Lords Sitting of 21 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 Lichfield.): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

Royal Assent
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay. of Clashfern): My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts and Measures:

Appropriation Act,

Land Drainage Act,

Trade Marks Act,

Inshore Fishing (Scotland) Act,

Merchant Shipping (Salvage and Pollution) Act,

Police and Magistrates' Courts Act,

Education Act,

Firearms (Amendment) Act,

Lerwick Harbour Order Confirmation Act,

Croydon Tramlink Act,

London Local Authorities Act,

London Docklands Development Corporation Act,

Hill Samuel Bank and United Dominions Trust Act,

Greater Nottingham Light Rapid Transit Act,

Care of Cathedrals (Supplementary Provisions) Measure,

Church of England (Legal Aid) Measure.

Bridges: Damage by Vehicles
3.2 p.m.
Lord Mountevans Lord Mountevans asked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress has been made in implementing the recommendations of the Department of Transport's 1988 report A Strategy for the Reduction of Bridge Bashing.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Viscount Goschen): My Lords, following the options identified in the 1988 report, we have worked closely with British Rail, Railtrack and other bridge owners, local authorities, bus operators and the haulage industry to monitor and reduce bridge strikes.
Lord Mountevans: My Lords, perhaps I may be the first to congratulate my noble friend on his promotion and to welcome him to that select group of noble Lords who seek to keep transport towards the top of the agenda.
I thank my noble friend for his Answer and sincerely acknowledge the work that the Department of Transport has already done in signposting bridges which are prone
358
to be bashed by road vehicles on trunk roads, and the strong publicity campaign that it has conducted through the DVLA.
However, is my noble friend aware that despite those excellent activities, the number of incidents is not falling? Last year there were 834 incidents, almost 30 involving buses, a factor which seems to be doubly a matter of concern. Indeed, there were no fewer than six incidents last Friday. If one annualizes the figure, it gives a much higher number than 834. When will the Department of Transport continue its good work, first, by making height signs within lorry cabs mandatory by means of an order under the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations; and, secondly, by bringing further pressure on local authorities to signpost the low bridges for which they are responsible?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, first, I thank my noble friend for his kind words. We take the issue of bridge strikes seriously. That is why we are currently in the process of examining the construction and use regulations to address the problem which my noble friend highlighted. I can give the assurance that we shall continue to encourage local authorities to put up mandatory signs.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, perhaps I may join with the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, in congratulating the noble Viscount on his promotion. I hope that he will enjoy it very much during the dying days of this Government.
Will he encourage his department actually to do something about the construction and use regulations? The working party considered the regulations in 1988. Does the Minister consider that there has been sufficient time to come to some conclusions? When will he be able to indicate that some action will be taken so that Parliament can consider the matter?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, first, I thank the noble Lord for his slightly double-edged compliments.
As I have already said, we take the issue very seriously. We have made good progress. We have put up a great many automatic signs. We have issued guidance. We have participated in co-operation with a number of other organisations in a publicity campaign. We have co-operated with the AA in producing the "Truckers Atlas" which shows where those low bridges are situated. We have made good progress on the issue.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I, too, join in the general congratulatory mood of the House. There is normally a select group of about seven Members of this House who speak on transport. It is good to see a crowded House for such an important question. It is good to see the noble Viscount emerging from the mayhem of last night on the Government Front Bench.
However, he has not convinced us that the Government are taking action on the construction and use regulations, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. Some actions have been taken. However, the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, referred to mandatory signs in cabs. Those have not been made mandatory. Nor has the provision of warning lights in cabs, for

359
instance, of skip lorries to ensure that the skip is in its proper place and not above the level of the cab. Can we have further reassurance?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, again, I am grateful to the noble Lord. I am glad to be the eighth Member of your Lordships' House to speak on transport.
As I stated, in consultation with the haulage industry and bridge owners, we are currently considering ways of amending the construction and use regulations. However, those amendments must be viable and enforceable. With regard to cab signs, the range of vehicles will be as large as possible, beyond the existing categories for which there is a legal requirement. We are also seeking to include provision for automatic warning devices for vehicles with on-board cranes, and such like.

The NHS
3.7 p.m.
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy asked Her Majesty's Government:
What consultations they have had since 1st January 1994 with the British Medical Association, Unison, the Health Visitors Association and the Royal College of Nursing concerning the state of the National Health Service.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, Ministers and officials continue to have a great deal of contact with those organisations on a wide range of issues.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her reply. What she says is acknowledged by those organisations. They are grateful to the department for that contact. By and large, those organisations cover both the main body and the nerve centre of our health service. The BMA is world famous. The Royal College of Nursing has 305,000 nurses as members. Those bodies are concerned about the reduction in numbers of nursing students and the role of nurses in child protection. Unison covers ambulance staff, kitchen staff and others.
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Molloy: My Lords, those bodies appreciate the department contacting them, but may I have the noble Baroness's assurance that the contact will continue and that their views will be taken seriously by her department?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I give that assurance.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, will the noble Baroness state why the Government seem to be so reluctant to publicise the duties of patients when asking for night visits from doctors? The Minister must be aware that the matter is causing great problems. Since
360
the 1990 contracts, there has been a huge increase in night visits, in particular for those aged between 20 and 35 years for some strange reason.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, yes, the Government are well aware of some of the problems which exist for doctors who have to work at night We have just launched a publicity campaign for general practices entitled "Be Nice, Think Twice", so that people think before they call out their doctor. We are conscious that some doctors find such night visits stressful; and in fact some of the visits are not necessary.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, has the noble Baroness seen the report in today's Evening Standard that five professors of world renown, all experts in molecular genetics, have resigned, and that four others are considering their position as a result of the NHS reforms? What have the Government to say about that disturbing state of affairs?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I have just read the article. I have not had time to look at the individual cases but I know from experience that people often change jobs for a variety of reasons, including family reasons. Scientists with international reputations are few in number. They work all over the world and it is therefore not surprising that two should choose to go abroad. Conversely, many choose to come to the United Kingdom from abroad and the net result is that we attract marginally more than we export. The five scientists who are featured in the story, including the three who are continuing to work in this country, stress that they were going to excellent jobs in which they would be able to carry out work in a spirit of collaboration.
Lord Carter: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House whether in their consultations the Government have asked for the views of the various organisations on the remarks by the chairman of the BMA council on 4th July? He referred to what is happening to the NHS as "the new alien creed" and described the reformed NHS as "a national lottery".
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, we are aware that the BMA council does not always support the government line. Indeed, it opposed the introduction of the NHS in 1948. Nevertheless, we are keen to work with the council, and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State always has an open door.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, does the noble Baroness appreciate that the associations that I mentioned are now in contact with the department and they wish to make it clear that they see two major problems? One is administrative and one is medical. They would like to discuss these matters independently of each other because they are problems within the National Health Service but different forms of problem—administrative and medical.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the National Health Service is going from strength to strength. When one looks at the number of patients treated—and it was Robin Cook who said that the test of the reforms would

361
be the number of patients who are treated —we now see that 116 are treated for every 100 who were treated before the reforms on an annual basis. Trusts out-perform other hospitals, and we are also strengthening primary care through GP fund-holding. Waiting times are going down—before the reforms there were 170,000 people waiting for treatment over a year, today there are 74,000.
Lord Stoddard of Swindon: My Lords, if, as the noble Baroness says, the National Health Service is going from strength to strength, why is it that within the service itself there is such disaffection among all grades of staff?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I refute that comment. I travel around the National Health Service a great deal. I make it a point to go out at least once during every week. When I talk to staff, there are some clearly who are disaffected; one would expect that in a staff of over a million people. But I have to say that there are others who rejoice in the reforms and who are finding GP fund-holding extremely professionally rewarding. Those in trust hospitals have never had the freedoms that they can exercise today and find that through them they are giving better patient care.
Lord Carr of Hadley: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that, although I do not travel round as she does, in my area where I use the National Health Service I find staff morale extremely high, with staff tickled to death at the new changes?
Baroness Cumberlege: Yes, my Lords.

War Crimes Prosecutions
3.13 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway Lord Campbell of Alloway asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether in any of the 10 cases under consideration on 27th June 1994 for prosecution under the War Crimes Act 1991 the authority of the Attorney-General has been sought by the Director of Public Prosecutions to institute proceedings.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the Metropolitan Police War Crimes Unit is continuing to investigate some 28 cases and has submitted interim reports in 10 of those to the Crown Prosecution Service. Police inquiries are not yet complete and no decisions can be taken about prosecution until they are. Accordingly, the authority of the Attorney-General has not been sought in any case to institute a prosecution under the War Crimes Act 1991.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I thank my noble and learned friend for his reply, but the delay involved is perhaps a little disappointing to some of us. We now know, as a result of the Written Answer on 1lth July, that no charges are to be preferred in Scotland on the advice of Crown counsel and, from the press release of 14th July issued by the Director of Public Prosecutions, on the advice of Treasury counsel, no charges are to be preferred in the Falklands affair. In
362
those circumstances, may I ask my noble and learned friend whether the advice of Treasury counsel has yet been sought on any of those cases under consideration for prosecution, we were told, on 27th June? If so, why has the advice not already been sent to Mr. Attorney?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the situation so far as Scotland is concerned is as described by my noble friend. As regards the cases to which this Answer refers, as I said, the police inquiries are not yet complete. Therefore, the stage at which it is appropriate to have advice on whether there are proper prospects that would justify continuing the matter has not yet arrived. The Question relates to the authority of the Attorney-General and, as I said, unless and until the director has received a completed report from the police, it would not be appropriate for the Attorney-General's consideration to be requested.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, can my noble and learned friend say what is the annual expenditure on these activities?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the annual expenditure has varied from year to year over the period for which these activities have lasted. As regards the police activity, it is anticipated that it will probably be less in the next year than in the immediately past year. The investigations are complicated and your Lordships would, I am sure, wish them to be thorough so that the answer that emerges would be one on which all noble Lords would find it possible confidently to rely.
Baroness Mallalieu: My Lords, given that any trial under this Act, if one eventually takes place, is likely to happen at least 50 years after the alleged offence was committed, and given that the trial judge will inevitably be asked by the defence to refuse to allow the trial to proceed because the period of delay presents difficulties in having a fair trial at all, can the noble and learned Lord tell us what is the longest period of delay between the commission of an offence and a successful prosecution of which his department is aware?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I would need a very long memory to answer that question properly. I do not know that the precise length of the period between the commission of the offence and the date of the trial is in itself conclusive on the matter. Much depends on the circumstances. One can imagine a conscience coming alive even after quite a long time which would lead to a confession and which in all the circumstances of the case was reasonable and would justify a conviction. Of course, I accept that a length of time between the commission of an alleged offence and the date of the trial may be likely to produce circumstances which require careful handling in any trial. In the course of the speeches on the Bill that preceded this Act, a good deal of attention was paid to that and I believe that the justice system is capable of coping with it. Of course, if injustice were to result from the continuation of the trial, I feel sure that the judge would not allow the trial to proceed. These are

363
circumstances which any decision the Attorney-General might eventually have to take in the matter would have to take into account.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord aware that more than four years have now passed since the publication of the Hetherington Report, on which the Government relied extensively when the Bill was before this House? If one of these cases is referred to the Attorney-General, can we be assured that he will consult with the authors of the report as to whether they are still of the opinion that proceedings would be justifiable under this Act?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am not sure that it would necessarily be right for the Attorney-General to consult with the authors of the report. That would be a matter for the Attorney-General. I would not think it right for me to seek to restrict those whom he might consult. But I would think it highly likely that, if the Attorney-General's view was required on a particular case, the police investigations to which I referred, which have been fairly extensive, would have superseded in their effect the investigations which Hetherington and Chalmers were able to carry out. After all, one of the purposes of the Act was to create a jurisdiction that would enable a proper police investigation of these matters to be undertaken. I would expect the results of that to supersede the preliminary investigation that Hetherington and Chalmers were able to carry out.
Lord Renton: My Lords, bearing in mind that it has been possible to complete these extensive investigations in Scotland within the three years since Parliament passed the Act, how is it that they are not yet complete and do not appear to be anywhere near complete in England?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, it is obvious that a number of circumstances could contribute to that. The precise nature of the evidence available might well have an effect, as might the number of cases in question, the need for the police unit—which is a reasonably specialist unit—to take the cases in some kind of order, and so on. All of those factors might contribute.
The Scottish criminal prosecution system has been accustomed to working under very strict limits, as my noble friend knows. It may just be that that also would have an effect on the speed with which these investigations were completed.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, can the noble and learned Lord say what is the age of the youngest person who is under investigation; what is the age of the oldest person under investigation; and how many of those who are under investigation have died during the course of the past four years?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I have to say that I do not have those figures in my head. But I imagine that the youngest will be quite old and the most elderly will be even older. But I am not sure that that is altogether relevant to the question of whether they should be prosecuted. After all, I do not think that there is an age exemption related to the prosecution of crime.
364
If an elderly person commits a crime, that person will be surely as subject to prosecution as a younger person — although I can quite understand that in some circumstances age may be an extenuating factor.
Lord Hayhoe: My Lords, now that the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill is making good progress through Parliament, can my noble and learned friend hold out any hope that its provisions will be used to get rid of this unwanted War Crimes Act 1991?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, certainly not. I do not believe for a moment that the scope of the deregulation Bill—which is, as my noble friend says, making excellent progress; and I wish it speedy progress for the remaining stages—would cover this matter. In any event, Parliament in its wisdom decided that a jurisdiction should be created to enable these investigations to be carried on. I should think that the right thing to do is to seek to complete them in as speedy an order as possible, having regard to the need for the thoroughness to which I referred earlier.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord has said that the period between the commission of the crime and the trial is not the only factor to be taken into consideration. It is, nonetheless, a very relevant and interesting factor. Under these circumstances, would he be prepared to consider again the question that was put by my noble friend, and perhaps place in the Library in Written Answer or letter form a reply that would enable the House to consider to what extent it is relevant in the matter that is under review?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, obviously I am very willing to undertake any investigations that may be necessary, subject to the fact that they would not involve disproportionate cost. For me to search out the records of all the cases that have ever taken place to see what was the longest time between the commission of the offence and the date of the trial would require rather extensive investigation. With all respect to the noble Baroness who asked the question—I think I know exactly why the question was asked—the point is whether the passage of time has so affected the nature of the evidence, and so on, that the interests of justice could not be served by a trial. That is a matter of principle. It does not depend precisely on the length of time in question in any particular case.
Noble Lords: Next Question!
Lord Boardman: My Lords, my noble and learned friend referred to the difficulty in estimating the annual amounts that had been expended. Can he say what is the total expenditure that has been incurred to date on these investigations?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, my recollection is that to the end of the last financial year the total expenditure was £5.2 million in Scotland and in England and Wales.

Rwanda: Refugee Crisis
3.26 p.m.
Lord Judd Lord Judd asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they and other members of the United Nations Security Council are taking to safeguard humanitarian relief supplies for Rwandan refugees.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, Security Council Resolutions 918 and 925 of 16th May and 8th June authorised the expansion of UNAMIR and mandated it, inter alia, to provide security and support for the distribution of relief supplies and humanitarian relief operations.
Security Council Resolution 929 of 22nd June authorised member states to undertake a temporary operation to help achieve this objective pending full deployment of UNAMIR.
Lord Judd: My Lords, will the Minister accept, on this day of goodwill, that she enjoys very considerable respect in this House for her integrity and commitment, and that many of us are glad to see her in her place today?
Will the Minister confirm that, in its rapid rate of growth, Rwanda's refugee crisis is almost unprecedented? Will she confirm that already men, women and children are dying in disturbing numbers and that there is a real threat of a grave cholera epidemic? To avoid robbing Peter to pay Paul, what additional funds are being mobilised by the Government from contingency reserves to assist the United Nations High Commission for Refugees and the voluntary agencies? Can the Minister explain the delay in deploying the UN peacekeeping force, which is now desperately needed if the refugees are to feel secure about returning? And how does the role of the French forces relate to that? What contribution will Britain be making?
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Judd: My Lords, in view of our role as permanent members of the Security Council, can the Minister say how she sees the future role of the council in this dispute—particularly because of its grave failure at an early stage to take action to save many, many thousands of lives?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his kind remarks. I, too, am glad to be here today.
I agree with him; it is an unprecedented refugee crisis. We are doing all that we can as a nation and as a donor country to help. Since the crisis began in April we have committed over £11 million bilaterally. I am going, I hope, next week to visit northern Rwanda. After I have done that, I shall make a further announcement about further sums which are available to help refugees where they are displaced, both within the country and outside it.
366
I am aware that getting the UNAMIR troops into Rwanda and getting the refugees back from Zaire, Tanzania and all the other places whence they have gone is an absolute priority. We have to work on that priority as hard as we can.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I congratulate the Minister on her intention to go to Rwanda. This country could not be better represented than by her. Having said that, I ask two further questions. First, does she happen to know whether the United States Administration has now definitely decided to assist in the moving of the African troops volunteered for the purpose of keeping order, since without such order no humanitarian aid will get through?
Secondly, can she tell the House whether, when she is in Rwanda, she hopes to speak to the new government in practice —the Patriotic Front—about the possibility of recognising an area of safety to which Rwandan refugees can return from Zaire, where—I am sure that the House will fully agree—there is little chance of being able to rescue them from the starvation that now confronts them?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am not yet aware whether the United States is helping in moving the troops. I can say that other nations have offered various types of help to UNAMIR. We are ready to consider further requests from the UN. We have already provided 50 four-wheel drive trucks. Certainly we believe that it is most important that people come back. I have already had one meeting with the secretary general of the RPF here in London. I understand that, all being well, I shall meet other members of the RPF next week, although maybe not any of the 19 government ministers now sworn in. Certainly, it is very important indeed to get the people back from Zaire and from the other territories to which they have fled.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, will the noble Baroness accept that the best way to get the hundreds of thousands of refugees back from Zaire and elsewhere is by the establishment of peace and a stable government? Has the engine of administration which has been set up by the RPF applied for international recognition? If so, will the noble Baroness and the Government do their best to persuade the international community to recognise it as quickly as possible so that assurances can be given to refugees that they will return in safety?
Secondly, will steps be taken to silence the evil Radio Mille Collines, which is spreading alarm and causing many hundreds of thousands more to flee their homes in unnecessary terror?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am not yet aware whether the RPF government have applied for international recognition. We recognise states rather than governments. We very much hope that that broad-based government will quickly establish order. They tell us that they will involve both Tutsis and Hutus at all levels of government. It is critical for getting people back into Rwanda and giving them places of safety to which they can go.

Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill
3.32 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: 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 Strathclyde.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 205A:
After Clause 59, insert the following new clause:
Functions in connection with National Parks
(".—(1) This section applies to any function in connection with a National Park—

(a) which is conferred by or under any enactment; and

(b) which, by virtue of any enactment or rule of law may be exercised by a Minister, office-holder, local authority or an existing authority for a National Park; and

(c) which is not excluded by section 60 below.

(2) If the Secretary of State by order so provides a function to which this section applies may be exercised by a National Park authority constituted in accordance with section (National Park authorities) of this Act.
(3) The Secretary of State shall not make an order under this section in relation to a local authority without first consulting such representatives of local government as he considers appropriate.
(4) The Secretary of State shall not make an order under this section without first consulting—

(a) in the case of a National Park in England, the Countryside Commission, and

(b) in the case of a National Park in Wales, the Countryside Council for Wales.

(5) The Secretary of State shall not make an order under this section in relation to an existing authority in relation to a National Park without first consulting that authority.
(6) Subject to subsection (9) below, an order under this section may provide that a function to which this section applies may be exercised—

(a) either wholly or to such extent as may be specified in the order or authorisation;

(b) either generally or in such cases or areas as may be specified; and

(c) either unconditionally or subject to the fulfilment of such conditions as may be so specified.

(7) An authorisation given by virtue of an order under this section shall be for such period, not exceeding 10 years, as is specified in the authorisation.
(8) For the avoidance of doubt it is hereby declared that the functions referred to in subsection (1) above shall include all functions conferred by or under the planning acts on a planning authority of any description (including the functions of a mineral planning authority under those Acts and under the Planning and Compensation Act 1991).
(9) In making an order under this section in relation to an existing National Park, the Secretary of State shall ensure that the functions contracted out to a National Park authority are not less than the functions carried out by an existing National Parks Committee or National Parks Board.").
The noble Lord said: Before I move this amendment, perhaps I may say how glad I am to see the Chief Whip, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, who will be responding on the Bill. I should like to congratulate him
368
on his new appointment. It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak not only to Amendment No. 205A but also to Amendments Nos. 205B to 205G, 208A to 208C, 208D, 215A, 216A, 217A, 217B, 217C and 217D.
In introducing this series of amendments, I emphasise that they are all consequential on the first amendment; in other words, if the first amendment is accepted by the Committee, the other amendments follow as a matter of course. The Committee will be aware that earlier in the Session the National Parks Bill was introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Norrie. That Bill was the result of discussions between the Government, the Council for National Parks and other interested parties. It was designed to fulfil, by means of a Private Member's Bill, the pledge made in the Conservative manifesto of April 1992. It is perhaps worth recalling the exact words in the manifesto:
"Some of our finest landscapes are designated as National Parks. All National Park authorities will become independent Boards, which will make it easier for them to carry out their tasks effectively. The New Forest will be given a statutory status which will give it as great a level of protection as any National Park".
Nothing could be clearer than that. That was a minor piece in the Conservative manifesto which we supported. We still support that view. I am therefore very happy to be able to move a series of amendments which allows the Government to fulfil that passage in their manifesto.
The Bill introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, was discussed for seven and a half hours in total in your Lordships' House; when it left, it had the approval of the Government. Unfortunately, owing to procedures in another place with which I am not familiar, the Bill was killed. I have used the present Bill—if I may put it that way—to enable the Government to meet the commitment that they sought to meet through the introduction of the Bill brought forward by the noble Lord, Lord Norrie.
As we discussed this matter in this House for seven and a half hours, I do not intend to take the Committee through the details of all the amendments to which I now speak. Nevertheless, there are some differences between the present amendments and the text of the Bill from the noble Lord, Lord Norrie. Perhaps I may highlight them.
In Amendment No. 205A subsection (7) defines a period in which a contract can be let to a National Park authority under the contracting out procedures and puts a term on that contract. The National Park authority does not get unlimited time in which to operate. It would have to respond after 10 years—if that is the appropriate measure; the amendment states "not exceeding 10 years". It would have to report back and Parliament, if necessary, the Government or local authorities would be able to take a view on whether the relevant National Park authority had fulfilled its functions under the contract that had been let.
Subsection (8) of Amendment No. 205A draws attention to the planning functions of a future National Park authority. It has been inserted for the avoidance of doubt. When we considered these amendments, there

369
was some doubt as to whether the planning functions would be suitably transferred under the contracting out provisions of the Bill.
Subsection (9) of Amendment No. 205A makes it absolutely plain that if a contract is let under the contracting out section of this Bill and under these amendments:
"the Secretary of State shall ensure that the functions contracted out to a National Park authority are not less than the functions carried out by an existing National Parks Committee or National Parks Board".
In other words, there can be no diminution of the authority that is given at the moment to national parks committees or national parks boards.
In Amendment No. 205B, paragraph (3), there is a further difference between my amendment and the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Norrie. The title "national park"—as I understand it from those with whom I consulted—poses certain problems for the New Forest. It is perfectly clear in the Conservative manifesto, from which I quoted to the Committee, that the New Forest has something of a special status. In giving the New Forest a "statutory" status, it is important to preserve the words "New Forest". On advice, I understand that to be the case, and paragraph (3) of Amendment No. 205B will achieve that.
Moving on from there, in Amendment No. 205E, paragraph (1) makes it perfectly plain that subject to the agreement of the Secretary of State on the budgets— that is normal procedure for national parks—the national parks, under,
"any contract between an authority whose functions are contracted out to a National Park authority … shall … make agreements … with respect to … income or expenses … financial relations between the parties".
In other words, the national park authorities, by contract, will become financially independent once their budget has been agreed through the channels of the Secretary of State and the local authorities responsible.
The only other point I want to make in regard to the detail of the amendments is on Amendment No. 215A, which is the schedule which deals with the constitution and administration of national park authorities. The Committee will be aware—having studied the amendment in detail—that the amendment precisely reproduces the schedules involved in the National Parks Bill which failed in another place. I have not tried and do not intend to try to deviate from what the Government approved when the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, was before your Lordships. I could have tried but decided that it was right to accept the government approved form and not to deviate from it.
Those are the details of the amendments. But I emphasise to the Committee that I am trying to give to national parks the status not only that was promised in the Conservative manifesto in 1992; not only that was approved by the Government in your Lordships' House when the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, moved his Bill; but also it is a cross-party agreement. There is no difference between the parties on this matter. The mechanism is different. The mechanism comes under contracting out. But it seems to me that contracting out in this manner
370
gives all sorts of advantages that were not available—I am advised on this by those who know more than I— under the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Norrie.
I hope that the Government will accept the amendments. As always, they are offered to be helpful to the Government. If a government make a commitment in a manifesto, it should be honoured. This is a perfectly sensible way of honouring that commitment. If Members opposite do not wish to honour their party's manifesto, that is their problem. But I am sure that when they look at the provisions they will see that the amendments achieve all the objectives of the Conservative manifesto, which we support in this instance, and also introduce new elements which—I am advised by those who know more than I—will be beneficial to the national parks. Some of our finest landscapes are designated as national parks. We want them to be independent boards; the Government want them to be independent boards; the Conservative Party wanted them to be independent boards. I beg to move.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Hunt: My Lords, the amendments moved by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, are welcome to those of us who sit on these Benches, and if I may presume to say so, are particularly welcome to me. The Government's promise to upgrade the status of all those national park authorities which are committees of county councils to the status of boards as enjoyed by the Peak park and the Lake District park, has been lingering on throughout this Session of our Parliament. It is clear that it will not come to fruition without the inclusion of the amendments in the Bill.
In my view, the position has become urgent because of impending changes to the form of local government. As the noble Lord made clear, the amendments—apart from the new amendments to which he drew our attention—passed without any difficulty through your Lordships' House and only failed in another place through procedures and lack of time. I want to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Williams, on his ingenious strategy, tactic or device—whichever word is appropriate—in seeking to include the whole of the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, virtually unchanged, in this deregulation Bill. I support the amendment.
Lord Derwent: I too want to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Williams, on bringing forward this matter in this form. I want to be practical. It is an amendment designed to speed up whatever legislation the Government may have in mind to bring forward. I want to explain briefly, having spent a great deal of time talking to national park officers in recent weeks, why time is now of the essence.
First, the staff of national parks are currently spending a great deal of time on practical housekeeping to allow for the transition to free-standing authorities, which is obviously necessary. The problem is that that takes them away from their normal work and is almost impossible to carry out except against a timetable. They must know whether they are likely to become a free-standing national park this year or in five years' time; before they

371
can do any serious work. Therefore national park officers tell me that their day-to-day work is being greatly impeded by the uncertainty on timing.
The second point to which the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, referred relates to the question of local government reorganisation. I want to explain why, in practical terms, that is important. If local government reorganisation for some counties overtakes any national park legislation, then it will be necessary for the existing national parks to be handed over to the new authorities. However, the new—in many cases unitary—authorities will know that they will only be dealing with national park affairs for a limited period, because the Government promised legislation. I put it to the Committee that even the best councillors on the new authorities will put the matter low on their priorities because they will know that, though they may be on the national park committee today, in six months they may be off it.
The new unitary authorities, or whatever they may be, will be able to, or in practice will, virtually ignore their responsibilities for the national parks. The only point in favour of the noble Lord's amendments is the question of speed. If the Government were willing to say that they intend to introduce their own Bill early in the next Session, the need for the amendments would disappear. However, I would draw the Committee's attention to the very disappointing formula used by the noble Earl, Lord Arran, in answer to a Question on 23rd June when he merely said that the Government would introduce legislation as soon as possible at the appropriate time, which suggests that they do not consider the present the appropriate time. I therefore support the amendment.
Viscount Addison: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Williams, for tabling these amendments and for allowing us once again the opportunity to discuss the important matter of national park legislation. The noble Lord, Lord Williams, has already referred to the National Parks Bill, steered through the House so successfully by my noble friend Lord Norrie. My noble friend would have liked to be here to speak today but unfortunately he is unavoidably detained by a long-standing commitment. My noble friend would echo and emphasise the urgent need for legislation for national parks and would agree that the next Queen's Speech would not be a moment too soon to introduce it and would be a popular move widely welcomed on all sides of the House.
The amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, seek to give effect to the measures set out in the Bill of my noble friend Lord Norrie within the limitations imposed by the context of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill. The Norrie Bill sought to fulfil the recommendations of the National Parks Review Panel and the Government's manifesto commitment to set up free-standing authorities for all the national parks. As a comprehensive stand-alone piece of legislation, it was perfectly suited to that purpose. We are now in the position where the Government have said that they will introduce not only measures to set up the new national park authorities but also the revision of the national park statutory purposes. They are also considering a duty on
372
Ministers to further national park purposes. That is the comprehensive legislation which the national parks need. Time must be found in the next Session.
Local government reorganisation in England continues to press ahead without provision being made for new authorities to run the national parks. The future of these beautiful areas is being left to uncertainty, and that will not do. The 100 million people who visit the parks each year and the quarter of a million who live in them expect legislation to provide these areas with the best level of administration and protection. The onus is now on the Government to act. The great concern for the national parks from all sides of the Committee is quite clear.
Lord Dixon-Smith: We must all admire both the skill and indeed the craft of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, in bringing forward this series of amendments. I regret to say that I do not have any idea what response my noble friend on the Front Bench will give to the amendments. I find it strange that we try to insert something completely novel into the Bill in this way. It is not as though there is a breakdown in the administration of the national parks as they exist at the present time. Local government is looking after them very responsibly. They are adequately funded and that work will continue. As to the national parks officers themselves finding a bit of a problem because they are indulging themselves already with transitional work, that is their decision. If that is taking them away from the routine work to which they ought properly to be devoting their attention, again there is an answer, and it lies within their own hands and within their own power. So there is not perhaps quite the urgency on that score that has been made out.
I accept that the pressure as a result of the work of the Local Government Commission and indeed as a result of the Local Government (Wales) Bill imposes a different imperative, but I am not sure that it is such a severe imperative as to require an insertion into this Bill. I shall look forward to hearing what is said from the Front Bench.
Finally, if there is a pretence that this is a contracting-out operation, I have always understood there to be an element of competition in contracting out. For the life of me I cannot see where the competition is involved in this exercise. It looks more to me as though it is a fix.
Lord Strathclyde: I join the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and other noble Lords in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Williams, on bringing forward these amendments in the way that he has. I should also like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Williams, for his kind words to me in his opening remarks. Since, after completing this Committee stage, I shall be effectively gagged—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Strathclyde: —it is an opportunity for me to indulge myself now.
What is possibly not well known about the noble Lord, Lord Williams, is his undoubted concern for the countryside and the landscape. I remember well as a Minister in the Department of the Environment some

373
years ago the noble Lord coming to me with an all-party delegation to discuss this matter. He has demonstrated characteristic ingenuity in seeking to reintroduce into this Bill some aspects of the proposals made earlier this Session by my noble friend Lord Norrie for a National Parks Bill which the Government supported. The noble Lord is also at the sharp end of legislators continuing the fashion of this Session of Parliament of tacking on to other government Bills Private Members' Bills which have otherwise failed; for instance, those on tobacco, disability and now national parks.
I have to point out with some disappointment that the amendments before the Committee sit uncomfortably in Part II of the Bill and indeed in the Bill at all. As my noble friend said a moment ago, it is hard to understand how the amendments would contribute to the policy of exposing public services to competition so as to achieve efficiency savings. By creating new public sector organisations the amendments are certainly not deregulatory in effect. I put it to the noble Lord and indeed to the Committee that it may not be the most appropriate Bill to deal with this question.
The amendments do not offer a terribly workable approach to securing the future of the national parks. The noble Lord, Lord Williams, is right when he says that he has followed my noble friend's Bill. But in seeking to shoehorn the provisions of the earlier Bill into these amendments to Part II of the Bill, I have to say that the noble Lord is able to propose only an emasculated version of the earlier proposals.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Williams, I shall not go into any great detail. However, we have problems with the fact that the proposals do not provide a permanent system for the administration of the parks. They propose a 10-year time limit for the new authorities. We do not believe that the new authorities should be time limited and of course the Government's intention is that the new arrangements for the national parks should be sound, secure and above all permanent. I hope that that will give a great deal of comfort to my noble friends Lord Derwent and Lord Addison.
Secondly, it is not clear in the provisions proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, how the new authorities would be guaranteed independent finance. Subsection (3) (b) of the new clause on financial arrangements is unworkable since it could well be impossible to implement and could lead to arguments about what an authority would have spent on a function it no longer has, especially after some years had elapsed. It is not clear where the Secretary of State's grant would fit into the scheme or the status of what could emerge as a three-way relationship between local authorities, the Secretary of State and the new bodies. If functions are supposed to have been contracted out by a local authority, why does the Secretary of State have to make additional grant payments to the national park authority in respect of the contracted-out functions? If there are in effect two parties to the "contract" with the national parks authorities, the local authority and the Secretary of State, who is responsible for ensuring that the services are being delivered satisfactorily? There are no provisions in the amendments for winding up the
374
existing authorities, which would have the effect of leaving us with two sets of organisations running the parks. That is by way of criticism of the amendments.
But my purpose today is not to criticise but to thank: the noble Lord, Lord Williams. I am grateful to him for reminding the Committee of our manifesto commitments. I only wish that he would be equally obliging in dispatching the rest of them. The Government are strongly committed to the objective of establishing independent national park authorities and to taking forward the other commitments to legislation which were set out in our 1992 policy statement on the future of the national parks.
I can confirm to the Committee that it is the Government's very firm intention to introduce national parks legislation. We intend to do so as soon as there is a suitable opportunity. At this stage I cannot go further than that. It is a firm guarantee in principle. It is certainly one of the commitments that we made in our manifesto. I am very pleased to have had the opportunity of repeating the commitments which have been made in the past and of listening to this subject being aired again in the Chamber. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, will accept the criticisms which I have made of these amendments and at the same time accept my gratitude for proposing them in the way he did.
4 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am very grateful to those noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. I am also very grateful for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, who is very experienced in this area, and indeed the noble Viscount, Lord Addison. I am sure that if the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, had been here he would have added his voice. The noble Lord, Lord Derwent, quite rightly pointed out that time is of the essence. I take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, who I do not believe quite understood the problem which the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, was trying to explain about the importance, under the shadow of legislation and local government reorganisation—indeed, we have had this situation as regards Wales—of something being done quite quickly.
The noble Lords, Lord Dixon-Smith and Lord Strathclyde, accused me of "tacking something on". That was the expression which the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, used. The Committee is presented with a Bill which has a Long Title. Amendments, from whatever side of the Committee, may come and they will be judged by this Chamber in the end to be either relevant to the Bill or not. As the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, will be aware, I have taken advice which is that the amendments I am moving are relevant to the Bill. In the interpretation clause, which is Clause 68, there is no definition of contracting out. There is nothing which says that contracting out should increase competition in any way. If there is no definition of contracting out, it is perfectly proper for these matters to be put into the Bill if the Committee seeks to do so or if your Lordships seek to do so at a later stage.
As regards the detailed criticisms of my amendments by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, I personally—and I speak for these Benches too—feel that it is not

375
necessarily desirable to have a permanent system of national parks authorities. That may be something which we could discuss. I am not necessarily hooked on the principle that there should be a review after 10 years of how the authorities have got on, but that would be perfectly reasonable. But if the Minister says that he would like these contracts to be permanent, there is nothing to stop them being permanent. If that is what the Government wish, that is what I would accept.
As regards independent finance, Members of the Committee will be aware that I have gone to a great deal of trouble to make sure that the new national parks authorities which I am proposing should be set up under the amendments are financially independent. It may be that my drafting is not as good as the Government would like, but that is a matter which we can settle between us before we come to the next stage of the Bill.
As to there being no winding up of the existing authorities, the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, is very pertinent. The existing authorities could easily be changed as a result of local government reorganisation. As far as Wales is concerned, they will be changed when the Local Government (Wales) Bill receives Royal Assent. What I am suggesting is much more stable in terms of a contract to a new authority than what the Government were originally suggesting in terms of the Bill introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Norrie.
Since I referred to the manifesto of the Conservative Party, the Minister invited me to help him with other aspects of it. I am delighted to do so. I can help him on common land and on hedgerows. I shall be very happy to help him with the implementation of Conservative manifestos not just of 1992 but of 1987 as well. Those parts of the Conservative manifesto which we agree will receive my full co-operation in implementing them in your Lordships' House.
The noble Lord then said that the Government were committed to legislation on national parks. That is true, and it is in the manifesto. But we do not know when the Government will produce legislation on that subject. That is the point which the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, made. It is a matter of urgency.
I understand from press releases from the Department of the Environment which I find piled on my desk each morning—and I am grateful for the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde—that Mr. Gummer has announced that he will be circulating a draft Bill on the Environmental Protection Agency before the end of the Recess. If that is the case, what is to prevent the Department of the Environment circulating a draft Bill on national parks before the end of the Recess? I perfectly understand that the convention is that no Minister shall pre-empt what will be in the gracious Speech. Nevertheless, it appears that draft Bills are being circulated, and the clear intention is to legislate. If the noble Lord can tell me that in the next Session
376
the Government will legislate on national parks, we shall have advanced a little further. I wait to hear what the noble Lord has to say.
Lord Strathclyde: In replying to the noble Lord, Lord Williams, I took some care with the form of words that I used. I said that it was our firm intention to legislate in this matter. I used that form of words because it is not a convention or good practice to seek to pre-empt the gracious Speech. Therefore, I can go no further than what I have already said. If there is a draft Bill to be circulated, that is a matter for the Secretary of State for the Environment. Again, since that event has not yet occurred, I cannot comment on whether that Bill may include some or all of the amendments and objectives of the noble Lord, Lord Williams. I do not think that anything can be furthered by asking me to expand on what I have said. The form of words is a fixed form of words and there is not a great deal more that I can say.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: Before the Minister sits down, he referred to a convention that details of the Queen's Speech should not be revealed in advance; but that is a slightly false convention. As the Minister will well recall, a very full statement of intention was given at the Conservative Party conference last year by the Home Secretary about legislation that was planned for the parliamentary session which is now coming to an end. I know of precedents where a Minister would say that subject to final decisions on the Queen's Speech, it is the hope of Her Majesty's Government to introduce a Bill to such and such effect in the next Session of Parliament. I am sure that that has been said before. If the Minister says that now, it would do a great deal to relieve the anxiety of the Committee. If the Minister fails to say that, I think that it is a pretty plain indication of the fact that in the discussions on the Queen's Speech, which, as he knows, have already taken place, no provision has been made for such a Bill.
Lord Strathclyde: We are still some way off the final decisions that have to be taken before the gracious Speech is finalised; and between now and then, we have various party conferences to go through. Furthermore, I do not think that the convention of not pre-empting the Queen's Speech was broken by the Home Secretary last year. I do not wish to sound overly pedantic, but I really do not think that I can help the Committee very much more than I have already done. I had hoped by coming here today that the Committee would see that the Government's position was helpful.
Lord Renton: I am very much impressed by what my noble friend has just said about the Queen's Speech. It is a very well established convention that Ministers do not announce in advance what might or might not be in the Queen's Speech even when firm decisions about it have been taken.
Lord Strathclyde: I am immensely grateful to my noble friend Lord Renton. Given his vast experience and

377
knowledge of dealing with legislation over a great many years, I think that his advice should be taken by the Committee.
Lord Tordoff: In that case, can we have an assurance from the Minister one way or another? Is it the intention to announce these matters at the Conservative Party conference or not?
Lord Strathclyde: No, I shall certainly not be making any announcements at the Conservative Party conference.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am sorry that the Minister cannot commit his right honourable friend to a speech at the Tory Party conference. I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, is right in what he said about the Home Secretary's firm indications that, subject to this, that or the other, legislation would be introduced. I very much hope that the Minister will be able to go a little further when we come to the next stage of the Bill because, as the noble Lord will undoubtedly be aware, although he will be "gagged" at that point, to use his own expression, I understand that we shall be meeting again on this Bill on Report during the Conservative Party conference. I shall make sure that we shall get one answer or another out of the Minister at that time. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 205B to 205F not moved.]
Clause 60 [Functions excluded from sections 58 and 59]:
[Amendment No. 205G not moved.]
4.15 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 205H:
Page 54, line 33, at end insert:
("( ) its exercise includes the exercise of a discretion; or").
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 205H, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 205K to 205M which stand in the names of my noble friend Lord Williams and myself.
In this Bill the Government are right to exclude certain local authority functions from voluntary competitive tendering in Clause 60(1). I refer, for example, to matters affecting the liberty of the individual, the right of entry to someone's home and the power to make subordinate legislation. In this amendment, we are seeking to add another category of activity which should also be excluded from VCT—that is, those activities which involve a substantial element of discretion. I refer to where local people have elected councillors and the staff whom they employ to deal with confidential and sensitive issues such as resource allocation, prioritising need and making judgments. All those are activities involving discretion which we believe should not be contracted out to private contractors who have no such corporate view, no such culture, no such training, no such responsibility and no such accountability for them. We argue that those functions of discretion are at the core of local authority activity and should not be off-loaded. Local authorities cannot and must not contract out their judgment.
Therefore, this is a probing amendment to ascertain the extent to which we and the Government share a common understanding of what may or may not be removed from direct local authority in-house decision-making. What we are not talking about in this amendment is what I may describe as routine or mechanical functions, such as the payment of salaries and wages, information technology, most superannuation administration and internal audit. All of those functions have been, and will continue to be, contracted out if the local authority so decides. The issuing of rent books and other such housing matters should be treated similarly.
However, it is when we move on to those administrative functions which involve a mixture of the routine and the discretionary that we begin to have problems. The Government may believe that deciding whether somebody is entitled to a single person discount on their council tax is a mechanical matter and should be contracted out. However, deciding whether someone is entitled to a council tax rebate involves handling confidential material about income, the circumstances of non-dependent adults, and joint and several liability. Situations where judgments have to be made about the sexual and economic dependency of one adult upon another to determine whether or not one is dealing with a household are sensitive matters that should not be contracted out.
Similarly, the collection of housing or council tax arrears may sound routine and mechanical until one considers that debt collection involves options. It may involve attachment of earnings, top slicing for those on income support, or the introduction of bailiffs. It may mean having recourse to eviction. Again, sensitive knowledge of the family situation is needed to check whether it is getting its full entitlement to benefit. The possibility of debt counselling should also be considered. It cannot be right to suggest that private contractors are appropriate to handle such matters, particularly where that may involve negotiating with the Benefits Agency.
Over and beyond that are those functions which we would all accept as involving significant discretion. Some are mentioned in the subsequent amendments, Amendments Nos. 205K to 205M. They include development control, the enforcement of building regulations, listed building consent, traffic regulations, noise abatement notices, the inspection and prosecution of food premises, health and safety at work, consumer protection legislation, school admissions, assessing special educational needs, the granting of special discretionary awards for education, giving clothing grants, inspecting and registering residential homes, drawing up housing investment programmes, inspecting private rented accommodation for overcrowding, and notices of fitness. All of those are core local authority activities involving discretion which we believe cannot be contracted out.
So what do those functions of discretion have in common? First, they involve exercising a judgment between individuals' competing claims to scarce resources such as two families claiming a discretionary grant for a child in higher education. That cannot be privatised. Secondly, we believe that such functions may involve prosecution; functions significantly affecting a

379
person's business or livelihood—for example, the licensing of taxis, and the inspection of restaurants, and perhaps closing them down—which may lay an authority open to judicial review. Such a power of prosecution cannot now be contracted out.
Thirdly, they are functions, as I hope is clear, which often involve a corporate review of policy—for example, housing investment programmes—over which, again, a contractor involved in a single service or quango, cannot have an overview. Fourthly, such functions may be involved with the development of land or planning consents, giving rise to high financial considerations bringing high financial rewards.
Officers and members of a local authority operate, rightly, within tight codes of probity. A declaration of interest, which when declared, unlike both Houses of Parliament, means that a member may neither speak nor vote on such an issue. But a private organisation making such decisions, and giving itself and its friends planning permission, can be an invitation to corruption.
Finally, those are all functions in which a local authority may act also as guardian of the public interest. Planning is an obvious function: trying to adjudicate between where a road should go and the rights and views of private residents. No contractor can act as a guardian of public interest. For a start, most of them do not know what the public interest is. If they do, it is usually in their private interest to subvert it.
I repeat, local authorities cannot contract out their judgment or the exercise of discretion. If they think that they can, they should not be elected to local government in the first place. I hope that the Minister shares our view, and if he indicates that, we may be able to come back on Report with an amendment which has all-party support. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: I thank the noble Baroness for moving this important amendment. Clause 60 excludes from the scope of the order-making powers in Clauses 58 and 59 functions whose exercise would necessarily interfere with or affect the liberty of an individual or—
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Forgive me, that is an amendment that I did not move.
Lord Strathclyde: Which amendment did the noble Baroness not move?
Lord Peston: Perhaps I may help. I assume that the amendment relating to Clause 60 is Amendment No. 205J which we have not yet reached.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I was speaking to Amendment No. 205H.
Lord Peston: I am looking forward to Amendment No. 205J, but I think that we should do things in order.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Perhaps I may help the Committee. I was speaking to Amendment No. 205H which inserts:
"its exercise includes the exercise of a discretion".
380
I spoke also to Amendments Nos. 205K to 205M which are subsets, as it were, of Amendment No. 205H. Given the pressure on time, I was not proposing to move Amendment No. 205J.
Lord Strathclyde: I am grateful to the noble Baroness. Amendments Nos. 205H to 205M are on the grouping list. I am sorry if there is some confusion. I am dealing with page 54, line 33, which I believe comes under Clause 60.
Lord Peston: So far, so good.
Lord Strathclyde: I shall try to explain how I see the amendments in the context of the clause to which they relate. I do not want to go into any great detail, but the noble Baroness raised some important points, about some of which she is possibly right, and has understood what we are trying to do. I think I have explained what Clause 60 is all about. Members opposite know what it is all about so I shall just say that the clause has its place in the Bill because it is the Government's view that if a function affects fundamental freedom of the citizen of the sort detailed in subsection (1) and it is proposed to make it possible to contract out that function, then as a general rule it would not be appropriate to use a general order-making power alone to achieve that. But that is not to say that such functions should not be exposed to competition.
The statute book already provides many examples which allow contractors to be used in carrying out functions of that type. For example, the Customs and Excise Commissioners already have the power to appoint people who are not civil servants. Use of order-making powers for a similar purpose is also precedented in the Consumer Protection Act 1987. Here Section 27(1) places a duty of enforcement on the local weights and measures authority, but Section 27(2) enables the Secretary of State to make an order transferring that duty to "another person" who agrees to the transfer.
The point is that there is already a great deal of precedent for dealing with the kind of problems raised by the noble Baroness. The amendments would preclude the possibility of using the order-making powers in respect of various functions, particularly those involving discretion. The noble Baroness mentioned impartiality and probity in the exercise of discretion by contractors. I can assure the Committee that the Government recognise that as a legitimate anxiety. Where there is a statutory discretion available, then the exercise of that discretion in reaching a decision must be, and must be seen to be, free from any real danger of bias. Otherwise, the rule in law against bias, and the appearance of bias, will render the decision liable to challenge and reversal in the courts.
That would require Ministers, local authorities and office holders to consider very carefully before making any decision to introduce competition to the delivery of a decision-making function. They would have to take appropriate steps to ensure a professional approach to the task and that any sources of conflict could be eliminated. If that cannot be achieved in any given case, then that decision-making function could not properly be exercised by contractors.

381
That may mean that in some circumstances some functions might not be suitable for contracting out. We have always accepted that. But each case must be treated on its own merits, taking all relevant factors into account. Even where decision making itself is not contracted out, it may be possible to consider market testing the administrative support element of such functions, although that too must be treated with considerable care. It would therefore be wrong to exclude such functions on the face of the Bill.
Furthermore, the Minister, the office holder or the local authority would remain responsible for the process in the same way as they are at present as a result of the provisions in Clause 61. That includes a responsibility to ensure impartiality and due probity in the exercise of the function. For those reasons, I hope that the noble Baroness will be reassured that the powers of the Bill would not be used to undermine impartiality and probity in the exercise of functions which affect the interests of citizens.
As to Amendment No. 205K, which was spoken to by the noble Baroness, the scope for discretion in the function of determining entitlement to council tax and housing benefits, for example, forms a small part of the benefit determination function. Generally speaking, mere are set criteria by which individuals qualify for those benefits and there is little or no discretion available which affects the determination of individual entitlements. I am unclear as to what is meant by major educational awards; but I accept the broad thrust of what the noble Baroness said.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Discretionary awards.
Lord Strathclyde: The Government have no plans to make use of the order-making powers in the area mentioned, though should local authorities come forward with proposals for using contractors in those and other areas, we should want to consider them. For that reason, it would be difficult for me to accept the amendments proposed by the noble Baroness.
Amendment No. 205L would prevent the use of contractors to undertake any licensing function. I suspect mat in practice the interpretation of this phrase would mean that no licensing function could be considered as a candidate for competition and possible exercise by duly authorised contractors.
Impartiality is of course vital in the exercise of a decision-making function where the decisions taken could affect the interests of third parties, be they individuals or companies, and the Government would recognise that in some circumstances some licensing functions could not be undertaken by contractors. However, this does not mean that no such function can be. Each case must be treated on its own merits. Even where decision making itself is not contracted out the same point
382
applies about the administrative support element. I assure the Committee that the Bill would not and could not be used to undermine impartiality and probity in the exercise of licensing functions.
Amendment No. 205M proposes to remove from the scope of the order-making power any function which might affect the use or development of land. I understand the anxieties but we must be clear about the matter. If an order concerning the contracting out of land-related functions was laid by Ministers and approved by Parliament there would be no compulsion on local authorities to take action. It would simply free individual local authorities to employ contractors where that seemed appropriate and sensible.
That is particularly important to bear in mind when one realises that the exclusion proposed by this amendment would range far wider than just the determination of planning applications. It would in fact impact on the economic development and other land-related activities of local authorities. It might be entirely appropriate to introduce an element of competition into the exercise of those activities. That may not have been the intention of the noble Baroness and I accept that these are probing amendments.
We believe that the broad approach taken in the Bill as it stands is the right one. It will be for the Minister to consider each case on its merits—consulting the local authority associations in respect of local authority functions—before deciding on whether to lay an order before Parliament. I suggest that that will be the proper time to consider whether or not a particular function should proceed. The amendment would preclude that option. That, in my view, narrows and limits the Bill in a way which I do not believe is in the interests of contracting out in general.
For these reasons, and in the light of the considerable assurances which I have given, I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendments.
Lord Peston: I became a little lost at the beginning of the Minister's reply. Was he relying partly on Clause 60 (1) (a), which deals with the liberty of the individual? Did he regard that as a safeguard that he wished to draw to our attention? Is it right that if we want to know what that subsection means, we shall have to discuss the next amendment?
Lord Strathclyde: Perhaps the noble Lord wants me to pre-empt the amendment. I was not using that as a defence—
Lord Peston: I would find it convenient if the Minister would pre-empt the next amendment if he can say something. I raised the matter yesterday because it appeared to me that that subsection says nothing or it prevents all forms of contracting out. I am interested to know whether someone can go to court in respect of any

383
of these functions and say, "You cannot do it because it affects the liberty of the individual". Can the Minister be persuaded to comment on that now?
Lord Strathclyde: I was interested in what the noble Lord said yesterday about the word "liberty" in Clause 60(1) (a). He took the word to mean something far wider than is intended—
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: Hear, hear!
Lord Strathclyde: I hear my noble and learned friend agreeing with me. The reference to "liberty" means physical liberty. That is the consistent use of the word throughout the statute book—
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: Hear, hear!
Lord Strathclyde: The reference to an individual makes it clear that only the physical liberty of natural persons, and not a legal body such as a company, is the subject of the paragraph. The whole clause embodies the important principle that if a function affects the fundamental freedom of citizens of the kind detailed in the subsection, and it is proposed to make it possible to contract out that function, as a general rule it would not be appropriate to use a general order-making power alone to achieve it. I hope that that explains the well precedented legal meaning of the word "liberty".
Lord Peston: I thank the Minister for that reply. It is another example of that which was emphasised only the other week by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham. I take it that we do not use the word "liberty" to mean what it means in the English language but that we go to the peculiar sub-language called "the law" to find the meaning. It never occurred to me that it meant physical liberty; I thought that it meant liberty. I deeply thank the noble Lord for that explanation because it clarifies the Bill in an important way.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I am grateful for the Minister's thoughtful reply. I was pleased to see the measure of agreement between us on the broader issue; that is the need to protect the integrity and probity of local authority decision making. There is no gap between us on that. However, unless at a later stage the Government accept a version of this amendment, or bring forward one of their own, I have no confidence that Clause 60 will ensure that protection. I am sure that it is a goal for which we all aim.
I have been trying to tease out what the Minister was saying. Was he saying that the functions that I have indicated, including those listed in Amendment No. 205K, do not require the exercise of discretion? I have to tell him that of course they do. Housing benefit, for example, regularly involves the local authority exercising a discretion as to whether to top up the reasonable rent of the rent officer to that being charged by the landlord. That is an entirely discretionary item, as is, for example, whether one regards or disregards a war widow's pension. A discretionary education grant is also a discretionary item at further and higher education.
384
First, is the Minister saying that they are not discretionary items? I must assure him that they are. Secondly, is he saying that some items are discretionary and others are not? Is he saying that decisions will be made on a case-by-case basis but where discretion is involved they may not be contracted out? Thirdly, is he saying that many areas involve discretion but provided that they are contracted out to a body which has professional standards and can be trusted to act impartially, that is acceptable? Which of those three positions was the Minister's answer steering the Committee towards?
Lord Strathclyde: The noble Baroness has put a gloss on my reply. I said that there is little discretion available in many of these matters. Like many social security benefits, housing and council tax benefits involve the application of laid-down rules, as the noble Baroness knows very well. The point is that any claimant meeting the test so laid down is legally entitled to benefit. In that respect, there is little discretion; it is a question of establishing the facts and applying the rules to them.
I do not believe that it will be particularly helpful to have a long and tiresome debate about the application of social security rules. I certainly do not wish to have that and I am more than happy to look again at the issue to see whether I can be helpful on Report.
Lord Monkswell: I am sorry to introduce this subject but the Minister mentioned it in his earlier reply and I had hoped for clarification. He said that the Government did not have a mind to contract out these various areas of local authority activity and that it would be up to individual local authorities to come forward with proposals. He said that the Government would then listen to those proposals and act. The implication was that they would act in favour of the local authority coming forward with proposals.
Will the Minister clarify the position? The answer implies that it is acceptable for some local authorities to choose not to use their powers and effectively to say, "We are not prepared to look at individual cases. We are happy to abide by the basic minimum rules and we will contract that out". Some people may take the view that some local authorities may be prepared to abrogate their responsibilities. Is that effectively what the Government are saying? Would they go along with an individual local authority abrogating its responsibility as regards discretion in the areas that my noble friend on the Front Bench detailed?
Lord Strathclyde: The situation is laid out quite clearly in the Bill. If the Government decide to lay an order, there is no compulsion on local authorities to contract out particular functions. I was referring to the fact that where a local authority felt that it might be useful to contact out a statutory function, it could make representations to government. We should discuss them and if we decided that it was appropriate, we should bring an order before Parliament.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: There are many issues involved here. The Minister must accept from me that there are many areas—housing and council tax—which involve discretion. He must take my word on that. We need to tease those out at much greater length. It may be

385
that some of that can be done by way of correspondence during the summer so that we can see where we agree and where we disagree. Clearly, we must return to that matter because the proper function of a local authority is a key issue in the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 205J to 206A not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Broadbridge): I must warn the Committee that if Amendment No. 207 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 207A.
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 207:
Page 54, leave out lines 39 and 40.
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 212A. Before I do so, I should say that it was most remiss of me not to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, on his rise to his new and very important position. He knows that I shall miss him in his present guise. I thought that he did an excellent job representing the Department of Trade and Industry. I suppose that his achievements there have partly led to his present promotion. Of course, in that position, I shall not be able to argue with him, but he receives the sincere congratulations of myself and my colleagues. But as I still have an opportunity to argue with him today, I shall do so.
I believe that the official receiver and the insolvency service do an excellent job. Therefore, I am puzzled as to why, in the middle of the Bill, almost apropos of nothing, there is reference at Clause 60(2) to the official receiver. It states:
"shall not exclude any function of the official receiver".
On the next page of the Bill, it is emphasised that the office-holders to whom the clause applies includes the official receiver, which I assume includes the insolvency service.
I do not understand why the Government are remotely considering that to be a suitable function to contract out, especially as large numbers of other regulatory services are not even considered for that purpose on the face of the Bill. I wish to ask why that is so.
I am informed that the Government have hired the firm Stoy Hayward to look into possible options. I believe that it is either just about to prepare a report or possible options, or has already done so. I should rather debate the matter on the basis of what the report says.
My purpose in moving the amendment is to ask the noble Lord, as soon as the report is given to his right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade, to place copies in the Library of your Lordships' House or, for my part more importantly, perhaps he will arrange for me to see it as I do not see how I can possibly approach this part of the Bill without seeing the main empirical underpinning of the Government's proposals.
If the Minister cannot give me the answer today, I am willing that he should write to me on the subject. I believe that he understands the point that I make. I am concerned as to why the official receiver and, implicitly, the
386
insolvency service, is referred to in the Bill. More importantly, if a report is available, I should like to see it. I beg to move.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: Of course I thank the noble Lord, Lord Peston, for his kind words. He may not hear me for very much longer, but he will still see me across the Floor of the Chamber. I recognise the anxieties which underline his remarks. The contracting out of the official receiver's functions is obviously a difficult but interesting matter. As the noble Lord rightly noted, the Government have asked consultants to examine the extent to which the private sector could undertake the routine work involved in the administration of compulsory insolvencies, bankruptcies, liquidations and so on.
I shall accept the invitation extended to me by the noble Lord to write to him. I am not aware that the report has been received or even, when it is received, what its status will be. I believe in open government but decisions will have to be taken in the light of the report. Therefore, I shall write to the noble Lord on that matter.
Our objective is to explore the possible involvement of the private sector in two ways: first, the possibility of achieving greater gains in efficiency and effectiveness in the carrying out of functions by employing private-sector contractors; and, secondly, to look at the investigatory role of official receivers.
The contracting out of routine support work offers the possibility of releasing official receivers from the burden of such tasks to enable them to concentrate on their investigative work. In pursuit of those objectives, the provisions in Clause 60(2), which Amendment No. 207 seeks to remove, will ensure that Ministers are able to consider the widest range of options for contracting out.
The exemption to the general exclusion is needed to bring the full range of the official receiver's functions within the scope of the order-making power. Functions which might be affected would typically relate to the official receiver requiring bankrupts and directors to attend on him and answer questions; to his power to seize or require the surrender of property which he considers forms part of the insolvent's estate; and to the exercise of his discretion relating to the holding of public examinations or the suspension of a bankrupt's discharge. Clearly the exercise of those functions is directed principally at those who are concerned as individuals in bankruptcy proceedings or as directors of companies which have become insolvent. In each case, there may well be routine elements which would be entirely appropriate for contracting out.
I hope that that explains the background against which we are operating. I hope that the noble Lord will bear with me in relation to the report and that he will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Peston: I thank the noble Lord. There may or may not be routine elements for contracting out. The matter must be examined. I accept what the Minister said and I have always accepted his bona fides. I hope that he will agree with me that if consultants produce a report, it is only fair that that information should be made available

387
to us all. Without that, we cannot really discuss the matter rationally because, while the Minister may have seen relevant information, the rest of us will not have done so.
I am quite happy for the Minister to write to me on the matter. I wish to return to it and I hope that we can do so on the basis of open government. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 207A and 208 not moved.]
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 208ZA:
Page 55, line 10, leave out ("and").
The noble Lord said: These are technical amendments to take account of the changes which will be introduced by the Local Government (Scotland) Bill, which is currently before your Lordships, and by the Local Government (Wales) Act which recently received Royal Assent. Amendments Nos. 217CA, 217CB, 217CC and 217E amend the definition of "local authority". I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 208ZB:
Page 55, line 13, at end insert:
("; and
(h) paragraph 2 of Schedule 10 to the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Act 1994 (enforcement of water and sewerage charges)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 60, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 61 [Effect of contracting out]:
[Amendments Nos. 208A to 208C not moved. ]
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendments Nos. 208CA to 208CC:
Page 55, line 18, after ("by") insert ("or in relation to").
Page 55, line 21, after ("by") insert ("or in relation to").
Page 55, line 23, after ("by") insert ("or in relation to").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 208D not moved.]
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 208E:
Page 55, line 23, at end insert:
("(2A) In the case of a function of a local authority Part III of the Local Government Finance Act 1982, Part III of the Local Government Act 1974 and section 100 and Schedule 12A to Local Government Act 1972 shall apply to the authorised person as they apply to the local authority.
(2B) In any case where there is no relevant contractor to whom any provision referred to in subsection (2A) above applies, that provision shall apply to the local authority.
(2C) For the purposes of subsection (2A) above, a local authority shall be entitled to make compliance with those requirements an express provision of the contract made between the authorised person and the local authority.").
The noble Baroness said: The amendment seeks to ensure that the rights of citizens to probity, transparency and accountability in local government are not lost or avoided if authorities contract out those functions voluntarily which hitherto Parliament has decided should be carried out by the local authority. What are we talking about? Subsection (2A) of the amendment refers to the continued role of the district auditor. He must, of course,
388
be able to check, inspect and audit contractors' books when discharging a local function, as he can and does do as regards the local authority. After all, the contract is spending public money. The recent evidence from certain London local authorities shows just how vital that role of audit is. We do not want local authorities sheltering behind a sham VCT activity to avoid proper probity in financial affairs. The district auditor can surcharge and disqualify a councillor, but what is his power with regard to contractors? What happens to them?
Subsection (2B) of the amendment deals with the second set of controls within which local authorities operate—those of the local government ombudsman. As the noble Lord made clear yesterday, the local authority will remain accountable and legally liable for the exercise of its functions. But, for example, will an ombudsman be able to investigate a contract on receipt of a complaint as he would now investigate a local authority in a case where he believes that the procedures laid down by a local authority were either not reasonable or properly observed? Can the ombudsman find a contractor, and not just a local authority, guilty of maladministration?
That is obviously less of a problem when you are contracting out blue collar and outdoor services such as grounds maintenance. However, it would be infinitely more of a problem in regard to the use of VCT for in-house and professional services which may, as mentioned in the previous amendment, involve discretion—that is, a discretion for which senior management and councillors have hitherto taken responsibility. Where will responsibility for exercising that discretion lie? For example, what recourse will the aggrieved citizen have if, say, he loses the right to light because of a planning mistake; or if, for example, in social services he is unreasonably refused the right to be a potential doctor because of judgments made about the suitability of that family? Similarly, what would happen about the refusal of a special school place by a child exhibiting challenging behaviour? Where does the buck stop? At present it stops with councillors and senior management, but what about a contractor? Further, subsection (2C) refers to the continued right of the public and the press to information as laid down by the Widdicombe rules, and so on, to see relevant documents and not to be told that they may not see such documents because they may be regarded as commercially sensitive.
All three aspects of the amendment seek to ensure that, when a function is contracted out, members of the public—that is, council tax payers and the users of services—do not find their rights to that service curtailed and that they continue to enjoy the same citizens' rights to probity as they do now. In other words, if the local authority has contracted out the exercise of functions, it is to ensure that it has not similarly, and at the same time, offloaded citizens' rights. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: I can assure the Committee that we do not want the provisions in the Bill to prevent a local authority auditor from carrying out his duty; nor do we want the role of the local government ombudsman to be in any way diminished. I am pleased to be able to tell noble Lords that those activities would not be undermined by the existing provisions in the Bill as currently drafted.

389
Under Section 16 of the Local Government Finance Act 1982, it is already the case that an auditor of a local authority's accounts has access to all the documents that he needs for the audit, whether they are held by the authority, the contractor, or, indeed, by anyone else. He is also entitled to demand explanations of any such documents from the person who is holding them or who is accountable for them. We have consulted the Audit Commission, and it is satisfied that no further amendment is needed for the purpose.
Clause 61 of the Bill provides that a function contracted out under an order shall be treated for all purposes as having been done or omitted by the local authority. That means, so far as the ombudsman is concerned, that the authority remains accountable and legally liable for the exercise of the function in question, with the result that the ombudsman's powers are not changed or diminished in any way.
The ombudsman can investigate a complaint of maladministration against a local authority when in fact it was the act of its contractor. If the ombudsman recommends that compensation be paid, the local authority will be responsible for that payment. But no doubt the contract will enable the local authority to recover the cost from the contractor.
The noble Baroness asked where the buck stops. That is an entirely appropriate question to ask when dealing with the issue of contracting out functions, not just of governments but also of local authorities. In any contracting out under the order-making powers of Clause 59 the buck stops with the local authority by virtue of Clause 61. My reading of that clause is that it is pretty unequivocal.
I am not sure whether the noble Baroness raised the question of the right of access of the public to local authority meetings—
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I just talked about access to information.
Lord Strathclyde: Nevertheless, I am more than happy to deal with the point that I know is pertinent to the amendment.
Those authorised to carry out functions as a result of the contracting-out orders will not be public bodies and, therefore, they will not have the same or even similar structures as those of local authorities. For that reason, it would not be appropriate to apply the provisions of the Local Government Act 1972 to a body which is not a local authority. However, through the use of conditions of contract, local authorities will be able to require contractors to make available specified information to the public. Indeed, as a result of their implementation of CCT for defined activities, local government has already developed a body of expertise in preparing the specifications which require contractors to be responsive to their customers and to involve those customers in the improvement and monitoring of performance.
Further, there is the point that I made concerning the position with regard to accountability and liability which is also relevant to the question. I hope that my response
390
will give the noble Baroness some comfort in dealing with such issues and that she will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I thank the Minister for his reply. He has, indeed, met our concerns about the ombudsman, for which I am grateful. However, I do not believe that he fully met our questions about the auditor and the surcharge. If a contractor has been found guilty of misappropriating funds or inappropriately handling funds according to the district auditor, in vocabulary that we would normally apply as regards not protecting the fiduciary interests of the council tax payer, whom does the auditor surcharge—the contractor or the council? If the matter is of sufficient severity that, if it were a function exercised directly by the local authority, the councillors would be liable to disqualification, what would happen?
Lord Strathclyde: I am not trying to avoid the question, but the answers to such hypothetical questions very much depend on the circumstances of the case; for example, the amount of money involved, the kind of contract and so on. I would not want to venture into a great legal argument. The general principle underlying this though, as I suspect the noble Baroness is aware, is that councillors are in the front line of being surcharged. They are the responsible people for ensuring that the contractors know what their duties are.
5 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I thank the noble Lord, but I must say that he is really inviting local authorities to enter into a minefield where they contract out discretion—as we saw from the previous measure—and then render themselves liable to surcharge and disqualification if that discretion is abused by a contractor who is protected on other than financial grounds. I think that that is an extraordinarily worrying area that we shall need to come back to.
The further area that the Minister addressed concerned right of access both to information and to meetings. He said that as contractors are not public bodies, the public would not have access to those meetings. That means that key decisions in development control which affect the public, which the Government now require are taken in public, could in future be taken in private. That cannot be right. It cannot be right that decisions involving discretion such as development control could be taken in private without the proper attention of publicity, press and the public. That really is unacceptable. The Minister gave it away. He has; talked about customers and the satisfaction of customers. However, we are not talking about customers, we are talking about citizens' rights here. That is the gap between us. Unless the Minister can understand the nature of that concern, we will have to come back to that on Report. With the leave of the Committee, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I have to inform the Committee that if Amendment No. 209 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 209A, 209B or 209C. I now call Amendment No. 209.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 209:
Page 55, line 24, leave out subsection (3).
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 209 standing in my name. It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I also talk to Amendments Nos. 209A, 209B and 212. The purpose of this amendment is probing. It is simply to find out the meaning of Clause 61. I understood from our discussions yesterday in Committee that it was clear that, where a function was contracted out, the legal responsibility for the effects of that contracting out would remain with the contractor; in other words, whether it be a Minister, or an office-holder, and not with the contractee. I hope very much that the Minister will be able to help me on this. I think he did explain, but I would like to have it very clear that that is in fact the case. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: The clause establishes an important principle in respect of contracting out. It establishes, as the noble Lord, Lord Williams, correctly understands, that the Minister, office-holder or local authority will be accountable and legally liable for the acts and omissions of the contractor, when they are employed to undertake one of their functions, just as they are accountable and legally liable for acts and omissions of their officials.
Our policy is that the public interest in general, and the interests of third parties in particular should not be affected by virtue of a function being carried out by a contractor. Lines of accountability and means of redress will remain the same. Third parties will continue to have redress in respect of the exercise of the function.
I understand that the amendments are probing and I shall not deal with them in detail. However, I hope that the point that I have made as regards the explanation of Clause 61 and of the principle gives the noble Lord some satisfaction.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: Is this a real point? I just wonder whether it is. Before the noble Lord, Lord Williams, replies, I want to put my difficulty. Clause 61 basically states in subsection (2) that if something is contracted out and done through a sub-contractor, the act which is done, being a function of the Minister, the local authority or whatever, is in fact to be treated by the outside world as if the Minister had done it himself. Subsection (3) makes an exception to that. Subsection (3) states that as between the two parties to the contract, the law of contract applies and the reality has to be looked at; and subsection (3) (b) states that this does not affect liability for criminal offences. I think it is plain myself, but if I have it wrong I hope that someone will tell me.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord who is much more expert than I am. It may not be a real point. In my probing
392
amendment I was trying to elicit exactly the sort of answer that I think the noble and learned Lord has given. My only worry about that is that in the contract— if we look at subsection (3) (a)—there may be laid on the contractor the legal obligation to do certain things which are properly the responsibility of the Minister or office-holder subject to paragraph (b) below on criminal proceedings.
I was just hoping that the Minister would confirm that it is in all respects the duty of the Minister or office-holder to ensure legally—who do I sue when things go wrong?—that, when things go wrong, I sue the Minister or the office-holder. I believe the noble and learned Lord has given me the answer and I hope that the Minister will confirm that that is right in which case—
Lord Strathclyde: Yes, that is absolutely right. The exceptions are obviously there to deal with problems, for instance of criminal liability where obviously the Minister could not be held responsible. For example if a contractor killed someone when driving while drunk, one would not pursue the Minister. My noble and learned friend is absolutely right.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am very grateful. I do not wish to waste the time of the Committee, but I think it is perfectly proper that we should try to explore these matters. If the Opposition in its innocence cannot understand quite what the Government are doing, I think it is right to explore. As I understand it, that is the function of your Lordships' House. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 209A and 209B not moved. ]
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 209C:
Page 55, line 29, leave out ("as mentioned in that subsection") and insert ("by the authorised person (or an employee of his)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 61, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 62 [Termination of contracting out]:
Clause 62 agreed to.
Clause 63 [Powers of certain office-holders]:
[Amendments Nos. 210 to 212B not moved. ]
Clause 63 agreed to.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 212C:
After Clause 63, insert the following new clause:
Restrictions on disclosure of information
(". Schedule (Restrictions on disclosure of information) to this Act (which contains provisions modifying certain restrictions on the disclosure of information where functions of Ministers, office-holders or local authorities are contracted out) shall have effect.").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 212C, I wish to speak also to the other amendments grouped with it. This group deletes Clause 64 which deals with the disclosure of information restricted by statute or an obligation of confidentiality—that is restricted information—and replaces it with a new Schedule 13A. Amendments Nos. 213, 213A, 214 and 215 are grouped with this amendment.
New Schedule 13A thus addresses the second of the main statutory obstacles to market testing and contracting out which we have found. We have already debated the restrictions imposed by the Carltona principle which are addressed by Clauses 59 to 63. This schedule deals with the extension of restrictions on information, first, to enable such information to be passed to contractors where necessary, and, secondly, to ensure that the restrictions bite thereafter on the contractors too.
Let me give you some examples. Some information is restricted by statute, for example the Statistics of Trade Act 1947, which is used by government departments to compile indicators such as the index of industrial production. It is clearly absurd that virtually no part of the operation of collecting trade statistics can be undertaken by contractors because of the need to access names and addresses of respondents. A contractor would have to have access to such information, for example, to address envelopes. Other information is restricted by obligations of confidentiality where information has been provided on the understanding that it would be disclosed only to certain groups of people. New Schedule 13A would allow for contractors to have access to that information.
The amendments provide welcome safeguards. I hope that they will be welcomed by the Committee. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 212D not moved. ]
Clause 64 [Restrictions on disclosure of information]:
[Amendments Nos. 213 to 215 not moved. ]
On Question, Whether Clause 64 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Williams of Elvel: As I understood it, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, had given notice of his intention to oppose the Question that Clause 64 stand part of the Bill. I do not know whether he wishes to pursue that intention.
Lord Strathclyde: I spoke to this Question with the other rather large group of amendments; I apologise to the Committee for it being such a large group of amendments. I wish to oppose that this clause stand part of the Bill.
Clause 64 negatived.
Clause 65 agreed to.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 215ZA:
Before Schedule 14, insert the following new schedule:

SCHEDULE 13A

  RESTRICTIONS ON DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION
  Preliminary
  1.—(1) Paragraphs 2 to 5, 7 and 8 below apply where—

  (a) a person (contractor A) is authorised, whether by virtue of an order made under section 58 or 59 above or otherwise, to exercise any function (the relevant function) of a Minister, office-holder or local authority (authority A); and

  394

  (b) the disclosure of relevant information, that is, information obtained, whether before or after the commencement of this Part of this Act, in or in connection with the exercise of the relevant function or a related function, is restricted by any enactment or by any obligation of confidentiality.

  (2) Paragraph 6 below applies where—

  (a) a person (contractor A) is authorised, whether by virtue of an order made under section 58 or 59 above or otherwise, to exercise any function (the relevant function) of a Minister, office-holder or local authority (authority A); and

  (b) the disclosure of relevant information, that is, information obtained, whether before or after the commencement of this Part of this Act, in or in connection with the exercise of any function of another Minister, office-holder or local authority (authority E), is restricted by any enactment or by any obligation of confidentiality.

  Disclosures between contracting parties etc.
  2. The enactment or obligation shall not prevent or penalise the disclosure of relevant information—

  (a) between contractor A or an employee of his and authority A or an authorised officer of that authority;

  (b) between contractor A and an employee of his or between one such employee and another; or

  (c) where the relevant function has been delegated to authority A by another Minister, office-holder or local authority (authority B), between contractor A or an employee of his and authority B or an authorised officer of that authority,

  if the disclosure is necessary or expedient in or in connection with, or for the purpose of facilitating, the exercise of the relevant function or a related function, or the performance of ancillary services.
  Disclosures by contracting parties to contractor B
  3.—(1) This paragraph applies where another person (contractor B) is authorised, whether by virtue of an order under section 58 or 59 above or otherwise, to exercise the relevant function or a related function.
  (2) The enactment or obligation shall not prevent or penalise the disclosure of relevant information by contractor A or an employee of his, or authority A or an authorised officer of that authority, to contractor B or an employee of his if—

  (a) the disclosure is necessary or expedient for the purpose of facilitating the exercise of the relevant function or a related function; and

  (b) where the disclosure is by contractor A or an employee of his, the disclosure falls within a description of disclosures certified by authority A (whether in the authorisation or otherwise) to be capable of being so necessary or expedient.

  Disclosures by contracting parties to contractor C
  4.—(1) This paragraph applies where another person (contractor C) is authorised, whether by virtue of an order under section 58 or 59 above or otherwise, to exercise a function of another Minister, office-holder or local authority (authority C).
  (2) The enactment or obligation shall not prevent or penalise the disclosure of relevant information by contractor A or an employee of his, or authority A or an authorised officer of that authority, to contractor C or an employee of his if—

  (a) the disclosure is necessary or expedient for the purpose of facilitating the exercise of the relevant function, a related function or a function of authority C; and

  (b) where the disclosure is by contractor A or an employee of his, the disclosure falls within a description of disclosures certified by authority A (whether in the authorisation or otherwise) to be capable of being so necessary or expedient; and

  (c) the information could be lawfully disclosed, for that purpose, by authority A to authority C.

  Disclosures by contractor A to authority D
  5. The enactment or obligation shall not prevent or penalise the disclosure of relevant information by contractor A or an employee of his to another Minister, office-holder or local authority (authority D) or an authorised officer of that authority if—

  (a) the disclosure is necessary or expedient for the purpose of facilitating the exercise of the relevant function, a related function or a function of authority D;

  (b) the disclosure falls within a description of disclosures certified by authority A (whether in the authorisation or otherwise) to be capable of being so necessary or expedient; and

  (c) the information could be lawfully disclosed, for that purpose, by authority A to authority D.

  Disclosures to contractor A by authority E
  6. The enactment or obligation shall not prevent or penalise the disclosure of relevant information by authority E or an authorised officer of that authority to contractor A or an employee of his if—

  (a) the disclosure is necessary or expedient for the purpose of facilitating the exercise of the relevant function, a related function or a function of authority E; and

  (b) the information could be lawfully disclosed, for that purpose, by authority E to authority A.

  Disclosures for audit purposes
  7.—(1) Where authority A is a Minister or office-holder, the enactment or obligation shall not prevent or penalise the disclosure of relevant information by contractor A or an employee of his if—

  (a) the disclosure is to the Comptroller, or a person exercising an audit function of his, and the information could lawfully be disclosed to the Comptroller or that person by authority A; or

  (b) the disclosure is to an accounting officer, or a person exercising an audit function of his, and the information could lawfully be disclosed to that officer or person by authority A.

  (2) Where authority A is a local authority, the enactment or obligation shall not prevent or penalise the disclosure of relevant information by contractor A or an employee of his if—

  (a) the disclosure is to the authority's chief finance officer, or a person exercising an audit function of his; and

  (b) the information could lawfully be disclosed to that officer or person by the authority.

  (3) In this paragraph—
  "accounting officer" means an officer appointed by the Treasury under section 22 of the Exchequer and Audit Departments Act 1866 or section 4 of the Government Trading Funds Act 1973;
  "audit function", in relation to the Comptroller, includes any function under Part II of the National Audit Act 1983 or Part III of the Audit (Northern Ireland) Order 1987 (examinations into economy, efficiency and effectiveness);
  "chief finance officer" has the same meaning as in section 5 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989;
  "Comptroller" means the Comptroller and Auditor General or the Comptroller and Auditor General for Northern Ireland.
  Implied term of contractor A's contract
  8. It shall be an implied term of any contract made between contractor A and authority A and relating to the exercise of the relevant function that contractor A shall take all reasonable steps to secure that any relevant information—

  (a) which is obtained by him or an employee of his; and

  (b) the disclosure of which is restricted by any enactment or obligation,

  is not disclosed at any time (whether or not during the subsistence of the contract) to any other person in contravention of the enactment or in breach of the obligation.
  Unauthorised disclosures
  9.—(1) This paragraph applies where—

  (a) any information is disclosed to any person in accordance with paragraphs 2 to 7 above (the original disclosure); and

  (b) that person, or any other person to whom the information is subsequently so disclosed, discloses the information otherwise than in accordance with paragraphs 2 to 7 above (the unauthorised disclosure).

  (2) If the original disclosure was restricted by an enactment, the enactment shall apply in relation to the person making the unauthorised disclosure as if—

  (a) he had obtained the information by virtue of the same provision as the person who made the original disclosure; and

  (b) where the enactment would not have restricted that disclosure if the person who made it had not fallen within a particular class, he fell within that class.

  (3) If the original disclosure was restricted by an obligation, the person making the unauthorised disclosure shall be treated for all purposes as if he were subject to that obligation.
  Interpretation: general
  10.—(1) In this Schedule—
  "ancillary services" means services certified by authority A (whether in the authorisation or otherwise) to be services appearing to it to be calculated to facilitate, or to be conducive or incidental to, the exercise of the relevant function;
  "authorised officer", in relation to a Minister, office-holder or local authority, means any officer of the Minister, office-holder or local authority who is authorised by him or it to disclose or (as the case may be) obtain the information in question;
  "employee", in relation to contractor A, includes any person who performs ancillary services for that contractor, and any employee of such a person;
  "related function" means any function of authority A which is certified by that authority (whether in the authorisation or otherwise) to be a function appearing to it to be a function which is related to the relevant function.
  (2) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1) above a function of authority A is related to another function of that authority if information—

  (a) which is obtained in or in connection with the exercise of either function; and

  (b) the disclosure of which is restricted by any enactment or by any obligation of confidentiality,

  can lawfully be used by that authority for the purpose of facilitating the exercise of the other function.
  (3) In this Schedule—

  (a) any reference to another person is a reference to a person other than contractor A; and

  (b) any reference to another Minister, office-holder or local authority is a reference to a Minister, office-holder or local authority other than authority A.").

  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 215A not moved. ]
  Schedule 14 [Amendments etc. for Facilitating Contracting Out]:
  [Amendments Nos. 215B and 215C not moved.]
  Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 215D:
  Page 111, line 14, after ("43B") insert (", 43C").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 215E:
  Page 111, line 22, leave out ("or agent").
  The noble Lord said: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak also to Amendments Nos. 215G and 215J.
  If I may say so, it is a slightly arcane point on Schedule 14, which deals with Scotland. I am a little worried about the rent registration service provider performing his functions through an employee or agent. I hope very much that the Government will consider whether the provision is in the appropriate formulation. I beg to move.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Henley): Perhaps I may respond briefly. These amendments would prevent rent registration providers from using agents. However, it is important that remote areas are covered, and it may be that a provider can give a faster and more efficient service in such areas by using a local agent with local knowledge such as a surveyor, rather than relying on his own or one of his employee's relatively infrequent visits.
  Agents are fully accountable for their actions. Paragraphs (a) and (b) of new Section 43A(8) provide that decisions and actions of an agent, or his use of knowledge, experience or opinion, will be deemed to be that of the provider. Therefore rent registration service providers will be fully responsible for the actions of their agents; and anybody adversely affected by the actions of an agent will be able to seek redress from the provider.
  As for possible bias, the rule in law against bias and the appearance of bias means that the courts could quash biased decisions. That provides a very strong safeguard for the interests of persons affected by rent registration service decisions. Since under new Section 43A(8) the rent registration service provider would be responsible for his agents' decisions, he would himself be liable to challenge should he appoint an agent in circumstances where there was a real danger of bias. Of course, should it not be possible to find an agent who was free from a real danger of bias, then no agent would be appointed. I hope that with that fairly brief explanation the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
  Lord Williams of Elvel: I am most grateful to the noble Lord for his explanation. It is important to have it on the record. Under the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 215F:
  Page 111, line 23, leave out ("by") and insert ("or omitted to be done by or in relation to").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 215G not moved. ]
  Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 215H:
  Page 111, line 27, leave out ("by") and insert ("or omitted to be done by or in relation to").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 215J not moved. ]
  Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendments Nos. 215K to 215Q:
  Page 111, line 33, at end insert:
  ("(9) Subsection (8) (a) above is without prejudice to section 43C below.").
  Page 111, line 34, leave out second ("section") and insert ("sections").
  Page 112, line 14, after ("done") insert ("or omitted to be done").
  Page 112, line 16, after ("by") insert ("or in relation to").
  Page 112, line 18, leave out ("by") and insert ("or omitted to be done by or in relation to").
  Page 112, line 23, at end insert:
  ("Rent registration service providers: restrictions on disclosure of information.
  43C.—(1) Schedule (Restrictions on disclosure of information) to the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 (restrictions on disclosure of information) shall, where contractor A within the meaning of that Schedule is a rent registration service provider, apply with the following modifications.
  (2) Without prejudice to paragraph 10(1), references to an employee of contractor A and, where contractor B within the meaning of that Schedule is also a rent registration service provider, to an employee of contractor B shall be taken to include references to an agent, and the employee of an agent, of contractor A or, as the case may be, of contractor B.
  (3) Subject to subsections (4) to (6) below, references to authority A shall be taken to be references to the rent officer for any registration area specified in the rent registration arrangements.
  (4) In paragraph 2(a), the reference to authority A shall be taken to be a reference to such a rent officer or the Secretary of State.
  (5) In paragraphs 3(2) (b), 4(2) (b), 5(b) and 8 and, in paragraph 10(1), in the definition of "ancillary services", the reference to authority A shall be taken to be a reference to the Secretary of State.
  (6) In the definition of "related function" in paragraph 10(1), the reference to a function of authority A which is certified by that authority shall be taken to be a reference to a function of a rent officer which is certified by the Secretary of State.").
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  [Amendments Nos. 215R to 216ZB not moved. ]
  Schedule 14, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 66 [Provisions with respect to orders]:
  [Amendments Nos. 216A to 217A not moved. ]
  Clause 66 agreed to.
  [Amendments Nos. 217AA and 217B not moved. ]
  Clause 67 agreed to.
  Clause 68 [Interpretation of Part II]:
  [Amendment No. 217C not moved. ]
  Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendments Nos. 217CA to 217CC:
  Page 59, line 14, leave out ("or 3") and insert (", 3 or 3A").
  Page 59, line 32, leave out ("district") and insert ("county borough").
  Page 59, line 34, leave out ("means a regional, islands or district council") and insert ("has the same meaning as in the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973").
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  [Amendments Nos. 217CD and 217D not moved. ]
  Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendments Nos. 217E and 217F:
  Page 60, line 18, at end insert:

  399
  ("( ) In relation to any time before 1st April 1996, subsection (1) above shall have effect as if, in paragraph (b) of the definition of "local authority", for the words "county borough" there were substituted the word "district".").
  Page 60, line 39, after ("by") insert ("or in relation to").
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Clause 68, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 69 and 70 agreed to.
  Schedule 15 [Repeals]:
  [Amendment No. 218 not moved. ]
  Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendments Nos. 219 and 220:
  Page 121, line 9 (bis), at end insert:
  ("1992 c. 41. The Charities Act 1992. Section 67(3) (b) and the word "but" immediately preceding it.").
  Page 121, line 12, at end insert:
  ("1993 c. 10.
  The Charities Act 1993 Section 47(3)(a).").
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 221 not moved. ]
  Schedule 15, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 71 [Short title, commencement and extent]:
  [Amendment No. 222 not moved. ]
  Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendments Nos. 223 to 231:
  Page 61, line 38, after ("20,") insert ("(Offences under section 63 of the Charities Act 1992: creation of statutory defence)," ).
  Page 61, line 38, after ("20,") insert ("(Applications for permits to conduct public charitable collections: time-limits)," ).
  Page 61, line 38, after ("20,") insert ("(Annual audit or examination of charity accounts),").
  Page 61, line 38, after ("20,") insert ("(Annual reports of charities)," ).
  Page 61, line 38, after ("20,") insert ("(Annual returns by charities)," ).
  Page 61, line 40, after ("1984") insert ("and the Charities Act 1993").
  Page 62, line 2, leave out first ("and").
  Page 62, line 2, after ("1985,") insert ("the Charities Act 1992").
  Page 62, line 2, after ("1985,") insert ("and the Charities Act 1993").
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Lord Simon of Glaisdale Lord Simon of Glaisdale moved Amendment No. 232:
  Page 62, line 6, leave out ("day") and insert ("days").
  The noble and learned Lord said: I am sorry to interrupt the rapid progress that the Committee has been making but this is quite a short amendment and I hope that the Committee will think it is valuable. It would remove one-and-a-half lines of statutory drivel from the Bill—Members of the Committee may ask why it is worth doing that when Bills these days are in constant disregard of the recommendations of the Renton Committee on the preparation of legislation—based on an authoritative memorandum by the two senior Scottish judges of the time that the legislation should lay down general rules. However, our legislative practice at the
  400
  moment is to try to cover every particular instance that can be envisaged—the vital one always being missed, as the Scottish judges prognosticated. Where it is not a mass of particular instances, it is a series of what is in effect departmental standing orders and page upon page telling grandmothers how to suck eggs. In particular, it enjoins Ministers to do what any sensible Minister would do without prompting.
  I know that the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, regards "sensible Minister" as a contradiction in terms in relation to the present Government, although he has genially excused the noble Lords, Lord Strathclyde and Lord Henley, from that blanket condemnation. Nevertheless, the fact remains that there are things that we could safely leave to a Minister to do. It is quite useless to go on inflating our statute book, at enormous expense, by telling Ministers to do things that they would certainly do without any prompting.
  The amendment proposes to leave out one-and-a-half unnecessary lines. Clause 71(4) reads:
  "The remaining provisions of this Act, other than section 26(2), shall come into force on such day as the Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument appoint; and different days may be so appointed for different provisions or for different purposes".
  Amendments Nos. 232 and 235 to which I speak propose to put "day" into the plural and leave out the final one-and-a-half lines. The Committee may ask why the words:
  "and different days may be so appointed for different provisions or for different purposes",
  should be in the Bill at all. Those words are included in order to forestall an argument that the Minister must make only one commencement order, however different the provisions may be and however different their purposes.
  Obviously that is a pretty extreme line of argument. Similar words occur constantly in statute after statute. I came across them by chance in the Local Government (Wales) Bill which was in the charge of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate. He is a greatly admired lawyer so I confidently left the matter to him. I asked him whether he was prepared to say that such an argument could possibly succeed in any reasonable court. Of course, he was not prepared to say that. The furthest he was prepared to go was to say that the argument might be advanced. There is no limit to the silly arguments that might be advanced by way of misinterpretation. In any case, the noble and learned Lord was prepared to concede that, if we tried to forestall and obviate every conceivable argument, however remote its chance of success, the statute book would go on growing as inexorably as it does at the moment.
  The Committee may wonder how such words ever got into a Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Peston, surmised rightly on an earlier occasion that they got into a Whitehall computer. It is not difficult to see how that happened. A young and keen trainee draftsman would be given a shot at the first draft of the Bill. He would put in some such provision as: "and different days may be appointed for different provisions or for different purposes". The senior draftsman would query that and the young draftsman would say: "Well, it is quite

  401
  possible that an argument might be advanced that, however different the provisions and however different the purposes, only one commencement day should be appointed. If different days were appointed for different purposes and different provisions, they would be ultra vires". Of course, the senior draftsman would know that that was nonsense, but he would not want to discourage a keen young probationer, and so it passed into the draft of the Bill. No official would object to unnecessary words in a Bill; the longer a Bill is, the more likely it is to be guillotined in the other place and the more likely the provisions are to be discussed late at night in your Lordships' House where they cannot effectively be challenged. So it would have gone to officials.
  The Minister is interested only in the policy, and on being assured that this was normal drafting, he would have had no more to say. The only other person who is in fact responsible is the Prime Minister. Parliamentary counsel come directly under the Prime Minister. Sir Robert Andrew, in his Review of Government Legal Services, recommended that the Law Officers' Departments should be the responsible office for parliamentary counsel, but that was the only recommendation of Sir Robert Andrew that was not accepted. So the parliamentary counsel are still responsible only to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister naturally has other things to do than to scrutinise a Bill to see whether an unnecessary line-and-a-half has been included. He will probably be in Corfu or Edinburgh at a conference and will have other matters on his mind than the contents or even the general style of drafting. So, as the noble Lord, Lord Peston, surmised, the matter gets on to the computer. Once it is in a computer, it is irremovable. It comes in Bill after Bill.
  In these amendments we propose that instead of saying "day" we say "days", and leave out,
  "and different days may be so appointed".
  If the word "days" is substituted for "day", it is obvious that more than one day is indicated. That being so, I venture to suggest that there is nothing to be said against this amendment. I do not know what it says at the end of the noble Lord's brief. I trust that it says either "Consider" or "Accept". But I fear that, the computer being almost "saintly", it may say "Reject". But I ask the noble Lord to look at this matter as one of common sense. I beg to move.
  5.30 p.m.
  Lord Strathclyde: The noble and learned Lord has been quiet for too long. I for one much enjoyed the way he spoke in moving his amendment. I want so much to be helpful to him. But before I do so, perhaps I may read out the words of my brief. What the noble and learned Lord suggests in Amendment No. 232 is that we should turn the word "day" into "days". And I have to tell him that the words that he wants to leave out are the standard form of words which appear in almost every Bill of more than a few clauses which is to come into force by a commencement order—especially Bills which, like this one, cover a number of topics. These words allow different dates for commencement to be chosen as appropriate for the various provisions and for
  402
  the different purposes of those provisions, instead of compelling them to have the same, possibly inappropriate, date.
  I am advised that to put the word "day" into the plural, which would be the result of Amendment No. 232, might have the same effect in respect of different days and different provisions, although we cannot be sure that the courts or the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments would take that view. To omit the standard words would certainly deprive us of the capacity to bring the same provision into force on different days for different purposes—most obviously, Clauses 28 and 70, which introduce Schedules 10 and 15 respectively.
  That is what I am bidden to say. But after the speech of the noble and learned Lord, I think it would be unfair of me not to say that I will take this matter away and consider it with the parliamentary draftsmen to see whether we could accommodate the wishes of the noble and learned Lord.
  Lord Tordoff: Will the noble Lord perhaps accept, in the light of what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, has been saying about this being a sort of computer virus, that what he has just read out to us is also a form of computer virus which comes out of the same computer?
  Lord Strathclyde: I rather felt like that as I was reading it out.
  Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I am most grateful to the noble Lord. I gratefully accept his undertaking to consider the matter. For his brilliant conduct of this Bill, the noble Lord has very much earned a holiday. When he returns, I hope that he will have a serious interview with the computer and try to concentrate its mind. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Simon of Glaisdale Lord Simon of Glaisdale moved Amendment No. 233:
  Page 62, line 6, after ("day") insert ("not later than twelve months after the day on which this Act is passed").
  The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment is grouped with Amendments Nos. 234, 236 and 237, all of which raise the same point. In other words, they all deal with a commencement date and are to ensure that "a commencement date" means what it says.
  The amendments, I am afraid, are called for as a result of the constitutional antics of the Home Secretary in relation to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board which will be a painful memory to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser, who had to defend an uncomfortable debate on that subject.
  The Committee will know that a non-statutory scheme was set up to provide for victims of criminal injury. After a time, it was decided to substitute a statutory scheme. That was in 1988. Not only did that Act stipulate for a statutory scheme but it spelt out the details of the scheme in great detail in a schedule. In the usual way these days, it was left to the Minister to bring all the provisions of the statute into force. That is

  403
  invariably the practice these days. It is highly convenient because only the Minister knows when he is administratively ready to bring the provisions into force.
  However, what was done in relation to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board was something quite different. The Minister, having been given a discretion as to the date on which it should be brought into effect, interpreted that as a discretion not to bring the scheme into force at all, but, on the contrary, to substitute a quite different and again non-statutory scheme of his own devising.
  There is more to be said for what the Minister did than has sometimes been allowed. It is at the moment uncertain whether what he did was legal or illegal. That awaits decision by the Court of Appeal. But on balance, beneficent or otherwise, legal or illegal, there is no question that what the Home Secretary did was unconstitutional. What he did was to fly in the face of a clear indication by Parliament embodied in the statute that it wanted a specific statutory scheme. That has been stultified by the Minister's decision that that gives him a right not to bring the scheme into force at all.
  That being so, it is necessary in each Bill nowadays, I fear, to make sure that giving the Minister discretion as to a commencement date will not be taken as an invitation to him not to bring the provision into force at all. The question first arose earlier this week in relation to the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill when an amendment similar to that which I am now moving was put down. The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, the Minister in charge of the Bill, gave an undertaking that the provisions would indeed be brought into force. Your Lordships naturally accepted that.
  It would be desirable if the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, could say that what the Home Secretary did was a constitutional aberration which will not be repeated. However, I do not expect him to say that. So long as he says that the provisions of the Bill will be brought into effect, I imagine that the Committee will be content that he has gone as far as he possibly can. I beg to move.
  Lord Strathclyde: It is always with some trepidation that I rise to disagree with the noble and learned Lord. It will come as no surprise to him that I shall not venture into a controversy with the Home Secretary, whom I much admire. However, I should like to make it absolutely clear that the Government have every intention of commencing all the provisions with the minimum of delay. To delay unnecessarily these worthwhile deregulatory measures would be nonsensical and contrary to government policy.
  However, there are good reasons why we sought the flexibility of the commencement order for particular provisions. They require new administrative arrangements and procedures to be put into place, in particular the purposes of subsections (5) and (7) of Clause 71 under which transitional provisions for Clause 26 and Chapters III and IV of Part I are to be included in the commencement orders.
  404
  Obviously I wish to avoid the problems mentioned by the noble and learned lord. I hope that he will take this commitment as a serious one. I believe that when we have passed the Bill and it has received Royal Assent, we shall move speedily to the commencement orders. In the light of that assurance, I hope that the noble and learned Lord will withdraw his amendments.
  Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I surmise that the Committee will be satisfied that the Minister has gone as far as he possibly can and the Committee has an assurance that, so far as concerns this Bill, the commencement provisions mean what they say. The larger question will, no doubt, have to be raised on some larger occasion. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 234 to 237 not moved. ]
  Clause 71, as amended, agreed to.
  House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill
5.45 p.m.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Eraser of Carmyllie): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie. )
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Lord Lyell) in the Chair.]
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 132:
Before Clause 126, insert the following new clause:
("Children's Panels
. In Schedule 3 to the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 (Children's Panels), after paragraph 1 there shall be inserted—

"1A.—(1) Two or more local authorities may make arrangements to form a joint Children's Panel for their areas.

(2) A joint Children's Panel shall not be formed in pursuance of the arrangements made under sub-paragraph (1) above unless the authorities have obtained the consent in writing of the Secretary of State.

(3) The Secretary of State may give a direction to two or more local authorities requiring them to form a joint Children's Panel; and the local authorities shall comply with any such direction.

(4) The provisions of this Act shall apply, subject to any necessary modification, to a joint Children's Panel as they apply to a Children's Panel formed under paragraph 1 of this Schedule".").

The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, it may be convenient for the Committee if I also speak to Amendments Nos. 133, 133A, 135 and 144A.
With knowledge gained from hindsight, this amendment seeks to retain as much as possible of the present system of children's panels that operate in Scotland. The Committee will be aware that they were

405
created after much research into children's welfare in Scotland under the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968. For all their problems and despite tales that are sometimes heard about the children's panels, by and large most people in Scotland who are involved with them and with the children who have got into trouble believe that they have been a great success. We wish that to continue.
The amendments deal with the many facets of children's panels which we believe could be improved. With the break-up of local authorities, some provision has to be made for joint bodies to operate the children's panels. Some areas are too small and perhaps too intimate to run a children's panel for a very small local authority. So a joint panel will be formed. The Secretary of State will give his consent in writing to the formation of the panel and to the necessary arrangements for a joint panel. He will also give his consent to whatever area he believes will be a reasonable and workable area to use for that purpose.
I turn to the other amendments and in particular Amendment No. 135 which encompasses many of the matters about which we are concerned in this Bill. It ensures responsibility for the appointment of a reporter, which is a very important and key post in the whole set-up. He is responsible for the closely related functions of social work and education. The whole group of amendments tries to preserve the independence of local reporters. The amendments are consistent with the fundamental principle that the system of children's hearings should be locally based, although that local base must not be too narrow.
This group of amendments, and Amendment No. 135 in particular, would enable the Island authorities and the new unitary authorities to continue as the responsible authorities, but would empower the Secretary of State to create joint boards if he considers that the reporting functions could more appropriately be discharged on a joint basis. Under this amendment, if any joint board were established by the Secretary of State, it would consist wholly of elected members of the new unitary authorities within the area of the joint boards.
As presently drafted, Part III of the Bill would establish a national reporter service with no local accountability. Our amendment seeks to avoid the disadvantages that might thereby be created. Furthermore, the Government's consideration of the future of the reporter service has been detailed and ongoing for some time. That included publication of the Finlayson Report in 1992 which strongly recommended that the office of reporter should remain a local authority function and should not be transferred to a national body.
One point on which I should like personal assurance is that the reporter and the children's panel will remain a local and not an all-Scotland appointment. The Minister will be aware that there are dangers in having an all-Scotland post just as there are dangers in having too small a grouping of local authorities. It is disappointing that, despite the advice, the Government appear to be seeking to establish a national body.
If a national reporter service is established, a number of important facets of the present system will be lost. For instance, reporters are currently significant local officials ranking as chief officers of local authorities. Although their practice varies at present between authorities, when operated at their best the position gives reporters real influence over the policy of child-care and of resources. That input is appropriate given the importance of the reporter and the juvenile justice system. What real influence will a national service be able to exercise over such crucial local authority decisions? To try to do that would be a recipe for tension, and the last thing we want is to increase the tension in this field.
Local accountability is so important that the loss of it will be to the detriment of the whole system if the Government's projected—I hope they are projected and not decided—proposals are enacted. The best thing we can do is to hear what the Minister says about these fairly crucial points before we make any decisions. I beg to move.
Lord Kirkhill: With an open mind—I can assure the noble and learned Lord that I do have that on this issue—I should like the Minister, when he replies, to give justification for this significant change of policy as evinced by the present Administration. He is as aware as I am of the serious criticism which his party faces in Scotland on the whole crucial issue of local government reform. He is also aware, as I am, living as he does in Scotland, as I do, that a serious argument is constantly being levelled against the Government of which he is a member to the effect that they are continuing to over-centralise. This is another example of that, but I am willing to listen to his justification for it.
Baroness Faithfull: I should like to ask my noble and learned friend, first, if the service is to be centralised, how the panel members will be chosen. Will they be chosen by central or local government? Secondly, who will be responsible for training reporters and panel members? Will that come from the centre or from the local authorities?
The Earl of Balfour: I am certain that the provisions within the legislation will help the reporter system to carry on and be efficient. Because the local authorities are smaller, that will be important. In relation to Amendment No. 132, the combined effort of two or more local authorities is provided for by an amendment to the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968, Chapter 49, on page 187, Schedule 13, paragraph 5B of the Bill. In respect of Amendment No. 135—on "suitable accommodation" —I believe that that is satisfactorily provided for under the Government's ideas within Clause 131.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I am glad to be given the opportunity to clear up exactly what is proposed in Scotland in relation to the way in which our system of children's panels should continue after the reorganisation of local government. I am pleased to be able to do that because, as our short debate revealed, there is something of a misunderstanding about what is being proposed.

407
I can say to my noble friend Lady Faithfull that we have no intention whatever of centralising the arrangements for the children's panels. The children's panels will still be formed within each local authority area; they will still be part and parcel of the arrangements that exist at the moment. What is changed, and we consider it to be both an important and valuable change, is that there should be a reporter's system in service in Scotland headed by a principal reporter.
This matter was examined some time ago by a distinguished reporter who used to be in Lothian—Mr. Finlayson. It is certainly the case that, as he concluded in his report published by the Scottish Office in 1992, the reporters, as opposed to the children's panels, themselves should stay part of the local authority structure. But what must be appreciated is that his recommendations were based on what was the current local authority map in Scotland. His report made it clear that different considerations would need to be applied in the event of any fragmentation of local authorities. Given that there will be over 30 authorities in Scotland with these responsibilities, we propose that the reporter system should be run on a national basis with a principal reporter at the head.
It needs to be clearly understood that the proposal is warmly approved by the reporters themselves—around 85 per cent. or more in Scotland approved the proposal. I am not sure whether your Lordships are aware, among the voluminous briefing that was made available to the Committee, of the reporters' representations under the name of the Association of Children's Reporters. They said,
"The Reporter's Service has unique needs that require attention, irrespective of Local Government Reform, to ensure the necessary quality of service is provided for children and families. Part III of the Bill provides a positive means of meeting these specific needs".
The second point that the reporters made was that,
"The proposals under Part III of the Bill should not in any way diminish the local identity of the Reporter, but rather better equip the Reporter to serve the needs of the children in his/her community".
A number of concerns were expressed in some parts of Scotland in this regard—one was raised by my noble friend Lady Faithfull who asked about training. It is particularly in respect of training that reporters in Scotland wish to see change. They say that,
"Training—almost all Reporter's Departments are far too small to achieve effective and efficient in-house training. The obvious answer is a national programme but 18 years of discussion with CoSLA have produced nothing".
It is not as though there is a clear and distinguished record of training for these people who have extremely difficult responsibilities, and that that may be damaged; on the contrary, it is their belief that at long last they will be able to secure consistency in the training that they require.
408
Another worry is that they will in some way lose their local influence. Again, that is a view that is open to question. The reporter from the Highland Region, writing to Mr. Robert Maclennan, MP, and a number of other noble Lords, said:
"Because of our small size it is easy to overstate the actual influence that we have with regards to services provided by other much larger local authority departments such as Social Work and Education".
He concludes:
"In fact it may well enhance reporter's ability to comment objectively on local authority services";
that is, as part of this national scheme.
In our view there is a very clear purpose behind the scheme and it is clearly desirable. What needs to be emphasised is that, while there will be an administration that backs up the principal reporter and the reporters throughout Scotland, that administration will not have any right to interfere with the decisions that reporters take day in and day out and in respect of which they exercise what might be described as a quasi-judicial function. The administration is there only to provide the administrative support.
What is being suggested in Amendments Nos. 133A and 135 is that reporters would be employed by different local authorities, but once again, rather surprisingly given the dislike that there is for joint boards and such arrangements, the Secretary of State would be ordering combinations of authorities to employ reporters. We do not believe that that is the right way forward. The new clauses seek an unsatisfactory half-way house between reporters employed by separate authorities and our central reporter service. Perhaps I may say in passing that, for some reason or other in the way the clause has been framed, it would appear that Dumfries and Galloway are not to be part of any reporter system at all.
That is the centre of all these provisions. The other two amendments—Amendments Nos. 132 and 133— seem to have an apprehension which I understand but which I believe is ill-founded. Section 33 of and Schedule 3 to the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 require the formation of a children's panel for every local authority area. That reflects the intention that children's hearings be conducted by members residing in the locality from which the families attend. I have no doubt that that principle would be broadly approved of.
I suspect that this new clause has been introduced as a result of the anxiety expressed by some that as there are certain areas within the existing larger regional authorities where it is currently difficult to recruit new members, the new authorities in these areas will be unable to maintain the required number of members. While I understand the anxiety, I should say that from the time of the introduction of the system in 1971 until regional authorities were introduced, the previous smaller authorities are not recorded as having any major difficulty in recruiting panel members. The remedy which the new clause proposes seems to run counter to the community basis of panels and it would complicate the responsibilities of individual local authorities in administering children's panels.

409
It is important to recognise that the new unitary authorities will restore the local identity in many ways and will have a new and, we believe, sharper focus on panel membership which will help to overcome any fears and problems over recruitment. Therefore, along with the other two amendments, I invite the Committee to reject Amendment No. 132.
As my noble friend Lord Balfour pointed out, Amendment No. 133 is at least in part met by an amendment put down at Report stage in another place and accepted for inclusion in the Bill. The amendment is therefore unnecessary, the point having been made and accepted.
6 p.m.
Lord Kirkhill: I cannot forbear intervening yet again to say to the noble and learned Lord that I find his reply to my earlier remarks disingenuous to say the least. The two principal arguments which the Committee is being asked to accept apparently, among a number of other arguments which are perfectly tolerable, are, first, that a cadre of officialdom—namely, about 85 per cent. of the reporters—have found that they like the new idea. Well, professionals are craven the world over. They would say that to maintain their area of professional security. It leaves me totally unimpressed. Secondly, we are being asked to believe that a reform of local government which is uncalled for and is entirely unnecessary is of such a fragmented character in terms of authority size that this has to be taken back to central control. That is a sad indictment of the whole of the Bill as it now stands.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I thank my noble friend Lord Kirkhill for intervening on this point because much of what he said I was going to say. Not just in relation to this but in relation to many aspects of the organisation of life in Scotland the Government are trying to patch up what they have attempted to destroy. My noble friend used the word "fragmented". Now the Government are trying to find a way round it.
I cannot help being amused when amateurs like ourselves—I mean noble Lords on this side of the Committee—miss out Dumfries and Galloway. When one thinks that rooms and houses in Barrhead and Newton Mearns were missed out by the experts, it is hardly surprising that we, with very little back up, make the odd mistake.
I should like to have one point cleared up. The Government continue to quote a referendum of reporters which was held some years ago as supporting the Government's proposals with a favourable vote in excess of 80 per cent. My information is that the referendum was not concerned with the Government's proposals as they presently exist. At that time there was no suggestion that there would be joint boards as is now intended for police and fire. The reporters were voting against the possibility of being reduced from the present local government structure to anything up to 50 separate small unitary authorities. They believed that that would not work and they are very conscious of the work that they do. The reporters have never voted on the issue of continuing the present framework with the additional refinement of joint authorities to answer the problems of the four smallest of the existing councils.
410
There may be a reason for the misunderstanding. A misquotation of the reporters' referendum was used during the Committee stage in another place and it was probably provided to the noble and learned Lord mistakenly. The point should be cleared up. It needs to be clear and correct that it was an error. I hope the Minister will accept the fact—I am not sure that I am correct but I am fairly sure—that it was a misquotation that the reporters voted in the way that he suggested. The noble and learned Lord will be able to check and perhaps tell us later. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 133 and 133A not moved. ]
Clause 126 agreed to.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar Lord Macaulay of Bragar moved Amendment No. 134:
After Clause 126, insert the following new clause:
("Social Work: Reporter's Charter
. In section 36 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 (the Reporter), after subsection (3) there shall be inserted—
"(4) Each Reporter will produce a Charter relating to such issues as the Secretary of State may by order define, including statements of the standards of service and hearings accommodation which are to be provided, and implementing an effective complaints procedure to ensure these standards arc met." ").
The noble Lord said: This amendment calls upon the Government to set upon the reporter the obligation to produce a charter indicating what standard:; the reporter system will achieve. It is a part of the Citizen's Charter which noble Lords on both sides of the Committee are quite prepared to accept. The amendment is grouped with Amendment No. 135A. The noble Earl, Lord Balfour, will no doubt have something to say about it. I beg to move.
The Earl of Balfour: I tabled Amendment No. 136 to leave out subsection (8) of Clause 127 because I felt that there needs to be, and I hope will be, close co-operation between the principal reporter and the administration. I was surprised to read,
"Nothing in this section or … this Act shall be taken as authorising the Administration to direct or guide the Principal Reporter in the performance of his functions".
I am surprised to see these words written into the statute. I very much hope that they can co-operate. It is purely on that point that I tabled this amendment.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: Perhaps I may deal with Amendment No. 134 first. In the fullness of time it may be wholly appropriate for the principal reporter and the board of administration to introduce a charter for the administration. It may be that there will be charters for each and every reporter in the service of the administration. I am sure that, in the same way, the noble Lord is aware that the Procurator Fiscal service in Scotland and how it performs, is part of the justice charter there. It would be not only unusual but inappropriate to prescribe in legislation that such a charter must be introduced. It is of prime importance to get the new service up and running as smoothly as possible. Once that is done, I would very much hope that such a charter would be produced along the lines

411
which the noble Lord has suggested. On that basis, I take the view that it would not be right to include it within statute.
Amendment No. 135A appears to be a new tack by noble Lords in that it seeks to remove the general purpose of the administration to facilitate the performance of the principal reporter in carrying out his functions. Giving the principal reporter a list of functions to perform without the essential support which he would need to carry them out, seems to be unhelpful. It seems to be basically unsound to fail to define the essential purpose of the administration as designed to allow the principal reporter to perform effectively the full range of functions which the Bill provides for him. It should be borne in mind also that Clause 127(8) makes it explicit that nothing authorises the administration to direct or guide the principal reporter in the carrying out of his functions under the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 and the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975.
Amendment No. 136 would remove the independence of the principal reporter in the exercise of his professional decision-making in relation to his statutory functions under these two Acts.
I would have considered that to be a separation and an independence of quite crucial importance. We want to leave the principal reporter within the system in Scotland in a position where he can exercise his important professional decision-making independent of any interference. That has been an important element in the operation of the hearings system since its inception. It has ensured that reporters exercise decisions on cases referred to them without being exposed to external influence and do so solely in the best interest of the children. They are not a craven bunch of officials, as the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, indicated, but serious-minded, independent people who have a number of very difficult decisions to take; for example, particularly when they have to determine what should happen when information or evidence is brought to them about child abuse within the home.
It would be very dangerous to change that safeguard and there is certainly no need to do so because of the changeover to a reporter's administration. It would be vested in the principal reporter and in his staff who would deal by delegation with the local referrals made to them.
It will be necessary for the new administration to be able to direct or guide the principal reporter as to how the various duties and management functions of his task are carried out but in the exercise of professional decision-making on individual cases it would seem right that there is no pressure that can be brought to bear on him. With that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Kirkhill: I intervene to say to the noble and learned Lord that I have no objection at all to his making reference to any comments I made earlier; but he should
412
be more accurate in his reference. As far as craven officialdom is concerned, I said "all officials as well as these". I did not specifically refer to reporters.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: Having heard the explanation of the Minister, I have no doubt that it will be read with interest by those concerned with the exercise of juvenile justice. We shall return at a later stage and see how things stand then. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 135 not moved. ]
Clause 127[The Scottish Children's Reporter Administration]
[Amendments Nos. 135A and 136 not moved. ]
Clause 27 agreed to.
Schedule 12 [Status, constitution and proceedings of the Scottish Children's Reporter Administration]:
[Amendments Nos. 137 to 139 not moved. ]
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 140:
Page 159, line 36, at end insert:
("(4) The Administration shall keep account of all transactions and shall prepare and publish a statement of accounts for each financial year to 31st March to be audited by an officer of the Commission of Local Authority Accounts or an approved auditor appointed by the Commissioner.").
The noble Lord said: This is a technical amendment and in some ways one is surprised that it has not appeared automatically in the Bill. The administration should make sure that the financial affairs of the organisation are subject to independent audit. The justification is that it will be dealing with significant public funds and statutory provision should be made for the appointment of an independent auditor by the Commission of Local Authority Accounts which will be in a position to ensure propriety and accountability. I should have thought that that was an automatic thing. The Minister may say that it will be automatic, but it would be better if we were told that that was the case. I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: As I understand it, Amendment No. 140 would seek to impose an arrangement for auditing in the event of the earlier proposals in Amendments Nos. 137, 138 and 139 being introduced whereby the board was made up of elected local authority members. If I now understand the noble Lord to be suggesting that this should be imposed independently of any change that might be made to the composition of the administration, that would seem to be unnecessary because in any event there would be clear auditing and accountability in relation to any sums expended by that administration.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I thank the Minister for his reply. He has given the assurance that I was asking for. I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 12 agreed to.
Clauses 128 to 130 agreed to.
Clause 131 [Duty of Administration to provide accommodation etc. for children's hearings]:
[Amendment No. 140A not moved. ]
Clause 131 agreed to.
Clauses 132 and 133 agreed to.
Clause 134 [Government grants to the Administration]:
[Amendment No. 140B not moved. ]
Clause 134 agreed to.
Clauses 135 to 137 agreed to.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy Lady Saltoun of Abernethy moved Amendment No. 141:
Before Clause 138, insert the following new clause:
("Community care planning
. In subsection (3) of section 5A of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968, after paragraph (a) there shall be inserted—
"(b) any other local authority, in so far as it appears to the authority that the plan or, as the case may be, the review may affect or be affected by the provision or availability of community care services or housing within the area of the other authority."").
The noble Lady said: Any noble Lord who has looked at the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 may wonder how on earth these amendments fit into it. In fact, Amendment No. 141 slots into Section 5A, as amended by Section 52 of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990, and Amendment No. 142 slots in after Section 12A, as amended by Section 55 of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990.
Amendment No. 141 highlights what appears to be a technical omission from the Bill but also raises issues of real importance about how community care services will be planned following reorganisation. As recently as 1992, the Government introduced a new system of community care planning by social work departments. The aim was to ensure that there were clear strategic three-year plans for the development of community care and that councils would be accountable to the public for producing and meeting those plans. That development had widespread support. It meant that it was possible to compare the services that were available with those that were needed, particularly for groups such as people coming out of long-stay hospitals and the increasing numbers of elderly people.
Before the community care plan is produced, the social work department must consult with a range of agencies, including health boards, housing departments and the voluntary sector. In Schedule 14, the requirement to consult housing departments is deleted since they will be part of the same council in the future. The aim of the amendment is to replace that requirement with a new duty to consult other neighbouring councils where appropriate. That is needed because many of the new authorities will be too small either to prepare a strategic plan or to provide all the specialised social work services that are needed in their area.
The Government expect those authorities to buy in services from other councils using the new powers in Clause 57. Therefore, if a small council, like Inverclyde, is to prepare a practicable community care plan, it will need to know what it will be able to buy from a large council like Glasgow. Similarly, a council which sells services to other councils needs to know what the likely
414
demand will be before planning future developments. It is also important that service users in other council areas have some mechanism to influence plans for services which affect them. No doubt many councils will consult informally with other councils, but surely it would be better to have a formal requirement to ensure that plans are not produced without proper consultation of the wider consequences for other councils.
The amendment also gives the Government an opportunity to clarify how health boards fit into the new system. Currently, the Government place great emphasis on the desirability of health boards and social work departments agreeing a joint plan. That will be much more difficult with many of the new boundaries. Will the Government create incentives to encourage smaller councils to plan together, perhaps over a health board area?
Amendment No. 142 places a duty on local authorities to co-operate in providing social services. It is similar to the existing duties of housing and social work departments to co-operate to meet the needs of homeless people. Indeed, the health boards and social work departments have a duty to co-operate in community care. The new clause is needed because not all the new authorities will be able to provide the specialised services that are required for those whose needs for care are profound or complex, such as children who are both blind and deaf, or people with profound learning disabilities. A council may seek to buy the service from another council or another agency. However, there are two concerns: whether the service will be available and what type of service it will be.
Social work departments are under great financial pressure and naturally tend to give priority to those things which they have a statutory duty to do. The first priority of the new councils must be their own population. A council may want to buy in a service from another council but the other council may not want to sell it. A duty to co-operate would make it more likely that the council with the appropriate service would consider selling that service or expanding the service to meet the needs of other areas. As far as the quality of the services is concerned, the proposed duty may help to counteract a threat of the new arrangements—that of a return to greater institutional provision.
The Government, the social work profession and the voluntary sector all advocate small-scale local services designed to help children and adults to live in their own communities with as much independence as possible. However, if small authorities are planning to buy in services from elsewhere —for example, for a young person with severe learning disabilities and physical disabilities—it is much easier to enter a contract to place that person in a residential home than to arrange for someone else to provide the specialised day care, respite, adaptation and other support in the area where that person lives. The duty to co-operate will provide a framework for joint provision for those services.
Those fears are not merely hypothetical. In its submission on the Bill, the Association of Directors of Social Work stated:
"Past experience of joint arrangements is not good, being too fragile and vulnerable to political expediencies. In addition, such arrangements in the past often led to services being provided at a considerable distance from the clients".
We want to ensure that that is not the consequence of the new reform, particularly for services in the first few years following reorganisation when uncertainty is bound to be at its height. I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: The amendments seek to ensure that the new authorities suitably inform and co-operate with one another over the purchase and provision of community care services. I say immediately that I fully concur with the aims of the amendments.
The re-organisation of local government may well increase the amount of contracting for services by authorities and the level of inter-agency trading but, as the noble Lady indicated, that is not an entirely new phenomenon for social work departments. For many years they have been co-operating with and purchasing services from one another and from the voluntary and private sectors. Expertise in such transactions and, as important, good will in co-operating with each other have long been evident in the development of social work services.
The amendment on community care plans would require local authorities, where cross-boundary purchasing was in prospect or in practice, to consult one another on their community care plans.
These plans take a strategic view of the needs of the area and how these are to be met. The procuring of a service, on the other hand, is generally an operational activity and while community care plans address the purchasing of services they do so from a strategic perspective. In most instances of cross-boundary activity, purchasing will not be of strategic importance but part of the effective delivery of a service. I am not therefore in favour of a mandatory requirement to consult, which is what the amendment suggests, but I accept that there will be a need for fresh guidance on the preparation of certain parts of authorities' community care plans.
The amendment requiring an authority to co-operate in provision of a service for a resident of another authority could interfere with the good sense which we believe already governs the co-operation between authorities on such matters. Unless such an amendment was accompanied by extensive rules on the extent of co-operation which should be considered reasonable, the amendment could lead to a local authority losing control of its own resources. No one would want to burden social work departments with unnecessary and extensive rules. I imagine that we would all prefer to see any co-operation being voluntary.
I hope with that brief explanation of our standpoint on the amendment that I have gone some way towards allaying the noble Lady's concerns. The purpose lying behind her worthwhile amendment can be achieved through current legislation and working practices,
416
together, as I said a moment ago, with revised guidance. I hope that with that indication the noble Lady will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: Before the Minister sits down, will he tell us something about the costing of everything that is happening with local authorities? I know that it might annoy the Minister that we keep asking about the costing of care in the community, but one day that bird will come home to roost, and we shall have a great many people out in the community dependent upon the local authority to cost their viability within the community. The word "strategic" was used three or four times by the Minister in his answer. What will the government strategy be when money becomes short and people are left walking the streets? I can assure the Committee that some people will be left doing that. I have seen one or two of them in my area.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: The noble Lord takes me slightly wide of the amendment. We have now completed the first year of the changes to care in the community in Scotland. Generally speaking, they have gone much better than was thought by central government and local government. I compliment those who have worked so hard to make the change so much more successful than some feared it would be at the outset.
I do not believe that accusations levelled against the Government in Scotland that the funding provided for the change of responsibility to local government for taking on care in the community can be justified. We provided last year, and are providing this year, more money than would have been payable had the existing arrangements through the DSS persisted. When I have met those responsible for the delivery of the services in Scotland, they have asked me to continue with the existing ringfencing arrangements. From that I take it that they have discovered that they have sufficient money. They were concerned that, were the ringfencing not to persist, some of the funding that should properly have gone to care in the community might have been deployed to other services. I do not accept that there can be any criticism of the funding at present.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: Perhaps I could ask for clarification. We are not accusing anyone of anything. We all have the common purpose to ensure that people are cared for properly in the community. I do not like the word "accusation". We are not accusing anyone of anything. We are trying to do our best for the unfortunate people who have to be catered for within the community.
Lord Hughes: The Minister said that mandatory arrangements could result in a local authority losing control of its resources. But the last words of Amendment No. 142 seem to prevent that because the local authority has to do only such:
"as is reasonable in the circumstances".

417
If the effect of the co-operation would be that a local authority would lose control of its resources that could not be regarded as a reasonable position.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: With respect to the noble Lord, he might like to consider what I said. When I talked about a mandatory requirement, I was talking about one of the earlier amendments. I accept the point that the noble Lord makes—that Amendment No. 142 is so qualified in that the co-operation should be:
"as is reasonable in the circumstances".
What I said about that was that it concerned me that we would have to set out extensive and elaborate rules to determine what was reasonable. It was in that context that I offered my objection to the amendment. It was not on the basis of a mandatory requirement. That was in respect of the earlier amendment.
Lord Kirkhill: Will the Minister add something to the reply he gave to my noble friend Lord Macaulay of Bragar? The Minister said that the present policy is more successful than central government thought that it would be. I think I am right in saying that he said that it was probably more successful than many of its critics thought it likely to be. Does the Minister think that it is more successful than the policy which preceded it? That is the key question. It is the question to which critics turn increasingly.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I believe that it is more satisfactory. I was not aware that there was any political party in the United Kingdom that took objection to the general thrust of care in the community. When I referred to suspicions about it, I was saying that social work departments were being given a new and important responsibility. In some respects they were taking over responsibility from the NHS. I believe that there were suspicions on both sides. There were suspicions among social workers about the NHS and vice versa. I am pleased again to place on record that some of those concerns have proved to be illusory. Much of the co-operation when people have come out of long-stay hospitals has been excellent. I do not know whether the noble Lord is aware of a proposal in Edinburgh in relation to those who have learning difficulties. Elaborate plans have been put together there by Lothian Health Board and Lothian Region. It is a good example of good co-operation.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: I listened carefully to what was said and, in particular, to what the Minister said. If most local authorities are already co-operating, I can see no great difficulty in putting the duty to co-operate on to the face of the Bill. Most may be co-operating well, but I have quoted the reservations on the subject of the Association of Directors of Social Work. I should be much happier to see something definite on the face of the Bill, even if a few rules and regulations do have to be provided.
The Minister referred to guidelines. Will it be possible to see a draft of those guidelines?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: Perhaps I may elaborate on that point a little. Guidance is already issued to regional and Highland and Island authorities at present
418
on how they should set out their community care plans. I am suggesting that that guidance should be revised. The guidance to local authorities will in no sense be secret. It will be for all to see. If there are directors of social work who have proposals or recommendations to offer as to how that guidance should be set out, I should be pleased to hear them.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. In the meantime, I am happy to withdraw the amendment, reserving, of course, the right to come back to this on Report.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 142 not moved. ]
Clause 138 agreed to.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrovehad given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 143:
After Clause 138, insert the following new clause:
("Local authority social work committee
.;—(1) Every local authority shall establish a social work committee for the purposes of their functions under the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968.
(2) Except as otherwise expressly provided, all matters relating to the performance of their functions under the following enactments—

(a) this Act as read with sections 1 and 2(1) of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 and the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representations) Act 1986,

(b) Part IV of the Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act 1937,

(c) the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1958,

(d) sections 10 to 12 of the Matrimonial Proceedings (Children) Act 1958 and sections 11 and 12 of the Guardianship Act 1973,

(e) the Foster Children (Scotland) Act 1984,

(f) the Adoption Act 1958,

(g) section 101(1) of the Housing Act 1964,

(h) section 9(1) (b) of the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977 and the enactments mentioned in subsection (4) of that section,

(i) the Children Act 1975,

(j) the Adoption (Scotland) Act 1978,

(k) section 19 and Part X of the Children Act 1989,

(l) sections 21 to 23 of the Health and Social Services and Social Security Adjudications Act 1983, and

(m) the Access to Personal Files Act 1987,

shall stand referred to the social work committee, and before exercising any of the said functions the authority shall, unless the matter is urgent, consider a report of the social work committee with respect thereto.").
The noble Lord said: I understand that this amendment has already been debated. I do not doubt that, but in many ways the Bill is a mishmash. We are used to that these days. Will the Minister say when the amendment was debated in order that I can read it in Hansard before the Report stage?
The Earl of Balfour: It was discussed last night, after Clause 46, with Amendment No. 95E.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I was aware that it had been discussed earlier and I am grateful to my noble friend for being so precise.
[Amendment No. 143 not moved. ]
[Amendments Nos. 144 and 144A not moved. ]
Clause 139 agreed to.
Clause 140 [Byelaws under section 121 of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982]:
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy Lady Saltoun of Abernethy moved Amendment No. 144B:
Page 97, line 27, at end insert:
("(d) in subsection (5) at the end there shall be inserted—
"and the local authority shall not proceed to make the byelaws if, within that period, one third or more of the persons having a proprietorial interest such as is mentioned, in relation to the byelaws, in paragraph (a) above have submitted written objection to the byelaws to the local authority."").
The noble Lady said: First, I had better declare a non-interest before I am taken to task for not doing so by the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, after he has read Hansard. My family have about six miles of the upper River Dee but I have no interest in the trust to which it belongs. I have about half a mile of river, which has nothing in it, in another part of Scotland.
Clause 140 was introduced by the Government in order to amend the existing legislation which required 100 per cent. approval of riparian owners before a by-law could be made. That has made it extremely difficult for local authorities to introduce the necessary by-laws in relation to, for instance, Loch Lomond, which are desired by both the public at large and by a vast majority of the riparian owners themselves. The principle of the new Clause 140 is therefore widely accepted by the Scottish Landowners' Federation, and in particular by riparian owners around Loch Tay and Loch Lomond.
However, the wording has gone too far. It now dispenses with the need for any approval by riparian owners and provides no alternative method of dealing with their interests, such as providing for a right of protection. That is unsatisfactory, in particular as the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 recognises that the interests of landowners are important. After all, they are ultimately responsible for the economic and environmental management of not only the shore but also the loch itself and the fish therein.
On the basis of the legislation as it is currently proposed, riparian owners who object to the making of a by-law would have to vote that the Secretary of State, at the stage of deciding whether to confirm the by-laws, would take proper account of their objections. The legislation should provide proper protection for these interests but at the same time it should not present any undue difficulty or delay in the making of by-laws.
My amendment provides that the local authority may make the by-laws unless at least one-third of the proprietors object. I am sure that Members of the Committee will agree that if there were such strong objection, it would not be appropriate for the by-laws to be made and confirmed, and it would therefore be distinctly preferable for that to be enshrined in statute rather than left to the discretion of the Secretary of State.
The amendment has the support of riparian owners around Loch Lomond. It will allow for the very necessary flexibility that is now needed by local authorities to introduce by-laws in these important areas while at the same time making sure that the interests of those who are ultimately responsible for the economic and environmental management of the shore and the loch are properly safeguarded. I beg to move.
6.45 p.m.
The Earl of Balfour: I support the principle behind the amendment. I realise what the Government are trying to do in amending Section 121 of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982. The difficulty is that under that section a single objector, who is a proprietor too, can object to the local authority making a by-law dealing with environmental health, people driving cars over the beach or whatever. Section 121(5) (b) of the Act states:
"Byelaws may be made under this section only if … subject to subsection (7) below, every person having a proprietorial interest such as is mentioned, in relation to the byelaws, in paragraph (a) above has consented to their being made".
That means that the local authority can be penalised by one awkward person.
Subsection (5) (b) of the Act is being replaced by Clause 140 of the Bill. Under the new clause, all the adjoining proprietors can object and the local authority can still make the by-laws. That is equally unfair. At least a proportion of the adjoining proprietors should have the opportunity of objecting to those by-laws being made.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: We have given much careful thought to the amendment proposed by the noble Lady. We recognise that there is a genuine fear among certain proprietors that the clause as it currently stands removes their previous right to have their views taken into account when local authorities are making by-laws on these waters.
It may be helpful if I explain that the purpose of this clause is to make it possible, once again, for the local authorities to make by-laws on the seashore, adjacent waters and inland waters. As the legislation currently stands, one individual with a proprietorial interest in the water, the area of which could be as large as Loch Lomond, can block the process of making by-laws. The existing legislation does not allow local authorities to proceed while any objections are maintained.
That is not just a theoretical difficulty. In Loch Lomond the authorities have been trying for three years, without success, to make by-laws. Some of those by-laws control speedboats. Members of the Committee who live in Scotland will remember that last year there was an unpleasant and unfortunate fatal accident on Loch Lomond involving speedboats.
This new clause is designed to do away with the automatic right of an individual or group of individuals to thwart the by-law-making process. However, what has been omitted from our discussions on the provision is that, as a safeguard, by-laws come before the Secretary of State for confirmation. In turn, he may hold a public inquiry should he deem that necessary or desirable.

421
I believe that that is the correct way for decisions of that nature to be made. The views of those with a proprietorial interest in the water will be considered carefully by the relevant local authorities. It would be short-sighted and foolish of them not to do so. But equally, the needs of the general public must be balanced alongside those who have a proprietorial interest and their needs must sometimes come before the particular needs and interests of proprietors.
The amendment offers a system which, administratively, would be extremely difficult to operate, given that the clause will apply to the seashore, adjacent waters and inland waters throughout Scotland. In popular areas it may be not merely difficult but impossible to establish how many people have a proprietorial interest. Clearly, one cannot establish what is a third unless the number of all those with a proprietorial interest is known.
Perhaps I may use again the example of a loch. The proposed by-law may be in relation to speedboats. A speedboat club may have 200 or 250 members but the club may own only a very small frontage on to the water. Therefore, those members have an interest in the water but they could provide the blocking minority in circumstances where other proprietors with much larger frontages agreed with the proposal.
While I understand what drives the noble Lady to bring forward the amendment, I believe that there would be a great deal of administrative difficulty in trying to operate it. I hope that the noble Lady will accept that the amendment is unnecessary and that she will be reassured by the requirement that the Secretary of State shall confirm by-laws. Clearly, when he is looking to see whether he should make that confirmation or whether there should be a public inquiry, it would be part of his responsibility to have regard to any representations from those with a proprietorial interest.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: I have listened very carefully to what the noble and learned Lord has said. I shall read it with care. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 140 agreed to.
Clauses 141 and 142 agreed to.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 144C:
After Clause 142, insert the following new clause:
(" . After section 28A(4) of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980, there shall be inserted—
Restricted admission to schools
"( ) If, notwithstanding subsection (3) (a) to (e) above, the education authority, having regard to historical patterns of migration existing planning permissions for residential development in their area, considers it necessary in exceptional circumstances to restrict admission to a stage of education at the specified school in order to secure the availability of places for pupils ordinarily resident within the delineated area of the specified school at any time during the school year; provided that the education authority shall not so restrict admission beyond the minimum number of places reasonably anticipated by them as necessary for that purpose at any stage and that a statement of reasons is provided to any person whose placing request has been refused on these grounds".").
The noble Lord said: This is a probing amendment. The Minister has been a Member of the other place and, having had a constituency to look after, he must be aware that school placements is one of the most difficult and intractable problems that there can be. A school may have a reputation which is 40 or 50 years old. It may no longer live up to that reputation but then; may still be certain eagerness on the part of parents to send their children to that school.
I understand the point about new building and that if an area is to be released for housing, that will affect schools. But how does the Minister expect the clause to help parents who wish to send their children to one school as opposed to another? Of course, that is a problem which is more likely to arise in a city rather than in a country area. I know that there are selective schools which are usually fee paying and they set their own standards. I am sure that the Minister will understand the problems in this regard. When one writes to Ministers about such matters one receives nice gentle replies but, when one reads them, one realises that not a great deal has been said. Therefore, I repeat that this is a probing amendment and I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I am happy to respond to the noble Lord on what is a difficult issue. Nevertheless, I should point out that the policy of allowing placing requests has been extremely successful. Some 250,000 children in Scotland have benefited from the scheme since it was started in 1981. Before we overstate the difficulties which may arise, it is worth recording that over 90 per cent. of all placing requests have been successful. That is a popular policy because parents like the opportunity to make a choice.
I can see why education authorities might favour an amendment of this nature. But I do not believe that changes should lightly be made to the placing request system. I also have to say that the matter is not straightforward and, indeed, that there are drawbacks to the amendment which has been tabled.
The amendment is intended to permit authorities to hold back places at a specified school against the possibility of pupils moving during the school year into the area served by that school either into existing housing stock or into housing not yet built but for which planning permission has been granted.
There is clearly an element of speculation in that. Migration of pupils into existing housing stock may not be as anticipated. Houses for which planning permission has been granted may not be built in the year concerned. Or fewer children may move into them than anticipated.
In saying that, I recognise that the amendment does endeavour to address the possibility of authorities overestimating the need to hold back places by providing that restrictions on admissions should be at a minimum and that a statement of reasons for so doing should be provided to any person whose placing request has been refused on those grounds. Nevertheless, there is clearly an element of speculation and an amendment of this nature could lead to some places at popular schools simply lying unused.

423
Moreover, essentially this amendment would allow authorities to turn down different pupils from those who might be turned down at present. Where there is surplus demand for a school, some parents are always going to be disappointed, no matter what arrangements apply.
So I have to say that the Government are not at present persuaded that the intention behind this particular amendment should be implemented, or indeed that the case has been made that the placing request system should be amended at all. There is undoubtedly force in the view generally that the present arrangements allowing maximum parental choice are preferable to restrictions which would inevitably have the effect of reducing choice.
But in this debate I do not wish to go further than to express reservations about what is proposed. The noble Lord said that this was a probing amendment. Of course we are dealing with a Bill relating to local government reform. In our view, matters which are not strictly related to that subject should be inserted into the Bill only in exceptional circumstances. Also, although I realise that it is a probing amendment, I should point out that there is a drafting defect in it. However, in the light of that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I thank the Minister for that reply, which I shall read with great care. It may be that the amendment does not cover as much ground as we hoped it would do, even as a probing amendment. However, I cannot think of any words which could be used to clarify that.
What sort of consultation was carried out before some of the decisions were made? The Minister said that 90 per cent. of placing requests had been successful. I wonder how many parents have been discouraged before they even reached the point of making a choice.
I shall read the Minister's response and look forward, perhaps, to him returning at the next stage with some sort of revision if he thinks that it is necessary. Otherwise, because of the pressure placed upon us, we may find it necessary to raise the matter again. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 143 agreed to.
7 p.m.
Lord Lucas: I beg to move that the House do now resume. In moving the Motion, I suggest that the Committee stage begin again not before 8 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 1994
7.1 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Baroness Denton of Wakefield)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Baroness Denton of Wakefield) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 14th June be approved.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the order would introduce provisions broadly in line with those already in force in Great Britain in the Criminal Justice Acts of 1988 and 1991 and the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992. Its main purpose is to update the maximum fines and other penalties which may be imposed by the courts and to strengthen the law on anonymity for victims of alleged sexual offences.
One provision has been added to the order since the draft order was published. The Department of the Environment requested that the order carry additional provisions relating to the forfeiture of vehicles used for committing a crime and the disqualification of drivers who use vehicles to commit assault.
I turn now to the main provisions of the order. Article 3 increases various fine maxima. As a consequence, Article 4 makes adjustments to the maximum terms of imprisonment which may be imposed for non-payment of such fines.
Article 10 increases penalties for pollution and bomb hoaxes. To cater for the most serious cases, offences of polluting waterways under fisheries legislation are reclassified so that they may be tried in the Crown court. Noble Lords will be well aware of the disruption caused to everyday life in Northern Ireland by terrorists' use of violence. Another means of disruption is the use of bomb hoaxes. The Government take a particularly serious view of that nuisance and have decided to increase the maximum penalty on summary conviction from three to six months and on indictment from five to seven years. That is in line with recent changes for England and Wales.
Articles 11 to 17 make amendments to the powers of courts to deprive offenders of property used in crime and to award compensation to their victims.
I am sure that noble Lords will join with me in welcoming Part III of the order, dealing with anonymity in cases of rape and other sexual offences. The provisions will provide victims with the protection of anonymity from an earlier stage than is currently the case. It is hoped that the provisions will also encourage more victims to come forward and report offences to the police. It has been widely recognised that fear of publicity is often a factor influential in discouraging victims of sexual offences from reporting offences to the police.
The order is short and its provisions diverse. However, I hope that noble Lords will agree that it strengthens and improves the criminal law in Northern Ireland by balancing tougher penalties for offenders within provisions which recognise the needs of, and allow greater compensation for, the victims of crime. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft Order laid before the House on 14th June be approved.—(Baroness Denton of Wakefield.)
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the Minister for explaining the order in words which seem strangely familiar to me. I have read it carefully; it was fully considered in another place on 7th July, when my honourable friend the Member for Kingston Upon Hull North broadly welcomed the order, as I do.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, I must apologise to the Minister for not being in my place when she rose to speak a moment or two ago. Her deftness and speed at the Dispatch Box were such that I was not able to keep up. In my view, and in that of other noble Lords on these Benches, the order rightly extends anonymity to victims of alleged sexual offences other than rape while abolishing the defendant's right to anonymity in rape cases.
It seems to me that the justifications for anonymity being extended to alleged victims of rape are that the legal process can be seen as so traumatic that actual rape victims may be discouraged from coming forward and that alleged rape victims may be ill thought of. I believe that that argument extends quite easily to other sexual offences, so that extending the right of anonymity to other victims seems to be justified.
However, I should like briefly to raise with the Minister the counter question of removing the defendant's right to anonymity in rape cases, which seems far less clear cut. The Minister will be aware that in more than 60 per cent. of reported rape cases the defendant and plaintiff are acquainted. Therefore, in such circumstances, a right of anonymity for the plaintiff can be very seriously undermined if the name of the defendant is made public.
I believe that the low conviction rate in rape cases has led to a certain amount of public mistrust as regards the ability of the courts to punish rapists. There are cases of men accused of rape being found not guilty and yet, subsequently, facing discrimination in their workplace and losing their reputation as though they had somehow slipped through the net. It is clearly extremely damaging to be accused of being a rapist; indeed, in some ways, it may be more damaging—in fact, totally so—than to be marked as having been raped. I simply raise such matters for the Minister's consideration. I have no intention of opposing the order. I believe that the extension of anonymity to victims is wholly desirable.
However, I have one further question to put to the Minister. Given the fact that the recent amendment to the criminal justice Bill for the rest of the United Kingdom recognises male rape, is it the Government's intention that a similar amendment will also be made for Northern Ireland?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their comments. I quite understand that the speed of this evening's proceedings on Northern Ireland rather contrasts with that of yesterday evening. I am most grateful to the welcome given to the order.
426
Indeed, much that is already in law as regards Great Britain does extend to Northern Ireland, However, we have our own body of law in Northern Ireland.
I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, that the Secretary of State would give separate consideration as to whether Northern Ireland should follow in due course the changes made on the question of rape in England and Wales. In that consideration, I am sure that the Secretary of State will take into account the very serious matters raised by the noble Lord. Having said that, I commend the order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Viscount Long: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.8 to 8 p.m. ]

Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill
House again in Committee.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar Lord Macaulay of Bragar moved Amendment No. 145:
After Clause 143, insert the following new clause:
("Further provision relating to non-denominational schools
. After section 22D of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980, there shall be inserted the following section—
"Further provisions relating to non-denominational schools.
22E.—(1) An education authority shall submit to the Secretary of State for his consent any proposal of theirs to which this section applies and shall not implement such a proposal without his consent.
(2) A proposal to which this section applies is one—

(a) to—

(i) discontinue the school or a part or it;

(ii) amalgamate the school or a part of it with another school;

(iii) change the site of the school;

(iv) change the arrangements for admission to the school.

(b) in relation to which the Secretary of State, having consulted any education authority affected by it, is satisfied, upon written representations made, that, if implemented, it will have any of the results specified in subsection (3) below.

(3) The results referred to in subsection (2) (b) above are—

(a) a significant deterioration for pupils belonging to the area of the education authority submitting the proposal under subsection (1) above; or

(b) a significant deterioration for pupils belonging to the area of any other education authority; or

(c) where neither paragraph (a) nor paragraph (b) above applies, such a deterioration for pupils as mentioned in the said paragraph (a) and pupils of any other authority as mentioned in the said paragraph (b) as, taken together, amounts to a significant deterioration, in the provision, or availability of school education in a particular school compared with such provision, or availability in other schools managed by the education authority mentioned in paragraph (a) above or, where paragraph (b) or (c) above applies, any other education authority as mentioned in the said paragraph (b).

(4) Any question which may arise—

(a) whether a proposal is one to which this section applies;

427

(b) as to the implementation of a proposal to which the Secretary of State has consented under this section shall be determined by the Secretary of State and the education authority shall perform their duties under this Act in accordance with any such determination." ").

The noble Lord said: In the absence of my noble friend Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove and also my noble friend Lord Ewing of Kirkford, I formally move this amendment and ask for the Government's response to it. I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: The Government's view on this is that we would not wish to intervene in what are essentially local matters. What has been proposed would substantially restrict the freedom of authorities to deal with catchment area and feeder primary changes and could also frustrate attempts by authorities to rationalise over-provision. It would, in effect, draw the Secretary of State into most, if not all, decisions affecting proposed school closures, proposed site changes, proposed amalgamations and proposed changes to admission arrangements. We could not agree to such a restriction on local autonomy. Again, I make the point that we have sought to extend that autonomy but once again we are met with an amendment that would involve the Secretary of State in a way that he would not wish to be involved; a key objective of the Bill being to give authorities greater flexibility. This is a centralising proposal which would go against the principle of the Bill.
I am also concerned that, because the new clause as drafted would apply to all schools, both denominational and non-denominational, a considerable amount of confusion would exist as regards existing safeguards for denominational schools as already contained in Section 22D of the 1980 Act. The impact of the new clause would be to limit the requirement of consent under Section 22D, in effect, only to a proposal to change a denominational school into a non-denominational school. It is not at all clear what account should be taken of the arrangements to be made for the religious instruction of pupils in denominational schools currently set out in Section 22D. Finally, it would require the Secretary of State's consent even if the denominational body agrees to the proposal.
So the new clause is essentially a centralising measure—that is our objection to it—and, no doubt inadvertently, would weaken the safeguards which apply to denominational schools. We consider it is mistaken on another count also. It is plain that the impetus behind the clause is, at least in part, a feeling that additional protection is being offered in the Bill to denominational schools but not to non-denominational schools. That is not the case. Nothing in this Bill introduces new safeguards for denominational education. Moreover, the same safeguards as exist at present for non-denominational schools will continue to apply in all cases—cross-boundary or otherwise—after local government reform.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply, which no doubt will be of great interest to those involved in this issue in Scotland.
428
Although my name is not down to the amendment, I wonder whether the time has come to look at the whole question of so-called non-denominational schools and denominational schools within the community as a whole. However, I do not expect the Minister to answer that question because it is a major question as regards Scotland. Subject to that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 144 agreed to.
The Viscount of Falkland The Viscount of Falkland moved Amendment No. 145A:
After Clause 144, insert the following new clause:
("Provision of Nursery Education

.—(1) Section 1(2) of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 shall be repealed.

(2) It shall be the duty of every local education authority to secure that educational provision is available for any junior pupil who has attained the age of three years and has not attained the age of five years and whose parents or guardian indicate that they desire such provision to be provided, according to guidelines issued by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Schools.

(3) The Secretary of State shall satisfy himself in respect of each financial year in which this section has effect that the resources available to local education authorities are adequate to enable them to fulfil the requirements of this section.").

The noble Viscount said: I am always diffident when I rise to speak on matters concerning Scotland as I am only a Scotsman really by naturalisation. I spent some time in Scotland at school and this amendment has to do with nursery school provision in Scotland. My son went to school in Scotland and I hope that the Committee will accept my presence here to press—I see the noble and learned Lord shaking his head but I shall carry on regardless—my case.
I think it is most appropriate that I should follow up a debate which I introduced in this Chamber earlier in the year where a measure of agreement was reached throughout the Chamber and helpful remarks were made by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, on behalf of the Government as regards the desirability of providing pre-school education within the United Kingdom in general.
Over many years in this country we have received promises as regards the prospect of an increased provision of nursery school education. Those promises have been given by various administrations. Indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, when she was Mrs. Thatcher and held the post of Secretary of State for Education, gave her support to the concept of nursery provision for all. Some 22 years on we find that the United Kingdom, and particularly Scotland, are very under-provided as regards pre-school education. This is a very sad state of affairs because I think there is no disagreement, certainly across the parties, and probably in Scotland and indeed in England as a whole, as regards the desirability of pre-school education.
If nursery school or pre-school education were provided where appropriate for let us say, up to even 60 per cent. of children, that would constitute an enormous improvement and would have a quite dramatic effect not only on the abilities of children entering full-time statutory education at the age of five in terms of

429
enabling them to adjust to that more quickly, but it would also have a beneficial effect on the level of juvenile crime and on the lives of parents. If pre-school education were available for that percentage of children, the position in this country would be brought more in line with the position in other countries in Europe, particularly France and Belgium. Although there are particular reasons for the level of provision in those countries, for example in France there is a relative scarcity of part-time jobs for women, and most women undertake full-time jobs and therefore nursery school provision, or something like it, is essential, it is desirable that we should at least narrow the gap between ourselves and other European countries in this regard.
It seems appropriate that Scotland with its tradition of taking a serious approach to education should be the place to start as regards making this provision. When I introduced my debate on nursery education earlier this year, the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, said it was the Government's intention to make a serious attempt to provide this education as soon as finance was available to do that. In moving this amendment, I seek to put into the Bill a duty on local education authorities in Scotland to secure provision for,
"any junior pupil who has attained the age of three years and has not attained the age of five years".
I seek to secure this provision for those who want it. I know that already some authorities in Scotland have made a serious attempt to secure this provision.
Indeed in some areas of Scotland there has been a reluctance on the part of some parents to take advantage of the provision. In deprived areas, in particular where unmarried mothers are in great deprivation, there is a fear and reluctance to send their children to the formal education with trained teachers which is desirable but often in such cases may not be appropriate. I believe that the feeling of the Labour Party has for some time been that it is essential to have trained teachers available for the teaching of pre-school children in every case rather than relying on playschool provision. There is often good reason why those alternative provisions may be more appropriate. I gladly give way to the noble Lord.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I understand the noble Viscount's view. I have always taken another view. Although I want trained people, there is great benefit for mothers in pre-playschool groups because they, as well as the children, learn a great deal.
The Viscount of Falkland: I thank the noble Lord for his intervention. I absolutely agree with him. Where playschools are often most useful is —dare one say it?—where the parents themselves gain as much, if not more, benefit than the children.
In general, I believe that for Scotland the Bill provides a good framework in which to impose a statutory obligation on local authorities to provide nursery school education for all. I believe that such a provision would be an enormous success in Scotland. It would quickly have an effect on the priorities of the
430
Government in other areas of the United Kingdom. We could narrow the gap between this country and other countries in Europe. I beg to move.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: It is an interesting provision in the field of education, in particular in Scotland. I am not sure of the position regarding England and Wales. Does such provision apply in England and Wales? If not, it is high time it did.
I believe that modern studies now indicate that if one takes care of a child in his young years one will save him from terrible events in his older years. The input by local authorities into education, and nursery education in particular, with children learning how to cope with each other is important. The amendment has the approval of this side of the Chamber. However, the monetary implications have to be considered.
I am a West of Scotland man exiled in Edinburgh. However, in the Lothian region, all parents who wish to enrol their children for a nursery place in Lothian at four years are guaranteed a place. Do the Government wish to extend that provision so that all parents who wish their child to receive a nursery place at four years of age will have such a place at the expense of the Government? It seems good that children can relate to each other and grow up together. Such provision may save time and money spent on prisons when people go wrong as juveniles.
I speak in support of the general principle which the noble Viscount proposes but without making any commitment from this side of the Chamber so far as concerns costs.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: I support the amendment moved by my noble friend. He need not feel in any way on the defensive as someone from South of the Border intervening in a Scottish local government debate. We are still a United Kingdom. If Scottish Members of the Committee were to feel that it was wrong to participate in debates on English education, or on Home Office affairs, it might speed up the business of the House but I believe that the House would be a poorer place.
My noble friend raises an important issue. It was not raised during the Committee stage in another place. He has initiated a discussion on the issue for the first time during the long debates on the Bill. From a purely Scottish aspect, the local government reform which the Government are carrying through involves increasing the number of unitary local authorities in Scotland quite substantially. Some will be quite small unitary authorities. Under the existing provisions in Scotland, the amount of nursery education provision made by local authorities in Scotland has often been a product of the economies of scale that are possible within quite large regional authorities. Therefore the thrust of the Government's Bill will put a downward pressure on the provision of nursery education in Scotland.
It is against that background that the Bill should provide pressure towards at least maintaining levels of nursery education, and, if possible, towards significantly increasing those levels.

431
I conclude with one interesting statistic. I am sure that it has been provided by the Scottish Parent Teacher Council to all noble Lords participating in the debate. It cites research in the United States which claims that every £1 spent on pre-school education saves at least £4 for tomorrow's taxpayers. I thought that that argument might appeal to the present administration.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: I support the amendment. There is no doubt that, if children are interested in learning at an early age, they are better people. If both noble Lords on the Front Bench had been sent to school at three years, think what magnificent specimens they would have been! I was sent to school at four years, but that was because I was already into juvenile crime. I was sent to school at four because I put eggs through the turnip hasher, greatly to the detriment of the eggs and, I suspect, of Mackie. I am grateful to my colleague for bringing the provision forward.
Lord Kirkhill: I add my general support to the proposition which the noble Viscount and others have put forward. I remind the Minister that in 1993 approximately 16,000 signatures from Scotland were submitted in the other place on this specific issue.
I should point out that, in the existing structure of local authorities in Scotland, the scale of regional emphasis enables significant nursery provision to take place. We are about to revert to much smaller authorities in terms of size and scale. Within the regional structure there is now no nursery provision in the Western Isles, where a small authority is struggling with regard to ratecapping finance. I believe that the Minister should consider those additional points.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I join the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, in upbraiding the noble Viscount for his apology for engaging in a debate at the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill Committee stage. I think it is entirely appropriate that any Member of your Lordships' House who wishes to contribute should be welcome to do so, particularly when the noble Viscount has a keen and intelligent interest in the matter both sides of the Border. His contribution to our debates is welcome and I hope he will not apologise in future for so participating.
Having said that, it may be churlish of me now to say that there are drafting deficiencies in the proposal that he advances. For example, Scottish education legislation is drafted in terms of education authorities; local education authorities are the English equivalent.
More seriously, it is not clear from the amendment what might be meant by "educational provision". It could conceivably include not only nursery education but also other forms of pre-school provision, such as in day-care establishments.
I should like to make clear that the position of the Government generally—and I hope that the noble Lords, Lord Kirkhill and Lord Macaulay, will be interested to know this—is that we would very much like to see an extension of nursery and other pre-school provision. Our long-term goal is a full range of options which will satisfy the requirements of all parents of pre-school
432
children. However, I have to say—and I think that the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, anticipated this—that those ambitions must be tempered by a sense of reality. They can only be brought about as resources become available.
I am advised that the estimated cost of extending the present mix of part-time and full-time provision in Scotland to all three and four year-olds would be at least an additional £100 million. If it were to be full-time, it would probably come to something like £250 million. That is a substantial sum and puts into context the anxiety about resources. Nevertheless, much is already being achieved. Since 1979, the number of children attending nursery schools in Scotland has risen by over 50 per cent. from 31,700 to 48,000. Moreover, taking the under-five provision generally —and I include nursery schools, day nurseries and pre-school playgroups in that grouping—there are now sufficient places in Scotland to enable authorities to cater for almost 80 per cent. of the three and four year-old population.
We are committed to exploring ways of adding still further, as resources allow, to the choice available to parents, whether it is to the Western Isles or elsewhere on the mainland of Scotland that that commitment is extended. But we believe that that must encompass choice in the public, private and voluntary sectors. We must guard against the danger that by favouring one element we may cause another to fall by the wayside. That might be the unintentional effect of the amendment, and I am advised, for example, that the Scottish Pre-School Playgroup Association is very concerned that that should not happen.
In encouraging choice and diversity in response to children's needs and parents' preferences, the Government will continue to promote both quality and cost effectiveness.
The amendment refers to guidelines issued by Her Majesty's inspectors of schools. In fact, the inspectors issued a report on pre-five education in Scotland in February this year. It provides support for our policy of choice and diversity through advice on the education of children under five across the full range of provision. I believe that the report sets the right tone for pre-five education in the future and I commend its conclusions and recommendations to all parents and professionals involved. But as that report emphasises, the ages of the children involved and their patterns of attendance vary considerably. Provision for education for children under five requires both a sensitive and a variable approach across a range of options. That is why our aim is one of seeking diversity and choice. The present arrangements seem to be working well. They leave to education authorities decisions about pre-school provision in their areas, according to both local needs and circumstances.
I do not believe that anyone has any doubt about the value of such education and the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, hinted that there was evidence from America—whether it is transferable to the United Kingdom may be open to question —that investment in nursery education at an early age can bring about some reduction in criminal activity in teenagers. There are many arguments to that effect, but I have explained our

433
desire to see a full range of diversity. While thanking the noble Viscount for his intervention in this useful short debate, I hope that he will feel that he can withdraw his amendment.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: Before the Minister sits down, could he explain to the Committee what the figure of 80 per cent. means? Is it 80 per cent. in the rural area of Scotland or the urban area? Is it an 80 per cent. availability of nursery education? Neither I nor my noble friend Lord Carmichael had the benefit of nursery education, and, as he said to me in the course of the Minister's speech, probably it shows. We may be a bad advertisement for not having nursery education.
I should like the Minister to say what the figure meant. It is easy to pull figures out of the air and say "80 per cent. of people have access to nursery education", but what happens to a child in the Western Isles, as my noble friend Lord Kirkhill mentioned? How is the figure of 80 per cent. reached as between country and town? If any Members of the Committee wish to find out how the figure is obtained, do we go to the Library? Is there a report somewhere which gives that magic figure of 80 per cent.?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: In case the noble Lord mis-heard me, I ought to make it clear that I did not say that there were sufficient places available in nursery schools in Scotland for 80 per cent. I said that there was an under-five provision generally which included nursery schools, day nurseries and pre-school playgroups as well. The calculation was made simply on the basis that there are places within those facilities if one looks at the number of children in the age groups of three and four. However, if the noble Lord would like further details of the calculation which took us to 80 per cent., I can arrange for it to be provided.
The Earl of Minto: I am a little surprised at that figure, even after the last remark made by the noble and learned Lord. In my own authority there is a great desire for pre-school education and, quite frankly, we cannot afford it. Until the resources are made available to which the noble and learned Lord referred and the statutory obligation is placed upon the local authorities in Scotland, they will not be able to afford it. The GAE simply does not cover it. So something would have to fall in order to make the necessary provision if it became statutory, unless the resources were made available.
With regard to the problems in rural regions, such as the one of which I am convener, it is a massive burden that we face when we examine the situation. We have to realise that we have children who would fall into the category and who live way up in the hills and the glens. They would all have to be brought in to the schools in some way; one cannot have places dotted around in the middle of the hills, it would be totally unrealistic. It is a heavy financial burden which at present we cannot attack because we simply do not have the resources. Because it is not a statutory obligation on us, we turn our attention to those cases where we have to provide an education.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: Perhaps I may intervene briefly again. I hope that the noble Earl did not take
434
from what I said that education authorities in Scotland had, by these various groupings, provided 80 per cent. for all three and four year-olds. There are those facilities which, as he will know, are provided by the Scottish Pre-School Playgroup Association. The noble Earl will appreciate that that is funded by central government; the extent to which it is also funded by local government I am not sure, but I did not intend to convey that there was an 80 per cent. provision by local authorities in Scotland.
8.30 p.m.
The Viscount of Falkland: I should like to thank all those who have taken part in this short debate, and particularly the noble and learned Lord for his personal welcome to me in this debate and also his considered answer. The fact remains that only a third of all children of the age that we are discussing, between three and five, have provision in Scotland.
I am particularly grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Minto. He threw light on the problems in Scotland and the particular extra costs that would be expected in Scotland as compared with, for example, the South-East of England. I take on board the problems of costing. I do not quarrel with the noble and learned Lord's estimate of the costs that are involved in providing the cover which I have suggested should be given in this Bill. I shall read carefully in Hansard what has been said. It has been a useful debate. I hope that others will also read our proceedings this evening.
I believe that there is a general consensus that this provision should be available for all potential pupils. It is just a question of priorities. I hope that the Government will, sooner rather than later, make this a real priority. Most people now agree that to give this opportunity to children and their mothers, and indeed the teachers who have to receive children into their schools who are so ill-prepared in many cases, is a priority in our country, bearing in mind the great costs. I hope that the Government will find a way of tackling the matter with little delay. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 145 [Definition of "road"]:
On Question, whether Clause 145 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I move that Clause 145, and Clauses 146 and 147, do not stand part of the Bill. These are very important amendments on which the Minister may be able to reassure me; but at present I am very concerned about them, as are many other people in Scotland.
The purpose of the amendment (it is odd so to call it since it is simply negative) is to delete entirely the provisions of Clauses 145 to 147 and thereby reaffirm the continued application of the private legislation under which the Tay and Forth road bridges joint boards presently operate and the bridges are concurrently managed.
The background briefing is that Clause 145 provides that bridges constructed under private legislation, the Forth Bridge and Tay Bridge, shall be treated as if there

435
were a public right of passage over them. At present there is some doubt whether in law such a right exists, since the public can cross the bridges only on payment of a toll rather than as of right. The significance of this deceptively innocuous provision is that there will be no doubt that the bridges are notionally accessible to the public as of right as they will fall within the definition of a road in the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984.
The main significance of Clause 145 does not therefore relate to the conferment of the public right as such. It is, however, essential to the strategy underlying Clauses 145 and 146 that there should be no ambiguity that in law the bridges are roads. As roads, they can be brought within the scope of a special road order. Special road orders are made under the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984—the most common examples of special roads being motorways; although the line of any strategic route can be classified as a special road either by the Secretary of State or the local roads authority. A special road order prescribes the route of a special road and authorises the appropriation of any existing road comprising that route and also the transfer of that road to the special road authority. The promotion of such an order is subject to various statutory procedures for the public notification and the dealing with objections.
Since, by virtue of Clause 145 the Forth and Tay road bridges would be roads within the meaning of the 1984 Act, a special road order could be promoted under the Act in terms of which the two bridges would form part of a prescribed strategic route and be appropriated by transfer to the Secretary of State.
Clause 146 provides that where a special road order transfers a road (that includes a bridge) to a special road authority (in this case the Secretary of State) and the road was previously managed by a body whose functions related solely to the joint boards, the Secretary of State may, by order, dissolve the body and repeal or amend the legislation under which the body was originally established.
Moreover, the dissolution order may transfer some or all of the assets and liabilities of the dissolved body to the special road authority or such other person as the Secretary of State may consider appropriate. The dissolution order may also make provision for the transfer of staff, pensions arrangements, etc. I could go on, but I think the matter is fairly clear. We want to be rid of this ambiguity. I am sure that the Minister will accept that I put down this amendment so that we could hear, as it were from the horse's mouth, what is the legal position. I beg to move.
The Earl of Balfour: I should just like to ask one question on Clause 145. In respect of a public right of passage, does this clause include a carriageway? In other words, can vehicles drive over it? I hoped that I might have managed to find an answer in the definition of a public right of passage, but I totally failed. That is the reason I ask the question.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: I should simply like to support the plea that was made by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, for clarity on this matter. I speak as someone who has a very long interest in the Tay road
436
bridge, which in other days and other places I helped to bring about politically. I am very puzzled by the situation. I simply seek clarity from the Government. As I understand it, there is a fear among local authorities, which is expressed in the CoSLA brief that we have all received, that the Secretary of State has a clear, but not readily apparent, intention to appropriate the Forth or Tay road bridges and dissolve the joint boards. It seems rather curious that we should be fearful that this Government would engage in the nationalisation of the bridges. I would be grateful for some clarity.
The Lord Advocate (Lord Rodger of Earlsferry): With the permission of the Committee I shall first answer the point that was raised by my noble friend Lord Balfour and say that the right of passage is a right of passage according to Section 151(1) of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984. It is a right of passage by whatever means, so it would indeed include the means to which he referred.
We have all had the benefit of reading the CoSLA brief on this matter which in effect indicates that local authorities have detected a purpose under what are on the face of it rather technical looking amendments.
There is no secret at all behind what is intended in these amendments. Clause 145 does indeed clarify the definition of a road for the purposes of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984. In particular, it would make it apply to bridges—to take two examples, the Forth bridge and the Tay bridge. The effect therefore would be, reading that with Clause 146, to indicate that it would be open under the Act, as so amended, for there to be an order transferring to a special road authority a particular road. Having regard to the amendment being made to the definition of "road" in Section 151, that would include the bridges over the Forth and the Tay. The purpose would be to transfer them to a special road authority. That would include the Secretary of State. There would not be any question of privatisation in that situation. It would be a matter of the road going over to the Secretary of State. Therefore, it would follow that any powers on dissolution for transferring property would not relate to the property in the road because, according to the opening provisions of new Section 113A(1), that would already have transferred to the special road authority. It would refer to other property which might be left in relation to the road. So there is no question of the road being sold off, so to speak; it simply refers to the other matters.
There is no particular secret behind this. What is intended is to secure the future of what no doubt everybody would admit nowadays are vital links in the road network system in Scotland to secure their future and enable them to meet the demands of changing circumstances in Scotland. One of the successes of those bridges in one sense is that they have been built into the whole infrastructure of the area. The intention is to make sure that toll bridges are covered by the current legislation referring to roads and therefore to make sure that they are included in the legislation which provides for their safe working and effective operation as part of the wider network.

437
The clauses also address the situation in which bridges might be incorporated into a special road scheme. The Committee will know that that is a matter provided for under the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984. Therefore, as I said, it is envisaged that those bridges should become part of the network of roads for which the Secretary of State has responsibility.
If that happened and the Secretary of State became responsible for the bridges, even those noble Lords with the most suspicious minds would acknowledge that one would have to review the role of the joint boards which at present administer those bridges. If they were then under the aegis of the Secretary of State, one would have to ask what was the role of the joint boards. That is why provision is made in Clause 146 for the dissolution of those joint boards in that eventuality. But that would be without prejudice to the fact that in that event the constituent local authorities would continue to have an interest in the future of those very important links, as we all admit they are.
At present a review is in hand to consider the bridges along with the other elements in the primary road networks. When the results of that review are available, they will be open for consultation with local authorities. We envisage that that will happen in autumn this year. The consultation will also be open to other organisations which are interested in this matter. It is only after the consultation and in the light of its results that any decisions will eventually be taken on what is most appropriate for these particular routes. If it were decided to take toll bridges into the Secretary of State's network, as is apparent from the terms of Clause 146 and particularly subsections (3) and (4), the Government would set out clearly their proposals for the future of the joint boards and any staff who would be affected.
Also envisaged in the same little network of sections in Clause 147 is a situation in which a toll order might be made for a special road scheme which included a road on which tolls were already charged. We are thinking particularly in that situation of the bridges over the Forth and the Tay. Under the existing arrangements in the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 that situation is not envisaged. Therefore to cover it we have introduced Clause 147.
The purpose of Clause 147 is to make clear that in the situation in which there are already existing tolls, where this particular procedure would come in we would envisage that, having regard to the fact that there are already existing tolls, the existing machinery for the increase and variation in tolls could apply. Also what is envisaged in Clause 147(2) is a provision to make quite clear that there can be no question of double charging in that eventuality.
With that explanation, which I am sure will reassure the Committee, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I am most grateful to the Minister. He has cleared up the point for me although I shall want to look at his words very carefully. He will also appreciate that there was a
438
genuine point to be made in raising the amendment because of the worries that have been shown. I shall not oppose the clause.
Clause 145 agreed to.
Clauses 146 to 148 agreed to.
Clause 149 [Exclusion from valuation roll of shootings, deer forests, fishings and fish counters]:
8.45 p.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 146:
Page 102, line 23, leave out ("no").
The noble Lord said: This group of amendments caused great annoyance when the provisions were noted. The object is to require that rates be paid to the new authorities on shootings, deer forests, fishings and fish counters. The justification is that the abolition of the requirement to pay rates on shootings, deer forests, fishings and fish counters has reduced the amount of income of local authorities from non-domestic rates. The pooling of non-domestic rate income has reduced the adverse effect on individual authorities; but the overall effect across Scotland has been to reduce the total amount of income available from non-domestic rates.
It is incumbent upon us to support the amendment which requires that rates be paid on shootings, deer forests, fishings and fish counters. It is thought that the amount of money in question—it is only an estimate— is in the region of £2 million per annum.
The first amendment, Amendment No. 146, takes out the word "no" from subsection (1) (line 23 on page 102 of the Bill); the second amendment, Amendment No. 147, inserts at the end of that subsection:
"and shall be subject to the payment of rates to the new authorities";
Amendment No. 148 inserts in Clause 151(1) (in line 8 on page 103 of the Bill) the phrase:
"after consultation with local authorities".
That is slightly different, though it is obviously tied up with it. It requires the Secretary of State to consult local authorities prior to prescribing the amount of non-domestic rates payable to councils and the provision gives the Secretary of State powers to make regulations subscribing non-domestic rates by reference to such factors as he thinks fit. Accordingly, he may set different non-domestic rates for different classes of property and rate payers.
Exercise of those powers will leave local authorities with no effective powers. However, they will have to pay for the administration of the service, which will be more expensive as a result of the changes that it is proposed should be embodied in the Bill and with potential anomalies arising from the interpretation of different levels of the rates. Local authorities should therefore be consulted in advance of any new requirements.
I was particularly annoyed about the provision. Many years ago the noble Lord, Lord Home, who was a man of great influence in politics and particularly in your Lordships' House, listened to an amendment tabled by the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, to excuse from rates

439
shootings which were not used for commercial purposes. A long debate took place in the Chamber and I was greatly impressed by the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Home, stood up and said—the words are classic and he had a way of saying them—"I approve in a way of my noble friend's amendment. But since I personally may gain from it, I would find it impossible to vote for it". The record will show that that is exactly what he said.
I do not want to go over the details, but this provision will go down like a lead balloon in Scotland. I hope that the Minister will accept the admonition of the noble Lord, Lord Home, and the serious political consequences that may arise. A lot will be made of it, particularly in rural areas. I beg to move.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My name is on the last amendment, which requires the Secretary of State to consult local authorities and which appears to me to be reasonable. The question of rates on shootings is a difficult one. One knows that the expense involved in running an estate is very high. When one considers that one day's grouse shooting can pay more than the rent for a whole sheep farm with several beats upon it, it is extremely important for the upkeep of employment in the area.
I shall listen to what the Minister says with great interest. I can see both sides of the argument. I should like him to confirm, increase or lessen the figure quoted. Every time we ask for something that we think beneficial we are told that it will cost £200 million or whatever. In this case the Government are introducing something which will lose money for the local authorities. We should therefore like to know how much that loss will be.
I shall be interested to hear the arguments, because I, as a countryman, know that there are arguments on both sides. I am concerned that the employment in the hills and the high ground should be kept up.
The Earl of Balfour: I rise as an interested party, having a shoot on my own estate, and to say that one of the reasons why I am in favour of the Bill's provision is that it makes both sides of the Border the same. I feel that it is unfair to have shootings in Scotland rated as highly as they are when, with exactly the same type of shoot south of the Border, no rates at all would be paid. Equally, I feel that shootings can create employment and bring a lot of benefit. I firmly believe that even if shootings run at a deficit, which they do for nearly all estates except the very big ones, if an estate is properly keepered, that helps and protects wildlife, particularly small and ground nesting birds. If it is to be heavily rated then I am afraid the average landlord will not be able to continue. I hope that the amendments will not be pressed.
Lord Cochrane of Cults: I support my noble friend Lord Balfour in this matter and also the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie. The fact is that the countryside runs on money. It needs income in order to be maintained, preserved and improved. The countryside about which conservationists speak so ardently has been created with money spent for a variety of reasons, but nevertheless it has been spent.
440
I entirely agree with my noble friend that we are inequitably taxed in relation to the other side of the Border, as he so tactfully put it. If one is paying a tax it reduces the amount of money that can be spent locally to the advantage of the amount of money that can be spent centrally, and we all know where some of that goes. I therefore strongly support my noble friend and hope that the matter will be resolved in his favour.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: Not for the first time my noble friend Lord Balfour provides the key to the thinking underlying this provision and the provisions which extend to Clause 149 through to Clause 160. The theme that runs through those clauses is the elimination of distinctions between the system of valuation and rating which exists south of the Border and that which exists in Scotland. In particular, they are designed to eliminate matters which are prejudicial to the position in Scotland. That is very much so in connection with the matter of shootings, deer forests, fishings or fish counters.
In broad terms, the position is that, for various reasons, rates are not payable in respect of those items in England and Wales, whereas hitherto they have been entered on the valuation roll in Scotland and have been accordingly rateable. Whatever the Committee may think of the politics of rating such matters, I cannot imagine that the enthusiasm of the Opposition for taxation goes so far as to indicate that they would wish estates in Scotland to be more heavily taxed than those south of the Border. That is the effect of the position at present. The provision is designed to eliminate what has been regarded as a long-standing inequality between the position in Scotland and that in England and Wales. That is the basic purpose behind the provisions which runs through this part of the Bill.
Let me stress that, while it will result, as Members of the Committee indicated, in a loss of revenue to the Scottish non-domestic rating pool, nonetheless at the end of the day the effect will not be disadvantageous to local authorities. Figures were put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, and I can agree with his estimate that the likely amount is thought to be less than £2 million. The exact figure is not easily calculable because it depends on hypothesis as to what would have been recovered in the way of rating income on these items as a result of the 1995 revaluation. One cannot predict it exactly, but that is, roughly speaking, thought to be the figure. I do not think we are apart on that kind of figure. That amount is admittedly lost from the pool of non-domestic rates.
Nonetheless, as your Lordships will appreciate, the present system is that the non-domestic rates are remitted to the centre and payments then come out to local authorities by way of revenue support grant. The result of this will be that, if there is a reduction in the rating income to local authorities, there will be a corresponding increase in the revenue support grant. From the point of view of local authorities it will not make any difference. At the end of the day they will end

441
up with the same level of income. Although it would come from different sources, nonetheless the position will be that local authorities will have the same income.
9 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: At a time when the Government are pleading financial stringency the fact is that £2 million will be lost to the country generally in taxation.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: I hope that I did not for one moment suggest otherwise. What I said is that this is part of a policy, which even noble Lords on the other side of the Committee might support, that there should be equality between the rating systems of Scotland and of England and Wales. Estates in Scotland should not bear a disproportionate burden. If they do, it will inevitably have the kinds of effects on employment and so on which were mentioned by my noble friends. It is for that reason that the provisions of Clause 149 are designed to put as far as can be done the rating system of Scotland on the same footing as that of England and Wales. That is the theme running through the rest of these clauses.
Clause 151 is designed to bring the powers of the Secretary of State into line with the powers open to government in England and Wales. At present there are powers available to the Secretary of State under Section 128 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 but those powers are limited to prescribing arrangements which are based on rateable values. On the other hand, in England and Wales the powers available are powers to prescribe the arrangements based on rates bills. The Government take the view that it is desirable that one should be able to give greater certainty in any scheme to the ratepayer as to what he or she will in the end have to pay. One has here a provision designed to give to the Secretary of State for Scotland equivalent powers to those which are already available in England and Wales. They are in effect an extension of powers which are already available in Scotland. In respect of those powers in Scotland there is no obligation to consult local authorities in advance. We see no reason why in respect of these extended powers there should be any obligation to consult local authorities either. In the light of that explanation I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: Before the noble and learned Lord sits down, does he accept that the sporting estates in Scotland are an industry? He has given a figure of £2 million in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie. Are the Government really saying to the people of Scotland that the invaders of Scotland should have this advantage? We know that almost every sporting estate in Scotland is run by people outwith Scotland. I can take the noble and learned Lord to the various salmon areas and so on. I am not interested one way or the other in what happens in England and Wales. What I want to know is whether this Government are now saying that the people of Scotland are to be deprived of an income from sporting estates of £2 million. Are the Government washing their hands and saying, "It doesn't matter. The people who come up can
442
use the rivers. They can fish for salmon. They can do what they like to do and have it for nothing"? It is a complete invasion of Scotland.
I for one am not prepared to accept what the noble and learned Lord has said in answer to the questions raised. If there is money to be made for Scotland in the sporting estates, let us get it for Scotland. Let us not make excuses. I find it very strange that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate has made the speech that he has in answer to the amendment and deprived the people of Scotland of their due rights in terms of income from the sporting estates.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: That was an astonishing speech. If the noble Lord had been listening he would have heard me explain that the income from these rates does not go, as he would have it, specifically to the people of Scotland and it does not go to the local authorities. This income goes to central government, who then return the appropriate income under the revenue support grant. If the noble Lord wished to indulge in this kind of strangely naive way of looking at the matter, he would be depriving the United Kingdom Exchequer of this particular level of income.
There is no reason why sporting estates in Scotland, as opposed to sporting estates in England, should contribute disproportionately to the income of the Exchequer for the United Kingdom. I should have thought that the noble Lord would welcome the opportunity for this extra money to be retained in Scotland and to be available for investment and to increase employment in Scotland rather than to be used in another way.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: Perhaps I may say a final word before the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael. While the arguments produced by the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, are absolutely wonderful, fine and old-fashioned complaints—some of them justified—from the Highlands of Scotland, which I like to hear, I do not believe that the Government have made a good case. I do not believe that it is enough to say that we should be like the English. If we want to do that, the English estates could be taxed. The Government failed to make the case that this tax harms the gross income coming into the Highlands. We do want the income from the German and Japanese shooters and from the rich English for the benefit of Scotland as a whole. The Government's case was fairly poor in attaching it to compliance with English law, when I should have preferred the Government to make a proper case that this provision would benefit Scotland as a whole.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I was surprised at the Minister's speech when he spoke about it being time that we got round to doing in Scotland what is done in England. It is an odd system of priorities that now, when things are so bad and our unemployment is as bad as it is, this is the time for the money to be given out. Despite what the Minister says, he knows that this £2 million will filter down to a group of people who do not really lack a crust. This is a big political issue. I imagine that the Scottish papers will be very interested in it. I have

443
not spoken to any of them, but I may be tempted to. The estate owners are making a lot of money from these estates.
I know the argument that this measure will produce jobs. One noble Lord said to me not very long ago that he would be able to employ one more ghillie, but that is not good enough for me. He is not spending all the money on ghillies. But who will audit the figures? The noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, is here. She raised this matter some years ago, but it was decided that it was not a good time to put the matter forward. The noble Lady may be able to give us the date, because I cannot remember exactly when it was.
What about the poor allotment holders who are paying rates on their miserable allotments near the railway sidings? Is there no comparison with them? The few pounds that they would get back if they were relieved of rates would be worth a great deal more to them. It has taken a long time to get around to this matter, but it is appalling that now is the time when it is to be implemented. It is not the time of night to test the opinion of the Committee, but it is a matter that we must come back to.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, has just referred to what I did—was it about eight years ago? I was then trying to achieve the derating of totally non-productive grouse moors which brought in no income whatever to their owners. At that time they were—and they are still, to the best of my knowledge—rated as though they were bringing in quite a large income.
The Earl of Dudley: I am astonished at the dearth of Scottish landlords on these Benches tonight but, if they were here, I am sure that they would be as astonished as I am at the extraordinary proposition coming from the Benches opposite—that is to say, that there is a group of English entrepreneurs culling profits from deer and fish in the Highlands and Lowlands of Scotland.
I am only half Scots, and my knowledge of Scotland is totally different. Most of the Scottish deer forests and fisheries that I know are in the hands of extremely responsible Scottish landlords. In view of my noble friend's expose of the rating system, I should have thought that it is reasonable to assume that the £2 million would be far more likely to remain in Scotland in the hands of those landlords than in the UK Exchequer. Given those thoughts, I hope that noble Lords opposite will not be so pressing about their amendment.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I do not know the background of the noble Earl, but when a group of people appointed by the Secretary of State—that is, the independent chairmen of Scotland's rating and valuation tribunals—say that it was a shocking decision (I am sure that the Minister has all the details) there is no way of
444
avoiding the argument. People in Scotland do not regard those who hold enormous tracts of land in Scotland, whether English or Scottish, with any great affection—
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: Oh!
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I am sorry that the noble and learned Lord feels that way. In fact, he is a Glasgow man so it is unbelievable that he should speak in that way. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 147 not moved.]
Clause 149 agreed to.
Clause 150 agreed to.
Clause 151 [Power of Secretary of State to prescribe amount of non-domestic rate]:
[Amendment No. 148 not moved.]
Clause 151 agreed to.
Clauses 152 to 161 agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 149 and 150 not moved.]
Clause 162 [Calculation of limits on spending]:
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 151:
Page 108, line 5, leave out subsection (4).
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that we have a debate on the power of the Secretary of State to limit spending and to raise the issue of a power of general competence for local authorities. This very important amendment is intended to elicit the Government's view on the role of local government in Scotland. That view has been stated only in the broadest and most general of terms. In neither of the consultation papers on reorganisation—that is, those published in June 1991 and October 1992—was there adequate consideration of the proper role of local government and the principles upon which it should be based.
Local authorities should have a right of general competence so that they can undertake activities which are in the interests of their communities. This would entail discarding the doctrine of ultra vires. If the Government do not accept the principle of the power of general competence, it is incumbent on Ministers to set out clearly their own views on what role local government should play in Scotland.
The Wheatley Commission was of the view that local authorities should not be limited by their statutory range of functions and that they should possess a power of general competence making it possible for them to act outside the cover of a specific enabling statute where the circumstances seemed appropriate. The commission stated:
"Such a power might be rarely exercised and yet it could prove profoundly effective in encouraging 'an enterprising and forward looking attitude of mind' in local government towards the particular needs of an area, which even the most comprehensive series of statutes cannot altogether provide for. The power should be granted to all local authorities on an equal footing".
That was stated in 1969 in paragraph 640 of the Wheatley Report.
Wheatley also said:
"It is to the local electorate that the local council should have to answer for the use of such a power. Any restrictions should be aimed … simply at curbing any possible abuse of the powers by way of interference with private rights or the duties of other public bodies".
The commission went on to recommend that the Government should examine what form the safeguards would take when considering legislation on the matter of general competence. The introduction of a power of general competence would have both a symbolic and a psychological importance. It would demonstrate the view that local authorities exist not just to provide services but actively to represent their communities in the broadest sense. Local authorities should be seen as the legitimate voice of the community, with a concern for all public services in their areas, not merely as one agency among many others responsible for delivering services.
It is clear that many local authorities already adopt that role. Clydesdale District Council set out in its policy and financial plan for 1993–94 the following statement as its overall purpose:
"To represent the local community in all matters affecting the District, whether or not these matters relate to the services provided by the Council".
I could explain the amendment at greater length but it is getting late. I know that the Minister has the great privilege of being able to see the amendments that I am helped with, but I do not have a chance to see his answers before he gives them. I shall be happy to hear his answer on the role of local authorities and to be assured that they have not been emasculated. I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: The effect of the amendment will be to preserve the existing formula for determining the maximum amount of discretionary expenditure which a local authority can incur each Financial year in terms of Section 83 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973.
I appreciate that the noble Lord has taken the opportunity to engage in a brief debate on the issue of what is described as general competence for local authorities. I am happy to attempt to respond to him, but at the same time indicate some puzzlement as to why it should be thought that such a power for local authorities is desirable.
I know that there is a perception that in countries elsewhere in Europe where such a power exists local authorities have more flexibility and freedom. However, if the position is examined more closely, I cannot accept for a moment that that is necessarily the case. Powers for general competence are often introduced in other European countries where it is felt that the existing powers and responsibilities of local authorities are unclear. But the supposition that local authorities in those countries have a freer hand as a result and are less bound by legislation is misleading. In fact, a substantial raft of legislation is usually required to define precisely what local authorities are prohibited from doing. The net effect then is similar to the status quo here.
If the noble Lord wishes me to elaborate on the provision, I would be happy to do so. I believe that there is a misunderstanding about where that arrangement
446
would lead us in the United Kingdom. We should not make simple comparisons with what happens elsewhere in Europe. I hope that my explanation has been helpful.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I obviously accept the Minister's good faith, and we will read his reply carefully in Hansard. The idea behind the amendment is good. I shall find out whether it is merely clumsily drafted or unworkable when I read the Minister's reply. We may bring it back on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 162 agreed to.
Clauses 163 and 164 agreed to.
Clause 165 [Special grants]:
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 151A:
Page 110, line 44, at end insert:
("(9) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, in exercising his powers under this section the Secretary of State shall take account of the reference library services provided by the councils of Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen and Dundee and the extent to which such services are utilised by persons not resident in the areas of those councils and shall make such special grants as seem to the Secretary of State appropriate for the purpose of spreading the burden of those services among all the councils whose residents make use of them.").
The noble Lord said: This is a very important amendment. I am a patron of the Scottish Library Association and I am delighted to be able to do something which will perhaps help the association. We have tabled this amendment in order to highlight a problem that exists at present and which will be more serious after re-organisation.
Although all public libraries in Scotland operate under the same statutory provisions (the Public Libraries Consolidation (Scotland) Act 1887, as amended), there are of course big differences in local needs and these result in differences in practice.
In particular, the big city libraries maintain reference facilities far in advance of those available in smaller towns. The Standards for the Public Library Service in Scotland, which were drawn up in 1986 by CoSLA and the Scottish Library Association, make clear that:
"the provision of reference and information services is essential in every community".
I am sure that all Members of the Committee have discovered that to be true. But it is inevitable that the non-city authorities take for granted the big city facilities available in Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen and Dundee and skew their own expenditure towards other sectors of stock provision. The big city libraries can therefore be said to subsidise to some extent the services of other councils.
The problem will be intensified by the present Bill because the big cities will be surrounded in some cases by councils with even more modest resource bases than some of the present districts and those small authorities are likely to rely even more heavily on the city libraries. It is the firm view of the Scottish Library Association, which represents over 2,500 librarians in all kinds of

447
libraries in Scotland, that the revenue support grant does not adequately reflect this extra-territorial role of the city libraries.
I therefore ask the Minister to give an assurance that, in principle, this is a consideration which it would be proper to cover in the revenue support grant and to undertake to have exchanges with the Scottish Library Association about it. I beg to move.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: We on these Benches strongly support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I am happy to respond to the noble Lord in his capacity as patron of a worthy association. The purpose of his amendment is entirely commendable. It recognises that the reference library services provided in Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen and Dundee are used not only by the residents of those four cities but by people from outwith the cities, and it ensures that the funding arrangements for the libraries take account of their metropolitan role.
However, having said that, I believe that the amendment is based on a misunderstanding of how government support for the library service is, in fact, distributed among authorities. At present, such library services are a district function. The basis of distributing support is not resident, but adjusted, population. "Adjusted population" includes an allowance for tourists, commuters and out-of-town users. As a result of this, the present four district councils which are responsible for the libraries in question receive a level of funding which takes account of the fact that the libraries serve areas much wider than the cities in which they are situated.
Although the arrangements for distributing government support to the new councils have still to be discussed and agreed with CoSLA, it is likely that these arrangements will continue in future. As a result of this, recourse to a special grant to spread the burden of library provision is not necessary.
I understand the noble Lord's anxieties and believe that what he advances is based on a misunderstanding. I hope that, in the light of my explanation, he will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: The Minister will be aware that there are some extremely good libraries in Scotland. They are worried that there will not be enough money and my mind rather wickedly went to the thought that £2 million would be a great help to them.
I appreciate that there are many demands. I believe that the Minister said that the Scottish Office would be happy to talk with the Scottish Library Association.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I said that I would be happy to talk to CoSLA.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: Well I am sure that CoSLA will send along some librarians. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 165 agreed to.
Clauses 166 to 168 agreed to.
Clause 169 [Functions to include promotion of economic development]:
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 152:
Page 114, leave out lines 4 to 39.
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 153. The purpose is to delete Section 171B which gives power to the Secretary of State to impose restrictions on the economic development activities of local authorities.
This amendment arose because in 1993, the Government published their White Paper on local government reorganisation which set out their conclusions about industrial development powers, and the Minister will be familiar with them. It stated:
"The Government value the significant contribution of local authorities in this area and have decided to take the opportunity to confirm in statute for the first time a local authority's right to become involved in industrial development activities".
The White Paper goes on to say that:
"While there would be no obligation on any of the parties involved to come to an agreement on the plans, the Government hope that this provision will improve co-ordination between the various bodies involved in industrial development".
Local authorities in Scotland presently have considerable scope to incur expenditure on economic development under Section 83 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973. That power has been exercised successfully without the need for regulation by the Secretary of State.
It is also noteworthy that that was an issue considered in detail by the Widdicombe Committee report on the conduct of local authority business which was published in 1986. That recommended the continuation of the discretionary power and that was accepted by the government of the day.
CoSLA has looked at the matter carefully and its reasons for rejection of the case for defining local authorities' economic powers in statute relates primarily to the power being taken by the Secretary of State to make regulations restricting the economic development activities of local authorities.
Whether or not we like the Government taking more powers to control local authorities, it must be accepted that it reduces local government authority. It makes people feel less and less involved in their own affairs because the local councils always say that they cannot do what they want to do because they are not allowed to. We hope that this amendment will give back some real power once more to local authorities. I beg to move.
The Earl of Minto: I support the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, very strongly in this amendment. Those of us who work in local government are fearful of what we consider to be a restrictive provision.
The role of local authorities in economic development really is significant, and I believe that the noble and learned Lord will accept that. I am conscious of the

449
work that my own local authority has done over the past six years in "Perifra II" and Objective 5(b) and the preparation for that in the autumn of this year.
While I do not believe that the clause would affect the development in that field, the offshoots involved are, nevertheless, important in local authority terms. The range of activities that we undertake is very wide: for example, developing economic strategies and initiatives; providing business support infrastructure; improving the physical environment and removing barriers to economic development; supporting people entering the labour market or preparing for a new or better job; assisting disadvantaged areas and people participating in the wider economy; and attracting external resources in the area. Such activities are but a framework without the actual flesh that goes into a local authority's duty in its view and, indeed, in the view of all local authorities in Scotland. Given that contribution to economic development, I believe that it would be extremely adverse if that were to be affected in the way suggested in the clause.
It is important to understand that local authorities work very closely with the local enterprise companies. It is beholden upon us within local authorities to speak with our local enterprise companies. In most cases the relationships in Scotland between local authorities and the local enterprise companies are very good. Local authorities are to have placed upon them through statute that they must meet and consult with the LECs, but I see nothing upon which the LECs must consult with the local authorities. If there is to be a sensible division of economic development within the new council areas of Scotland, it is absolutely vital that it should not be one-sided and that the consultative process is statutorily imposed upon both bodies rather than only on one of them. Therefore, I support the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, most strongly in his proposed new clause.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I have listened carefully to the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, and the noble Earl, Lord Minto. However, I have to say at the outset that the Government cannot accept the amendments. Perhaps I may take a moment or two to explain why. The proposed Section 171A gives local authorities under the Bill a very broad power to engage in activities to promote the economic development of their areas. I understand that that has been warmly welcomed in Scotland. I should also say that we fully expect that local authorities will use the power given to them in both a responsible and an effective fashion. However, the Secretary of State wishes to impose two conditions on local authorities' use of that power; and the proposed Section 171B will provide the means by which those conditions will be imposed.
The first intended condition will be a requirement on local authorities to consult other parties—particularly the local enterprise company or companies and the chamber or chambers of commerce in each of their areas—before taking action on economic development plans. We believe that that will help to foster a spirit of co-operation among the main actors operating in the economic development field and to achieve a greater co-ordination of effort.
450
Secondly, the Secretary of State wishes to require local authorities to supply details of whatever economic development activities they carry out. That will be a requirement for periodic summaries of information, and I have to say that it is a requirement arising from the United Kingdom obligations under European law.
The latter are two important purposes for which provisions would have to be made on the face of the Bill if they were not to be effected by secondary legislation; but in our view, it is more appropriate that they be effected by such regulations because both requirements will need to be spelled out in detailed terms.
I should also point out to the Committee that it is intended that regulations for those purposes will be Laid in time to come into force from the beginning of the new local authority regime. It is not envisaged that the Secretary of State will wish to make early use of that power under Section 171B to impose any other restrictions or conditions on local authorities' economic development activities. We expect, as I say, that local authorities will use this power in a responsible and effective manner. It is only reasonable, however, to allow the Secretary of State to impose additional restrictions or conditions if in future there should arise any need for him to do so in the interests of co-ordination between local action and national policy.
Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands, Enterprise have wide statutory powers for promoting the economic development of their areas, and in the case of Scottish Enterprise, of the economy of Scotland as a whole. They already consult widely with other relevant bodies, including, where appropriate, with local authorities, but have to be able to lake a strategic overview of their functions which transcends purely local interests.
It would be unreasonable—I am sure this will be appreciated—to take statutory measures to require Scottish Enterprise or Highlands and Islands Enterprise to engage in unwieldy consultation with local authorities on economic development questions which might have absolutely no relevance to their part of Scotland.
As regards the local enterprise companies, I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Minto, for his observation that in the main they are working pretty well in Scotland as regards their consultation arrangements with local authorities. However, so far as they are concerned, Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise delegate the discharge of many of their functions. They are of course not defined by statute, and their operations are governed by a contractual relationship with the enterprise bodies. If the intention of this amendment is to ensure that the local enterprise companies consult the local authorities in their area, desirable as that is and important as that is, given the fact that they are not defined by statute, it is in our view inappropriate to bring about that result by statutory means. The local enterprise companies are, however, in no doubt as to the Government's wish that they should work closely in partnership with local authorities and other local bodies in promoting the economic development of their areas.

451
I have taken a moment or two to spell out the two conditions. I think that is important, as there should not be any misunderstanding in this regard. The Secretary of State does not wish to get involved in this further than is necessary. However, as regards the two conditions that I have taken some time to spell out, I think it will be appreciated that they are important because the first one is necessary in terms of our international obligations and the second is perfectly sensible and desirable. I hope that, with that explanation, the amendment can be withdrawn.
The Earl of Minto: I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord for the response that he has given to the particular points which I raised. I shall read with the greatest interest what the noble and learned Lord had to say upon those matters. I feel it is important that the economic development agencies, if you like, of Scotland—whatever they may be—should work well together. One of them should not feel that something has been imposed upon the other to the disadvantage of the latter. Naturally I shall leave it to the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, to decide what he wishes to do with the amendment.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I am very grateful to the noble and learned Lord. He obviously has a great deal more personal knowledge than I on this subject through his local authority, where I know he is extremely active. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 169 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 153 not moved.]
Clause 170 [Duty of Secretary of State to establish area tourist boards]:
Lord Mackie of Benshie Lord Mackie of Benshie moved Amendment No. 154:
Page 115, line 7, leave out from ("specified") to ("hereafter") in line 8 and insert ("in Schedule (Area Tourist Boards) to this Act").
The noble Lord said: I rise to move Amendment No. 154 and speak to Amendment No. 158. The amendments hang together. They have a simple purpose, which is to give Argyll and Bute, which form a proper entity, a single tourist board. In Argyll and Bute at the moment there are a number of tourist boards, so there will be a joining together and a clarification of the position which the people of Argyll and Bute all support.
All the bodies previously involved support a tourist authority or tourist board which simply takes in Argyll and Bute. That is their feeling among themselves; they are very close. They do not wish to be associated—it is not for any nasty reason—with Clackmannan and Falkirk Council, Dumbarton and Clydebank Council and Stirling Council. It seems logical that Argyll and Bute, with its 500 islands, a great many of them inhabited, provides a different tourist attraction from the Loch Lomond side. One can go round Loch Lomond within a day on a bus. But Argyll and Bute needs to attract people who will spend several days within the area and who will acquire a taste for the loneliness and the peace of that countryside. The area requires a specific
452
authority in order to promote such tourism which has a great future if it is properly undertaken. Obviously as we swelter in the heat (although not in this Chamber) we do not think of visiting Clackmannan or Stirling but the islands. I can understand that feeling.
The Government are a little inconsistent. On the Marshalled List we have, rightly and properly, Shetland Council, Orkney Council and the Western Isles Council, each of which will have its own tourist board. That is logical. If I may digress while moving the amendment, it is quite illogical that, although the tourist boards in the islands are on their own, the Government still wish to put water and sewerage in with a larger authority. There is no way that one can carry water or sewerage across between the islands. The Government are being entirely illogical in that case. I shall return to the issue of water and sewerage at Report stage.
However, the logic extends to Argyll and Bute. It has a solid case. Those people are united in their desire for that authority. I should like to hear any proper reason that the Government can produce for refusing the request. I beg to move.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: The noble Lord has urged that we should change the decision to create a new area tourist board for the West Highlands and the islands of Argyll, Bute and Cowal, along with Loch Lomond, Stirling and the Trossachs boards. In fact he is indicating that Argyll and Bute should simply have its own tourist board.
From a technical point of view—I do not make much of the point—his amendment would have the effect, which I think the noble Lord would probably regard as undesirable, of restricting or removing entirely the flexibility to provide for future changes in the boundaries of area tourist boards which is available within the clauses as they stand. Of course, we always hope to achieve perfection in legislation. But there is always the possibility that in future circumstances may change and something may have to be altered. As noble Lords will appreciate, the scheme in the Bill allows for change if that is appropriate. But if the noble Lord's amendments were incorporated, they would remove that element of flexibility.
The real thrust of the noble Lord's amendments was to deal specifically with the case relating to Argyll and Bute. Even he would accept that in the nature of things this is an issue upon which it is always difficult to be sure that there is one uniquely correct answer. Different views may be held. The issue comes from the original decision of the Government in 1992 to review the system of tourist support arrangements in Scotland. As a result, views emerged from the tourism industry and the existing tourist boards that we required radically to reduce the number of boards which operate at present in Scotland. I do not believe that that is a controversial conclusion; it was certainly supported by the industry. At present, there are 31 boards and the effect of the legislation is to reduce that number.
In reaching our decisions on the matter, we took the advice of the Scottish Tourist Board, which is the Government's statutory adviser on tourism matters in

453
Scotland. As I am sure the noble Lord is aware, the Scottish Tourist Board was strongly of the view that a board which comprised the area of the new Argyll and Bute, Stirling, Clackmannan and Falkirk councils would be both an effective and—in so far as it is different—a financially sound organisation which would bring great benefit to the tourism industry in the area.
The mere fact that that representation was made does not mean that it has to be accepted, but we considered it as we also considered other representations which were made. In the light of that, the Government reached the view that the interests of tourism in Argyll and Bute would be better served at the end of the day by the arrangements which have been announced rather than by a board covering only Argyll and Bute.
The thinking behind that, as the noble Lord may be aware, is that Argyll and Bute would gain a considerable advantage from having associated with it Loch Lomond, which is one of the main tourist attractions in Scotland. It would also gain from being associated with Stirling, which is already one of the drawing points of tourism in Scotland and is increasing in popularity. There is a pattern of tourism whereby people coming to Scotland go to Edinburgh, then to Stirling and shoot north up to Inverness and so on. It is envisaged that by this marketing strategy which would associate Argyll and Bute with Stirling, people would be drawn west towards Stirling, then on to Loch Lomond, then westward to Argyll and Bute. Everyone acknowledges that there have recently been problems in the Cowal area and it is necessary to do all we can to attract visitors to it. Based on the advice which comes from the Scottish Tourist Board, we feel that a package which markets the area as a whole, thereby drawing people to it in such a way would be attractive and at the end of the day it would be the most successful way of marketing tourism there.
To those who have advised us, and whose advice we have accepted, it seems that there would be a possibility of having a kind of "package" of towns, history, sites, outdoor activities and so on. In that way we would hope that people would be drawn over to the west, and would go to Argyll, instead of simply moving on northwards, as they tend to do at the moment, into the Highland area and in effect by-passing the Argyll and Bute area. The findings of the existing board suggest that that has not been as successful as one might have hoped.
We therefore think—although I realise that there are different views on this issue—that the approach envisaged by the Government is the correct one. In the light of that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: I thank the Minister for that very full explanation and the logical way in which he expressed it. There is of course one great snag; namely, Argyll and Bute are against it. If you start with an area where there is a split, it does not work too well.
I know a little about the tourist industry. I have been associated with it. The fact is that you may guide people along a road, but they go there not with the intention of touring. If, for example, they are going to Argyll and to the Islands, they mean to go there. You are not going through Stirling; you are not being drawn along a
454
channel; you are actually going there. The four tourist boards, which are amalgamated now, believe that they have a special case for marketing.
I have listened to the arguments and I will withdraw the amendment. But I hope that the noble and learned Lord has listened to my argument and that he might consider it. If there is provision for alteration in the future, it might be better to make it now. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar Lord Macaulay of Bragar moved Amendment No. 155:
Page 115, line 8, at end insert:
("(1A) For the purposes of this section a new local authority may no later than 1st October 1995 submit to the Secretary of State for his approval a scheme for the establishment of an area tourist board, together with any other such authority whose area lies wholly or partly within the area of that board.
(1B) The power conferred on new local authorities by subsection (1A) above may only be exercised after consultation with the district or islands councils whose area lies wholly or partly within the area of the board for which the scheme is proposed.
(1C) Before making schemes under this section the Secretary of State shall have regard to any schemes submitted under subsection (1A) above, approval of which shall not unreasonably be withheld.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment would allow the local authority to conjoin with the Secretary of State to approve a scheme for the establishment of an area tourist board together with any such authority whose area lies wholly or partly within the area of that board. The purpose is to allow the new local authorities the power to present proposals for the establishment of new area tourist boards.
It is probably an open secret that this amendment comes from the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. CoSLA is anxious that its views should be taken into account and that local authorities should work in conjunction with the Secretary of State to project the image (if you can put it that way) of Scotland in the most desirable way, setting aside all parochial issues as to which part of Scotland is more beautiful than another. (We all know that Scotland is a beautiful country anyway, so we cannot start arguing about that.)
CoSLA makes the point that it has not been consulted by the Scottish Office on this particular matter or by the Scottish Tourist Board in making recommendations to the Secretary of State. The amendment was put down to focus on this particular issue: all of us in Scotland wish to project Scotland in the most favourable light. The effect of the amendment would be that the local authorities, the Secretary of State and the Scottish Office could all get together and make Scotland a place to which people will want to come for many years to come. With those remarks, I beg to move the amendment.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: The noble Lord concentrated on Amendment No. 155. The Committee will notice that the wording of subsection (1A) in that amendment indicates that a new local authority may submit a scheme to the Secretary of State for his approval. As the noble Lord acknowledged, that is a power and not a duty.

455
The first of the noble Lord's remarks was that the local authorities should be given the power to submit the schemes to the Secretary of State and in effect work in conjunction with him for the establishment of the area tourist boards. I have to tell him that the Government believe that the new shadow authorities will have neither the time before 1st April 1996 nor indeed the resources to devote to the task of establishing the new tourist boards. That seems to us to be a particularly important matter. If the boards are not up and running by 1st April 1996, there will be a void for tourism which could not be filled in another way and which could result in damage to the tourism industry and harm to visitors.
We believe that that has to be avoided and it is avoided only by giving the power which is contained in the Bill to the Secretary of State. Because we believe that that is the only way that people can be sure that those arrangements are in place by 1st April, we feel that what is in the Bill is in fact necessary.
I stress to the noble Lord that that does not mean that the boards will be set up without consultation. In so far as there are fears on that score, let me set them at rest. Both the new and the existing local authorities will be given every opportunity to contribute to the work necessary to establish the new area tourist boards. I believe that the contribution of the local authorities will be no less under the Government's proposal than would be the case under the noble Lord's amendment. The difference—I believe that it is a crucial difference—is that under our proposal the tourist industry has a guarantee that area tourist boards will be established, whereas it is plain on the face of the amendment that under the noble Lord's proposal there is no guarantee and only a hope. In that situation I believe that our proposal is preferable.
With that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
10 p.m.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation, but I find it a contradiction in terms. If the position of the Government is that the new authorities will have neither the time nor the resources to set up their own area tourist boards, how will they find the resources to consult with the Government? One cannot have it both ways. Either they have the time and resources or they do not have them. Therefore what the noble and learned Lord has just said is a meaningless promise from the Government.
I understand that he should say, "All right, we will consult with all the local authorities"; but let us not hedge that reassurance with, if I may say so, silly restrictions to imply that, "You do not have the time and resources and therefore you cannot do it yourselves. But if we consult with you, you do have the time and resources."
It seems to me to be a nonsensical approach. However, I am sure that the new shadow authorities will do everything in their power to co-operate with the Government in projecting the image of Scotland. With those observations, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 156:
Page 115, line 16, leave out paragraph (d) and insert:
("(d) provide that the members of the board shall be nominated by the new local authority whose area lies wholly or partly within the area of the board together with any other such authority whose area lies wholly or partly within the area of that board and by the tourist industry in the said area.").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of Amendment No. 156 is to provide that the members of the board shall be based on nominations from local authorities and the local tourist industry in such proportions as they may agree. The Secretary of State for Scotland, in a statement in June 1993, said,
"In order to encourage further evolution of industry involvement in Area Tourist Boards, the proposed legislation will provide that on Executive Committees, the members representing trade interests shall be in a majority".
It is interesting to note therefore that during consideration of this matter in the Commons, Ministers tabled an amendment to the Bill allowing that local authority representatives and those representing trade interests can be of equal numbers on an area tourist board controlling body.
The Government's desire to increase the representation of trade members is interesting in that no evidence exists to support any suggestion that this is a desire widely held by the trade itself. In that regard it is interesting that the Dumfries and Galloway Tourist Board expressed concern at local authorities forming a minority on the area tourist board, stating that,
"we believe that such matters as representation on these controlling bodies should be left to individual ATBs and should not be subject to specific legislation. It should be up to each of the new Area Tourist Boards to determine the most appropriate representation on their controlling body".
Given the Government's desire to deny local authorities a majority on the controlling bodies of ATBs, local authorities are very concerned, as are many trade members of area tourist boards, over the future funding of the new tourist boards by the new councils. I hope therefore that the Minister, who has all the figures, will answer that pertinent point from a tourist board. It is hard to break into the big time of tourism in Scotland, though the area is one we should exploit much more. I beg to move.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: I am slightly puzzled about the amendment because it would delete paragraph (d) which simply provides for the Secretary of State to appoint the first members of the controlling board. That is all the provision is designed to do. The noble Lord addressed his amendment as though it were designed to deal with the respective representation of the local authority and the subscribing members of the board. That is a completely different issue, which is dealt with in Clause 170(6) of the Bill which deals with the composition and provides that the number of persons representing a local authority shall not exceed the number of subscribing members appointed as members of the controlling body.

457
The noble Lord will be aware that as a result of representations made, that provision was altered and now provides for equality between the two sides. Again this is a matter where it is possible to hold different views as to exactly what is the correct proportion. But we believe that at the end of the day equality is a good thing. It means that the local authority retains an interest in this body, which is important, as is recognised by the tourist industry members. Equally, it means that the tourist industry members feel that they have a proper say in the body and that their interests are being properly protected. The Government have no interest other than appointing the initial members. That is part of the overall scheme to get the board under way as soon as possible. The provision relating to the composition of the boards is in subsection (6) and provides for equality. We believe that that is acceptable. In the light of that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
The Earl of Minto: I have to admit that my local authority does not as a region have a direct responsibility for a tourist board within the borders as it stands at the present time but the districts do. I would have to say to the Committee that there is concern that, since the funding would appear still to come from the new authority, it is perhaps only right that there should be some form of majority representation if we are having to impose a form of taxation upon ourselves in order to fund the tourist board element. I think there is a legitimate concern that perhaps the majority should be seen to be from the elected membership so that one could then turn to those one represents and say, "At least we have a majority and we therefore feel it justifiable that we should spend your money on this subject".
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I am sorry if I misled the Minister and addressed the wrong amendment at the beginning. I thought that they dealt with the same subject. However, it was a bonus because I received an explanation which was a great help to me. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: Perhaps I may say to the noble Earl, Lord Minto, that there is provision for people to be subscribing members in terms of Clause 170(7).
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 170 agreed to.
Clauses 171 to 174 agreed to.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth Lord Thomson of Monifieth moved Amendment No. 157:
After Clause 174, insert the following new clause:
("Preservation of museums and art galleries
. A local authority shall consider museum and art gallery collections held by them as community assets held in trust, and make proper arrangements for their preservation and management.").
The noble Lord said: Perhaps I may move this amendment in the absence of my noble friend Lord Mackie of Benshie. The amendment has been put down for two purposes. The first is the general purpose of underlining to the Government the importance in the aftermath of local government reform of ensuring the
458
continued vitality of the museums and art galleries mat are under local authority control and ownership. A change in the structure of local government is always destabilising and it is extremely important that in those circumstances the new authorities should be encouraged by government in every way possible to maintain adequately the museums and art galleries that currently belong to Scottish local authorities.
Secondly, there is the more specific matter that has been raised by CoSLA of the legal situation relating to the management and ownership of the collections. There is some obscurity on the matter, and with the establishment of the new structures it is a good moment to consider the legal status of the local authority collections in our museums and art galleries. It is extremely important that, in a period of change in local government with very severe financial pressures on the new authorities, it should not be the standard and the quality of the museum and art gallery services that suffer. I beg to move.
10.15 p.m.
The Earl of Balfour: There is something in this amendment. I take up the word "held" which is in it. Are the collections held on trust or on loan or are they the property of the local authority? There are problems here with new authorities taking over and the old ones being wound up.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I said that I would withdraw the amendment, but I had no right to do so because my name is not attached to it. I was glad that I had made that mistake and that the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, came in and gave me the chance to speak. There is no question but that museums and art galleries over the past 15 to 20 years have become extremely important for the development of some areas. People have more leisure and the techniques of displays at museums and art galleries have improved enormously. That is true particularly in areas like Liverpool and the west of Scotland, where there are great engineering and industrial traditions. Some of the machinery has been saved. It is well worth while that we should do everything we can to give an example to future generations as to what made their area great and how the capital was produced to build up their area.
It is also extremely important to appreciate the general attractiveness of museums because of greater leisure and people being more interested in the past. They are also more interested in their roots. Attendances have increased quite remarkably over the past few years. A number of local museums have engendered great local pride in industries which were perhaps extremely narrow in their range. For instance, in some parts of Ayrshire there are quite small weaving museums concerned with things such as woollens and netting, the plant which creates them and the very intricate machinery which produces them. I hope that the Minister will accept that museums are becoming very

459
important and that, if we do not do something now, many very good exhibits and sources of knowledge, pleasure and recreation for people will be lost.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: As the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, has said, this is an opportune moment to consider just exactly what is the proper arrangement that should be made for museums and galleries in Scotland. As the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, said, there is encouragingly greater interest in these parts of our national life and they should be preserved and regarded.
The first part of this clause would require a local authority to hold all the items in their museum and art gallery collections in perpetuity. The authority would not be able to dispose of such items in any circumstances. The second part of the clause would require it to secure the preservation and good management of its collections.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, that the clause does not take account of the existing provisions of Section 21 of the Public Libraries Consolidation (Scotland) Act 1887, which deals with the operation of museums and art galleries, as well as libraries.
Among other things, Section 21 of the Act imposes a duty on local authorities to manage, regulate and control their museums and art galleries and gives them a general power to do whatever is necessary to fulfil their management duty, including specific powers to take the necessary steps to keep items in their collections in a proper state of preservation and repair. Given the terms of the noble Lord's amendment, I believe that he would approve of that existing provision. The local authorities therefore already have broadly the same duties in relation to collections management and preservation as the new provisions seek to impose.
I return now to the first part of the new clause which would prohibit local authorities from ever disposing of items in their collections. Section 21 of the 1887 Act makes specific provision only for disposal of duplicate items in collections by way of sale or exchange, provided that—it is an important proviso—the proceeds of the sale or the property received in exchange is applied to the benefit of the museum or art gallery.
A total prohibition on disposal would conflict with the aim of the second part of the new clause—that relating to the good management of collections. The freedom to dispose of some items for good reasons— such as the collection already has two and one will suffice—seems an essential part of good collections management.
I could make a number of other observations about the registration scheme which is operated by the Museums and Galleries Commission, which is the Government's adviser on these matters. Some guidance has been given on what might be an appropriate regime in terms of maintaining and managing items and, in certain limited circumstances, disposing of them. However, I hope that the explanation that I have given to the noble Lord will be sufficient.
The Earl of Dudley: Will the Minister say something about the substantive point raised by the noble Earl,
460
Lord Balfour, in that a number of museums and galleries in Scotland, particularly the National Gallery of Scotland, contain some very fine pictures, including some Titians and Poussins, which are on loan from private collections? I think that I am right in saying that the noble Duke, the Duke of Sutherland, has loaned pictures to the National Gallery of Scotland. Although I do not pretend to know the arrangements that exist between the noble Duke and the gallery, those pictures are not the property of the gallery. That is the point that the noble Lord should take into account when considering both the amendment and the legislation.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I apologise to my noble friend Lord Balfour for not dealing with that matter. Noble Lords will appreciate that specific provisions relate to the National Gallery of Scotland. I can think of a number of important benefactors who have allowed paintings, books and the like to go on show in Scotland with varying bases of trust. If there is some arrangement whereby such works are held on trust, nothing that we would propose would seek to alter the terms of those trusts. Indeed, I do not think that the proposed amendment makes any suggestion that the terms of particular trusts allowing paintings to be exhibited and shown to the public would be altered in that fashion.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: I confess to the noble and learned Lord that that Scottish Act of 1887 is not something that I have studied recently. However, I am grateful to the Minister for the care that he has taken in his response and for its sympathetic tone. I shall want to study carefully what he has said. No doubt those who are professionally concerned with these matters will also want to study the statement that he has just made.
On the face of it, I am inclined to agree with the Minister that our amendment, as drafted, contains an inherent contradiction. We were trying to ride two different horses in slightly different directions at the same time. That is a familiar experience in your Lordships' House. You cannot have absolute trust and, at the same time, flexibility in the good management of a gallery or museum. I accept that. However, having said that, I am grateful to the Minister and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Halsbury The Earl of Halsbury moved Amendment No. 157A:
After Clause 174, insert the following new clause:
("Scientific Services Agency
.—(1) There shall be constituted in accordance with Schedule (The Scientific Services Agency for the Scottish Local Authorities) to this Act, a body to be called the Scientific Services Agency for the Scottish Local Authorities (referred to in this Act as "the Agency") which shall have the functions conferred to it by this section.
(2) Local Authorities may delegate to the Agency such of their functions as they consider appropriate.
(3) The Agency shall provide such services and carry out such tasks for local authorities as the Agency and those authorities may agree, and on such terms and conditions as may be agreed.
(4) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (3) above the Agency shall provide the services of Public Analyst and Agricultural Analyst to the local authorities. The Agency may further provide the services of chemical analysis, microbiological examination,

461
physical and other testing, and scientific advice to the local authorities in accordance with Schedule (The Scientific Services Agency for the Scottish Local Authorities).
(5) For the purposes of this section any reference to provision of services to a local authority shall be taken as including a reference to Water Authorities, Police Forces, Fire Brigades, Strathclyde Passenger Transport Authority and public bodies within the meaning of section 21 of the Local Authorities (Goods and Services) Act 1970.").
The noble Earl said: I shall speak also to Amendment No. 158A which relates to a schedule to the new clause proposed in Amendment No. 157A. The amendments together provide for a scientific agency service for Scotland to provide services to the new unitary local authorities for Scotland which will take over in April 1996. The amendment deals with an aspect of what has hitherto had only the briefest mention in this place or elsewhere. It is a probing amendment which I shall not carry to a Division. However, I reserve the right to raise it again on Report if the Minister's reply is unsatisfactory.
The Minister should note that the amendments have the support of the Society of Directors of Trading Standards in Scotland and environmental health officers. The hour is late. I am trying to avoid prolixity, but I must explain what and who public analysts are. The public analyst must, first, have an Honours degree in chemistry. That takes three years. He must then have a postgraduate Masters degree in analytical chemistry to a standard set by the Royal Society of Chemistry which is the standard-setting body for the whole chemical profession. As if that were not enough, he must be skilled in microscopical examination and microbiological identification. To crown it all, he must be very familiar with national and international law on standards.
I have said on an earlier occasion in another context that the public analyst is the crème de la crème of the profession of applied chemistry. His verdicts are accepted in the courts. Of those admirable people, there are only 10 in the whole of Scotland. They are employed by local authorities which provide them with what I might call in a generalised sense ammunitions and rations. To particularise them, that is laboratories and equipment.
The situation is a little different in England and Wales, but I shall not take up the Committee's time with a digression on that point. Currently, the public analysts' ongoing arrangements are with local government as it now is. The foundation of ongoing arrangements for local government, as it will be, has to be provided for. But that has not been so. That is the reason for the amendments. We must not leave a vacuum between government and public analysts. Who, for example, will own the laboratories now owned by public authorities to be dissolved in favour of other public authorities?
I do not want to see a situation reminiscent of a well remembered wartime cartoon where an inexperienced subaltern is marching his platoon over the edge of a cliff and an irritated sergeant major is saying to him, "For God's sake say something, sir, even if it's only goodbye". I hope that that is not an admonition that I shall have to address to the Minister.
The authority and status of those people go a long way back but were consolidated in the Food Safety Act 1990. But the Bill sets up food authorities, without requiring them to be those that now exist It also sets up a food safety examiner, without specifying who or what he is to be; and elsewhere in other legislation authority is provided for standards in agricultural services, animal feeding stuffs, and standards with respect to toy safety, household chemical safety, fraudulent substitution and labelling.
The Bill, unamended, would abolish regional councils which employ the public analysts and which own their laboratories. It redistributes their authority and responsibility, and the result could be the dismembering or fragmentation of the present partnership and relationships which could take a long time to repair. The new clause and the accompanying schedule propose to deal with that danger by setting up a science service for Scotland as a whole similar to the children's reporter administration in Part III of the Bill. If one likes, it is an Omnium Gatherum of all the scientific skills at the disposal of local government in general. I hope that the Committee will remember that under the terms of the European Community's education additional measures directive all the public analysts' laboratories have to be properly accredited and assessed. This is now achieved by existing accreditation to the NAMAS and FAPAS schemes—I shall not bother the Committee with what those acronyms mean—on quality assurance. Maintaining these schemes is expensive and it can be best achieved by maintaining the structural integrity of the public analytical laboratories as they now are. This amendment comes forward at a late stage of the Bill and the noble and learned Lord may feel that he has not had time sufficiently to consider it in all its aspects. I hope that he will receive it with sympathy and possibly give me an undertaking to meet the public analysts and Royal Society of Chemistry representatives who have assisted me in the preparation of these amendments at some time between now and the Report stage, which I take it will be in the autumn—in October or around that time. In the hope that the Minister will be able to give me some such assurance, I beg to move.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Tordoff: The Committee and the public analysts will be grateful to the noble Earl for introducing this amendment so that it can be debated, although it is somewhat late in the evening. The noble Earl has covered the ground extremely well, as one would expect, because this is a subject with which he is well acquainted. His connections with the Royal Society of Chemistry are well known. Like him, I am grateful to the Royal Society for the support that it has given by way of briefing.
I should like to make one or two points. First, I direct the Committee's attention to the 1st Report of the Select Committee on Science and Technology 1985–86, under the chairmanship of the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, on

463
which I had the honour to serve. We looked at the question of science and technology in local government. Paragraph 4.23 of the report states:
"The scale of services has to be appropriate to present-day needs. The evidence quoted in Chapter 3 and the experience of the Committee's own members convinced the Committee that economies of scale are achievable in science and technology… in short, the Committee consider that scientific and technical services will obtain better quality facilities and instrumentation, better career structures and employment advantages, leading to higher overall quality of staff, and greater efficiency at any given level of cost, if they are organised on a large scale".
Paragraph 4.24 states:
"Few local authorities are large enough to be self-sufficient in this respect, and the smaller ones are going to be at a disadvantage in the employment of staff and the purchase of capital equipment".
That is very much at the heart of the noble Earl's argument, supported as he is by the noble Lord, Lord Porter. Perhaps en passant I may say without any disrespect to the noble and learned Lords opposite that I wonder sometimes why in your Lordships' House we refer to undoubtedly learned members of the law as noble and learned Lords and yet we refer to Nobel Prize winners as "the noble Lord". I think that it is rather sad that we do not recognise the skills, knowledge and experience that we have in your Lordships' House in the shape of the noble Lord, Lord Porter, and indeed the noble Lord, Lord Todd.
It is important to maintain certain specific principles in the operation of these excellent laboratories which the noble Earl's clause seeks to enshrine in the Bill. Among these are the unrestricted and equal access to the specialist scientific services by the new Scottish unitary local authorities; the preservation of the independence of the public analysts—and that is a very important point because these people are not only skilled but they are independent and when they go to court they are respected because of their skill and independence—the availability of experienced analytical chemists, food analysts, food examiners and agricultural analysts to all the new Scottish local authorities; and the proper co-ordination of specialist scientific services and enforcement, as is the case at present.
It is unfortunate that the Bill has not so far encompassed those matters. I hope that when the noble and learned Lord responds, he will come forward with some mechanism by which those very important services can be maintained. They are important not only for the scientific community but for the average man and woman in daily life. Local authorities should be given the degree of scientific back-up which they need in an increasingly complex scientific world.
The Earl of Balfour: I add a few words of support from a purely practical point of view. I believe that that body needs to be given the special provisions necessary to meet the ever-increasing hygiene requirements of both British and European Governments.
Tremendous care needs to be taken in respect of bacteriological tests in order to ensure that the sample taken is not polluted by other bacteria. Also, very often, temperatures come into the matter. An analyst taking a sample of water from the kitchen, straight from the
464
main, should use a blow lamp on the tap to keep that sterilised before he takes a sample. The water is then put into a bottle which is very often insulated so that the temperature does not change during its transportation to the laboratory where it is fully tested. That is extremely important.
Equally, the local authority environmental health departments are taking on ever-increasing responsibilities for many of those matters. It is extremely interesting that unlike many of the other local authority departments, they have never asked for a director. I believe that that is a good example of a department which is better off without a director.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: Perhaps I may say somewhat defensively to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, that I did not determine that those with legal qualifications should be described as "learned". At the risk of losing my professional colleagues, I feel bound to say that there are many occasions on which the contributions of non-lawyers may be more learned than those made by lawyers. I believe that the noble Earl provided just such a contribution to our debate this evening.
I should say to him immediately that we are anxious to ensure the continuing integrity of the public analyst service. As he pointed out, regional and islands councils are required by Section 27 of the Food Safety Act 1990 to appoint public analysts. District councils are then required to use those analysts for various purposes. Under the terms of this Bill those responsibilities will be transferred to the new councils. Thus all 32 new councils will be required to appoint public analysts and use them for certain specified tasks.
I should emphasise, however, that that does not mean the appointment of 32 different analysts. Indeed, the Government would hope that that will not be the case. While it will be up to each new council to take its own decisions on this matter, there would appear to be no reason why councils should wish to alter the existing arrangement whereby all councils use the same four public analysts.
Mention was also made of whether the analysts will continue to be employed by the new councils. There is, of course, no statutory obligation on local authorities to employ analysts in-house. I understand, however, that while that has not always been the case, the four analysts at present are employees of regional councils.
As such, I should have thought that local government would wish them to be covered by the staff transfer orders which are to be made under Clause 8 of the Bill. Similarly—the noble Earl raised this matter—I should imagine that the authorities involved will agree to transfer their laboratories and equipment under the auspices of Clause 15 of the Bill.
The question regarding which authorities the public analysts will be transferred to is largely one for the regional councils and their successors to decide. The most sensible options would appear to be either to transfer them to the councils for the four main cities or, alternatively, to arrange for them to be employed jointly by some or all of the successors to the existing regions.

465
While I appreciate the argument which has been put forward in favour of a single scientific services agency, I am not immediately persuaded that that is necessary. Public analysts in Scotland already operate satisfactorily on a joint basis. As I said, there is no need for each new council to employ its own expertise and set up expensive laboratories; nor, on the other hand, is there any need to combine all the existing services into a single national unit.
I believe that we touched briefly on the matter of the public analyst service on an earlier occasion when I took the opportunity to say that I thought that it was an example of excellent joint working. That possibility remains under the Bill, without, I hope, the necessity of the direction of the Secretary of State. However, as we discussed previously, that power does exist.
Finally, I must tell the Committee that I have received a request for a meeting from the public analysts. I do not intend any discourtesy to them, but I believe that I have not as yet responded. However, if the noble Earl and the noble Lord think that it would be helpful for me to have such a meeting before Report stage, I should of course be happy to take up that opportunity.
Lord Tordoff: Before the noble Earl responds, I should like to point out that it seems to me that the Government have not grasped the seriousness of the situation. The regions are being abolished and a great vacuum is opening up. It is possible that the local authorities can get their act together and in due course produce some sort of amalgamation and coherent structure. But I believe that it ought to be included in the Bill somehow. In other words, the Government ought to be giving a lead to the new local authorities and saying to them, "This is an essential thing for the health of the people of Scotland, and that is the structure around which you should amalgamate". That is why I commend the amendment to the Government. It is a way forward. Indeed, the noble and learned Lord is offering very little in its place.
The Earl of Halsbury: Perhaps I may, first, thank all those who associated themselves with me by attaching their names to the two amendments. I should also like to thank all noble Lords who have spoken and contributed to our debate. In addition, I believe that I should extend my thanks to the Royal Society of Chemistry, of which I am a fellow, and the Association of Public Analysts, of whom I am not one, for the massive support that they gave me in preparing the words that I have delivered to the Committee this evening.
I very much associate myself with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, and must return to what I originally said: the Government are leaving a vacuum in the hope that people will sort it out for themselves. I do not believe that one should. I hope that during the holidays the noble and learned Lord will study carefully what I said and come up with a conviction that he should do something about it. For now, I shall await the Report stage, reserving my position thereon. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 175 to 178 agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 158 and 158A not moved.]
Schedule 13 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
[Amendment No. 159 not moved.]
10.45 p.m.
The Earl of Minto The Earl of Minto moved Amendment No. 160:
Page 192, line 49, at end insert:
("( ) In section 46(1) (Travelling allowance and subsidence allowance) for "necessarily" substitute "reasonably" and add at end "which shall have regard and be reasonably comparable to rates paid to members of other public bodies and shall not be less than that paid to Members of Parliament".").
The noble Earl said: This is a short amendment which attempts to make certain that the Government are aware of the discontent in the present local authorities in the hope that in the new local authorities due attention will have been paid to the pressure that we have tried to place upon the Government to alleviate the problems that we are facing at the moment with travelling allowances and subsistence allowances. I humbly say to the Committee, as I have before, that I shall not be standing at the council elections next April so this amendment is not for my benefit. However, it is something I feel quite strongly about.
The mileage rates that local authority members are paid at the moment fall short of those paid to APT & C staff, to jurors and to Members of Parliament by quite significant figures. It seems to me a little: odd that if my Member of Parliament and I travel separately but from approximately the same distance to the Scottish Office for a meeting, he is paid 68.2p. per mile to run his car and I am paid 26.6p. per mile to run my car. I have raised this matter with the Secretary of State in the past and he has always said to me that he has nothing to do with what Members of Parliament are paid for their mileage, which seems to me quite a subtle way of making his point. I would ask the noble and learned Lord please to consider seriously the situation with regard to travelling, and the cost of travelling and the cost of living while one is away from home.
In the rural areas we do not have buses; we have to use cars. It is perfectly normal for a member of my council who has to come to a meeting to clock up 112 miles getting there and back, and he will probably do a considerable number of extra miles on the way in connection with his duties with regard to planning applications and other matters. To be losing, losing, losing all the time is not a terribly attractive proposition. One has listened, during the four days of this Committee stage, and indeed on Second Reading, to certain noble Lords talking about the need for good quality councillors in the future, but we shall not get them unless they are at least allowed to break even. They certainly cannot be expected to pay, pay, pay as some presently are having to do. I know that they are suffering from having to do that.
I ask, through Amendment No. 160, that the Government urgently look at the situation with regard to the payment of both travelling and subsistence allowances to local authority members. There is a

467
further amendment associated with this in the grouping, Amendment No. 161. I have learnt this evening that there is to be a consultation document—and I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for informing me of that; I believe it is to be issued within the next three weeks or so—on this subject and Amendment No. 161, which concerns the basic attendance and special responsibility allowances for local authority members. In view of that, it will not be my intention to move Amendment No. 161 when we reach it. I beg to move.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I support the noble Earl, Lord Minto, on these two amendments. Of all the people who have spoken in this debate I believe that he probably has the best current information. The fact that the noble Earl is from a rural area makes these amendments even more important, although this matter is also of relevance to those local authority members who live in cities. It is a long time since I was involved with a local authority, when we were paid practically nothing. I know that for some people at certain times of their lives, service as councillors becomes very difficult. There is criticism of councillors, saying that they are inadequate. If we do not pay them adequately, we gain people in all parties on occasions who are not the most suitable but are the only persons available. That is a bad thing. As the noble Earl, Lord Minto, said, people do not become councillors to make money—they would not make money on the figures to which he referred—but they should not lose money. I give the noble Earl every support possible.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: It is not often that the noble Earl is inaccurate. However, I have to advise him that my understanding is that a Member of Parliament does not receive 68p per mile; I think he now receives 74p. That may not make the noble Earl feel any happier.
Perhaps I may say more publicly what I intimated to him earlier: that we certainly agree that those who contribute as councillors should be, in a sense, properly rewarded for the important contribution that they make. We are indeed currently considering both the system of councillors' allowances generally and the travel and subsistence rates. In doing so, we shall give careful consideration to the comments which have been made to us during our extensive consultation exercise on local government reform.
However, more particularly, as he has already indicated, following on the consultation paper which the Department of the Environment has already issued to local authority associations on changes to the existing system of councillors' allowances, we shall be consulting separately in Scotland with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and others. I anticipate, without being absolutely bound by it, that there will be a consultation paper issued, if not within days, certainly within weeks. I understand that the Secretary of State for Scotland will be meeting with CoSLA as soon as tomorrow. I have no doubt that this issue will be raised then.
468
Against the issue of a consultation paper, I think it would be advisable if I were to say no more than that we wish to hear what people have to say.
The Earl of Minto: I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord for all that he has said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment N0.160A not moved.]
The Earl of Balfour The Earl of Balfour moved Amendment No. 160B:
Page 210, line 41, at end insert ("and after the word "London" there shall be inserted the words "and Edinburgh".").
The noble Earl said: We discussed Lords Lieutenant and Lords Provost in Clause 4. As within the Reserve Forces Act 1980 it states that the new appointments must be announced in the London Gazette, I do not understand why it should not be both the London Gazette and the Edinburgh Gazette, because the issue covers both countries. I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: That was a brisk but powerful moving of the amendment by my noble friend Lord Balfour.
However, as drafted, the amendment would so amend Section 133(5) of the Reserve Forces Act 1980 that Clerks of Lieutenancy throughout Great Britain were required, at the cost of the local authority concerned, to publish in the Edinburgh Gazette as well as the London Gazette, as at present, the names of persons appointed deputy lieutenants.
The amendments which in Schedule 13 to the Bill the Government have proposed to the Reserve Forces Act 1980 have been confined to those parts of the Act which require amendment as a direct effect on the Bill now before the Committee. I question whether we should be seeking to introduce in the Bill an amendment which would impose a duty upon Clerks of Lieutenancy furth of Scotland, if indeed it would be competent to do so. I think that my noble friend will appreciate that, if the amendment were carried, not only would the Clerks to the Lieutenancy in Scotland have to advertise in the Edinburgh Gazette but all the Clerks to the Lieutenancy elsewhere in Great Britain would be under a comparable duty. That would seem to be excessive. However, I wish to consider what the noble Earl has said. I do not offer him any commitment because it seems to cover a matter that goes somewhat beyond the general scope of the Bill.
The Earl of Balfour: I am most grateful to my noble and learned friend and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Balfour The Earl of Balfour moved Amendment No. 160C:
Page 230, line 26, at end insert:
("The Water Act 1983 (c. 23)
.—In section 3 of the Water Act 1983, paragraph (e) of subsection (5) shall be repealed.").
The noble Earl said: I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 160C and 160D together. I may not be right up to date with some of the legislation, but this

469
appeared to me to be a necessary provision to bring the Water Act within the scope of the legislation. I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: This is not the first occasion on which I am grateful to my noble friend for the care with which he has investigated the legislation to see what may require to be amended as a consequence of the Bill.
I believe that Amendment No. 160C would have no real effect. The Water Act 1983 is in effect spent legislation. I believe that Section 3 has served its purpose and that the assets of the National Water Council and the Water Space Amenity Commission have been dealt with. I hope that it will be seen that it would be wasted effort to amend a provision which is spent, but I am grateful to my noble friend for raising the matter. I shall certainly double check to make sure that there is no outstanding reason for an amendment to be made.
I am also grateful to him for tabling Amendment No. 160D. It has highlighted an interesting question concerning the occupancy provisions for those who will reside in properties owned by the new water authorities.
470
This is a complex area and one which will require further consideration about how best to deal with the issue. My noble friend has done us a service by pointing this out and I can assure him that we will pursue the matter as appropriate. Once we have checked the complication that he has pointed out, I shall write to him. With that assurance I hope that he will withdraw his amendment.
The Earl of Balfour: I wish equally to record my grateful thanks to my noble and learned friend for the answers he has given to the several letters I have written to him about the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 160D to 161A not moved.]
Schedule 13 agreed to.
Schedule 14 [Repeals]:
[Amendments Nos. 161B to 163 not moved.]
Schedule 14 agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with an amendment.
House adjourned at eleven o'clock.