106 proposes the insertion after "be" of the words:
"persons who are elected councillors nominated by each of the local authorities which lie within the geographical area of the water and sewerage authority".
The amendment will preserve the representation of elected councillors.
Amendment No. 107 proposes to increase the number of those on the board from 11 to 13, with additional responsibilities. Amendment No. 110 is to insert the words:
"Members of the authority shall appoint one of their members as chairman and one as deputy chairman".
Those are technical amendments, as I am sure the Minister will appreciate. Amendment No. 110 is to provide that control of the new authorities, if established, will remain in the hands of elected and democratically accountable councillors appointed by the local authorities in the area of the water authorities.
Amendment No. 108 suggests that each member of a water and sewerage authority should be personally responsible for advising the Secretary of State of any potential or actual conflict of interest. A register of such interests should be available for public inspection.
Amendment No. 113 suggests that there is no requirement for the new water and sewerage authorities to meet in public or to allow access to committee reports etc. The amendment would apply the same legislation to meetings of the new authorities as at present apply to local authorities, thereby ensuring public access to meetings. I do not think that that happens in England because they are private boards. Reports and documents, etc. should be published subject to the usual commercial specified confidential provisions.
The purpose of Amendment No. 114 is that members of a water and sewerage authority should be subject to the same penalties for non-compliance with the rules of the organisation as are members of other local authorities. I beg to move.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: Perhaps I should apologise to the noble and learned Lord the Minister because, inevitably, in a group of amendments—and we are speaking to a group—there will be an element of Second Reading speeches. But the principle is so important that I make no real apology.
All of us, including Scots Ministers, are very proud of the heritage that we have in water supplies. We have heard about Loch Katrine in the west and Lintrathen in the east, which has supplied Dundee and other parts with excellent water for a long time, in addition to supplying fishing facilities for those who wish to fish. There we have an example of excellent work in the past. The only criticism one could make, if one were a spoilsport, in relation to the old water authorities of the county councils was that the annual inspections of the water facilities were perhaps a trifle liquid in another direction. But that happened only once a year. No harm was done, and the public purse did not suffer nearly as much as it has in England from the depredations of the privatised water authorities, which are skinning people
2046
for all they are worth. It is interesting that the average bill in England and Wales is £199 per household and the average bill in Scotland is about £100. That factor must be taken into account. We have good water and we have people who manage the waiter schemes extremely well. There is no reason for us to change.
Here I must congratulate the Scottish Office team. It is a good team. They are nice men and they are traditional men. They have no connection with some of the appalling yuppies who people the English Conservative Party. They have done their best for Scotland in resisting all sorts of appalling legislation which they know is bad. In regard to the privatisation of the Forestry Commission, we owe a great debt to Sir Hector Monro for his sensible application of the rules that were pushed upon him. The Ministers for Scotland have to be congratulated on managing to produce a scheme which is still a fair way from privatisation. They were, I suppose, forced to produce a scheme that was managed by quangos. It appears to be a sine qua non of any policy of the Conservative Party nowadays that the further you remove democratically elected people from the management of any resource, the better it pleases those who are appointed. But it does not please anyone else.
Our aim in this series of amendments is perfectly simple. We are trying to offer a scheme to the Government which will employ the people who traditionally have managed Scottish industry well—the elected members—and arrange the industry into rather better groups. The following amendments ensure that a majority at least of the managing group would be elected members. There could be provision for private finance without handing the assets over to private industry, and the development could follow. In other words, this group of amendments is a sensible outlet for the Government. If they will look sympathetically at a number of the amendments it will improve the scheme no end. It will give it a democratic base and please the people of Scotland. The figures for the dislike of privatisation have already been produced by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, so I shall not reiterate them. These amendments may not be perfect but they do point a very sensible way forward.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: I want to say a word about this group of amendments because I think that it goes to the heart of this part of the Bill. When I hear some of the stories north of the Border I am reminded of the old one about the message that is sent from the front: "Send reinforcements, we are going to advance", but it comes out at the other end as, "Send three-and-fourpence, we are going to a dance". In a week when the Government have been subjected to the most extraordinary rumour-mongering as to the future of Rosyth, I must say that the "read across" from the Scottish Office Minister's plans (the Government's plans) to deal with the water and sewerage industry in the way that they are doing, in equating that with privatisation or the route through which privatisation will come, does a great disservice to the honour and integrity of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State and his colleagues.

2047
There are fundamental problems to be addressed in Scotland so far as water and sewage are concerned—or perhaps I should have put it the other way round and said sewage and water. I well remember, when in my previous post in government, having to deal with the very large problems that arose in Scotland. In particular, I had to deal with Inverness. I can assure those who do not know what I am referring to, that it was a messy business. The whole problem was trying to get enough finance to do something about the matter.
Yes, indeed there will be increased charges. I think that Members on all sides of the Chamber will realise that if we have to get our sewerage situation in Scotland put right a lot of money has to be spent. The pledge of the Government not to have disconnections north of the Border is an extremely important one, and I welcome it.
As to the set-up on how we should proceed, yes, I have heard all the stories about quangos and so on. I look to the Government in setting up the three boards that will represent the whole of Scotland to ensure that the balance in those boards will be clearly drawn. I believe that councillors have a part to play because of the knowledge that they have of the water and sewerage industry in Scotland. I would not decry that particular part. But there are also many people in the industry itself, and close to the industry, with a knowledge of the engineering and the water and sewage problems that exist who could be very useful members of the board. I do not look for the good and the great to be members of that board. I look for those who are good and great in the whole matter of water and sewerage to be members of it. While I well understand the nervousness of parties opposite as to the route down which the Government intend to go, I caution them that what is really important is that a very big problem has to be resolved in the water and sewerage industry in Scotland. No one should imagine that this Government, or this Secretary of State for Scotland, could possibly wish, having gone down the route that they have taken, then to move on to privatisation, which has its problems, as all of us know who live south of the Border.
The Earl of Balfour: I feel confident that the Government are taking the right steps in having the three authorities to cover the whole of Scotland. Strangely enough, before the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973, in Scotland we had water boards. That Act made water and sewerage a regional function. Equally strangely enough, England established water boards at the same time as we got rid of them in Scotland. I feel that the members of the new water and sewerage authorities must have the knowledge and experience connected with water and sewerage in particular.
From a slightly political point of view, it is worth remembering—I am sure the Government remember—that it was the old progressive boroughs and cities that built water and sewerage systems and reservoirs. Perhaps some people in Scotland feel that, because of the old connection, there should continue to be some local authority representation within membership of the new constitution.
2048
It is pleasing to think back to our city fathers, or perhaps I should say grandfathers, who paid for the water and sewerage systems to be developed. It is good that their children should continue to take an interest. I shall be pleased to be corrected by the Minister if I am wrong, but I do not see anything within Schedule 7 to prevent the Secretary of State choosing a local authority representative, provided that person had the necessary knowledge and experience.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: This is a very sad debate about water in Scotland. We have plenty of it throughout the year. We know where to find it when we want it. It is uncomfortable to be discussing the possibility of three water authorities for Scotland. I ask: why? Scotland has a population of 5 million people and is a small part of the United Kingdom. Why do we need three water authorities to look after water for Scotland?
With great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson of Bowden, I am quite amazed by what has been "leaked", so to speak, about Rosyth. There was a debate this afternoon in the Chamber, which some Members of the Committee no doubt attended. If Mr. Rifkind, the Secretary of State for Defence, had been a battleship, he would have been sunk long ago. There have been so many leaks. At 8 o'clock this morning I learnt from LBC Radio what was intended to be announced in this Chamber and another place this afternoon. It may have been an incorrect leak. But there were leaks all over the place. For the Government to suggest that leaks were coming from this side of the Chamber is quite inappropriate.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: I should like to say that the leaks in letters that seemed to be permeating the Palace of Westminster last week were very far from the truth. I referred to that.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I have always found the truth to be very elusive. No doubt one day we shall arrive at the truth about what is happening at Rosyth.
I am told on reasonable authority that in Scotland the private water people were unable to guarantee the health of the community and that is why water was taken into public control by the local authorities. In Glasgow in particular, in the Strathclyde area—we know what the Prime Minister said about Strathclyde and that he wants to get rid of the monstrosity called Strathclyde; perhaps that is what the Bill is all about—the far-seeing councillors in the early part of the century not only guaranteed the people of Glasgow and surrounding areas healthy water, as was said by my noble friend Lord Carmichael. They also guaranteed the health of the people of Strathclyde.
Now the Government move in to say, "You cannot do that any more." I ask why the local authority cannot do it any more. The noble Lord, Lord Sanderson, made a perfectly valid point. There has to be investment in public water and sewerage and we have to pay for our health. Let us not beat about the bush. If it is part of the local authority's responsibility to ensure the health of its population, it has to be paid for. The populace has to pay for it through various forms of rates.

2049
What struck me coming down on the train yesterday was what has happened to charges in England and Wales since the privatisation of water. I do not have the figures in front of me. But they are quite horrendous. The cost to the individual consumer is horrendous; the percentage increase in water rate is horrendous. The payment made to the people in charge of the water boards is yet more horrendous. And the profits of the companies involved are horrendous. Why should this place say that people should make a profit out of health? That is what water is all about; it is about people's good living.
When the Minster replies, perhaps he will give a guarantee to the Committee. I give an illustration of what 1 mean. About a month ago, I took the trouble to take a sail on Loch Katrine. I do not know when the Minister was last down at Loch Katrine. I sailed in a little ship called "The Sir Walter Scott"—the last of the "Para Handys", so to speak. That loch is as clean as a whistle. No one is allowed to take on it any outboard motor. One can fish on it provided one just has a boat. Will the Government and the new authorities give a guarantee that no other vessels will be allowed to sail on Loch Katrine? There is the terrible problem on Loch Lomond of people being killed by motorboats mowing them down at midnight. Are we to have a repeat of that situation on Loch Katrine? Will the Government underwrite the assurance that within the appropriate context that will not happen? I should like to know.
The councillors in that area not only took over the loch; they took over the land surrounding the loch. I should like to have a guarantee from the Government, on behalf of the people of Strathclyde, that the land will not be sold off for private purposes and private profit as part of the privatisation of the water industry in Scotland. I shall say no more at this stage. I give a guarantee to the Government that we shall come back to the matter. It may be rather wide of the amendment at the moment, but we shall come back at Report stage. I shall listen with interest to what the Government have to say.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: The noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, is absolutely right to say that despite the somewhat placid state of the Chamber at the moment, this issue is one of the most fundamental issues in the Bill. It divides the Government's view from the Opposition's view most deeply in many ways.
So far as we can—avoiding Second Reading speeches, as my noble friend Lord Mackie of Benshie remarked—we try to offer the Government a way out of what is a very basic issue for the Scottish people.
It has been customary in long debates for those who speak to establish some kind of credibility. I can only say, in an effort to be as persuasive as possible, that I grew up catching minnows in Monikie and Crombie and was then lucky enough to catch an occasional trout and trade it in the former constituency of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser, which is also my old home. I believe that the Government should bear in mind what has happened on a number of issues. Yesterday's discussion on the director of education concerned a
2050
similar matter. Feeling about local authority ownership of Scottish water for the people of Scotland runs very deep in the Scottish psyche and in Scottish traditions. The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, who is deeply steeped in the lore of Glasgow, mentioned Loch Katrine, the history of which goes back to disputes between the Glasgow public authority and the Duke of Montrose. It is one of the great chapters of the history of public improvement in Scotland.
I say seriously to the Government that it is dangerous to trample too much on tradition. When I was a young politician the general concept was that we in the Opposition parties were supposed to be the apostles of change and the Conservatives were the protectors of continuity. That has somewhat turned round in these latter days. I am doing my best to set the scene for our way out.
The difficulty, it seems to me—coming to the matter from the outside and belatedly—is that the water issue in the Bill brought together originally the central economic and political dogmas of the Government. They were very keen both on privatisation, for economic reasons, and on "quangoisation"—if that is not a terrible word—for political reasons. They came together on the issue. Then, because of the reaction from the people of Scotland and because of the frail political base of the present Government in Scotland, there was a certain retreat and we have the propositions that are now in the Bill.
That brings about a real dilemma which should dismay any of us who are Scots on either side of the Chamber and in Scotland generally; that is, on the one side there seems to be a deep distrust on the part of the Government of elected local authorities and, on the other, an even deeper distrust on the part of the Scottish people of the present Government's intentions in this field, particularly in relation to the organisation of water. Figures given by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, were particularly striking.
Without hope of any success I ask the Government, between now and Report stage—which gives a healthy period of meditation over the long parliamentary vacation—to consider seriously the merits of the main thrust of the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, regarding the changed structure of organising Scottish water, the retaining of responsibility for water and sewerage within local government, and the retaining of the existing boundaries of the water and sewerage authorities.
The arguments are sometimes put in financial terms and it is said that it is difficult to do that because of financial realities. That is a thin argument. I felt that there was force in the brief from CoSLA—no doubt received on all sides of the Chamber—which states:
"The Government's solution to this problem appears to be the Private Finance Initiative. This would involve the private sector building, owning and operating capital assets with the water authorities paying ongoing charges on the basis of the services provided. The great benefit from the Government's point of view is that, since the assets are owned by the private sector, the capital expenditure does not count as public expenditure and has no impact on the public sector borrowing requirement. The use of the Private Finance Initiative does not, however, depend on the creation of independent water authorities. The facility is equally

2051
available to local authorities and indeed the Scottish Office have already issued a circular to local authorities encouraging them to consider its use".
I look at the issue inevitably from the point of view of the European Union dimension. From my experience of the European Community I was not struck that they did things differently on the mainland of Europe. It may be that we can learn a lesson from that. CoSLA gave an interesting example from our European partners. Regrettably it does not give the origin of the quotation but I should like to place it on the record just the same. It said:
"The main exclusion from public expenditure is the expenditure of those government owned enterprises or public corporations which primarily sell the goods and services they produce in the market. In UK terms, that means distinguishing between, on the one hand, the activities of public corporations plus government trading bodies and, on the other hand, the principal activities of government, which involve taxing to finance public services".
If the Government were more willing and imaginative in these matters we could deal with the financing problems of the investment that is badly needed in the Scottish water and sewerage development without the problems relating to the PSBR. Without any hope of success, because of the importance of the Committee stage on this issue, I again ask the Government to consider seriously what was put to them by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, and to give a proper democratic local authority base for the future control and regulation of Scottish water.
The Earl of Minto: I do not find it easy to talk to a large group of amendments. I ask the Committee therefore to allow me to speak specifically to Amendments Nos. 106, 107 and 110 to begin with. As a representative of local government I believe that I should be allowed, within your Lordships' Committee, to express the view of those of us who live not necessarily in the massive conurbations but within the rural areas of Scotland as well.
We share with many other Members of the Committee who have spoken this evening a common feeling of unhappiness in relation to the intentions of Her Majesty's Government in the overall sense. I always felt that it was extremely unfortunate—I cannot help but think of what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate was saying a little earlier this evening when he spoke of the awful local government finance system—that there is not some way that we can sometimes, with good sense, bring the private sector into the public sector and still retain control of it in that public sector.
Speaking for my own authority, our water happens to be extremely expensive. We have to pay for it and we accept that. However, it is massively expensive if we look at it in relation to the remainder of Scottish water. There is, therefore, something rather attractive in becoming part of one of the three boards. That would help us and slightly reduce our costs—and we know that —even if it were to be within the public sector. From that point of view there is a certain sympathy towards the creation of our own specific authority. I cannot speak for the other two—that would be wrong of me —but once there it is a question of control.
2052
There is a massive feeling within Scotland that people do not want to be taken out of democratic control. Irrespective of where we live, we do not like that. The amendments to which I am speaking intend to provide that the control of the new authorities, if they are established, remains in the hands of elected and democratically accountable councillors appointed by the local authorities in the area of the water authorities. At no time when we are discussing the local government Bill should we allow ourselves to be divorced from the word "democracy". The democratic process is something of which we are immensely proud in Scotland, and within the United Kingdom. Therefore, when that principle is breached, it must be something which we treat with deep concern.
I believe it is important that the control of our water and indeed our sewerage authorities remains in the hands of those local people who are democratically accountable. To ensure that this occurs, I believe that the only feasible means of achieving such an end is to require that the membership of the authority is drawn from the councils within the area. It is not sufficient that the members of the authority should, as suggested in the schedule, have,
"knowledge or experience relevant to the discharge of the functions".
The vital point is that decisions should be taken by people who are democratically accountable to the users of the service. That is especially important, given that the Government claim that water and sewerage services are remaining in the public sector. If they are remaining in the public sector, then that in the minds of Scotland means that they are controlled with a totally democratic hand. It should also be remembered that the supporters of the Government have expressed that as a majority opinion. During the debate on similar amendments in the House of Commons, the Minister, Sir Hector Monro, argued that the new water and sewerage authorities would be democratically accountable. He stated (at col. 1538 of the Hansard report of the First Scottish Standing Committee on 29th March 1994):
"The authorities will be democratically accountable to Parliament. Men and women of a blend of expertise, with knowledge of the water industry and of business, will be members of the boards".
But they will not be elected. That is what frightens me. Sir Hector Monro, for whom I have friendship and admiration, clarified his position and said (at col. 1541 of Hansard) that,
"the water authorities will be responsible to the Secretary of State, who is responsible to Parliament, and all hon. Members have access to the Secretary of State".
While that is undoubtedly true, I would contend, and many of the local authorities, if not all of them, in Scotland would contend, that the line of accountability to the public presently employed in the control of Scotland's water and sewerage services should continue, as it is closer to the public and more accessible than the more distant form of accountability envisaged by the Minister. I believe that accountability for water services has historically been at a democratically local level in Scotland. I believe that it should remain so.
9 p.m.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: Rather as the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, anticipated, given the significant block of amendments in this group and given the fact that this is the first block of amendments dealing with that part of the Bill which will bring about a change in the way water is provided in Scotland, a number of the contributions have undoubtedly been in the nature of Second Reading speeches. In the circumstances, there is no complaint to be made about that approach.
Perhaps I may try to draw together from these amendments the difference between what the Government propose and what would be the effect of the new clause contained in Amendment No. 105. The amendment would require the setting up of five joint boards of the new local councils to deliver the water and sewerage services in those areas where the existing regional councils are to be replaced by more than one new council. The new clause marches with other suggestions for retaining control of water and sewerage services with local authorities.
There has been extensive debate in another place on this matter but I am afraid that the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, is, broadly speaking, correct. We are not impressed with the merits of the argument that we should be establishing a joint board basis for the delivery of water and sewerage services. The structure of 12 water and sewerage authorities fits very well with the current local government structure of regional and islands councils. The Government, including the Prime Minister, have always made it clear that we acknowledge the good record of those councils in maintaining and improving these important services. But, as we have discussed now at some considerable length during the proceedings on the Bill, the structure of local government is to change. I shall not repeat the arguments but against that background we determined that a change has to be effected in relation to water and sewerage.
Some mention has been made of the referendum conducted in the Strathclyde region. I do not propose to analyse it in any detail but I shall repeat what I have said previously. First, I have no complaint to make about the fashion in which the referendum was conducted. I have no doubt that it was accurately recorded and that the figures properly reflect what were the views of those who responded. However, I am far from confident that those who responded appreciated the context of that we were suggesting—that there ought to be a change if local government was to change.
Secondly, I know, as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, knows, that there was in parallel to that properly conducted referendum a campaign conducted throughout Strathclyde with pamphleting which indicated that those who responded should say no to the privatisation of water. We have not suggested the privatisation of water and that is not our intention. We believe that what is proposed here represents a stable and satisfactory arrangement for providing water and sewerage services in Scotland.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: When I was referring to public opinion I was not referring to the Strathclyde
2054
poll but to the figures which CoSLA gave in its public opinion survey. It said that 95 per cent. of Scots wanted to see the provision of water and sewerage left in the control of local authorities and 85 per cent. thought that the Government's plan to establish three public water authorities would eventually lead to the services being privatised. That seems to be a reflection of a degree of distrust which should worry the Government.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: If leaflets are put out saying that what is proposed is an inevitable route towards privatisation, the noble Lord will not be surprised to learn that we regard such an approach with some suspicion. Water and sewerage are now very substantial businesses, employing advanced technology and representing major capital investment. Over 6,000 people are employed and capital expenditure runs close to a quarter of a billion pounds each year and it is set to increase sharply in order to meet the requirements of the various European directives. Current expenditure and income—turnover in business language—is about £450 million a year. Perhaps I may pick up the words of the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth. I entirely agree with him that investment in our water and sewerage services is badly needed. The history of water and sewerage provision in Scotland is one of increasingly large units of supply. That trend will continue in view of the investment needs and the desirability—about which there seems to be general agreement—of harnessing (the resources of the private sector to help finance them.
I accept that joint boards are a well-precedented arrangement for the delivery of services which, by their nature, cannot best be delivered by each individual local authority on its own. The traditional examples are of course the police and fire services. There is also a precedent with water itself, as the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, reminded us, in as much as joint boards were responsible for the service before the last local government reform in 1975. A return to a system of joint boards was obviously a possibility for water and sewerage in the circumstances of the current reorganisation. It was one of the options that was set out in the consultation paper Investing for our Future, which was published in November 1992. That paper itself, however, pointed out that joint boards did not appear to be the best way to organise the services to operate on commercial lines.
That is the nub of the argument. The new water and sewerage authorities will inevitably have to conduct their operations in line with the best business practice. It is our view that a structure of joint boards would not be conducive to that end. In the circumstances—
Lord Mackie of Benshie: Will the noble and learned Lord give way?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I would like to make progress. This first group of amendments is taking a long—
Lord Mackie of Benshie: It is a little ludicrous to say that great things lie ahead when in fact greater things lie in the past and were done by the local authorities.

2055
The massive expenditure on Lintrathen and the bringing of water to Dundee was a major factor and as big as anything contemplated today.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: The level of expenditure, as I indicated, is what is currently required and what we require over the next 10 to 15 years is massive. It seems to be agreed that we want to harness the use of private sector finance in this matter. We believe that the arrangement of the three authorities within the public sector—I stress that they remain within the public sector —offers the right solution. The authorities will be of the right size to achieve economies of scale. The noble Earl, Lord Minto, in his contribution at least in part appeared to acknowledge that economies of scale might he achieved in some parts of Scotland if that were to be done. The largest (the west) will serve about 2.3 million people; the east about 1.5 million people and the north about 1.1 million people. They will all be substantial enterprises in their own right. At the same time they will all have sufficient similarities to allow a measure of comparison.
I have no doubt that what we are proposing is the right way ahead for these services in Scotland. I acknowledge the record of local authorities and understand the sentiments of those who would wish to retain something of the former structure. However, I do not believe that that would be for the best. Over time, I believe that this will become increasingly apparent as the new authorities establish themselves and the benefits of restructuring come through.
I am one who belongs to the Brian Meek school of water and sewerage. As he recorded in the Glasgow Herald recently, while there were frequently intense battles in local government for the convenership for the various distinguished responsibilities within local government, he could not remember when there was a ferocious political battle for the convenership of the water and sewerage services committee. That is the reality, so to some extent I believe that the furore that has been created has a degree of artificiality about it.
There may be some sentimental attachment to the continuation of those committees and responsibilities, particularly at the time of the annual visit, be it to Loch Katrine or to Lintrathan—an annual visit of golden legend. That may be a time when those involved feel some affection for those committees.
I share the difficulty of the noble Earl, Lord Minto, in trying to draw this considerable group of amendments together. Indeed, I do not propose to do so. Important as they are, many of them seem essentially consequential on the idea of establishing joint boards and what should be the attendant responsibilities and liabilities if that is to be done.
However, I should like to say something about Amendments Nos. 106 and 106A. Amendment No. 106 would require the membership of the new authorities to comprise solely elected councillors representing districts within the geographical area of the authority in
2056
question. I want to make it clear that elected councillors certainly have a part to play and this will be recognised in the composition of the new authorities' membership.
Sir Hector Monro stated in another place that the ranks of people qualified to serve on the authorities would include a significant number of councillors. He confirmed the intention that councillors will be among the appointees. Allan Stewart confirmed on Report that the Government believe that there should be a significant number of councillors on the new authorities, but that it would be unreasonable to bind the Secretary of State on specific numbers. But the authorities must also have within their membership the professional, business and financial expertise that will be indispen-sable to the running of these substantial businesses.
I should like to adopt the approach of my noble friend Lord Sanderson of Bowden to the membership of such boards. It is not our intention that they should comprise those who are traditionally slighted as being "the great and the good"; we want those who have real expertise and understanding of how the services should best be delivered. I am happy to confirm that we believe that a significant number of councillors will be among them.
It is right therefore that the membership should be drawn from the widest possible field of those who have most to contribute and that they should be appointed by and be responsible to the Secretary of State. I appreciate what the noble Earl said about accountability. The fact is that even if those bodies are not directly accountable in local government terms, because of their accountability to the Secretary of State and his accountability to Parliament they will find themselves answerable to Parliament albeit indirectly—that is, to your Lordships' House and, what is possibly more important, to Members of another House.
Unless any noble Lord wants me to take up any points relating to the other amendments, perhaps I may skip over them. Therefore, with that explanation of how we feel that the new boards should be established, I hope that we can now consider, in the detail that your Lordships choose, the other amendments in this part of the Bill relating to the new water authorities.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: Before the noble Lord replies, perhaps I may take up the point raised by the Minister about big business and the necessity to spend money. As I understand it, the necessity is to spend money on sewerage. The water provisions are not nearly so expensive. As far as I know, there is no way of collecting the money for sewerage except through the local authorities. If money is borrowed, it will eventually have to be paid for by the consumer and the only way is through the local authorities. If payments are made through them, that seems to me to be a strong reason for the local authorities controlling the new boards—or whatever they may be. The one thing that cannot be done is to cut off the sewerage. That would not work. That is the point that should be considered.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: Again, I agree with my noble friend Lord Sanderson that possibly we would have focused proper attention on what are the problems of investment in these services in Scotland had we inverted the debate and conducted it not on the emotive

2057
basis of Scotland's water but on Scotland's sewerage. I wonder whether there would have been quite so many people immediately and spontaneously indicating their worry. It is a massive requirement for capital expenditure. Other provisions in the Bill spell out exactly how the charge is to be levied on people. I anticipate that when we come to later clauses we may discuss that aspect.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: One of the difficulties in a Bill such as this is that the Minister putting it forward is so believable. I do not doubt that at this moment he believes everything he is saying. However, as a result of the record of the Government he represents, I have a sneaking feeling that most people in the country will believe that five or 10 years from now —if the Conservatives come back into power after a couple of elections—they will be looking at the total privatisation of the water companies in Scotland, as they did in England. I believe that to be the reason why people voting in the referenda took the view that they did not want them.
As regards the referenda, it is not good enough that the Government dismiss almost 1.2 million Scots as though they did not know what they were voting for. Basically, that is an insult to their intelligence. When the announcement was originally made I said, perhaps slightly emotionally, that the people of Scotland felt strongly about the whole question of water. It has been suggested by others that if the Government had gone about it another way and given the figures for sewerage as well as for water there might have been a different answer. They did not do so, and I do not believe that that would have worked.
The investment in water in Scotland by our forefathers was immense, and people know that. They have visited the reservoirs and, like my noble friend Lord Macaulay and myself, have seen the colossal investment at Loch Katrine. Thirty-six inch pipes were laid for 30 miles in the days when they used horses and carts. Reinforced by certain events that have taken place during the past 15 years, people have a sneaking feeling that that enormous investment will be snatched up on the cheap by people looking for a quick turnover. Once they have it, they will start to explain how expensive it is to complete the sewerage works. We all agree that sewerage is expensive. I would not hide that for one moment. To some extent, the campaign was emotional. But that emotion was fed by 100 years of folk history and the belief that Scottish water is not something from which people should make large fortunes.
We discussed the question of those who will sit on the boards. Mr. Stewart and Sir Hector Monro, who are Members in another place, gave assurances that there would be representation of councillors. We have been told that there will be a significant number of representatives. Does that mean 33 per cent., 51 per cent. or 75 per cent.? Obviously, I am not asking the Minister to give the answer now, although it would be helpful if he did. However, it should be simple for him to do so because he must have been in discussions, official or semi-official, and he must know whether it is to be tokenism or genuine representation.
2058
After 15 years, the Government have put forward this proposition. They have all the powers of propaganda by the use of pamphlets and leaflets but they cannot even get their own newspapers in Scotland to support it, I agree that in the past few months, the newspapers have been trying to increase their circulation. The Minister mentioned Brian Meek. I read that article. I believe that Brian Meek is one of the cleverest and lightest—I do not mean frivolous —reporters. He has a light touch which I think is extremely good. However, I do not know where his knowledge of water and sludge comes from, although I know that he was with the Edinburgh corporation for a long time.
I do not know whether the Committee knows that Glasgow has two extremely good boats which sail down the Clyde every day. Therefore, there are two sides to this matter. I have been on sludge boats in other parts of the world—the Mersey and Manchester. The conditions are so good on those boats that you would not know what they were carrying.
All joking aside, this is an incredibly important matter for the Scottish people. A very senior member of the party opposite—it would be wrong to give his name —asked me at a recent gathering why the Government keep doing these things. Why does the Conservative Party wish to meddle with water? This is the bridge too far.
Of course there are difficulties with regard to raising money but the Americans and French have managed to solve that problem. The Government may manage to make arrangements with regard to the Channel Tunnel which will not affect the PSBR. For many years members of Select Committees have argued that we need to get rid of Treasury rales and, if necessary, raise debentures as the Americans do for their big inner city or regional transport projects. That can be done. But the Government prefer to sell off their assets in order that they can justify obtaining a good market price.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I am reluctant to draw out our discussions further but the noble Lord has committed the very error about which I complained. I had hoped that he would accept—as the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, did—that we propose to leave the water boards within the public sector. Nothing will be sold off and this will remain in the public sector. There will be no sale and nothing accruing to the Treasury as a consequence of the change.
However, our proposals will secure the opportunity for the investment which we believe is required to bring Scotland's water and sewerage up to the high standards required of us, both domestically and in the European context.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: Earlier I tried to suggest that the Victorian investment in water and sewerage was so immense that it would be easy to attract private capital because that private investment will be riding on the huge investment that is already there. I said at the beginning that I do not believe that the noble and learned Lord has horns. He genuinely believes that that is what will happen. However, very few people in Scotland believe that 10 years from now —unless conditions politically change—there will not

2059
ultimately be a sell-off. If the Minister does not believe that, then some of the recent examples that we have heard about, when things seems to have been Treasury motivated, will prove that he is wrong—although I hope not. I really believe that. Indeed, it is even more tragic for the party opposite, but rather better for my party: the people of Scotland believe us and not the Minister. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 7 [Constitution and proceedings etc. of a new water and sewerage authority]:
[Amendments Nos. 106 to 114 not moved.]
Schedule 7 agreed to.
Schedule 8 agreed to.
Clauses 62 and 63 agreed to.
9.30 p.m.
Clause 64 [General duties of Secretary of State and of new authorities]:
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 115:
Page 56, line 44, leave out ("to have regard to the desirability of preserving") and insert ("to preserve").
The noble Lord said: In moving the amendment I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 116,117 and 118. Again, it is perhaps the kind of clumsy arrangement about which the Minister and the noble Earl, Lord Minto, spoke where we have to deal with too many amendments at once. However, they are grouped together and there is no question about it. I would have liked to have dealt with them in the other way but, as I say, they have been grouped together.
The amendments are designed to help in our ultimate objective; namely, to ensure that the new authorities will be subject to a duty to preserve public access and protect and conserve buildings, sites and objects of archaeological or historic interest.
When one looks at some of our water works, we can see examples of quite staggering Victorian engineering, ingenuity and science. The water supply that I know best is Loch Katrine. It comes down from the granite rock and runs the 30-odd miles to Glasgow. As I said on another occasion, you can use the water in your car battery without the slightest worry because it is absolutely pure. The work was carried out by local firms. Some Members of the Committee will know the famous water manufacturing appliance companies in Kilmarnock, Renfrew and Kennedy which, way back long before the turn of the century, provided wonderful machines for controlling the water. They also supplied the pipes that were sent over the hills in a huge siphon down to the water works at Milngavie. All such works should be preserved.
The Milngavie water works have been open to the public for a hundred years now. One can stroll around the works on a Sunday or on any day of the week and it is a wonderful experience. We are most keen that it should be preserved. Anything that says, "Keep off the Grass" or "Keep Out" is there for a very good purpose. In general, I believe that people are aware of that fact.
2060
If the water companies ever come to the area, we want them to provide such safeguards. But such safeguards must allow people to exercise their rights of access.
Amendment No. 117 provides that in the exercise of their functions relating to water and sewerage the Secretary of State and the new water authorities are required to consult local authorities on matters which impinge upon the exercise of the functions of local authorities.
Amendment No. 119 states:
"Not less than one-third of the members of the Customers Council"—
in this case I am not speaking about the boards themselves—
"shall be members of local authorities appointed by such national associations of local authorities as exist and the remaining members shall be appointed by such other bodies which are representative of the interests of domestic and non-domestic consumers of water and sewerage services".
That may be, to some extent, a help to the noble Earl, Lord Minto, who unfortunately has now left the Chamber, because he expressed concern about maintaining contact with the local authority. If the customers council comprises a reasonable number of members from the local authority, the chances are that people will approach that body. The Minister, having been a Member of Parliament, will know that constituents attend their MPs' surgeries and they will speak to one when perhaps they would not normally do so because they feel they have a right—and they are correct in that —to lay their problems before their MP. We finish with—
Lord Mackie of Benshie: Are we not confining ourselves at the moment to Amendments Nos. 115 to 118?
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: Yes, I have gone rather too far ahead. As I have said, the documents before us are rather confusing. I have a little help available to me, but I do not have the facilities that are available to the Minister. I would repeat myself if I discussed the matter further. I beg to move.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: I do not wish to add much more to those comments except to say that this is an important amendment and I think that the Government could go a lot further than they have done as regards providing access and facilities for the public. The authorities that we are discussing will control vast areas of Scotland and those areas are of great interest in many respects, including archaeological interest. Great interest is now shown in such subjects as can be seen from the television programmes that are now transmitted on archaeology, antiques and other such matters. We do not know how much study will be conducted in these subjects in the future. I believe it is reasonable to instruct the authorities to conserve and to preserve these valuable features of our heritage.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I shall attempt to confine myself to Amendments Nos. 115, 116, 117 and 118. Of course the matter of access is important but this amendment would place an unqualified duty on the new authorities and the Secretary of State to ensure that the public have the right of access to certain areas used by

2061
the new water authorities in the exercise of their function. As the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, has just indicated, the Bill already lays a duty on the new authorities and the Secretary of State to have regard to the desirability of preserving access. I can readily understand the desire of Members of the Committee to make this duty stronger, but I have to say that I do not think it would be right to do so.
The noble Lord, Lord Macaulay of Bragar, in the contribution he made on the previous set of amendments, referred to Loch Katrine and the purity of the water there, and the desirability of keeping that water pure. I entirely share that desire. If there is a right of unrestricted access, there must be some risk that that purity will be put in peril. It is for that reason that there certainly should be a requirement—as provided in the Bill—to have regard to the desirability of preserving access. However, it would be wrong to impose a right of access that was without any qualification at all.
The new water authorities will, I am sure, take a responsible attitude to the question of access and will be guided by the code of practice issued by the Scottish Office, entitled Conservation, Access and Recreation. The noble Lord accused me on an earlier amendment of a degree of naivety. I may continue to exhibit it because I do not genuinely believe that there will be problems in this area. We have to recognise that the first duty of the water authorities is to secure the provision of water and sewerage services. It is conceivable that access, or access for certain types of activities, might well be inimical to those purposes. In that case it would be right for the water authorities to put the interests of their primary functions first.
Similarly, I can understand noble Lords' desire in respect of Amendment No. 116 to ensure that the new water authorities properly respect the built heritage. I have no doubt that they will. The purpose of the clause is to encourage their efforts in that direction.
However, again we have to recognise that the prime functions of the new authorities are the delivery of water and sewerage services. It would not be right to have an unqualified duty in respect of the built heritage which could conflict with that function.
Amendment No. 117 would require the Secretary of State and the new water authorities to consult with local authorities when anything that they did might affect the exercise of any local authority function. I am sure that the new local authorities and the new water authorities will need to be in touch with one another almost continuously on a whole variety of issues. There are obvious areas of contact—planning, industrial development and environmental health. There will also be less obvious areas or areas of particular local importance which will emerge from time to time.
In all those instances we can expect the two bodies, as part of normal good management, to consult one another as appropriate. I am sure that that is the right approach. We do not want to be excessively heavy-handed in this legislation and require of them an excess of consultation and paper chasing on what might be relatively minor matters.
Finally, Amendment No. 118 would place on the new water authorities a duty to ensure that they cause no loss
2062
or damage to any other person or the environment when exercising their power. Again, it is clearly desirable that the new authorities should not cause loss or damage or that if they do so they should pay prompt and proper compensation. However, that is largely the position mat already exists. The Water (Scotland) Act 1980 and the Sewerage (Scotland) Act 1968 contain a number of provisions which require water and sewerage authorities to compensate any person who has suffered loss as a consequence of the exercise by the authority of its powers.
We believe that what is already provided for in statute is more than sufficient and that the additional safeguard which the amendment proposes is excessive in the context of what is already required of the authorities and will continue to be required of them.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I am grateful to the Minister for the trouble that he has taken. I do not suggest that he is naive, but I think that sometimes he has a healthy suspicion of what he is asked to do.
The noble and learned Lord said that I had suggested unrestricted access. No one has ever thought that you could walk unrestricted round a waterworks. There are always parts where you cannot go. If you go to Milngavie on any Sunday there will be scores of people, and even children on bicycles. Of course motor cars are not allowed or any activities that might foul the water.
At Loch Katrine "Walter Scott" sails to Stronachlachar twice a day. There is unrestricted access.
People are worried about access. On many occasions in Scotland, not only in the northern Highlands but also in the central area, someone buys a property and suddenly, in an area which has been open for years, gates are put up. I can think of two or three places where that has happened. The old Glasgow merchants, many of whom were councillors in the days of the early Liberals, were responsible for Loch Katrine, but Glasgow people have had easy access to it. They would be most annoyed if someone became an important shareholder and started claiming rights. That is the exact point.
The noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, has referred to this matter. A member of the Scottish aristocracy suddenly threw a gate across a duke's path just above Aberfoyle. It was not there long because there had been hiking in the hill for generations. Hordes of hikers just went through the gateway and it had to be taken away. People are genuinely worried that someone may become important enough in the set-up of the water authority to demand or deny privileges which have existed for generations.
I have said enough. Although we may return to some points later, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 116 to 118 not moved.]
9.45 p.m.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth Lord Thomson of Monifieth moved Amendment No. 118A:
Page 57, line 5, at end insert:

2063
("( ) Each of the new water and sewerage authorities shall consult the Customers Council established under section 66 below on such matters as appear to affect the interests of the customers or potential customers of that authority").
The noble Lord said: In moving the amendment, I speak briefly to the other amendments in the group.
Amendment No. 118A is a narrow but not unimportant amendment. It seeks to ensure that the new authorities will consult the customers council which is to be set up to look after the interests of consumers on any aspect which could have an effect on customers. The provision may seem plain common sense, but it is not automatic under the Bill. Customers councils are required to consult the new authorities; but the new authorities are not required to consult the customers councils. For example, a water authority may be considering how to encourage customers to accept meters. The customers council may be unaware of the issue until the matter reaches a developed stage. In England and Wales the water companies have a condition in their licence requiring them to consult with the local customers service committees at least once a year on general matters. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that Scotland has similar provisions.
The next two amendments relate to the composition of the customers council; the proportion of members from local authorities and whether among the consumer representation, domestic, as distinct from non-domestic, consumers should be in the majority. Non-domestic consumers are often large commercial bodies. They have their own means of making their interests known to the water authorities. The amendment ensures that the domestic customer is in the majority in that element of the composition of the customers council.
Amendment No. 121A inserts a new clause. The provision ensures that there are arrangements for the resolution of any complaints on which the customers council has been unable to reach agreement with the water authority concerned. In England and Wales there is provision for a reference to the Director General of Water Services. The amendment specifies that the Secretary of State shall be responsible for reaching an enforceable decision. We recognise and accept that in practice the Secretary of State would not take that matter on himself. He would delegate the decision-making to an independent party or refer the matter to arbitration. But the thrust of the proposal is to ensure that there is some means of enforcing complaints and bringing them to a point of attempted settlement and reconciliation. I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: This is an important group of amendments. I hope that I shall be able to respond succinctly to the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Thomson.
Amendment No. 118A would place the new authorities under a duty to consult the customers council on all matters relevant to the interests of customers or potential customers. We want the new authorities and the customers council established under the Bill to have a good and productive relationship. I have no doubt that that will entail a continuing and searching dialogue on
2064
a wide range of issues. Equally, however, the dialogue will need to be selective if time and money are not to be used to little effect.
Practically the whole of the authorities' operations could be said to affect the consumer but only a limited number of key issues should be the focus of discussions between the authorities and the customers council. As the noble Lord identified for himself, the Bill provides for the customers council to select and concentrate on the issues of greatest importance to consumers. That is the approach that we have seen as being the most appropriate.
Beyond that, the council is already required under Clause 67 to undertake certain functions which include consultation with the authorities about matters which affect the interests of customers. Clause 68 gives the customers council a right to all the information it reasonably needs. This will ensure that it can raise all appropriate matters with the new authorities and implicit in those statutory provisions is the reciprocal duty on the authorities to engage in meaningful consultation with the council. I believe that that is sufficient. I hope that it meets an anxiety which the noble Lord advanced and which I concede to be perfectly legitimate.
Amendment No. 119 would alter the arrangements for appointing members of the customers council. It would require not less than one-third of members to be elected councillors appointed by associations of local authorities. The remaining members would be appointed by other bodies representative of the interests of domestic and non-domestic customers.
Members of the customers council should certainly be representative of customers, but appointments will be made because of the personal contribution the appointees can bring to the job. We believe that that is the best way to construct such a watchdog body.
The alternative proposed in the amendment is to make the appointees effectively delegates of the particular organisations which have nominated them. We believe that that reduces their flexibility of operation in a personal capacity in a way which would not be in the best interests of the council or consumers at large. I would stress, however, that in making appointments on a personal basis, the qualifications of those appointed and their ability to be representative of the different groups of customers will be paramount.
There are already some pointers in the Bill. The particular needs of rural customers, both in the domestic and non-domestic sectors, must have appropriate representation, as must other customers and potential customers. Sir Hector Monro said in another place that he wanted local councillors to be on water authorities, the customers council and area committees, and that nominations could come from community councils and local authorities. That is absolutely right. I hope that I can reassure the Committee that before making any appointments the Secretary of State will have regard to any suggestions from those sources and will particularly consider the matter of local authority appointees.
Amendment No. 119A would require the majority of members on the customers council to represent domestic customers. I am bound to say that I do not

2065
consider that that is an appropriate development. We are setting up a customers council to look after the interests of all customers, domestic and non-domestic alike.
Amendments Nos. 120 and 121 relate to the appointment of the chairman and deputy chairman and remove the need for the Secretary of State to approve the appointment of the chairmen of the three area committees. Again, unless I am asked to elaborate upon them, they appear to me to be essentially consequential on the changes introduced by the earlier amendments.
Amendment No. 121 A, however, deals with a rather different point, and it is quite an important one. It would establish an elaborate mechanism for resolution by the Secretary of State of a complaint which the customers council had been unable to resolve with a water authority. The parentage of this clause appears to lie in the Water Industry Act 1991, which gave these powers to the director-general of Ofwat in respect of England and Wales.
We do not think that parallel powers are required in Scotland. In England and Wales, in contrast to what we propose, there is a privatised industry, to which a system of regulation including this procedure for complaints is particularly appropriate.
We have already inserted in the Bill in the other place provisions for water authorities to draw up codes of practice in consultation with the customers council. It is also the duty of the customers council to investigate any complaints from consumers. The hope and expectation is that these procedures will allow complaints to be resolved fairly and amicably. Should that fail to be the case, it would be open to the customers council to lay the facts of the case before the Secretary of State. It would then be open to the Secretary of State—and this bears back on the issue of accountability to which reference was made earlier—if circumstances warrant-ed, to give a direction to the water authority.
I have taken a little time to explain these amendments. I consider them to be important, but I hope that, with the explanations that I have given, the noble Lord will withdraw them.
I regret to say that because this group is so lengthy I almost omitted reference to the amendment that requires the new water and sewerage authorities to prepare their draft charges schemes in a format specified by the Secretary of State. While we acknowledge that we would like to see a measure of comparative performance, we would not like to impose this degree of inflexibility on the three new water authorities.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for the care that he has taken to deal with these particular amendments. For my part, I was satisfied with his reply on the first amendment. I think that common sense should prevail there. We need to read and think about what he said on the other matters. Clearly, in regard to the question of dealing with complaints, the enforceability of complaints, and so on, if there is a final direction by the Secretary of State, basically that is reassuring. But I say to the noble and learned Lord that much will depend, in the light of what he has said and what it appears to me that he said, on the care and wisdom with which the Secretary of
2066
State carries out his responsibility in terms of the balance of interests within the customers council. It is very important that it should carry credibility. We are all very suspicious these days about quangos and excessive governmental influence on their overall composition. Here it would be very important to ensure that the local authority representation is one that carries real credibility. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 64 agreed to.
Clauses 65 and 66 agreed to.
Schedule 9 [Constitution and proceedings etc. of the Scottish Water and Sewerage Customers Council]:
[Amendments Nos. 119 to 121 not moved.]
Schedule 9 agreed to.
Clause 67 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 121A not moved.]
Clauses 68 to 74 agreed to.
Clause 75 [Charges schemes]:
[Amendment No. 121B not moved.]
Clause 75 agreed to.
Clauses 76 and 77 agreed to.
10 p.m.
Clause 78 [Collection of charges by local authority]:
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 122:
Page 64, line 17, at beginning insert ("Failing agreement between a new water and sewerage authority and a local authority that the local authority shall demand and recover such charges payable for services provided by a water and sewerage authority under a charges scheme as are specified in the agreement;").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, it may be convenient for the Committee if I speak also to Amendments Nos. 123 and 124.
Amendment No. 122 seeks to insert:
"Failing agreement between a new water and sewerage authority and a local authority that the local authority shall demand and recover such charges payable for services provided by a water and sewerage authority under a charges scheme as are specified in the agreement".
In the first instance, it should be open to local authorities and water and sewerage authorities to reach agreement regarding the collection of charges on such terms and conditions as are mutually acceptable rather than those imposed by the Secretary of State. It is suggested that the Minister wants the Secretary of State kept out of the matter as much as possible. I should have thought that he would therefore be willing to accept this amendment. We do not expect such a situation to arise often. If the conditions are right and everything is as well ordered as the Government have suggested throughout the Bill, it will be only a long-stop defence. I hope that the Minister will give us some reassurance on the matter.
Amendment No. 123 seeks to ensure that:
"payments shall not be greater than the sums actually recovered by the collecting authority, less the cost of such collection".
This appears to be a fairly technical amendment but there may be very large sums involved. I do not think we should treat the matter lightly. Local authorities should not have to bear the bad debts of a new water and sewerage authority. They might be considerable if in the future there is a substantial increase in water and

2067
sewerage charges. Local authorities should be reimbursed for the collection of any charges that are incurred.
Amendment No. 124 seeks to leave out the words:
"may be prescribed by reference to such",
and insert the words:
"shall be prescribed by reference to the needs and resources of a person liable to pay an amount under a charges scheme and such other".
The purpose of the amendment is to prescribe more closely the factors which the Secretary of State is required to take into account when making regulations that provide for a person to pay a reduced charge. I cannot give any kind of list—certainly not a complete list—of the people for whom the Secretary of State may wish to offer the special provisions. There are already one or two similar cases. For instance, if water is for a hotel, one meter will usually be sufficient for the whole hotel. A comparison may be the charge relating to television—I must be careful at this point because the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, is listening carefully. If it is, say, for television in an old folk's home, a single licence is sufficient for the whole establishment—or at least, there is a special block licence which allows for that.
There are some cases on which the Secretary of State should have the flexibility to make decisions for the benefit of deserving people. It would be his job to decide which people are "deserving", advised no doubt by the correct authorities, whether charitable, medical or whatever. I beg to move.
The Earl of Balfour: I take this opportunity to ask one or two questions in relation to Clause 80. Clause 80 appears to allow the Secretary of State to make reduced charges in certain circumstances. The kinds of case that come to mind are the sort that may arise under Clause 11, which deals with metered water. Such a case may involve a large family with young children. What can also be a frightful problem for a family, and even worse than having young children, is having incontinent grandparents. One can go through gallons of water in that situation. Will the arrangement which allows the Secretary of State to reduce charges provide a quantity discount for those families who really need to be helped?
I may be raising this matter at the wrong point in the proceedings. However, I hope that some satisfaction can be given bearing in mind the plight of those families.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: Amendment No. 122 would make collection of water and sewerage charges under a Clause 78 order a procedure of last resort, to be used only where the council and the water authorities could not reach agreement. There is always thought to be virtue in proceeding by agreement. But in this situation the Government believe that the virtues of agreement must yield to certainty and, in particular, certainty at an early stage.
The Minister for the Environment, Sir Hector Monro, said in another place that it could make practical and administrative sense to have the new councils collect charges for the new water and sewerage authorities in
2068
the early years. The Committee may well understand that. These are new authorities and may not have in place an easy and efficient form of collection in the early years, whereas they may be able to use to good effect the collection systems already existing for councils.
I can tell the Committee that the Government intend that for 1996–97 at any rate—it will be seen that the orders refer to a specific year—the new councils should collect charges for the new water and sewerage authorities. The necessary order under Clause 78 will be brought forward after Royal Assent. The charges to be covered will be those for domestic sewerage and domestic unmetered water; that is, those charges which are currently collected along with or as part of the council tax. On the other hand, it will be the responsibility of the new water authorities to make appropriate arrangements for the collection of other charges; that is, charges for non-domestic water and sewerage and for all metered water.
Sir Hector Monro also indicated in another place that the local councils would not be out of pocket and their full costs would be reimbursed if collection under a Clause 78 order was introduced. As the Committee will appreciate, that does not necessarily imply a situation where local councils are reimbursed whatever they assess to be the costs of collection. They are required only to remit to the water authorities whatever amounts they happen to have been able to collect. Costs will be repayable but it will, on the other hand, be only reasonable for the water authorities to have, in turn, some assurances about the sums to be remitted to them. These are all matters which, among others, can feature in the detail of an order under Clause 78. The Government look forward to constructive discussions with all the parties concerned before the terms of those details are finalised.
I turn to Amendment No. 124. Your Lordships will see—and I draw the attention of my noble friend Lord Balfour to this matter—that the terms of Clause 80(1) are very general. It states:
'The Secretary of State may make regulations as regards any case where—

(a) a person is…liable to pay an amount to a new water and sewerage authority or to a local authority; and

(b) conditions prescribed in the regulations are fulfilled".

Without prejudice as to whether or not my right honourable friend the Secretary of State would make an order in the kind of situation which my noble friend has indicated, I would say to my noble friend that my right honourable friend has a very wide power under that provision. I would equally say to the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, again without prejudice as to whether or not he would make any such order, that the terms of the power under Clause 80 are sufficiently wide to permit an order to be made in the kind of circumstances which he envisages. Nonetheless, we do not think that the most effective way—I can only presume that this is what lies behind the terms of Amendment No. 124—of providing help to customers is to require some kind of a means-tested scheme. After all, income support levels will already take account of water and sewerage charges. Requiring a further examination of means would be costly and inappropriate. Decisions on the form of any scheme to reduce charges are for my right

2069
honourable friend the Secretary of State and he will take those decisions in the light of all the circumstances prevailing.
I stress the generality of the terms of Clause 80 but I could perhaps indicate that one possible use of the clause is, for example, to enable forms of transitional reduction schemes to be introduced should that prove to be appropriate. It is right that the full cost of water and sewerage services should be recovered through charges. That is already the case with water and non-domestic sewerage.
However, domestic sewerage expenditure is current-ly met from the council tax. With the restructuring, that will change. Domestic sewerage will be included on the charges levied by the new authorities and paid by those connected to the sewerage service. The change will therefore produce an increase in direct water and sewerage service bills but there will be a parallel reduction in local authority expenditure and in the amount of income they require. Therefore, it may be appropriate to use the power in connection with this change.
Other factors will affect bills in 1996–97 and in subsequent years. The continuing investment programme will have to be paid for, a point which everyone can recognise. But increased economies of scale and the greater efficiency of the new water authorities will ensure the delivery of service at a lower cost than would otherwise have been the case. With the explanation of what lies behind the provisions in those clauses I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: Before the noble and learned Lord takes his seat again, I must say that I was intrigued to hear him talking about constructive discussions taking place. He said that he was hoping for such discussions in relation to Amendment No. 123. We are talking about pure water and here we have a pure Bill. We are now on the third day of the Committee stage and not one Government amendment has been tabled. What are we facing for the Report stage? We had another Bill as regards England and Wales for which 220 amendments were tabled by the Government. Are we to have a mass of Government amendments at Report stage? If the Government are a caring and listening government, as they say they are, why are there no Government amendments to this Bill? It is very strange. On this side of the House we look forward to seeing what the Government consider to be wrong with this Bill and what they are going to put right at Report stage. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord can tell us so that when we come back in October we shall be refreshed for the battle at Report stage, with Government amendments duly lodged in good time so that we can consider them all.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: It is passing strange to have stood here so often and been criticised for introducing Government amendments, having been told so often that the Bill had not been thought through
2070
properly and that it had been done on the hoof. Now, when we do not have amendments, we are being criticised for that. I say that in passing.
The noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, does not seem to have listened to the point I was making. It referred to the terms of the order that will be made under Clause 78. It was in respect of the terms of that order that I indicated the matters to be taken into account in the discussions before finalisation of the order.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I appreciate what the noble and learned Lord has said. We are not trying to be difficult, but everyone is surprised. We have a Bill here of 270 pages and there has not been a single amendment by the Government. I doubt whether anyone in this building in the past 50 years has got a Bill back from another place without making amendments. The noble and learned Lord will recall the famous Consolidation Bill and the Roads (Scotland) Bill. I believe that one of the schedules came to us with 25 pages. When it returned to the other place it had 83 pages. That was excessive and that was only a schedule. There were also other amendments.
We are surprised that the Government have managed to produce a Bill of this size without a single amendment. We are most grateful to both noble and learned Lords for being willing to look at things before Report. They should not chastise this side of the Committee for believing that we are being difficult. We are looking at almost a miracle in terms of legislation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 123 not moved.]
Clause 78 agreed to.
Schedule 10 agreed to.
Clause 79 agreed to.
Clause 80 [Reduced charges]:
[Amendment No. 124 not moved.]
Clause 80 agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 81 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: Clause 81 makes it an offence for a member of a local authority or of one of its committees or a joint committee to vote on any question arising in a meeting concerning the exercise of such functions as the local authority may have by virtue of Clause 78, acting as the collecting agency for charges levelled by the new water and sewerage authorities, where that member is at least two months in arrears with a charge payable by virtue of Clause 78.
Although we accept that it is proper to disqualify members where they have a statutory function and an interest, it is unconstitutional to disqualify members where they are acting only as a contractor for another body. The collection of a charge is simply a contracted job. No restrictions should be placed on a democratic-ally elected member in terms of collecting charges for a quango. There is no similarity here with the situation in which a councillor is placed if he chooses not to pay his council tax and is debarred from voting on budgetary matters. The situation is different for the non-payment

2071
of water charges under the proposed system. In the former case, the councillor can influence policy decisions while in the latter case, he has no such power.
I am opposing the question that Clause 81 stand part of the Bill in a genuine attempt to discover what the clause really means. I do not understand the whole tenor of the clause and I should be grateful if the Minister could explain it to me.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: Perhaps the difficulty of the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, arises from his description of what is being done in the clause as a function which is "contracted". As we have just seen, that is not the case because although in his Amendment No. 122 the noble Lord wanted there to be agreement between the new authority and the local authority—and that would give rise to the situation of contract to which the noble Lord refers—he will appreciate that, in the absence of his amendment, Clause 78 provides for an order by the Secretary of State.
I do not put it any higher than saying that there might conceivably be some members of some local authorities (upon whom the collection duty had been laid on behalf of the new authorities) who might not be entirely in favour of the policy of the new authority. That is not wholly inconceivable. Those members might therefore have political or other opposition to that policy which might lead them not to pay the water charges in question. That would put them in a position similar to those who in the past did not pay their poll tax, but nonetheless went on to vote on matters relating to that and thus committed offences. There have been such cases. The clause exists to prevent parallel cases occurring. Although the point raised by the noble Lord might or might not have some weight if this were a matter of contract, I point out that it is not such a matter.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I am most grateful to the Minister. I think that I understand him. As a layman, I am slightly confused about whether a councillor would need to have been convicted or simply to be known, within the organisation, to be in difficulty. As I said, I tabled the Motion in a genuine attempt to gain information and I think that I have got it —I may have got too much—but I thank the Minister for it. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Clause 81 agreed to.
Clause 82 agreed to.
Clause 83 [Financing and borrowing]:
[Amendment No. 124A not moved.]
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 125:
Page 68, line 4, at end insert:
("(4A) The Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument extinguish all or any of the liabilities of the existing water and sewerage authorities in respect of the principal of any loan made to the existing water and sewerage authorities.
(4B) The assets of the National Loans Fund shall accordingly be reduced by amounts corresponding to any liabilities so extinguished").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is to allow the extinguishing of existing water and sewerage authority loans by the Secretary of State. Prior
2072
to the water authorities in England and Wales being privatised in 1990, Section 86(1) of the Water Act 1989 gave the Secretary of State power by statutory instrument to,
"extinguish all or any of the liabilities of the nominated holding company … in respect of the principal of any loan".
The effect of that was to reduce the loan debt due by water authorities by £5,800 million. Apart from making the water undertakings a more attractive financial proposition to potential investors, the effect of that write-off was to eliminate from the customer charges all outstanding investment and loan payments. From a consumer's perspective, there is no equity in a situation in which customers in England and Wales have received that subsidy but consumers in Scotland have not. A similar arrangement should therefore be put in place for Scotland.
In response to a similar amendment tabled in the other place, the Minister, Sir Hector Monro, stated:
"Hon. Members have raised the issue of the green dowry, as it is called, that went to England and Wales. They miss the important point that in England and Wales water was privatised, whereas in Scotland it is to remain in public control. It is therefore right that the debt should move from the local authority to the water authority. The case of England and Wales is not a good parallel, because the need there was to create new companies with a capital structure that made sense to the market. Debt finance to 100 per cent. does not make sense for a private sector company". —[Official Report, Commons, First Scottish Standing Committee, 14/4/94; col. 1820.]
However, that view does not give water consumers in Scotland equity with their counterparts in England and it will inevitably mean higher charges north of the Border in the long run.
That is a slightly confusing statement and perhaps it needs someone such as our deputy chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, who is an accountant, to be able to explain it. Perhaps the Minister can help me out and give me a little more insight into the Commons amendment. I believe that I understand it and I agree that the argument raises suspicions, but I should be happy if the Minister could help by giving me a clear understanding of the matter. I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I am not sure that I can assist the noble Lord because he has conveniently read for me the detailed answer that I wanted to give; that is, what was contained within the speech made by my honourable friend Sir Hector Monro. I am not sure that the argument is capable of any greater elaboration.
The exercise that is being carried out in Scotland will be different and this gives me a further opportunity to point up the difference between what has been carried out in England and Wales and what is proposed for Scotland. We are setting up public authorities and not private-sector companies. We do not therefore need to put in place the capital and financing structure that might be needed in market terms.
The noble Lord is right in saying that there will be no equity in the structure of the new authorities. They will have loan finance drawn primarily from the National Loans Fund. The capital structure and the debt which the new water authorities will acquire when they open for business will be settled and announced in due course.

2073
I do not believe that I can say any more. I merely point out the distinction between the particular solutions which have been followed in England and Wales in respect of privatisation and the proposal that we are putting forward.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: Before the noble and learned Lord sits down, will he elaborate on the distinction? I hesitate to go down this line because of the position in which it may put me. But does it mean that, if the Government privatise, they are ready to subsidise those who are engaged in the privatisation and through them, the consumer; whereas if they engage in the transfer from one form of public authority to another, the Government's view is that the consumer in Scotland must pay a great deal more than the consumer in England because in Scotland we forced them to continue with some form of public authority ownership?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I am intrigued to know why the noble Lord suddenly wishes to go down this road. We are saying that while the Bill proposes a change, arrangements for water remain in the public sector. The particular arrangements that were put in place in England and Wales, which were very different indeed, do not apply here.
The noble Lord's ultimate anxiety may be in regard to what will be the cost to him as a consumer in Scotland. I do not accept that it is inevitable that the charges with which he will be confronted will be greater than those which apply in England. We believe that the arrangements which we propose should be capable of providing water and sewerage services efficiently and effectively and, indeed, the charges which he and other Scots will have to pay will in no sense be exorbitant or exaggerated.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation. I am grateful also to the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, because he has made me feel that perhaps I am not alone in my lack of accountancy skills. I shall read carefully what the Minister said. I am sorry that I stole his thunder by quoting Sir Hector Monro. I quoted that passage because I did not understand what he was saying. I think I now have a clearer understanding of the matter and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 126 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Clause 83 agreed to.
Clauses 84 to 89 agreed to.
Clause 90 [Transfer of property, rights and liabilities to the new authorities]:
[Amendment No. 126A not moved.]
Clause 90 agreed to.
Clause 91 [Transfer schemes: general]:
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 127:
Page 74, line 35, leave out from first ("the") to ("in") in line 37 and insert ("transferee").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of the amendment is to require that compensation for the loss of pre-emption rights is payable only by the new water and sewerage authorities.
Where property is transferred to a new water and sewerage authority, the Bill provides that in relation to that initial transfer, rights of pre-emption—previous owner's right to buy back—and similar rights shall not operate. Where such a right has been removed, compensation is to be payable by the local authorities or the new water and sewerage authorities. As the benefits of such a transfer will be enjoyed solely by the new water and sewerage authorities, it is considered that they alone should be responsible for those compensation payments.
Therefore the amendment provides that, where compensation fails to be paid, responsibility for making the payment rests with the new water and sewerage authorities. Again, we are in the realms of accountancy. I take it in faith that the amendment serves the purpose that I think it should serve. Perhaps the Minister will make the matter even clearer for me. I beg to move.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: I am most grateful to the noble Lord for drawing our attention to the matter. It is somewhat complicated and, indeed, the explanation also seems to me to be quite complicated. However, I can first assure the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, that subsection (4) of the clause is modelled on a similar provision which is to be found in the Railways Act 1993 and which is designed to try to cover various contingencies, not all of which may be immediately obvious.
The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, referred to the most obvious situation; namely, where the right of pre-emption is lost and where one would think that the most obvious person to pay is the transferee new authority. However, the ingenuity of lawyers is such that they can actually figure other situations which could be covered. Perhaps I may just indicate the other situations referred to in the clause.
It is thought that it would be inappropriate for the liability to rest solely on the new water authority if there are, for example, circumstances where the right of pre-emption might be lost by virtue of a transfer of the land from a new water authority back, in effect, to a new council. The fact that that is not entirely fanciful can be seen if one looks to the depths of paragraph 3 of Schedule 11 to the Bill where that particular contingency is envisaged. It deals with the question of the successor of the council.
On the other hand, there could also be cases where the land over which such rights exist may not be transferred in its entirety to the new water authority but may remain in part with a present authority or a new council. In that situation, again, it would not be necessarily appropriate for the whole of any payment to come from the transferee as envisaged. Therefore, although they are rather obscure contingencies, nonetheless they appear to be at least theoretical contingencies for which provision must be made. With that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I shall certainly withdraw the amendment. That will enable me to study the Minister's response with great care. The noble and learned Lord said that lawyers were able to think of things that might not occur to the rest of us. However, I think that they can sometimes give us answers that take a great deal of thought to understand. I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for trying to educate me in the matter. I shall do my homework and see whether I understand it by the time we reach the Report stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 91 agreed to.
Clauses 92 to 94 agreed to.
Schedule 11 agreed to.
Clauses 95 to 98 agreed to.
Clause 99 [Disposal of land]:
Lord Mackie of Benshie Lord Mackie of Benshie moved Amendment No. 128:
Leave out Clause 99 and insert the following new clause:
("Disposal of land
. Where a new water and sewerage authority wishes to dispose of land it shall first offer that land to the unitary authorities within the former regional boundaries, free of charge, and in the event that the land is subsequently sold shall distribute the proceeds of sale to those authorities on a population basis.").
The noble Lord said: I move this amendment which has been tabled as a result of the suspicion with which we and the inhabitants of Scotland regard the intention not of the present holders of such offices but that of possible future holders if they happen to come, for example, from the vicinity of Stirling. It would appear to us very necessary to protect the assets built up by a community over a long period of time. This amendment simply states that if a new water authority and sewerage authority wants to sell land and sees an opportunity to do so, it must first offer it back to the unitary authority. Those authorities are the heirs, as it were, of the work done to such good effect by people in the past. Substantial amounts of cash have been paid for assets owned by former public companies and the suspicion, of course, is that if the bodies we are discussing were to be privatised in the future, assets would simply pass to a private company and people would be deprived of the fruits of their ancestors' hard work and foresight. I shall be most interested to hear what the Minister has to say. I beg to move.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: I listened to what the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, said about the suspicion which lay behind this amendment. That suspicion is entirely unjustified. The theory behind the provisions in the Bill is that we are concerned with matters relating to water and of course we are concerned with the infrastructure, the land and the various other assets connected with water. We have heard on a number of occasions in eloquent terms from the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, of the events of last century in and around Loch Katrine, and how that all came about. That is certainly very interesting, but it highlights the extent to which it is difficult to tie any particular assets—historic, or other assets—to any particular council or to any current authority which may happen to be vested with the responsibility for water. Nonetheless these assets
2076
will transfer to the new water authorities and therefore they will be primarily assets which are to be used for the benefit of people who will consume the water.
It seems to the Government that, if, and in so far as, there may be assets which are surplus to requirements for the provision of water, the correct course, if the land or some other assets are sold off, is that the return from that should benefit the people for whom the authority is working; namely, the people who will be supplied with water. We think that is the coherent way of looking at the matter because these are all assets which are concerned with water. It is for that reason that we think the policy as enshrined in the Bill is correct and that the policy suggested by the noble Lords' amendment would be contrary to the spirit which I think should underlie this whole matter.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: Before the noble and learned Lord sits down, is it not clear from the wording of the Bill as it presently stands that Clause 99 gives the new water authorities a completely free hand to dispose of national assets? In my earlier contribution I referred to the land surrounding Loch Katrine, which local authorities acquired many many years ago on behalf of the county of Dumbarton, as it probably then was. Clause 99 now reads:
"Subject to subsection (2) below, a new water and sewerage authority may dispose of land held by them in any manner, to whomsoever and for whatever purpose they wish".
That is a case of their "gladhanding" to all their mates. Who will get the land? Who will control the disposal of assets belonging to the people of Scotland?
The purpose of the amendment is to keep the land which belongs to the people of Scotland within the domain of the unitary authority, whichever authority that might be. If the Government now say that Clause 99 means a free-for-all in the disposal of land which has been acquired on behalf of the community and which is part of our national and natural heritage in Scotland, it is a sad day for Scotland.
10.45 p.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: Perhaps I may ask the Minister another question. He said that lawyers think in special ways. Clause 99(1) reads:
"Subject to subsection (2) below, a new water and sewerage authority may dispose of land held by them in any manner, to whomsoever and for whatever purpose they wish".
I should like the strict legal interpretation.
According to that subsection there is not even any necessity to make it a requirement, even at a reservoir, that land use should not create a nuisance. I may be going over the top, but I should have thought that in strict legal terms it would be difficult to stop someone unless there were other rules. Someone could start a business which was a potential nuisance to the water supply, yet the land could be sold for whatever purpose the authority wishes. I should be grateful if the Minister would clear up that little point.
The Earl of Minto: Before the noble and learned Lord replies, I must say that I find the clause a little worrying. I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate will give us some assurance in relation

2077
to the Scottish heritage. It is an important factor. It appears that a great deal of freedom is being given to people who have no right to have it in the first place.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: The right of these people to the land will derive from an Act of Parliament. That is the ultimate authority for everything in our country. One cannot have a higher authority.
Members of the Committee forget that the new authorities cannot do whatever they like. They have duties, and those duties derive from an Act of Parliament and are set out in Clause 64 and elsewhere. Whatever they do, those duties are binding upon them. Those duties are, for example, to secure and promote the provision of adequate water supplies. Therefore, whatever the authorities do in relation to the disposal of land and so on must be seen within the overall context of their duties.
Having said that, the terms of the power to sell are wide. They state that the authorities may dispose of land:
"in any manner, to whomsoever and for whatever purpose they wish".
Nonetheless, the Committee will notice that there is a proviso that the consent of the Secretary of State is required if the authorities are to dispose of land for a consideration less than the open market value of the land. In that way the return is secured, except that there may be circumstances—and noble Lords opposite may consider it entirely appropriate—where the land might be given, for example, for charitable purposes which were thought to be appropriate and where the Secretary of State gave his consent. Unless that is the case, the disposal must be at market value. It must always be seen within the context of the overall duties laid upon the authorities by Parliament.
Therefore, I do not believe that there is any real problem in relation to that power. It seems to me that the authorities must have a power to dispose of land, otherwise they will be entirely static and might find themselves with land locked up for which they had no economic use. I cannot imagine that Members of the Committee would think that sterilisation of land in that way would necessarily always be best. There might be other ways of dealing with that land which noble Lords consider more desirable. The position is quite without prejudice to the duties which lie upon those authorities.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: The noble and learned Lord has done his best; but it appears that the only time the Secretary of State can interfere is if those bodies wish to sell the land at below value for some purpose. That is not the danger. The danger is that they will sell the land for great value and will not use the money either immediately or in the future for capital expenditure which would promote benefit to the consumers of the water.
Nevertheless, we shall have a good look at the issue between now and Report stage. It is important. There are plenty of precedents. Over everything hangs the very real spectre, to us, of privatisation. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 99 agreed to.
Clauses 100 to 117 agreed to.
Clause 118 [Records held by new authorities]:
The Earl of Balfour The Earl of Balfour moved Amendment No. 129:
Page 89, line 1, after ("authority") insert ("and the Keeper").
The noble Earl said: The clause is almost a mirror to Clause 52 in which we also discussed the keeper of the records. I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I am grateful to my noble friend for moving the amendment so briefly. He is absolutely right. A similar amendment was tabled in respect of Clause 52(2). The requirement under paragraph (b) for the new authorities to consult the keeper on the management of their records will include the establishment of general principles for disposal including destruction where appropriate.
I hope that the authorities will operate their records management system autonomously within these general guidelines. I would not wish the authorities subsequently to be obliged to consult the keeper whenever they wished to dispose of purely routine material which would be of no interest to anyone in the future. In any event, as I explained on the earlier occasion, the keeper does not have the resources to undertake such a task. I hope that my noble friend will be reassured that the keeper himself supports the provision as it stands.
The Earl of Balfour: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 118 agreed to.
Clauses 119 to 121 agreed to.
Clause 122 [Power to require local authorities and assessors to supply information to the new authorities]:
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 130:
Page 90, line 10, at end insert:
("( ) Regulations made under subsection (1) above may only require the furnishing of reasonable information and shall also give the local authority or Assessor the right to levy charges, as determined by the local authority or Assessor").
The noble Lord said: We have had a long day, but this is not an unimportant amendment. The purpose is to add a duty of reasonableness to the requirement that authorities and assessors provide information to water and sewerage authorities and to allow the right to charge for any work done in supplying the information.
It is extremely unusual that a democratically elected local authority is required by statute to provide information to non-elected quangos. If such a requirement is to be made, however, it would seem only fair that an element of reasonableness is included in order that authorities are not engaged in time-consuming tasks to provide the water and sewerage authority with information which, while interesting, may be of little real purpose.
In addition, given the financial constraints under which all local authorities operate, the authority which is providing the information should be allowed to charge for the efforts undertaken to supply the information. It would seem strange that, at a time when the Government are requiring local authorities to be ever

2079
more efficient and put out their services to compulsory competitive tendering, they should also require authorities to provide information to another corporate body free of charge.
At this time of night I shall spare the Minister a quotation from his honourable friend in another place, Sir Hector Monro, because possibly he has the answer which Sir Hector gave in the other place. I have read it and I do not find it all that convincing. I beg to move.
The Earl of Balfour: I wish to take the opportunity to speak to Amendment No. 131 which is grouped with Amendment No. 130. Purely on a point of information, I wish to ask whether council tax payers who are on public water will be charged a water charge and council tax payers who are on public sewerage will be charged a separate charge.
My problem is that we have almost finished dealing with Part II of the Bill and I cannot find the confirmation that water and sewerage services for council tax payers will be charged for separately. I ask this because my own home is on a private water supply. Some people may have private sewerage and under the provisions of Schedule 8 the areas of the two southern parts of Scotland are not quite the same for water and sewerage. There is also the provision under Clause 62 that the water and sewerage areas can be altered.
I take into consideration Clause 101 which brings in a new Section 10 on the emptying of septic tanks. It would be fine if we were separately charged, but sometimes a vehicle cannot get near the septic tanks. They have to be privately entered. Those are my questions.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: If the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, has read what my ministerial colleague, Mr Allan Stewart, said, I think I can deal with the amendment fairly shortly.
The new water authorities will be in the position that they will want to have access to the information used by their predecessors in the provision of water and sewerage. That is what Clause 122 provides. That information is needed to provide the services which are being transferred to the new water authorities. It should not be seen as the preserve of the local authorities and the assessors, to be made available at their discretion or for payment. We believe that it is something to which the new water authorities should have automatic access, as they require. That is what the Bill provides and I am sure that it is right. Otherwise, we shall be talking about transferring a charge around from the same group of people, whether they pay it indirectly through the council tax or through the water charges. It seems to me that automatic access would be the correct approach.
Perhaps I may turn very quickly to Amendment No. 131. Sewerage is indeed as much in point as water in the operations of the new authorities. However, the reference would not be appropriately inserted at this point in the Bill. The reason is that there is no domestic sewerage charge at present. The costs of domestic sewerage are included within the basket of services covered by the council tax. We already have a reference
2080
to council tax in the clause. Councils will, of course, have information about the costs of domestic sewerage. That, indeed, is the information contained in a pamphlet recently prepared and distributed by the Scottish Office. It is information held in connection with the setting of the council tax and so under the clause as drafted will be available. Non-domestic sewerage, as will be appreciated, is a different matter and is separately mentioned in the clause.
My noble friend also raised a number of other matters to do with the emptying of septic tanks and made reference to another clause. I hope that he will forgive me if I do not attempt to answer him at this stage. I will undertake to read what he has to say and will write to him about the details of the points that he has raised.
11 p.m.
The Earl of Minto: I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord would be kind enough to explain just one point to me. I think I understand what he was saying to the Committee—that the new water authority should get information from the local authority free of charge. It would not be sensible to have the to-ing and fro-ing of charges. Because of the financial acumen of local authorities now, we have interdepartmental charges for any information that is taken from one to another and goes back and forth. The services—even if they are IT services—are taken from, let us say, the roads and transportation department into the education department as a cross-entry. Is this a level playing field? I ask the noble and learned Lord to think about that from the point of view of internal accounting.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I am grateful to the noble Earl for that very brief but lucid account of the arrangements which, I am aware, are frequently followed not only in local authorities in Scotland but in a large number of organisations within the public sector.
In this particular context the reason—and perhaps I tried to curtail my reply too much—is that we are of the view that automatic access without payment is desirable. But I accept from the noble Earl that that is not always the case, and indeed within a particular organisation there may be such invoicing and billing for services rendered. I will certainly reflect on what he has to say, but at the present time our view is that the principle of automatic access should be maintained.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I thank the Minister for his help. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 131 not moved.]
Clause 122 agreed to.
Clauses 123 to 125 agreed to.
Viscount Goschen: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at four minutes past eleven o'clock.