Lords Sitting of 12 October 1994

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Southward

Lord Phillips of Ellesmere
Sir David Chilton Phillips, KBE, having been created Baron Phillips of Ellesmere, of Ellesmere in the County of Shropshire, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Dainton and the Lord Porter of Luddenham.
Lord Tope
Graham Norman Tope, Esquire, CBE, having been created Baron Tope, of Sutton in the London Borough of Sutton, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Tordoff and the Baroness Hamwee.

Nuclear Materials: Unauthorised Transactions
3 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
What arrangements are being made with other governments to prevent unauthorised transactions in plutonium or uranium from the former Soviet Union which could be used to make nuclear weapons.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, this is a matter of great concern, which we are taking very seriously. We believe that a well co-ordinated international response is vital if the problem is to be tackled effectively. We are actively involved in discussions now under way in a number of international fora to achieve that aim.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that Answer. It is imperative that nuclear weapons do not fall into the hands of irresponsible regimes or of terrorists. Will my noble friend confirm that in this matter the Governments of Russia and the other new states are co-operating fully with the West?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, this matter is being discussed in a number of international fora, some of which involve the Russian and other East European governments. On 19th September President Yeltsin signed a decree which was intended to strengthen Russian controls on stocks of nuclear materials. Our aim is to achieve a co-ordinated international response to the problem. There is no evidence that any national government have been trying to obtain nuclear material in this way.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, given that the UK is the current chairman of a group of plutonium-producing
890
countries of which Russia is also a member, and in the light of the extremely serious potential threat posed by the smuggling of plutonium from Russia, will the Government consider taking the lead in establishing an internationally-sponsored nuclear safety fund which is aimed at improving security at Russian nuclear installations?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, this matter is under consideration. The material that was seized is being examined by the German authorities. We cannot comment in detail on where it may have come from. However, the most important aspect is that no stone will be left unturned in ensuring that all the necessary safeguards are put in place. I shall consider further what the noble Baroness said.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, in view of alterations in the immigration rules of this country following recent Community decisions, will the Minister assure the House that the Government have in place sufficient means of surveillance at all ports of entry in this country so that we can do our proper share in apprehending people who are connected with the Russian and Italian Mafias in this regard?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am sure that I can give that assurance to the noble Lord. Britain already has contacts with officials and scientists in many other countries, including the former Soviet Union and our partners in the European Union. We will use all those contacts to address not only the issues of accounting and security of nuclear material but also the passage of persons who might have been involved.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, as President Yeltsin recently proposed further reductions in nuclear weapons, and as living conditions in former Soviet nuclear establishments are reported to have deteriorated alarmingly, with acute shortages of food and money, can anything be done internationally to provide the redundant scientists and technicians with alternative livelihoods and useful work?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for asking that question. Through the Overseas Development Administration we are already helping. The United Kingdom, together with other countries including the United States and Japan, has supported the international science and technology centre in Moscow which is designed precisely for the purpose that my noble friend outlined; that is, to provide the relevant research activities for former nuclear scientists. The Moscow centre is already up and running and more than 100 scientists are involved. We hope also to have a centre in Kiev before long.

Parental Leave
3.4 p.m.
Earl Russell Earl Russell asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will reconsider their position on the proposed European Union directive on parental leave.
Lord Ingle wood: My Lords, we remain opposed to legislation on parental leave, believing it better to leave

891
the matter to voluntary agreements. Our opposition to regulation has been clear since 1983 when the European Commission first proposed the directive.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I welcome the Minister to the Dispatch Box. How does he reconcile his Answer with the proposed Article X of the directive in which the British Government gave the impression at least that they would have accepted the directive if it could have been fulfilled by the absence, whether paid or unpaid, of the mother to take care of the new-born child? What have the Government got against men?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his kind introductory remark. He referred to a proposal put to the Council of Ministers which would have turned out unacceptable to the other member states. It might have been acceptable in substance to Her Majesty's Government because it did not entail any change to the domestic substantive law. However, in no way could it be reconciled with our objection in principle, which I have mentioned, to this kind of legislation. As regards the noble Earl's final point, I do not believe that Her Majesty's Government have any objection to men.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I too welcome the Minister to the Dispatch Box. Is he aware that as long ago as 1984 a Select Committee of your Lordships' House reported on parental leave and leave for family reasons? It strongly recommended that the European directive should be accepted. After a great deal of investigation it reached and supported the view that voluntary arrangements produced patchy results with low levels of provision. During the 10 years that have elapsed since the report have there been any improvements in voluntary arrangements? Is it not about time that the Government revised their original position?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her kind remarks. Clearly, Her Majesty's Government are in favour of proper flexibility in these matters. Just as the issue of parental leave can pose problems for parents so there can also be problems for businesses. It is important that those families which have no breadwinner in work should have such. Therefore, we can say that progress is being made on this front under the existing arrangements.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on his appointment and on the admirable way in which he has answered his first Question. Is he aware that many of us regard this proposal as very harmful and unnecessary and are glad to see that the Government have rejected it?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his kind remarks. I was grateful to hear the views he expressed.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that his first appearance at the Dispatch Box has enabled him to strike a blow for our party's electoral fortunes? There is nothing that the men of this country would like less than having to spend three months at home doing
892
domestic chores while the mothers are free to go and find places on all-women shortlists for whatever the latest fashion among women may be.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I am delighted to have struck a blow for our party's prospects in the polls. Of course, it may be the case that the women of this country would like to see their husbands out of the house.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, the Minister has advised the House that the Government believe that these arrangements should be made on a voluntary basis. Does that imply that the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill, which is currently going through this House, will be used to do away with the current legal requirement for maternity leave?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, the noble Lord's question is outside the scope of the original Question.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: My Lords, does the Minister agree that if we go further with the social chapter half the country will be on leave and the other half will be unemployed?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, that may well be the logical consequence of going completely in that direction.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, if the employee is to get parental leave, is the corollary that the factory manager will also get leave and be able to close down the factory for three months?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, to be fair, that would only be the case if there was one employee in the factory. Fortunately, that is not normally so. It is difficult to run businesses just as it is difficult to deal with these family matters. One has to strike a balance. We believe that the right way for that balance to be struck is by voluntary agreement.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that there are an increasing number of circumstances in which the mother is a higher wage earner than the father and that therefore both the economy and the family would benefit by the father staying at home and the mother continuing to earn and to contribute to the economy?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, that is right, but the noble Baroness should bear in mind that the mother has a maternal duty and instincts towards the baby and has a different role from that of the father.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, cannot the principle of subsidiarity be applied in the case of the United Kingdom, with the mother's full agreement, so that the father can take extended fishing holidays in order to get him out of the home when not required?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, the noble Lord is right. We believe that this is a matter where the principle of subsidiarity should apply. As far as I understand it, it is for the family to decide how any leave that might be taken would be taken.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the report to which I originally

893
referred stated that after examination there was no convincing evidence one way or the other that parental leave would raise industry's costs? Is he further aware that regrettably some of the answers given from the Dispatch Box will appal numbers of women who go to work and also their spouses?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, the noble Baroness refers to costs. I understand that a cost compliance assessment was carried out on one version of the proposed directive. It indicated that for this country the annual cost might range, depending exactly on how it was implemented, between £700 million and £2.3 billion a year.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, bearing in mind the very low non-wage labour costs in countries of the Pacific Rim and other areas with which Europe must compete, does my noble friend agree that we are right to avoid anything which might increase our competitive disadvantage still further even if other countries of the sinking socialist siege economy of Europe wish to do so?
Lord Inglewood: Yes, my Lords.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the Minister said a great deal about the voluntary principle. Can he tell us how he reconciles that with his evident determination to slant the law to ensure that the care of children falls on the mother? Does the principle of subsidiarity apply within the family?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, how matters evolve within the family is invariably in my experience the subject of negotiation.

Residential Care: Vulnerable Adults
3.13 p.m.
Lord Rix Lord Rix asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied with the procedures which exist for the protection of vulnerable adults in residential homes, nursing homes, hospitals and day service settings.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, there are existing procedures for reducing the risk of abuse and inappropriate treatment of vulnerable people receiving care. It is unfortunately not possible to eliminate all risks. But current procedures should identify abuse and, if it occurs, enable appropriate action to be taken.
Lord Rix: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Will the department closely monitor the performance of local authorities when they place people in homes outside their area, and also those who register those homes, to ensure that they implement their joint and individual responsibilities towards those people, particularly in regard to their welfare in those registered homes?
Baroness Cumberlege: Yes, my Lords. Authorities which place people in residential homes have a
894
responsibility for their welfare. It should never be a case of out of sight out of mind. Local authorities have a long-term responsibility not only for those whom they place but also for those for whom they contribute towards the cost. The department's social services inspectorate is at the moment in the middle of a comprehensive programme inspecting all those who register homes to ensure that both parties are playing their part.
Lord Renton: My Lords, can my noble friend give an assurance that it is not intended to relax the conditions for the registration of these homes? Indeed, would it not be better to tighten the rules and to close the unsatisfactory homes?
Baroness Cumberlege: Yes, my Lords. The Act enables local authorities, social services departments and health authorities to close homes. The proposals that we are currently consulting on do not in any way weaken the fundamental regulatory system. Nor do they reduce the frequency of inspection. In fact essential safeguards are being retained.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, does the noble Baroness accept that while these problems are left to the localities we are bound to have a patchwork provision? The only realistic way of tackling them is to insist on national standards, national monitoring and national sanctions. As those cost money, should not the Government provide it?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the Government believe it is important that local authorities should be involved. Increasingly we are seeing more independent homes being established, and it is right that local authorities should be the first regulatory authority. But the Government also have a responsibility, which we accept, and that is why the social services inspectorate has drawn up a comprehensive programme to see whether the Act is working well. Indeed, there will be a major review in 1995.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, are the Government prepared to increase the dissemination of information into the prevention of sexual abuse within homes and to undertake research into abuse of other kinds?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, we are anxious that local authorities should be aware of all the problems that can exist. We are doing our best to disseminate as much information as possible and we are also getting involved in training.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, how many of the inspections are carried out by spot checks? Is it not a fact that homes with fewer than four beds are not inspected at all? Is it not also a fact that some owners buy several units, put them together and then opt out of inspection?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, local authorities have a duty to inspect at least twice a year. If they have concerns about a particular home or independent hospital they can go in to inspect more often. We suggest to them that at least one of the visits per year should be unannounced. Homes with fewer than four

895
beds have to be inspected in the same way as other homes. However, we have told local authorities that although they have to comply with the requirements they should have a lighter touch.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, the Minister is no doubt aware that there are three types of old people's homes. There are private homes, homes run by local authorities and those run by the DSS. However, there are some amazing differences between them. For example, it is not uncommon for an old person in a private home who has left his or her own home to the children then to be compelled to sell that home. There are old people in local authority homes who are also in some difficulty where local authorities differ from one area to another. The DSS is doing as much as it can, but more old people are living longer than ever before in our history. There are now some 10 million old people. Should there not be co-ordination among all three types of home to ensure that fairness is observed at all levels?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely right to say that there are different sorts of homes. However, I should explain to him that no home is run by the DSS as such, although it will support people in independent, private and voluntary homes. I believe that the fact that we are all living longer is a great tribute to the National Health Service. I am very proud of that fact. Indeed, there is wonderful evidence of it all around us here this afternoon.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, is there not a particular problem in cases, for example, of brutality where patients, whether in a hospital or a home, are incapable of being able to speak up for themselves? Further, is it not important that our whole climate and attitude of care should be such that others would not permit that to happen in their presence?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right. We recognise that brutality does not take place where there is a culture which is open and which involves other people. I know that MENCAP and other organisations are increasingly involving volunteers in the inspection process. I believe that that is a very good way forward. The more that we can involve the community in such homes, the less chance there is of abuse.
Lord Carter: My Lords, is the Minister aware that a recent report by the Royal College of Nursing into the regulation of private nursing homes and hospitals concluded that,
"the system for registering and inspecting the private homes and hospitals in England and Wales is inadequate. This inadequacy exists against a backdrop of confusion about whose responsibility it is to pay for continuing care for elderly people. The confusion has not been adequately addressed by the draft guidance issued in August 1994 by the Department of Health"?
May I urge the Minister to consider that one practical and immediate step that the Government could take would be to end the four-year freeze on regulation and
896
inspection fees? Will she urge such action on her colleagues in the Department of Health and in the Treasury?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, we welcomed the report produced by the Royal College of Nursing. We have drawn it to the attention of both health and local authorities because it was based on nursing homes and not on residential homes. We also asked the National Association of Health Authorities and Trusts to look at it and take account of it when drawing up its revised guidance. In our guidance, which is still in the process of consultation, with a closing date of 31st October, we raised the question of fees. There did not appear to be a problem.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, before we frighten a great many old and disabled people into thinking that all homes are badly run, will the Minister agree that there are a great many nursing homes and residential care homes which are run to the very highest standards? I know that fact directly because I am associated with a number of them as I am chairman of an organisation which provides training for care assistants.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the noble Countess is absolutely right. In my experience, voluntary, independent and private homes have some of the very best care in the country but, I also have to say, some of the least good. Some of those that I have visited have the quality standard BS 5750; for example, the Kent Housing Trust is a housing association that carries out superb work and has improved very much on the quality of care that was given by the Kent County Council, which was the first to acknowledge that fact.

Armenia and Nagorno Karabakh: Blockades
3.22 p.m.
Baroness Cox Baroness Cox asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will try to persuade Turkey and Azerbaijan to lift their blockades of Armenia and Nagorno Karabakh before the onset of winter.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, a peace settlement in Nagorno Karabakh is the best way of persuading all the countries in the region to lift the economic blockades of Armenia and the enclaves of Nagorno Karabakh and Nakhichevan. We are working to that end.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. However, I fear that it may be rather cold comfort to the Armenians. Does my noble friend accept that the peace process is beset by many problems; for example, the conflict between the Russian and the CSCE peace proposals and also the fact that Azerbaijan with thousands of mercenaries may well be preparing its biggest offensive yet against Nagorno Karabakh? Is there nothing further that can be done through the CSCE to end these cruel blockades which will cause incalculable suffering for the Armenians for yet another winter? Further, can my noble friend say why Turkey,

897
as a member of the CSCE, is allowed to get away scot-free with its blockade of Armenia when it is not even recognised as a combatant in the war over Karabakh?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, at least the latest cease-fire has held for some five months, but I understand the point that my noble friend makes. However, I believe that prospects for a settlement are better than they have honestly been for some time. I accept that there are problems in reconciling the CSCE and the Russian proposals, but we are actively engaged in efforts to that end. It will be important to ensure that the settlement is in an international framework so that appropriate monitoring can really be made to happen.
I understand what my noble friend said about the persistent reports of Turkish support to the Azeris. I have to tell her that there is no real evidence, but I am quite certain that the work that has been carried out by the CSCE, especially in respect of the arms embargo in the region, is a situation which Turkey now accepts.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we welcome the Minister's assurance that the Government are taking steps to seek to resolve a very unpleasant situation. However, can the noble Baroness be more precise and tell us exactly what the Government are doing and whether any steps are being taken to raise the matter in the United Nations?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, we have concentrated on our work in the CSCE forum. We have discussed the matter in various committees of the United Nations. We take every opportunity to press those who are involved in the detail to try to make it work on the ground. It is all very well to resolve the matter in some international body. The terrible situation in Nagorno Karabakh, which my noble friend has witnessed so many times, is one where the words of international bodies have to be translated into real action which prevents fighting on the ground.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, does the Minister agree that our influence in the area would be enhanced if we had some form of diplomatic office in Armenia? Does she further agree that it is quite extraordinary that we do not have even a part-time consulate in the area so that the nearest diplomatic office to Armenia is in Moscow? How can we hope to be properly informed and have strong influence in the matter when we have so little first-hand information available to us?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I can assure the noble Baroness that we do not suffer because we do not have an office in Yerevan. Both our ambassador to Moscow (who is accredited to Armenia) and his staff are making regular visits to the area. We have representation in part of the region, but resource constraints mean that we cannot have an embassy in every country, especially where many former large countries now break down into many smaller countries.
898
I can assure the noble Baroness that we shall ensure that our information is always up to date as regards what goes on in Armenia.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, as the Minister appears to agree with the suggestion made by the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, that some disadvantage to the peace process arises from the fact that the Minsk group and the CIS processes overlap, can she say what steps the Government are taking to try either to integrate the two processes so that only one is operative or to get one of the two to leave the field, thus leaving it clear for the other?
As regards weapons, the Minister has seen the evidence produced, including photographic evidence, of Turkish and United States weapons which, on the face of it, appear to have reached the Azeris via Nato. What response will the Government make to the suggestion that I put forward during my recent visit to the area that a CSCE inspector be sent to look at such weapons to take note of the serial numbers so as to trace their origin and thereby verify whether or not they reached the Azeris illegally via NATO?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, on the noble Lord's last point, there are many weapons from different sources in the international arms market. I do not believe that the noble Lord's proposal would be feasible, but certainly there is no doubt that in all the international bodies where the matter is being discussed a very careful watch is being kept on the situation.
In response to the noble Lord's question about Russian interests as well as those of the CSCE Minsk group, we have always made it clear that we strongly support what the latter group is doing because it has been seeking to build on the cease-fire to find a peace process which would be acceptable to all parties and that would include an end to the blockades. I am afraid that one cannot say exactly the same about the action taken by others. On the other hand, there is no way in which one can chase one nation with an interest in the region off the map.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, assuming that a settlement of this conflict holds following the peace conference in Moscow last month, and in the light of British interests in this area represented by oil companies, will the UK Government contribute to the multinational force that has been called for to police the cease-fire?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, we do not have a request so to do. It is not yet agreed that there should be such a force and we already have many thousands of British troops supporting other peacekeeping forces so I think it is unlikely.

Kuwait: British Forces Mission
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I beg leave to ask a question of which I have given Her Majesty's Government private notice. The question is as follows:

899
To ask Her Majesty's Government which units of the British services are being sent to Kuwait and what is their mission.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, HMS "Cornwall" has arrived off the coast of Kuwait and will be joined shortly by HMS "Cardiff". Six additional Tornado GR1 aircraft and an additional VC10 tanker arrived in the Gulf on 1lth October, to reinforce the six Tornados and the tanker already there. The advance party of the lead element of the Spearhead battalion group arrived in Kuwait early on 12th October. The1 lead element, of 250 troops, will be in place by the end of this week. Preparations are continuing for the remainder of Spearhead battalion group to deploy. This would bring troop numbers up to about 1,000. Their mission is to reinforce security in the Gulf, in the light of the recent build-up of Iraqi forces close to the border with Kuwait.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for her reply. It is an important matter when British forces are sent into what may be a war situation. Can the noble Baroness confirm that the command structure for our forces in Kuwait will be the same as that in the Gulf war; in other words, will they be under NATO command with an American commander-in-chief? Further, will their mission also include participation in a pre-emptive strike against Iraqi forces if that is what is decided?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the whole question of command control is being discussed in the Gulf. As the noble Lord will perhaps know, both Mr. Warren Christopher, the US Secretary of State, and my right honourable friend Mr. Douglas Hurd are in Kuwait today. So far as the action is concerned, that is something which we would not declare and certainly something that would not be in the best interests of creating peace in the Middle East so to declare.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, is the Minister aware that on these Benches we support the speedy military intervention that the Government have undertaken as the best form of deterrence against an unpredictable and irrational dictator? But is the Minister aware that it is deterrence on which we believe the international community should concentrate rather than rather dangerous thoughts of pre-emptive action? Would not perhaps the best course be to explore the possibility of the existing "no fly" zone becoming a "no troops" zone?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his support. Indeed the deployment was extremely speedy. Having been asked on Friday for assistance, the first response, HMS "Cornwall", arrived off Kuwait on Sunday morning. Our intention is to deter aggression by Iraq against Kuwait. I sincerely hope that this will succeed with this first attempt. I think a "no troops" zone would be simply marvellous; but to make that happen in this sort of territory, as the noble Lord will know, is not an easy matter.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that her measured words of a minute or
900
two ago as regards a pre-emptive strike will be noted, but will she say that although that would be undesirable as we see things at this minute, it certainly is not ruled out if circumstances that were to arise later appeared to justify it?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I think the House knows us well enough to know that we rule out nothing that is necessary, but we hope that deterrent forces will have a deterrent effect.
Lord Richard: My Lords, one reads in the papers various stories that the Iraqi forces are in fact withdrawing from their position on the border. Are they? Can the Minister help us? Have the Government any information on that matter?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, it is quite difficult to tell. Certainly there have been movements of Iraqi forces; but it will be several days before we can be confident not only of this withdrawal but that there will not be a further approach. That is the very reason we have to continue to be watchful. The matter is unpredictable. There have been some movements, but not all in the same direction.
Lord Elton: My Lords, if it becomes appropriate for Allied forces now in the Gulf to stand down, will Her Majesty's Government, in conjunction with the other allies, consider setting up a permanent framework of command and control so that the discussions now taking place, perhaps on the brink of action, will not be necessary if the tension rises again?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, this may seem an attractive feature. However, our experience is that each situation varies and while one might have overall command of control arrangements, they might not be appropriate in other circumstances any more than the rule of engagement for one particular situation would necessarily be the same for the next.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I wholeheartedly support the action which the Government have taken. But what is to stop Saddam from forcing our troops to maintain a presence there indefinitely by moves of various kinds on the other side of the frontier which, as the noble Baroness has just reminded us, are completely unpredictable? He can continue to offer provocation which leads us to suppose that aggression against Kuwait might happen in the near future, thus forcing us—and the Americans as well—to keep troops in Kuwait for the indefinite future. What is the way out of that dilemma?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, first, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for his wholehearted support, which is most welcome. Our forces, along with other forces in the coalition, will remain in the Gulf for as long as they are required to underpin regional security. We are aware that this could go on for some time; but as long as Iraq continues to

901
have a large number of troops in the border area and around Basra, I believe that in order to maintain peace we must play our full role.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, can I press the noble Baroness on one small point in her reply? As I understand it, she said that the question of the command structure was under negotiation. As I recall it, in what is known as the Gulf war, the command structure was quite clear: it was a NATO command structure and all the commands which came through the NATO network were clearly understood by our forces who were integrated into the NATO system. Is it now the case, as she appeared to be implying, that our forces could be outside that structure in any way?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the noble Lord is reading far too much into what I thought I phrased extremely carefully when I said that command and control are being discussed in Kuwait at this present time. I did not refer to NATO for the simple reason that that may well be the way in which this is approached. However, as it has not yet been decided, I cannot tell the noble Lord, and I, for one, am not prepared to speculate.

Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill
3.38 p.m.
Report received.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford Lord Ewing of Kirkford moved Amendment No. 1:
Before Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
("Functions of Assembly for Scotland as a local government area
—(1) There shall be established on 1st April 1996 an elected council for Scotland to be known as the Scottish Assembly ("The Assembly").
(2) The Assembly shall perform such strategic functions, both financial and otherwise, as are relevant to the promotion and development of the local government of Scotland.
(3) The Assembly may do anything it considers necessary to—

(a) facilitate the co-ordination of administration of local government in Scotland, and

(b) promote greater co-operation between the councils for each local government area in Scotland and public agencies and voluntary organisations in Scotland.

(4) The Assembly shall represent the interests and views of the councils for each local government area in Scotland collectively in the relevant institutions of the European Union.
(5) The Secretary of State shall consult the Assembly on all matters affecting local government and local and regional interests in Scotland.
(6) The Assembly shall have power to appoint such officers as it thinks necessary for the proper discharge of its functions, on such reasonable terms and conditions, including terms as to remuneration, as it thinks fit.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I move Amendment No. 1 which stands in my name and that of the noble Lords, Lord Mackie of Benshie and Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove. The Minister may say that we have rehearsed these arguments before. This new clause seeks to establish what we describe as a Scottish assembly. Again, I make it clear that the only reason we did not use the word "parliament" was that we were advised that using that word would be outside the terms and the
902
Long Title of the Bill. Therefore, while we use the word "assembly" it should be clearly understood that what we mean is the establishment of a Scottish parliament.
When we last moved this proposed new clause, immediately prior to the Monklands East by-election, I was told by the noble Lord, Lord Gray of Contin—who will no doubt join us soon—that I should be wary of helping the Scottish National Party in that by-election and in its determination to divide and split up the United Kingdom. I was also told by the Minister that there was a danger that the establishment of a Scottish parliament would be the first step on the road to dividing the United Kingdom and bringing about the end of the United Kingdom as we know it.
I rehearse those comments because; I note with interest that no less a person than the Prime Minister himself repeated both comments in an address to Conservative Party election agents as recently as Monday evening of this week.
I said earlier that events had moved on. In the comments that I shall make to your Lordships in support of the new clause I shall seek to show that, far from a Scottish parliament bringing about the break-up of the United Kingdom, in my view—together with an assembly in Wales and the devolution of government to the regions in England —it is the way to ensure the continuing unity of the United Kingdom. It will not only ensure the continuation of that unity but in the process will strengthen that unity.
When the Prime Minister says that the establishment of a Scottish parliament would destroy the United Kingdom, he—deliberately, in my view—fails to take account of the Government's own actions, which are more divisive than anything that I say could possibly be. Perhaps I may give two examples at this stage.
The first is the introduction of the poll tax. It was introduced first in Scotland. It was imposed on an unwilling population by an unwanted Government. As soon as the poll tax hit England's green and pleasant land, a measure which was desirable—and which Mr. Michael Heseltine could not get through the Government Lobby quickly enough to support—it suddenly became unacceptable. Indeed, the same Mr. Michael Heseltine who was falling over himself to support the Government's decision to impose the poll tax on the people of Scotland abstained on the Second Reading of the poll tax Bill when the poll tax was being applied to England.
The rest is history. The poll tax was withdrawn. I remember hearing Mr. Michael Portillo say at one of the Conservative Party conferences that the poll tax would be abolished over his dead body. In my view that was a very attractive offer. Once it was applied to England the poll tax was suddenly discovered to be unworkable and was withdrawn. History is being repeated with this legislation which your Lordships are considering on Report today.
During the course of the consideration of the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill it has been stated repeatedly that the Bill is being introduced following minimal discussion and consultation. Where consultation has taken place the views that have been expressed have very often been ignored. There is little

903
or no support for the legislation which your Lordships' House is considering today. There is no support whatever in Scotland for this legislation. There was no commission of inquiry in Scotland similar to that which has been established to consider the re-organisation of local government in England, merely a Bill imposed upon the unwilling people of Scotland by an unpopular Government.
What do we hear now? As soon as the prospect of local government reform touches those green and pleasant lands of England, there are leaks from the Department of the Environment that the proposal to re-organise local government in England is to be abandoned. In replying to the debate the Minister will have an opportunity on behalf of Her Majesty's Government to advise your Lordships whether that is the Government's position. The Minister will no doubt say that we are within a few weeks of the Queen's Speech and that we shall have to wait to see what legislation is included in the gracious Speech. I believe that the decision has already been made and that there will be no re-organisation of local government in England.
I ask the Minister and your Lordships, what do the people of Scotland think? First the poll tax was imposed on them and then withdrawn because when it was imposed on the people of England it was discovered to be unpopular and unworkable. Do the people of Scotland say, "Isn't it great that we were used as experimental guinea pigs?" They do not say that at all. Is it not the case that to treat one part of the United Kingdom in that cavalier fashion is one way to break up the United Kingdom?
What do your Lordships think will happen when the provisions of this Bill are imposed on the people of Scotland and then we are told—as we shall be told within the next few weeks —that in the only area of the country where there has been any meaningful consultation through the commission on local government it has been decided not to go ahead? Do your Lordships believe for a moment that the people of Scotland will say, "Isn't it great? They have used us again as an experimental base in which to try out these experiments and have discovered that it doesn't work here in Scotland so they will not impose it on the rest of the United Kingdom"? —although I think that it may go ahead in Wales. Is that designed to preserve the unity of the United Kingdom?
I believe that your Lordships will agree with me that there is no action which is better designed to bring about the break-up of the United Kingdom than giving one part of the Kingdom—in this case Scotland—the clear impression that it is a base for experiments and if the experiments do not work in Scotland the measures will not be applied in England. The people of Scotland are already expressing those views. Indeed there is a letter among the letters to the editor in today's Daily Record which expresses exactly that view. The Minister will have to take that on board.
If there is a danger—and I believe that there is a danger —to the unity of the United Kingdom, it does not come from these Benches. Nor does it come from
904
the Labour Parry's proposal to establish in the first year of the next Labour Government a parliament in Scotland and an assembly in Wales and then move on to the devolution of power to the English regions. The danger does not stem from that proposal. That proposal will strengthen the unity of the United Kingdom in a way that will bring it a stability which is lacking. In fairness to the Liberal Democrats, nor is that danger coining from their proposals for a federal system of government throughout the United Kingdom. Indeed, there is a case to argue for a federal system. It is not one with which I agree, but I would be prepared to join in that debate. The danger to the unity of the United Kingdom, the possibility that the kingdom will break up, comes from the intransigence of this present Government and the cavalier manner in which they treat the people of Scotland. That cannot go on; and it ought not to be allowed to proceed.
Noble Lords are entitled to ask me: what benefit will derive from the creation of a Scottish Parliament? First, there would be an administrative tier related to the Scottish Office for which the Scottish Office would have to answer with regard to policies which were implemented or proposed and which affect the people of Scotland. The arguments are well known; I do not need to rehearse them. We have our own education and legal systems. We have our own, and different, health service approach. All those policy matters in Scotland are dealt with differently. But there is no democratic control of that. The creation of a Scottish Parliament would first introduce democratic control of the Scottish Office.
One or two events would not have occurred if there were a Scottish Parliament at present. First and foremost, we would not have this Bill. The Labour Party's manifesto at the last general election was in favour of single-tier local government in conjunction with—Ministers always conveniently leave this out— the establishment of a Scottish Parliament. Therefore we would not have had this Bill. The poll tax would not have arisen.
Ministers chide me about inward investment. Let me say that Health Care International would not have occurred either. For any government to throw £40 million of public money at such a proposition was obviously impractical. The idea that somehow or other 20,000 people throughout the world are queuing up to come to Clydebank to have their gall-bladders removed is bizarre beyond belief. HCI is in a very serious position. It is such inward investment which damages prospects. The Government's own action damages prospects for inward investment. I am always happy when I see meaningful inward investment coining to Scotland. I have said before that I would love to contest the next election on the basis that unemployment was at the lowest possible level, and that we can then deal with the real meaningful social issues and quality of life.
The Government cannot produce a single shred of evidence to indicate that companies from abroad which have invested in Scotland would not have come had there been a Scottish Parliament. Indeed, the reverse is the truth. In one recent case at East Kilbride—in the presence of no less a person than Mr. Allan Stewart—the managing

905
director of the company announcing inward investment made it absolutely clear, when asked a question by the media, that if there were a Scottish Parliament he would still have invested, without hesitation.
There is no evidence either that where there are devolved systems of government throughout Europe and the remainder of the world it is an impediment to the attraction of inward investment. Arguments are put forward that such systems of government would affect inward investment, and that Scotland would be the highest taxed nation in Europe. That is not constructive politics. It is the politics of fear: that there is no argument against the Scottish Parliament so we shall try to frighten the life out of Scottish people.
I have to tell the Minister that over the past 15 years the Scottish people, having been treated in the way in which they have been treated by this Government, have gained tremendous courage. It is for that reason and with that courage that the Scottish people wish to move forward to the establishment of their own parliament.
I finish on a general note. I forecast now that not only in the next 15 to 20 years will we see a parliament in Scotland and an assembly in Wales, we shall also see in this country regional assemblies with government devolved to the regions of England. We shall see a written constitution because that is the way in which the European situation is developing. The need for constitutional change in this country is becoming more and more apparent as each day progresses. I know that the Minister at one time was a very strong advocate of the policy that I argue from this Dispatch Box. I am sure that he will be welcome aboard a train moving towards Scottish Parliament. I doubt whether he will accept the argument today—perhaps I have to do a wee bit more work on him—but I shall continue to argue the case. It is on that basis that I commend the new clause.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, there is one important matter in his speech that needs clarification. At the beginning of the debate he spoke about a "parliament" and said that he would have used that word if it had been in order. He went on to speak about a possible Scottish parliament. But everything in the new clause limits the functions of the assembly to subjects with which local government councils deal in Scotland. The provision is entirely limited to those subjects. The noble Lord referred to health. Health is not dealt with by local councils. I refer also to agriculture and fisheries. There is a huge range of subjects.
If the provision were to remain in the Bill, is this the parliament which the Labour Government would have in mind should they come into office? Alternatively, is the proposed assembly as indicated in the new clause to deal with subjects with which local councils deal? If a Labour Government came into office, would it simply build on the provision and give the assembly a great deal more to do?
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, the noble Lord is an experienced parliamentarian. He knows that we have to work within the limits of the Long Title of the Bill and the restrictions which are laid down in it. It is a local government Bill. But there are aspects of the Bill
906
which apply outside local government. The quangos that are being set up to run the water and sewerage industry in Scotland will be taken out of the hands of local government. The joint boards required to administer services are innumerable. Once the Bill is on the statute book and implemented 10,000 people will be appointed by the Secretary of State for Scotland to his own quangos. There will be only 1,000 elected councillors. The honest and open answer is yes. This provision is the beginning because we can only begin within the terms of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, perhaps I may—
The Deputy Speaker (The Viscount of Oxfuird): My Lords, the amendment proposed—
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, perhaps I may—
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, I shall not give way. The amendment proposed is to insert a new clause, the words as printed on the Marshalled List.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, I should like some guidance on procedure in the House. We are at the Report stage. Before we continue with the amendment, the way we have dealt with it is that we had an intervention from the noble Lord on the opposite side; we then had a reply from a noble Lord on this side of the House. Do I understand that at Report stage a speaker intervenes once and only once?
4 p.m.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I believe it would be appropriate at this Report stage for the Government to intervene. As yet, the proposal has not been put to your Lordships' House.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I listened to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, with great approval, apart from the fact that he took all the points that I wanted to use. I support the new clause. It is not, of course, what we want, but it is necessary to stay within the Long Title of the Bill. We feel that the new clause would improve the Bill and give some semblance of democratic control.
The Liberals and Liberal Democrats have a long history of putting forward sensible proposals for devolution. Had they been followed 100 years ago in the case of Ireland, they would have saved a great deal of bloodshed and done a great deal of good. We have consistently said that the way to keep the United Kingdom together and to benefit Scotland is for the Scottish people to vote in a parliament to handle their own affairs within the framework of the United Kingdom.
There is no question but that it would do the Conservatives a great deal of good if they followed the trend which the noble Earl, Lord Home, started many years ago and with which many Conservatives agreed. Had they done so, they might have been in a far better position today.
My noble neighbour Lord Lyell said to me outside, "What is the point of a parliament? Everything is being done already. What would it do?" I said, "Well, it would

907
do it better". That is the whole point. Every Scottish Minister —I include the noble Lord, Lord Campbell— puts forward the proposal that the great thing is that if we have a Scottish Secretary of State he fights for Scotland. He has to. I am glad that we have the Scottish Ministers we have today. In my view, they are the acceptable face of Conservatism. They are the kind of Conservatives I can put up with. There are many I find disagreeable, but our Ministers do great work. They fight for Scotland; they fight against silly proposals like the privatisation of the Forestry Commission. I congratulate them on the work they do. But they do not have any backing. They have no base. They are under the control of the party as a whole. Of course, that is all wrong. They do not have a mandate in Scotland. They have only about the same number of MPs as we Liberal Democrats have. Most of ours are better; nevertheless the numbers are about the same.
Seriously, it is absolutely vital, with conditions in Scotland today, that we have a parliament for Scottish affairs. There is the rise of the Scottish National Party which has some nice, able people, but it also has some nasty people with a horrible chip on their shoulders about the English. I do not. I find most of the English amiable, nice people; it is not their fault they are English. That is acceptable.
However, the growth of the irrational attitude of the Scottish National Party is due entirely to the neglect of a democratic base in Scotland for Scottish affairs. That is true. We like the Ministers we have, but they do not have backing and this new clause would improve the Bill for which the Government have no mandate. We would much rather the Bill were abolished altogether, but at least the new clause might make it tolerable for the people of Scotland.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, this Government have always proclaimed that they are a government of honesty. May I ask for a straight answer from the Minister when replying to the questions posed by my noble friend Lord Ewing of Kirkford? What is the position about the commission relating to England? Has there been an interim report as to whether or not local government will be reformed in England? The one thing that we in Scotland do not wish to see is this ridiculous Bill going through and then the commission reporting on England to say that one should not do the same there.
I want an honest answer because it will be noted by the people of Scotland. I am not saying that the Minister is dishonest in any way but we do not want a dishonest or fanciful political answer. I wish to know in this debate in your Lordships' House what the position is at this moment in relation to the commission. Tell us now what the position is so that the whole country of Scotland can realise what is happening in England.
As my noble friend said, we were the guinea pigs for the poll tax. Are we to be the guinea pigs for local government? I know that the Welsh Bill has gone through but that is another matter. We stand here for the people of Scotland, asking what is happening to our country.
908
Perhaps I may pose another question. It is my experience, going around and knowing people in Scotland—if I may use the phrase from the old Western films—that the natives are getting restless. They will not put up with any more nonsense from the Government in having such matters imposed upon them. The pressure will come for a review of the Act of Union of 1707. No one had a vote then. No doubt some noble Lords' ancestors had a vote at that time, one vote, and that was theirs. There was no democracy at that time. It may well be that unless the Government see sense and the force of my noble friend's argument, we shall be looking into the face of the disintegration of the United Kingdom. Even if the Bill goes through in its present form the people of Scotland will not lie down. They will rise. We hope that a reflection of that will be shown whenever the election comes.
We like to think that we live in a democracy. What is this democracy that foisted the 1707 Act of Union upon us and how can we unravel it? The only way that we can work together is if we each have a sense of fairness. The Government must exercise a sense of fairness towards the people of Scotland, take note of the voice of the people of Scotland and stop being so dogmatic about this ridiculous Bill. They should listen to what the people of Scotland say. I support what my noble friend said.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, I am worried about the wording of the proposed new clause. I get the distinct impression that if it were accepted we in Scotland would have to pay more out of the rates and council tax to finance the new body. I believe that one of the effects of the new clause would be considerably to weaken that excellent organisation, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, COSLA. It would also be detrimental to the provisions in Clause 23. An assembly dealing purely with local government matters, as the new clause is worded, is totally unnecessary.
The possibility is raised of Scotland again having its own parliament, as we did between 1603 and 1707. In my opinion that was a disaster. I must remind noble Lords that we have a vote in the European Parliament. We have an election for the Parliament at Westminster, regional council elections, district council elections, community council elections. For God's sake, let us not have yet another body.
The Earl of Perth: My Lords, I shall be brief. The House has already spent half an hour on an amendment which hardly seems to be a suitable subject for Report stage. It is one thing to get on with the various changes that are put down in amendments proper, but this amendment is purely—what shall I say? —a political attempt. I do not believe that this is the right stage to try to introduce an amendment like this by the back-door. It is far too important. If there is to be a Scottish Assembly, I for one would welcome it in a certain form, as I always have done. But let us thrash the issue out on its own merit and not try to slip it through by the

909
back-door. In other words, let us wait. Let us get on with the business of Report stage and not spend time on this amendment.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, could he suggest to the House what is the appropriate forum to discuss this matter?
The Earl of Perth: Certainly, my Lords. The right time to discuss the issue is when we are in the preliminaries to a general election and we know the position of the parties in relation to it.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie): My Lords, I am bound to say immediately that I share the sentiments expressed by the noble Earl that we have a lot to do at this Report stage. There are some very important amendments to consider. I hope accordingly that it will be acceptable if I respond briefly.
Back in 1978 there was the Scotland Act. It extended to some 87 sections and 17 schedules. The whole issue was then reconsidered by the Scottish Convention, of which the noble Lord was a distinguished member. He wrote a lengthy document on the matter. Both of those are now considered to be somewhat defective. I understand that the shadow Secretary of State for Scotland, Mr. George Robertson, has been sent away so that he may come back with a set of proposals that will be without the flaws that were hitherto to be found. I have to say to the noble Lord that if by 12th October this is as far as he has arrived in his consideration of how a Scottish assembly might be established, he has a lot of work to do in the next two and a half months.
What was most interesting about the debate that we have already had on this amendment at Committee stage was the openness and honesty of the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, who admitted that back in 1978 the proposals put forward by the then Labour Government were defective. There was a question that was summarised with reference to Mr. Tam Dalyell as "the West Lothian question". He honestly admitted in his speech last time round that there was no answer to that question then, but he believed there was an answer now; and that that answer was provided by the fact that there were to be regional assemblies all over England. If there is indeed such an answer, it would depend on there being a symmetry in the constitutional change so that every regional assembly in England had every set of powers— exactly the same set of powers as were to be given to the Scottish parliament or assembly. I find that a very interesting revelation from the Opposition Front Bench. I am sure that it will be extremely valuable to those of us who want to engage in this debate over the coming months. However, like the noble Earl, I question whether this is an appropriate time to take the matter forward. We certainly do not believe that what is contained in this proposal would do anything for the good government of Scotland; and it would do nothing to improve local government and administration.
As the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, said, it is not clear how such a proposal would be funded. There is a lovely streak of arrogance within the amendment: that those who were on such an assembly would simply arrive at
910
one of the institutions for the European Union and announce that they were to respond for the people of Scotland. I enjoyed that. But the amendment is defective. It would not take forward the more serious consideration of constitutional change. I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. As I stand here, I am congratulating myself because on 12th October I have begun to make the Minister think. The last time he replied to this debate he did not even begin to think. And here he is now—though I have to say that he is very badly briefed—taking on some of the arguments; his mind is beginning to be applied to some of the questions that we shall have to debate and discuss in the next few years in relation to the document that was written by the Scottish Constitutional Convention, of which I am still joint chairman with Sir David Steel. The convention established a Scottish Commission. As joint chairman, I invite the Minister to attend the meeting that will take place on 2nd December in the Royal High School in Edinburgh, when the commission will present its detailed proposals, which go hand in glove with the proposals that were contained in the document Towards Scotland's Parliament. So far from nothing happening or moving on, a great deal has happened. A great deal has moved on—including the fact that the Minister has begun to think, That must be one of the greatest bonuses that we have had during this debate.
However, we are discussing here a principle. That principle is that Scotland should have its own parliament. I am prepared to divide the House on that principle.
4.15 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 77; Not-Contents, 140.

Division No.1

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Barnett, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Blackstone, B.

[Teller.]

Boston of Faversham, L.

Gregson, L.

Bottomley, L.

Grey, E.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Hamwee, B.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Haskel, L.

Carter, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Cledwyn of Penrhos

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Cudlipp, L.

Hooson, L.

David, B.

Hughes, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Kagan, L.

Desai, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Donoughue, L.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L. [Teller.]

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Mason of Bamsley, L.

Fitt, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Foot, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Gallacher, L.

Monkswell, L.

911

Mulley, L.

Stallard, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Nicol, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Peston, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Redesdale, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L

Richard, L.

Thurso, V.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Tope, L.

Rochester, L.

Tordoff, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Russell, E.

Varley, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Whaddon, L.

Seear, B.

White, B.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Shepherd, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Gridley, L.

Abinger, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Addison, V.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Ailsa, M.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Harvington, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Hemphill, L.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Hives, L.

Argyll, D.

HolmPatrick, L.

Arran, E [Teller.]

Howe, E.

Ashbourne, L.

Inglewood, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Attlee, E.

Kimball, L.

Balfour, E.

Kinloss, Ly.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Lane, L.

Belstead, L.

Leigh, L.

Blyth, L.

Long, V.

Boardman, L.

Lonsdale, E.

Borthwick, L.

Lucas, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Lyell, L.

Brookes, L.

Mackay of Clashfem, L. [Lord

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Chancellor.]

Bruntisfield, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Burnham, L.

Macpherson of Drumochter, L.

Burton, L.

Manchester, D.

Caldecote, V.

Marsh, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Merrivale, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Mersey, V.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Milverton, L.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Minto, E.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Cornwallis, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Courtown, E.

Morris, L.

Cox, B.

Mottistone, L.

Cranbome, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Cranworth, L.

Munster, E.

Crathome, L.

Nelson of Stafford, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Nelson, E.

Davidson, V.

O'Cathain, B.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Oppenheim-Bames, B.

Denham, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Demon of Wakefield, B.

Oxfuird, V.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Palmer, L.

Downshire, M.

Pender, L.

Dundee, E.

Perth, E.

Eden of Winton, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Elles, B.

Polwarth, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Elphinstone, L.

Renton, L.

Elton, L.

Renwick, L.

Faithfull, B.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Romney, E.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Gainford, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Savile, L.

Geddes, L.

Selborne, E.

Gisborough, L.

Shannon, E.

Goold, L.

Sharpies, B.

Goschen, V.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Grantchester, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

St. Davids, V.

912

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Trumpington, B.

Strafford, E.

Tugendhat, L.

Strange, B.

Ullswater.V.

Strathcarron, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L

Strathclyde, L [Teller.]

Vivian, L.

Swinfen, L.

Wakeham, L.

Swinfen, L.

Wharton, B.

Swinton, E.

Whitelaw, V.

Tenby, V.

Wigram, L.

Teviot, L.

Wise, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.24 p.m.
Clause 1 [Local government areas in Scotland]:
Lord Mackie of Benshie Lord Mackie of Benshie moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 10, leave out ("1996") and insert ("1997").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is an amendment occasioned by the tremendous concern shown by a great number of people about the timing of vesting day. I was talking to a Scottish provost and two councillors who said to me that they were absolutely horrified at the thought of having elections in April next year. That is a concern of a very large number of bodies.
I have with me a list of the very important organisations who are against it—when I say "against it" I mean that they are very worried about the timing. They believe that it cannot be done properly in the time. Those bodies include: the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives; the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy; the Society of Directors of Personnel Services; and the Society of Directors of Administration in Scotland. Obviously, those bodies cover the field. They are extremely worried and feel that this cannot be done.
I have been given a whole list of items, which I shall not read out—the Minister has obviously read it—but there was one which I thought was particularly worrying; namely, the question of information technology, which I understand means computers. I do not pretend to understand them but I have no doubt that noble Lords on the Front Bench understand everything about computers. I know that they are extremely useful pieces of equipment, but are also extremely tricky. They need an immense amount of servicing in all sorts of ways. The programme is extremely important. When a programme is moved it involves a tremendous amount of work and in fact a complete rejigging of the whole thing. That of itself in this age of technology could be a tremendous snag if we are to try to accomplish everything in 17 months.
It appears to me that the Government have bitten off far more than they can chew. They are rushing through this legislation. They have no mandate for it and will make a mess of it unless they put it off for a year. I beg to move.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, for putting his name to this amendment, together with myself and other noble friends on this side of the House. If this Bill were to go through there would be a major administrative problem. There are a number

913
of difficult matters, some of which were referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie. There are major policy developments, such as the extension of compulsory tendering, and the continual implementation of matters such as the development of care in the community. There is no indication of how that will be done.
Perhaps the Minister would look also at the answer given by the shadow staff commissioner, Mr. Robert Peggie, who stressed his belief that the timescale for reorganisation was unrealistic. It was not a matter of whether the reorganisation was a good or bad idea. Some of the large council departments, such as Strathclyde's direct labour organisation and the information technology department, have to be geared up before April 1996, which is less than two years from now.
At earlier consideration of this Bill, in Committee, representation was made by a large number of professional associations. The noble Lord, Lord Mackie, mentioned some of them. It would be very wrong of the Minister to treat those organisations as irresponsible. They are all very much involved in Scottish local government. They will do the job if they are given it, but they say that it will not be so good a job if it is carried out as quickly as the Government's timetable suggests.
At this point I should like to go back to the previous amendment and ask the Minister if he will now answer the question put by my noble friends Lord Ewing of Kirkford and Lord Macaulay of Bragar in relation to the English commission. The Government realised that any timetable for implementing English local government reforms had to be much longer and given a great deal more thought than originally anticipated. Have no lessons been learnt from that in regard to the Scottish Bill? The Minister must realise that gathering together local authorities, as happened in the last reorganisation, is much easier than splitting up big local authorities and establishing small authorities throughout the country with single tiers and all the problems that arise in terms of care in the community, roads, transport and PTAs.
We beg the Minister to give us some hope that the timetable will be reconsidered. I should still like to press him strongly as to the lessons learnt from the fact that the English commission decided the changeover could not take place in anything like the timetable originally anticipated. I certainly support my noble friend Lord Mackie of Benshie in this matter.
4.30 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I was not able to take part in the Committee stage, unfortunately. However, I read the report with care and I know that this amendment is identical to one discussed in Committee. At that time an important point was made in favour of getting on with implementing the Bill in terms of the anxiety caused to members of staff of local authorities throughout Scotland not knowing where they stood. Later we shall come to an amendment regarding the transferring of staff and the salaries and working conditions which will prevail for them. However, they
914
will not know until the Bill is under way what jobs are available and so forth. It would therefore be wrong to postpone its implementation.
Having said that, I accept what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, regarding the anxiety that exists in relation to the speed with which computer systems can be made compatible and so forth. That is not entirely the fault of the Bill, as I am sure the noble Lord will agree. Councils simply have not been co-operating with one another or with the Government in pushing the plans forward. In the case of computer compatibility, earlier consultation would have helped a great deal. The blame for that therefore lies very much with CoSLA. I agree that there is a problem but I believe that the authorities can catch up. I certainly do not think that we should postpone the Bill. I hope that the date will stand.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, how can local councils get on with the matter until the Bill is passed and they know what is happening?
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, I thought the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, was making a case in support of the amendment moved by my noble friend. Wherever the responsibilities lie for the delays taking place, we are left with an extremely short time to implement all the administrative changes required for such radical reforms.
I echo what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael. It would help the House greatly to be given answers in regard to the relationship between Conservative policy for local government reform in Scotland and what is apparently developing as Conservative policy for local government reform in England. I know that in Kent—a county which, unlike Scotland, is almost totally represented by Conservative Members of Parliament—the Local Government Commission for England was painstaking in seeking the opinions of the people regarding the changes. Overwhelmingly the view expressed was against them. The rumours are that there is to be a significant change of government policy in relation to local government reform in England.
In the meantime the Government simply drive on in Scotland down their dogmatic road. If the Government are determined to pursue their dogmas in the face of the opinion of many Scottish people and evidence from elsewhere in the United Kingdom, then they should consider the merits of the amendment as at least mitigating some of the damage that will be caused by precipitating change and administrative chaos. If the Government had a spark of "smeddum"—to use an old Scottish word—they would welcome the amendment. It would allow the changes that they are determined to drive through on the basis that the Minister in St. Andrew's House knows best to be carried through in a more acceptable way.
The Earl of Perth: My Lords, from what we heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, with the best will in the world it will be difficult to achieve what is necessary in the way of changes by April Foal's Day of next year. Will the Minister consider postponing the matter until, say, the following October? There is not

915
much difference timewise but it would give everybody an opportunity to adapt. I hope that the Minister will take that as a constructive suggestion and give it some consideration.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, as I understand the position in Scotland, staff interests—a matter raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy,— are not being best served by rushed legislation. Indeed, both the staff organisations and management and personnel organisations have expressed the view that time must be taken to sort the matter out. At an early stage in the debates on the Bill I made clear that I know people working in local authorities who are trying to work out what their golden handshakes are going to be. Of course, the commission is sitting on that.
The noble Baroness talked about "getting on with it." How can one co-operate with something that does not exist? It is a simple question demanding a simple answer. Perhaps the Minister can help.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, the Government fully recognise that the timetable set for the reform of local government in Scotland is tight and challenging. For reasons to which I shall return we consider it to be desirable that it should be tight and challenging. The timetable is close to that which was followed at the time of the last reorganisation in 1975. In spite of what the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, says, at that time a more dramatic change had to be achieved with a fragmented structure of 430 authorities being amalgamated into 65 regional, district and islands councils. On this occasion the change is much less radical with 32 new single tier authorities, many of which comprise existing or combinations of existing local government units. It is a compliment to the councils in Scotland that they are in a much better state of organisation than were their predecessors in 1975.
I do not believe that there is any evidence to show that the timetable suggested cannot be achieved. The real key to it is early planning. Whatever the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, says, some authorities in Scotland at the moment are undertaking excellent planning, skilfully done. For example, in the Borders Region working committees are making sure, on the basis that the Bill will be implemented, that they are ready to go ahead. I warmly applaud that.
Once the Bill receives Royal Assent existing authorities will have further powers under what is at present Clause 56 to establish joint planning committees to prepare the ground for new authorities. In many respects what may be the key is getting Royal Assent. I can give this undertaking to the noble Lord: he will not find the Government standing in the way of securing an early date for Royal Assent for this Bill.
One of the matters which has caused some difficulty, to which the noble Earl, Lord Perth, alluded, is that we are anticipating in terms of the Bill that there should be elections to the shadow council next April. There has been an independent report from Strathclyde University which indicates that notwithstanding the possibility of non-co-operation continuing until Royal Assent,
916
"there will nevertheless be no difficulty in organising elections in April 1995".
Talking to electoral registration officers around Scotland, I understand that that is a view which they also share.
There are two anxieties about having an extended timetable. First, if there were to be a further year's delay there may be quite a damaging effect in Scotland in having an extended transitional period in terms which may be described as "planning blight". Some services might suffer if existing local authorities stop planning for the future. Therefore, it is desired to keep the period short.
Secondly, as I believe has already been mentioned, any reorganisation is inevitably a difficult time for staff. I believe that all professional advice points to the importance of minimising that disruption. It is for that reason we have proposed the date of 1st April 1996. The suggestion has been made that if the matter was not put off for a whole year we might do so for six months. I do not believe that it is a compromise which can be achieved. To have the financial year and the local government year, having a clear year for the shadow councils to be in position, working up to the next year's start, is the best way forward. As I say, if one pulls out the one element of elections in the preparation there does not appear to be any substantial difficulty.
It is regrettable that in some parts there has been a degree of non-co-operation, but I hope that that attitude is now over. I am aware of some excellent work which has been done by individual councils and officials. They may not care particularly for what has been proposed, but I pay them a compliment for the efforts which they have undertaken to do what they can to ensure that there should be a smooth transition. I urge those who have not yet engaged in co-operation and discussion with other existing councils which may be affected to do that as soon as possible.
A great deal of work has already been done. I have visited a number of councils and I have been impressed by what they have done. I believe that we have a realistic timetable and there is a positive reason for wanting to keep it short. One does not want a planning blight or unnecessary disruption for those who work in local government.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, the Minister has been asked the same question three times now; namely, why more attention was not paid to the result of the English commission and why Scotland is not going to have wider consideration. There was no meaningful consultation in Scotland at all.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I am bound to say that, following a debate on devolution in Scotland, I find it rather bizarre that we focus on English local government. A very different approach has been followed through in England. There is a rolling programme of change. The final order regarding the first area involving the Isle of Wight has already gone through Parliament. There are other recommendations from the Local Government Commission in the pipeline and they are continuing to come forward. In a number of cases that commission is recommending a single tier

917
structure. It seems to be suggested that matters have been brought to a stop, but that is not the case. Already one order has gone through your Lordships' House.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, can we get this matter absolutely clear? Is the Minister saying that there is going to be legislation for a major reconstruction and re-organisation of local government in England, as there is in Scotland at the present time, or is there not? Will there be a hotchpotch of minor adjustments achieved through parliamentary orders? Is there going to ,be a major piece of legislation, as we have been told all along, which is to follow the Scottish re-organisation?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, with the greatest respect to the noble Lord, that has never been said. I said that there has been a proposal which has already begun to be put into effect in England; namely, that there should be a rolling programme of change. In respect of one area that change has already been made. We could take up a great deal of time on this issue, but I would rather not do so. It has never been the suggestion that there should be a local government Bill of the kind which we have for Scotland, but that matters should follow through in a very different form with a number of orders. I am telling the noble Lord that that process is still under way.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, the local authorities have had this matter pushed on them so the Minister cannot complain about them not co-operating. They keep hoping that something will happen, such as a change of government, which will stop this bad Bill going through. They are entitled to behave as they have. Until the law is established they are entitled to hope. If there is no co-operation the Government have themselves to blame. It is not the same for the professional bodies who normally do not have a political axe to grind. Without any doubt they are of the opinion that matters are far too rushed and that there is going to be a mess. From the evidence I have seen they do not accept the Minister's definition of the provisions being simpler than they were for the last re-organisation, which was rushed through in just a little more time than the present legislation. They do not accept that the provisions are simpler.
However, the Minister is determined to rush towards the cliff—I am not comparing him to swine or anything like that, but the allusion can be taken to mean what it may. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule I [New local government areas]:
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendments Nos. 3 to 12:
Page 127, line 44, leave out ("and").
Page 127, line 45, leave out ("to the unnamed road") and insert ("and No 31 Church Road to the southern edge of Church Road where it runs").
Page 127, line 47, after ("along") insert ("the continuation of).
Page 128, line 11, leave out ("thirdly") and insert ("fourthly").
Page 128, line 20, leave out ("fourthly") and insert ("fifthly").
Page 128, line 24, leave out ("A929T") and insert ("A90").
Page 128, leave out lines 27 to 34 and insert ("A90 road to its intersection with Emmock Road at grid reference NO 4180 3508 then running southeastwards along the said Emmock Road to its junction with the unnamed road leading to South Powrie and Barns of Wedderburn then eastwards along the said unnamed road as far as the northwestern curtilage of Barns of Wedderburn at grid").
Page 128, line 43, leave out ("the southern boundary of polling district ADF at").
Page 128, line 45, leave out ("4352 3466") and insert ("4345 3452").
Page 128, line 45, leave out ("fifthly") and insert ("sixthly").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this group of technical amendments is to clarify the proposed boundary between Angus and the City of Dundee. No change of substance is proposed.
In determining the boundary in this area we have sought to strike the best balance between those rural communities which had formed part of the City of Dundee only since 1975 and those wishing to return to their former county roots. To achieve this balance it was necessary to rely on very detailed descriptions based on maps. By their nature maps can, of course, very quickly become out of date and this has proved to be the case here.
In the light of local feedback, we have taken the opportunity to update and clarify the boundary. This will be of particular benefit to the Ordnance Survey which is required, in terms of Part II of Schedule 1 to the Bill, to plot the new boundaries. I commend these technical amendments to the House. I beg to move.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, I have listened with fascination to the brief and perhaps rather bland description given by the Minister as regards these amendments. They are of course fine-tuning by the Government of what is one of the more blatant pieces of political gerrymandering in this Bill. The proposal is a very simple one. It is to take away from Labour-dominated Dundee certain areas so that they can become part of Conservative dominated Perth and Angus. From a position of sublime detachment on these Liberal Democrat Benches, perhaps I may say more seriously to the Minister that these issues of local government change should be decided on the basis of what is the best kind of local government for an area in terms of serving the needs of its citizens, irrespective of party political advantage.
I have no doubt that the Minister will tell me that people in Invergowrie, where I have a family foothold, and in Monifieth, for which he was once a distinguished representative in the other place and where I grew up, are happy with his proposals. That may well be so, but for the most part they all work within the city of Dundee. They certainly all go into Dundee to shop and to use the library services, the swimming pools and all the other local authority services. Therefore, the provisions seem wrong. Since I did not have the opportunity to make such points at an earlier stage, I could not allow this opportunity to pass without putting my feelings on the record.
In practice, some unfortunate administrative problems will result which will affect ordinary people. 1 have already had correspondence with the Minister about the educational problems in Invergowrie. I am grateful for

919
the detailed replies that I have been given and I do not wish to pursue the detail of the matter now. However, there will be a great deal of educational disruption in both Invergowrie and Monifieth as a result of this boundary change which is motivated by party politics.
The change is unnecessary if one looks at it from the point of view of the interests of the people of the area, and particularly of its children. The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, knows Monifieth high school well because she was chairman of the education committee on the occasion that I opened the school. It is an excellent school, but it will face considerable problems as a result of the disruption that will be caused by the boundary change. The same disruption will apply equally on the west side of Dundee. I have no doubt that the administrative problems can be patched up and that agreements can be made. However, we must remember that this administrative disruption is totally unnecessary. It is politically motivated and I am glad to blow off a little steam about it.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, perhaps I may raise a couple of points with the Minister. First, I do not think that I have ever considered a Bill about which we have received as much paper as this. I am sure that most Scottish Members of your Lordships' House will agree with me on that. However, to use the Minister's word, I have not received a single piece of "feedback" from this area, so I should like to know from which group his feedback came. I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, was right when he said that it is politically motivated feedback. One wonders what will happen in the next survey in, say, the south side of Glasgow, in Eastwood, if it is discovered that things are not going as well as the Government had thought. One wonders whether there will be a sudden boundary change in that area also.
We firmly believe—a large number of people in Scotland firmly believe—that one of the major purposes of the Bill is to do as the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, suggested and to save a few enclaves for the Conservative Party. As I have said, I should like to know where the local feedback came from because, even with all the papers that we have received, we know nothing about it.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, before the Minister replies, I should point out that I do not think that all of the matters raised by the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, relate to the details of this amendment although I may be wrong. On the question of Monifieth, I do not think that the provisions can be said to be politically motivated, as he seemed to be implying. As the noble Lord well knows, there has been strong pressure over the years from the people of Monifieth to return from Dundee back to Angus. That is now happening and the people there are absolutely delighted.
I agree with the noble Lord's points about the problems faced by the school—they have been presented—but the Bill allows for them. I went into that in some detail earlier. Therefore, I do not think that the noble Lord should quote the example of the
920
distinguished town of which he bears the name as not wanting what is happening or as an example of the Government doing something other than what people wish.
Lord Hughes: My Lords, the greater part of my life has been spent in Dundee, but I must admit that when I first looked at the amendments they conveyed absolutely nothing to me. Therefore, I must accept the Minister's assurance that they are purely technical. I notice that Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 deal with changes in road numbering in that part of Scotland.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomson, is correct that the amendments are politically motivated to a certain extent, particularly in relation to Angus. I hope that the Government's great endeavours in this direction will achieve what I believe is their objective, which is to stop Angus being run by the SNP.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I should like to make just one point about the transfer of Monifieth and Invergowrie, which are suburbs of Dundee that are populated by people who in the main are not sympathetic to the Labour council. This is an extraordinary move. As Dundee has grown, it has subsumed those two places. The land around them should be part of Dundee for planning purposes. Dundee is an industrial city and given that it depends on industry, factories and building and that all of its spare land is in those areas, it seems extraordinary suddenly to split that growing city.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I am glad that, as always, there is consistency from the Liberal Democrats. The Liberal Democrats in Monifieth warmly welcome the changes in that part of Scotland. However, perhaps I should point out that the amendments have nothing to do with the bigger issues of putting Invergowrie into Perthshire or Monifieth into Angus. As the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, identified in the example that he gave, these are technical amendments dealing with highly technical changes. Anyone who has travelled from Dundee to Forfar recently will be aware of the changes to the roads there. These technical amendments have been tabled as a result of comments that have been made by local authorities in both Angus and Dundee and by a number of members of the public who identified the fact that our description was not a very good one given the changes that have been made to local roads and roundabouts. Therefore, I can assure the House that these are technical amendments which would meet with approval if the changes were implemented.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Hughes Lord Hughes moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 129, leave out line 19 and insert:

("Central

Clackmannan, Falkirk and Stirling District Councils.").

5 p.m.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should point out that if this amendment is carried, two consequential

921
amendments will be needed. In the interests of economy, I did not table them now because that can be done on Third Reading.
The amendment seeks to create a new council in April 1996 based on the local government area which is currently known as Central Region and which was previously known as the two areas of Stirlingshire County and Clackmannan County. The background to the case for having a single unitary authority in the area that is currently known as Central Region has already been made in this House by both myself and a number of my colleagues. It is not my intention to repeat all the powerful arguments that were made in Committee. It is my intention, however, to return to some of the most important issues of the case. As I said in Committee, I had hoped that the Government would accept the suggestion that was made by my noble friend Lord Ewing and take the matter back for further consideration. However, no government amendment has been tabled at this stage so we must await the Minister's reply to the amendment.
A strong case is still being made for the Government to rethink the current proposals and to put forward something that will fulfil their own aims for reorganisation. In Committee the Minister stated:
"The evidence that we have received points firmly towards the district based structure that is currently set out in the Bill".— [Official Report, 28/6/94; col. 722.]
I am sure that others will be interested to know the range of evidence to which the Minister was referring and the range of indicators used.
Let us take the Government's own criteria set out in their publication Shaping the New Councils; namely, costs, accountability, community identity and the capacity to act. Let us test the issues against the Government's criteria. First, the issue of costs and value for money which the Government have stated are a key factor of this reorganisation: the figures produced by PIEDA, respected independent planning and economic consultants, remain unchallenged by the Government and, indeed, by the district councils in Central Region.
Those figures point to a single council based on Central as the only option which will make any saving—estimated at £6.6 million a year. The proposal for three councils will cost £5.2 million each year more than the present two-tier system. Substantial transitional costs will have to be met, and for this area those are estimated at about £25 million. That includes £12 million to build new council headquarters in Falkirk. Between 700 and 900 employees will transfer from the Stirling headquarters of the regional council.
A new building in Falkirk will be necessary because the 80,000 square feet required to accommodate those employees cannot be provided in any other sensible or coherent way. Accommodation to rent is just not available. There are only six sites available with spaces of over 3,000 square feet, with other vacant accommodation being spread over 40 buildings. Where is the advantage to the public in employees being spread all over the place? That £25 million includes also costs of about £4 million for the splitting up of computer systems.
On accountability, the Government's second main criterion for the creation of new councils is lack of accountability. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser, stated that the new councils of Stirling and Clackmannan will have the ability to provide services other than through direct service provision. That means that the Government accept that joint and contract arrangements with other providers will be the order of the day for those councils. Indeed, PIEDA estimates that the majority of local government services will have to be provided through some form of joint arrangements. I emphasise that it says that a majority of the services will have to be so provided. I remind the noble and learned Lord of a statement made by his colleague Allan Stewart in July 1993, who said that the Government believed that in some cases single tier authorities based on existing districts would be too small to deliver the full range of services without recourse to a proliferation of joint arrangements, and that in turn would only serve to blur accountability, which is one of the principal underlying reasons for reform in the first place.
There is the further danger that councils such as Stirling and Clackmannan would just not continue to provide some of the specialised services because the client base was too small to justify them. That raises enormous implications for some of the most vulnerable groups in our society. Indeed, Clackmannan district's vision of local government does not envisage the new council employing a wide range of specialist staff. It said that a permanent establishment of staff, such as educational psychologists or specialist social work staff, was a waste of resources. The simple fact is that the public's need for many of those services provided by those specialist staff does not just come and go. The needs of many of the individuals who receive those services are continuing and that means permanent staff are needed to provide them.
The third indicator is that of community identity. In that regard I was interested in comments which were made about the other areas, most notably Highland Region. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser, stated that there was no natural boundary between Inverness and Ross and Cromarty, where supporters of two councils for the Highlands had proposed that the dividing line be drawn.
Similarly, I fail to see where a natural boundary can be drawn in Central Region. Historically there has been a long association among all parts of the region. The two main towns of Stirling and Falkirk complement each other and have been administered at the same county level since 1667. So it has continued through a variety of reorganisations.
Again, with reference to Highland Region, the Minister pointed out that there is only 12 miles between Inverness and Dingwall and that having councils with headquarters in each of those towns would not serve to alleviate the remoteness from Inverness that some residents in the more remote areas might feel. That is the same distance as in Central Region.
Lastly, I am surprised that the noble and learned Lord made no mention of the System 3 Scotland survey commissioned by Central Region council, despite the importance placed on a similar survey carried out by the

923
same company in Fife. The survey in Central Region had a larger sample than most government polls. It asked the public a variety of questions and offered them a range of possible solutions. The results, even before costs of the new councils were presented, showed that the majority favoured a single council for the area: 43 per cent. favoured that. Once costs were known the figure jumped to 67 per cent. In Clackmannan itself almost 60 per cent. favoured a single council option and only 8 per cent. favoured three councils for the area.
The capacity to act is the last of the considerations. The Government had looked at a number of considerations, including the viability of councils. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser, told us that they intended to provide a formula which would allow for equalisation in the distribution of central government grant which he suggested would in large measure eliminate a number of the difficulties which both my noble friend Lord Ewing and I highlighted in Committee. It is only fair to remind the House that that is what the Minister said. I assume that he was referring to grant-aided expenditure and that a number of indicators will ensure that revenue budgets of the new council will reflect needs within the area. So far so good.
However that does not remove the problems smaller councils will face on the capital side. Small councils will have small capital budgets. They will have real problems in targeting resources to areas of need, in planning major projects and in attracting inward investment. It is estimated that Clackmannan council will have only about £2.7 million available for new capital projects and Stirling council £4 million. That compares with an estimated capital allocation for one council of £15 million. Because of that Stirling and Clackmannan will be able to deliver large capital projects only at the expense of other priorities. For example, Central Region council's refurbishment of Alva Academy in Clackmannan cost £3 million over three years. One year's expenditure was £1.6 million. That represents more than half of the consent Clackmannan council would have not just for its education service but for all its services.
I am sorry to be inflicting so many figures on your Lordships, but it is necessary that you should know the extent to which the proposed set-up would cost more and provide poorer services in the process. I beg to move.
Lord Stodart of Leaston: My Lords, because this bit of reorganisation sticks out like a sore thumb in the Bill as a whole, it is right and proper that we should have a second bite at it. However, there seems to be little purpose in repeating what was said in Committee when we had an extremely interesting discussion. I do not believe that any new factors have arisen in the interim.
On that occasion the achievements of the Central Region were deployed with extreme efficiency by the noble Lord, Lord Hughes. I was glad that they confirmed what the Stodart Committee had predicted the Central Region would achieve, even though that prediction was made some years ago. However, in
924
Committee the views of total experience in the existing system of local government in Scotland came from the noble Earl, Lord Minto. The noble Earl is not only a councillor but a convener of a region in the Borders whose level of council tax is the envy of all who live in the neighbouring areas. I must declare an interest. One looks only two miles away and finds a level of council tax which is an indication of the region's efficiency. The level is substantially—and that is an understatement— lower than that which I have to pay.
The most modest of the noble Earl's strictures in Committee was:
"this is not a reasonable division of a regional council in Scotland. It is not in the interests of the Scottish people".—[Official Report, 28/6/94; col. 718.]
The main gist of my noble and learned friend's reply was to agree with the criticism. He stated:
"The Central Region had not only been a good authority but had conducted itself efficiently".—[Official Report, 28/6/94; col. 725.]
However, he went on to say that there have been very sharp divisions of opinion.
If one has an efficient region which has a good authority one wonders why it should be changed, in particular when a basic feature of the change is the creation of a unitary authority in Clackmannan which cannot conceivably carry out the majority, if any, of the responsibilities put upon it. My noble and learned friend referred to Clackmannan but I considered that his advocacy of Clackmannan was somewhat weak. He referred to the "wee county" and his desire for it to develop. I can well remember, as will many of my colleagues who were once in another place, that some 30 years ago there was considerable agitation about the county of Rutland. Questions were asked of the Prime Minister at Question time. Rutland was being amalgamated with Leicester. It managed perfectly well to maintain its identity and I and many others signed various Motions that it should. As one travelled up the A.1, one saw road signs stating "You are now entering the county of Rutland, England's smallest county". I certainly advocate that Clackmannan should preserve its identity in that way. It is not required to become a unitary authority in order to develop.
Many of my colleagues will remember a colleague in another place, Mr. Michael Clark Hutchison. I always regarded him as the permanent holder of the Ark of Conservatism. His motto was, "If a thing is working well, leave it alone". It fascinates me that here we have on the Opposition Benches two prominent Labour Party Lords who have embraced the doctrine of conservatism and are keen to hold on to the Central Region as it now is; and on my own Benches we have a-Minister whose radicalism is determined to take hold of him.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Palmer: My Lords, I, too, support this amendment and would like to concentrate my few remarks on the partnerships which have grown up within the region in recent years. The Central Regional Council currently shares a boundary with the Forth Valley Health Board and Forth Valley Enterprise. This means that the following services are all provided within the same boundary: education, social work, police, fire,

925
economic development and, of course, health. There will be major difficulties in joint planning and provision of joint projects if some of these services are subdivided into smaller councils.
There is a strong partnership already between social work, the health board and Central Scotland police. They have co-operated closely in relation to HIV Aids, drug abuse, other addictions and the joint loan equipment service. Police and social work run several projects, such as the child protection unit based in Bannockburn police station. This provides joint training and investigation throughout the region, involving social workers and police officers. The whole development of community care policies and structures within Central has been assisted and promoted by the partnership between social work and the health board on a regional level. This has resulted in the adoption of one coherent integrated community care plan for the region, which, I believe, in itself is a significant achievement and one which will benefit all those affected by community care policies.
Because they operate within the same geographical area, the Regional Council and Forth Valley Enterprise have been able to develop complimentary economic development strategies. Joint discussion and joint planning on a regional basis are vital to let this happen. The record of achievement in the economic development field through the economic forum speaks for itself. Since only 1989 over 600 firms have been helped by employment grants and business development schemes, creating or safeguarding 1,800 jobs. Inward investment has been generated, creating more than 1,500 jobs. A trade development centre has been established, business parks have been built and innovation partnership has been created, with Forth Valley Enterprise and the university drawing in European grants.
What will happen to these partnerships if the area is split into three councils? Any joint project will become bureaucratic. The Government are on record as saying that they wish this country to become less bureaucratic. Indeed, this is one of the main aims of this dreaded Bill. If the health board or police wish to develop a joint project, then each of the participating councils will need to send representatives. What of the problems that could affect, for example, the discharge of long-stay patients from trust hospitals in the region? Hospitals will be discharging their patients into three different local authorities which may well have three different political priorities, three different sets of purchasing arrangements and different levels of resources to support those patients. Social work support for these patients will need to come from three different councils. Surely, this would be crazy.
Agencies with common boundaries work closely together and thus bring advantages for their customers. Joint planning and development will become more bureaucratic, more cumbersome and in the long run more expensive with three councils. If these valuable partnerships which have been developed are to survive
926
there needs to be a single council within the area. I beg the Government to accept this worthwhile and above all sensible amendment.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, I must oppose the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, because it fails to meet the aspirations and plans of the people of Clackmannan, of whom I am one. It also makes assumptions that do not hold up when examined. My belief is that the preparations being made now for a Clackmannan council are the best arrangements for local government in that distinct area—the "wee county". It was suggested in Committee that I believe in fairy tales. I may do on occasion, but this is not one of them.
The case for a Clackmannan council starts with popular enthusiasm in Clackmannan, as in Stirling and Falkirk for their own separate councils. The Clackmannan council will organise itself on unique lines to deliver services using the widest possible range of methods. Gone will be the traditional bureaucratic staffing hierarchy of local government and the time-consuming committees with staff employed to service the committees alone. Already in Clackmannan district we are accustomed to a streamlined council decision-making structure that is probably unique in Scotland. It is a culture of delegation and individual responsibility, with the council making decisions about plans the officers have prepared for them. So we start with an organisation that can administer a small area— 65,000 acres and 48,000 residents—in an efficient way.
The Clackmannan council would be financed by central government grant, by the uniform business rate and by a 15 per cent. contribution from council tax payers. Our tax base in Clackmannan is expanding as more houses are built. The tax base will, after all, be the same as now, the money being collected and divided between Central Region council and Clackmannan district council. The one important proviso is this. There will be no doubt about all the council tax from Clackmannan being spent in Clackmannan. That has been a real concern during the past 18 years. Let me illustrate the matter.
Clackmannan has 18 per cent. of Central Region's population. Central Region has spent only 3.4 per cent. of its economic development budget in Clackmannan over the past 18 years when, in Clackmannan, we have a regrettable 16 per cent. unemployment rate—twice that of Stirling and 50 per cent. more than Falkirk. Similarly the transport authority has spent only 3.5 per cent. in Clackmannan and has failed to back proposals for the Alloa-Stirling rail link, which is being promoted by Clackmannan district council. Considering that we have 18 per cent. of the population, these figures are extremely poor. I acknowledge, however, that Central Region has invested satisfactorily in educational provision. I must also say that those who are promoting the Falkirk council have similar misgivings about Central Region's investment practice. Meanwhile Clackmannan district council has been able to arrange spectacular leverages with regard to external investment—up to 1:13 in the Alloa tower project and 1:12 in the £5 million urban renewal project in Tillicoultry.

927
It has been a concern as to how the Clackmannan council will deliver its services in a cost-effective way. First let me say that the traditional expectation that all services will be delivered directly by council staff is only part of the plan. Every avenue of service delivery has been explored. These include direct purchase from voluntary and private organisations, internal trading with other local authorities and purchasing as part of a consortium of local authorities. All these forms of service provision are already being practised in Scotland. The Clackmannan council will place a high specification for service delivery and then monitor and improve the service as required. Where there are joint boards and local arrangements, Clackmannan council will control that part of the service delivered in Clackmannan. Joint boards will be restricted to police, fire, valuation and possibly the children's reporter service. Arrangements will be made for structure planning and for Roman Catholic education. There is no doubt that Clackmannan council will be the first and last call for any complaints. Accountability will be firmly in the hands of the Clackmannan council.
Finally, I can only reiterate that while Central Region has failed to win the hearts and minds of its residents the plans for Clackmannan council have fired the imagination, hopes and confidence of the people of Clackmannan who would give the Clackmannan council their trust, loyalty and commitment.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I hesitate to intervene on this amendment, supporting as I do the single Highland council, given the fragile peripheral area that it covers and the very low tax base there. But I do not think the arguments go all in one direction. I am very interested, as no doubt are other noble Lords, in the amount of paper that has landed on our desks concerning this area. I am impressed by the fact that all the districts, right across the political spectrum, are unanimously in support of a change from the current situation and want three unitary authorities.
I was particularly interested in the views of those who live in Falkirk. No doubt the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, will have heard some of them as well. I should like to quote from a letter from one of the councillors in Falkirk. It states:
"The headquarters of the central regional council at Stirling may be only some 12 miles distant from Falkirk but in terms of identity, linkage, community feeling and influence over local delivery of services, that distance could be multiplied by 10 to reflect the genuinely felt negative reaction to the questions of local democratic accountability and accessibility in so far as they relate to the regional council".
I am not saying that that councillor's view is necessarily universal but my conclusion is that the arguments are not all in favour of retaining the Central Regional Council as a unitary authority. Far from it. As the Falkirk Herald said last week:
"The Government may have got it right"—
I think it said "for once"—
"for Falkirk folk".
The Earl of Minto: My Lords, I take this opportunity to thank the noble Lord, Lord Stodart of Leaston, for his
928
very kind remarks with regard to the Borders Regional Council, of which I have the privilege to be convenor. I shall see that the noble Lord's comments are reported back to the council and to the officials, who will be very grateful. They need every form of encouragement at the present moment. Your Lordships will understand that the words of the noble Lord, Lord Stodart, will be much appreciated.
I have no hesitation at all in returning to the question of Central Region. I spoke my mind on the subject in Committee. I do not believe that anything has happened between the Committee stage and today to make me wish to change my mind. I ask myself: why does one destroy something which is good? If the evidence is there to show that something is good—and it is—why destroy it? I appreciate the great strength with which the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, put forward his arguments. I am sure that he intends that all shall be well in Clackmannan. Indeed, that would also be my hope, but in a different guise.
I know that the noble Earl has worked in a local authority but not in the same capacity as myself. With the greatest respect to him, I thought that there were certain weaknesses in his definition of the purposes and methods of joint boards. I am a little suspicious about all moneys that one collects in a local authority inevitably being spent within its own marches and not necessarily spent elsewhere. Without going into the matter in any great detail, I believe that there were weaknesses and I shall read Hansard tomorrow with interest to see where they lie in particular.
I do not believe that any apology should be made when following the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, for quoting some figures. If one is going to destroy something, it is essential for one to realise what one will lose. For example, one must be sure to a certain extent of what will be put in its place. To my mind, the Government seem to be running totally contrary to their own advice in shaping the new councils; namely, that one of the main criteria for a new council should be that it has the capacity to act in the best interests of the whole community that it serves. To my way of thinking, that quite clearly means that councils should be able to carry out a wide range of tasks. For example, they should be able to attract and compete for new investment. That is vitally important to every authority in Scotland. They should also be able to deliver major capital projects such as schools and roads, and should be in a position to offer the full range of services.
A major anxiety of those of us who have an interest in the future of local government services in Scotland and who work within local government is whether all 32 of the proposed councils will be able to carry out those tasks in a way which will continue to benefit the communities which in some parts of Scotland have had the benefits of living within areas where councils have been of sufficient size to make a real difference to the way that they live and work.
If, as the noble and learned Lord told us on 28th June, viability is one of the main factors in the whole reorganisation, we need to look at whether the new councils will be viable. I should have thought that there was no better example to look at than Central Region,

929
for the proposal is so obviously lacking in terms of viability and strategic capacity and it is hard to see how such a proposal was ever put into the legislation. The proposal will mean that the area will have two small councils. I know that figures have been bandied about, but they are important; namely, 81,000 people in Stirling and 47,000 people in Clackmannan.
During the course of the progress of the Bill, many noble Lords mentioned the size of councils and how they would go about providing for communities in their own areas of interest in Scotland in the future. It is accepted in many quarters that councils need to be. of a size which will have a large enough resource base to carry out major projects of long term benefit and, at the same time, offer incentives to outside investors and potential employers to come to an area. They have to be drawn in.
Joint arrangements are one thing and might offer some solutions. But the Government can also talk of equalising the distribution of central government grant. The noble and learned Lord offered such assurances in Committee in June. However, that will not tackle how small counties such as Stirling and Clackmannan will find the capital necessary to prepare a balanced and flexible capital programme which can respond to the needs of their communities.
There will undoubtedly be an inability on the part of small councils to act in important spheres. They will have small capital budgets. In the case of the new Stirling and Clackmannan councils, figures from from the Scottish Office show that the amounts of money available to spend for all services within the capital field are likely to be around £4 million in the case of Stirling and £2.7 million for Clackmannan. Such small capital programmes will make it very difficult for those councils to commit themselves to refurbishing and replacing schools, undertaking road projects and investing in infrastructure for property developments. I dread to think of the problems that they will face.
Some projects will result in a council's annual capital consent being used in one of the years for the needs of just one service. For example, of the £2.7 million capital consent available to Clackmannan which I mentioned, it is estimated that only £1.8 million will be available for new projects. That is a sign of great stagnation when one looks at what has been done there in the past. The council will have to set aside the remainder for essential maintenance work and other unavoidable expenditure.
It is inevitable that projects will be phased, costing more as a result—and those of us who work within local government know the dangers involved—or, perhaps, worse: it will be too daunting for a small authority actually to look at and decide to tackle at all.
At the present time, the capacity of a council like Central is not restricted to the use of Section 94 consents. It is sufficiently strong, viable, large and sufficiently secure in its base to use innovative methods and has in fact generated £47 million of capital receipts to supplement its capital programme since 1975. It has been able to undertake enormously ambitious projects. Major town-centre rejuvenation projects have taken place in Falkirk, Stirling and Alloa through the council's own investment and by levering money from the private
930
sector. Over the past four years alone, the council has managed to attract almost £90 million of private sector investment.
That would be absolutely out of the question as far as the smaller councils were concerned. All of this could now be put at risk by the councils being divided. Central, because of its resource base and its ability to employ specialist staff—which apparently do not matter very much to the smaller authorities, so we have been led to believe—has used a number of methods to see these projects completed, all of which require this particular form of base, such as convenant schemes which can be a total saviour to an authority in times of real need, joint ventures of which we have already heard from the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, and the encouragement of private sector developments, one of which has cost £20 million. Where would a smaller authority find that type of money? There is also the matter of the underwriting of substantial risks with guarantees.
If this amendment falls and if the Government persist with the indefensible, I would ask the following question. I fear that the Stirling and Clackmannan councils will struggle to compete. Is it fair that we should set them off on that road? The area has one of the highest unemployment levels in Scotland and with Fife sitting next-door to Clackmannan, I would ask your Lordships how such small councils will compete in the future. This kind of investment is vital for the economy of local communities, and without the muscle of a large population base the small councils will lose out on this kind of growth.
Major projects will still be needed and they will not go away just because councils are smaller. The reality is that they will have to be spread over longer timescales with increased costs and these smaller councils will have to make more efforts to persuade the Scottish Office that they require increased spending consents for their spending requirements. We all know how difficult that is. It is against that background that I support the measure of the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, and I wish the future of Central Region well.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, the speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Stodart of Leaston, and the noble Earl, Lord Minto, should in themselves be sufficient to convince your Lordships that the Government have this aspect of the Bill, among many others —I know that we are not dealing with many others; we are dealing with this question of Central Region and the three district councils which make up the local authority there— absolutely wrong. There is a feeling that, somehow or other, Clackmannan was created because it would be a good administrative unit. That was not the original proposal in the original Bill; it came rather late to the Bill. I would say to those who are realistic in politics that Clackmannan was created in order to justify Stirling and for no other reason. We hear figures, such as that given by the noble Earl, Lord Minto, of some £2.1 million as regards the capital base of councils such as Clackmannan. We may think it humourous but it is a staggering thought that Glasgow Rangers paid more

931
than that to Marseilles for Basle Boli. Here we are setting a local authority off on a road that is strewn with difficulties. That is true also of Stirling district council.
I was interested to hear from the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie. I noticed he did not give us the expenditure figures in relation to school buildings and modernisation; he gave only the expenditure figures that best fitted his argument. However, I do not blame him for that as sometimes in my weaker moments, but only in my weaker moments, I do that myself. He did not give the figures for education. I am interested in this whole debate and I have followed it closely since the day it began. Falkirk district says that Central Region has spent a minority of its expenditure in Falkirk district. Stirling district says that Central Region has spent a minority of its expenditure in Stirling district. Clackmannan district says that Central Region has spent a minority of its expenditure in Clackmannan district. They cannot all be right. Central Region can only spend its money in Central Region. They simply cannot all be right. I have always admired the way that politicians— again I have done it myself—face both ways. The noble Lord, Lord Sanderson, prefixed his remarks by saying he would support the retention of Highland Region as a single authority but he argues for the abolition of Central Region and the retention of the three district councils that make up Central Region.
We are long past the stage of arguing about good and bad authorities. The truth of the matter is that all four authorities, Central Region, Falkirk district, Clackmannan and Stirling, are all good authorities. However, we have to choose. The Government have put us in the position of having to choose, not among those four authorities but among the options that have been placed in this Bill by the Government. We have to choose what in our view is the best method of administering local government in Central Region in the years ahead. There can be no question whatsoever that the best method of administering local government in Central Region is the retention of Central Region. That is not a criticism of Falkirk district or Clackmannan, or, it chokes me to say it, of Stirling, because if ever I have seen a shambles of an authority it is Stirling.
But we are past the stage also of arguing about gerrymandering, because if anything has changed—I noticed that the noble Lord, Lord Stodart, said that nothing had changed since Committee stage—it is that the Conservative Party stood at 16 per cent. in the opinion polls during the Committee stage but at Report stage of this Bill the figure has gone down to 11 per cent. and is heading down into single figures. I do not think, even in the case of Monifieth or Angus, that we are arguing about Tory enclaves. I do not believe that there will be a Conservative-controlled council in any of these new authorities that are being set up after the elections next year. That is my view and it is a firmly held view. I do not believe there will be a single council controlled by the Conservative Party. Therefore that is not part of my argument. My argument is based entirely on the need for the best system of local government in an area that I know well. I represented Stirling for 13 years—it was part of my constituency—and Falkirk,
932
Grangemouth and Bo'ness (all these villages, as we say, up the Braes). I represented those places for the last part of my parliamentary career.
What I find strange is the argument on behalf of the Falkirk and Clackmannan and Stirling district councils that they should be retained, because in my view that is an argument for saying that Grangemouth should have its own council, as it did before the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Cray, and the noble Lord, Lord Younger of Prestwick—I take this opportunity to remind them both of this—created Central Region. I hope they will not bury it today after having created it. I hope they have come here to keep it alive and well. But that is an argument on the part of these district councils for going back to Grangemouth and Denny and Bo'ness and Bridge of Allan and Menstrie and Alva and all these local authorities that had their own council. That is the logic of that argument, but no one is going to argue for that.
The noble Lord, Lord Sanderson, cannot say—he can say it but it is not credible to say it—that the district councils in Central Region were in favour of a change. They were in favour of change only because they had to choose from the options which were placed before them by the Government. However, the truth of the matter is that they are not in favour of change. Neither is Central Region, nor is Strathclyde Region or Lothian Region; nor are the people of Scotland. They are not in favour of change. They have had to choose between the options that have been placed in the Bill by the Government.
It is natural for the councils to say that they want to be retained. I cannot think of any turkey that would vote for Christmas. It is natural for the councils to say that they should be retained.
The noble Lord, Lord Sanderson, then went on to say that there are district councils in the Highland Region which think that they should be retained, but he will ignore their views. However, he does not ignore the wishes of district councils in Central Region.
I do not like to see the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser, standing side by side on their heads. It is not a pretty sight. The Minister had better take on board that one cannot argue for the retention of Highland Region as a single authority and the abolition of Central Region. The two do not go together.
If there is inequality in the way in which areas of Scotland are treated in the Bill it is in terms of the representation that will result. I give an example which is relevant to another debate which will take place later, but it is interesting and worth noting at this stage. If the three authorities in Central Region remain as proposed in the Bill, Central Region will have approximately 70 councillors representing 250,000 people (but those are not 250,000 electors). Fife, which has more than 300,000 people, will have 46 councillors. Those inconsistencies are thrown up by the proposals which the Minister seeks to defend.
I saw passengers on the 10.40 British Midland train this morning whom I have not seen on that train for a very long time. Therefore I know that noble Lords have visited us today with the intention of making sure that

933
the new Government Chief Whip does not start his career with a humiliating defeat. This would not be a humiliating defeat. It would be the introduction of common sense. In all seriousness I urge noble Lords opposite to save their Government from themselves, much more importantly, to save local government in Central Region, and to vote for the amendment when we divide the House.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I have listened to the last two speeches with growing despair. The noble Earl, Lord Minto, with all his experience, quoted figure after figure relating to capital expenditure and the great good which had been done by the large region. Then the former representative of the area, the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, spoke with eloquence on the excellence of Central Region. I said to myself, "Ah me, poor little Clackmannan!" It appears that people who think that they can run their area and want to do so are all wrong.
Then I remembered that the large Central Region authority controlled the area and was able to undertake capital projects, employ people and bring in industry, yet in Clackmannan unemployment is 18 per cent. Therefore, the authority cannot have been all that hot.
The argument has been put forward that bigger is best. The one thing that makes me think that I may be wrong is that I am agreeing with the Government. Nevertheless, I believe that to try a genuine experiment in democracy might do a great deal of good. I have seen large authorities undertake large capital expenditure projects. Much of it was a waste of money. There is a monument to the region in Dundee, and I shall be interested to see what happens to it when the region is disbanded.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. A noble Lord from Kirriemuir, of all places, is talking about Central Region. The problem of unemployment in Clackmannan is linked directly to the petrochemical industry in Grangemouth. Clackmannan has always been a dormitory area for industry in the Falkirk and Grangemouth area. The decline in employment has very little to do with employment in Clackmannan but everything to do with the decline in employment in Grangemouth.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, that does not obviate the argument that Central Region was able to do little about it.
I am suspicious of the professional arguments in favour of size. I hope that the Minister will justify his courageous experiment and that the people of Clackmannan may show the way forward for genuine small-scale, local democracy.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I have listened with great interest to the debate on Central Region at this Report stage, following the useful and full debate we had on the subject in Committee. I am grateful, as I am sure the House is, to the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, for setting out so fully the case in favour of the single Central Region. Other contributions have highlighted what are seen as the possible advantages.
934
We propose that there should be three separate authorities within the present Central Region area. I do not feel that it weakens my argument in any way to say that I have recently had cause to visit Central Region in connection with a crime initiative which the authority has undertaken and I readily acknowledge that in such matters it has done extremely well. In relation to other policies such as care in the community the authority has proved to be one of the most effective and innovative councils in the administration of that policy in Scotland. That is a compliment I am glad to pay to the authority.
However, there is another side to the equation. It seems to me to be one which shows that Central Region is rather different from the Highlands. In every part of the three areas into which we suggest it is appropriate Central Region should be divided there is support for the proposal across party political lines.
I also had occasion recently to visit Clackmannan. I cannot say that the Conservative Party is in a particularly strong position there. I am glad to say that the party's sole representative is in favour of a Clackmannan district council. The efficient, hardworking and serious-minded Labour administration of Clackmannan is not entering into this blindly, believing that it is merely a small matter of local loyalties and hostility to a greater whole. The authority believes, after careful analysis with its officials, that it can take the proposal forward.
As my noble friend Lord Sanderson pointed out, if one were to go to Falkirk—again, I regret to say, not an area where the Conservative Party is prominent at present—one would find across political boundaries a strong view that Falkirk should be a separate authority.
I remind noble Lords that when we originally proposed a division in Central Region it was proposed that Clackmannan should be amalgamated with Falkirk. It emerged clearly in debate in another place and in public reaction elsewhere that both Falkirk and Clackmannan disliked that proposal intensely. The noble Earl took to a canoe to paddle across the Firth of Forth to demonstrate his hostility to the proposal. It is on the basis of that view that is to be found across political boundaries in all three areas that we propose should have separate authorities that we have come to the conclusion that it is right that we should keep the three councils. Within each of the areas there is a strong sense of community identity.
If there is a criticism—it is an anxiety upon which the noble Earl, Lord Minto, focused—it is that some small councils might not be able to deliver a full range of services. It is interesting that if one considers the report prepared by PIEDA which was commissioned by Central Regional Council, it indicated that of the 19 major services provided by local government only some four would not be provided directly, one of which would be the police. One would expect that service to be put forward with the joint police authority. Undoubtedly there is the opportunity for all those three authorities in the current Central Region to deliver the services.
However, there is a shift and change in emphasis in local government moving away from direct provision and increasingly towards an enabling role in the delivery of services to local communities. Both Stirling District

935
Council and Clackmannan District Council have enthusiastically embraced the opportunities offered by the enabling concept, and I believe have begun to demonstrate that it should be successfully carried over and further integrated into a new structure.
Some emphasis has been made of the capital provision for smaller authorities. Without bandying around yet further sets of figures, it is worth recording that Clackmannan District Council—it is at present a small district council—operating in conjunction with Alloa Clackmannan Enterprise has spent over £4 million in creating new premises for businesses. That has provided over 300 jobs. Therefore with respect to the noble Earl, Lord Minto, despite the fact that the district councils might be much smaller if they were part of a region, they have achieved one of the objectives which he considered desirable but believed could be achieved only by a larger authority. Such district councils are to be applauded for that work.
I do not accept that there will have to be a plethora of joint boards or joint committees. I have indicated that the region's own document suggests that most of the major services can properly be provided directly if so wished. However, as enabling authorities, the opportunities will exist. I have no doubt that there will be a considerable degree of useful co-operation between the authorities in or about the Central Region. Perhaps Clackmannan council, sensibly enough, might wish to combine or secure services from an adjoining authority such as Fife. If it wishes to do so and finds that there is better provision, that is entirely a matter for it.
I believe that there is a clear distinction between the ways in which we approach Central Region and the Highlands. Three districts are proposed because of the distinctness of identity, and the clear appreciation across political parties, not least by the Labour Party and all three existing districts, that that should be the basis for the new arrangements in Scotland.
6 p.m.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may intervene. I apologise to your Lordships for so doing. The Minister has referred three or four times to agreement across political parties. There was wide agreement across political parties in Central Region, including Conservatives who stood as Independents at the regional elections because they were furious at their own Government for abolishing Central Region. Therefore that is not a valid point. There was political agreement across the parties in Central Region, too.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, what I have said is the fact. I do not wish to repeat myself. I recently visited Clackmannan. It was clear to me that strong cross-party support could be secured for that proposal. It is on the basis, and in the confidence, as the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, put it, that two authorities in Scotland have shown themselves to be most enthusiastic
936
about taking up an enabling role, that I invite the House to hold with the three-council approach for Central Region which presently appears in the Bill.
Lord Hughes: My Lords, I cannot say that I am surprised at the response of the Minister, although I am disappointed. The Minister has had little support during the debate. Such support as he received was rather mixed. For instance, the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson of Bowden, had two reasons for supporting the Government. First, he complained about the amount of paper which has descended on us from Central Region. Is it surprising that Central Region had so strong a view of the desirability of continuing that it put forward its views extensively?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, the noble Lord has understood me incorrectly. I referred to the amount of literature from the Central Region. That is not just from the Central Regional Council but all councils.
Lord Hughes: My Lords, the noble Lord indicated that he will support the Government on a single region in the Highland. He has not complained about the mass of paper which has come from both sides in the Highland Region on this matter. I suggest that if the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson, had been truly enthusiastic about Central Region, he could have found better reasons for his support.
I must admire the parochial patriotism of the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie. He made it clear that, come what may, he wants the current Clackmannan council to continue. Perhaps if he succeeds the canoe will be the best available means of transport to Clackmannan. He referred to how well the Central Region had done with regard to education, but put no figure on it. He spoke about the percentage that it had received in economic aid. I cannot believe that the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, believes that Clackmannan is subsidising the remainder of the region.
I do not wish to make a long reply. The longer I speak the greater is the waste of your Lordships' time. I shall be brief. The Minister stated that the first proposal was to join Falkirk and Clackmannan. The Minister's memory has let him down. The first proposal was to join Stirling and Clackmannan. That appears in both documents produced long before we started discussion of the Bill. Falkirk and Clackmannan was a totally unworkable proposal and the Government abandoned it.
In giving support to Clackmannan, he stated that it had spent £4 million. Over what period did it spend £4 million? Surely he does not suggest that it spent £4 million in one year.
I now refer to the noble Lord whom I regard as my noble friend Lord Mackie of I refer to his surprise that he is supporting the wee county. It is not a surprise. I know why he is doing so. He is looking across the water. He wishes to support the Liberal

937
council in East Fife. I am quite certain that he believes that if he did not support Clackmannan he could not support East Fife.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, the processes that the noble Lord has outlined are far too logical for my brain.
Lord Hughes: My Lords, I should have known better. It is a waste of time to argue with George. He always knows that he is right. I hope that the House will support the amendment. For that reason I wish to divide the House.
6.07 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 13) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 51; Not-Contents, 134.

Division No.2

CONTENTS

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Longford, E.

Broadbridge, L.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

Buchan, E.

Mallalieu, B.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Carter, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

David, B.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Minto, E.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Mishcon, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Monkswell, L.

Ewing of Kirkford, L

Nicol, B.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Palmer, L.

Fitt, L.

Perry of Walton, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Perth, E.

[Teller.]

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Haskel, L. [Teller.]

Prys-Davies, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Richard, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Shepherd, L.

Hughes, L.

Stedman, B.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Jeger, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Kagan, L.

Whaddon, L.

Kilbracken, L.

White, B.

Kintore, E.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Addison, V.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Ailsa, M.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Airedale, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Alexander of Weedon, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Courtown, E.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Cox, B.

Argyll, D.

Craigavon, V.

Arran, E [Teller.]

Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Astor of Hever, L.

Cross, V.

Balfour, E.

Cumberlege, B.

Belstead, L.

Davidson, V.

Blatch, B.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Blyth, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Boardman, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Downshire, M.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Brookes, L.

Elles, B.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Elphinstone, L.

Bruntisfield, L.

Elton, L.

Bumham, L.

Faithfull, B.

Cadman, L.

Ferrers, E.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Flather, B.

938

Fraser of Carmyllie, L

Orr-Ewing, L.

Gisborough, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Gladwyn, L.

Pender, L.

Goold, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Goschen, V.

Pike, B.

Gray of Contin, L

Polwarth, L.

Greenway, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Gridley, L.

Reay, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Renton, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Hemphill, L

Russell, E.

Hives, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Holderness, L.

Shannon, E.

HolmPatrick, L.

Sharpies, B.

Howe E

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Inchyra, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Inglewood, L.

St. Davids, V.

Jeffreys, L.

Stewartby, L.

Kimball, L

Strange, B.

Kitchener, E

Strathcarron, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Long, V.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Lonsdale, E

Swansea L.

Lucas of Chiworth, L

Swinton, E

Lucas, L.

Tebbit, L.

Lyell, L

Teviot, L.

Lyell, L.

Teynham, L

Mackay of Clashfem, L. [Lord

Thomas of Gwydir, L

Chancellor.]

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Thurso, V.

Macteod of Borve, B.

Tordoff, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Trefgame, L

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Trumpington, B.

McNair, L.

Tugendhat, L.

Merrivale, L.

Ullswater, V.

Mersey, V.

Vinson, L.

Milverton, L.

Vivian, L.

Mottistone, L.

Wakeham, L.

Munster, E

Waterford, M.

Nickson, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Norrie, L.

Wigram, L.

Northesk, E.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

O'Cathain, B.

Young, B.

Orkney, E.

Younger of Prestwick, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.13 p.m.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 129, line 19, at end insert:
("Clydesdale Clydesdale District Council").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I wish to move Amendment No. 14 standing in my name and speak also to Amendments Nos. 16, 53 and 54. This is essentially a debate on the advisability or otherwise of taking Clydesdale district out of the proposed South Lanarkshire council. I say at the outset that I wish to hear what my noble and learned friend has to say on the issue.
I believe that the area of South Lanarkshire, which incorporates the county town of Lanark and extends from Carluke roughly to Biggar and beyond, is an integral area in its own right. The Government's proposal is for a much larger authority, the South Lanarkshire council, stretching from Rutherglen through Hamilton and East Kilbride. I recall the guidance of the Secretary of State for Scotland that local authorities need not be uniform, but should reflect local

939
circumstances. I think that he is right in that respect. That is perhaps why, looking at the satisfactory outcome in the Borders region, I wish to raise the issue here. I realise that wherever lines are drawn there will be contention. I also realise that with the disappearance of the Strathclyde region we are not talking of an area from Campbeltown to Biggar and that Hamilton and Lanark are a short distance apart.
However, anyone looking at the area will see at once the tremendous imbalance in the urban and rural populations, with all the obvious differences to which that gives rise. The debate in the other place did not convince me that serious consideration had been given to the matter. That is why I wish to raise it here. I was interested, again, in the cross-party views from that part of the world that the matter should be looked at again by the Government.
I recognise that a council representing 58,000 people is relatively small. We have heard quite a lot today about small councils and how those who are involved in local government are in most cases against that idea. But I am also aware that the Government have looked again at East Lothian and have decided that each should be a unitary authority, although somewhat bigger than Clydesdale district, if it were a unitary authority, would be. It could be an interesting council, and I am very interested that all political parties and councillors in that district are singing from the same hymn sheet. There is, I believe, a real fear in their minds that the weighting of the council representatives will naturally come from East Kilbride and Hamilton, Rutherglen and Cambuslang. Incidentally, I am very glad that the Government have put that part of what used to be Glasgow into this particular council. So with 73 councillors, I believe, in total, the numbers from the rural hinterland will be very small, and the fear is that there will be a submerging of the rural voice. The evidence of the community councils and representatives of all parties in the area shows that they are beginning to consider that that is not something they wish to see. Their views should not be ignored. I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I listened carefully to what my noble friend said in support of a separate Clydesdale authority based on what is the existing district boundary. My difficulty in accepting the case for a unitary Clydesdale authority arises from the fact that there is a good alternative proposed in the Bill, namely South Lanarkshire. Prior to his contribution, I was aware that some concern had been expressed about rural Clydesdale joining with parts of urban Lanarkshire, but such a contrast occurs in a number of existing authorities as well as in some of the other new councils being proposed.
I suggest to the House that it is neither practical nor realistic to think in terms of authorities being either entirely rural or urban in character. In combination the two can complement each other and work very successfully if the will and also the appropriate administrative structures are in place. It seems to me that those who live in Clydesdale have an enormous amount to contribute to the new South Lanarkshire authority. Any reservation that they may have about
940
being linked with urban Lanarkshire would seem to be met by the policy contained in this Bill of encouraging decentralisation to ensure, in the case of Clydesdale, that local decisions solely affecting Clydesdale might be taken in Clydesdale.
The new authority we propose in the Bill, namely that of South Lanarkshire, has been the subject of extensive scrutiny in another place, and it would appear that it enjoys widespread support The local Members of Parliament, for example, recognise that it represents the best way forward for an area comprising a healthy mix of rural and urban areas, industry and agriculture, and new towns and old villages and towns. I pay tribute to the efforts and achievements of Clydesdale district council since 1975. But we believe that the area's best interests will be met, not by a unitary Clydesdale authority but rather by a South Lanarkshire one. The area's identity is firmly rooted in Lanarkshire, and that is reflected in the authorities we have proposed.
It is always difficult to reach a decision between two or more good but competing cases. This one is no exception. However, we believe that South Lanarkshire, as it is described in the Bill, wins the day. With that explanation of the Government's position I hope that my noble friend may feel that he can withdraw his amendment.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I listened carefully to what my noble and learned friend said. I realise the extent of the arguments in his favour. But I also realise the extent of the arguments coming from those who live in the Clydesdale district.
The key to the reply that my noble and learned friend gave is that decentralisation in the South Lanarkshire council should be implemented. I hope that the Secretary of State's guidelines on decentralisation will be taken into account by those who form the new South Lanarkshire council. Given the explanation of my noble and learned friend, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Thurso Viscount Thurso moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 129, leave out line 46 and insert:

("North Highland

Caithness, Sutherland, and Ross and Cromarty District Councils.

South Highland

Badenoch and Strathspey, Inverness, Lochaber, Nairn and Skye and Lochalsh District Councils.").

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I rise to move the amendment which I put before your Lordships in Committee to divide the proposed new Highland local authority area into two areas, North Highland and South Highland. We had a long and searching debate in Committee. But, alas, when we neared the end of the debate it was almost midnight. Many noble Lords had had to go home and there was a grave danger that, had I and my supporters divided the House, we might have succeeded only in counting it out. So, with your

941
Lordships' leave, I withdrew the amendment but promised, as I now do, to put it before the House on Report.
I was challenged in Committee by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, to posit a solution showing exactly how North and South Highland could be made to work and where their headquarters could be located so as to take full advantage of the division of the Highland Region area into two.
Most of the arguments for creating the two Highland authorities which I and my supporters—and indeed 86 per cent. of the voters of Highland Region propose— were well rehearsed and debated in Committee. I do not propose to go over them all again in detail. But there are two aspects which I should like particularly to explain to the House today.
First, I shall try to demonstrate how the two-Highland council solution safeguards the democratic control and accountability of local government more surely than a pan-Highland solution. Secondly, I should like to give the Minister an answer to his challenge by positing a solution, particularly with regard to North Highland, which seems to be the area that worried him most, showing how the area might be administered.
The real benefit to be derived from a structure involving two councils rather than one lies not merely in the reduction in the overall size of the authority— although that is important—but rather in the smaller ward sizes that would result. The fact that each of the proposed two authorities would have 50 to 60 members would produce a dramatic reduction in the size of their wards, make councillors more accessible and enable them to do a better job.
Decentralisation within the two proposed Highland local authorities would be easier and more meaningful than trying to achieve decentralisation within a pan-Highland authority. Thus a two-Highland council solution would better reflect the diverse and distinctive needs of different parts of the Highlands with improved representation of rural areas. It could also show substantial cost savings over the existing structure, with transitional costs lower than those for change to a pan-Highland council and costs which could be recouped well within the nationally accepted timescale.
Since reorganisation was last discussed in Parliament, the Government have begun consultations on the number of electoral wards to be devised for each of the new councils. The 66 undefined wards proposed for a single Highland council represent a reduction of 64 per cent. in the number of councillors presently available to the public in the region. The scale of the loss of democratically elected representatives is almost twice that of the 34 per cent. reduction that applies to Scotland as a whole. That can hardly be regarded as an appropriate recognition of the sparsity of population and the scale of the area. The proposal confirms the worst fears of the many who argued that a single council structure was bound to reduce rather than enhance local democratic accountability.
A related cause for long-term concern is the extent to which power will be concentrated in the hands of a very small number of members in some parts of the single
942
Highland area. It should be recognised also that the reduction from nine to one in the number of councils serving the area will result in its representation in national organisations, such as the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, being reduced, with a corresponding—and possibly unforeseen—increase in the influence of other areas and of the central belt authorities in particular.
The massive reduction in the number of elected representatives in the Highlands will give rise to enormous practical problems in the development of decentralisation arrangements at member level. The electoral arrangements proposed will result in there being as few as six members representing some present district council areas but answerable for the whole range of council services. Councillors will not possibly be able to claim to be accessible to their electorate in such circumstances. Meetings, ward surgeries and normal councillor-constituent contacts will involve journeys over distances which would be regarded as totally unacceptable elsewhere in Scotland and which will involve considerable time and expense; and even danger in extreme weather conditions.
It is difficult to detect in a pan-Highland solution any recognition of the distinctive circumstances and needs of the Highlands. I remain of the view that the reduction proposed in the number of councillors and the corresponding increase in the whole range of demands on their time will result in a shrinking; number of potential candidates feeling inclined to offer themselves for public service. Already, it is often difficult to attract people to stand for election, and particularly to find people of the highest calibre, training and experience, willing to devote the time and effort now demanded of a Highland regional councillor. If a single tier local authority is set up to cover the whole Highland area, it will be even more difficult if not impossible.
Those who do stand are likely to be drawn increasingly from the ranks of the retired, the unemployed or those of private means. Those who are elected will soon discover that despite their good intentions much of what a single Highland council does, wherever it does it, will be regarded elsewhere in its area as the wrong thing in the wrong place. It is predictable that elected members will become increasingly disillusioned by such a view of their best endeavours and that to an increasing extent they will require officials to take decisions and attempt to explain them to an antagonistic public. It is likely that in this way the authority will become increasingly bureaucratic in nature. The result will be the almost total frustration of the Government's stated intentions.
I feel that I should now take up the gauntlet of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser, and posit a solution to the management of the two councils which are proposed by this amendment. My solution is general in respect of both suggested councils but rather more particular in relation to North Highland because that is an area with which I am more familiar. After all, the final decision has to remain for the two Highland councils to take once they have been elected.
In considering possible internal management structures at member and officer levels, one should look to streamlining senior management structures and reducing the total number of service departments while decentralising the management of service delivery arrangements and ensuring the maximum devolution of decision making.
Those objectives can be achieved by organising the internal management of each council on the basis of a corporate core (more familiar to many as headquarters) and a number of area teams. We have assumed four such teams in each authority but it may be possible to reduce that figure, which would have the effect of reducing the costs calculated previously. The corporate core would comprise a small unit dealing with general management, corporate and strategic planning, public relations and support for the community, and strategic and central services. Such a structure would help to eliminate the artificial demarcations which exist between various services at present. I maintain that such an approach is totally in line with the Government's stated intentions.
Opponents of the two-council structure have concentrated on the possible location of the two corporate cores rather than on their role, composition and function. In particular, they have assumed—as the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, did recently when he spoke— that the North Highland's centre would be located in Dingwall, although the proposals which have been put forward give no basis for such an assumption. Having advanced the suggestion, however, those critics have then attacked it and attempted to discredit it on the basis that that centre is only 15 miles from Inverness and not significantly closer to many in the north than a centre in Inverness would be.
We—I and my supporters in this amendment—have not proposed any town as the possible location for the centre of either authority; but we are conscious of the need to retain the presence of personnel in as many as possible of the locations presently in use. In this way least damage will be caused to the economic, social and cultural life of these communities. Such an objective will be met through the use of an area team structure.
As I have already indicated, the actual location of the corporate cores of the two Highland councils will be a matter to be determined by their members following their election in 1995. Nevertheless, what is proposed would not require the construction or acquisition of new accommodation. The underlying intention is to direct resources and as great a degree of control as possible to the area member and officer structure. This approach, combined with a reduction in headquarters senior management and specialist staff and full and innovative use of the advanced systems of communication and information technology available in that area, should allow the new authorities a number of options for consideration.
I accept, however, that it is probable that the southern authority would locate its corporate core in Inverness, with area teams possibly in Portree, Fort William, Kingussie, Nairn and Inverness. The area teams in the northern council may be located in Wick, Golspie and Dingwall. I understand that in discussion between
944
representatives of the three district councils involved Dornoch has been identified as a possible location for the northern corporate core. That would produce a very balanced set-up, taking into consideration the main population centres in North Highland. There is a population of 32,005 grouped in the major towns and villages to the south of Dornoch while a population of 27,745 resides to the north from Golspie through to Wick and Thurso.
An essential element of these management proposals is that the corporate management of each council would be achieved by a management team comprising the chief executive or general manager, the executive directors of the core functions and the area chief executives or managers of the area teams. In this way the core and area teams will operate in an integrated manner, with the senior management in area being assured of equal status with the senior management of the centre.
The adoption of highly decentralised arrangements at officer level for the management and delivery of services would be mirrored by devolved decision-making arrangements for local members. I envisage the establishment of all-purpose area committees exercising democratic control over the whole range of local services. If such an arrangement is to be meaningful, the area committees will require extensive delegated powers relating to the authorisation of expenditure within the system of devolved budgetary control and the planning and control of service delivery arrangements. The committees will also monitor the development of effective working partnerships between area teams and the corporate core.
Such devolved and decentralised arrangements will improve and increase the accountability and responsiveness of the two councils to their communities. This objective cannot be achieved, however, if the number of councillors is reduced significantly through the creation of a single pan-Highland council. The key to meaningful devolvement and delegation is the election of an adequate number of members. The single council proposal would result in an area committee in some parts having as few as five members. That would be unrealistic in practice. The result would be concentration of power and decision-making in the hands of very few and an increase in the possibility of abuse and conflict.
I have no doubt in my mind that North Highland and South Highland, as local government entities, would each be properly viable. At over l¼ million hectares each, they would each be about the same size as Strathclyde. To double their area and thereby make them almost twice the size of Strathclyde would seem to be foolish. Yet although the two areas will be large they will still have an adequate population on which sensibly to base a local government structure. North Highland at 88,570 of population will be bigger than the sum of the three island councils of Orkney, Shetland and Western Isles put together and twice the size of Clackmannan. South Highland at 115,570 will be bigger than the Borders, Dumbarton and Clydebank or the new proposed Council of Moray.
I therefore challenge the Government to explain exactly why it seems so desirable to them to create a local council twice the size of Strathclyde and with a population bigger than the City of Dundee or than any other proposed new council other than the cities of Edinburgh, Glasgow and Aberdeen or the new council areas proposed for Aberdeenshire, Fife or North and South Lanarkshire and then force it upon an unwilling local electorate. What do they expect to get in return except hard feelings?
On the other hand, if they would prove themselves for once to be a listening government I can assure them that they would earn themselves gratitude and praise and would have the satisfaction of seeing, in years to come, a total Highland area beginning to thrive and grow as only a well administered area can. I beg to move.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, I strongly support the amendment. Having entirely supported the Government on their views of devolving local government as in Clackmannan, Falkirk and Stirling, I hope that they will also embrace the natural, sensible and logical continuance of that argument in supporting our amendment.
I was extremely impressed by the arguments of my noble friend Lord Sanderson of Bowden regarding the devolution of Clydesdale and I hope that we may be able to persuade him also to sing from our hymn sheet. I wish to emphasise four points and shall do so as concisely and briefly as possible so as not to take up too much of your Lordships' time.
The first—I mentioned this in Committee but must bring it up again—relates to the question of size. The area concerned is simply huge. It is nearly as big as Belgium and bigger than the principality of Wales. To attempt to run an area of that size as one authority cannot make any kind of sense. Not only are the distances vast but in many cases the roads are narrow, sometimes with passing places only. It is not only motorway.
The proposals for one unit argue that to have one council at Inverness would be little different to having one at Inverness and one at Dingwall—only 12 minutes driving distance apart for my noble friend Lord Gray of Contin. In fact the Association of Highland District Councils would prefer to use Dornoch, with possibly some devolved facilities at Thurso, Golspie, Wick or Lairg. It has been said that the building of the two bridges has now linked the areas on either side so that they can function together as an economic unit. I do not think I have heard that argument put forward for the estuarine shores of the Tay, although there is a perfectly good bridge between Dundee and Newport and Tayport. Nor, despite the splendid Forth Bridge, do Edinburgh and Inverkeithing and Rosyth feel so connected.
When anyone has mentioned size of the area before in comparison with Wales, the difference in population was emphasised. In the principality of Wales there are 2.4 million people whereas there are only around 200,000 in the Highland area. However, as regards access to one's local councillor, area must be taken into consideration.
946
My second point concerns democracy. Various polls were carried out throughout the area. However unreliable many people believe polls to be, they showed 86 per cent. in favour of two councils over the whole area—rather more than the 60 per cent. for Clackmannan. Out of eight district councils, all with elected representatives of the people—Caithness, Sutherland, Ross and Cromarty, Inverness, Lochaber, Badenoch and Strathspay, Nairn and Skye and Lochalsh—only the last two are in favour of a single authority. If we as a nation organised democracy on that ratio, the country would be governed by the party of the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso; 75 per cent. is surely a respectable majority.
As my noble and learned friend the Minister said earlier, it is important for us to look at Skye and Lochalsh. While we may no longer be speeding in our bonny boat over the seas, but instead observing the speed limit of our wheels as we drive over the new bridge to enjoy looking at this beautiful island, we must not forget also to look at Caithness, Sutherland, Ross and Cromarty, Inverness, Lochaber and Badenoch and Strathspey.
My third point concerns European funding and economic development, and that a single authority should be thought necessary to continue the Objective One status. In fact Objective One status has been largely achieved by Highlands and Islands Enterprise for an area including Orkney, Shetland, the Western Isles and Argyll and the Isles as well as the North and South Highland areas. Surely there is to be no attempt to lump all those areas together for a local government unit in order to retain Objective One status. Highlands and Islands Enterprise is a vastly successful government agency which already exists to co-ordinate action on economic development and European matters. It acts for all the Highland and Island areas and would act as well, if not better, for two Highland councils as for one.
Finally, the whole ethos of the Bill and of government thinking over local government: has been to devolve and to decentralise; to get democracy back to local accountability. The amendment does exactly that. When my noble friends and I met my noble and learned friend the Minister earlier this month at St. Andrew's House I found a Bible in the waiting room. Opening it at random I put my finger on a verse from Isaiah:
"For as the earth bringeth forth the bud, and as the garden causes the things that are sown in it to come forth, so the Lord God will cause righteousness and praise to spring forth before all the nations".
That encouraged me so much that I read it to my noble and learned friend hoping that, together with our arguments, it might encourage him also to "cause righteousness and praise" by taking on board the amendment.
Lord Hughes: My Lords, before the noble Baroness resumes her seat, perhaps I can point out that she said,
"more than the 60 per cent. for Clackmannan".
The 60 per cent. at Clackmannan was against Clackmannan and not for it.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I cannot add anything to the arguments that have been put forward. But I can say that it appears to be entirely logical and

947
proper to have two authorities in the Highlands. As some may know, for a short time I was MP for Caithness and Sutherland. Even there we had a dichotomy between the counties. But they worked together when they had to.
There was a feeling that Inverness attracted everything away. There was a fellow feeling with Ross and Cromarty, and the proposal would work. It is not a question of distance or where the capital is situated. It is a question of a body which would have cohesion; there would be no democratic deficit, to use that phrase again; it could work together.
A single authority would be administratively easy to run and would no doubt be cheaper. But it would not be as good and it would not achieve the essential goal of giving a feeling of cohesion and genuine support for the authority. It is wholly in line with the thinking of the Government on Clackmannan—I keep quoting Clackmannan—and they should accept the amendment. The feeling is extremely strong that the removal of democracy from the Highlands is what would result if we had just one enormous single authority. I beg the Government to think again and accept the two authority proposal.
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, I trust that my noble friend on the Front Bench will not be persuaded by this amendment. When we discussed it during the Committee stage of the Bill we heard in some detail from the sponsors about their objections to the single authority which has been proposed by the Government for the Scottish Highlands, but we heard of very few positive advantages of splitting the area into two. Certainly we did not hear any arguments which could stand up to close examination in support of that proposal.
Today has more or less been a repetition of the negative nature of the case although the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, did produce some interesting suggestions about how the new authority might work. Indeed, his ideas would lead to an almost complete revolution in local government. I do not believe that they are appropriate. I do not believe that two authorities would in any way be an advantage in the Highlands.
That approach is hardly surprising since those who purport to support the amendment at local level are far from united within their own ranks. Since we last discussed the Bill there has been a withering of enthusiasm even among those who were reasonably keen at one stage. Indeed, four of the existing councils which would fall within a southern Highland council in this amendment oppose such a division. Increasingly, members of the remaining councils in both the south and north Highlands are seeking, in the best interests of their own areas and of their staff and voluntary organisations, to address the benefits and opportunities offered by a single Highland council.
Lochaber district council has distanced itself from the two-authority concept. Sutherland councillors have already met with their regional colleagues to respond collectively to the consultation paper on the new electoral wards and indeed are anxious to pursue an
948
even wider agenda in the best interests of Sutherland. Nairn district council has made good progress in discussions about suitable arrangements for operating a single authority while Skye and Lochalsh continues to establish a format which will ensure full participation for both its elected members and its electors. The opening of its one-stop shop in Kyle of Lochalsh illustrates the technological sophistication available today in the Highlands of Scotland and enables constituents in that part of south west Ross to have direct contact with regional headquarters in Inverness for instant information on nearly all council matters.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Is he not quoting all the councils in the southern region which have the advantage of direct communication with Inverness and in fact putting the case for those who would be in favour rather than those in the north?
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, because he has played right into my hands. I shall answer his question in a couple of minutes. Skye and Lochalsh has also installed a video link with Inverness which enables councillors and officials virtually to conduct conferences and so save valuable time and money in travelling. Pilot schemes are being introduced in Easter Ross at Balintore and in Sutherland at Lochinver. I have no doubt that this will become commonplace in the Highlands before long.
Such innovations, along with the ease of transport today in the Highlands, do much to counter the arguments of distance and are even used as examples of modernisation to attract new businesses and development. The noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, mentioned the Highlands and Islands Enterprise. I commend and applaud its activities. I would point out that it favours one authority and not two.
By any yardstick the Highlands has a very small resource base. Taking the area as a whole, £1 in council tax raises £72,400. That is a small sum when one considers the services which have to be provided. Coopers & Lybrand estimates that a potential saving of £4.4 million per annum could be saved by having one Highland council whereas the cost of splitting the Highlands into two would be £6.2 million per annum additional to the cost of one council. The cost of the two-council option is well in excess of current expenditure and can therefore never produce savings.
Many points have already been covered but one on which I must comment arose in the debate on Central Region. Several speakers pointed out the great limitations which are imposed on small authorities as far as expenditure is concerned. The amendment would dilute disastrously the resource base of the region. By accepting it the Government would create a situation of local conflict and bickering.
The time has arrived for talking at local level by the regional councils and all the district councils. They should get round the table and evolve the most acceptable way forward for a new all-purpose Highland authority. A good deal of work has already been done, but time is short and many details have still to be agreed. I believe that with goodwill on all parts that can be

949
achieved. For those reasons and for many others which I shall not go into tonight because we are fighting against the clock, I commend one authority for the Highlands. I suggest that my noble friend should reject the proposed amendment.
Lord Kirkhill: My Lords, I sought to attract the noble Lord's attention a moment ago. I assure him that I thought his speech quite logical. I am sure that it is my increasing decrepitude which puts me in the position of failing to understand one key point which I am sure that he made with perfect clarity. Perhaps he can help me. Am I right in assuming that there are four councils in the southern region which now say that they no longer support a single authority? Is that part of the noble Lord's proposition? If so, will he confirm it or explain that I have misunderstood him.
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, I said that there were four existing councils which would be within the area of the proposed southern Highland region which do not accept that division.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, I do not support this amendment for all the reasons which the noble Lord, Lord Gray of Contin, has given and also because I believe that there is far stronger support for a single Highland authority than the movers of this amendment believe exists. Having said that, I know that some of the councillors in the area who would, I believe, be expecting to stand for a new council, are very concerned about the increase which they anticipate in their workload if a single Highland authority comes into being.
I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord and the Government will give some consideration to increasing the number of councillors in order to reduce that workload, otherwise I think that the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, is right and it may be difficult to get suitable people to stand for election.
7 p.m.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I think that it is important that I should intervene in this particular debate both because I took part in Committee and in order to answer the questions of the noble Lord, Lord Ewing of Kirkford, about my attitude to various areas of Scotland. As far as I can see, although I very much believe that "small is beautiful", the whole problem with the Highlands is that I do not believe that "small and fragile is beautiful". I am referring to the tax base on which local government in the Highlands has to operate. It is a very low tax base. Valuations in the area are very low and, as my noble friend Lord Gray of Contin said, the total amount taken in council tax in the whole of the Highlands area is remarkably small. I believe that the West Highlands is an area of great fragility, and I do not think that the division that is proposed in the amendment would necessarily improve the situation.
However, I do go along with what has been said about the number of councillors. I hope that my noble and learned friend will look closely at the huge area of the Highlands and realise that the Secretary of State's proposal for 66 councillors for the area should be
950
reconsidered, because the number is too small. The Government should reconsider whether that is the correct number for such a sizeable area.
I believe that the present Highland Regional Council has accepted the concept of decentralisation. However, I hope that the guidelines set down by the Secretary of State will be rigidly adhered to; otherwise the problems of the Highlands will go on and on. I have a great deal of sympathy with what has been said about the area of the Highlands. The noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, said that there were strong feelings there on the subject. Having been a Minister responsible for the area, I know that there are strong feelings there on every subject. Those strong feelings are essentially that "Inverness rules OK". Whatever the result of this amendment and whatever scheme is introduced— whether there is one council or two—I hope that it will be seen that a decentralised Highlands is essential. For the reason of fragility which I have cited, I am concerned about what the low tax base would mean if there were to be two councils rather than one.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, when I was in the north in September I took the opportunity of talking again to individuals on both sides of the argument and of visiting the Highlands Region because I had not previously had the opportunity of doing so. I am glad that I did because I found that the thinking among those most concerned had moved on a great deal since the meetings that we had in this House during the summer. I have remained open-minded until now about whether one council or two would have the best chance of providing the most user-friendly and effective local government for the people of the Highlands. As the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, said, that must be the issue before us.
My experience of local government has brought me to the conclusion that, given the unique problems and potentialities, the geography and the feelings of people in the Highlands and the dichotomy that there is between the thinking in places like Caithness and Sutherland—I know less about that than other noble Lords who have spoken—the answer is to have a single council but with a very special and carefully thought out decentralised way of working; a way very different from and more extensive than the way in which the Highlands Region operates at the moment. I believe that that is the right way forward.
From my briefing on the thinking that is now developing among councillors who are discussing this matter in the Highlands—it does not yet involve all the existing councils very much although it does involve some of them—I believe that Highland Regional Council will come up with a decentralisation scheme which will very likely be an example to other councils in Scotland and that it will be what the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, referred to in another context as a "courageous experiment". My understanding is that it is envisaging not just local committees of local councilors (as was anticipated by the noble Viscount in his opening remarks), and not just local offices, but a very wide range of functions being devolved to local committees of councillors.

951
Very importantly—nobody has mentioned this proposal—the council is envisaging using school boards as a means of devolving decision-making on matters of education and community education. It is thinking about that. I believe that those are very exciting possibilities. There are school boards in all secondary schools and in 75 per cent. of primary schools at the moment. As yet, devolved school management is in its infancy there, as elsewhere in Scotland, but the idea is that it is not only school matters that should be devolved to those bodies, but as many related matters as possible. That would be an excellent, very local way of decision-making, and that could be done in addition to and alongside what councillors are doing. As I understand it, local councillors would not be placed over the school boards but would work directly with the central council.
It seems to me that that approach could be a very popular and successful way forward, but at the same time it is important that the decentralisation scheme (proposed in Clause 23) should include not only very clear arrangements about what functions are delegated outwards and to whom, but also about which locally made decisions could stand without being overthrown by the central council and which would have to come back to the council for approval. That is important. There would also need to be limits placed on decisions made at local level by councillors which might not be very democratic. That fear about how localised decision-making could develop was expressed to me by a number of existing local councillors. The noble Viscount will be interested to know that some came from Tain.
I suggest to my noble and learned friend the Minister that when we come to discuss the decentralisation scheme amendment we should look carefully at whether there are requirements to make sure that such localised decisions are democratic. It was suggested to me that individuals might be allocated housing by a single councillor without any recourse to appeal. I do not think that that would do. It would be quite wrong. Devolution of power can be carried too far.
I think that the Bill as it stands is the best way forward, provided we have a really sound and proper decentralisation scheme. We need more than words; it must be a proper scheme. I have now had a very full briefing on the current thinking and there is every sign now that this could be very exciting. A lot of us will watch what happens with great interest. Therefore, I hope that the amendment will not succeed.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, being a Sinclair born and bred six miles from the most northerly point of the mainland of Scotland I know the area that this amendment covers. It is vast, as was well explained by the noble Baroness, Lady Strange. Given that there are so many problems relating to the community services it is very important that people have access to their councillors, that they know who they are and that the councillors know the people they represent.
There seems to be a north-south divide over this amendment in your Lordships' House. I expect that the same debate would go on in a unitary council. Perhaps
952
I may ask the Minister how many councillors it is proposed there should be for this large area. I support this amendment.
The Earl of Minto: My Lords, I said in Committee that I supported the proposed Highland council on the basis of experience within another of Scotland's rural councils. I remain of that opinion. It is important that Scotland's rural councils have the strongest form of local government. That can be achieved in the Highlands. Much of what I would have said has been said by the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour. The future lies in deep decentralisation. I believe that is possible and is already being tackled, as the noble Baroness learnt on her visit to the Highlands. I know from my position as a convener of a local authority that that is true.
From the pure point of service delivery, which I believe to be important, I support a single Highland authority, but I have one reservation. I have listened, and I know that it is true that concerns have been expressed about the number of councillors proposed for the Highlands. I well understand how that concern originates. Under the Government's proposals for councillor numbers, the Highlands has a significantly higher level of representation than is proposed for many other parts of Scotland. That is probably appropriate given the large area that some councillors will have to represent. I understand that the regional councils and district councils in the highlands hold the common view that it would be appropriate to have more councillors than the Government propose. I hope that the Minister will listen to the united local opinion on that matter.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, I wonder whether I could intervene briefly from these Benches. I am convinced that the retention of a single Highland council would be in the best interests of the administration of local government in that area. Like all other noble Lords and noble Baronesses who have spoken, at the meetings I have attended I have listened with great interest to the representations that have been made by Highland Region and the Association of District Councils. I thought that sometimes both parties went way over the top when presenting their claim to remain either as a single unit or to split the Highlands into two, but once I had discarded the over-the-top stuff and studied carefully the presentation from both organisations I came firmly to the conclusion that it was in the best interests of the Highland Region that one council should prevail.
I just enter this comment: I have not been convinced by some of the supporters of the argument in favour of retaining Highland Region during today's proceedings. I regard it as totally inconsistent for the noble Lords, Lord Sanderson of Bowden and Lord Gray of Contin, and other noble Lords to vote as they did on the Central Region amendment and then to expect the House to be persuaded by their arguments as to the Highland Region.
There have been consistencies. The noble Baronesses, Lady Strange and Lady Masham, and the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, were consistent, but I must make it clear to those who represent the Highland Region that we on this side of the House have made up

953
our own minds, and today of all days we have not been convinced by the arguments put forward by the Highland Region's supporters. That is because of what happened on a previous amendment. If the House is divided, I advise any of my noble friends who intend to vote on this to support the retention of the single authority for the Highland Region.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Burton: My Lords, in his excellent speech today the noble Viscount, and my noble friend Lady Strange, were not merely interesting; they produced many statistics proving the point which we have been trying to make since the Bill was published. They have however stolen my thunder, which may be a relief to your Lordships. Clearly a great deal more thought has been put into what they said than has in any way been produced by those who support one council only.
I should perhaps declare an interest in that, if we are left with one council, as is currently proposed by the Government, then the already substantial amount which I am compelled to contribute annually to the council will rocket further still. I have gone back over the past five years only, but since 1990–91 the total net expenditure of the Highland Region has increased by over 20 per cent. In those five years it has increased by nearly £42 million per annum. The talk of £6 million by my noble friend Lord Gray was inaccurate and at any rate is chicken feed compared to what actually happened.
I know also that for a number of years before that the rate of increase was substantial. To give many of the councillors additional powers to deal with all that the district councils currently handle will result, I fear, in our council tax and rates killing off many firms in the north.
The regional council employs 11,000 personnel at the moment. That figure will of course increase enormously with the addition of the district councils' work. The total workforce of the new proposed Highland council is just over 99,000 people, so when the district councils' work is taken on, between 15 per cent. and 20 per cent. of the Highlands total workforce will be employed by the new council. That is not right. Who will pay for it? Who will produce the income if that percentage of people is employed by the local authority?
Noble Lords will appreciate what a heavy burden that would place on all our businesses, but more especially on the rural areas, with their forestry and agriculture, which have little capacity to regulate their income to meet those increased costs. What is perhaps even more worrying is that a large centralised council in Inverness will deprive many of the scattered district council staff of their jobs unless they are prepared to leave their homes and move to within range of Inverness. With so many employees of the Highland Region living in his constituency, it is scarcely surprising that Sir Russell Johnston broke ranks with his fellow Liberals and supported the case for one council only.
The trend of the current Highland Region has been to place larger and larger centralised contracts. It is therefore surprising that it is now talking about devolution. I can give a typical recent example of a painting job in Sutherland which was given to an
954
Inverness firm. It was not a large contract. Surely there must have been many small firms between Inverness and Sutherland, or even in Sutherland itself, which could have carried out that contract for far less if they did not have such a huge mileage to travel all the way from Inverness every day.
Those small local businesses used to obtain much of their work from the district councils. The loss of those councils, and the centralisation in Inverness, will almost inevitably put a number of those firms out of business. The loss of such employment in the Highlands, where jobs are not easy to come by, would be a considerable disaster.
How can anyone living in Caithness, let alone in Sutherland, accept a council chairmanship of a council based in Inverness? Such a person would spend more time on the road than on council business. The old Inverness County Council, which covered the biggest inland area in Britain at the time, would have been a reasonable size if parts of the Western Isles had not had to be administered from there. That made the area awkward. The land area covered by such a council would have been much the same size as that which will be covered if we just have two councils for the whole of the Highlands. Each of the councils will be about the same size as the old Inverness.
The reduction in the number of local councillors from 180 to 66 for the whole of the Highlands area will make the burden on those councillors excessive, I am pleased to hear that even some supporters of the single council have now realised that. We have been trying to press that point for a very long time. It would remove from the electorate reasonable representation, and only those prepared to be professional councillors could possibly give their time to travel all that distance. Would it not be a great deal easier and better for everyone to have two councils, each of 40 or 50 councillors? If the 66 is increased to any reasonable extent to give representation I certainly would not like to chair a meeting. I believe that it would be bedlam.
A further point is that a great deal of business coming before the council would be of little interest to many of the councillors. They would become bored dealing with issues that do not really concern them. Therefore, it would be better to have two smaller councils of 40 or 50 members who would have an interest.
The number of councillors in Scotland as a whole will be reduced by 34 per cent. but the reduction in the Highlands would be nearly twice that of Scotland. In such a wide and scattered area that would obviously be unacceptable. I am sure that my noble and learned friend on the Front Bench will take that on board and reconsider the figure of 66.
Decentralisation is no answer. With 66 councillors, the area committees would not be big enough with the number of councillors available. Co-option of non-elected members to these area committees would be undemocratic. The current regional council—and there are likely to be many of the existing regional councillors on a pan-Highland council—had no commitment to decentralise, but rather the reverse. The police were all centralised in Inverness, as recently was much of the

955
finance. Over the years the central planners have consistently overruled the findings of the local planning committees.
Incidentally, in formulating proposed costings for one pan-Highland council, Highland Region appears to have put little or nothing into its calculations for the cost of decentralised functions. The need to decentralise is in the Bill but it is not enforceable unless Amendment No. 23 is agreed to. Yet, in showing the costs of a unitary authority compared with two, no amount appears to have been included for what would be substantial costs in decentralising. The region produced totally inaccurate costings; it largely doubled the cost of a pan-Highland council compared with two councils. It made little or no allowance for decentralisation and took no account of the vast saving in travelling expenses with two authorities.
We have tonight discussed the timetable and how tight it is. I fully agree with what has been said. However, Highland Regional Council is refusing to hold discussions with a number of district councils. Unless they agree to one council only it is not prepared to talk to them. That shows not only a bullying attitude but, with the existing timetable, it is wrong that there should be a further delay.
Your Lordships will have heard that System 3 findings on the poll showed that more than 80 per cent. of the population wanted two councils or more. In fact, that poll was taken twice; the results of the first poll were almost incredible. Furthermore, the Highland Regional Council took a poll. Why has it not published the results of that poll? The reason is that it knows that it would be totally unfavourable to its case.
The question has been raised as to why the district councils were so slow in getting together to formulate a case for two councils. That was because the White Paper was so awkward to follow and indecisive that many of them opted for smaller councils. They wanted their own district as a council and therefore there was a case for diversity.
Now a case for two councils has been brought forward and has secured widespread support. All the questions posed in opposition have been answered. However, when we ask for reasons why a single council is thought to be better we cannot get any valid reasons. I have heard nothing tonight which speaks in favour of one council more than two. We were told that it would be better for the well-being of the Highlands but what reasons have been given to support that? There are no reasons. There has been talk about Euro-funding. One or two councils will make no difference to the amount of Euro-funding available to the Highlands. Strategic infrastructure and economic development was also put forward. Indeed, a letter that I received from the Minister's office—to be fair to him, I do not believe that he saw it—gave the Kessock Bridge as an example of infrastructure development. That was planned when my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy was in the Scottish Office. I was then chairman of the roads committee and for the Minister's official to have given the credit to Highland Region is unbelievable! However, that is the kind of thing that we have had to put up with.
956
Surely strategic planning is for the Highlands and Islands Enterprise and not for the Highland Region. What happens if those two bodies do not agree with each other in their planning? Twenty years ago, when I was chairman of the roads committee, we realised the vital necessity for the infrastructure of having a by-pass around Inverness, but Highland Region has consistently failed to press for that. It does not appear to have an interest in the infrastructure.
I am sorry, I am speaking for too long. It saddens me to see the Government committing political suicide in the North. However, it will be interesting to see whether the Opposition comes out in favour of the amendment. I am afraid that we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, that probably it will not. If the one-council proposal goes forward there will be chaos in local government in the Highlands. If the Opposition does not support the amendment it cannot criticise the Government. Members of another place can scarcely complain if we return this matter to them because during the Bill's passage through the Commons this important part of the country—one-third of the whole of Scotland—was discussed for only seven minutes, including interruptions. It was not properly discussed in the other place. I ask your Lordships to consider the matter most carefully and to support two Highland councils.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, if the debate has revealed anything it is confirmation of what emerged from our original consultation throughout Scotland; that is, that opinions within the Highlands are obviously divided. They range for support for a single Highland council to a structure of no fewer than eight for the whole of the Highlands. When we started there was little support for a two-council option. That may have been because people hoped to secure a small local council but it emerged late in the day. As my noble friend Lord Gray correctly pointed out, if one looks to the proposed southern council one discovers that of the six local authorities in that area only two will support such a proposal. It is not a matter that has in any sense divided along party political lines. Reference has been made to the Member of Parliament for Inverness, Sir Russell Johnston, who has made it clear that his view is that a single authority would be appropriate.
The noble Lord, Lord Ewing, indicated that in contributing to the debate and possibly in briefing and lobbying for the debate, some people have gone over the top. I part company with him on that. I have been in the Highlands, too, and I am clear that there are sharply conflicting views about the issue. It is just as well to recognise that. People have been putting forward their cases with as much passion and conviction as did the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, the noble Baroness, Lady Strange, and the noble Lord, Lord Burton, when they came to see me last week. Therefore, we should recognise the strength of feeling about the matter.
It is my view, and it remains the view of the Government, that it would be best for the Highlands to stay as a single authority. We do not believe that the economic prospects of the Highlands of Scotland will be improved by splitting that main economic engine of the area—that is to say, the inner Moray Firth—into two

957
authorities. While of course there is the prospect that there could be harmonious co-operation between two councils, we think it would be better to stick to one.
In Committee the noble Earl, Lord Minto, identified what he saw as a common heritage and identity in the Highlands and said that one did not come across highlanders who described themselves as north highlanders or south highlanders. That would certainly square with my experience. They may feel a connection with and a loyalty towards Caithness or Sutherland but one does not experience the division of identity between north and south as is now being proposed. I appreciate that those who support the two council solution have now. appeared to move away from the idea that the headquarters of the northern council should be at Dingwall, which might seem at first blush to be the most obvious place to put it given what is there already. However, Dingwall and Inverness are only some 12 or 15 miles apart. Someone coming to Dingwall from Sutherland might find that he was staying in Inverness overnight or coming by that route. Now I understand that the proposal is instead, although it clearly cannot be a definite one, that the headquarters might be at Dornoch or Golspie. The golfers among the Highland councillors might think that an excellent idea. But if one comes from Ullapool, going to Dornoch instead of going to Inverness would be to drive 81 miles instead of 60. I am not saying that is an overwhelming argument but I emphasise that, whatever position one takes up at any point in the Highlands, apparent inconsistencies emerge. Those who live on the Black Isle just overlooking the capital of the Highlands at Inverness would frankly be rather startled to discover that it was proposed that the headquarters of their council should be up the coast in Dornoch rather than just across the Kessock bridge.
What seems to be at the centre of this discussion about the Highlands turns on two points with which I can deal shortly. Yes, indeed, when we first contemplated within the Bill that there ought to be a requirement on councils to establish a scheme of decentralisation we had the highlands very clearly in mind. I would very much want to see decentralisation and proposals for it going forward as quickly as possible. As my noble friends Lord Gray and Lady Carnegy have pointed out, it is to their credit that the existing regional council and some of the district councils already have a number of arrangements in place which would provide a very satisfactory base for decentralisation. Mention has already been made of such things as video links between Portree and Inverness. The Highlands may be quite a long way from here but they have a perfectly good telephone system and very good roads in many parts. Those modern techniques can well be deployed. There is no reason why there should not be a very well established and well developed decentralisation system. I can give this assurance. Any such proposal for decentralisation coming forward from the single authority in the Highlands would be closely scrutinised by the Secretary of State, as he would be bound to do, and I believe that that is already appreciated by those who promote the one council solution.
958
The other anxiety is that there might be too few councillors, given the large area that they have to cover. I want to stress that the two matters are not necessarily interlinked. We have gone out to consultation—that consultation period has not yet ended so I cannot offer any final view on it—on council numbers in the Highlands as elsewhere and I want to stress to those including my noble friend Lord Sanderson, the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, and the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, that our proposals in that consultation paper are not set in concrete. We shall want to look very carefully at those matters for just the very reasons that have been advanced before your Lordships today.
While I did not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, that those who had contributed to the debate, here and outside it, had gone over the top, I would have to acknowledge that a degree of bitterness has built up in the Highlands, which is to be regretted. I hope that we can reach a conclusion tonight that there should be a single council and that once that decision has been taken those who wish to see the Highlands develop and prosper will get together and do all that they can to improve and set up decentralisation schemes which could make it a most attractive part of local government in Scotland.
Viscount Thurso: My Lords, I am exceedingly disappointed that even the noble and learned Lord the Minister should have chosen to go back to putting words into our mouths which we did not utter tonight. We did not say anything about making the headquarters at Dingwall or that from a whole lot of different choices we had chosen two councils. We came to him solely with the proposition I have described to the House this evening. That we have been consistent with and I think it is unfair to say that we have been inconsistent in our approach. I can assure the House that the backing for that approach does not follow party lines. It goes across all parties. The noble and learned Lord will know that, as I know because I was rung up by a person who was present at the meeting—the noble and learned Lord will know who it was. He had a meeting of his own supporters in Wick only a few days ago telling him what a Moses he was making of this. The Minister would not apparently even listen to him
I have to ask your Lordships to help us because the Minister is obviously not so inclined. I beg of you to give us the structures we want and then you will see us in north Highland and south Highland striving as a contented electorate to make these structures work, and, if I may borrow the motto of the Royal Burgh of Wick, "wark weel". I commend the amendment to the House.
7.36 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 15) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 30; Not-Contents, 88.

Division No.3

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Argyll, D.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

McNair, L.

Buchan, E

Monkswell, L

Burton, L.

Orkney, E

Elphinstone, L.

Perry of Walton, L.

Falkland, V.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Fitt, L.

Russell, E

Hamwee, B.

Shepherd, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Strange, B. [Teller.]

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Teviot, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Lauderdale, E

Thurso, V. [Teller.]

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Tordoff, L.

Macpherson of Drumochter, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Henley, L.

Addison, V.

HolmPatrick, L

Ailsa, M.

Hooper, B.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Howe, E

Arran, E [Teller.]

Inchyra, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Inglewood, L.

Balfour, E

Kimball, L

Belstead, L.

Kitchener, E

Blatch, B.

Long, V.

Boardman, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Lucas, L,

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Lyell, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Bruntisfield, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord

Cadman, L.

Chancellor.]

Campbell of Croy, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Mersey, V.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Minto, E.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Mottistone, L.

Courtown, R.

Nickson, L.

Craigavon, V

Norrie, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Northesk, E.

Pender, L

Cranbome, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Perth, E.

Crickhowell, L

Prior, L.

Cross, V.

Rankeillour, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Reay, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Renton, L

Demon of Wakefield, B.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Downshire, M.

Selborne, E

Dunrossil, V.

Sharples, B.

Elles- B.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Elton, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

St. Davids, V.

Ferrers, E.

Stewartby, L.

Flather, B.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Gisborough, L.

Swinton, E.

Goschen, V.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Trumpington, B.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Ullswater, V.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Wharton, B.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned until 8.45 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Sale and Supply of Goods Bill
7.45 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Dormand of Easington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Lord Grantchester) in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Implied term about quality]:
Lord Beaumont of Whitley Lord Beaumont of Whitley moved the amendment:
Clause 1
Page 2, line 9, at end insert
"(2D) (a) For the purposes of paragraph (e) in subsection (2B) there is an implied term that the seller shall provide spare parts and after sales services at reasonable cost in such circumstances as are stated in an offer, description or advertisement by the seller on behalf of the manufacturer or on his own behalf and for such period stated to be the goods' normal life span or, in the absence of such a statement, for a reasonable period of time.
(b) With regard to goods having a normal expected life span in excess of 12 months, the Secretary of State after such consultation with such interested parties as he thinks proper—

(i) shall, by order, require the seller on his own behalf or on behalf of the manufacturer, in relation to any stated class of goods, to supply to prospective buyers information stating the normal expected life span of the goods under reasonable conditions of use; and

(ii) may make such regulations as appear to him to be necessary or desirable for any purposes connected with the preceding section.").

The noble Lord said: The Bill is welcome but it could be strengthened and clarified. The amendment highlights a particular aspect which has not received much attention; namely, the significance of the inclusion of the term "durability" as a factor determining whether certain goods are of a satisfactory quality. I am a long-standing martyr to the inability of our parliamentary procedure to cater for amending non-government Bills. I should make it quite clear at the start that I shall not be pressing the amendment. However, I wish to probe the reactions of the Government.
In Clause 1, the Bill proposes an amendment to Section 14 of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 so that there is an express reference to "durability", which would be one of the aspects of the quality of goods determining whether they are of satisfactory quality when sold. That is very welcome. A major review of relevant case law concluded that there is a lack of clarity in current legislation and suggested that an obligation that goods should be durable could represent,
"an important advance for consumers".
A report of the Law Commission in 1987 argued that such a change would make it easier for consumers to establish breach of contract. The National Consumer Council also voiced support.
It has been said that no actual change in the practical application of the law is intended by the inclusion of such words and that the intention of the reform is mere clarification. However, the Department of Trade and Industry made the point that the greater visibility provided by reference to durability should give customers more leverage and may make the courts more sympathetic to claims by buyers.
The inclusion of the term "durability" is especially important because of widespread public concern at the environmental impact of our throw-away culture. Each year over 6 million kitchen appliances, 3 million vacuum cleaners, 2 million cars and a vast tonnage of furniture and floor coverings are discarded. A report by the New Economics Foundation (which has the only major research programme in the UK on the topic) points out that there is a considerable environmental impact both from the waste and from the production of replacement items.
Discussion of durability in the context of environmental sustainability is particularly timely because the Government are shortly to publish their national waste strategy. In their strategy report on sustainable development published earlier this year they recognised that effective waste minimisation was not just a question of reducing unwanted outputs from the manufacturing process but that it also involved producing longer lasting products. Premature obsolescence represents financial waste as much as environmental waste. It affects consumer satisfaction and thus social welfare.
Many people believe that consumer durables such as household appliances, furniture and housewares do not last as long as they should, or indeed as long as they used to in the past. Whether or not that is true, there is certainly room for improvement. Whether the Bill has much impact on the lifespan of goods will depend critically upon how key terms such as "durability" and "a reasonable person" are interpreted. For example, should a mid-range washing machine, with average use, last for seven years or for 17 years? Do reasonable people keep their possessions for as long as possible or are they inclined to discard them as fashions change? As the Bill stands, the crucial responsibility of defining terms will be left to the courts. Should not Parliament give the courts some guidance? I hope that the Minister will enlighten us as to how the Government would wish key terms such as "durability" and "reasonable" to be understood rather than leaving interpretation solely to the courts.
Durability is to be one of the aspects of quality determining whether goods are of satisfactory quality. It is thus a key term. According to the New Economics Foundation, durability may be defined as,
"the ability of a product to perform its required function over a lengthy period under normal conditions of use without excessive expenditure on maintenance and repair".
I do not imagine anyone would much quarrel with that. Products differ, of course, and my amendment takes account of that. It does not apply to products which would not normally be expected to last under a year. It covers goods traditionally described as consumer durables and excludes other items such as food. What is
962
in doubt is the level of durability which is anticipated by the Bill. Most electrical appliances could last and function for 15 years. There is no technological obstacle. Indeed the major report on product durability by the OECD pointed out that manufacturers freely accept that, "from a technical point of view there is no question mat longer lived appliances could be made".
In arriving at their definition of durability, account should be taken by the courts of the fact that the design life of many goods is currently substantially below the known technical potential.
One apparent problem is that the lifespan of products depends not only on how they are manufactured but on intensity of use, how they are treated by users and the quality of any servicing and repair. Even so, the Law Commission in its report maintained that the courts should still be able to decide whether the criterion had been broken, as the durability of goods,
"is essentially a question of their original condition on delivery".
In practice it should not be too difficult to determine whether products have been designed for an appropriate level of durability as manufacturers plan products to have a certain design life. However, my amendment would make this information more visible.
The Bill also refers to a standard of quality acceptable to a reasonable person. Expectations vary as to how long consumer durables should last and different opinions are held on whether products are worth repairing. A New Scientist survey a few years ago found that half the discarded appliances at civic amenity sites still functioned or could be repaired at minimal cost. I have no doubt that even in your Lordships' House there are people who have discarded broken durables which could have been repaired partly because it was impossible to get spare parts. That is one of the matters the amendment deals with.
What are "reasonable people"? Do reasonable people have high expectations or are they the kind of people who accept the market conditions which, according to manufacturers, force them to sacrifice durability in order to keep prices down and remain competitive? It would clearly be unreasonable to expect products to remain in their original condition throughout their lifespan. A degree of cosmetic deterioration and occasional repair should be expected, but currently the lifespan of goods often falls below reasonable expectations. I am sure that that is the experience of Members of your Lordships' House.
Whether people are considered reasonable depends to a degree on the social context of their behaviour; in other words, on society's expectations. But what kind of society does the legislation assume? Are manufacturers to be expected to meet traditional expectations of durability, or the lower standards of the "throwaway" society? I would propose that the former is a reasonable expectation. In a world which is now committed, as is our country, to the achievement of sustainable growth in the future and sustainable life and production, I am sure that the former must be insisted on.
While I support the Bill, it could be strengthened to the benefit not only of consumers and the environment but also of the many businesses committed to improve

963
product quality. My amendment to the Bill requires information to be provided for consumers about the normal expected lifespan of products. Ultimately, in determining if goods are of satisfactory quality, the courts will have to determine how long specific types of consumer durables, given normal use, should be expected to last. I believe that Parliament should provide some guidance to our intention.
The idea of requiring producers to disclose the design life of their products is not original. It was tentatively proposed by the National Consumer Council several years ago. The proposal does not prescribe specific periods for particular products; it is concerned with providing information to customers, not forcing manufacturers to make products of a certain type. It allows for a range of products of different grades with different lifespans. By increasing information to potential buyers it would improve the efficiency of the market. Access to this information is important. It is only as consumers become more aware of the lifespan of products that they will be more inclined to buy products which are designed to last longer.
A National Consumer Council survey found that 40 per cent. of consumers felt that current information on durability and reliability was fairly poor or very poor and 80 per cent. considered the provision of such information to be essential or very important. Explicit references to the expected life of products in manufacturers' promotional material are, possibly not surprisingly, rare and purchases of consumer durables consequently have to be made primarily on the basis of price, features and style rather than durability.
Lastly, my amendment places a legal obligation on the seller or supplier of goods to maintain stocks of spare parts and to provide servicing facilities during the product's normal lifespan. A frequent cause of complaint by consumers is that products cannot be repaired because spare parts are no longer available. While many manufacturers take a responsible approach, all too often products are thrown away because parts are not available. The current voluntary arrangements do not appear to be effective. For example, the periods specified in the codes of practice drawn up by trade associations are sometimes shorter than the design life of products.
The performance of manufacturers varies. Some, unfortunately, are well informed about their products' performance only as long as they are under guarantee and the requirement to stock parts will encourage them to take a longer term interest. It thus fits well with the concept of extended producer responsibility which the Government support. The requirement to stock spare parts need not cause undue hardship to small retailers, a fear sometimes expressed, as it should ultimately be the responsibility of manufacturers to store the parts. Retailers would only be obliged to supply them within a reasonable period.
As long as there is free trade, the problem of tracing and dealing with irresponsible overseas manufacturers has to be faced. Product liability legislation raises the same problem. Retailers should not excuse overseas
964
manufacturers from the requirement to provide information, and reputable suppliers would produce it for them.
If the Government are sympathetic in principle to the amendment—and I do not see how they cannot be sympathetic in principle—but regard the Bill as the wrong vehicle, they are invited to draft another Bill in consultation with the relevant organisations and introduce it at the earliest opportunity, in a form which allows this Chamber, if it sees fit, to amend it rather than going through this forced procedure of having to withdraw perfectly good amendments which would improve the Bill. I beg to move.
8 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington: I have some sympathy with what the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, seeks to achieve with the amendment, but I am not entirely convinced by some of the arguments which he produced in his speech.
During the debates on the Bill we have heard much about the need to remove old-fashioned phrases such as "merchantable quality", but essentially the Bill is intended to update and clarify the law rather than to change it. It does not break new ground.
It is arguable that the nature of goods has changed so much since the original Sale of Goods Act was passed in 1893 that we should adopt a more radical approach which reflects those changes. I have given the noble Lord's amendment careful consideration from that point of view.
There is no doubt that a major change in the past 100 years has been the increasing availability of manufactured goods which work mechanically with little or no further intervention on the part of the owner. Such goods—television sets, washing machines, computers, lawn mowers and motor cars—require regular servicing and a reliable supply of spare parts on a scale inconceivable to our ancestors. It is relevant that such goods often evolve very quickly, and spares suitable for one year's model may be useless for next year's.
There is an argument, therefore, that those changes should be reflected in the Bill before us, and that there should be a requirement in statute that spares should be made available for mechanical goods with a limited life span. However, I am not convinced that the noble Lord's amendment would achieve its purpose of increasing consumer protection in this area, and it could lay significant new burdens upon business.
Let us consider the amendment more closely. It is linked with the provision that in considering whether goods are of satisfactory quality one of the aspects to be taken into account should be durability. In a sense it can be regarded as spelling out what that aspect should mean. It would give the consumer a specific right in damages if spare parts were not available within either the period specified by the seller or a period which was "reasonable".
However, there are dangers in that. Under the Bill as at present drafted the consumer's right to durable goods is, so to speak, a right at large: its interpretation in any

965
given circumstances would be a matter for a court in the light of those circumstances. The amendment would modify that. It should not affect the consumer's general right to durable goods. However, it may affect the assessment of the durability of goods by equating the expected life of those goods with the period specified by the seller. There would also be a strong implication that the consumer was not entitled to expect provision of spare parts or after sales service beyond any period specified by the seller.
So far from increasing the consumer's rights this could restrict them. Let us consider what is likely to happen in practice. The seller specifies the life span of a number of years. As I have already suggested, there would be a strong implication that this defined the goods' durability. But goods do not last a uniform length of time.
Let us take a television set with an average, or in the words of the amendment "normal", life span of five years. This means that some will fail before the end of that period. If the seller has specified five years in his sales offer the buyer will be entitled to spare parts and after sales service. However, some will last longer and their buyers will have no such entitlement. That could mean a reduction, not an increase, in consumer protection if in the absence of the specified life span the durability of the television set would probably be assessed at, say, 10 years.
The noble Lord may answer that competition will ensure that sellers specify more than the average life of their goods and that competition on durability will tend to lengthen the specified life. However, that would mean sellers deliberately specifying life spans which were longer than the "normal" life span. That could prove extremely burdensome, since in law these long life spans would continue to be treated as normal and sellers would be liable to meet the requirement for an artificial length of time.
Alternatively, the situation could go the other way. There would be a temptation for manufacturers to specify the shortest period that they thought that they could get away with. Some sellers might specify very short periods and maintain their competitive advantage by cutting prices to reflect the savings they could expect on after sales service. Neither of those developments would be in the long-term interests of the consumer.
The Act is concerned with quality of goods among other things. I would not wish to see practices encouraged whereby satisfactory quality of goods could be compromised by the possibility that provision of spare parts for a limited period was all that was required to ensure that the goods were durable.
There is a further danger. The amendment could lead to uncertainty in the area of durability. For example, a seller may consider that his statement of the specified life of goods equates to durability, whereas a court may on looking at the circumstances of a particular case take a different view. Neither the seller nor the consumer would benefit from that uncertainty.
There is another difficulty. The amendment would place a considerable burden on the seller. It is the seller who would be liable under the Act. The buyer normally has no contract with the manufacturer. But it is the
966
manufacturer who will need to provide the spare parts and after sales service. The seller would therefore be giving an undertaking on a matter over which he had no control.
The Sale of Goods Act implies certain terms into the contract between the seller and the buyer. For example, the seller must have good title; the goods must be as described; and they must be of satisfactory quality. Durability is an aspect of satisfactory quality. But these are all matters which the seller can control. I hope that the Committee will agree that it would be quite wrong to make the seller responsible for a matter which he could not control.
Therefore, while I fully recognise the good intentions behind the amendment, I do not think that it would achieve its purpose and fear that it could work against the interests of consumers while placing a burden on sellers which it would be hard to justify and for which the consumer would have ultimately to pay. I therefore ask the Committee to reject the amendment.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Earl Ferrers): This is, of course, a Private Member's Bill and it is the responsibility of the noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington. I intervene only because the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, prompted me to do so because he wanted to know the Government's view.
First, the Government are very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, supports the Bill. The Government were surprised that he put down an amendment and spoke to it at not inconsiderable length—but I do not blame him for that —and then said that he had no intention of pressing it. Therefore, one wondered why he put down an amendment in the first place. The purpose was, of course, to extract information, which I shall come to.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington, I am not entirely unsympathetic to the views which the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, expressed. But I am bound to say that I doubt whether the amendment he proposed would achieve the objective which he seeks. Even if it did, I beg leave to doubt whether this is the right Bill in which to include those provisions.
Perhaps we can look at the origins of the Bill. It implements a report from the Law Commissions which was drawn up after careful consideration of the need for reform in this area. It received a wide measure of acceptance after extensive consultation. On that basis it has so far been given a fair wind both here and in another place. However, I do not believe that it would be right for the Committee now to seek to extend the scope of the Bill into areas over which there has been no public debate. The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, assured us that he does not intend to do that.
As drafted, the noble Lord's amendment is flawed in that it is unlikely to have the effect that is intended. I can only agree with the noble Lord, Lord Dormand. The amendment would threaten a straitjacket of regulation over markets, many of which are rapidly evolving. It would in the process change the perspective of purchasers who would come to regard the period of availability of spares as the natural life of the product,

967
even though the true potential life might be—indeed, almost certainly would be—either more or less than that period but almost certainly not of that specific length. That would create an artificiality in the market which would be unlikely to be in the interests either of the producer or consumer.
I am bound to tell the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, that the Government have a more fundamental difficulty with the amendment. It is one which the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, may not share. The noble Lord, Lord Dormand, too, may not share it, although I hope he does. Our purpose is to reduce the burden of regulation on industry, not to increase it. Yet the potential effect of the noble Lord's amendment is highly prescriptive and could prove a serious constraint on the commercial freedom of suppliers to order their affairs in ways which enable them to meet the demands of the market and the efforts of their competitors.
I do not believe that there is a manifest mischief at present which needs to be dealt with. There is little evidence that the natural life of goods is being cut short by lack of spare parts. Indeed, any manufacturer who made a habit of cutting off the supply of spare parts before his goods had reached the end of their natural life would soon be out of business. In those circumstances, we do not see that there is a case for interfering with the normal workings of the market but a considerable case for not doing so.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: I need hardly say that I am disappointed at the response of the Government. I am highly disappointed with the arguments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Dormand, that manufacturers would specify too long or too short a period which would cause great disadvantages. It is just possible that manufacturers might find that to specify the correct amount of time was right and that it paid them to do so.
Spare parts are frequently not available during the natural life of the product. It is a great pity that they are not. The arguments which have been put forward are understandable in the circumstances of the Bill at present. However, I venture to forecast that in the necessary and inevitable move towards a sustainable economy in the near future—to which the Government are committed—a Bill containing those clauses will be introduced within, say, five years. I believe that that is an absolute certainty. The provision may not have been in the right place, but it could have received a rather more welcoming response. Under the circumstances, and for the reasons I have outlined, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Remaining clauses and schedules agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.

Sale of Goods (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
8.15 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons amendments be now considered.—(Lord Renton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
Page and line refers to Bill 88 as first printed by the Commons.)

COMMONS AMENDMENT
1 After Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
("Consequential repeals
—(1) Section 47 of the Laws in Wales Act 1542 (sale of stolen goods in a fair or market in Wales) is hereby repealed.
(2) In section 7(3) of the Sea Fisheries (Shellfish) Act 1967 (protection of fisheries for shellfish), the words "sold in market overt or" shall be omitted.'.Clause 2,
Lord Renton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the first of the Commons amendments on the Marshalled List. The amendment inserts a new clause after Clause 1. The new clause contains two new subsections in each of which there is a deletion of words within previous legislation which are unnecessary. The first subsection relates to the Laws in Wales Act 1542, Section 47 of which is repealed. The other relates to the Sea Fisheries (Shellfish) Act 1967. In Section 7(3) the words "sold in market overt or" shall be omitted. The words which are to be taken out of the previous legislation have become unnecessary. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1.—(Lord Renton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
2 Clause 2, page 1, line 7, at end insert:
'(2) This Act shall apply to any contract for sale of goods which is made after this Act comes into force.
(3) This Act shall come into force at the end of the period of two months beginning with the day on which it is passed.
(4) Section 1 and this section extend to Northern Ireland.'.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the second Commons amendment which adds three new subsections to Clause 2 of the Bill. The first merely makes it clear that the Bill would not be retrospective. Subsection (3) provides that,
"This Act shall come into force at the end of the period of two months".
That has become common form—a matter that I overlooked when drafting the Bill.
Subsection (4) makes it clear that the Bill applies to Northern Ireland. I am surprised that the Government were advised that it was necessary because the market overt rule has never applied in any part of Ireland in days gone by.
Before I invite the noble Baroness on the Woolsack to put the Question, perhaps I may say that although I welcome the Commons amendments, they cause me some disappointment because I believe that without them the Bill would have been the shortest ever passed into law.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2.—(Lord Renton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Viscount Long: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.45 p.m.
Moved accordingly and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.20 to 8.45 p.m.]

Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed on Schedule 1.
[Amendment No. 16 not moved.]
Clause 4 [Convener and depute convener]:
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 3, line 26, at end insert ("provided that no such other council may, without the consent of the Secretary of State, decide that their convener shall be known by the title of "Lord Provost".").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 17. Noble Lords may remember that when the question as to whether councils other than those of the four cities of Aberdeen, Dundee, Edinburgh and Glasgow should be able to call their convener by the title of Lord Provost was debated, I indicated that I should like to give further consideration to the matter. That I have done over the summer break. As I said in the previous debate, I am reluctant for this local government legislation to provide a complete veto mechanism for any such proposal. However, the tabled amendment which requires any councils other than those of the four cities mentioned to seek the consent of the Secretary of State seems to me to provide a reasonable compromise.
If, therefore, a council felt that it could prove historical title to use the term "Lord Provost", then that could be considered on its own merits. The possibility is not completely ruled out but would be a matter for the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Lord Lyon, if appropriate. Given the differences of views and the loyalties and traditions that were relied upon in the previous debate, I hope that this compromise will meet everyone's interests. I accordingly commend the amendment to the House.
Lord Hughes: My Lords, I find this a perfectly acceptable amendment. I cannot think of any of the proposed new authorities which could establish a claim to that of Lord Provost. There is one on the margin, which is Perth. Perth had a Lord Provost and in the hierarchy Perth's Lord Provost ranked immediately after Edinburgh. However, the situation changed because at that time Perth was a city on its own and was apart from the county of Perth and Kinross. In the proposed new set-up, the county of Perth and Kinross is reinstated and the city of Perth as such does not exist. However, I have no doubt that it could be one of the matters which might possibly be considered.
I am also told that at one time Elgin claimed to have a Lord Provost. I understand that that was based on no stronger ground than that on one occasion when Queen Victoria had been there she referred to the civic head as "my Lord Provost". They then said, "Very well, she has conferred a title on us". It is on no stronger ground than
970
that. What has been suggested is a good answer, although it may well place the Secretary of State in the rotten position of having to decide, if somebody does claim, and perhaps having to say: "I am not convinced that you have a claim to it"'. This is one case where I am quite happy that the Secretary of State is taking this onerous responsibility upon himself.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I wonder if I may intervene in these debate between the ex-Lord Provost and the Minister in the Scottish Office. Perhaps he can help us with a definition of what a Lord Provost is. When I was much younger I always understood that a provost only became a Lord Provost if the area had a cathedral. One of the points that always worried me was why Dunblane did not have a Lord Provost because it has a cathedral that is rather larger than those in some of the cities in Scotland. Is there another definition? The question of what a Lord Provost is has always concerned me. I would be happy if the noble and learned Lord could enlighten me and give me any idea of whether there is a definition or whether the matter is purely dependent upon the Secretary of State giving his permission.
Lord Hughes: My Lords, perhaps I might intervene. I think that my noble friend has things slightly mixed up. It was not that those places that had a cathedral could claim the right to have a Lord Provost. They claimed to have the right to call themselves a city. That is why to this day you see the city of Dunblane.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, before we move on perhaps I might tell the Minister the story of the local milkman who, after taking a good drink, was driving his horse and cart and asked a local chap to look after his horse. The chap said to him: "Do you know who I am? I am the Lord Provost". The milkman said: "I can trust you with my horse, can't I?".
Lord Hughes: Was it in Dundee?
The Earl of Perth: My Lords, having heard the noble Lord, Lord Hughes mention that one possible exception in the future might be the city of Perth, I feel very happy to rise and say that I am totally behind this amendment. Things change. You cannot foresee what will happen in five or 10 years. In earlier consideration of this position there was a suggestion that the four should be there for all time and nothing could ever change that. It was a sort of graven-in-stone monopoly. I therefore welcome the amendment that is proposed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie. I had hoped that he would come up with the solutions that he has produced.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I am most grateful to those noble Lords who have contributed to this debate and for the welcome that they have given to the amendment. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael will not ask for a further explanation from me. A more than adequate one has been provided by the noble Lord, Lord Hughes. I leave the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, to look after his own horses.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 5 [Elections and term of office of councillors]:
[Amendment No. 18 not moved.]
The Earl of Minto The Earl of Minto moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 3, line 38, leave out ("third") and insert ("fourth").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment in Committee. It is a matter about which I feel very strongly on behalf of the local authorities of Scotland as well as on my own behalf.
I am in a bit of a quandary because everything that can be said on this particular amendment was said in Committee. I do not feel that it would be right to rehearse the whole issue again. But there are certain elements attached to the amendment which I feel I should pursue.
At present local authorities in Scotland have a four-year tenure of office. The suggestion that it should be three years is not in the best interests of local government for the following simple reasons. In a three-year period, in the first year following an election no local authority has its own policies or its own budget. In the second year following an election it has the opportunity to fulfil its promises to the electorate by producing its policies and establishing its budget.
If there are only three years in a term of office, during the third year—as is now the case, in the fourth—the councils and the elected members on those councils turn their attentions, I would suggest almost naturally, towards the elections that they have to face at the conclusion of that financial year. That therefore means than in a three-year term of office the only year in which it will be possible for elected councillors in the new councils, as proposed within this Bill, to fulfil the pledges that they make to their electorate is the second year. That is my fundamental concern.
I have to tell the House that I received a very kind letter from the noble and learned Lord a few days ago. His explanation was that,
"In the light of all the evidence"
—following the internal management of all local authorities in Scotland—
"we concluded that there should be whole council elections every 3 years".
Indeed, I received an identical response from his right honourable friend in another place the Secretary of State for Scotland in answer to a letter that I wrote to him on this subject. I may say that it is the only letter that I wrote to the Secretary of State following the conclusion at Committee stage and the only item that I raised within that letter, as I considered it to be a matter of enormous importance in the local authority field.
If we are to have new councils, they should be given the opportunity to fulfil their mandates. Councils should not be placed in a situation of standing in front of the electorate and making promises that they simply cannot fulfil.
On the question as to whether all the evidence is totally factual, I somehow have my doubts. In local government we are united on this matter. There is no division of thinking. We are the people—among others,
972
admittedly—who are expected to respond to the consultation paper to which I have referred. It was a position which has been held in a response to the same consultation paper on the internal management of local authorities in Scotland. It was the same opinion exactly that was held by the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives and the Society of Directors of Administration in Scotland. There are not two more powerful professional bodies in Scotland with regard to the administration and provision of services. So the local authorities, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, SODA and SOLACE, were united in their opposition to the three-year term of office. I believe that they had every justification to be so.
This is not a political issue. It is an issue that will determine the democratic process of local government in Scotland for many years to come. It is not a political issue. It is a straight question of practicalities. It concerns the administrative ability of councillors and their officers to fulfil the function for which they will be elected or appointed.
It is difficult to understand the argument that everything went well before 1975 on the basis that the term of office was then three years. The three years before 1975 were rolling years. The councils were county councils, borough councils and urban district councils, all of which (I say with the greatest respect to them) had responsibilities which were far less than the responsibilities that will be put into the hands of the new councils or indeed the responsibilities which, following the last re-organisation of local government, were put into the hands of the councils that make up the present regional and district authorities; and they were given four years.
So what reason caused the three-year rolling programme to be made into four years? The argument has been put forward that there is an election every two years. After two years for the district and two years later the region; two years after that the district and two years after that the region. But both those councils are monitored by their electorate and are elected for functions and duties which are totally different one from the other. If three years is so very important to Her Majesty's Government with regard to local government—as it appears to be—I must ask whether Her Majesty's Government would recommend that three years be the tenure of office for central government following a general election. Five years is considered to be the limit, albeit there are occasions when the period is shorter.
Then those bodies with whom local authorities will work must be taken into consideration. I found it extremely interesting in the past few weeks to have received a letter informing me that it was the decision of the Secretary of State for Scotland that the new water boards were to have a tenure of office of four years. Who will the members of the water boards be? We do not yet know whether they will be completely or in part local councillors; but we know that there will be a very close association between the local authorities and the water boards. So why, on the one hand, are the water boards to be given four years and, on the other hand, local authorities with their vastly wide responsibilities

973
and remits are to be allowed only three years, in which only one year—the central year—is the year in which their policies will be undiluted and not impinged upon by the pressures of coining elections.
To me it is incomprehensible that for a matter which is so totally divorced from politics it should come to a confrontation. It is a simple matter to understand the rights and wrongs of this issue. With the very greatest respect to the noble and learned Lord, I believe that the Government have taken the wrong decision. It is as simple as that. For the reasons that I have stated at this time, I beg to move.
9 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I totally agree that four years is a reasonable term but not entirely for the reasons put forward by the noble Earl, Lord Minto. I believe that people can take office after an election and start immediately to think about their programme. I do not believe that when they are going out of office, they necessarily only think of getting back into office, so that there are only two years or a year in between in which they are able to think in terms of the good that they can do or their programme.
It is a simple question about time. I believe that four years is a reasonable time and we should stick to that. Three years is a little short. I cannot accept that for one year one thinks of the past, for one year one is free to apply the programme and for one year one is thinking of the next election. I feel that four years is a very reasonable time.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, with great respect to my noble friend Lord Mackie of Benshie—if I may call him such—I believe that there are much more substantial reasons for supporting the amendment which was so ably moved by the noble Earl, Lord Minto. The initial elections in April of next year are for a four-year term. The Minister will have to answer the question of how the initial elections in April of next year are for a four-year term and then in 1999 that term will be reduced to three years. What is the logic of having initial elections for four years and subsequent elections for three years only?
The Minister will also have to answer the noble Earl, Lord Minto, in relation to the fact that health boards and various other quangos—indeed, I suspect also the quangos to be set up under the legislation we are discussing—will be appointed for a four-year term. It seems absolutely outrageous that we should be saying that democratically elected councillors will be elected for only a three-year term but those who are appointed by the Secretary of State will be appointed for a four-year term. There is a host of reasons why the term for the new councils should be four years and not three as suggested in the legislation.
The Minister may well come back and say, as he has said before, that before the reorganisation of local government in 1973–74 the term of office for councillors was three years. But, as the noble Earl, Lord Minto, pointed out, that related to only a third of the
974
councillors. In those days one-third of the councillors retired every three years and therefore there was a rolling programme of elections.
We then come to the question of voter fatigue. Parliament is elected for five years and 17 days. It is not generally appreciated that Parliament can exist for 17 clear days, not including Saturdays and Sundays, after the date of a general election. The European Parliament is elected for a fixed period—a much longer period than we are discussing for local government.
If the new councils are to put together cohesive strategies they need a period that exceeds three years. The Bill talks of three years, but we are really talking about two years and nine months because in the last three months of that period no decisions will be taken; politicians of all parties—including, if I may say so, the Liberal Democrats —will be postulating political decisions in anticipation of the coming elections and there will be no cohesion in delivery of services. There is therefore an overwhelming argument as to why the Government should accept the four-year period of office rather than the three years. It would be nothing like a major climbdown for the Government, and I hope that the Minister will be sensible enough to rise in his place to say that they will accept the amendment so ably moved by the noble Earl, Lord Minto.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, perhaps I may say briefly to the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, that the four years in the first term is exactly what it was in 1974. The first year is a shadow year and the following three years are in action. Last time it was the first four years followed by a four-year gap between elections. That was different. But the first year is a shadow year and I should have thought that that was the reason for the decision.
I should like to say to my noble and learned friend that it would be a good idea for him to look at the matter again. Taken not only from the point of view of councillors or other quangos but from the point of view of the electorate it is important. The electorate either needs a more frequent opportunity to vote on the councils or it needs a longer period to see whether the council will carry out its manifesto. It is an advantage to the electorate to have the longer period in modern times. From that point of view therefore I favour the four-year term.
It is not a major issue and the politicians—the elected people in another place—should probably be the ones to decide. If the House divides upon the amendment I shall not vote for it at this stage. But I hope my noble and learned friend will look at the matter again.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I hope that my noble and learned friend on the Front Bench will take the matter away and consider it. A good case was made by the noble Earl, Lord Minto, at both Committee stage and today. Perhaps the logic of the argument can be looked at by my noble and learned friend before the next stage of the Bill.
The Earl of Perth: My Lords, I ask the. Minister to think again. Three years is a very short time for these councils because they do not get into their swing in the

975
first year for the reasons which we have heard from the noble Earl, Lord Minto. The point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, is a good one; namely, that the likelihood of carrying out the programme is that much better if it is for four years rather than three.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I have listened again with interest to the way in which the noble Earl has presented his argument, not only with great eloquence but also with great force in favour of a period of four years. My position and also that of the Government on this is that we do not believe this is a matter of absolutes. There is no absolutely right answer as regards three years any more than we believe it is absolutely wrong to go to four years. As he indicated, according to the terms of the letter which I sent to him, our decision in favour of elections every three years was influenced by the fact that prior to the last reform of local government the period in Scotland had traditionally been three years.
As a Unionist in the context of this Parliament, I recognise that the tradition elsewhere in local government in the United Kingdom has been for a different period although there have been other differences in the way in which elections have been held. We were strongly inclined to go for a period of three years. Having been a Member of another place, that was a matter which was considered there and voted on when the period of three years was settled.
I do not believe that there is anything absolutely right or wrong about three years or four years. I say to the noble Earl that I have greater confidence in a new authority than he appears to have. I believe that it is capable of getting on with its programme more quickly. But he has long experience in local government. I must reflect on the mood of the House not least as regards the Opposition Front Bench and that of my noble friends who have also contributed to this debate.
On that basis, I shall be grateful if the noble Earl will withdraw his amendment. As he will appreciate, I cannot give him an undertaking that I shall necessarily return to this matter at Third Reading and agree with him. Arguments have been very carefully and fully developed in the course of this short debate and they are such that both the Secretary of State and his Minister for local government and myself should reflect on those contributions. Without wanting to burden the Third Reading, this is a matter within a very narrow ambit which we can properly return to at that stage.
Lord Hughes: My Lords, can the Minister explain the point which the noble Earl, Lord Minto, raised about the water boards being given a four-year term?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, that is one of the aspects of the matter which I wish to reflect on. I freely acknowledge that as regards health boards in Scotland the anticipated period would normally be four years. It is not singularly or exclusively a four-year period because sometimes it is one, two or three years. It is in that context that it is appropriate that, instead of dealing with the matter any further in a comparatively
976
thin House, I reflect on it and return to it at Third Reading. Of course, I am in the hands of your Lordships.
Lord Hughes: My Lords, a councillor on the board when his term of three years expires ceases to be a member of the water board for that last year. He would have to wait for at least another year before he can again become a member of the water board.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, I do not know what the noble Earl, Lord Minto, is going to do in response to the Minister's reply to the debate. I should like a much more firm assurance from the Minister. The House has argued strongly that we should have a four-year term—
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, on a point of order. We are at Report stage. The noble Earl moved the amendment and we do not have the right to intervene in this way. I think that the House will agree with me.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, further to the point of order, I accept the strictures of the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, which demonstrate clearly her fear that the Government may well be defeated if we press this matter to a vote.
The Earl of Minto: My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords who have supported me in this amendment. However, I must advise the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, that I do not follow his argument. Perhaps on this occasion he will accept that 20 years' experience of local government gives one some reason to speak with authority.
The noble and learned Lord said that he has confidence in the new councils. So do I. I want to give them the opportunity of carrying out their duties in the best possible way and I want to see the people they represent given the best possible representation.
I listened carefully to what the noble and learned Lord said. He will not give me a guarantee that he will come back with anything different on Third Reading, but he is going some way towards that. I feel very badly about this, but I believe that this is a fundamental, which he does not. In view of that, on this occasion I must seek to divide the House.
9.20 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 19) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 29; Not-Contents, 43.

Division No.4

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Hamwee, B.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Hughes, L.

Carter, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Kinloss, Ly.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Dundee, E.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

Dunrossil, V.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Falkland, V.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

McNair, L.

[Teller.]

Minto, E.

977

Monkswell, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Palmer, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Perth, E.

Thurso, V.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Tordoff, L. [Teller.]

NOT-CONTENTS

Arran, E. [Teller.]

Hooper, B.

Attlee, E.

Howe, E.

Balfour, E.

Inglewood, L.

Blatch, B.

Lawrence, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Bruntisfield, L.

Lucas, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Lyell, L.

Courtown, E.

Mackay of Ardbreckmsh, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Mersey, V.

Nickson, L.

Cranbome, V. [Lord Privy Seal]

Northesk, E.

Cumberlege, B.

Reay, L.

Demon of Wakefield, B.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Faithfull, B.

Selborne, E.

Ferrers, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie.L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Gisborough, L.

Strange, B.

Goschen, V.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Teviot, L.

Henley, L.

Trumpington, B.

HolmPatrick, L.

Ullswater, V.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
9.29 p.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 20:
After Clause 5, insert the following new clause:
("Declaration of paid employment in Local Authority
—(I) The Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 shall be amended as follows.
(2) In section 31, leave out paragraph (1) (a).
(3) At the end of section 31 there shall be inserted the following new section
"Declaration of paid employment in Local Authority.
31 A.—(1) Subject to subsection (2) below, a person who holds paid office or employment in a local authority may be nominated as a candidate or serve as a member of that local authority.
(2) A person elected as a member of a local authority who is also in the paid employment of that authority (other than the office of chairman), shall declare his interest as an employee in writing to the returning officer upon election and shall not serve on any committee of the local authority which has responsibility for the department, section or organisation for which the member works." ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment tries to establish for local government officers the right still to play a part in local government. The planned move away from the present two-tier structure will debar 280,000 local government employees from holding public office, since Regional Council employees currently possess the right to stand for public office in district councils and vice versa. Potentially, 280,000 employees, who may have varying views across the political spectrum, will automatically be debarred from standing for office in local government elections. In fact, 10 per cent. of the Scottish electorate would be banned from making effective contributions to the work of the local council because of the planned changes and that has severe implications for their civil rights.
I understand that a representative of one of the unions for local council employees has been involved in discussions with the Scottish Council for Civil Liberties. The conclusion is that the effect of the proposals in the Bill would be that the Government of the United Kingdom would be in breach of their obligations under Article 25 of the United Nations Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. I know that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate is in tune with what is happening in the European Court and that he also receives much the same briefs as are given to us. Will the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, clear up the difficult issue of 10 per cent. of the population of Scotland being unable to be elected as councillors in their areas? I beg to move.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, I do not believe that, upon being elected to a council, any employee should be put in the impossible position of being able to criticise a senior officer of that council through the elected council's meetings. It is purely as a result of the embarrassment that might be created that employees of a council must not be elected members of that council. It is on that point that I object to Amendments Nos. 20 and 77.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I declare my interest as an adviser to UNISON, which is a major local government union. I support my noble friend in his Amendment No. 20. We had a long discussion in Committee and I do not wish to repeat those arguments. However, I wish to emphasise that the reason why 280,000 people are being disfranchised is because of the Bill and the Government's action. Undoubtedly, if something is not done to re-enfranchise those people who are disfranchised under the Bill as it now stands, the available source for councillors will be depleted.
I appreciate the difficulties, as I said in Committee. However, this amendment seeks to help and is perhaps a way forward. I wish to emphasise that a person employed by a local authority will, when nominated, make a declaration. Therefore, the electorate will know exactly who they are electing and that the candidate has an interest. If, in those circumstances, the electorate decide that he should be elected, he will be properly elected and those electing him will know all the circumstances.
This is an attempt to meet the difficulties that were raised in Committee. I feel that the Government should give consideration to this matter. As I explained in Committee, people who are employed by local authorities are already sitting on boards and making decisions quite often in relation to their employment. Presumably the chairmen and members of the boards of the new water authorities which are to be set up under the Bill will be making decisions which affect their lives. Therefore it is not as odd as it seems that we should be proposing in this amendment that local authority employees who hitherto had the opportunity to serve their fellows should continue to be able to do so

979
under the Bill. I hope that consideration will be given to this amendment because it provides a way out of a difficult situation.
Viscount Dunrossil: My Lords, I wish to raise a small point in relation to this matter. In North Uist in the Western Isles during the local elections in April a lady who lives very close to me was elected to the Western Isles council. Very shortly afterwards everyone found to their embarrassment that in responding to an earlier call from the council for emergency assistance for home help work she had been employed by the council and therefore, having been declared elected, she was promptly declared not elected. Perhaps the Government can give further thought to the matter. I am by no means sure that the proposed amendment, which is much broader and wider in scope than the little incident I have talked about, is what the Western Isles council is looking for. However, I know that it felt acutely embarrassed. It would be right if it were not in a position whereby the doubt and mechanics of the present situation could cause a lack of respect for democratic processes throughout the island. In the case to which I referred the Western Isles council and the whole democratic process were the subject of disrespectful giggling, which is not a happy state of affairs.
It is also discouraging to the very small number of people who are prepared to come forward, whether for three years or four years, for election to councils. This is a difficult point because in a relatively low cash economy such as the Western Isles so many people are inevitably employed by government or by the local administration. That means that by the existing state of affairs one is blocking out many people who have an orientation towards public service. It would be nice if the Government could give the matter further thought, perhaps not necessarily in the form of this amendment, and find a way of making it easier for people to seek compatibility between public service at a paid level, albeit perhaps at a lowly level, and being eligible for election.
I am sorry if I have not made myself clear, but I am not a constitutional expert. However, I believe that further consideration is necessary. Therefore, I support the spirit of the amendment without being entirely sure about its total effect.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, the matter before us requires careful consideration. Indeed, over the years it has received such consideration. There have been many inquiries and investigations not only in Scotland but also on this side of the Border because it is a problem which would apply with equal force here.
I believe that it might be interesting to look, first, at the report of the Montgomery Committee of 1984 which considered the issue specifically in the context of the Islands councils. It is appropriate because island councils in Scotland are single-tier authorities. The committee was firmly against chipping away at what it considered to be an intractable problem by not permitting employees to be members of committees relating to their own area of work. The committee said:
980
"We agree with the conclusions consistently arrived at by previous enquiries, which have gone into the arguments with great thoroughness, and decided against allowing council employees to stand for election. In particular, it is our view that an employee's interest goes much wider than the confines of his own area of work: decisions on other council functions could have repercussions for his own position, while decisions on broader policy issues might directly affect any employee councillor".
Following on from that, and more recently, the Government considered the issue of eligibility in the context of the review of the Internal Management of Local Authorities in Scotland. A public consultation paper was issued in March of last year which set out the arguments both for and against altering the present position. The Government received a substantial number of well-researched responses, mainly from local authorities and other local government organisations. Those responses served to highlight the sharp divisions that exist on the issue both generally and within local government. We did not approach that consultation from any fixed position. What we wanted to do was to establish the case for change and, if that was accomplished, to establish what form any relaxations might take. We paid particular attention to the responses from local government.
For just the kind of reasons outlined by the noble Viscount, there have been reservations about the numbers of people who in any particular area might be affected if the existing rules remained unchanged. However, despite that concern, the clear message was that there existed an inherent conflict of interest which could not be readily overcome. Some of the responses pointed out that there could be considerable problems in respect of the relationship that a councillor/employee might have with his employing authority or his manager.
Leaving aside the general principle of eligibility, if the amendment were accepted it could give rise to what we would see as a number of irreconcilable problems. For example, there might be the case of a council which decides to forgo a traditional committee structure. The council's preferred model might be a single committee structure—that is, the whole council. A variation on that theme might be a structure of perhaps only three or four committees each with oversight of a range of individual services. Indeed, there was a recent interesting suggestion in a newspaper article stating that Shetland Islands Council want to change things. However, I do not know whether or not that is correct. In the context of the decentralisation theme that I have been pressing during the course of this Report stage, an area committee might be given a range of responsibilities in respect of a particular area.
It is not just a matter of the councillor participating in a particular committee which is within his area. For example, what we must be concerned about is the possibility that such a councillor might be a social worker. If his constituents came to him stating that they had a social work problem he would have to say, "I am sorry, I understand your problem but I regret to say that I can't take it up on your behalf because that is an area of local government activity in which, as a councillor, I am excluded from participation".

981
There are serious difficulties here and I am bound to say that I believe that they concern issues of the constitution. Employees have never had the right to stand for election to their employing council. I am bound to say, notwithstanding the concerns—I recognise those concerns—that a number of people are excluded, we do not see that there is an overriding case for change. This approach is in line with the findings of several previous inquiries and with the rules that apply in England and Wales. It is also consistent with the long-standing rules which prevent serving civil servants from standing for election as Members of Parliament. Perhaps, most importantly, it is in line with the strong evidence from local authority interests themselves in favour of the status quo. For those reasons, which are not in any sense party political but which I believe concern some fundamental constitutional principles, I suggest to the noble Lord that he might withdraw his amendment.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, before the Minister sits down—he has now sat down—may I ask—
Noble Lords: Say you did not see him sit down!
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, I am told I must say I did not see the Minister sit down. Does the Minister recognise that in the Western Isles, the Outer Isles and indeed the Northern Isles one is dealing with a different community which perhaps people on the mainland of Scotland do not understand? People within these communities, to which I am proud to belong, want to participate in the governing of their community. This amendment is designed to make sure that they are given the right to participate in local democracy. The Government's rejection of this constitutes a statement to the people of the Western Isles who want to work in a local authority that if they take a job in a local authority they cannot stand for election. That seems to be a negation of democracy. Perhaps the Minister will wish to respond to that point.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I thought I had made it perfectly clear that I readily understand the desire of people to stand to be councillors in authorities in which they might be employees, but I should have thought that as a distinguished member of the Scottish Bar the noble Lord might like to reflect upon the fact that there are issues here as regards whether employees should also, as it were, become the people who run and have the responsibility for a council. As I indicated, inquiry after inquiry has reached exactly the same conclusion. The Montgomery Committee, which considered specifically just the communities to which the noble Lord makes reference, came to that conclusion. Local authority interests have recognised that there are inherent difficulties, which seem to me intractable, in terms of the conflict of interest. It is for that reason that I urge the House to take the view that the existing rules, which apply elsewhere in the United Kingdom, should be maintained in Scotland.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, before we come to a conclusion on this debate, I should say that I
982
realise the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, is becoming a little impatient. Perhaps I may explain to her the reason for the previous vote that took place. It will not be until 1999 that the three-year term will apply and there will be a Labour Government by that time and we will introduce a four-year term.
However, I turn to the issue that we are debating at the present time. When the Minister refers to the Montgomery inquiry he fails to take account of the services which—this was encouraged by the Government—had been contracted out by local authorities. I take the example of Stirling District Council which contracted out its legal services; those services are no longer carried out in-house. The irony is that an employee of Stirling District Council cannot stand as a candidate for election. (Is the Minister listening or is he listening to the Whip?) As I said, the irony is that an employee of Stirling District Council cannot stand for election to Stirling District Council but an employee of the company to whom the services of Stirling District Council have been contracted out can stand as a candidate. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate is nodding in agreement I find that astonishing. It is acceptable for an employee of a company providing contracted out services to stand for election to Stirling District Council and influence the policies of that district council in favour of the company which employs that person, but it is not acceptable for an employee of the council to stand for election. Where is the justice in that approach? The Montgomery inquiry has nothing to do with the discussion we are now having. I do not see us dividing on the issue, but I advise the Minister to have another look at the matter.
There is another point concerning Clackmannan. I am glad that the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, is in his place.
The Earl of Perth: My Lords, the noble Lord is totally out of order. The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, drew attention to the matter earlier. It appeared to make no difference. After the Minister has spoken we have to leave it at that.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I should like to make it clear that we are at Report stage. The noble Earl, Lord Perth, is correct. The Minister has spoken. The only person who has leave to speak after the Minister on points of clarification is the mover of the amendment. To do other than that would be out of order with the current Standing Orders.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, in accordance with my usual custom, I apologise to your Lordships' House.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I have one or two small points to make. First, I should have mentioned the fact that Amendment No. 77 was taken with Amendment No. 20, since the two amendments were grouped together.
I recognise the problems. I have had a long connection with local government, although only a brief personal association as I came to Parliament a year after I was elected to local government. It always annoyed me greatly that a lawyer who specialised in planning—

983
and we all know how explosive that subject was in local government—could be a councillor in a local authority. He might declare his interest, but there were many ways in which he could make his influence felt long before a vote was taken. Another obvious example relates to licensing laws. Although certain improvements have been made, licensing was a strong source of dubious decision-making in many local authorities in Scotland for a long time. I can see the two learned lawyers nodding their heads. They have been aware of the problem for a long time.
There were also problems with builders. A councillor who was a builder did not necessarily speak for his own firm, but someone else might speak for that firm. The trade in Glasgow was at least as influential as the Scottish Trades Union Congress in Glasgow. Therefore, I worry about the matter.
The example which the noble Viscount, Lord Dunrossil, gave pointed to the sheer stupidity of the matter. I believe that we should be looking at the matter in a positive way. Instead of identifying the difficulties we should be asking how we get over those difficulties. The examples that I have given show that it is possible to have great influence in a council. A councillor may declare an interest and not take part in a vote and then go to the tearoom or bar and use his influence there. We are all men of the world—at least all Edinburgh advocates are certainly men of the world. They will know what I mean.
I shall not press the amendment to a vote, but I hope that if the matter arises again in the future some positive arguments will be forthcoming to overcome the obvious difficulties. I accept that there are difficulties, but if these rules are to apply to council employees they should be hardened up in relation to other employees. Then we would be left with very few people who would be eligible to stand for election to local authorities.
In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 2 [Establishment of new local authorities]:
The Earl of Dundee The Earl of Dundee moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 130, line 39, after ("wards") insert (", the boundaries of which, where possible, correspond to the boundaries of the wards for district council elections as at 7th May 1992 and").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the purpose of the amendment is to draw attention to the strong opposition in Scotland to the plan for reducing the level of local government representation. Reductions in the number of electoral wards have been proposed. As a result, efficient representation by councillors will become much more difficult than it is and in particular in Highland, Fife, Borders, Dumfries and Galloway. Indeed in those parts of Scotland, and arising from Schedule 2 and Clause 23 of the Bill, when taken together, it is perceived by many that there are now two parallel problems threatening local communities: first, under-representation by councillors; and, secondly, from the present drafting of Clause 23, of insufficient decentralisation by the new unitary authorities.
On the question of under-representation, and of all four areas mentioned, Fife will be worst affected. If my right honourable friend the Secretary of State were to decide upon 46 seats in Fife, it would mean a ratio of one councillor to approximately 7,500 people. That ratio puts an area of significant rural population on a par with the dense urban population of Glasgow and Edinburgh. In Highland, Dumfries, Galloway and Borders, the proposed reduction would also create some very large wards. Clearly that would weaken links between councillors and local communities.
A useful comparison may be made with Wales where the ratio of councillor to electorate is far lower. In the new Welsh council to be composed of Dwyfor, Arfon and Meirionnydd, the ratio is one councillor to roughly 1,400 population, compared with the new proposed Scottish average of one councillor to approximately 4,000 population.
There is then the worry that owing to those changes Scottish councillors themselves will have far too much work to do. That in turn makes it far harder for those who are in full time employment or who have family commitments to stand for election. As a result, there would clearly be a narrower choice of potential councillors.
There is, too, the adverse connection between reduced councillor numbers and the theme of decentralisation which we shall discuss in Clause 23. If decentralisation were to be carried out properly—that is, decentralisation of the decision-making apparatus and not just of services—there would have to be enough councillors to make the option of setting up area committees and such structures practicable. Paragraph 2 of Schedule 2 does not deal with individual councils. Consultation is still under way with local authorities over the number of electoral wards for the new councils in their areas. It is understood that next week my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will give guidance on the matter. However, in view of that procedure and in advance of that statement, I should be grateful if the Minister could pass on the concerns which I believe to be held on all sides of the House. I beg to move.
10 p.m.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, perhaps I may take the advice of the noble Earl, Lord Perth, and intervene before the Minister speaks. As an apprentice in your Lordships' House, learning the procedure as I go along, I am grateful to the noble Earl for passing on the benefit of his long experience in your Lordships' House.
I know what the Minister will say in response to the amendment: the proposals are out for discussion. However, if the consideration given to the drafting of the Bill is anything to go by, then I have to say in all honesty that my deep suspicion is that nothing will change as a result of the consultation that will take place between now and the Government laying the parliamentary orders that implement the proposals for the number of councillors.
Perhaps I may concentrate for a few minutes on Fife because I know that it is the basis of the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Dundee. It is absolutely outrageous

985
to suggest that Fife should have only 46 councillors to represent the electorate. I said earlier today that it has now been decided that Central Region will have three local authorities. In that region there will be 70-plus councillors representing a population—not an electorate —of 250,000. In Fife, if the Government's proposals are implemented, there will be only 46 councillors representing a population—not an electorate—of over 300,000.
It is absolutely outrageous that the Government should suggest that the boundaries for the initial elections in April 1995 should be the regional council boundaries in Fife. The Minister knows that full well. Throughout the debates I have hesitated to quote to him something which Allan Stewart said, because I know that nothing hurts him more than to be burdened with the words of his colleague the Minister in another place. Mr. Stewart gave a specific undertaking at Report stage of the Bill in another place that the district council boundaries would be used for the initial elections and the local government boundary commission would draw boundaries for subsequent elections.
The Minister will have to explain why the Government have changed their mind. We have never been given any reason for the Government going back on the promise given at Report stage in another place. The Minister has to explain why the Government have changed their mind on the promise given by Allan Stewart that it would be the district council boundaries mat would be used in the initial elections.
In favour of Fife, it has to be said that at present there are 92 councillors throughout Fife. Fife's argument has never been that there should be 92 councillors in the local authority. Its evidence has always been that there should be no more than 70 councillors in the new authority. So Fife is not arguing for 92 councillors. The Minister would be well advised to take on board the arguments and come up with a much better arrangement than the 46 councillors suggested for Fife.
It is absolutely appalling that as a result of the Bill the Secretary of State will make 10,000 appointments to quangos, including six new quangos created as a result of the legislation. It has nothing to do with the devolution of power and everything to do with the centralisation of power and the creation of quangos. There will be 10,000 appointments made by Mr. Ian Lang, as against only 1,000 councillors elected by the 5 million people who live in Scotland. That is not acceptable: we need a second look at the matter. We cannot resolve the matter tonight. We shall need to come back to it. I appreciate that and look forward to what the Minister has to say.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, are we taking Amendment No. 22 as well as this one? Amendments Nos. 21 and 22 are grouped together.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, it was certainly my intention to respond to Amendment No. 22 in replying to this short debate. As the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, correctly anticipated, my response was going to be that consultation is under way. I can imagine what would be the reaction of the noble Lord and indeed other noble Lords if, prior to the completion of that period of
986
consultation, I were to indicate on behalf of the Secretary of State that any firm decisions had been arrived at in terms of councillor numbers. I indicated during the course of an earlier debate on the Highlands council proposal that our proposals in the consultation paper are not set in concrete and that we look forward to proposals that might be made by those who wish to offer a different set of numbers.
For the vast majority of areas in Scotland we propose in the consultation the use of up-to-date district wards, or in a few areas—that is to say, Borders, Dumfries and Galloway, and Fife, to which the noble Lord drew particular attention —regional electoral divisions. These particular proposals have a set of clear advantages: namely, they have been subject to the statutory review procedures of the local government boundary commission for Scotland.
I appreciate exactly the point that the noble Lord made; namely, that those who represent the Fife interest have not argued that there should be 92 councillors. They recognise that that number might be excessive. I have not seen the submission but informally I understand, as the noble Lord indicated, that they would advocate something in the region of 70. I ask the noble Lord to reflect on that for a moment. To reach a view that there should be 70 councillors in Fife would effectively mean redrawing every single ward in Fife. That may well be done, and it may be very desirable to do it. The point on which I hope we would be at one is that the noble Lord would consider it to be highly undesirable that the Secretary of State or the Scottish Office should draw up those figures. If unjustly, we have been accused of gerrymandering in regard to the new councils that would be as nothing compared to the uproar there would be if within the Scottish Office we sought to define what were to be the individual wards. It may be necessary at some time to set about a fundamental change. But I strongly suggest that that is not a task to be undertaken by the Scottish Office but by the local government boundary commission at an appropriate point. If Amendment No. 22 were to be accepted, it would indeed be necessary to draw completely new lines on the map.
I turn now to Amendment No. 21. I listened with interest to what my noble friend Lord Dundee had to say. But I have to advise my noble friend that the effect of his amendment would be to apply those district wards that were used for the 1992 elections to the first elections to the new councils in 1995. As I understand his proposals, the only departures from that approach would be in those areas where the new council boundaries cut across district wards. That would produce a Scotland-wide total of 1,242 councillors. That is the current number of district and islands councillors at present.
In practice there is not a great deal of ground between the noble Lord's position and that of the Government. At a very early stage we made clear that a district ward approach was the preferred option and that there should be departures from that approach only to meet local circumstances—for example, where that approach might produce councils that were too large. That was set out in our White Paper published in July 1993.

987
Our consultative proposals have reflected that commitment. As I said, we cannot pre-judge the outcome. I emphasise that the proposals in that paper are not set in tablets of stone and we shall look closely at all comments received before reaching a final conclusion. With those words, I hope that my noble friend feels able to withdraw his amendment.
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister. I take on board the point he made when he elaborated on the difficulty that might arise if the Scottish Office or the Government were to set out quite soon to set boundaries, which should more correctly be the job of the Boundary Commission. At the same time he referred to the consultation process which is still going on. He expressed his sympathy with the general feeling of the amendment which was emphasised by the noble Lord, Lord Ewing. Obviously, when the new unitary authorities are up and running it would be good to give them every confidence that they have the kind of representation that they expect. In the first period of their job—the first few years when they are acting as representatives—clearly it is particularly important that councillors and their new authorities are not necessarily restricted. I hope that as a result of the consultation process there might be some meeting on numbers between 92—as in the case of Fife, which I accept would not be possible—and 46; possibly about 70 councillors, and that sensible compromises may be reached in all other areas.
Meanwhile, in view of what my noble friend the Minister said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 22 not moved.]
Clause 8 [Transfer of employees]:
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 4, line 24, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 24, 25, 26, 27, 28 and 29. I regret that I must make an extended speech on this group of amendments.
The purpose of the first two amendments is to ensure that there is a statutory obligation to transfer all staff to the new authorities and that the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations are adhered to. The Government have admitted that their proposals will lead to a reduction in staff. They estimate that between 700 and 2,200 people will lose their jobs as a result of the abolition of one tier of local government.
The Secretary of State for Scotland has already announced that around 30,000 local authority staff face the prospect of redundancy if reorganisation proceeds in the way in which he wishes. Since the cost to the Exchequer of each unemployed person is approximately £9,000 per year, the Government's proposals will place a huge burden on national resources.
We strongly believe that all employees should be transferred to the new authorities. The unions believe that the employment rights of all local authority staff in Scotland who will transfer to the successor councils
988
should be protected by the Acquired Rights Directive and that that should be enshrined in the Bill. The Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations—generally known as TUPE—as amended, implemented in UK law the provisions of the Acquired Rights Directive. If implemented, the jobs, pay and conditions and pension rights of staff transferring to a new employer would be protected.
In particular, Article 6 of ARD requires employers at the earliest opportunity to state: the reasons for the transfer; the legal, economic and social implications of the transfer for the employees; and the measures envisaged in relation to the employees. So far, the Government have neglected their obligations to protect staff employment rights under the Staff Commission, which is seen to be independent so that it will enjoy the confidence of Scottish local government staff. That is the first part of this fairly long group of amendments.
Clause 8 as presently drafted contains a substantial provision governing the transfer of staff from existing councils, joint committees, joint boards and residuary bodies. It enables the Secretary of State by order to provide for the transfer in terms which he thinks appropriate. We believe that it is wrong in principle and inappropriate in practice to leave the transfer arrangements for 300,000 employees solely to the discretion of the Secretary of State. That can only lead to further uncertainty about their long-term prospects and undermine staff morale even further. Those people have families with problems, and from a long history and experience of others they would assume that, provided they did a good day's work and continued to serve their employers properly, they could look forward to having a job for a long time, if not for life.
During a debate in your Lordships' House the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, stated—he will be glad to know that he is still being quoted—that,
"It would be very unfair if local authority employees were left in a state of uncertainty for any longer than is necessary. Staff organisations have already expressed concern at the low morale and stress that can be caused by prolonged periods of uncertainty".
The noble and learned Lord will be aware of that because historically in the other place uncertainty and low morale are a recurrent factor as we approach general elections.
The anxieties of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser, are shared by us, for this reason. Only through a guarantee in primary legislation that all staff will transfer to the new authorities can the uncertainty be minimised and morale maintained. It is only through such a guarantee that the ability to maintain the current high quality provision of a wide range of local services will be possible. That is no more than was guaranteed in the 1973 Act. If the noble and learned Lord looks at the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973, Section 216(2), he will see what I am driving at.
In a debate in the other place regarding reorganisation of local government in Wales, the Minister, Sir Wyn Roberts, emphasised that procedures for staff transfers would be put in place which,
"would maximise certainty for staff at the earliest possible stage in each case".—[Official Report, Commons 16/6/94; col. 788.]
I am not arguing at this point that that should be for ever; that it should be written in stone. But we believe that for a period those guarantees should be given to staff until the shake-out is organised and people know where they stand. That would remove a certain amount of uncertainty and slowly, methodically and humanely reorganisation of the staff can take place, with proper conditions and rules to ensure that those who cease to be employed will be provided for. I hope therefore that the Government will either accept the amendment or give very good reasons for not accepting it. I beg to move.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, I simply put on record that we on these Benches support the amendment introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael. As I would be speaking from exactly the same brief as the one from which he spoke, I shall not take up the time of your Lordships' House.
It is a matter of substantive reassurance to the local government officials in the period of reorganisation. It seems wrong in principle that this matter should be entirely at the discretion of the Secretary of State. It is right that there should be a provision on the face of the Bill to give the officials certainty. That would be preferable to having to deal with matters through a series of court cases. I hope that there will be a sympathetic response from the Government to the arguments.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, I am intrigued by these amendments. It is very much better that "the Secretary of State may by order make provision" as regards Clause 8 rather than that the dictatorial word "shall", suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, should be used. That refers to Amendment No. 23. I believe that Amendment No. 24 would include all employees who are due for retirement.
I have read Amendment No. 25 many times and I do not fully understand it. From what I do understand of it, I believe that it would considerably weaken the consent which must be obtained from the new authority under Clause 8. I very much welcome Government Amendment No. 28 in this group of amendments. It will be very sad if we leave out Clause 11 because I believe it has much merit.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I support the amendments so ably proposed by my noble friend Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove. I shall not go into the details as he did because I have the same brief. However, I wish to elaborate on the matter. It is a fact that the Bill is causing great uncertainty and upset to the staff. It is undoubtedly lowering their morale. It would be entirely in the interests of good administration if, as the amendment suggests, all staff were transferred to the new authorities when they take over. That would enable the local authorities to employ the people they need to man the new bodies. If the employees are to be selected before the new authorities are set up, it may very well be that the very staff they need to man and administer the new authorities will have been allowed to go. In that
990
respect the amendments are very satisfactory and would help in the changeover from one set of local authorities to another.
As my noble friend pointed out, the cost of the 30,000 redundancies which the Government admit may arise, will be astronomical. At £9,000 per head we are talking about no less a sum than £280 million. In terms of the amount per head in Scotland that is a considerable sum which could be used for improving the social services in Scotland.
I now turn to the acquired rights directive from which employees in local government and public services as; well as private industry should benefit. The noble Lord will know that I am not over-enamoured of directives from Europe. The fact is that we have had this directive and since the Government seem to want to obey every other directive that comes from Europe, I suggest that they respond and obey this one as well. That would benefit the staff of Scottish local government who are going to transfer. I hope that the Minister will listen to the arguments that my noble friend has advanced on these matters.
I support Amendment No. 29 which seeks to remove Clause 11 from the Bill. It appears to me that that clause gives the Secretary of State powers to designate an existing body or to establish a new body, the purpose of which would be to interfere in accepted collective bargaining arrangements. I believe that that would be a dangerous thing to do. The Minister knows that the existing collective bargaining arrangements work well, are accepted by employer and union alike and have been working for a long time. They have developed over many years. Their objectives are agreed and the criteria that are used for assessing salaries, grades and conditions of service have been established by joint action over a period of time.
A new body such as that proposed by Clause 11 would be destabilising for staff and authorities alike. It would add to uncertainty at a time when staff are already worried about the effects of job transfers. [simply do not understand why the Minister and the Government want to cause such uncertainty or why they appear to wish to interfere with the arrangements which, as I have said, have been built up over many years and which are trusted by both staff and employers. I hope that the Minister will be able to give us some reassurance and perhaps accept the amendments.
The Lord Advocate (Lord Rodger of Earlsferry): My Lords, perhaps it would be for the convenience of the House if I were to begin with Amendment No. 28 which stands in the name of my noble and learned friend Lord Fraser of Carmyllie. It is a separate and technical amendment which should be uncontroversial. It is intended that the transfer of staff from existing local authorities to the new water authorities should be handled on the same basis as the transfer of staff from the old to the new local authorities. We are seeking to put staff of the new water authorities into the same position as staff of the new local authorities. Whatever else may be the merits of the provisions, I am sure that your Lordships would like that matter to be covered by the clause. As I have said, it is a technical matter.

991
Your Lordships are now dealing—everybody agrees this—with one of the most sensitive areas surrounding the Bill. It is for that reason that I deprecate the fact that—if I heard aright—it has been suggested in this short debate that we envisage about 30,000 redundancies. As was said on a previous occasion—and as is consistent with the Financial and Explanatory Memorandum which accompanies the introduction of the Bill in print in your Lordships' House —that is not the case. Although it is difficult to be sure about such things, the Government envisage that there will be between 220 and 1,800 redundancies. As I said in Committee, we envisage that most of those in local authority service will transfer. Indeed, as I said previously, a school that employs teachers on 31st March is likely to require exactly the same teachers on the following day. Therefore, the provisions will not make any difference to those people. In broad terms, we would expect most people to transfer, so we are not dealing now with the vast majority of local government employees. It would be most unfortunate if anything that was said in your Lordships' House were to cause unnecessary worries to people who will obviously be feeling vulnerable already.
Your Lordships have rightly cited the fact that the 1973 Act provided for all the staff to transfer. That is a possible model. But the question for the Government and your Lordships is whether that is the most appropriate model. Even those of your Lordships who were arguing the case for that, perhaps reading from the brief, admitted that that of course would not be the end of the matter. The staff might be transferred by this provision but the question as to whether that was substantial, long-term employment would remain unresolved. So the question for the Government and your Lordships, and the one that has been considered, is how best to deal with that matter. The Government consider that such a transfer would offer no guarantee of a job to the existing staff. All that it would do would be to create a misleading illusion that the staff would have a job because they would be transferred automatically.
Nothing along those lines that your Lordships wish to have in the Bill would prevent the new local authority from giving notice to the staff whom it considered to be surplus to its requirements. For that reason, we consider that it would be positively misleading to include such a provision.
It was suggested that the staff would transfer and then the new local authority would be able to select the staff that it wanted. It is that kind of decision that we would expect the shadow authorities to be taking during the year of their existence. All your Lordships would be doing would be to postpone such a decision until after 1st April 1996. We do not believe that it would be prudent, or even kind to the employees concerned, for them to have that indecision hanging over them for that length of time.
If people are going to have secure jobs they will be happy and they will soon hear. It is no kindness to those who will not have secure jobs to give them the illusion
992
that they will have a secure job and for them to find later, when it may be even harder for them to obtain employment, that that is not the case.
We believe also that it could be positively disadvantageous if the new authorities were obliged to take on all staff. It would impose upon them the burden in the early stage of their existence, when they will obviously have many decisions to take, of deciding whether or not to retain staff. It would be in all senses better if those decisions were pulled forward. For that reason we do not believe that an automatic transfer provision would be in the best interests of the staff or the new local authorities.
Of course we would expect that in the coming months the Staff Commission which is to be set up, and which already exists in shadow form, will be looking carefully at all the arrangements relating to staff and will be putting forward advice under the terms of Clause 12(2) (c) to the Secretary of State who will in turn make the staff transfer orders. Everyone concerned is of course aware of the need, for the very reasons that your Lordships have given, for a clear picture to be given as soon as possible. We believe that the way we have chosen is the way it will in fact be done.
Perhaps I may now turn to TUPE, which we dealt with extensively in Committee. TUPE is the way in which the United Kingdom fulfils the obligations imposed upon it by the acquired rights directive. The United Kingdom has already fulfilled the legal obligations imposed upon it by the directive. That is it. The effect is that the directive has become part of United Kingdom law by effect in United Kingdom law of the transfer of undertakings regulations. They are the same as any other set of regulations; they are, in some ways a fortiori, part of the United Kingdom law just as any other statutory instrument or statute. The result is that the regulations apply to local government reorganisation in the sense that where there is a transfer of undertaking the regulations bite. It is open to various opinions, but we do not believe that they would apply in all circumstances to all transfers under the local government reorganisation. We accept that they would apply to some but they would not necessarily apply to all. We say only that the regulations, forming part of the law of the United Kingdom, including Scotland, where they apply, upon transfer of undertaking, will have full effect. Therefore, the people will transfer across with their contractual rights and so forth intact.
There is no reason for any additional matter to be put into the Bill. The regulations are already part of the law of Scotland and will apply when they are meant to apply. I believe that in the light of that explanation there is no need for the amendment, which would refer specifically to the transfer of undertakings regulations.
Amendment No. 29 relates to Clause 11, which is a reserve power. In no sense are the Government seeking—
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble and learned Lord for giving way. I listened carefully to what he said about the TUPE regulations. He appeared to say that there is no wholesale transfer of staff and that there are only certain instances where

993
the TUPE regulations will apply. That is the point of difference because it seems to me, and it certainly seems to UNISON, that where there is a complete change of authority—and here we have old authorities disbanded and new authorities set up—there must be a change and a transfer from one authority to another. Therefore, all the employees should be covered by the TUPE regulations. That is what the noble and learned Lord has not been able to convince me, my colleagues or the unions, about.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, far be it for me to claim infallibility in these matters. Let us suppose that I am wrong and that the noble Lord, his friends, the unions and so forth are correct in their view. In that situation, TUPE would apply and all the rights would pass across. I do not happen to believe that that is correct. There will be cases where it will apply. Where there is a little unit of people, say, cleaning in a local authority office and all that happens is that in the following week the same people are working in the same office and the same cleaning is being done, I can well see that one might say that there was a transfer of the undertaking. However, let us suppose, for example, that a regional authority is split into more than one authority so that the little cleaning unit does not go to one authority but is split up—it may apply also to teachers or to a finance unit—and that the unit is not identifiably the same on another occasion. It would be a matter for the courts, for the employment tribunals and, at the end of the day, for interpretation by the European Court of Justice, although it has given its view. However, in that situation the question will be whether an undertaking has been transferred. That is the issue here. We are not satisfied that in all circumstances it would be so. But if I am wrong on that, the noble Lord is correct—the effect of TUPE would apply and the rights and obligations would go across. My simple point is that TUPE applies where it applies. It is part of the law of Scotland and therefore if people are entitled to the rights under TUPE they will get those rights. The only question is whether that is something to which they will be entitled in all circumstances. I think that there are circumstances where they would not be entitled to it.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I do not want to keep the House for very long but this is an important point. I accept entirely what the noble and learned Lord says, but the fact is that there could be two views as to whether the TUPE regulations apply. That means that in the last analysis the matter would have to be settled by the European Court, which could take a number of years, during which time the staff who had been affected would be out of a job. They might even be dead. All kinds of things will have occurred. That is what we are worried about. If the amendments were passed and all the staff were transferred to the new authorities it would obviate the problems which would arise if the TUPE regulations were breached.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, I have already gone over the reasons why we do not believe that all staff should transfer. As the noble Lord knows, even where TUPE applies it is still open to the company to which the staff are transferred, for certain
994
organisational and other reasons, to dismiss the staff. Therefore, there is no absolute guarantee. I admit that at the end of the day one could have a legal dispute in certain areas. It is conceivable that there might be a ruling from the European Court, but probably not because the principle has been laid down by the European Court. It is the application of the principle to any individual situation which is usually what is at issue; and that is a matter for the national courts.
Be that as it may, for the reason which I have already given I do not believe that anything saying that people should pay due regard to the transfer of undertakings regulations, as is envisaged in Amendment No. 27, adds one iota to the law which already exists in the United Kingdom. If it applies, it already exists and it applies in the appropriate circumstances. For the reasons I have already outlined we do not believe that transferring all the staff, which would resolve the matter in the way in which the noble Lord suggests, is a sensible way forward.
Perhaps I may turn briefly to Amendment No. 29. The Government are not seeking to have any general control over local authority pay levels. As your Lordships will see from subsection (1) of Clause 11, it seeks only to look into pay increases awarded by existing or new authorities during the period of reorganisation. It is not a question of the authority being asked to examine absolute pay levels. I would remind your Lordships, as I think your Lordships are aware, that this clause corresponds to Section 221 of the Local Government (Scodand) Act 1973. It is designed to deal with the same matter as Section 221 was designed to deal with in the previous reorganisation, which is to meet concerns that the period of transition might be exploited to give an opportunity for excessive pay rises, accelerated increments or upgrading of staff beyond normal expectations.
I believe that the provision is designed in the interests of local authority staff in general. If particular employees are singled out and given excessive increases in remuneration they may then transfer to new authorities on unduly inflated terms or may receive undue amounts of compensation. That would be unfair to other staff members of local authorities.
I do not shrink one moment from saying that it is right that the taxpayer should have some degree of protection. Of course, no one questions the fact that people should receive the appropriate level of remuneration, but it would be wrong for re-organisation to be used as some sort of excuse or reason for a drastic increase in salary levels.
We are talking about reserve powers. It is hoped that they will not have to be used. They are there and, therefore, can be used; but no one, in fact, wishes to use them. Noble Lords will notice that there is a provision in the clause which states that the Secretary of State can enforce salary levels only where they have been recommended by the advisory body. As will be seen from the terms of the clause, that body must have due regard to any recommended levels of remuneration formulated on a national basis. Therefore, the advisory

995
body cannot simply decide an appropriate increase in isolation from the accepted norm in local government circles.
Finally, I must stress the fact that not only are these reserve powers: they are transitional only. Noble Lords will see from the last subsection of the clause that the powers are available to the Secretary of State only until 31st March 1997. They are designed purely to deal with the reorganisation period. I am sorry to have taken so long with my response to such matters. However, they are important and I recognise that noble Lords are rightly concerned about them. I hope that I have been able to go some way towards reassuring your Lordships.
10.45 p.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I am sure that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate is a kind and generous man; but, unfortunately, he has said one or two things which I believe come from an instinct rather than his own inherent nature. For example, he said specifically that there would not be a vast number of employees made redundant. He actually said that there might be a few cleaners in a small unit who could be made redundant. However, he did not say that there might be a few lawyers or accountants going. I am sorry, but that is how the whole tenor of his apologia struck me.
I always think of that marvellous phrase that I believe President Roosevelt used. He said that when the man next door is unemployed it is a mild recession, but when you are unemployed it is a depression and a slump. The point I am trying to make is most important. If someone is working as a cleaner and trying to earn every penny possible in order to keep the family and the household going, it is even more important that that person should be treated properly.
I accepted the fact that, in reorganisation, there would be —indeed, as there frequently is—a re-examination of roles and jobs and that, therefore, there may well be unfortunate but inevitable redundancies. But the purpose of our suggestion is to ensure that everything is done in a slow, orderly and as humane a way as possible to allow people to readjust. I believe that the noble and learned Lord really believes that and that that is what he wants; but he is being pressed by other forces.
The noble and learned Lord also spoke about the control the Secretary of State would have over the payment of excessive salaries. Can we look forward to an amendment to the health service regulations which will ensure that the health service trusts will not have total control in this matter and ignore national norms, and perhaps the wishes of the Secretary of State, in relation to the quite obscene salary increases they have given to chief executives? That is what people feel is happening. This is one of the reasons why politically the party opposite will not do very well because there is a feeling that there is a law for them and a law for the rest
996
of the world. Although, as I say, I believe that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate is basically a kind man, I think he should occasionally look at the real world away from the advocates' chambers in Edinburgh and consider what everyone else thinks. I really am tempted, because of what he said, even with a depleted House, to ask the opinion of the House on this matter just to put down a marker.
10.51 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 23) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 12; Not-Contents, 26.

Division No.5

CONTENTS

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Mar and Kellie, E

Falkland, V.

McNair, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Monkswell, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hamwee, B.

Thomson of Monifieth, L. [Teller.]

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Arran, E [Teller.]

Goschen, V.

Balfour, E.

Henley, L.

Blatch, B.

Howe, E.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Inglewood, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Lucas, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L

Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Northesk, E

Cumberlege, B.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Denon of Wakefield, B.

Saltoun of Abemethy, Ly.

Dundee, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Ferrers, E.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Teviot, L.

Gisborough, L.

Trumpington, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
11 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 24 to 27 not moved.]
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 4, line 39, after ("authorities") insert (", or of the new water and sewerage authority or authorities (within the meaning of Part II of this Act),").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 11 [Remuneration of employees of local authorities]:
[Amendment No. 29 not moved.]
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

University of London Bill
Reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with an amendment.
House adjourned at eleven o'clock.