HL Deb 19 October 1994 vol 558 cc211-320

3.31 p.m.

The Earl of Arran

My Lords, on behalf of my noble and learned friend Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, I beg to move that this Bill be now further considered on Report.

Moved, That the Bill be further considered on Report.—(The Earl of Arran.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Clause 12 [Staff commission]:

The Lord Advocate (Lord Rodger of Earlsferry) moved Amendment No. 30Page 8, line 33, leave out ("and may include provision as to") and insert (", the appointment and removal from office by the Secretary of State of the chairman and members of the commission,").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment, which I believe was moved at the end of the last Sitting. In case it was not, I beg to move.

Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove

My Lords, the Minister may have spoken to the amendment but we did not have an opportunity to debate it. It seems obvious that the primary intention of the Government is to give the Secretary of State powers to remove from office the chairman and members of the staff commission. We are very concerned about that, not only because of the content of the clause and the powers already available to direct the staff commission in its consideration of staffing matters: we are concerned because the Minister has now decided to take to himself powers to sack the commission. That is a very strong power indeed. As the saying goes, it would sharpen awareness very greatly if the commission thought that any decision it took could end in it being dismissed en bloc. It is a worrying development and certainly we are not happy with it.

It should be borne in mind that no such power was included in the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973. I wonder why the Government have suddenly decided that they need the power now. At Committee stage of the Bill, during the debate on the independence of the staff commission, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rodger, saidThere is no intention on the part of the Secretary of State to interfere with the independence of the staff commission". —[Official Report, 13/7/94; col. 1908.]Why have Ministers now decided to include a new provision in the Bill to allow the sacking of the commissioners and when did they so decide? Is the advice that the commissioners give just too independent and is it the Government's view that they must have final control of the commission? In that case, with all the circumscribing controls, it could not possibly be called an independent commission. Clearly we cannot just accept that statement from the Minister.

Lord Rodger of Earlsferry

My Lords, let me reassure the noble Lord that this amendment was suggested by the draftsman. Noble Lords will notice that it applies to the appointment and removal from office of the chairman and members of the commission. Quite simply, the view was taken that the wording of the clause as it stands makes provision as to the constitution and membership but does not deal specifically with either appointment or removal.

It is clear that there has to be a power to appoint Equally there needs to be provision for the possibility of removal in particular circumstances. That is why the amendment has been tabled. It is a drafting amendment. There is no intention to use the power in any way to interfere with the independence of the commission. It is simply there to make clear that the Secretary of State has the necessary powers to ensure that members can be appointed and removed.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may say that it is a pity that we did not have that explanation at the beginning. Could he say whether there is any precedent for this power in any other Bill? If so, perhaps he could read it into the record.

Lord Rodger of Earlsferry

My Lords, I cannot help the noble Lord on that matter. Supplementary to what I have already said, there was no such provision in the previous legislation. That was because it was not done by means of an order-making power.

As noble Lords will know, your Lordships are very vigilant about the use of order-making powers. They are very insistent that the orders should only be in conformity with the powers given under the legislation. For that reason the draftsman advised that, in order to be sure that the order-making power covers both the appointment and, if necessary, the removal of members, the amendment should be tabled.

Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove

My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister's explanation. I assume that the power would only be used to adjust the commission and not to sack the whole body, which is part of the implication. Obviously, if the Secretary of State was so minded, because of this clause he could sack the entire commission if he did not agree with it.

We shall examine the matter and see whether there is anything to be done in the next days and perhaps we could have a written explanation from the Minister.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendments Nos. 31 and 32 not moved. ]

Clause 13 [Compensation for loss of office or diminution of emoluments]:

Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 33:

Page 9, line 31, at end insert:

("( ) Without prejudice to subsection (2) above, the regulations made under this section shall amend Regulation E2 of the Local Government Superannuation (Scotland) Regulations 1987 so that any person who—

  1. (a) is the holder of any such office or is in any such employment as may be prescribed for the purposes of this sub-section; and
  2. (b) attains or has attained the age of forty-five on or before 31 March 1996 but has not attained age fifty at that date; and
  3. (c) fulfils such other conditions as may be prescribed,

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the reason for this amendment is that there is a new provision which amends the compensation regulations made under Clause 13(2) to enable employees aged under 50 but 45 and over on the date on which they are made redundant to trigger superannuation benefits on reaching 50. At present, employees in that position have to wait until the age of 60 before booming eligible for superannuation benefits.

At the date of reorganisation there are two categories of employee for whom the compensation regulations must cater: those aged 50 and over and those under 50. Under the existing arrangement, those over 50 and made redundant will be eligible to receive superannuation benefits, while those under 50 and made redundant will be required to wait until they are 60 before receiving their superannuation benefits. On the basis of previous practice and the specific problems that are likely to be caused by reorganisation in Scotland, special provision should be made for those in the age band 45 to 50 years who are made redundant.

Over the past few years local government has seen the early retirement of many employees over the age of 50. The age profile of staff, particularly those in senior positions, is much younger than was the case in previous reorganisations. The most vulnerable group therefore will be those aged between 45 and 50. They are likely to find the greatest difficulty in securing further employment.

The amendment will enable employees between the ages of 45 and 50 on the date of redundancy to trigger a superannuation benefit for themselves when they reach the age of 50. They would therefore not need to look as far ahead as 60. One assumes that there would be an adjustment because they will be receiving superannuation rather earlier than would otherwise be the case.

The shadow staff commission recently considered the question of compensation for loss of employment and earnings. Its advice to the Scottish Office environment department—a copy of which the Minister probably has—accepted many of the arguments put forward by the staff commission. However, the commission opted to recommend that staff aged 48 or 49 be given the option of either receiving a redundancy payment or waiting until they are 50 to obtain superannuation benefit. We think it would be better, given the validity of the argument, that that facility should be offered to all those in the 45 to 50 age group. I beg to move.

Lord Thomson of Monifieth

My Lords, I rise simply to support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove. The strongest argument in present-day circumstances is that those between the ages of 45 and 50 are particularly vulnerable and in a situation of difficulty in having to seek further employment. I hope that the arguments put forward so ably by the noble Lord will be considered sympathetically by the Government.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon

My Lords, I too support my noble friend Lord Carmichael. I must declare an interest in that I advise UNISON on some of these matters. I raise only one question in addition to those already raised.

In Committee the noble and learned Lord suggested that it was the Staff Advisory Committee which would be advising on this issue and his reason for not wanting the amendment in the Bill was that it was not much use having an advisory committee if one did not take its advice or wait to receive it. I understand that. But bearing in mind that we held a similar discussion on 13th July last—quite a long time ago—when the matter was pretty well aired, has the Minister any knowledge as to whether the Staff Advisory Committee looked at the question? Also, as a result of our discussion has the Minister received any communication from that committee? If not, does the Minister think that perhaps the committee has been remiss?

Lord Rodger of Earlsferry

My Lords, everyone appreciates that, as with the matter we were discussing in Committee, the question of pensions and redundancy terms is among the most sensitive of the issues with which I have to deal. On a previous occasion, when discussing this matter in Committee, I indicated that it was premature to discuss the amendments at that time because the Government were awaiting the advice of the then Staff Advisory Committee. In the meantime, the committee has become the shadow staff commission. It was the report of that body, dated 17th August this year, to which the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, referred a moment or two ago.

The Government received the report. We all know that in the meantime the commission has been considering the matter and consulting local authority employers and staff interests in relation to the document. It is in that light that in due course the Government will have to put forward proposals for the necessary regulations. Noble Lords will know—particularly the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart—that there are parallel considerations taking place under the reorganisation of local government in both England and Wales. They are slightly further forward because they have draft regulations upon which there is consultation.

The present position, therefore, is that there is consultation on this document and then there will be a period of consultation on the Scottish regulations when they come forward in a draft form. For that reason I repeat that the proposals are at this stage premature. They are also unnecessary because the matter can be dealt with under existing legislation—the Superannuation Act 1972. That is the normal way for it to be done.

I hope, therefore, that my explanation will reassure your Lordships that the matter is under consideration. I am not able to give the details of the final decisions on the matter because they have not yet been made. The issues are well focused, not only in the representations made but also in the committee's report which was made available to the Government.

3.45 p.m.

Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that explanation. As I am sure he realises, it is an important point because it concerns staff who were secure in a job in which they were doing well and whose position has changed because the Government decided to change the whole system of local government in Scotland. We may eventually come back to this matter. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 34 not moved.]

Clause 19 [Property commission]:

Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendment No. 35Page 16, line 8, leave out ("and may include provision as to") and insert (", the appointment and removal from office by the Secretary of State of the chairman and members of the commission,").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to Amendment No. 35. However, I apologise for misleading your Lordships in that I had not spoken earlier to Amendment No. 30.I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 20 [Joint committees and joint boards]:

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie) moved Amendment No. 36:

Page 17, line 5, after ("have") insert ("(i)").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 36, with your Lordships' leave I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 37 to 40.

Amendments Nos. 36 to 38 reflect the undertaking that I gave to the Chamber on Wednesday 13th July to take away and consider a similar Opposition amendment. I have now done so and the amendments before us mirror, albeit with slightly different drafting, the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Ewing.

The amendments have the effect of requiring local authorities who wish to apply to the Secretary of State for a joint board to advertise their intention in local newspapers. Only after waiting for eight weeks and considering any representations which are made as a result of the advertisement will the authorities be permitted to approach the Secretary of State.

Amendments Nos. 39 and 40 are technical drafting changes. They are required in order to make it clear that the need for councils to agree the terms of any order setting up a joint board relates to a board being set up at the request of local authorities. I beg to move.

Lord Ewing of Kirkford

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser, for bringing forward the amendments, albeit in a slightly different form from those moved by myself in Committee. I am grateful that he honoured the commitment he gave to us during our discussion at that stage.

Included in this group of amendments is Amendment No. 41, which deals with the whole question of the removal of the proposed new Section 62B to the 1973 Act. That proposed new section gives the Secretary of State wide-ranging powers as regards the creation of joint boards. Under the proposed new Section 62B, the Secretary of State is taking unto himself powers to establish joint boards even when local authorities do not request that. We regard the provision as being draconian and dangerous because it would give the Secretary of State, without recourse to Parliament, wide-ranging powers to reorganise local government yet again. It is obvious that, if the Secretary of State has such powers without recourse to Parliament or a request from the local authority concerned, he can place the functions under a joint board and effectively reorganise local government yet again.

We do not see the need for the provision because Section 211 of the 1973 Act is not being repealed. That section gives the Secretary of State these reserve powers and the Minister has not made out a case for extending them as proposed in new Section 62B. The basis on which local government was founded was that local authorities knew when it was necessary to have a joint board. They were aware of local opinion in their areas, but here we are moving away from that concept of local government and into a new field. The Secretary of State can say to local authorities, "Whether you want it or not, I am going to establish a joint board".

That cannot be healthy even for the diminishing democracy that we are suffering under this local government Bill. There is no need for the provision. I hope that, against the background of my comments and the fact that Section 211 of the 1973 Act is not being repealed, the Minister will look closely at the matter. He would be wise to accept Amendment No. 41, because the Secretary of State has no need for these powers, nor has he any right to have them. In democratic terms, we regard that as being most important and for that reason I speak as I do to Amendment No. 41.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour

My Lords, I am pleased that in inserting these amendments my noble and learned friend has accepted the Opposition's advice. It will make plainer to the public precisely what councils are doing when they co-operate and form joint boards. I too support the amendments.

As regards Amendment No. 41, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, I recollect that in Committee my noble and learned friend stated that he hoped that it would not be necessary to use the power to impose a joint board. He said that it was very much a reserve power. However, one can imagine a situation in which in the public interest it would be essential for councils to co-operate and to form a joint board. For some reason which one cannot predict they might find themselves unable to do so. It appears that, for the sake of good local government, a reserve power is not out of place and I believe that we should sustain the Bill as it stands.

Lord Fraser of Carmyllie

My Lords, perhaps I may repeat that the Secretary of State hopes that it will not be required of him to exercise the power at any time. However, if the power is required to be used, it will be subject to the full parliamentary scrutiny of an affirmative resolution. It must also be preceded by consultation with the local authorities concerned.

I wish to emphasise that the services involved would continue to be run by the local authorities concerned. In such circumstances, the Secretary of State's only role would be the setting up of a joint board. He would not appoint its members, although he would set out the numbers to be represented from each authority. Neither would he be involved in the decisions which any board took as regards service provision. Those matters would remain wholly the responsibility of local government.

I suggest that this is a minimalist safety net which is nevertheless required. It seeks to minimise the Secretary of State's involvement while offering a guarantee that action will be taken if necessary.

During the passage of the Bill we have heard on a number of occasions that noble Lords have been anxious about the break-up of certain regional functions such as trading standards or the public analyst service in Scotland. I note Amendment No. 113A, standing in the names of the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, and the noble Lords, Lord Tordoff, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove and Lord Porter of Luddenham. Its import is that the Secretary of State shall by order establish a joint board. As regards such services as the public analyst, I believe that such a joint board is unnecessary. However, if there is anxiety that such services will not be properly delivered, this is a back-stop provision to allow for that to be achieved. As with public analysts and trading standards, those concerned with individual services have generally welcomed the reserve power and consider it to be a useful tool should the new structure fail to provide an adequate standard of service.

We believe that the provision is sensible and will not be required. Indeed, if the new councils provide satisfactory services, the provision will have no use at all. A balance must be struck and I hope that our proposals will meet that balance.

Lord Ewing of Kirkford

My Lords, before the Minister completes his comments, will he explain why it is thought necessary to take the powers under the proposed new Section 62B when Section 211 of the 1973 Act, which gives the Secretary of State reserve powers, has not been repealed? Why is it felt necessary to reinforce the reserve powers that the Secretary of State is retaining under Section 211 of the 1973 Act?

Lord Fraser of Carmyllie

My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord for not dealing specifically with that point. 1 understand mat such a power is given to the Secretary of State but it is not as extensive as the noble Lord indicates. It would be for the Secretary of State to introduce such a board where the local authority was failing in its statutory duties. It would not be suggested that local authorities were deliberately failing in the public duties imposed upon them—a case that was urged upon me in relation to the public analyst—but that this would be the most efficient way of delivering important services. Therefore, in that context, a different power is required. However, the noble Lord is right in saying that Section 211 performs a valuable service in the event of a failure.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendments Nos. 37 to 40:

Page 17, line 7, after ("functions;") insert ("and

(ii) advertised their proposals in accordance with subsection (1A) below;").

Page 17, line 15, at end insert:

("(1A) Before applying to the Secretary of State under subsection (1) (c) above, the relevant authorities shall place in at least one daily newspaper circulating in their areas an advertisement—

  1. (a) giving brief details of what they propose to do;
  2. (b) giving an address to which representations about the proposal may be sent; and
  3. (c) fixing a date, being not less than 8 weeks after the date on which the advertisement appears, within which representations may be made,

(1B) Where any representations are timeously made in response to an advertisement placed in accordance with subsection (1A) above, the relevant authorities shall consider them and shall include with their application a statement that they have done so.").

Page 17, line 16, leave out ("shall be in terms agreed by the relevant authorities and").

Page 17, line 37, at end insert:

("() An order under subsection (1) above shall be in terms agreed by the relevant authorities.").

On Question, amendments agreed to.

[Amendment No. 41 not moved. ]

4 p.m.

Clause 23 [Duty to prepare decentralisation schemes]:

The Earl of Dundee moved Amendment No. 42:

Page 20, line 7, after ("proposals") insert ("for the delegation of their decision-making and").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, this grouping of amendments seeks to improve the current arrangements for decentralisation and consultation referred to in Clause 23. The amendments address three themes. The first is a delegation by the new unitary authorities of their decision making. The second is the timing of consultation for decentralisation schemes and the breadth of those consultations. The third is the role of the Secretary of State in ensuring that decentralisation schemes are properly carried out.

Amendment No. 42 focuses on delegation by the new unitary authorities of their decision making. However, since the new councils will not be of uniform size and nature, the Bill should allow flexibility and some discretion for the new councils to tailor decentralisation schemes to suit local conditions. Thus, at first it might appear unnecessary to insert into the Bill a duty to delegate decisions. Yet, as it stands, the Bill is so vague as to permit councils to adopt only cosmetic measures, such as local information points or the decentralisation of some services—for instance, the facility to pay council tax. But if, instead, decentralisation does manage to become at all meaningful, then to some degree decision-making apparatus and budgets must be decentralised also.

The second theme in the grouping, and addressed by Amendment No. 43, is the timing and breadth of consultation for decentralisation schemes. Clearly it is important that the present councils, which have local knowledge and which in many cases already operate decentralisation schemes, should have some input during the transitional period between April 1995 and April 1996, when structures for the new councils will be determined. Thus the timescale currently proposed for the publication of decentralisation schemes by April 1997 is not very satisfactory; nor has a deadline been laid down in the Bill for implementation of schemes. New councils could, if they so wished, delay implementation until the year 2000 and beyond. These amendments do not specifically deal with the question of implementation dates, but I wonder whether my noble and learned friend the Minister can look into that matter.

Another related aspect which is not addressed by these amendments is the question of costs. While in the long term mechanisms such as area committees may be more cost effective man traditional structures, in the short term, of course, decentralisation measures, if carried out properly, mean that additional resources will be needed. In view of that, can my noble and learned friend the Minister affirm that this point will be addressed in the guidelines issued by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State?

Thirdly, there is the role itself of the Secretary of State and the perceived effect of his guidance on decentralisation. This theme is addressed by Amendments Nos. 45 to 48 inclusive. At the moment the Bill states that councils will adopt a scheme and then send a copy of that scheme in its adopted form to the Secretary of State. That appears to mean that the Secretary of State will have no interest in ensuring that his guidance has been followed and he will not have the chance to amend a scheme which does not comply with it.

Amendments Nos. 45 to 47 seek to place the obligation on councils to send a copy of their draft schemes to the Secretary of State for approval before the schemes are adopted. That will afford the Secretary of State an opportunity to suggest changes to any scheme which he considers does not comply with his guidance. Hence, in connection with that, Amendment No. 48 sets out to strengthen the wording in the clause to make it absolutely clear that the Secretary of State will in fact issue guidance after consultation with local authorities.

Taken together, therefore, the overall purpose of this group of amendments is to ensure that decentralisation schemes are thought about and put into place early in the transitional period before the new councils are up and running. Just now, as it is, the Bill presents a real danger that authorities will tack on bits and pieces of decentralisation to the structures of the new councils, that this will be done in an ad hoc and unsatisfactory way and well after reorganisation. It is also essential that decentralisation schemes shall have been conceived while the specifications are being drawn up in 1996–97 for the new wave of services to be submitted to compulsory competitive tendering in 1997–98 in order to achieve optimum competitiveness. I beg to move.

Lord Taylor of Gryfe

My Lords, I would like briefly to support the noble Earl, Lord Dundee. One of the least attractive features of the whole Bill is the fact that it is an exercise in centralisation. That is certainly the case so far as Fife is concerned. A good deal of the local interest and knowledge which is available to people who have given public service in the localities may be lost in the process of centralisation. The amendments which have been spoken to by the noble Earl are designed to make explicit the need to establish meaningful decentralisation of decision making. That is very important in getting acceptance of the new regulations that are proposed in the Bill for local government. I hope that the Minister will be able to give us some assurances on this tidying-up amendment, which should make centralisation less attractive and encourage the consultative process, which is particularly important in the transitional period. I support the amendment.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour

My Lords, Clause 23 is one of the most important clauses in the Bill because, without it, I do not believe that the new system will work properly. With it, I believe that, if decentralisation is properly carried out by councils, the arrangements in general should be a success. My noble friend Lord Dundee has done very well to have raised these matters and to have expanded a little on his thinking.

There is undoubtedly anxiety, as the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, has said, that the new councils may not take decentralisation seriously. That anxiety exists principally among those who have been most deeply involved in the present system and who see some of the arrangements which they have made which do work being forgotten by their successor councils.

During the debate on the future of the Highland Council, I said how it seemed to me that the plans which it is now beginning to formulate were likely to bear good fruit. Other councils are thinking about this matter very seriously, as we were told at the time by my noble and learned friend. We hope that that will continue. I know that the North-East Fife District Council, which invited me to discuss the matter earlier on before Report stage, is anxious on this score. I have heard other councils express anxiety too. Like other noble Lords, I have had correspondence. I received a letter only yesterday from Wigtownshire Council. The question is whether the Bill as it stands can do the trick, whether strengthening is needed and also whether the suggestions made by my noble friend Lord Dundee are the right ones.

Amendment No. 42 would perhaps clarify what has to be done. But it does in fact repeat the first subsection of the clause. I am not sure whether my noble friend's suggestion is necessary. I shall be interested to hear what my noble and learned friend the Minister has to say about that.

Amendment No. 45 does concern me because it suggests that the Secretary of State for Scotland can in fact disagree with what a council is planning to do in the way of decentralisation. I suppose that he can continue to disagree in such a way that he would tell a council how to structure and run itself because decentralisation would be a large part of the planning for the structure for a future local authority.

In the brief of the Confederation of Scottish Local Authorities about Amendment No. 41, which was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, they say that they are horrified at the suggestion that as a fallback position the Secretary of State for Scotland might say that councils must have a joint board. However, a number of councils have written to noble Lords to say that they will be happy for the Secretary of State to stipulate what decentralisation there should be. I do not think that that is the right way of doing it, although I can understand what they are getting at. The public must watch the decentralisation plans closely. Some councillors who will not be on the successor authorities will be among the public and they will be able to take part in the consultation. It seems to me that the vigilance of the public, rather than giving overall powers of dictation to, in this case, the Secretary of State, is the way to achieve the objective. I am not sure whether the amendments are the right ones, although I see what my noble friend is getting at.

Lord Mackie of Benshie

My Lords, my name is one of those in support of the amendments. Of course, the amendments are second best to the setting up of cohesive local authorities in the Highlands and Fife where the community is as one and where they have operated in that way for some time. Under the present structure of the Bill, I can see that the Secretary of State, to whom we are already delegating enormous powers, will have even more power.

The Bill is not logical in that if you want people to speak, they have to have a forum in which to do so. Without a Scottish Assembly, they have no forum, so more and more power devolves upon the Secretary of State. Nevertheless, I think that the amendment is important for the future of democratic local government. As the noble Earl said, there must be a real and genuine devolution of power and not merely some powerless advice-giving body. The Secretary of State has a heavy responsibility and as,Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely",I hope that our nice Ministers will not go the way of all flesh, become like the Archangel Gabriel and believe that they are always right. There is a definite problem here which I hope that the Government have taken on board. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.

4.15 p.m.

Lord Fraser of Carmyllie

My Lords, the debate has raised some interesting points in relation to the very important question of decentralisation. I agree with the noble Baroness that this issue is a cornerstone of the new structure of local government in Scotland. That issue was raised repeatedly in our deliberations on Highland Regional Council and it is clear from what both my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, have said that the issue also causes concern in Fife which will be covered by a single council under the proposals.

I do not in any sense wish to play down the importance of those decentralisation schemes, but the first of this group of amendments would require councils to include proposals for the delegation of decision-making in their decentralisation schemes. On the surface, and considering Fife or Highland, this would appear to be no bad thing. However, given the diverse size and nature of the new authorities, we consider it important not to be over-prescriptive in terms of specifying what should or should not be included in such schemes. What is appropriate for geographically large and predominantly rural areas will not necessarily be appropriate in much smaller and more densely populated urban areas.

The Bill as drafted, therefore, allows the new authorities flexibility to determine for themselves what is best for their own particular areas, taking into account local needs and circumstances. It will be for each new council to consider whether decision-making should be devolved as part of the decentralisation process.

The noble Earl pointed out that the Bill sets a. date for the submission of schemes. It will also be required that the schemes should state the date by which the plans will be implemented. We consider that it would be preferable to allow local authorities to decide their own timetable in keeping with their own needs. However, we hope that the date or dates chosen will be discussed with local people and that a mutually acceptable timetable will be chosen. By requiring councils to publish their timetables, we are ensuring that this will be one of the issues on which there will be consultation.

Turning to Amendment No. 43, I acknowledge that it would be useful for the shadow authorities to discuss decentralisation with existing authorities prior to their dissolution. The experience and background knowledge of members and officials will be of great assistance to the new councils in determining how decentralisation measures could best be introduced or improved. In practice, I am confident, however, that such dialogue will occur in the majority of cases. I am aware that in some parts of the country that dialogue is already successfully under way. There is no doubt either that much of the expertise which currently rests within the existing authorities will transfer to the new ones.

We are conscious also that the shadow authorities will have to address a whole host of issues during the first year and our clear preference is to leave the new councils themselves to reach a view on competing priorities. Size and the geographical make-up of council areas might determine a difference in priorities.

Amendments Nos. 45, 46 and 47 would require councils to submit their decentralisation schemes to the Secretary of State for approval prior to their adoption. However, although it does not seem to have been recognised, the whole ethos running through the Bill is to give authorities maximum flexibility to devise local solutions which are best suited to local circumstances. We believe, for the most obvious of reasons, that this is particularly important in the field of decentralisation. The nature and extent of decentralisation are best decided locally and for that reason we have not considered it appropriate for central government to take on board the role envisaged by the noble Earl. I believe that the noble Baroness appreciated that that would be an undesirable centralising activity.

This leads on to the last amendment in this group, which seeks to change the Secretary of State's discretionary power to issue guidance on decentralisation schemes to that of a firm commitment. Perhaps I may assure my noble friend that the Secretary of State has every intention of issuing guidance to the new authorities. Its precise content will be dependent on consultations yet to take place with local government interests. I listened to what he said about costs, but clearly it would be appropriate for us to carry through those consultations with local government interests. We shall take a close interest in current best practice and reflect carefully on the consultation issue.

I hope that those who have contributed to the debate will be reassured that we see with equal force the desirability of such decentralisation schemes, but it would be somewhat contradictory if the Secretary of State were to take too centralising a role in determining just what that decentralisation should be.

The Earl of Dundee

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble and learned friend for his remarks. He began by referring to the amendment which attempts to address the decentralisation of decision-making and pointed out that he did not want the Bill to be too prescriptive. Therein some danger lies. Although I recognise that there is always a danger of building in too many powers for the Secretary of State, we must look at the opposite danger which is that authorities may not decentralise at all. If they should be so minded, it will be very difficult (once the Bill is enacted) to find a way to implement the guidance of the Secretary of State and the thrust of the general wishes on decentralisation which are encapsulated in the Bill.

Regarding the amendment, which addresses the consultation process itself and which seeks to bring in to it demitting authorities, which at the moment are excluded, my noble and learned friend makes the point that dialogue is going to happen anyway and therefore we do not want in an officious manner to state exactly how it will happen. The composition of the authorities— the people who do the jobs—will probably be roughly the same; and very often authorities are strongly minded not to change their way of looking at things and to be fairly centralist in how they run their affairs. Therefore if there is a new proposition, as there is in this Bill, to be different and to decentralise, authorities may not wish to do that very actively unless there is some light measure of compulsion as proposed within this amendment.

The other point my noble and learned friend may wish to consider is that the demitting authorities clearly have a wealth of experience in these matters which could possibly be wasted if they are not consulted in the transitional period when everybody hopes to draw up schemes which are as useful as possible.

Finally, on the question of what the role of the Secretary of State should best be, there is a worry that the guidance he will shortly give to the new authorities may have no bite at all if accompanying that guidance there were not to be some measure (particularly in Clause 23) of compulsion on authorities and of supervision by him which thus made sure that he was in receipt of draft schemes before they were implemented rather than after that event. Of course if he were only to learn of the schemes at that time there would be nothing he could do if they failed to comply with this guidance.

Nevertheless, I take on board the point made by my noble friend Lady Carnegy. In theory, if we were to have, God forbid, a wayward Secretary of State for Scotland then he might impose upon the local authorities something that would be undesirable. However, I think we would agree that such a contingency would be so unlikely that it is hardly worth considering.

With these remarks, I hope that my noble and learned friend the Minister might be able to look at the question of balance to be afforded, not necessarily by these amendments but by the themes which they seek to introduce, so that current arrangements can be improved in two respects: the first being the composition of decentralisation schemes which are put together as a result of the experience of the demitting authorities; and, secondly, to make sure that meaningful decentralisation is not evaded but is carried out. My noble and learned friend could perhaps consider how to effect this better than the provisions of Clause 23 enable us to. Meanwhile I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 43 not moved.]

[Amendment No. 44 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List. ]

[Amendments Nos. 46 to 48 not moved.]

Clause 25 [Financing of new authorities prior to 1st April 1996]:

Lord Mackay of Benshie moved Amendment No. 49:

Page 21, line 37, leave out ("he considers appropriate") and insert ("will provide sufficient money to meet their total expenses actually incurred up to 31st March 1996.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is on the old theme that the Secretary of State has the power to lay down exactly what the shadow authority may spend in the very difficult period of setting up the new authority. In another place the explanation for this rigid proposal was that one could not give the shadow authority a licence to print money—I think that was the phrase used—but it is not the permanent authority and so it is unlikely to throw money about for the sake of doing so. It is the shadow authority and will be dealing with all the imponderables that arise during a period of change. Given the fact that it will not know how many people will be made redundant and what costs will have to be met, the feeling is, very understandably, that the Secretary of State will fix a sum which he thinks appropriate and then quite happily load any extra on to the council tax for the local areas concerned. I have introduced this amendment simply because it is a simple point. I look forward to hearing what the noble and learned Lord has to say. I beg to move.

Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove

My Lords, I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, as my name is also to the amendment. He put the matter succinctly. The Minister must have realised that the amendment is designed to provide for the full cost of reorganisation because we are not absolutely happy about the wording at present in the Bill.

The Secretary of State's public expenditure plans announced in December, and confirmed in Committee by the Minister for Local Government, contain a provision outwith the local government settlement for £23 million in 1995–96 to cover the estimated costs for the new authorities; during the shadow period. In addition the Secretary of State has included within his plans for next year £25 million to be spent by existing local authorities on reorganisation costs.

I know that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate pays great attention to the points raised in the CoSLA report. He has mentioned that once or twice during the earlier stages of this Bill. The report is entitled Local Government in Scotland: A critical evaluation of costs and states that the cost for preparing for change could be as much as £75 million. While at first sight the difference between the £48 million provision (that is, £23 million plus £25 million) and the £75 million in the CoSLA report may not be regarded as significant in overall local government expenditure terms, the important fact is that the Government's provision appears to embrace, in their view, all the reorganisation expenditure in 1995–96, including redundancy payments. Of course we do not yet know what the redundancy costs will be, but the Government's provision also includes IT and property costs, whereas the CoSLA figure of £75 million specifically excludes these and identifies them separately. The Government seem to have included them.

During consideration of a similar amendment in another place the Minister rejected the amendment as giving the shadow authorities a licence to print money. This cannot be the case given that the shadow authorities will not be involved in the delivery of services. Rather they will be concerned with establishing themselves and planning for the future. However, given that the Secretary of State may have underestimated the costs of establishing the new councils, it is wrong that the additional costs will be borne by the council tax payer. Therefore the amendment seeks to ensure that ways are found whereby the Government finance the full transitional costs necessary to create the local authority structures which they have insisted upon: I repeat, the Government have insisted on these changes and not the taxpayer.

This amendment also provides the opportunity to air more fully than was possible at an earlier stage the whole question of how accurate or otherwise are the Government's overall estimates of the costs of reorganising local government in Scotland. In this context both the transitional and ongoing cost estimates provided to date by the Government have been questioned and severe doubts have been expressed in many quarters as to their validity.

The Minister will surely accept that the local government financial structure is a fully tried and tested one. Local government can think ahead to decide with a fair amount of accuracy what new demands will be made on the services in the new circumstances. Local government's figures differ greatly from those the Government have put forward. There requires therefore to be confidence in and confirmation of the overall level of expenditure which will be incurred. That is particularly so given that the Secretary of State has confirmed that the financial implications of the reorganisation will fall to be met wholly by the Scottish block estimates. It follows therefore that even if, in the unlikely event, the Secretary of State's estimates are correct, to the extent to which the transitional costs are not all met from ongoing savings, they will require to be funded at the expense of essential public services or an increase in council tax.

But if, as is widely considered likely, the transitional costs do turn out to be higher and/or the expected ongoing savings do not materialise, the impact on those essential services and on council tax levels could be great. I am sure that the Minister realises that the council tax is already a burden on many families in Scotland. So that those issues can be given a wider airing, I support the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie.

4.30 p.m.

Lord Taylor of Gryfe

My Lords, I too support the amendment. It seeks to ensure that the Government finance the full transitional costs required to create the local government structures upon which they have insisted. That is important. The local authorities have not asked for this reorganisation. Indeed, local authorities in Scotland are in general opposed to reorganisation. CoSLA, the appropriate authority, has opposed the reorganisation. All we are asking is that the Government finance the full transitional costs of a system that they have imposed upon local government.

With what little commercial ability I possess, I have examined the anticipated costs that the Government have projected for the exercise. They would never get away with it in the City of London. It is a guess. It is a guess as to property valuations and redundancy payments. It would never be accepted as a reasonable prospectus. Since there is so much guesswork, and so many suppositions have been made, we should accept that if there is an overspend in this area it is the Government's responsibility and not that of the people who pay the poll tax.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour

My Lords, I of course have a great deal of sympathy with local government and with the amendment, because the costs of the transitional period are difficult to predict. I was a councillor during the transitional period of the last reorganisation all those years ago. I remember the enormous breadth of the decisions that we had to make. At that time, local government was bringing many small councils into fewer large councils. The proposed procedure is the reverse. It is even more difficult to predict what it will cost. I have read with great care the CoSLA brief on this matter. I can see what its anxieties are.

I shall listen with great care to what my noble and learned friend has to say about this issue. I hope that the Government are watching carefully what the figure is likely to be. Parliament should not give the new councils a blank cheque so that they can spend anything they want with the assurance that the United Kingdom taxpayer—that is who it will be—will refund the whole cost. That would be a recipe for disaster. I do not believe that we can agree to the amendment, and I hope that the House will reject it. However, my noble and learned friend's answer is important. The Government should be looking carefully at what will have to be built in to the funding of local government so as to achieve proper arrangements for the new councils.

Lord Ewing of Kirkford

My Lords, perhaps I may add a word or two to what was said by my noble friend Lord Carmichael, and take up the point just made by the noble Baroness. The noble Baroness said that we should not ask United Kingdom council tax payers to fund the cost of this proposal. By implication does that mean that there is to be no reorganisation of local government in England, and that the people of Scotland have to bear the total cost of this massive blunder on their own?

Baroness Carnegy of Lour

My Lords, before the noble Lord becomes too carried away with his theme, I said the United Kingdom taxpayer not council tax payer. I was referring to the fact that were the amendment to be passed the Government, on behalf of the United Kingdom taxpayer, would have to pay the whole amount. The funding of local government in the normal way would be a combination of payment of a large proportion by the taxpayer and a small proportion by the council tax payer. It has nothing to do with reorganisation in England. The noble Lord should not take us along that path.

Lord Ewing of Kirkford

My Lords, from what the noble Baroness said, there is an implication, whether it is income tax payers or council tax payers, that somehow the people of Scotland alone should meet the cost of this reorganisation. The truth of the matter is that the people of Scotland do not want the reorganisation. So why on earth should they bear the brunt of the cost when there is not to be a similar exercise in England?

On the issue of the reorganisation in 1974, if the noble Baroness was a councillor, as she says she was, she must recall that the Labour Government—although the legislation was introduced and passed under the stewardship of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, it was implemented under the stewardship of the late Lord Ross of Mamock—provided transitional rate relief to help councils handle the reorganisation. Some indication will need to be given to local authorities. I do not suggest that they should be given a blank cheque to spend money on all sorts of grandiose schemes and claim that that is the cost of reorganisation. That is not what I am suggesting. Nor are the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, and my noble friends Lord Carmichael and Lord Taylor of Gryfe. We are suggesting that there should be an indication to local authorities during the transitional period that transitional help will be given in relation to the cost of the reorganisation. We are asking for no more and no less. It is a reasonable suggestion, and it should be accepted.

Lord Hughes

My Lords, I assume that when the new shadow authorities come into existence next April they will receive an initial statement from the Government of the grant that they are to receive. Given the tremendous variation in the estimates of what the transitional costs will be, it is not impossible that the Government could find that what they put out in April next year as to what they are giving might turn out—without any extravagance by the authorities concerned—not to be sufficient.

In those circumstances, I presume that an additional grant would then be made. The language in the Bill does not talk about "the grant", it talks about "grants" in the plural. I assume that that is meant to cover grants to the different authorities and that the provision must be in the plural in that sense. I hope that it does not exclude the possibility that an additional grant should be made to a local authority or authorities if that should be found to be necessary. I do not suppose that it is the intention that, if the shadow authorities do not receive sufficient money, the deficit from the expenditure they previously incurred will be carried over.

Lord Fraser of Carmyllie

My Lords, I should deal with this carefully to make sure that the House understands exactly what is contained in the clause as it stands and what is now proposed.

As it stands, the clause provides that the new local authorities will be funded during their shadow period— that is, from 6th April next year through to 31st March the following year—either by grants, which is indeed in the plural, provided by my right honourable friend or by borrowing subject to the consent of my right honourable friend.

I take this opportunity to advise your Lordships that my right honourable friend has still to take his decision on which of those funding methods should apply or, as my noble friend Lady Carnegy anticipated, with her great experience, whether there might be any merit in having a combination of the two options. Meanwhile, discussions are taking place between Scottish Office officials and CoSLA precisely on that issue.

However, the effect of the noble Lord's amendment would be to oblige my right honourable friend to fund the shadow authorities by means of grant and wholly to preclude the alternative borrowing option. That would in effect pre-empt the discussions which are continuing, and I suggest that that would not be helpful.

The noble Lord, Lord Ewing, indicated that he did not expect that it would be the totality of the expenditure which came from the Secretary of State, but that some of it would. That is what we anticipate will emerge from the discussions. If this amendment were carried, my right honourable friend would be under an obligation to pay the shadow authorities whatever amounts they might decide to spend. It seems to me that that goes too far. I shall not say that it is a licence to print money but as October gives way to November, it would seem to be something in the nature of an early Christmas present to the new authorities. I cannot believe that the local authorities would anticipate receiving such funding to be spent without any regard to the totality.

As it stands, the clause allows my right honourable friend to exercise an appropriate degree of control over the shadow authorities' expenditure, and that is entirely in keeping with his role and responsibilities. Official discussions are also taking place about the appropriate level of funding for the shadow councils. As I say, CoSLA is being consulted.

I hope that with that explanation and a clear indication of the discussions which are under way, it will be appreciated that what is proposed in the amendment goes too far. I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.

Lord Mackie of Benshie

My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, will he clarify the position with regard to grant or borrowing? If the borrowing option is chosen, that will cost the local authorities a hatful of money.

Lord Fraser of Carmyllie

My Lords, at the risk of repeating myself, I should explain that as the clause stands at present it would allow for the totality of the costs to be borrowed with the agreement of the Secretary of State or for a grant to be made by the Secretary of State, or a combination of both—a grant and some borrowing. As my noble friend Lady Carnegy anticipated, discussions are presently under way between officials of the Scottish Office and CoSLA in order to decide what is the most appropriate balance and the best way of dealing with the matter. It seems to me inappropriate that the borrowing option should be wholly excluded at this stage.

Lord Mackie of Benshie

My Lords, I had hoped that the noble and learned Lord would say that of course the Government will not provide a specific sum and drive the local authorities to pay the rest. I cannot say that his assurance satisfied me. The question of the balance between borrowing and grant is extremely important. I accept that my amendment goes too far, but I am not satisfied with the noble Lord's reply and I wish to test the opinion of the House.

4.45 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 49) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 81; Not-Contents, 145.

Division No.1
CONTENTS
Airedale, L. Dormand of Easington, L.
Archer of Sandwell, L. Dubs L
Avebury, L. Ewing of Kirkford, L.
Barnett, L. Ezra, L.
Bath, M. Falkland, V.
Beaumont of Whitley, L. Farrington of Ribbleton, B.
Blackstone, B. Foot, L.
Boston of Faversham, L. Gallacher, L.
Bottomley, L. Geraint, L.
Broadbridge, L. Gladwin of Clee, L.
Brooks of Tremorfa, L. Gladwyn, L.
Bruce of Donington, L. Glasgow, E
Callaghan of Cardiff, L. Gould of Pottemewton, B.
Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L. [Teller.]
Cledwyn of Penrhos, L. Graham of Edmonton, L.
Clinton-Davis, L. Gregson, L.
David, B. Grey, E.
Dean of Beswick, L. Harris of Greenwich, L.
Desai, L. Haskel, L.
Diamond, L. Hilton of Eggardon, B.
Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L. Holme of Cheltenham, L.
Houghton of Sowerby, L. Rees, L.
Howie of Troon, L. Richard, L.
Hughes, L. Rochester, L.
Jenkins of Hillhead, L. Russell, E.
Judd, L. Seear, B.
Kagan,L. Serota, B.
Kilbracken, L. Stedman, B.
Kirkhill, L. Stoddart of Swindon, L.
Lockwood, B. Strabolgi, L.
Mackie of Benshie, L. Taylor of Blackburn, L.
Mallalieu,B. Taylor of Gryfe, L.
Thomson of Monifieth,L.
Mar and Kellie, E. [Teller.]
McIntosh of Haringey, L. Tordoff, L.
Milner of Leeds, L. Turner of Camden, B.
Monkswell, L. Wallace of Coslany, L
Mulley, L. Wedderbum of Charlton, L.
Nicol, B. Whaddon, L
Peston, L. White, B.
Prys-Davies, L. Williams of Elvel, L.
Redesdale, L. Williams of Mostyn, L.

4.53 p.m.

[Amendment No. 50 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List. ]

The Viscount of Falkland moved Amendment No. 51:

After Clause 32, insert the following new clause:

("Nursery Education

Nursery education

. For subsection (2) of section 1 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 there shall be substituted—

(2) The duty imposed on an education authority by subsection (1) above shall include the provision of school education in nursery schools and nursery classes, or other provision as defined by the Secretary of State, for any child—

  1. (a)who has attained the age of four years and has not attained the age of five years, and
  2. (b) whose parents or guardians indicate that they desire such provision to be provided.

(2A) An education authority shall have power to provide such provision for any child who has not attained the age of four years, but shall not be under a duty to do so.

(2B) The expenses incurred by education authorities by reason of the duty imposed by subsection (2) above shall be defrayed out of grants made by the Secretary of State out of money provided by Parliament for this purpose.

(2C) This section shall be brought into force by order, subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament, before 1st August 1996.").

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I confess in introducing my amendment that I have had some difficulty with it. I have not had difficulty with the substance of it or the philosophy which lies behind it. Nor do I expect the noble and learned Lord, when he replies, to disagree with my underlying philosophy in the light of what transpired at the Conservative Party conference on the subject of nursery schools.

This is not the first time in your Lordships' House that I have raised the subject of nursery school education, or, to put it more accurately, pre-school provision. And I must say that on the occasion on which we debated the subject as it relates to the whole of the United Kingdom, the noble and learned Lord's noble friend Lady Blatch was most encouraging. That gave me the signal that perhaps I could expect some encouraging news although it has come rather later than I had hoped. I think that all noble Lords who support the substance of my amendment will agree that what the Prime Minister said at the Conservative Party conference on the need for pre-school provision was very encouraging.

Nevertheless, we are left, following the Prime Minister's remarks, wondering when the policies are to be implemented and exactly how they will be implemented. That is why I have sought to introduce this amendment in your Lordships' House in this particular Bill. I felt that there was in Scotland strong feeling on the issue. This has been borne out in recent times by the number of letters sent to various organisations and principally to the Scottish Office. We are debating a subject which, if not fashionable, is certainly one that people are now addressing more urgently. That is not to say that other countries have not addressed the problem of pre-school education in a way which puts us somewhat in the shade. I do not wish to exchange statistics —as occurred at a previous stage of the Bill—with the noble and learned Lord. Our statistics may be at variance but I think I am right in saying that we have a great deal to do in this area.

I shall not burden your Lordships with the philosophy behind this matter as the arguments are known. The philosophy that I am expressing is not that of my colleagues on these Benches although I am gratified to see that three of them have added their name to the amendment. I do not think that anything I say will in any way offend them. If I offend them, I am sure I shall be collared as soon as I leave the Chamber. I have a child at nursery school at the present time and I have older children who have also attended nursery school. I have an elder son who went to school in Scotland and I myself spent some time at school in Scotland. I remember that time with great affection. I had a rather attractive Scottish accent which unfortunately I have lost. If I had not lost it, I believe I might be more compelling in my remarks in this debate.

What really bothers me are the great changes that are taking place in our society. When I say "our society" I do not wish noble Lords to think I am not including Scotland and that, as someone who lives south of the Border, I am just using this Bill as a convenience. I am all the time thinking of Scotland because all the problems are clear there and they are echoed, perhaps to a greater extent, in the rest of the United Kingdom. Young children who have not reached the age of full-time education, whether they come from families of good economic means, or from deprived backgrounds, will have to face, in 15 to 20 years' time, a world which is vastly different to that of today in many important respects.

The most important difference—I do not believe that anyone who is involved in economics, business or related activity would argue with this point—is that we in this country can no longer expect to see full employment going hand in hand with productivity and economic growth. I believe almost the opposite is happening. In order for this country to achieve economic growth of the kind which the Government certainly hope to achieve—I hope that this Government and successive governments will achieve it—we will inevitably need to rely on advanced technology and added value products in manufacturing. That, of necessity, involves employing fewer people rather than more.

One can therefore draw the conclusion that in 15 to 20 years' time, if one is not careful, and if the encouraging scenario I depict comes about, we will be in danger of having widening divisions in our society rather than narrowing ones because a small proportion of people who are clever enough, able enough and successful enough will earn a great deal of money, but there will be a great number of people who will not be so successful, through no fault of their own. More importantly, there will be a percentage of our society—as there is now— who may even be described as being socially excluded.

It is to combat those widening divisions that I bring my thinking to bear on the need for nursery school provision. In our society we see increasing truancy and delinquency and, particularly relevant in Scotland, we see increasing problems with drugs among young people. I asked a supplementary question today at Question Time as to why 25 per cent. of children in the United Kingdom are on income support. I received a very able reply from the noble Lord on the Front Bench to the effect that the main contribution to that sad scenario is that a large proportion of children are looked after in conditions of relative poverty by single, unmarried mothers. Generally, if work is available, single unmarried mothers will want to go to work and they will want some form of provision for their children.

The difficulty I have had in drafting the amendment is related to the fact, as I said at the previous stage of the Bill, that in an ideal world in which all children had the same abilities and the same support from their families, nursery school provision, as generally understood, would do admirably and we would not need any other form of pie-school provision. Unfortunately, that is not the case. It has been shown in some parts of Great Britain and in other parts of the world that other provision leading into nursery school or full-time education is sometimes more appropriate whether that is in the form of playgroups, which have increased enormously in recent years, or other types of provision. I have attempted to provide for that in my amendment. It has been extremely difficult, for legal reasons which I have not understood and which even my advisers have not fully understood.

I apologise for the many changes to the wording of the amendment, but 1 have sought to make it possible for local authorities, under a definition provided by the Secretary of State, to meet children's needs, whether that is in deprived areas or where there is greater input from parents, or, for whatever reason, other provision apart from nursery schools is more appropriate.

The other change I have made in recent days has been to match the remark of the noble and learned Lord's right honourable friend the Prime Minister that it is the intention of the Government, as soon as they can possibly arrange it, to provide pre-school education for four year-olds. I would have preferred, and I believe that most people would have preferred, that it apply to three year-olds as well as to four year-olds. That would better meet the requirements of my previous remarks relating to other types of provision because, generally speaking, playgroups and so on are more suitable for three year-olds than for four year-olds.

I believe that increasingly there is anxiety that there is a likelihood of more and more children finding themselves in difficulties when they enter full-time schooling. They will be unable to cope because of the misfortune of an accident of birth which means that they have little support at home. That makes it very difficult for them to achieve in full-time education at the pace and rate which is necessary in an increasingly competitive world.

If that situation is allowed to continue there will be a shocking waste of talent among children who do not have access to nursery schools or playgroups or who are late developers. Such children might well have benefited and been able to shine in full-time education at a later stage. Such children will continue to be fodder for the juvenile courts and suffer other misfortunes in their lives.

I shall be most surprised if the Government disagree with anything I have said. No doubt the noble and learned Lord will mention the cost of such provision. We all know that it will be expensive. We all know that local authorities which will have to administer such provision will not be able to do so out of their present funding and that there will have to be direct funding from government. It is a large sum, but it would be an amount well spent. I shall not bandy about figures relating to American findings, which have been well publicised, concerning the money saved in the long term if pre-school education is provided, in terms of later productivity. Those arguments have been well rehearsed and, even if they fail to accord with the statistics, I do not think that anybody would disagree with the thinking behind them.

Inadequately drafted it may be, there is nothing in the amendment which need cause any great problems of understanding. It seems to me that Scotland is in an excellent position to be in the vanguard in providing something which is really necessary in our nation. It is important for us to narrow the gap between ourselves and other countries which have come to realise sooner than we have that we need to take care of our young children before they reach school age so that they can cope with an increasingly competitive world. I look forward to hearing the noble and learned Lord's remarks. I beg to move.

Lady Saltoun of Abernethy

My Lords, one point occurs to me. I support entirely the aims of the amendment moved by the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland. What worries me is how the schools would be staffed, because nursery school teachers and playgroup teachers have to have training. The training takes time. It seems to me that it would be very difficult for local authorities to have to provide these schools starting in April 1996.

I would certainly support some amendment saying that local authorities had to make plans to phase in these schools gradually by a certain date—perhaps in five, six or seven years' time—as suitably qualified teachers became available. I also make a plea that they should be able to recruit teachers who are not necessarily trained by the education authorities themselves but who may be Montessori-trained teachers or teachers trained by other independent organisations.

Lord Thomson of Monifieth

My Lords, I support the amendment moved with expert authority by my noble friend Lord Falkland. I wish only to speak about one aspect of the amendment. That arises partly from what the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, has just said. There is now generally a positive climate of opinion concerning the importance of pre-school education. My noble friend Lord Falkland referred to the Prime Minister's remarks at the Conservative Party conference. The noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, mentioned the importance of training. The more professionally trained those who work in pre-school education the better. However, it is important not to allow the ideal to be the enemy of the good in this field. In that I have particular support for the concept of the pre-school playgroup. In earlier years when I was more actively involved in these matters there was inclined to be an almost theological dispute between professionally trained nursery school teachers and the new pre-school playgroup movement. I found the pre-school playgroup movement one of the most impressive examples of mutual self-help in local communities. That enables one to go further and faster than if one had to wait for the provision of fully professionally trained nursery school teachers. In supporting the amendment I place emphasis on that aspect.

The Earl of Northesk

My Lords, I confirm my sympathy for the noble Viscount's philosophy on this issue. However, I have considerable reservations about the method implied by his amendment. It is a question of emphasis.

I do not doubt that local authorities have a valuable role to play in making pre-school education available. However, as the noble Viscount pointed out, they are only one mechanism among many. Other forms of provision exist. He referred to playgroups. The 1993 annual report of the Pre-School Playgroups Association statesPlaygroups are unique because they harness the skills of parents in the education of their children… After all, parents know their own children best and research has shown that parents are often much better than teachers in promoting language and other intellectual abilities".Research conducted in 1987 by Osborn & Milbank— it may be of interest to the noble Viscount—on a representative sample of 700,000 children in this country demonstrated that those who had attended some form of pre-school education achieved higher test scores than those who had not. More importantly, the PPA's 1993 report statesChildren whose mothers helped in some way at the pre-school institution had better vocabulary at ages five and ten, were better at reading and mathematics at ten years old and were assessed by their teachers as having better communication skills than those whose mothers did not help".The important point is this. Parent-led, as opposed to statutory, provision is the more important way forward and should be in the van of our efforts to make pre-school education more universally available. We would do a considerable disservice to both children and parents if we did not recognise that.

I am, too, concerned that, by inference, the passing of effective control of our three to five year-olds into the hands of anonymous education authorities could invest the whole issue with a political dimension wholly inappropriate at such an intensely vulnerable and formative period of the child's development. The prospect of pre-school education being used as a political lever by individual councils fills me with horror. I do not say that it will happen, but it could.

Equally important is the issue of choice. The Minister emphasised that point in Committee. However, it is not simply a matter of choice. There is a more fundamental issue to address. It is one to which my noble friend referred when he stated in CommitteeWe must guard against the danger that by favouring one element we may cause another to fall by the wayside".— [Official Report, 21/7/94; col. 424.]In that regard, the PPA has advised me that, aside from the issue of funding, the single desire which lies at the top of its wish list is an integrated approach: that no one form of provision be given favour over any other. I fear that the statutory provision of nursery education, as envisaged by the noble Viscount's amendment, could jeopardise that. Some of the jealousies and rivalries inherent in the situation could be needlessly perpetuated.

Funding is an important issue. The figures that I cite refer to England rather than Scotland. However, I am advised that, proportionally, the situation is similar in Scotland. The figures are mildly interesting. The total voluntary contributions to the PPA in 1992, including payment of fees, amounted to some £101 million, whereas the total contribution from public funds, from both central government and local authority sources, was £8.5 million. I make no judgment as to the rightness or otherwise of that discrepancy, but it is nonetheless indicative of how much good work could be threatened if the emphasis in pre-school education were to be weighted towards statutory provision at the expense of voluntary provision.

It would be extremely dangerous to underestimate the value of the pro-active involvement of parents in the operation of pre-school education provision. By attempting to write into statute an obligation to provide pre-school provision, we run the risk of giving not only bad—if that is the right adjective—but also good parents an excuse to relinquish that most basic of responsibilities at a time when their child's innocence and inquiry remain at their most acute and when it is still possible to instil habits which will inform that child's attitudes for the rest of his or her life. Worse than that, such a measure could persuade parents that this most important responsibility does not even exist. After all, it is human nature to follow the line of least resistance. In other words, if the local education authority is making such provision, let us have it. What is required is not statutory provision but statutory funding.

For the reasons that I have outlined I oppose the noble Viscount's amendment.

5.15 p.m.

Lord Ewing of Kirkford

My Lords, perhaps I may agree with part of what the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, has said. There always has to be room for voluntary participation. I join those who pay tribute to the voluntary sector in every field. I do not wish it to be taken that anything said in the debate in favour of the amendment so ably moved by the noble Viscount is a criticism of the voluntary involvement; it is anything but that. It is not a criticism of the voluntary involvement but a recognition of the limitations of the voluntary sector. I shall seek to demonstrate that.

First, I congratulate the noble Viscount and his colleagues on having the foresight and vision to read the Prime Minister's speech before it was written and to table the amendment giving all Conservatives opposite the golden opportunity to troop through the Lobby in support of what John Major said at Bournemouth as recently as Friday of last week. I am absolutely certain that those Conservatives who listened so intently and waved their Union Jacks so enthusiastically at the Prime Minister's speech never dreamed for a single moment that they were about to have this early opportunity today to show how much they favoured what the Prime Minister said in relation to nursery education.

I shudder to think that any Conservative on the Benches opposite will have the courage to go through the Lobby and vote against his own Prime Minister. As the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, stated, the Prime Minister gave the commitment that nursery education (I prefer to call it pre-five education) for all would be introduced. He went so far as to charge the government Minister, Mrs. Shephard, with the duty of working out the scheme. We now have it. The amendment is on the Marshalled List. We are reforming local government in Scotland. We have been told time and again that we are off to a new start. It is a golden opportunity to make that new start by the Minister accepting the amendment. In fact if the Minister refuses the amendment, he will be at No. 10 Downing Street before he knows where he is. As we say in Scotland, his jacket is on a rather loose nail if he refuses the amendment.

I refer to the provision of nursery education in Scotland. I am glad that as always the noble Earl, Lord Minto, is in his place. I refer back to a comment that he made in Committee. He stated openly, as he would do as Convenor of the Borders Region, that a great many people wanted the facility but, quite frankly, they could not afford it. Therefore there is little or no provision in the Borders Region. In the Western Isles there is absolutely no provision for nursery education. Grampian Region is within a whisker of the Government's target figure for providing pre-five education for all children. There is a good story to tell, too, in such regions as Tayside, Fife and Central. Therefore the picture is patchy.

The amendment seeks to implement the commitment that was given by the Prime Minister at Bournemouth that the matter would become a statutory responsibility. The Prime Minister also said that it would require funding which would be found. When we talk about phasing it in, the Bill does not become operational until 1st April 1996, so a good period is available for phasing the whole proposal in.

That brings me to the question of the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, about training. It has been possible to train the teachers to an expert level in Grampian, Tayside, Fife and Central regions. There is a training pattern available for any other area of Scotland that cares to take it up and introduce it. However, cost comes into it. Let there be no doubt about that. It was one of the points the Prime Minister spoke about when he made clear that it would become a statutory obligation and that funding would be found.

As I understand it, the Minister has received a copy of the letter sent to the Prime Minister by the Scottish Parent Teacher Council, Mrs. Diane Daly and her colleague, Judith Gillespie. They wrote to the Prime Minister on 13th October asking him to instruct his colleagues in the House of Lords to give their support to Amendment No. 51. I am not the best person in the world at replying to letters overnight and I am fairly certain that the Prime Minister has not yet replied to the letter. However, the Minister can do it for him today merely by accepting Amendment No. 51, so ably moved by the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland.

Baroness Seear

My Lords, in supporting my noble friend's requirement for a statutory provision, we are not going against pre-school nurseries. What is more, there is a great deal with which we agree in what the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, said. However, one must remember that however good the voluntary effort is, the provision of nursery education or any kind of education by people who are specially trained in it has a great advantage. I speak as a non-parent and the last thing I wish to do is to be critical of what is provided by parents. But we all know that voluntary provision by some parents is, to put it mildly, not expert. We need the experts in what is a critical and difficult area. Because children are small and have little experience of life does not mean that they do not need expert handling. The mingling of the expert with the voluntary provision is surely what is required.

I hope that we shall not be beguiled by the attractiveness of pre-school education into ignoring the necessity to have a statutory base with everyone working towards properly trained teachers. Of course, it is desirable that parents should take part in that education; it is common practice now. In many schools, parents assist in educating children from the statutory school age of five. There is nothing new about bringing parents in to collaborate with the professionally trained, and that is desirable.

Some children stand in great need of pre-school education because, dare I say it, not all parents are as adequate as we would like. One cannot rely on "mother love" or whatever passes for it to provide adequate care for children in the important early days. That is why we need a statutory body and to incorporate professionals while using the additional help that comes from the voluntary sector together with the advantage of parents going in and out of schools.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour

My Lords, I go along with what the noble Baroness said. I agree with every word. I am glad that the amendment was moved. I appreciate the trouble taken by the noble Viscount over the wording. He has moved towards what his advisers in Scotland suggested. Some of them sent me copies of what they had written.

However, there are two snags to the amendment. Before my noble friends or the House troop into the Lobby with the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, because it is not possible to reject the amendment, I wish to point those snags out. I think I am right in saying that as the amendment is worded—and it is not just technical wording—the provision which it makes is that,any child … who has attained the age of four years and has not attained the age of five years, and … whose parents or guardianswould like it, should have the opportunity of pre-school provision. Those noble Lords who are based in Scotland will know that not only do arrangements vary in the different local authorities which are responsible for education, but, also, children are allowed to go to primary school at different stages. My noble and learned friend may have the figures for four-and-a-half year-olds, who are already in primary school. Some children go even before that age; it depends when their birthdays fall. There is a system of appeal in local authorities for parents who feel that their child should go to a primary school and where difficulty is being experienced in getting into one. Likewise, a number of children do not enter primary school until they are nearly five-and-a-half.

It would be a pity if any amendment to the Bill cut across the good practice of some local authorities. I think that I am right about that. I have not checked with any local authority, but I have exercised the system for a number of years and I am not aware that there has been any change. It is a good way of doing things and it would be a pity to spoil it without careful thought.

There is also, I think, the implication in the amendment that there would be specific funding for nursery provision. Quite apart from the arguments for or against specific funding, it occurs to me that there would be a temptation in local authorities to discourage children from moving into primary school and out of nursery provision because there would be extra money for nursery provision which would not be available if they were in primary school. I think that that would be the case and it would be bad motivation.

The intentions of the amendment are, I understand, precisely what the Prime Minister indicated in his speech. But the amendment will not do as it is. There would be considerable difficulty in wording the legislation when it comes to the point because the flexibility for children to move into primary schooling is important. It is important for parents and for people who cannot be at home with their children that when the children are ready for primary schooling and the school considers they are ready they should be allowed in. Primary schooling is full-time and nursery education is part-time and it is important that children should move on to primary schooling when they are ready and should not be held back in nursery school.

So there are snags to the proposal. However, I am not against it in spirit. I hope that we shall not divide because I should not like apparently to vote against nursery schooling. Nevertheless I could not possibly vote for the amendment, with my understanding of nursery provision as it is in Scotland.

The Earl of Minto

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Ewing of Kirkford, mentioned that in Committee I supported the future of nursery schools within my own authority, the Borders Region, in Scotland. I did so, and I stand by it entirely. However, I do not think that the matter is quite as simple as it may have been made out this afternoon. I know that we are studying the further introduction of nursery schools. We already have some in a limited number of rather diverse communities, but they are nothing like sufficiently well spread or provided for.

The report which is coming to us has taken something like five months to produce, even in the smallest region in Scotland. I think that the introduction of the provision within the Bill in this simplistic manner, making it operative by August 1996, might be asking a great deal. I am a little concerned that truthfully I have not had the time to give my attention to the subject in the depth that I should like in order to speak to your Lordships' House.

Lord Kirkhill

My Lords, I hope that when the Minister comes to give his response he will clearly dissociate himself from a number of remarks that were made earlier from the Benches behind him, remarks which were very extreme in character. I paraphrase, but for example they apparently deplored the thought that nursery school provision might come under some form of political control.

Local authorities are elected in the main on the issue of political choice. So far as I am aware, at least for most of this century, clear political attitudes have been struck in local authority areas at election time. That does not necessarily suggest to me—or at all—that elected members do not then make decisions on advice proffered to them. Education generally is under some form of national political control. The educational ethos which develops from this present Government will be very different to anything that I myself would wish to support, but that is another matter. I hope that the Minister will make that distinction when he comes to address the House.

I also feel quite strongly that it is naive—I put it no more strongly than that—to think that ordinary folk have real areas of choice when it comes to deciding whether their child should go to a local authority nursery, if one exists, or whether they should make private arrangements. They simply do not have the money to make that kind of choice. The truly disadvantaged, be they children or parents, seldom have the opportunity to make that kind of choice either. It is about time that matters of that kind were clearly spelt out in this House, and we hope that the Minister will do so now.

5.30 p.m.

Lord Fraser of Carmyllie

My Lords, perhaps I may join others who have complimented the noble Viscount on his prescience in putting down an amendment to cover just this matter so shortly after the Prime Minister addressed the issue in Bournemouth. The matter was previously debated in Committee but I appreciate that there is a very real interest in and indeed knowledge about the issue in this House. I am happy that we have returned to it with this amendment.

At that time I said that our long-term goal was a full range of options, including the private and voluntary sectors, which would satisfy the requirements of all parents of pre-school children. The Prime Minister's statement last Friday brought that goal an important step nearer. He gave a firm commitment to continue the expansion of nursery education, and to do so through initiatives taken within the lifetime of this Parliament. This amendment clearly recognises that significant policy development.

All government departments, including of course the Scottish Office, an; now working on proposals to provide places for all four year-olds whose parents wish to take them up. My honourable friend the Minister for Education at the Scottish Office has made clear that as part of that process he will consult those in Scotland with an interest in pie-school provision.

Our aims are these: to build on the good work of existing nursery schools, nursery classes and playgroups, to give parents a choice and to ensure quality. I am bound to echo the words of the noble Earl, Lord Minto, that this is not an entirely easy matter. It will not be easily achieved. It will be a complicated exercise. We are concerned to ensure that by expanding provision in the public sector we do not crowd out either private nursery schools or voluntary playgroups. Without exception in the course of this brief debate, all manner of tributes have been paid to such groups for the work that they do and how they clearly satisfy a large number of parents with the provision that they make.

If I may say so with respect to the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, I think he misunderstood what was being suggested. There is excellent provision to be found in some parts of this country organised voluntarily by the Pre-School Playgroups Association. In that respect— and I shall return to it—it was considered undesirable to bring such excellent voluntary activity necessarily within a statutory framework. I certainly believe there to be a danger.

The steps that we are taking will be geared to encouraging sensible growth in pre-five provision while preserving the best existing provision. It will of course take a little time to work out all the details. There are very many issues to address, including the cost of the new measures. As the Prime Minister said, this is also a long-term proposal.

I recognise that the noble Lords who sponsored this amendment have attempted to reflect those aims in the clause. I am indeed grateful to them for the indication of support that it gives to our new proposals to expand nursery education. I wish to be reassuring on this matter. We have made a pledge and we intend to stick with it. But it would be inappropriate, and at this stage premature, to proceed with this amendment which would obstruct how we go about the careful implementation of our pledge, taking as it will some work and some time.

I know that the noble Viscount wrestled long and hard to have the amendment framed as accurately as possible, but not only would it pre-empt the work that I have indicated is necessary by constricting the options that can be examined in our discussions both inside government and outside it with the relevant voluntary bodies; it could also be damaging in other ways. For example, we shall be starting the process of expansion within the lifetime of this Parliament, But this amendment is designed to complete the expansion before August 1996. The noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, pointed out that within such a timescale there are very real issues to be addressed with regard to the training of nursery teachers to an appropriate level.

There would also be very considerable costs. That is recognised. It could be as much as an additional £25 million a year in Scotland. There is no doubt that sooner or later that expenditure will have to be taken on board, given the pledge. But completion within the timescale that is set by this amendment appears to us to be simply unrealistic.

A further matter concerned me, and I have hinted at it already. I understand that the amendment is intended to ensure that local authority provision includes playgroups. That causes me some difficulty. I have joined in the compliments paid to those who make such provision within the voluntary sector. In the light of the comments that have been made in the course of this debate, while there may be a very real desire, as my noble friend Lord Northesk indicated, to see those playgroups which already exist and which operate very satisfactorily statutorily funded, it is quite another thing to suggest that they should be brought within the control and management of a local authority. I may have misunderstood what the noble Lord intended, but that is what I clearly understand from the clause as it is presently drafted.

We want to ensure that there is a wide range of provision and that real quality is available in whichever part of the system parents choose to place their children. I have acknowledged the desire in the amendment to achieve just those things. However, for the reasons I have given, some of which are technical—the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, highlighted yet further technical difficulties—while I welcome the opportunity to spell out- once again the pledge that the Prime Minister gave, I have to say that I do not believe that it would be in the best interests of those who want to secure the best pre-five education in Scotland that this amendment should be carried.

The Viscount of Falkland

My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for his courteous and detailed reply. I am, however, very disappointed with it. I must say straight off that there was one thing which surprised me greatly—if I understood correctly his reservations. How would it have been possible for the Prime Minister to have stood up on the rostrum at the Conservative Party conference and given the undertaking to the nation that he made if he had had the kind of reservations expressed by the noble and learned Lord? I do not believe that he could have done so.

The difficulties which the noble and learned Lord sketched out are enormous, as he said. I do not agree with half of them. For example, I do not agree that the provision of nursery school education, or other provisions as defined by the Secretary of State, as I said in my amendment, will in any way crowd out existing provision offered by playgroups or other groups.

With regard to training in playgroups, it has reached an exceedingly high standard in England. I know rather more about that. I am told that in Scotland it has gone in a parallel direction. I have not heard from either of the playgroup associations that they would in any way feel that they would be crowded out. Indeed, they would welcome the provision as defined in my amendment.

I agree that from many aspects the drafting of my amendment is not entirely satisfactory. Obviously it has not been clearly understood even by the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, whose interesting and fascinating speech I shall read in Hansard. I thought that I had dealt in the drafting of my amendment with many of the reservations that he expressed. I clumsily tried in the drafting to make it possible for local authorities to choose or opt for playgroup provision where it is appropriate. It is up to them to judge.

Playgroup provision is a lot cheaper. It is not because those who teach in playgroups are inadequate. It is because an enormous amount of goodwill and dedication by volunteers goes into the playgroup association working with mothers. The results, as shown in different parts of England and particularly in deprived areas, bear that out in a way which brooks no contradiction.

Incidentally, I put down my amendment before the conference. If I had shown the same accuracy in backing horses all my life, I should probably not be in this Chamber but on the racecourse.

I take on board all the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, who has followed closely the development of my amendment and knows the difficulties that I faced in bringing it to your Lordships' House. I also take on board some of her reservations. However, I do not think that they are insurmountable. I also thank other noble Lords who have contributed. I am only an amateur politician, with probably only a short lifetime in your Lordships' House, should present trends continue; but the remarks which come from the noble and learned Lord smack to me of procrastination. I cannot believe that he has not taken on board my point. The longer the provision of pre-school education of whatever kind in this country is delayed, the greater the waste of talent and the potential for delinquency, which will continue and grow apace in a way in which it has not grown before. That is a frightening thought. I feel that the Government need to get on with this matter. The Prime Minister intends to get on with it. I cannot understand why the Scottish Office does not intend to get on with it. I cannot accept it. I must test the opinion of the House.

5.45 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 51) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 64; Not-Contents, 126.

Division No.1
CONTENTS
Airedale, L. Dormand of Easington, L.
Archer of Sandwell, L. Dubs L
Avebury, L. Ewing of Kirkford, L.
Barnett, L. Ezra, L.
Bath, M. Falkland, V.
Beaumont of Whitley, L. Farrington of Ribbleton, B.
Blackstone, B. Foot, L.
Boston of Faversham, L. Gallacher, L.
Bottomley, L. Geraint, L.
Broadbridge, L. Gladwin of Clee, L.
Brooks of Tremorfa, L. Gladwyn, L.
Bruce of Donington, L. Glasgow, E
Callaghan of Cardiff, L. Gould of Pottemewton, B.
Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L. [Teller.]
Cledwyn of Penrhos, L. Graham of Edmonton, L.
Clinton-Davis, L. Gregson, L.
David, B. Grey, E.
Dean of Beswick, L. Harris of Greenwich, L.
Desai, L. Haskel, L.
Diamond, L. Hilton of Eggardon, B.
Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L. Holme of Cheltenham, L.
Houghton of Sowerby, L. Rees, L.
Howie of Troon, L. Richard, L.
Hughes, L. Rochester, L.
Jenkins of Hillhead, L. Russell, E.
Judd, L. Seear, B.
Kagan,L. Serota, B.
Kilbracken, L. Stedman, B.
Kirkhill, L. Stoddart of Swindon, L.
Lockwood, B. Strabolgi, L.
Mackie of Benshie, L. Taylor of Blackburn, L.
Mallalieu,B. Taylor of Gryfe, L.
Thomson of Monifieth,L.
Mar and Kellie, E. [Teller.]
McIntosh of Haringey, L. Tordoff, L.
Milner of Leeds, L. Turner of Camden, B.
Monkswell, L. Wallace of Coslany, L
Mulley, L. Wedderbum of Charlton, L.
Nicol, B. Whaddon, L
Peston, L. White, B.
Prys-Davies, L. Williams of Elvel, L.
Redesdale, L. Williams of Mostyn, L.
NOT-CONTENTS
Aberdare, L. Goschen, V.
Addison, V. Gray of Contin, L.
Ailesbury, M. Gray, L.
Ailsa, M. Gridley, L.
Aldington, L. Halsbucy, E.
Allenby of Megiddo, V. Harding of Petherton, L.
Arran, E. [Teller.] Hardwicke, E.
Astor of Hever, L. Harmsworth, L.
Astor, V. Harvington, L.
Balfour, E. Hayhoe, L.
Birdwood, L. Henley, L.
Blatch, B. Hives, L.
Blyth, L. Holderness, L.
Boardman, L. HolmPatrick, L.
Boyd-Carpenter, L. Howe, E.
Brabazon of Tara, L. Hylton-Foster, B.
Bruntisfield, L. Inchyra, L.
Burnham, L. Inglewood, L.
Butterworth, L. Jellicoe, E.
Cadman, L. Kenyon, L.
Caithness, E. Kimball, L.
Campbell of Croy, L. Kinnoull, E.
Carnarvon, E. Kintore, E.
Carnegy of Lour, B. Lauderdale, E.
Carr of Hadley, L. Lawrence, L.
Chalker of Wallasey, B. Lindsey and Abingdon, E.
Charteris of Amisfield, L. Long, V.
Chelmsford, V. Lucas, L.
Chesham, L. Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.
Clanwilliam, E. Mackay of Clashfem, L. [Lord
Clark of Kempston, L. Chancellor.]
Coleridge, L. Macleod of Borve, B.
Colnbrook, L. Manchester, D.
Crathorne, L. Marlesford, L.
Cross, V. Masham of Ilton, B.
Cumberlege, B. McCoIl of Dulwich, L.
Davidson, V. Merrivale, L.
Dean of Harptree, L. Mersey, V.
Denton of Wakefield, B. Miller of Hendon, B.
Dixon-Smith, L. Milverton, L.
Downshire, M. Minto, E.
Dundee, E. Montgomery of Alamein, V.
Eden of Winton, L. Mottistone, L.
Ellenborough, L. Mowbray and Stourton, L.
Elles, B. Munster, E.
Elliott of Morpeth, L. Nelson of Stafford, L.
Ephinstone, L. Newall, L.
Eton, L. Northesk, E.
Ferrers, E. O'Cathain, B.
Finsberg, L. Orr-Ewing, L.
Foley, L. Oxfuird, V.
Fraser of Carmyllie, L. Park of Monmouth, B.
Fraser of Kilmorack, L. Pender, L.
Gisborough, L. Peyton of Yeovil, L.
Platt of Writtle, B. Stewartby, L.
Polwarth, L. Strange, B.
Rankeillour, L. Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]
Rawlings, B. Strathcona and Mount Royal, L
Rennell, L. Sudeley, L.
Renton, L. Swinton, E.
Renwick, L. Tebbit, L.
Rippon of Hexham, L. Teviot, L.
Rodger of Earlsferry, L. Thomas of Gwydir, L.
Saltoun of Abemethy, Ly. Trumpington, B.
Sanderson of Bowden, L. Ullswater, V.
Seccombe, B. Vaux of Harrowden, L.
Selborne, E. Vivian, L.
Shannon, E. Wade of Chorlton, L.
Sharples, B. Westbury, L.
Shaw of Northstead, L. Wharton, B.
Skelmersdale, L. Whitelaw, V.
Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L. Windlesham, L.
St. Davids, V. Wise, L. a

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

Division No.2
CONTENTS
Addington, L. Harris of Greenwich, L.
Airedale, L. Haskel, L.
Archer of Sandwell, L. Healey, L.
Barnett, L. Hughes, L.
Bath, M. Irvine of Lairg, L.
Beaumont of Whitley, L. Jenkins of Hillhead, L.
Boston of Faversham, L. Kilbracken, L.
Brooks of Tremorfa, L. Kirkhill, L.
Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L. Mackie of Benshie, L.
[Teller.] Mar and Kellie, E.
David, B. McIntosh of Haringey, L.
Dean of Beswick, L. Milner of Leeds, L.
Desai, L. Monkswell L.
Diamond, L. Nicol, B.
Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L. Prys-Davies, L.
Donoughue, L. Redesdale, L.
Dormand of Easington, L. Richard, L.
Dubes, L. Rochester, L.
Russell,E.
Ewing of Kirkford, L. Seear, B.
Ezra, L. Stedman, B.
Falkland, V. [Teller.] Stoddart of Swindon, L.
Farrington of Ribbleton, B. Strabolgi, L.
Foot, L. Taylor of Blackburn, L.
Gallacher, L. Taylor of Gryfe, L.
Geraint, L. Thomson of Monifieth, L.
Gladwin of Clee, L. Tordoff, L.
Gladwyn, L. Turner of Camden, B.
Glasgow, E. Wamock, B.
Gould of Pottemewton, B. Wedderburn of Charlton, L.
Graham of Edmonton, L. White, B.
Gregson, L. Williams of Elvel, L.
Grey, E. Williams of Mostyn, L.
NOT-CONTENTS
Addison, V. Coleridge, L.
Ailsa, M. Colnbrook, L.
Aldington, L. Colwyn, L.
Allenby of Megiddo, V. Crathome, L.
Arran, E. [Teller.] Cross, V.
Ashbourne, L. Cumberlege, B.
Astor of Hever, L. Davidson, V.
Astor, V. Dean of Harptree, L.
Balfour, E. Denton of Wakefield, B.
Blatch, B. Digby, L.
Blyth, L. Dixon-Smith, L.
Boardman, L. Downshire, M.
Borthwick, L. Ellenborough, L.
Boyd-Carpenter, L. Elles, B.
Brentford, V. Elliott of Morpeth, L.
Burnham, L. Ephinstone, L.
Cadman, L. Elton, L.
Caithness, E. Ferrers, E.
Campbell of Alloway, L. Fraser of Carmyllie, L.
Campbell of Croy, L. Gardner of Parkes, B.
Carnegy of Lour, B. Gisborough, L.
Carnock, L. Gray of Contin, L.
Carr of Hadley, L. Gray, L.
Chalker of Wallasey, B. Halsbury, E.
Chesham, L. Harding of Petherton, L.
Clanwilliam, E. Harmar-Nicholls, L.
Clark of Kempston, L. Harmsworth, L.
Harrowby, E. Northesk, E.
Harvington, L. O'Cathain, B.
Hayhoe, L. Orkney, E.
Henley, L. Oxfuird, V.
Hesketh, L. Park of Monmouth, B.
Hives, L. Pender, L.
Holderoness, L. Peyton of Yeovil, L.
HolmPatrick, L. Platt of Writtle, B.
Howe, E. Prior. L.
Hylton-Foster, B. Rawlings, B.
Inglewood, L. Renton, L.
Jellicoe, E. Rodger of Earlsferry, L.
Lauderdale, E. Rodney, L.
Leigh, L. Saltoun of Abemethy, Ly.
Lindsey and Abingdon, E. Sanderson of Bowden, L.
Long, V. Seccombe, B.
Lucas, L. Selborne, E.
Lyell, L. Sharples, B.
Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L. Shaw of Northstead, L.
Mackay of Clasfern, L. [Lord Skelmersdale, L.
Chancellor.] St.Davids, V.
Stewartby, L.
Macleod of Borve, B. Strange, B.
Mancroft, L. Strathclyde,L. [Teller.]
Marlesford, L. Slrathcona and Mount Royal, L.
McColl of Dulwich, L. Sudeley, L.
Merrivale, L. Swinton, E.
Mersey, V. Teviot, L.
Miller of Hendon, B. Thomas of Gwydir, L.
Milverton, L. Trefgame, L.
Montgomery of Alamein, V. Trumpington, B.
Mottistone, L. Ullswater, V.
Mowbray and Stourton, L. Vaux of Harrowden, L.
Munster, E. Vivian, L.
Nelson of Stafford, L. Wade of Chorlton, L.
Newall, L. Wakeham, L.
Norrie, L. Windlesham, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

5.53 p.m.

Clause 133 [Directions by the Secretary of State]:

Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 52:

Page 28, leave out lines 11 to 19 and insert:

("(4) Where a Structure Plan area extends to the district of more than one planning authority, the planning authorities concerned shall set up a Strategic Planning and Transportation Joint Board to carry out the functions conferred upon them under sections 4, 5, 6, 6A and 8 of this Act.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 52, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 57 to 62.

The Bill empowers the Secretary of State for Scotland to designate areas over which joint structure planning will be required and will oblige the relevant new authorities to form a joint committee for that purpose. There is no precedent for what is in effect a voluntary joint committee to fulfil a statutory function (structure planning) in this way. There are joint strategic planning arrangements in other parts of the United Kingdom— the London Planning Advisory Committee, the London and South East Regional Planning Conference, West Midlands and so forth—but those are essentially advisory to the relevant Minister.

Experience of voluntary joint strategic planning committees shows that they are only effective when they have a common cause, but that effective decision-making can be difficult, if not impossible, when conflicts of interest need to be resolved. For example, there could be competition between members' interests to secure development or resistance to its acceptance—the old NIMBY (not in my backyard) factor.

An important consideration is involved and the Secretary of State, on page 20 of the Green Paper, indicated his perception of the differences between a joint board and a joint committee. His words are well worth repeatingAn important distinction between joint boards and the contract or joint committee models is that under the contract or joint committee models the individual authority retains its statutory responsibility for the service concerned, whereas under joint boards the authority shares its statutory responsibility with other authorities".

A joint committee is essentially a group of representatives, from distinct constituencies or interests, which is seeking to find a common approach to strategic issues and to act on that. Experience indicates that independent joint boards are far more effective than joint committees because they can overcome conflicts of local interest and provide greater clarity of decision-making. A further consideration in favour of a joint board rather than a joint committee is its ability to maintain its own directly employed core advisory staff—not a huge staff—properly resourced for that purpose. A joint committee would have to rely on ad hoc working arrangements of a much less satisfactory kind because obviously there could be a change of staff from meeting to meeting.

It was suggested that Amendments Nos. 57 to 62 be considered at the same time as Amendment No. 52. Amendment No. 57 is tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Teviot. I know that his interest will be in transport and that is one of the points that I wish to emphasise. One important piece of legislation that was enacted in Scotland —in fact all over Britain, but particularly in Scotland—was the creation of the Strathclyde Passenger Transport Authority. It would be a great disservice to the Scottish people, particularly the people to the west of Scotland, if that service was discontinued. In the context, therefore, of a complete reorganisation of Scottish local government the size of the transport passenger area should be decided by Parliament and not later by the Secretary of State.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton, in another place, indicated during a debate in Committee in the House of Commons that the new authorities would be consulted on the extent of the passenger transport area. As the new authorities will not be elected until the spring of 1995, it is unlikely that the necessary consultation and assimilation of the responses will permit a decision to be taken prior to the autumn of 1995. That is extremely short notice prior to the implementation of the new arrangements which should be in place from the spring of 1996, particularly when the arrangements for the passenger transport authority will need to be determined, including joint board membership, requisite staff appointments and various working relationships with other authorities.

It is also possible that some of the new unitary authorities may take decisions relating to their own staff structures which envisage a PTA of a different size than that which finally emerges. That could mean that staff are appointed by those authorities which undertake functions that may subsequently become the responsibility of the passenger transport authority.

Any arrangement whereby the Scottish transport executive's duties and responsibilities will be handed over to unitary authorities is likely to result in considerable duplication of effort as each builds its own administrative structure. The many benefits and economies of scale of central control administration would be lost.

The successful dial-a-bus scheme, daytripper, rural area day card schemes and zone cards and multi-model schemes are examples of schemes administered by the Strathclyde PTA. They operate throughout a large part of the region. I live in the area and I can assure your Lordships that the schemes are effective and well liked by local people, in particular some of the concessions that are possible because of the scale of the operations.

In order to retain and build on the economies of scale and professional expertise which have already achieved substantial efficiency benefits and the cost-effective delivery of public transport services in passenger transport areas one should take in all the authorities within Strathclyde. The PTA is able by its size and scale of operation to procure supplies and services at attractive rates and that would not be possible for small local authorities. It is also able to draw upon an established level of highly professional expertise in a range of activities, and that would be difficult to establish elsewhere given the relatively restricted scale of operation outside this area.

The proposed fire and police authorities will cover the whole of Strathclyde. It is logical that the same should apply in the case of public transport and that the area of the three authorities should be the same. The rail services, which have been supported financially under Section 20 arrangements, extend to all of the new authority areas which are being created out of Strathclyde Region and all of those services should fall within the passenger transport area.

I hope that the Minister will look at the scheme with great care. It is one of the real successes in transport and in the movement of people in the west of Scotland; in fact, in Britain as a whole. I hope that the Minister will give it his blessing. I beg to move.

6 p.m.

Lord Teviot

My Lords, it is with great pleasure that I support the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove. In so doing, I must declare an interest as regards my long association with the Passenger Transport Executive Group. For a number of years the noble Lord and I have often been on the same side on transport issues. He has mentioned all the points that I had intended to raise and I shall not waste the House's time by adding anything more. I support everything that he has said.

Lord Taylor of Gryfe

My Lords, I too support the amendment. Adequate, successful and efficient passenger transport arrangements are essential for the quality of life in any community. Glasgow provides an outstanding example of successful passenger transport planning. It has a PTA that works and it has brought together all the elements of urban transport; that is, the buses, the subway and the railways.

The railways are important. I know that we have passed the Bill relating to the privatisation of the railways but I can detect no enthusiasm for investing in them. However, assuming that people take up the franchises in the privatised railways, the planning authority will need to have negotiations with separate franchisees. As regards Glasgow, there may be six different franchises for the different railway lines that come into the area. I suggest that the PTA, which has successfully handled negotiations with British Rail to provide an adequate and complementary service to the buses and other forms of transport, has done an outstanding job. If your Lordships accept the amendment it will be possible to ensure the retention of the expertise and efficiency in planning and the sensitivity to local needs as demonstrated by the PTA. Accordingly, I support the amendment.

Lord Mackie of Benshie

My Lords, as normal, I rise only briefly. Amendment No. 62 is grouped with Amendment No. 52. Few Members of this House are not eligible for concessionary travel and it is extremely important to many people throughout Scotland. I hope that the Minister will accept Amendment No. 62 or reassure the House about concessionary travel schemes throughout Scotland.

Lord Rodger of Earlsferry

My Lords, this group of amendments addresses a number of different points. I shall mention first Amendment No. 52, which deals with the structure plan. Some of the new authorities will be large enough for it to be appropriate for them to prepare their own structure plans. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, recognised in his speech, there will be instances where some kind of joint working between two authorities, or among a number of authorities, is likely to be required. The question is how that is to be achieved.

Your Lordships are aware that under the terms of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 there are powers for the local authorities to work by means of joint committees. That is one way in which the necessary work on structure plans might be taken forward. The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, said that they have not always been successful. In one sense they are the most democratic way because they remain the individual authorities, elected and so forth. However, as he recognises, there can be difficulties. If that happens, there is provision in Clause 20 for the incorporation of joint committees and power is given to the Secretary of State to establish joint boards.

The power already exists, although it is in a generalised form and applies not only to this particular area. If in the light of experience local authorities want the setting up of joint boards, the machinery already exists in the provisions which will be inserted into the 1973 Act by Clause 20. The structure of the statute is such that it takes care of the points raised by the noble Lord.

There was a unanimity of view among those who spoke that Strathclyde Passenger Transport Authority had been a success. I do not believe that your Lordships can do other than note that Clause 40 envisages that there will be a Strathclyde Passenger Transport Authority. The amendment provides that it should be defined as having the same area as the existing authorities; namely, Strathclyde.

When the Bill was in another place my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State indicated that it was not envisaged by the Government that the boundary of the new authority would be less than the boundary of the existing passenger transport authority. That was not envisaged as being so.

The purpose of the power which is given here in the Act for the Secretary of State to define the area of the authority is to make sure that it is the most appropriate area. Strathclyde may have been a satisfactory unit, but your Lordships can surely envisage that there might be occasions, for example, where a railway line ran a little further than the existing boundaries of the Strathclyde Passenger Transport Authority. Therefore, there might be some advantage, in certain circumstances, to extend the boundary of the new authority a little way to take in that particular area of line so that it falls within the overall area of the new authority. In other words, it is to allow for perhaps minor adjustment—as things develop over the years there is power to vary it—to take account of other matters of that kind. That is the reason why the power is put in this way and the definition is not tied strictly to the pre-existing regional council boundary. As I said, it is not envisaged that the area will be smaller than is covered at present. I hope that I have been able to reassure your Lordships on this matter.

Turning to the question of concessionary travel schemes raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, your Lordships are aware that Section 93 of the Transport Act 1985 empowers local authorities to provide concessionary travel. These are discretionary powers and the decision whether or not to provide them is a matter for individual local authorities.

The new authorities; will retain these powers from 1st April 1996 because the 1985 Act provisions will apply to them just as they apply to the present authorities. Of course it is the case that there will be some areas where there will be splits. Lothian is an obvious example. Nonetheless, it will be for the individual local authority, in the way in which we have indicated, to discuss with neighbouring authorities the provision of concessionary fares. I am sure that many of your Lordships are thinking of areas such as East Lothian. People might wish to go into Edinburgh and would therefore be travelling across a boundary. At the moment they would all be within Lothian.

We do not envisage; that there will be difficulty for local authorities to reach agreement on these matters, which will be taken into account. The level of support being given to these schemes will be taken into account when the revenue support grant for the councils is considered just as they have been hitherto in the regions. Therefore, I do not believe that there is any reason to think that the new change will result in any reduction in the number of concessionary travel schemes. I am well aware that this provision is something which is much appreciated by the people who benefit from it and they would therefore be expected to make their anxieties known to the new local authorities as they have to the old ones.

6.15 p.m.

Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove

My Lords, by and large the Minister has reassured me and, I believe, also the people who support the idea that Stratfaclyde PTA should be broadly kept within its existing borders. I am also very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, who is deeply involved with public transport. It is quite correct to say that he and I have been involved for a very long time, going back to the tragic and appalling blunder of the deregulation of buses. We must accept the fact that we cannot decide for all time that a boundary will never change. With the words that the Minister has used, I am happy to ask for the permission of the House to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 34 [Reorganisation of police areas]:

[Amendment No. 53 not moved. ]

Clause 36 [Fire services]:

[Amendment No. 54 not moved. ]

Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendment No. 55:

Page 32, leave out lines 34 to 41.

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in Committee the noble Lord, Lord Ewing of Kirkford, drew attention to the fact that the provisions in subsection (9) of this clause are unnecessary. Briefly and simply, the point is that since there are to be no changes in the areas covered by the eight Scottish fire brigades there is no need to require the fire authorities to prepare fresh establishment schemes. For that reason, in moving this amendment perhaps I may also mention Amendment No. 115 to Schedule 13, which is consequential on the deletion of the subsection. I beg to move.

Lord Ewing of Kirkford

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate for bringing forward this amendment.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 38 [Roads]:

Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 56:

Page 37, line 27, at end insert:

("12G. The Secretary of State shall, by 31st December 1994, publish preliminary proposals governing those lengths of roads which it is proposed should become trunk roads and indicating the arrangements which will apply in respect of the existing or future agency agreements under Section 4 of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is another facet of the fact that if we change the local government boundaries in Scotland that another group of difficulties arise; namely, guarding the trunking and de-trunking of roads. It sounds a very dull subject, but I can assure the House that from the Ministry of Transport's point of view and that of the Scottish Office this subject gives rise to a great number of delegations to the Scottish Office to have a road trunked or de-trunked.

The amendment is to allow an early and proper assessment of the implications of the changes in the staffing and budgetary requirements of the new unitary authorities. The existing authorities must know which agency or new unitary authority will be responsible for particular routes if they are to comply with the requirements of the consultation set out in Clauses 44 and 54 of the Bill. Clause 44 requires consultation with successor authorities on traffic regulation orders. Clause 54 requires consultation on entering into contracts to carry out work including road construction and improvement.

Modifications to existing agency agreements will have major staffing and financial implications for the new unitary authorities. With existing agency agreements the maintenance of all roads in a local authority area are managed—and that includes in some parts of Scotland winter maintenance—by the same authority. Their removal from local roads authorities will lead to confusion in the public mind as to who is responsible for the maintenance and management of the roads.

Amendment No. 63 deals with another facet of the road system; namely, the traffic control systems within local authorities. The purpose of the amendment is to retain the traffic control systems without the need for intervention by the Secretary of State. Again, the Scottish Office industry department document The Government's Response to Where Now, A National Driver Information Control Strategy for Scotland, carried out in Scotland, was published in October. It clearly states that local authorities will remain responsible for local traffic control systems.

There is therefore no need for the Government to take on powers allowing them to dictate local traffic control systems to the local authorities. The existing clauses would allow the Secretary of State to remove the management of traffic control from a council although that council would remain the roads authority for other roads functions, such as maintenance and road safety. The provisions could allow the Secretary of State, through the proposed roads directorate, an executive agency, to impose traffic control policies contrary to the wishes of the council. Furthermore, the executive agency may eventually be privatised, leading to a completely unacceptable exercise of power.

I have some reservations. There is no doubt that in the past the Secretary of State had to take over control of roads in certain areas from local authorities but that should be done only in co-operation with the local authorities. We should not put provisions on the face of the Bill stating that the Secretary of State may at any time take over such responsibilities. Quite a long time ago now, the Secretary of State had to take control of the issue of pedestrian crossing licences. Local authorities could deal with the matter only with his permission. There is a long history as to why that happened. Nevertheless, I believe that there should be sympathetic co-operation between the Secretary of State and the local authority which is responsible for the roads. I hope that the Minister will be able to accept the amendments. I beg to move.

The Earl of Balfour

My Lords, I am somewhat concerned about the amendment because page 37 of the Bill states that Sections 12A to 12E (and really Section 12F as well) apply only until 1996, but the positioning of this amendment gives me the impression that the proposed new Section 12G which it is proposed to insert in the Roads (Scotland) Act would apply for ever. I am not sure that that is a good thing to do. The other provisions appear to be temporary, but the effect of the amendment might last for a long time.

Lord Rodger of Earlsferry

My Lords, I should like to deal first with the review of trunk roads. Amendment No. 56 states that the Secretary of State shall publish preliminary proposals by the end of this year. It might be of assistance if I were to tell the House the position at present. Work has been done on the review of the trunk road network and on the review of agency arrangements. I can advise your Lordships that a consultation document on the trunk road network will be sent this week to local authorities and other interested parties. The agency arrangements will have to be reviewed in the light of the new circumstances, including the reorganisation. The consultation document on that matter is not quite as nearly ready as that on trunk roads, but it should be available shortly. I hope that that will reassure your Lordships that progress is being made on this important matter.

Amendment No. 63 seeks to delete Clause 62.I find it surprising that the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, wishes to remove that power. Nobody disputes—and the noble Lord accepts—that as far as possible traffic control matters should be dealt with by local authorities. The provisions seek to deal with the position when authorities have not made satisfactory joint arrangements for the exercise of their functions under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, will be familiar with the stretch of road into Glasgow from the direction of Edinburgh where there are many overhead signs. We are dealing with traffic systems that pass through different areas. Therefore, it will be necessary to ensure that in the unlikely event of local authorities not making satisfactory arrangements some power is available to the Secretary of State so that he can make such arrangements. Clearly, this is a matter of great importance given that it involves road safety. It is for that reason only that the reserve power is provided. We hope not to have to use it, but it is there in case it is needed.

I turn now to Amendments Nos. 108 and 120.I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, will welcome Amendment No. 108 because it deals with a matter that he raised in Committee. The New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 requires notice to be given to the road works authority whenever utilities want to place their apparatus on a public road. Authorities are required to keep a register and the Secretary of State may arrange for that to be done by using a central register. The islands councils have indicated that they do not wish to use a central register, and it has been decided that it is not necessary. The matter can be dealt with perfectly satisfactorily on a local basis in their case.

For that reason, it is possible to accept an amendment such as that advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Mackie. Therefore, I hope that the new clause will achieve what the noble Lord wishes. Your Lordships will notice that an additional requirement has been placed on the Secretary of State in that he must consult any road works authority before excluding it from a central register. He must also consult any utilities with apparatus in a road for which such a road works authority is responsible. We thought that such matters should be provided for, but the principle remains the same.

Amendment No. 120 is a technical amendment which arises from an error that has been drawn to our attention by a local authority. There is an inconsistency in the definition of "road" in Section 46 of the Countryside (Scotland) Act 1967 and the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984. The result is that local planning authorities are at present given a power to repair and maintain public roads and other rights of way other than roads and footways, but because "road" was given too wide a definition by the 1984 Act local authorities do not at present have the power to carry out their duties with regard to public rights of way. The small amendment seeks to cure that anomaly in the wording. The effect is to make clear those rights of way which are to be maintained and repaired by local authorities and the public roads which are the responsibility of the roads authority. What this does is to define a dividing line between those two things. We are grateful to the North-East Fife District Council for drawing this matter to our attention. I regret that I did not altogether gather the tenor of the technical point drawn to my attention by my noble friend Lord Balfour. I wonder whether he would be content for me to write to him on the matter.

6.30 p.m.

Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove

My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate for his explanations. He may have realised that halfway through my description of Amendment No. 63 I began to realise myself that there were flaws in it. I am grateful to him for pointing them out, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 57 to 62 not moved. ]

Clause 42 [Power to secure management of traffic control system]:

[Amendment No. 63 not moved. ]

Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 64:

After Clause 44, insert the following new clause:

Chief social work officer

(". For section 3 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 (director of social work), there shall be substituted the following section—

"Chief social work officer.

3.—(1) For the purposes of their functions under this Act and the enactments mentioned in section 5(1B) of this Act, a local authority shall appoint an officer to be known as the chief social work officer.

(2) The qualifications of the chief social work officer shall be such as may be prescribed by the Secretary of State.".").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, as the Government's amendments concerning the post of director of social work and Amendments Nos. 107A and 183 on directors of education all relate to the internal management of the new councils, I think it is convenient that we should deal with those matters together. I propose to open by commenting on the social work matters. I shall then listen to what is said.

In our debate on 14th July I undertook to reflect on the concerns noble Lords had expressed on the proposal to abolish the statutory requirement for local authorities to appoint directors of social work. We have considered carefully how best to meet those concerns while still affording the new authorities as much freedom and flexibility as possible in determining their own internal structures and management arrangements. I said in July that we were certainly not in the business of making changes for the sake of them but we recognise that we live in an ever more rapidly changing world and we must ensure that local authorities are not hampered in how they adapt to new conditions and new opportunities. We have always recognised the vital contribution which social work services make in our community.

As your Lordships will all be aware, all the duties and responsibilities in respect of social work services carried out by the current regional authorities will pass in their entirety to the new authorities. Vulnerable groups dependent on community care and child care services can be reassured about the continuity of service expected from the new authorities. Equally, the courts and children's panels can be assured that there should be no diminution in the standard of services provided. Indeed, we look to continued improvements in all these areas.

We recognise the very particular responsibilities which fall on social work services. As I have mentioned, they affect personal lives, individual rights and liberties to an extent that many other local authority services do not. The human rights issues involved are complex, and decisions must often be taken with the greatest of care. In addition we are aware that social workers are facing change on several fronts. A good start has been made to the implementation of the new community care arrangements but this is necessarily a continuing task. Significant progress has been made in establishing national standards for social work services in the criminal justice system, which are much appreciated now by the courts. Important changes in child care services following the White Paper Scotland's Children are already under way, with more to come.

Against this background we considered how to recognise these factors and also the need to give the new authorities flexibility in their internal organisation. The main amendment we propose is a new clause which will require every authority to appoint a chief social work officer who is professionally qualified. Many authorities will no doubt decide to appoint a professionally qualified director of social work since social work is a major local authority service second only to education in expenditure terms. Such an appointment will clearly satisfy the terms of the new clause.

Other authorities may decide on a different structure. They will, however, be required to appoint a professionally qualified chief social work officer. He or she will be responsible for the oversight of all the social work services provided or purchased by the local authority. A series of consequential amendments make clear the specific decisions and tasks for which that chief social work officer will be responsible in place of the present director of social work. I believe our proposal to be a good solution to the concerns which have been expressed and to which we have listened with great care. It meets concerns about professional accountability and it provides flexibility for the authorities in their internal management arrangements. I invite your Lordships to agree to the new clause in Amendment No. 64 and to the consequential amendments.

So far as social work committees are concerned, we consider it essential that local authorities have maximum flexibility in their organisation. So far as social work directors are concerned, I believe that the new clause we propose covers the point. I beg to move.

Lord Ewing of Kirkford

My Lords, I am grateful personally to the Minister. I am sure that I speak, although I am not authorised to do so, for the Association of Directors of Social Work and their colleagues when I say that the Minister has handled sympathetically the whole question of the appointment of directors of social work or a chief social work officer. I am particularly glad that the Minister made clear that his amendment indicating that authorities have to appoint, or may appoint, a chief social work officer with a recognised social work qualification does not disbar an authority, if it so desires, from appointing a director of social work.

The sticking point—and it was one I recognised right away —was the whole situation where under the 1973 Act directors of social work were given statutory powers. There was no doubt in my mind that that was causing some concern for local authorities; for example, in spending programmes. A director might say, "I am intending to discharge this function and you will have to find the money". Obviously that was causing problems for local authorities. I say sincerely that I am very grateful to the Minister for the way in which the matter has been dealt with.

The Minister kindly mentioned Amendments Nos. 107A, 173 and 183 in this group of amendments and standing in my name on the Marshalled List. Amendments Nos. 173 and 183 refer to the repeal provisions in Schedule 14 to the Bill and refer, in the case of social work, to the repeal of the provision whereby a local authority will be required to appoint a social work committee. I am minded to accept the Minister's argument that local authorities can be left to decide whether or not they want to have a social work committee. I am certainly not intending to go to the wall on that argument, but if I may—I gave notice to the Minister that I would want to return to the matter at the final stage of the Bill—I want to impress upon the Minister the other aspect of the amendments: namely, the appointment of a director of education or a chief education officer. I am not suggesting, nor would I suggest, that the same arguments applied in the social work question apply directly in the field of education. It would be wrong to try to draw that parallel. Nevertheless, education, as we all accept, is a very, very important matter within local government.

It is incomprehensible that any local authority's education system should be run by an administrator who, however professionally well qualified in administrative matters, does not hold a recognised educational qualification, because, after all, directors are responsible for curriculum development, the intake of children, planning primary school provision, secondary education and a whole host of professional aspects of education, including teacher placement and training. Those are important matters. It may well be—I am always prepared to confess my mistakes —that in withdrawing Amendment No. 50, in a sense, I withdrew the wrong amendment. That is why I am giving the Minister notice that I shall want to return to this issue on Third Reading.

I want to adopt the same fall-back position as has been adopted in relation to social work, although, as I admit, the two are not directly comparable. Perhaps the Minister will take the amendment away and consider it before Third Reading, and possibly come back with more or less the same solution: that a local authority may if it wants, or may not if it wants, appoint a director of social work, but that where a local authority does not appoint a director of social work it would have to appoint a chief education officer who had a recognised educational qualification.

It is not just on this side of your Lordships' House that there is anxiety about this matter. The anxiety goes right across the education field—parent-teacher organisations, the Educational Institute and all the professional organisations representing teachers. There is unanimity on this point. We need a professionally qualified person to guide and direct the education policies of any local authority.

I recognise that the problem was created, not by the Government, but by local authority chief executives who in response to the White Paper offered the Government the solution that if it were all left to chief executives, the chief executives would make the appointments. I recognise that. I am not trying to score points or anything like that. Because that happened, that does not mean to say that we should not look at the problem rather more closely than I suspect the chief executives looked at it and come back and reconsider the point again, and, possibly, if the Minister can see his way clear, arrive at a solution to the education question similar to the one at which we arrived satisfactorily in relation to social work. I leave those preliminary thoughts with the Minister with the hope that we can return to this matter at a later stage and that in the intervening period he will have given further consideration to what I have said.

Lady Saltoun of Abernethy

My Lords, as one who expressed concern in Committee, I should like to join the noble Lord, Lord Ewing of Kirkford, in thanking the Minister for moving Amendment No. 64. I wonder whether the Minister will clarify one or two matters when he winds up. Is it envisaged that chief social work officers will have a staff or a committee and their own budget? I am not clear as to what the set-up will be.

The Earl of Balfour

My Lords, I want to add to what has been said for those who may not be familiar with all the provisions of the Bill. In relation to Section 3 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968, Section 5(1B) can be found on page 185 of the Bill. It is in paragraph 78 of Schedule 13. That might be of benefit to those who have not been studying the Bill.

6.45 p.m.

Lord Thomson of Monifieth

My Lords, I join in thanking the Minister for the new clause moved in relation to social work. It is welcome and helpful to proceedings on the Bill. I rise primarily to follow the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, on his Amendment No. 183 and to join in his plea that the Government will, as they have over the social work arrangements, have a second serious thought about the arrangements in relation to directors of education. I agree fully with the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, that the two situations are not by any means parallel but that there is a special case to be made in relation to the statutory position of directors of education.

I believe there is now a welcome consensus in the country and in your Lordships' House on the general importance of education. Despite the Division on nursery education we had a little while ago, there is an underlying consensus about the overall importance of education in terms of the social problems of our contemporary communities and the training of our young people for a position in an increasingly competitive world.

Against that background, it is a serious, retrograde step to see the disappearance of the statutory position of directors of education. Education has always played a notable part in Scottish history and tradition. Directors of education are a notable part of that educational tradition. The Association of Directors of Education, for which I do not speak, but like other noble Lords I have received its material, has of course written to the Minister on this matter. The association makes the important point that was; made by the noble Lord, Lord Ewing: it is anxious to assure the Government that it is flexible with regard to the need to take on new management responsibilities which are different from the narrow professional responsibilities normally associated with being a director of education. The association underlines that, while its members are ready to show that flexibility in taking on responsibility for other areas linked to education but not directly educational, the critical position remains that education, as it says, is seen as vital to ensure that the. education service receives the correct priority as a major service in local government.

I would therefore go a little further than the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, in pressing the Government to reconsider the matter to the extent of retaining the statutory post of director of education. If they are not willing to do that, perhaps they will apply the welcome thinking that they have done in relation to arrangements associated with the chief role in the social work field of local authorities to the issue of directors of education, and provide at the Bill's final stage for the appointment of an officer who might be known as the chief education officer.

Lord Kirkhill

My Lords, I part company with some of my noble friends in that, although Amendment No. 64 is better than nothing, it is flaccid. It is the Government pussyfooting around. I know of no one in the field of social work who is even remotely impressed by the gesture. The truth of the matter is that there should be directors of social work statutorily based. The point of impact of need in the huge urban conurbations is so increasingly serious that it definitely and absolutely weakens the strength of social work involvement. To that extent, although the amendment is an improvement on what existed before, it is nothing like good enough. I feel that I need to say that this evening.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour

My Lords, I am not quite sure what the noble Lord who has just spoken means because I understood my noble and learned friend to say that the chief social work officer is to be responsible for the service. Those were the words that he used. Therefore, the question for the councils will be whether or not to have a social work committee. If it is a small council, it will be free to combine with another committee if it so wishes. That is the freedom they want. The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities is divided on this matter. As I understood it, it was quite happy with the Bill.

I should like my noble and learned friend to make clear one matter because I have followed very closely the matter with regard to directors of education. I understand that my noble and learned friend is keen to look carefully at the social work side because at present the director of social work has quasi-judicial responsibilities in the system which require an individual to be there to carry out those responsibilities. Is my noble and learned friend able to say whether there are similar responsibilities, although I suspect that they may be on a smaller scale, which directors of education have? Does that argument transfer across?

As I said on Second Reading, I am extremely reluctant to tie the hands of local authorities on this matter. Of course, the large authorities will wish to put someone in charge of the education service and not in charge of anything else. One can see that; of course they will. But there are small authorities within the system that may wish to have shared responsibilities.

I know from experience, as will other noble Lords, that where there is a director and a committee running a huge service that may create a power base which it is quite difficult for an authority to contain. I was pleased with regard to the flexibility provided in the Bill. I thought that that was a good innovation. The chief social work officer does not necessarily have a committee to be a power base. He may operate in a different way. However, he will be responsible to the council for the running of the service. I wonder whether there is a need also for a chief education officer to be responsible for the service, whether or not there is a committee. That is an extremely important issue and I am not a bit convinced one way or the other as to what should happen.

Lord Fraser of Carmyllie

My Lords, I am very grateful to those noble Lords who have welcomed my amendment which allows for the appointment of a chief social work officer. I was surprised by the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill. He says that he knows of nobody in the social work world who is impressed by the provision. Perhaps he would like to read some of the journals in this field to see the reactions of the directors of social work. If he did so, he would discover that they approve warmly of what is being done.

Perhaps I may say to the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, that in moving the amendment I said that the chief social work officer will be responsible for the oversight of all the social work services provided or purchased by the local authority. Undoubtedly there will be a staff for which he is responsible but I do not wish to suggest that every single service would necessarily be provided by that staff. Services may be purchased in, as is frequently done at present.

There is an important distinction which my noble friend Lady Carnegy has identified. A number of the statutes, and primarily the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968, impose duties and responsibilities upon the director of social work. A named individual has a responsibility there. We consider that to be the important factor which allows for a distinction to be drawn between a director of social work services and a director of education.

There would not necessarily be a social work committee. I indicated that to the noble Lord, Lord Ewing. I invite your Lordships to reject the amendment which provides a statutory requirement for such a committee. However, one envisages that in most circumstances there would be such a committee.

As regards directors of education, I do not think that I can agree to take away the amendment but I do not propose to invite the House to negative the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ewing. Therefore, he will have the opportunity to return to the matter on Third Reading. However, I take this opportunity to spell out why we believe that there is a distinction to be drawn. It may help to formulate the thinking of noble Lords.

As the noble Lord indicated, after consultation we received advice from five of the 12 education authorities that they favoured the removal of the statutory requirement to have a director of education. We do not consider the circumstances to be comparable in certain respects. First, unlike existing directors of social work, directors of education are not required to have any professional qualification. The requirement in the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 is simply that an education authority, shall employ a director of education who shall be the chief education officer and shall hold office on such reasonable terms and conditions as the authority think fit". Secondly, the case for ensuring that there is a clearly identified individual in every authority with responsibility for the professional oversight of social work is, in our view, much stronger. Social work decisions can affect personal lives and individual rights and liberties to an extent that other local authority services do not.

Thirdly, unlike the directors of social work at present, statutory duties as a rule are not specifically assigned to the director of education, but to the education authority itself; while some important duties, notably decisions about urgent admissions to secure accommodation, which is a very important responsibility, are conferred expressly on directors of social work.

There is provision within the School Boards (Scotland) Act 1988 to enable the director or an officer of the education authority to attend school board meetings and specify a role for the director or an officer of the authority in relation to staff appointment committees. However, we do not see that there is a direct parallel to be drawn in that respect because those duties are not imposed simply upon the director of education but, as I said, the duties could be discharged by an officer of the authority.

There has been a considerable amount of consultation on this matter. Views within local authorities are very strongly divided. As I indicated, five out of 12 said that they did not want statutory provision for a director of education. We believe that there is a clear distinction to be drawn and we do not wish to adopt a comparable proposal in relation to directors of education.

I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, will appreciate that during the summer we gave consideration to the matter. We looked to see whether a comparable arrangement should be made. I invite the noble Lord not to press his amendment and if he wishes to return to the matter on Third Reading that is obviously a matter for him.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

7 p.m.

The Earl of Minto moved Amendment No. 65: After Clause 44, insert the following new clause:

("Defined Activities

Defined activities

  1. .—(1) The Local Government Act 1988 shall be amended in accordance with the provisions of this section.
    2. 261
  2. (2) In section 2 (defined activities) after subsection (9) insert—

(10) Without prejudice to his powers to make orders or regulations under any other provision of this Part of this Act, the Secretary of State shall by order provide that from 31st March 1995 until such date as may be specified in the order, being a date not later than 31st December 2001, the provisions of this Part of this Act shall apply in relation to local authorities subject to such modifications as may be so specified.

(11) Any such modifications as may be so specified in accordance with subsection (10) above shall, in respect of defined activities referred to in subsection (2) above prior to 1st October 1988, specify that the provisions of sections 6, 7 and 8 of this Act shall not apply to such defined activities until 1st October 1998 or such later date as may be specified in the order or regulations;.".").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 65 and 66 are grouped together with Amendment No. 75. I should like to deal first with Amendments Nos. 65 and 66.

I return to the question of compulsive competitive tendering which I raised at Second Reading and again in Committee. I am grateful that on this occasion I have support on the question of CCT in the first two amendments because I think that there has been an acknowledgement in the progress of the Bill so far that this is a complicated matter and one which could be the stumbling block to the fulfilment of the Government's wishes for the new authority to become operative in 1996. For that reason, and because it is a complicated matter, I would like to take the House through the situation as it stands. At the present time the Scottish Office proposes that for the Local Government Act 1988 services the competition requirement will be phased back between July 1997 and January 1998. That is the first Bill.

For the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 and the services contained therein, the Government have proposed that the exemptions should not last beyond April 1997 and should not in any case apply to construction contracts worth over £½ million. In respect to these services, it is the view of local authorities in Scotland that the timetable is inherently flawed. It is clear that the proposed unitary authorities would have to bring together specifications from all the former authorities and distil these into a single comprehensive specification. The extent of this task cannot be underestimated as it will be necessary for the new authority to decide on levels of service to be provided; to decide upon the organisational structure to be adopted; and to decide upon budget constraints, packaging of work, availability of assets, conditions of contract and much else besides before work on specifications can properly commence. This is in itself a massive task, yet in addition the new authorities will have to reconcile extensive issues of incompatibility of systems and working practices. The proposed timetable would give very little time for either the development of management systems on the contractor and client sides or to carry out the rationalisation of services and service delivery mechanisms that will undoubtedly be necessary.

Bearing in mind government regulations on the tendering timetable, the preparation of contract documentation needs to commence a good year before contract start dates. This has been proved from experience so far. For certain services this will mean that documentation will have to be prepared in July and August of 1996, by which time the new authorities will have been operating for only a few months. Account also needs to be taken of the fact that the key people in defining specifications and other matters will be the very same key people charged with the responsibility for establishing, providing and running the new authorities' information and control systems while in addition carrying out day-to-day operations. There are not many of these people qualified in this matter within each of the local authorities.

Many of the senior staff concerned with CCT preparation will at the same time be involved in a number of other major issues such as the budget process. Thus the proposed timescale, which would be totally unrealistic under normal circumstances, becomes totally unacceptable within the context of local government re-organisation. Both these groups of people, of whom as I have said we are short in number, lack specialist detailed knowledge of CCT. Hence, to impose this timetable might well prejudice the delivery of services and the proper preparation which is required for compulsory competitive tendering. Local authorities consider that the re-tendering of manual services should be introduced on a phased basis beginning in April of 1998. It is further considered that the exemption should apply for construction contracts worth over £½ million.

The second part of what I am trying to say to the House is that the Scottish Office proposes that the extension of CCT to professional services—that is quite different; those are white collar workers—should be phased so that one-third of contracts should be let by October 1997, a further third by January 1998 and a full 100 per cent. by April 1998. The white collar services to be exposed to CCT, and in particular legal, finance, IT and personnel services, all have a significant support role to play in the tender process for manual services. It is clearly evident that to put such support services out to tender simultaneously with the very services they are operationally supporting in the tender process is a wholly unreasonable proposal. In fact I feel that it would cause total chaos.

First, it is unreasonable and unrealistic for manual services to engage in the tender process and formulate business plans against such operational uncertainty. Secondly, the same key people involved in managing the manual tender process will be required to play an important part in the process for white collar CCT, and such a workload as that is untenable. Thirdly, corporate efficiency and effectiveness would be jeopardised by the inward focus of white collar support in attempting to deal with their own service. Finally, to expose direct and support services to compulsory competitive tendering simultaneously would mean that the specifications prepared for the support services could be decimated by the time the contract start dates arrive if the direct services contracts were won by an external contractor. There is, therefore, a particular problem in constructing meaningful specifications as the basis for legally enforceable contracts when much of the subject matter of the contract specification may disappear by the time the contract is intended to commence.

Given the impact of CCT for manual services and the inevitable disproportionate impact of re-organisation on central support services, it will be essential to finalise the tendering of all manual services before commencing the tendering process for white collar services. One must fully precede the other.

As regards the proposal to phase in white collar services over three-month intervals, local authorities in Scotland consider that this is totally impracticable. It would be more realistic to phase these services at 12-month intervals and certainly no less than six-month intervals. As the proposal currently stands, the second tranche would be tendered not knowing the outcome of the first tranche. The potential loss of one of the contracts in the first round could have a significant impact on the financial viability and structure of other services. For example—I offer these examples in an attempt to clarify the matter—if a personnel service's contract was won by an external contractor, this would have a major impact on staffing levels for other support services, particularly finance and information technology.

So we ask certain questions within local authorities. What happens if tenders are submitted for providing a support service to another service which is itself subject to CCT and that other service is subsequently awarded to an outside contractor? What then happens if an external contractor is awarded the contract for the support service? In such circumstances will the doctrine of frustration of contract apply?

The potential problems and uncertainties for contractors are self-evident. An extension of the timetable for phasing in white collar services would not only avoid those problems but would also recognise the fact that having to submit their own services to CCT will be a completely new learning exercise for local authority staff. In such a situation it is essential that sufficient time is allowed between contracts for authorities and staff corporately to assess the impact on their service providers and to make improvements for future contracts.

In local authorities in Scotland we are very nervous about the burden that is placed on the timetable by CCT. In relation to the timetable for re-tendering existing manual services already subject to CCT, for extending CCT to construction-related services and professional services, for introducing housing management CCT and extending CCT to other manual services, authorities will be expected to manage all those procedures simultaneously over a considerable period of time. Such a burden, particularly on support services, cannot be accepted, especially coming so soon after the proposed date for local government reorganisation.

The points outlined in this submission which I have attempted to make to the House and the noble and learned Lord serve to demonstrate fully the overall burden of the proposed CCT timetable on key officials managing the process and on key support services coming to terms with the process of managing change resulting from major upheaval and required to support numerous contract areas. I have also sought to demonstrate the difficulties of the inter-personal relationships in developing new organisational structures and at the same time ensuring that the level and quality of service to the public are maintained.

Under the proposals as they stand councils would have to expand central support staff merely to cope with competition, which I suggest totally defeats its purpose. Alternatively, the new authorities will be left with no option other than letting contracts based on the existing packages and specifications. That is a course of action which may not be in the best interests of council tax payers or good value for money.

In the earlier stages of CCT between 1989 and 1993, local authorities were involved in the letting of two or three contracts at any one time, each contract being at a different stage. The new authorities are being asked to handle up to 10 times that workload, together with all their other responsibilities.

In conclusion, there is a major risk that under the proposed timetable the demands being placed on local authority resources will lead to poor documentation and preparation which will have serious consequences for client and contractor alike. If the Government are serious about the provision of quality services and value for money—and I can say that local government certainly is—then a much less congested timetable should be considered. It is the view of local authorities in Scotland, of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and of the local authority which I represent that the extension of CCT to professional services should not commence until October 1999.

Throughout I have accepted that the Bill will receive Royal Assent. I have also tried to identify from time to time areas about which I have the greatest concern. At Second Reading I raised this issue as a prime matter. Again in Committee I brought it to the attention of the noble and learned Lord in my belief that the future of local government in the next two or three years could stand or fall upon the relationship that it will have with compulsory competitive tendering. The matter is that important. It is for that reason that I beg to move Amendment No. 65.

7.15 p.m.

Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove

My Lords, I put my name to the amendment. I listened with great attention to the noble Earl, Lord Minto. He spoke from great experience and he has a great interest in the subject. The Minister would have a heart of stone if he did not decide that an extension of the date is the very least that we can expect after the explanation and examples given by the noble Earl. I support him fully.

The Earl of Balfour

My Lords, I too should like to record my appreciation of the tremendous work that the noble Earl, Lord Minto, has put into his research into the Bill. In view of his practical experience I very much hope that the Government will take note of what he said.

Perhaps I may separate the proposed new subsections (10) and (11) of Section 2 of the Local Government Act 1988 in Amendment No. 65. In paragraph 159 of Schedule 13, on page 239 of the Bill, there is almost identical wording, inserted by the Government, to that proposed in subsection (10) in the amendment except that the amendment states that the Secretary of State "shall", whereas in Ihe Bill it states that the Secretary of State "may".

Turning to the proposed subsection (11) of the amendment, I ask the Government whether further consideration should be given in respect of Sections 6, 7 and 8 of the Local Government Act 1988 as presently worded.

The compulsory competitive tendering matters which the noble Earl, Lord Minto, raised in Amendment No. 66 in respect of the functional work under the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 should be carefully studied by the Government. Equally, I feel that Amendment No. 75 raises points which I feel sure, in view of the noble Earl's practical knowledge, deserve careful consideration.

Lord Rodger of Earlsferry

My Lords, noble Lords have expressed admiration for the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Minto. I, too, noted its terms with great care. His speech was not merely based on research but, quite clearly, on a familiarity with that area of work which I suspect is unequalled by anyone else in your Lordships' House.

The noble Earl addressed himself to the timetable embodied in the consultation document. The noble Earl's amendment seeks to put specific dates on the face of the Bill. I resist that in principle if for no other reason than that in due time those specific dates might be inappropriate for some reason. As the noble Earl knows, and as your Lordships are aware, with regard to the two Acts, the provisions of one are to be modified, and the provisions of the other are to be used, to provide measures for what I believe is known as the CCT holiday. That has been done by orders.

In July of this year the Scottish Office issued a consultation paper—a draft guidance on competitive tendering. That paper was issued to local authorities and others with an interest I have no doubt from the noble Earl's speech to your Lordships that the document has been well studied by him. However, it was very much a consultation document. In particular it asked for responses by 14th November. However, the bulk of responses have not yet come into the Scottish Office and therefore, the Scottish Office has not been able to consider the representations made. I understand that some representations have been received and some include points which are not dissimilar to those points made by the noble Earl.

The noble Earl considered that this area was one of the most important for local government in the coming years. The last thing that the Government wish to do is to end the CCT holiday or to introduce the new system of compulsory competitive tendering in a way that the effect would be the very reverse of what was intended. The intention is to improve the services and to make them more efficient. The noble Earl painted a scenario in which that objective would not be achieved.

It was precisely to take on board such points, and to reach a decision on appropriate dates in the light of that consideration, that the paper was issued. I hope that noble Lords will not consider me in any way discourteous if I do not even attempt to deal with the details of the matter put forward by the noble Earl. The matter is out for consultation. Decisions have not been taken. Dates were included in the paper but they were dates to be considered in the light of all the representations made. I can assure your Lordships that the Secretary of State and his officials will take into account not only the representations which are received but in particular what the noble Earl said today. Those are the kinds of matters to be taken into account.

I hope that in the light of that explanation the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

The Earl of Minto

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his response. I did not expect him to accept absolutely the dates in the amendment. However, his answer has satisfied me so far as it goes: that the Secretary of State and his officials will look carefully at the responses to the consultation paper that they receive by the November date. However, should they fail to do so, the Bill having left the House, it will be a matter of great concern.

I do not consider the noble and learned Lord in the least offensive in not giving me the assurances that he thought I sought. I am pleased to note that he takes the matter seriously. If he does not do so, quite frankly, local government in Scotland will be in dire straits indeed.

I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment. I shall not move Amendment No. 66, although I shall speak to Amendment No. 75.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 66 not moved.]

The Earl of Minto

My Lords, would it be appropriate for me to speak to Amendment No. 75 now?

The Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham)

My Lords, I shall not be able to call the amendment until it arises in the order on the Marshalled List. I shall call it at the normal time.

The Earl of Arran

My Lords, I think that this will be an appropriate time at which to break for dinner. Perhaps I may suggest that further consideration on Report be now adjourned until 8.25.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

[The Sitting was suspended from 7.26 to 8.25 p.m.]

Clause 47 [Amendment of District Courts (Scotland) Act 1975]:

Lord Ewing of Kirkford moved Amendment No. 67: Page 44, line 23, at beginning insert:

("() The District Courts (Scotland) Act 1975 shall be amended in accordance with the provisions of this section.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend Lord Macaulay and with his permission, I beg to move this amendment. On these packed Benches that we are addressing this evening, I think we all agree that some issues which we discussed are not quite as important as others. This amendment, dealing with the retention of fines by local authorities in the district court areas, is quite an important issue. Over the. past few years it has developed and I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate will take the point on board and examine it.

The position at the moment with the district courts is that local authorities can retain fines imposed for offences such as breach of the peace and assault. They can retain 100 per cent. of the fines for common law offences. With other offences such as those under the wireless and telegraphy legislation concerning people who have no television licences, fines are remitted in total to the Exchequer. For moving traffic offences such as speeding, local authorities can retain only 10 per cent. of the fines. That is also true in the case of parking fines imposed by traffic wardens, stationary vehicle offences and similar offences.

The noble and learned Lord appreciates, I am sure, that over recent years, because of the offer by procurators fiscal of fixed penalties, the district courts now deal with more fixed penalty offences as a proportion of their work. The net result is that, as a percentage, less and less of the fines imposed by the district courts are retained by district councils. Therefore, more and more of the expenditure of administering the district courts is incurred by the district councils. The income from fines has decreased as the expenditure on administration has increased. Obviously, when fixed penalties were introduced it was not appreciated that it would have an effect on the way in which the district court system operated and the retention of fines by local authorities.

Even in the case of a fixed penalty, if that fixed penalty is not met and is therefore converted to a fine, the local authority is only entitled to retain a certain small percentage of the fine as a handling charge. So that has become quite an important issue for the councils which administer district courts. I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate will give this matter the most serious consideration. I beg to move.

8.30 p.m.

Lord Mackie of Benshie

My Lords, I rise to support this amendment. I would normally feel that it might be better for the authorities not to receive any of the money from the fines in case they urged the magistrates to fine more people and urged the traffic wardens to go around shopping as many people as possible, which is a policy that has rather been encouraged by this Government. I hope that the independence of the judiciary will be such that the money should accrue to the local councils, which carry most of the cost of running the courts. It seems to me to be quite sensible, particularly in the case of 10 per cent. for fixed penalties and one-third for a case that goes to court and results in a fine. I am sure that the noble and learned Lord will take a sympathetic view and see that the courts are comfortable for the judges, and so on. It is a sensible amendment and I hope that he takes a good view of it.

Lord Rodger of Earlsferry

My Lords, a similar point was raised in Committee. I explained then that I did not feel able to accept the principle behind the amendment. As I explained then, the position between England and Scotland differs. In England, the magistrates' courts do not retain any of the income which might be derived from the imposition of fines. On the other hand, in Scotland the position, as noble Lords have heard, though slightly complicated, is basically that common law offence fines are retained whereas those relating to statutory offences are not. That is subject to various other provisions and in particular in relation to fixed penalties.

Fixed penalties are remitted to the Exchequer by the courts subject to a retention of one-tenth of the sum. Where the offender does not pay and a fine is registered, it is an increased fine of which the local authority may retain one-third. So the sum is not insignificant. These are all provisions that are unique to Scotland.

The district courts are among the services that are provided by local authorities. The provision of these courts is one of the matters that are taken into account when revenue support grant is calculated. There is a slightly complicated way in which the fine income is dealt with, and so on; nonetheless, as the House can see, revenue support grant is calculated by reference to the overall expenditure and therefore it includes the cost of running the courts. If one were to change the system and allow them to retain all the income one would have to reconsider the question of revenue support grant. It is not an easy matter, and I can understand the feelings of those who are involved in the district courts.

It would be wrong to assume that because the courts may retain 10 per cent. of the fixed penalties that that is a wrong figure. The amount of effort involved—there is an effort in handling fixed penalties—is by no means the same as running a court case that involves the same kind of process. All those various matters must be borne in mind. As I said, it is not easy.

The position in England is different. If one were to depart from the present system one would have to think of exactly how a change would affect the overall revenue support grant for the local authorities. While I understand that changes in the pattern of their work have caused this point to be of some concern to local authorities, I really do not think that I can accede to the underlying principle. The matter has been reviewed on a number of occasions and we are satisfied that the present system, although it may seem anomalous, in fact works perfectly well.

Lord Ewing of Kirkford

My Lords, it is not my intention to divide the House on this issue, but I really must say to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate that I find it strange that he should respond to the debate in this way. Administratively it would be much more simple for the local authority to retain all the fines and for the matter to be dealt with in the revenue support grant arrangements, rather than to have all this nonsense of remitting 10 per cent. and retaining 33 per cent. I can imagine the administrative work that that involves. We have an opportunity to simplify the matter which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate will not take. However, having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 68 not moved.]

Clause 50 [Registration of births, deaths and marriages]:

Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendment No. 69:

Page 45, line 30, leave out from ("in") to ("; and") in line 34 and insert ("subsections (1) and (3), for the words "director of social work" there shall be substituted "chief social work officer"").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment has already been spoken to. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 52 [Records held by local authorities]:

Lord Teviot moved Amendment No. 70:

Page 46, line 6, after ("the") insert ("professional custody,").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 70 I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 71, which is the more important amendment.

These amendments have three aims: first, to strengthen the powers of the Keeper of the Records of Scotland to approve the arrangements made by the new authorities; secondly, to ensure that the new authorities do not carry out ill-advised destruction of records; and, thirdly, to require new authorities to make use of professionally qualified staff.

The most important of these aims is the first: the requirement on the new authorities to obtain the approval of the Keeper of the Records for the provisions that will be made for archives. The change in wording may seem small, but the effect might be to rescue important records which would otherwise be destroyed. It is perhaps worth looking at the history of local archives in Scotland to see why that is so.

Unlike the situation in England and Wales, where there is a national network of county offices which has grown up since the war (and some even before the war), in Scotland no such offices existed at the time of the last reorganisation. There were offices for the important city archives of Edinburgh, Glasgow and Aberdeen, but not in the counties, mainly because of their much smaller size and income base.

The Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 made some attempt to improve the situation. Section 200 requires the new authorities to make "proper arrangements" for the records in their care. That has undoubtedly saved considerable quantities of records both at the time of the reorganisation of 1974–75 and since. But "proper arrangements" is so vague a phrase that in large parts of Scotland virtually nothing happened. Historical records still lie in private offices, basements and attics. In some cases they have been salvaged by museums and libraries; in others important records, known to have existed even 20 years ago, are missing, presumed destroyed.

To give the House an example, the electoral registers for the county of Lanarkshire disappeared in 1975, and the Ayrshire planning records are also missing. There are also records of 200 years or more, known to have been in Edinburgh, which cannot now be traced. There are particular grounds for concern over the position in Lothian and Fife, where there is no archival provision. That is a rather disgraceful situation, especially as regards older records. For modern council records the problem is even more widespread. There have been gains since 1975 but they have been very patchy and incomplete and have depended entirely on initiatives by individual authorities. A large number of authorities have done nothing. The provisions for "proper arrangements" in 1975 were not very satisfactory, and the clause in this Bill is open to the same objection. The new authorities are to consult the Keeper of the Records and have regard to his views. Clearly that is not much of an improvement on the present position. The new authorities will be required to submit proposals to the keeper but if, in his opinion, the proposals are inadequate, there is not much more that he can do.

Amendment No. 71 would provide the basis for an adequate local archive service such as already exists in England and Wales. The only possible objection to it would involve increased government control. Not all the new authorities would welcome that but not all would resent it either. Much would depend on how the new powers were exercised.

A number of existing authorities have been willing to support the proposed amendment. There is certainly no question of any problem arising between the Keeper of the Records and local archivists in Scotland. As for the position of the keeper himself, no doubt he will welcome the powers that he will be given under Clause 52 even as it stands, but the amendment would strengthen his position.

I should like briefly to mention Amendment No. 70 which asks for records to be kept by professional archivists. The archival profession, which I have mentioned many times over the years in all kinds of record debates, is distinct and separate from that of those who have been trained as librarians. Archivists are trained specifically to list and catalogue records and to manage modern records efficiently. They must know how to preserve them correctly in the right atmospheric conditions.

I look forward to the response of my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate or, if he does not reply, then the response of my other noble and learned friend, since there is a plethora of erudition on the Front Bench at the moment. I am particularly grateful to my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate for the way in which he handled the archival situation in the Welsh local government Act.

These are useful and constructive amendments which will enhance the Bill. I realise that Clause 52 is good but I feel that the amendments would make it better. I beg to move.

8.45 p.m.

Lord Rodger of Earlsferry

My Lords, it has fallen to me to answer, although I make no claims to learning other than those which my formal title gives me. As someone who from time to time consults records or archives, I understand the thinking behind the amendment, which is obviously that the provisions should be satisfactory.

I feel that my noble friend Lord Teviot was a little ungenerous in suggesting that the clause does not improve the situation. It does so in a very material way; namely, by providing for the local authorities to consult the Keeper of the Records of Scotland. There has hitherto been no formal requirement for that to be done. It is now written on the face of the Bill and will become a statutory obligation. That will be of the greatest possible significance.

My understanding is that the keeper himself is very content with the terms of the clause as they stand, which in some ways, if not precisely, mirror the provision for consultation with the Secretary of State; for example, in the Local Government (Wales) Act to which my noble friend referred. It does not provide for him to consent. I believe that that is right. It would be very difficult for the keeper, however distinguished, to have detailed knowledge of all the circumstances of individual local authorities throughout Scotland, their competing needs and their particular circumstances. I feel that it is better that the provision should be in the form it is, which requires the authorities to consult the keeper and have regard to his comments. I believe that that provides the necessary reassurance.

We feel that Amendment No. 70, which would provide for the persons concerned to be professional archivists, goes too far. One must have regard to the fact that there will be authorities of varying sizes. We believe that it is proper for them to be able to decide the appropriate level and qualifications of the staff whom they will employ. Wherever possible it is desirable that they should be professional archivists with the kinds of skills to which my noble friend referred. But we should not wish that to be a requirement. We believe that the appropriate safeguard is provided for by the obligation to consult the keeper and have regard to his comments. That is the assurance of the propriety of arrangements of the kind my noble friend seeks.

In the light of that explanation, I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Teviot

My Lords, I am sorry that there should be any disagreement. I do not think that I said that I was unhappy with the clause. I believe that the amendments which I put forward would help the clause. As to Amendment No. 70, I accept that my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate has properly explained the position, having taken on board the points I made. However, the keeper may not be able to go everywhere. I do not say that I shall, only that I may, reserve my position and come back at Third Reading. The Keeper of the Records of Scotland has to look after a much smaller area of archives than is found in England. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has to consider the public records where the holding is much bigger. I should have thought that the Keeper of the Records would be well able to undertake the provisions in the amendment.

I am happy to withdraw the amendment but I reserve the right to return, perhaps with another amendment, at Third Reading.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 71 not moved.]

Clause 54 [Restriction on disposal of assets and entering into contracts by existing authorities]:

Lord Ewing of Kirkford moved Amendment No. 71A:

Page 48, line 10, leave out ("and") and insert ("or

( ) where the new local authority within whose area the land will be situated will not be the new local authority with a legal interest in and exercising functions in respect of which the land in question is owned or held, any or all of the new local authorities which will have a legal interest in or exercise the function in respect of which the land is owned or held; and)".

The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 71A and the associated amendment No. 74 tabled in my name deal with an anomaly in Clause 54. The clause defines the situation in which local authorities owning property in another local authority's area can sell or dispose of that property. A very good example is the fact that Lothian Regional Council owns an education centre in Highland Regional Council's area. Under the transition arrangements defined in Clause 54, Lothian Regional Council would require the permission and the authority of Highland Regional Council before disposing of the education centre. That does not apply only to Lothian Region and Highland Region: it applies to all authorities which own property or land in another authority area. We are proposing to take account of the anomaly—I know the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, tabled a government amendment in relation to this matter—and where application from one authority to another has been made and no response received within a period of six weeks, under Amendment No. 74 agreement will be deemed to have been given by virtue of the fact, ipso facto, that no response was received within six weeks.

It is obviously an important issue. Lothian Region or any other authority owning property or land should obviously be in control of that property or land and of whether to dispose of it rather than the other authority in whose area that property or land happens to be. With those comments, I beg to move.

Lord Rodger of Earlsferry

My Lords, Amendments Nos. 72 and 73 relate to the disposal or sale of council housing stock by an existing authority and its exemption from the requirement to seek the consent of the shadow council. The reason for the exemption is that a shadow council may unreasonably seek to block the transfer of local authority housing stock by the existing local authorities.

One of the primary motivations for existing authorities to undertake stock transfers is the prospect of securing a capital receipt. Under the terms of subsection (10) as it stands there would be a requirement for the consent of the shadow council. If it wished to frustrate the stock transfer for political reasons or wished to secure a receipt for itself, it could withhold consent to the subsequent use of the receipt. It is in order to avoid the possibility of that specific difficulty arising that Amendments Nos. 72 and 73 are tabled.

As I understand it, the intention behind Amendment No. 71A is to ensure that, if an existing authority decides to dispose of a property which it owns outside of its area, such as that in the example given by the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, then it should consult the new authority which otherwise may have an interest in the property. It was admitted by my noble and learned friend in Committee that it is a difficult area. It seems likely that there will be a range of circumstances arising. It is not easy therefore to prescribe a single solution. We felt, having thought about the matter carefully, that it was best to leave the occasional odd cases to be resolved by the authorities concerned rather than to legislate for every circumstance that may arise.

If one looks at the amendment tabled, it proceeds on the assumption that it will be possible to determine, detect and identify which new authorities will have a legal interest in the out-of-area properties—the outward bound school or whatever it may be. When one thinks about the matter, the situation is not always likely to be obvious. It cannot be said at this stage that all the new authorities in a region's area—for instance, Strathclyde—will necessarily have an interest in the out-of-area property. When one thinks of an outward bound school which had been used by Strathclyde, it may be that it was only as a result of various negotiations between the successor authorities that it became apparent which of the successor authorities wished to have an interest in the outward bound centre. It would only be when that had been determined that one would be able to see which authorities would be covered by a property transfer order. The amendment proceeds on the basis that that matter can somehow be determined in advance. For the reasons I have given, I do not believe that to be right.

An alternative approach may be simply to define the "relevant successor authority" as any new authority whose area falls within the area of the existing owner authority; for instance, in our example any authority which was a successor authority to Strathclyde. However, that could mean that Strathclyde was faced with a significant administrative burden in having to obtain the consent of 12 new successor authorities. That may be a complicated solution to something which is a relatively minor problem in practice. We believe therefore that it is more desirable and a more sensible solution to leave the local authorities concerned to negotiate their way through these cases. They are likely to be unusual and perhaps anomalous. It is therefore difficult to anticipate a solution and better to leave it to negotiations between the authorities concerned.

Amendment No. 74 again tackles a difficult issue. It is clearly important that the work of existing councils is not delayed unduly by the need to seek the consent of the relevant successor body. We must consider the matter carefully. We are concerned with major transactions, including capital contracts exceeding £2.5 million and asset disposals exceeding £250,000. They are obviously matters in which decisions are not to be taken lightly. One would hope that the new councils would be able to respond quickly on these matters. Nonetheless, the new authorities will have a lot of work to do and thus we may be imposing too tight a deadline to require them to respond within six weeks, failing which there would be a deemed consent.

Though I accept that it is a difficult issue, on balance we believe that the amendment would create as many problems as it obviously seeks to solve. The Secretary of State is required to set the date after which the agreement of the relevant successor authority will require to be sought. In deciding on the appropriate date, the Secretary of State will keep in mind the need to ensure that the successor bodies are in a position to take decisions within a reasonable timescale. Though I fully admit that it is a difficult matter, I suggest that on balance the amendment is not one which is satisfactory for the reasons I have given. In those circumstances I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw it.

9 p.m.

Lord Ewing of Kirkford

My Lords, I find that response astonishing. I am always amazed at the way in which the Government find it relatively easy to deal with issues involving political dogma. There has been no difficulty in the transfer of housing stock because the Government want capital receipts to continue to flow in from the sale of local authority housing. They will be disappointed, because there are precious few houses left to sell from local authority stock.

If it is easy to deal with the transfer of local authority housing stock it is equally easy to deal with the situation in relation to the Lothian Region's education centre and Highland Region. Clause 54 is the first example of the introduction of a new local authority structure in Scotland which immediately on introduction takes away powers from the existing local authorities. The situation is ludicrous. If Lothian Region decided tomorrow to sell the education centre in the Highland Region there is not a blind thing that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate can do about it. He can do nothing to stop Lothian Region selling the education centre in the Highland Region between now and the election of the shadow authorities in April next year.

I shall not give Lothian Region advice about what it should do. It is ludicrous that the Government should tackle the problem in such an offhand way, knowing full well that between now and the election of the shadow authorities in April Lothian Region or any other local authority which owns land or property in another local authority's area can sell that land and property.

I do not want to delay your Lordships' House at this late hour but it is ludicrous that the Government should be looking at the problem in this way. It is very easy to transfer housing stock—it can be done at the stroke of a pen—but as regards the other item every difficulty is presented. I do not intend to press the amendment. Like all good lawyers, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate has done his best with a bad brief. Tonight he has had not a bad but an absolutely appalling brief. However, he has done reasonably well and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendment No. 72: Page 49, line 15, after ("to") insert ("—

(a)").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendment No. 73: Page 49, line 17, at end insert ("; and

(b) any contract entered into by an existing authority in or in connection with the exercise of the power conferred on them by section 24 of the Local Government Act 1988 (power to provide financial assistance for privately let housing accommodation).").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 74 not moved.]

Clause 57 [Further provision as to discharge of functions by authorities]:

The Earl of Minto moved Amendment No. 75: Page 51, line 16, at end insert ("but no such regulations shall apply to works contracts as defined in the Local Government Planning and Land Act 1980 and the Local Government Act 1988").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I return to the question of compulsory competitive tendering but this time on an item of detail rather than an item of timing and principle.

In the White Paper the Government made clear that some new authorities would consider the merits of joint arrangements of one kind or another, one authority with another, and that the Government were of the view that all the new councils should take advantage of opportunities to share expert advice and specialist facilities. In order to aid that development, the Government indicated that they would provide a flexible legal framework which enabled the local authorities to choose from a wide range of providers, including in most instances other local authorities.

Subsections (1), (2), (3) and (5) of the clause provide such flexibility. However, subsection (4) proceeds to give the Secretary of State power to regulate and control the new flexible power of local authorities to contract with one another to carry out any legitimate activity or service of local authorities.

I suggest that there is no need for such a regulatory power. The Secretary of State already has wide-ranging powers to control both the capital and in particular the revenue expenditure of local authorities through his capping powers. In addition, Clause 168 places a clear duty on local authorities to make proper arrangements for securing economy, efficiency and effectiveness in their use of resources.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, stated: The Government do not … consider that work subject to compulsory competitive tendering should fall within the powers granted to local authorities under the new provision, given that there is a clear private sector market for such work. As such, therefore, the Secretary of State would intend to make regulations excluding CCT contracts from the new arrangements".—[Official Report, 14/7/94; col. 2024.]

In correspondence with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, the Scottish Office has confirmed the Government's belief that, where a clear private market already exists for works, the powers available to local authorities under Clause 57 will not apply. However, the Scottish Office intimated that it does not intend that the regulations will affect any other powers that local authorities may have under legislation such as the Local Authorities (Goods and Services) Act 1970, certain sections of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 and other clauses of the current Bill.

Local authorities in Scotland and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities are concerned that the proposed regulations could have a detrimental effect on current inter-authority arrangements or potential future arrangements which would assist in the better delivery of local authority services. In particular, the Minister's statement that CCT contracts would be excluded appears to contradict the "without prejudice to other powers" provision in Section 57(5) so that authorities can provide services to one another under the Local Government (Goods and Services) Act 1970 and enter into works contracts with each other under the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 and the Local Government Act 1988. It must be remembered that such works contracts, where they exist, have been won in open competition and are, therefore, clearly seen as providing better value for money than the competing bids from private contractors.

My deep anxiety is that, if local authorities are expected to get the best value for money, an entire market within their own authorities is denied to them because it has to go outwith, to the private market. I cannot see why it should be that the council tax payers should be doing badly from the services that are provided within their council areas because they are having to go to a more expensive person rather than to the internal services that could be provided within local authorities simply and solely to answer the propagation of the private sector as opposed to the public sector in this particular area. This situation fills me with deep concern. I would therefore ask for something which is rather better from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate than we have had so far on the question of CCT. I beg to move.

Lord Rodger of Earlsferry

My Lords, the provision in Clause 57(4) reflects the same policy as is included in, for example, Section 25(5) of the Local Government (Wales) Act. The thinking behind the provision is that where Section 57 would otherwise be applicable, then the Secretary of State may exclude its application in certain circumstances by regulation.

The first point I make is that, as Clause 57(5) makes absolutely clear, the provisions of that clause are without prejudice to any other power which the local authority may have for arranging the carrying out of its activities, services and so on by another authority. For example, the other powers to which the noble Earl, Lord Minto, referred are not in any way abridged or restricted by the provisions of Clause 57. Nothing which I said on a previous occasion and nothing which I say now could be thought in any way to affect the other powers of the local authority users. As the noble Earl may be aware, the purpose behind Clause 57, as in the case of Clause 25 of the Welsh Act, is to remove a doubt as to the powers in certain circumstances under the other legislation. That is the background.

The position is, and the Government believe, that whereas it does make sense for local authorities to be able to use other local authorities to provide services, that is not the provision which it is desirable to have recourse to where there already exists a proper market in the private sector for the provision of those services. Therefore, the Government have put into the Bill a power for the Secretary of State to exclude certain areas where it is thought that a sufficient market exists for the kinds of services to be provided by the private sector if the authority is not able to provide the services itself.

It is of course a power given to the Secretary of State to make regulations. Those regulations can be tuned and refined. In particular, the Secretary of State recognises that circumstances may vary and that the regulations may have to be fine tuned to reflect the variations in the circumstances. Therefore, I can say to the House that before making any such regulations under Clause 57(4) the Secretary of State intends to consult about their terms. The aim of Ministers will be to ensure that the range of powers available to authorities after reorganisation will be sufficient in the new circumstances. Therefore, it follows that representations about the scope of any regulations which make exclusions will be carefully considered. In the light of those assurances, 1 hope that the noble Earl will withdraw his amendment.

The Earl of Minto

My Lords, so far I have not been satisfied by anything that has been said about CCT during the whole of the progress of this Bill and I am not very happy about the explanation that has just been given. Nevertheless, I shall read it in Hansard, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

9.15 p.m.

Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 76:

Page 51, line 24, at end insert:

("() Where two or more local authorities consider it appropriate, they may set up a body or bodies to be known as a service agency, or service agencies, for the purpose of providing to the local authorities such services as may be required.

() A service agency may provide such services and carry out such tasks for the local authorities as the agency and the local authorities may agree and in such terms and conditions as they may agree.

( ) A service agency may do anything a local authority may do in terms of the Local Authorities (Goods and Services) Act 1970.

( ) A service agency shall be a body corporate with a common seal.")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this amendment is to set up an agency to provide specialist services to local authorities, such as those that are currently provided by regional councils but which will be lost or fragmented by the transition to smaller unitary councils.

The Government have already agreed that specialist services such as those of the assessor, fire, police, principal roads, reporter to the children's panel, sewerage and water cannot be adequately handled at unitary council level. The Government should be asking themselves whether those are the only services that need to be administered on a regional or national basis. We believe that there are other vital services which regional councils currently provide which will be lost on reorganisation unless a specific agency is set up to provide them.

Perhaps I may put a few questions to the Minister. What are the other such services that might be considered? What about the European Community liaison officer in Brussels who is working to help to secure Social Fund and Development Fund moneys for local authorities? What about the regional chemist who provides analytical services to smaller authorities from all over Scotland? Furthermore, central purchasing can secure contracts at significant savings because of its purchasing power.

There are many reasons why the creation of a central service agency would be beneficial. I shall give your Lordships just two others. The first relates to cost-effectiveness. The loss of economies of scale when the proposed 12 new councils in the Strathclyde area are created will have an effect on many of the services that are currently provided by regional councils, but the results could be most acute among the region-wide specialist services. Economies of scale are the raison d'être of the central purchasing operation in Strathclyde, which is able to achieve a cost reduction of between 10 and 20 per cent. in over 270 contracts on its turnover of £70 million. That is no small figure for a local authority.

The Strathclyde regional chemist operates a laboratory that is twice as large as all the others in Scotland put together. The cost is currently £4 million per annum, but it would rise to approximately £12 million per annum if fragmented among 12 authorities. The Blindcraft workshops in Strathclyde, which I know very well, provide a cost-effective training operation, employing large numbers of disabled workers, because of the regional council's ability to capture a market for their products.

Economies of scale would be helpful for service efficiency also. The regional chemist employs a wide range of highly specialised staff and can deal with technicalities ranging from food hygiene to radioactivity and industrial contamination. The legal and procedural specialisation of consumer and trading standards staff, dealing with advertising, metrology, fraud and public safety, would be less effective if divided among individual or ad hoc groups of councils.

For many of those services, the logistics of operating on a smaller scale would reduce their effectiveness. I should have thought that that would be self-evident. The requirement for a proliferation of headquarters and depots, together with administrative back-up, and the need to liaise with a much larger number of bodies would be a constant drain on their effectiveness.

I hope that the Minister will consider this matter carefully. Trading standards could be cited as another example because it is an area involving high technology and sophisticated electronics. I hope that the Minister will give the amendment serious consideration and, if he cannot accept it today, I hope that he will consider returning with something similar at the very last stage. I beg to move.

The Earl of Balfour

My Lords, perhaps I may ask your Lordships to refer back to page 17 of the Bill. When your Lordships discussed Clause 20, I was under the impression that the new Section 62B of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 would cover the very points which the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, has just made about his amendment, Amendment No. 76.

Lord Rodger of Earlsferry

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Balfour has drawn attention to one particular provision, which is the new Section 62(B) in the 1973 Act. That is at the most extreme end of possible remedies. I am sure your Lordships are weary of hearing by now that the philosophy which underlies the Bill is that the authorities should be enabling authorities. That means that they can choose the way in which they discharge the functions which are laid upon them. They can use their own in-house staff to do it. On the other hand, they may choose to contract the work out to the private sector or indeed to the voluntary sector. That is another way. They can do it by means of the existing arrangements in the local government Act of 1973 by the use of joint committees.

The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, pointed to the disadvantages of that which may or may not arise in particular circumstances. Of course they can also make use of the provisions of Clause 57, since, unless the Secretary of State has made an exclusion order under subsection (4), the whole purpose of Clause 57 is to provide that a local authority may agree with any other local authority that the supplying authority shall carry out any activity or service. When one sees it written down, it refers to a local authority and another local authority, and so on, and it sounds as if it is one local authority agreeing with another local authority. Of course in practice there could be a number of authorities agreeing with one particular authority. It could, for example, be that all three of the Lothians—the East Lothian, West Lothian and Midlothian authorities— could all agree that a particular service might be provided by the City of Edinburgh.

It might make sense to take the examples to which the noble Lord has referred and say that, for example, trading standards would be provided by a lead authority which would cover an area. I am not saying that that would apply in those particular circumstances, but it might. There is a provision in the Act already which allows local authorities to take effective decisions, and decisions which would have regard to precisely the kinds of factor to which the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, has referred. In particular it could mean that some services are better provided to a larger number of the population because they involve more costly specialist services, and so on, which are better done by fewer authorities rather than by all the authorities in Scotland.

There is no difficulty in arranging for that under the powers which are already in the Bill. For that reason, I do not myself see the need to introduce this provision, which is merely designed to achieve what we are quite satisfied could be achieved by the use of the other mechanisms provided for in this Bill and in existing legislation. I hope that, in the light of that explanation, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove

My Lords, I always listen to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate with great care. I think that in this case he has really not quite answered the points I was trying to make. These are very important services, such as food safety and general consumer protection, which perhaps may need very quick assessment. That may not be all that easy if you have to go to another authority and they have their own hierarchy above them, instead of having one authority with a director who can push things to the right places at the right time and make the assessment of need.

The economies of scale have not been dealt with. An important point is that there may a conflict of interest with the authority to which one sends goods to be assessed. For instance, there may be a conflict of interest between East Lothian and Midlothian. I have never heard during our discussions on the Bill or seen in all the papers that we have received anyone talk about the philosophy behind the Bill. It is going rather far to talk about the philosophy behind the Bill. However, I am sure that we shall not get a great deal from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 77 not moved]

Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 78:

Before Clause 61, insert the following new clause:

("New Water and Sewerage Authorities

  1. .—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, the functions of the existing local authorities immediately before 1st April 1996 as water and sewerage authorities shall be carried out on and after that date by the councils established in terms of Part I of this Act.
  2. (2) For the purposes of the functions referred to in subsection (1) of this section, the Secretary of State shall, before the commencement of this Act, by order make amalgamation schemes amalgamating the local authority areas set out in the second column of the table at the end of this subsection into the combined areas set out in the first column of that table.
    3. Table
    Combined Areas Local Authority Areas
    Eastern The Borders, Clackmannan, City of Edinburgh, Falkirk, Fife, East Lothian, Midlothian, West Lothian and Stirling.
    Western Argyll and Bute, East Ayrshire, North Ayrshire, South Ayrshire, Dumbarton and Clydebank, Dumfries and Galloway, East Dunbartonshire, City of Glasgow, Inverclyde, North Lanarkshire, South Lanarkshire, East Renfrewshire, Renfrewshire.
    281
    Northern City of Aberdeen, Aberdeenshire, Angus, City of Dundee, Highland, Moray, Orkney Islands, Perthshire and Kinross, Shetland Islands and Western Isles.
  3. (3) The provisions of sections 62A and 62C of the 1973 Act shall apply to a Joint Board established by an order made under this section as they apply to a Joint Board established by an order made under section 62A or that Act.
  4. (4)Notwithstanding the provisions of the preceding subsection, the membership of the joint boards established under this section shall consist wholly of councillors elected to the authorities established under Part 1 of this Act within the areas of the joint boards.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is an important amendment, as I am sure the noble and learned Lords the Lord Advocate and the Minister of State are fully aware. Its purpose is to retain responsibility for water and sewerage within local government, and, just as importantly, to ensure that members of the new water and sewerage authorities are elected, and therefore democratically accountable, councillors appointed by the new authorities contained within the new water and sewerage areas.

The people of Scotland are firmly of the view that the most appropriate medium for the delivery of water and sewerage services is via the present arrangements. If however the Government persist in establishing the three new water and sewerage authorities, we would argue that those authorities should be controlled by democratically accountable members appointed by the unitary authorities.

The Government have argued consistently that their proposals will allow economies of scale and savings to be achieved. The establishment of three local authority-controlled joint boards will ensure that the same savings, if they exist, could be achieved by the amendment while maintaining democratic accountability. We do not lose three units, and we maintain democratic accountability, the maintenance of which is in line with the results of every major public opinion poll taken in Scotland.

I and many others believe—the Government should be aware of this—that so far as concerns Scotland the whole issue of the privatisation of water is on a par with the worries of the people of Scotland about the NHS. Their anxiety is as sharp as that. They feel that there is something wrong about the privatisation of water. I should like to make the following points in support of the case I am putting forward. In the consultation paper entitled Water and Sewerage Services in Scotland— Investing for our Future, which was published in November 1992, the Secretary of State for Scotland invited views as to the future arrangements for water and sewerage services in Scotland, linking the whole matter to his concurrent exercise on local government structure in Scotland.

The consultation document was disappointing. It was superficial and much less than even-handed in its treatment of the background to the services, the perceived need for change and the possible options which were identified by the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State's continuing refusal to publish the findings or even the terms of reference of the consultants appointed to identify opinions is still a matter of resentment in Scotland, and is strongly deplored.

The regional and islands councils in Scotland, and their predecessor water and sewerage authorities during the past 150 years, have reason to be proud of their achievements, and the levels of service which have been provided traditionally to domestic, industrial and commercial customers. It is no wonder that there is no suggestion from any quarter that the services are other than efficiently and effectively managed and delivered or that customer satisfaction is other than extremely high.

Indeed, a Consumer Council survey has indicated that levels of consumer satisfaction with water and sewerage services in Scotland are higher than for any other public or private sector service in any part of the United Kingdom. I am sure that the Minister will be aware of a recent letter which the Prime Minister wrote to the president of CoSLA which statedThe local authorities in Scotland for many years provided highly effective water and sewerage services which the public rightly appreciate. The case for change is not that the local authorities have fallen down on the job but that a different structure is now needed if a very large investment programme is to be achieved over the next 10–15 years without further increasing public expenditure and putting pressure on the public sector borrowing requirement. This will require an organisation which can exploit new technology and economies of scale to the fullest extent, which can attract private capital under the Government's Private Finance Initiative and maximise efficiencies by adopting the best private sector practices wherever practicable".

Therefore, the whole defence of the Prime Minister was based on the old Treasury rules; namely, that if 10 per cent. of government money is spent on a scheme—for example, the Channel Tunnel—that goes into the PSBR. When it affects people as closely as this provision does, it is madness and even dangerous.

Our view is that such a statement provides no justification for removing those services from local authority control. Local authorities already have access to the Government's private finance initiative which involves the private sector building, owning and operating—the horrible mnemonic BOO —schemes and capital assets on behalf of the authorities for profit. Where that facility is seen to be the most appropriate and cost effective, it will be taken up. In addition, major construction and design works at present are almost exclusively undertaken by the private sector following competitive tendering, thereby achieving the types of benefit referred to by the Prime Minister.

We do not suggest that new reservoirs or new sewerage works should be built by in-house labour. Those are specialist jobs and contractors must be brought in to do the work. The requirement for major investment comes as no surprise to any of us. We have stressed repeatedly over the years that increased capital investment levels in water and sewerage services are required. That is particularly true with regard to sewerage. Areas such as Glasgow and Strathclyde have spent enormous sums on renewing sewers. That such investment was not made in full is not the fault of the regional or island councils which were prepared to invest the money. It is basically the fault of the Government who were not prepared to grant the necessary expenditure consent.

It is not acceptable for the Government now to suggest that water and sewerage authorities have been in any way lacking in their commitment to new investment or that the Government's own conversion to acceptance of the need for investment should be the trigger for consideration to be given to removing those services from local democratic control.

On the basis that financial considerations are a major factor in the Government's wish to review the arrangements for water and sewerage services, the financial issues involved must be considered in some detail. I only hope that the Government are aware of the close, detailed analysis that has been made by a number of groups, in particular CoSLA. They have dealt with all the problems that have been put up, only to be pushed down. That is one of our main anxieties with regard to the Bill. It may be that at earlier stages I have been over-enthusiastic about the incredible job which the old councils did in the west of Scotland and in Glasgow which probably provided the best service with regard to water in the world. The water was taken great distances; for example, from Loch Katrine and other small lochs in that area.

Apart from the grant contributions to some recent sewerage schemes, the Government provide virtually no funding to assist local authorities to finance water and sewerage capital expenditure and investment programmes. Such expenditure is financed almost entirely by the authorities borrowing from the market and from the Public Works Loan Board, grants from European Community sources or from recycling proceeds from the sale of assets. There is an insignificant contribution from general taxation, and the annual cost of repaying interest and principal in respect of borrowing is met from fees and charges paid by the contractors.

I am sure the Minister is aware of many of the arguments. What we are concerned about is getting some answers that will make it possible for us to go to the people of Scotland and say, "We think we have saved the water industry from the mad process of privatisation". As the Minister must know, a massive 95 per cent. of Scots want to see the provision of water and sewerage services left in the control of local authorities. I know the Minister will ask how the opinion poll was conducted. I would be willing to test any method of assessing the attitude of Scottish people to this proposal. Ninety-five per cent. may have been a lucky number, but I believe that the figure will certainly be over 90 per cent. I hope that the Government are slowly becoming aware of that as this Bill slowly wends its way through the House. Believe me, we will return to this matter at some other point and I am sure that the people of Scotland will still think that the water industry is theirs and does not belong to any quango that may be set up by the Government. I beg to move.

Lord Mackie of Benshie

My Lords, I of course support this amendment if the circumstances are such that we must have these boards, whose ultimate purpose we are all suspicious of. Although I have given the Government notice of my next point, I wish to state that I shall move the amendments that stand in my name separately. I wish to withdraw them from their grouping. I understand that that is my undoubted right

The Earl of Balfour

My Lords, I feel that in this case Amendment No. 78 is defective in respect of the table. Almost at the bottom of the table one sees the words "and Kinross". I draw your Lordships' attention to Schedule 8 to the Bill which states that the Eastern Water Area includes,The former county of Kinross (in this Schedule referred to as the first added area)".The reason behind this, as far as I can gather, is that all water from various reservoirs in Kinross goes south and not north as would be the case in Amendment No. 78. Also I feel that the Government made it extremely clear at Committee stage that they really were looking for the very best expertise in the persons appointed within the provisions of Schedule 7. For those two reasons I really am against the amendments moved by the noble Lords opposite.

Lord Ewing of Kirkford

My Lords, I hope I may add my voice to that of my noble friend Lord Carmichael in support of these amendments. I am sure your Lordships would agree that this is one of the most vital and important issues in this local government Bill and it is right and proper that we should spend just a few more minutes on this whole question. If I may say so to the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, if Amendment No. 78 is defective, let me assure him that it is not half as defective as the Government's proposals that are contained in the Bill itself.

These are the most insulting proposals ever put before the people of Scotland. For over 100 years local authorities in Scotland have run the water and sewerage industries. To suggest that somehow or other there is outside expertise that could be brought in which has greater knowledge than the people who have run the water and sewerage industries in Scotland successfully for so many years is an insult to local authorities in Scotland and to the people of Scotland themselves.

This is a vital issue. I was glad that yesterday Strathclyde Regional Council launched its final bid to seek to persuade the Government to back off from this idiotic scheme, which is not privatisation by the back door as so many people have said but privatisation by the front door. It is blatant privatisation. Figures published in the Glasgow Herald, which are the result of research undertaken by Strathclyde region, show clearly that water bills in Scotland, as was the case in England, will double under these proposals. The Government do not seem to be concerned about that.

The Government recently issued a document, which was put through every letter box in Scotland, setting out the Scottish Office predictions about future water charges, although I do not know what on earth the Scottish Office knows about future water charges. It was noticeable that there was no mention of history in that document. One does not need to look into the future; one can look at the present. There was no mention in that document of what has happened in England and Wales, where water charges have more than doubled.

No doubt the Minister will talk about freeing these quangos from the restrictions of government finance and providing the ability to borrow on the market. It is noticeable that none of the English privatised water authorities has been able to raise more equity. Therefore, that is a myth.

I am prepared to accept that over the next few years tremendous sums of money will have to be spent on modernising and updating our water and sewerage system in Scotland, more in some areas than in others. The debate is about who pays and who gets the benefit. All the opinion polls, all the Strathclyde research, and every exercise which has been undertaken shows clearly that the people of Scotland are prepared to pay in exchange for receiving the benefit in relation to charges when the modernisation is complete.

The Government's position is completely different, and the Minister should be forthcoming enough to admit that. The Government's view is that private investors should pay and that private investors should pocket the profits when the modernisation is complete, through increasing water charges to the people of Scotland.

I listened yesterday—or perhaps it was today—when one of the noble and learned Lord's Ministerial colleagues answered a Question about the price of milk under the deregulation proposals which the Government have brought forward for the milk industry. There will not be anything cheap to drink in Scotland in a wee while: no water, no milk, and whisky is getting more expensive! I see the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, nodding vigorously in agreement. Every liquid that the Scots drink is being pushed up in price, and the Government are adding to that with this proposal concerning water.

The Minister can ignore what I say if he wants. That is for him to decide. But I give him an absolute assurance that the Scottish people will not ignore the issue. The Government talk about the BOO (build, own and operate) schemes. What a collection of letters! I never heard a better comment on the Government's proposals than BOO. The Scottish Office has the nerve to publish a host of proposals for financing prospective developments under the build own and operate schemes, five of which are within the Strathclyde Regional Council area and one of which covers five regions, without any consultation whatsoever with the regional councils involved. No one from the Scottish Office telephoned the regional councils at Strathclyde and Fife to ask whether they were in favour of the proposals, whether they had the price right, or whether the investment capital had been correctly calculated. There was not a word between the Scottish Office and local authorities. That is the cavalier manner in which local government in Scotland is now being treated by the Government.

Down through the years, the traditional way to develop communal services—it is the basis of local government in Scotland—has been to do so collectively, for the simple reason that individuals cannot do this on their own. Those who could afford to would do so; and those who could not would not. That is the basis of municipalisation. that we do such things collectively.

There is no better example of municipalisation than water services. Throughout the years that system has served the people of Scotland well. As was revealed by the opinion poll conducted by the Strathclyde Regional Council, 90 per cent. of the people of Scotland were against the proposals; and still the Government, head down, go holus-bolus for this arrangement.

We shall not divide the House on the amendment tonight.

Noble Lords

Why not?

Lord Ewing of Kirkford

My Lords, perhaps if we were to divide the House tonight, the House would be counted out. However, we shall come back to the issue. I give the Government an absolute assurance that come April next year they will pay dearly in electoral terms for the proposals that they impose on an unwilling population in Scotland.

9.45 p.m.

Lord Sanderson of Bowden

My Lords, I have listened most carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Ewing. He is remarkably adept at putting his case. I have to say that I am totally opposed to what he considers best for the people of Scotland. With regard to the plans that the Government have for the reorganisation of sewerage and water—I put the point again; I stated it in Committee— sewerage is the major cost and major problem which faces the people of Scotland. One has only to ask the people of Inverness what the problems are there, and what the costs will be. We have to make sure that those who will deliver the services to the people of Scotland are the right people so to do.

I go so far as to agree with the noble Lord that with regard to the local authorities in some areas— Strathclyde is a very good example—water and sewerage has been well delivered. The proposal does not mean that the Secretary of State will completely ignore the hand that councillors have had in the delivery of those services. However, I am sure that even the councillors themselves would disagree with the objective of the amendment, which ties the hands of the Government within those three new boards that will be set up so as to ensure that no one but councillors may deliver the best of all services.

There are huge changes to be brought about in Scotland in sewerage and water delivery. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, will talk about the islands. I knew something about that problem. I accept that the cost of water and sewerage delivery in the islands is a very real problem. However, I cannot stand here and let the noble Lord, Lord Ewing of Kirkford, say that the only way to deliver water and sewerage in Scotland is the way in which the local authorities have done it in-the past. We have to move on. There has to be co-operation.

There has been far too much talk about privatisation. The Government are right to ensure that the method of delivery of water and sewerage in Scotland will be different from south of the Border and to learn from some of the situations which have arisen there. I have confidence that the arrangements proposed by the Government for the future will deliver cost-effective water and sewerage changes. Huge capital expenditure will be required when that is brought about over the ensuing years.

Lord Fraser of Carmyllie

My Lords, it has been a great pleasure to have the opportunity to participate in what is now the third Second Reading debate that we have had on water. I am only sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, did not give us his reflections on Loch Katrine. I enjoyed them in the past and they were at least as revealing of the importance of the issue as anything else that we have considered.

The effect of Amendment No. 78 would be to set up joint boards of new local councils to deliver the water and sewerage services broadly but not precisely along the same boundaries as are proposed for our new water authorities. There were a number of points I would have wished to make, but I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, for so eloquently reading out the letter from the Prime Minister which set out part of the argument that we found on in proposing that these changes should be introduced.

The present structure of 12 water and sewerage authorities in Scotland fits very well with the current local government structure of regional and islands councils. However, as we have discussed at some length, it is proposed that the structure of local government should change following the Bill. It then has to be accepted that we have to look again to see how those services can best be provided in the context of the changed local government situation.

As regards joint boards, they were, of course, one of the options canvassed in our 1992 consultation paper, Investing for our future. If the noble Lord reflects back that approach was by no means lightly dismissed in the paper. The advantages of such were indeed noticed— that they were local in nature, permitting the consumer's voice to be heard through elected representatives—and, as we discussed on earlier amendments, the precedent of joint boards is well established.

However, the consultation document also pointed out that joint boards had disadvantages, in particular that they would not appear to be the best way to organise services on commercial lines. That remains unashamedly at the heart of the argument, because it is an argument about resource utilisation.

What I think may have been the difficulty is that because the word "commercial" was used, it has given rise to the misconception that what we are talking about here is a privatisation. As my noble friend Lord Sanderson has absolutely accurately pointed out, we are not talking about privatising and we have no plans to do so. I take this opportunity in this House to repeat the pledge to that effect given by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State in another place on 17th May.

What we are concerned with is the efficient use of resources —and the resources in question are undoubtedly substantial. Water and sewerage are major industries. They employ over 6,000 people, serve over 2 million households and supply some 2 million cubic metres of water every single day of the year. They are also increasingly making use of sophisticated and specialist technology. As I believe most noble Lords will appreciate, there is in prospect an investment programme over the next 10 years of some £5 billion.

What we consider to be crucial and desirable is that we should get a structure which can manage an industry on this scale with the greatest efficiency possible and also one which can maximise the contribution which the private sector funding can make to financing the necessary investment. We believe that the three public water authorities that the Bill proposes is the right approach. It is interesting that this amendment seems to recognise that there is at least some justification for a three-authority structure. We believe that the three authorities will all have sufficient similarities to permit measures of comparison which will allow the competitive stimulus that can only be of benefit to the consumer.

If at the heart of the anxiety that noble Lords on the Front Bench opposite have expressed is that there should be a local dimension or that local councillors have a contribution to make to the working of the new authorities, let me repeat that the Secretary of State and Sir Hector Monro have said that there will be a significant number of elected councillors on the new authorities. We stand by that fully.

I have only to record one note of regret—that CoSLA has not yet seen its way to letting us have its nominations for the appointments. I very much hope that it will reconsider its position because it seems to be asserted—and I do not deny the assertion—that there are those who have a knowledge of the matter, and if CoSLA wishes to identify who will best be able to play their part, I hope that it will now offer us the advice it has in the form of nominations.

Lord Ewing of Kirkford

My Lords, perhaps the Minister will allow me to intervene. Is the Minister aware that it is unfair to criticise CoSLA in that way. Does the Minister honestly expect CoSLA, which represents democratically elected local authorities, to furnish him with names and, ipso facto, agree that the balance of the boards will be appointed by the Secretary of State to replace the very democratically elected councillors whom CoSLA represents? It is outrageous to expect CoSLA to do such a thing.

Lord Fraser of Carmyllie

My Lords, if the noble Lord wants to take that rather narrow and restricted view—from which, I am bound to say, I understood that in other areas CoSLA was now rather happily beginning to move away—that is for him to decide. All I am emphasising is that the opportunity to make those nominations is there and it has not been taken up.

There really has been, I regret to say, a great deal of nonsense talked about what might happen over water in Scotland. I am aware of the reports that Strathclyde has put together in the past few days in which it seems to challenge whether there is much advantage in the BOO schemes. It would seem that the internal circuitry of the Labour Party has become slightly defective on this matter. As I understand it, the thinking of Mr. John Prescott, might not fall into "post-neoclassical endogenous growth theories" and the like, but I certainly understood that he was, for example, suggesting in such infrastructural areas as roads, railways and so on, that there was a very real desirability in private funding being introduced along the sort of lines that BOO would allow for.

There has been—I am surprised that there has been no mention of it—a very interesting paper from Dr. Sawkins of Aberdeen University, put out by the well known Fraser of Allander Institute—as it is said in Private Eye, "no connection"—in which he states that much of what has been said about the difficulties in Scotland is nonsensical. It is indeed the very real demands that the European Union will make in terms of improved drinking water quality and waste water treatment that will mean that charges in Scotland will rise almost inevitably. That would be true whether the industry were to be wholly privatised, whether it were to be taken forward in the form that we suggest, or indeed if the arrangements were to remain as they are at present. There will undoubtedly have to be increases to meet those higher standards, which I would have thought were universally regarded as being desirable.

But, if charges are to go up, it would seem to me to indicate a yet greater imperative to seek to ensure that the necessary capital improvements that must be made should be achieved in the cheapest possible way. It is our conclusion that the proposal we have introduced in this Bill is the best way to achieve that. It is not privatisation, but it meets the changes in local government which this Bill would introduce. With that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove

My Lords, the noble and learned Lord puts things so affably that one almost begins to believe he believes them himself.

As the noble and learned Lord will surely know by this time, one of the problems that we have in Scotland is that Scottish people are politically highly sophisticated. They know that, when this Government use the phrase "not privatisation", they are going to the halfway mark, and that they will start off with a quango in which the elected councillors, the ones they know, to whom they can go to complain and to whom they can put a case in relation to matters about which they are unhappy, will almost certainly be outnumbered or overwhelmed by the quango representatives from the Scottish Office.

I find difficult to accept the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson of Bowden, that councils cannot do as good a job as businessmen. That may be true in certain areas. One cannot expect a councillor to be able to step into and take over the noble and learned Lord's business unless he happens also to be a Borderer. However, there are many areas in which a big corporation such as the old Glasgow Corporation could do so. I knew many of the people there very well, though others were before my time. The name of the great PJ. Dolan comes to mind. He used to say: "Capitalist business has to run itself because you blokes are not capable of running it".

There is very strong feeling about this in Scotland. I am sorry that I did not deal more with Loch Katrine in the earlier debate. There was a reason for that. As the Minister was probably aware, we were approaching the witching hour and I thought it better to carry on to a certain time in the evening. For its period—for the 1850s—Loch Katrine was a £5 billion job. It was an incredible piece of work. Then the very big scheme carried out about 20 years ago for Lanarkshire County Council was another very big, adventurous and far-reaching piece of planning. I resent the idea that that cannot be done. One hires experts to do it. No one expects the people in the local authorities in Scotland themselves to be capable of taking on the big construction jobs. But they hire people to do them. That is the only way in which they can be done. Then those people move on to other jobs and go round the world. They are international figures.

I should like to make my last point on finance. The Minister mentioned John Prescott. There is nothing new in what John Prescott said. One can go back to the arguments made earlier. In another place I served on Select Committees on nationalised industries and on transport. We argued with the Government that we had to obtain outside finance for the Channel Tunnel or change the Treasury rules.

I am disappointed with the Minister's reply. We have heard the argument before but it will not wash with the people of Scotland. We shall see what their reaction is. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

10 p.m.

Clause 61 [New water and sewerage authorities]:

Lord Mackie of Benshie moved Amendment No. 79: Page 54, line 32, leave out ("and").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in speaking to Amendment No. 79 and the associated amendments, I rise with a feeling of hope in my breast. First of all, I thank the Government Front Bench for the very sensible concession produced in Amendment No. 108. It has been recognised that in the islands it is perhaps not necessary to have an elaborate and expensive scheme of information. In the islands the people know the roads and places without that kind of thing. I thank the Government for it.

I am on exactly the same tack with this amendment. There are the Western Isles, the Orkney Isles and the Shetland Isles. Those three island authorities are unitary authorities. At present they control their own water and sewerage. So far as I know, the islanders in the various islands are satisfied with the service.

There was a visit yesterday from councillors and officials from all those bodies. They were here for a couple of hours ready to answer any questions that Members of your Lordships' House might wish to ask. They were extremely sensible. I received confirmation of many ideas that I had about the islands and their working, and much new information. If we take the Western Isles until 1975, when the new Act came into being and they became unitary authorities, the fact is that their water and sewerage was controlled in Lewis by Ross and Cromarty and in Harris by Inverness. It was an extremely unsatisfactory arrangement. They did not like it. They have instituted a great deal of new expenditure since then in the normal course, but also to make up for the neglect of their affairs by the two outside bodies. It is natural that Ross and Cromarty and Inverness were concerned much more with their main centres of population than with any island group.

The same is true of Orkney in that it was also said that some of the schemes produced at that time in that area were mistaken due to a lack of local knowledge and contracts being arranged far away. Indeed, under the new scheme it will certainly be far away in that the area runs from Perth up to the Shetlands. Those people feel that they would rather run their own affairs, even though it may cost more money. They do not believe that it will cost more, and I agree. I cannot see what advantages of scale there may be when one is dealing with islands which are well away from the centres of population. Even though the piping may be bought a little cheaper, by the time it is pushed out I can bet that the contractor who is doing the job could buy it as cheaply as though it were held centrally. There are many other illustrations. For example, pumps are very important on the islands and obtaining the right size for the job is a matter of local knowledge. The local knowledge exists in that the local people have been doing the work for a long time.

When it comes to the actual running costs and maintenance there is no question but that the local council or, as we are suggesting, a new authority— though why we need a new authority I do not know— could do it infinitely more cheaply than a body far away where the officials, though they may be highly qualified, are interested mainly in big schemes and in moving on to further promotion.

Obtaining staff on the islands may be a problem. That is true. But the people say that certainly it would be a far greater problem if they are employed by a body which can move them at any time. In Orkney there is a competent engineer who dropped his income to go there because he wanted to live in the islands. That argument about staff, therefore, does not hold good. People want to be in the islands and if they are there they know exactly what they are talking about.

One could build great fantasies about tunnels between Shetland and Orkney to carry the sewage and the sort of schemes that may be produced by boards which are far away. But the fact is that the unitary authorities in the islands are coping extremely competently. They want to cope by themselves and the general opinion is that even if it costs more—though there is no reason that it should as far as I can see—they want to remain in control of their own affairs.

The argument may be put forward that if there is to be an authority covering those three areas in Scotland, nothing can be left out. The Tories may put forward the argument that if they want to privatise the system they cannot leave people outside of it in case they show how much better and cheaper it can be run. One thing is certain; no commercial body will want to take on the islands. Such bodies are happy with the big areas but the islands would be nothing but a headache.

There are on the islands three communities, all of whom are competently running the water and sewerage facilities. They are prepared to spend money needed to bring those up-to-date. It would be ludicrous to try to subsume them within a single body. I hope and trust that the native common sense, which I am sure members of the Government Front Bench possess, will assert itself and that they will do what they did in the case of the roads information body; that is, accept the fact that if they leave the situation in the islands alone they will leave a good situation. I beg to move.

Lord Sanderson of Bowden

My Lords, I feel strongly about the importance of water and sewerage facilities on the islands and the problems attached thereto. I should not go as far as the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, and say that three separate authorities should be set up in three island authorities. However, I believe that as a result of this legislation there is a case for ensuring that decentralisation to the islands should take place.

I am well aware of the way in which the hydro board and the privatised Scottish Hydro have dealt with the islands and the success achieved. However, when advising the Secretary of State on the composition of the North board, I urge my noble and learned friend to give due consideration to the problems of the islands and the real problems I came up against. The problems of providing water and sewerage facilities are different in the islands, in particular the expensive problem of delivering water to the people of Orkney. That arose in respect of previous legislation. While I do not go as far as the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, I hope that the Government take on board the different situation in the islands.

Lord Lyell

My Lords, I too joined my noble neighbour Lord Mackie yesterday and studied many of the points that were raised by the officials. All the points that he raised about pumps and so forth interest me greatly.

I listened with great interest to the points raised by my noble friend Lord Sanderson, who has great local knowledge. I have never been to Caithness. I am afraid that the islands are a long way away. I wonder whether there is some merit in my noble friend's remarks. Enormous distances pertain to Orkney and Shetland, which I recently read are as far away from Aberdeen as is Carlisle. I suspect that there may be a narrowing of the potential economic benefits which could be perceived from the measures in the Bill. I look forward to hearing what my noble and learned friend has to say.

10.15 p.m.

Lord Fraser of Carmyllie

My Lords, I fully appreciate the arguments advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, and the anxieties expressed by my noble friends Lord Sanderson and Lord Lyell. I understand that the islands have three main concerns: first, the risks that they will be saddled with solutions inappropriate to their problems; secondly, the loss of local feeling and knowledge that might result from control residing in a mainland centre; and, thirdly, the loss of senior posts and the diminution of career prospects for those who wish to continue to live and work on the islands. I hope to allay those fears.

I have no doubt that the new northern authority will be particularly sensitive to the needs of its island constituents. I believe that we have an example, as my noble friend Lord Sanderson said, of recent origin in the private sector where that sensitivity has been revealed. But should there be any indications of backsliding on its behalf, the customers council and its area committee will, I have no doubt, be quick to remind it of its obligations.

The composition of the northern authority and the customers council is not yet decided, but I can say this. Although there are no particular individuals in place, they will include members who are well able to understand the islands' anxieties and make sure that their interests do not go by default. The fears about remote administration and the loss of quality jobs in the islands are in a sense the same problem viewed from different angles, The northern area will be geographically large and good communications and maintaining contact with all parts of the area will be matters which the authority will need to address consciously and carefully. While it will be for the authority to decide, I shall be very surprised if that does not mean that it will need to retain a significant number of managerial and operative staff on the islands.

But there is another important factor in our decision that the islands would test be grouped within the greater northern authority. The costs per head of population of providing water and sewerage services in the islands are high and in the nature of things are always likely to remain so. Charges are significantly higher in the islands at present. For example, the cost of providing water and sewerage services to the average Scottish band D two-adult household is in the current year £132. In Orkney it is £171, in Shetland £187 and if one goes to the Western Isles the figure is rather staggering; namely, £306. If the islands were to be three separate water and sewerage authorities, the implications for charges would be severe, particularly as revealed in our previous discussions—that there are yet improvements that will be required to be made and paid for. That would be particularly so in the Western Isles where the price of being a separate authority is likely to be more than double what it could be within a northern authority. In Orkney the difference could be as much as 50 per cent.

I am not saying that this legislation contains a guarantee that the islands will benefit from a smoothing of prices across the whole of the northern area. But I remind noble Lords of what Sir Hector Monro said in Committee in another place on 29th March: I hope that it will be possible to move rapidly to uniform pricing within the 3 authorities, which would be a tremendous advantage to the islands". That was reinforced by the Secretary of State at Report stage on 17th May when he said: We would fully expect the new authorities to move rapidly to uniform pricing". It is clear that the creation of separate islands authorities would have a significant adverse impact on charges in these areas: that would be certain. The disadvantages of inclusion within the northern authority to which the islands have called attention are far from certain. I assert that I do not believe that they would arise.

I hope that those fears are ill-founded and that the noble Lord and those who have made representations to him will reflect very carefully on the figures which I have given. I have no doubt that individual consumers in the islands, and most particularly in the Western Isles, will be the first to applaud a smoothing of prices which allowed them to pay prices that accorded to the Scottish average rather than paying this very significant additional cost which they bear at the present time.

Lord Mackie of Benshie

My Lords, I am not convinced. The basis of the argument appears to be that these beneficent boards and marvellous people will immediately smooth out the prices and that costs will halve. The Bill does not say that they have to do that; in fact it gives them specific power to vary the charges. The Minister said that he hoped that they would move towards it.

The fact is, as I have already explained, that the high costs in the Western Isles were due to the neglect of the previous two authorities which regarded them as outposts. I have no doubt at all that a large board will still regard the isles as outposts. Those people who came to see us were prepared to pay more. The group included councillors who stood for election, as well as officials. I think that they have far more chance of pushing the Secretary of State to increase the grant which forms the main part of their income and to apply for European Union grants, because I have noticed a great sympathy in the Commission in Brussels for the outlying parts of Europe. It is with the greatest of ease that Ireland, for example, collects grant from Europe that we never see in Scotland.

I do not think that the argument holds water at all. I think that this is a splendid chance for the Government to leave those authorities alone. The noble Lord, Lord Sanderson, said that he does not think that it will be practical to set up three separate authorities, but all that you have to do is to change the name because the authorities there already do the job. It is not a question of setting anything up.

I implore the Government to think again. This is a perfect situation for them to do a great deal of good. I am perfectly certain that the islanders would do better at the end of the day under this amendment than if they received the charity of a large board. The Minister gave a most unsatisfactory answer, but in view of the fact that the hour is late and remnants of the massed bands from the Tory shires of England are still here, I shall not seek to divide the House. If only Scots Peers were present, I should certainly seek to divide the House but, as it is, I reserve the right to return to this most important point about local democracy and the well-being of the islands on Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 80 not moved].

Lord Carmichael Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 81: After Clause 61, insert the following new clause:

("Charges: grants and reductions

. From 1 April 1996 the Secretary of State for Scotland shall—

  1. (a) continue to make available to the water and sewerage authorities grant support to subsidise to the same extent as at present, domestic sewerage charges; and
  2. (b) continue to permit a reduction of 25% for domestic water and sewerage charges in respect of single adult households.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment is self-explanatory. It seeks to make available to the water and sewerage authorities grant support to subsidise domestic sewerage charges to the same extent as at present. The Minister will be aware that a single adult living alone in a house receives a reduction of 25 per cent. on certain charges such as water and sewerage. This short amendment is important to a large number of people and I am sure that the Minister will have a short and pleasant answer for me. I beg to move.

The Earl of Balfour

My Lords, if paragraph (a) of Amendment No. 81 had been inserted into Clause 75, I feel that it would have been covered by the customers council as well. Under those circumstances, it might have been a good amendment. As for paragraph (b), I wonder whether that point has not already been covered in Clause 80 which deals with reduced charges.

The Earl of Minto

My Lords, it might be for the convenience of the House if I speak to Amendment No. 103 which is grouped with Amendment No. 81. I am returning to a subject which was raised in Committee. I make no apology for doing so, and I shall do so very quickly. It refers to the question of charges. I am extremely anxious that there is not a situation where democratically elected local authorities are required by statute to provide information to non-elected bodies.

Equally, I think—I have discussed this with the noble and learned Lord the Minister—that if local authorities are giving to water boards information then there should be a charge on the water board for that. Any service which local authorities give, externally or indeed internally by departments, is charged for. I would think it odd if local authorities were expected to give free information to the water boards as and how the water boards demanded it.

Lord Fraser of Carmyllie

My Lords, I believe I understand the wish of the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, to protect the interests of charge payers, which I believe to be the intention behind Amendment No. 81. We are conscious of the increase in direct water and sewerage service bills that will result from domestic sewerage being charged for separately instead of as part of the council tax. However, there will be a reduction in the local authorities' expenditure and in the amount of income they require. We intend therefore to see that the change in the financing of domestic sewerage will not of itself produce any increase in the aggregate of council tax and water service bills between 1995–96 and 1996–97. So far as I am aware, that message has not been spelt out hitherto. I hope that with that brief explanation and having offered up some new information, it will be sufficient for the noble Lord's purposes for the present time.

Amendment No. 103, proposed by the noble Earl, Lord Minto, would provide for an order by the Secretary of State to require local authorities and assessors to provide reasonable information to the new water authorities and would also allow the local authorities and assessors to set and levy charges for providing the information. I can understand the fears he previously expressed that local authorities and assessors might be inundated by requests from the new water authorities for masses of detailed information which they would find both difficult and expensive to assemble.

However, while understanding those fears, I believe that they are misplaced. Clause 122 is strictly drawn. Two tests are to be applied. The information must be information which is held by local authorities in connection with the setting, levying or collection of charges, or by assessors in connection with their statutory functions. Secondly, it must be information which is likely to assist the new water authorities in making their own arrangements for charges. It is our view that there can be no question of it being "open season" for water authorities to bombard the local authorities or the assessors with requests for any information they may hold. Rather, it is a question of enabling the new local authorities, as successors of the old local authorities, to be put in possession of the information they need to carry out their statutory functions.

In our view it is right and proper that this information should be available to the new water authorities and, because it is information they need to have as successor bodies, it is right that they should have it free of charge. I believe that the clause already contains adequate safeguards to ensure that the arrangement which I have spelt out is not abused. In the light of those assurances I hope that the amendment will be withdrawn.

Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove

My Lords, I thank the Minister for the trouble that he has taken over the amendment. I should like to consider this matter further because, although the Minister was helpful in regard to the position until 1997, he did not go beyond that in relation to the reductions. He tried hard. I shall read carefully what he said to ensure that I fully understand his meaning. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

10.30 p.m.

Schedule 7 [Constitution and proceedings etc. of a new water and sewerage authority]:

[Amendments Nos. 82 to 85 not moved.]

Schedule 8 [Water and sewerage areas]:

[Amendments Nos. 86 to 88 not moved.]

Clause 64 [General duties of Secretary of State and of new authorities]:

The Earl of Balfbur moved Amendment No. 88A: Page 56, line 28, after ("potential") insert ("or former").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, with this amendment I am taking the position of a devil's advocate. I tabled the amendment partly to draw attention to subsequent amendments to Clauses 65, 66 and 6 7 standing in the name of my noble and learned friend Lord Fraser. My interest in the matter relates to the practical aspect of the matter and the Bill's wording.

If a person is a customer, then his premises are connected by underground pipes to the county main or, as the case may be, to a public sewer. In respect of a potential customer, my understanding of the word "potential" is that it is something that exists as a possibility but not in reality. A potential customer is a person who is seeking to have his premises connected by pipe to the county main or public sewer. The word "former" must relate to premises which were connected in the past.

With the addition of the words "or former", how far back do we go? If the premises were the premises of a former customer, what happened to make the customer stop being an actual customer? Was the occupier of the premises a bad tenant who failed to pay his charges or did he put some noxious substance down the sewer and get himself cut off?

If, for argument's sake, the customer has been disconnected for 20 years it will be difficult for him to be reconnected to the mains because any stopcock or valve will have seized up by that time, or if the pipe goes back to the old sewers, which often took surface water, I can almost guarantee that after 20 years it will have silted up.

My last point relates to the words in the Government's Amendment No. 89, which seeks to insert the words: facilities for the disposal of sewage",

instead of "sewerage services". Perhaps I may read the words of Clause 64, which states: It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State and of the new water and sewerage authorities… to have regard to the interests of… such of those persons as … are likely, by reason of some persistent medical condition or of family circumstances, to require to … make much greater use of sewerage services, than might ordinarily have been expected".

I believe that the words "sewerage services" cover the matter very nicely.

Perhaps I may read that last part again assuming that the amendment is accepted. It will read: such of those persons as … are likely, by reason of some persistent medical condition or of family circumstances, to require to… make much greater use of the facilities for the disposal of sewage".

How does an ordinary householder know whether those services are good, bad or indifferent? It is on those grounds that I ask the Government to consider whether it is suitable to include the word "former".

My amendment would bring in the Secretary of State. Again, I should think that that creates greater problems. For the moment, I must formally move my Amendment No. 88A. I beg to move.

Lord Mackie of Benshie

My Lords, this amendment is grouped with Amendment No. 99A, which is concerned with the Customers Council. That body does not fulfil its function in view of the fact that there is no appeals mechanism, while such a mechanism does exist in England.

The Bill specifies that the Customers Council will handle complaints from customers. No provision is made for the resolution of any complaints with regard to which the Customers Council has been unable to reach agreement with the authority concerned.

In England and Wales, such unresolved complaints may be referred to the Director General of Water Services, who, under the Competition and Service (Utilities) Act 1992, is required to make a decision which is enforceable as if it were a court order.

I need not continue to read the rest of the brief that I have. There appears to be no appeals procedure to which the Scottish consumer may resort and I shall listen with interest to what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, has to say.

Lord Fraser of Carmyllie

My Lords, so shall I listen with interest to what I have to say on that amendment!

I am grateful to my noble friend for tabling a number of amendments, both at this stage of the Bill and previously. Perhaps I may omit Amendment No. 88A for the moment and deal with the other amendments which bring about a number of small, but nevertheless important, changes.

What my noble friend said in Committee led us to table Amendments Nos. 158, 160–168, 159A and 185, which will preserve the tenancy rights of certain tenants with present local authorities whose properties may transfer to the new water and sewerage authorities.

I should also mention Amendment No. 189, which inserts a new clause into the Bill. This will provide that present local authorities will be able to make use of the provisions of the Bill relating to the use of the private finance initiative. The remainder of the amendments in this grouping are of a minor technical drafting nature and I do not propose to speak to them in any detail.

I understood that the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, was speaking to Amendment No. 99A. I hope he will forgive me if I do not respond to that because I understood it should properly have fallen into our agreed groupings with Amendment No. 77, so he catches me rather off-guard by re-introducing it at this stage.

Noble Lords

Amendment No. 78!

Lord Fraser of Carmyllie

My Lords, Amendment No. 78. I beg your pardon. But, so far as Amendment No. 78 is concerned, I would say to the noble Lord that, while it was helpful that he should have picked out—I am sorry I meant to say Amendment No. 88—

Noble Lords

88A!

Lord Fraser of Carmyllie

My Lords, I should say Amendment No. 88A. While it was helpful for him to highlight these deficiencies in subsequent clauses, there is a difference between Clause 64 and the later clauses, and most particularly Clause 66, because Clause 64 deals with the general duties of the Secretary of State and the new authorities but the later clauses, and the references which are inserted to former customers, are appropriate because they will provide the opportunity for the customers council to act on behalf of such customers in appropriate circumstances. I do not think it is difficult to see how a consumer council might want to have, or ought to have, such a responsibility to act for former customers as well as present ones. However, it seems slightly odd to talk about former customers when you are setting out—as is the case, and as the sidenote to Clause 64 reveals—what are to be the general duties of the Secretary of State and the new authorities. I hope that is as clear as water.

The Earl of Balfour

My Lords, I must admit I am not wholly satisfied with the Answer but my Amendment No. 88A is definitely defective and I wish to withdraw it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 89: Page 56, line 33, leave out ("sewerage services") and insert ("facilities for the disposal of sewage").

On Question; amendment agreed to.

Clause 65 [Codes of practice for new water and sewerage authorities]:

Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 90: Page 57, line 38, after ("potential") insert ("or former").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in speaking to Amendment No. 89, I spoke to Amendments Nos. 90 and 91. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 66 [Scottish Water and Sewerage Customers Council]:

Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 91:

Page 57, line 44, after ("potential") insert ("or former").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Schedule 9 [Constitution and proceedings etc. of the Scottish Water and Sewerage Customers Council]:

[Amendments Nos. 91A to 94 not moved.]

Clause 67 [Functions of the Customers Council]:

Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendments Nos 95 to 99:

Page 58, line 7, after ("potential") insert ("or former").

Page 58, line 10, after ("potential") insert ("or former").

Page 58, line 16, after ("potential") insert ("or former").

Page 58, line 33, after ("potential") insert ("or former").

Page 58, line 38, after ("potential") insert ("or former").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in speaking to Amendment No. 89, I spoke to these amendments. I beg to move.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

[Amendment No. 99A not moved.]

Lord Mackie of Benshie

My Lords, I apologise to the House for mixing up 99s and 99As.

Clause 72 [Duty of new authorities as respects Natural Heritage Area or area of special interest]:

[Amendment No. 100 not moved.]

Clause 78 [Collection of charges by local authority]:

[Amendment No. 101 not moved.]

Clause 100 [Authorisation of construction of certain private sewers etc.]:

Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 102:

Page 80, line 10, after ("Act") insert ("and shall instead vest in him").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in speaking to Amendment No. 89, I spoke to Amendment No. 102. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 122 [Power to require local authorities and assessors to supply information to the new authorities]:

[Amendment No. 103 not moved.]

Lord Ewing of Kirkford moved Amendment No. 104:

Before Clause 126, insert the following new clause:

("Reporters Service

Reporters Service

  1. .—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, the functions of existing local authorities immediately before 1 April 1996 to provide suitable accommodation and facilities for children's hearings under section 34 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 and to appoint a reporter under section 36 of that Act shall be carried out on and after that date by the councils established in terms of Part 1 of this Act.
  2. (2) For the purposes of the functions referred to in subsection (1) of this section, the Secretary of State shall, before the commencement of this Act, by order make amalgamation schemes amalgamating the local authority areas set out in the second column of the Table at the end of this subsection into the Joint Boards set out in the first column of that table.
    3. Table
    Joint Board Local Government areas comprised
    Grampian, Highlands and Islands City of Aberdeen; Aberdeenshire; Highland; Moray; Orkney Islands; Shetland Islands; Western Isles
    Tayside, Central and Fife Angus; lackmannan; City of Dundee; Falkirk; Fife, Perthshire and Kinross; Stirling
    Lothian and Borders The Borders, Clackmannan, City of Edinburgh, East Lothian, Midlothian, West Lothian
    South Strathclyde, Dumfries and Galloway East Ayrshire; South Ayrshire; Dumfries and Galloway; North Lanarkshire; South Lanarkshire
    301
    Glasgow and Strathkelvin East Dunbartonshire; City of Glasgow
    North Strathclyde Argyll and Bute; North Ayrshire; Dumbarton and Clydebank; Inverclyde; East Renfrewshire; Renfrewshire
  3. (3) The provisions of subsections (2) and (3) of section 62A of the 1973 Act shall apply to a joint board established by an order under this section as they apply to a joint board established under that section with the substitution of a reference to subsection (2) of this section for the reference to subsection (1) of that section.
  4. (4) Notwithstanding the provisions of the preceding sub-section, the membership of the joint boards established under this section shall consist wholly of councillors elected to the authorities established under Part 1 of this Act within the areas of the joint boards.").

10.45 p.m.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a simple amendment which nevertheless deals with an important issue of principle, namely, the children's panel reporter system.

The Government propose to centralise the children's panel reporter system, and the Scottish Office would employ the chief reporter for the children's panels. The purpose of the amendment is: first, to seek to ensure that the service remains with the local authorities, where it has been since the inception of the children's panel system; secondly, to highlight the lack of democratic accountability in the Government's own proposals; and, thirdly, to remove from the Secretary of State the power to appoint members of the Scottish Children's Reporter Administration and to ensure that all the members appointed to the Scottish Children's Reporter Administration would be democratically elected councillors.

In the amendment we propose the establishment of six joint boards to administer the reporter system. When the Minister replies he is likely to say that the Scottish Office asked CoSLA for 10 nominations to be considered for appointment to the reporter administration and that to date CoSLA has not responded. One reason is that CoSLA has not been given an assurance by the Scottish Office that those who are nominated by CoSLA would be appointed. The Secretary of State will have to be more forthcoming and give greater assurances to CoSLA in that respect.

We believe that it is a mistake to centralise the service. It has always been a local service. Local reporters know their own areas and often know the children who offend from time to time much better than any central administration possibly could. We believe that this is a retrograde step and we ask the Government seriously to consider the proposition in Amendment No. 104. I beg to move.

Lord Fraser of Carmyllie

My Lords, on previous occasions I have outlined the reasons for proposing the new arrangements for reporter administration in Scotland. In many respects I agree with what the noble Lord said. The system has worked well in Scotland. Indeed, it is a source of pride to many of us that the Social Work (Scotland) Act has taken matters forward in a way that has been the subject of admiration elsewhere in the world.

There are two reasons for the changes now proposed. Once again, with the change in local government it would seem appropriate to adjust the arrangements. It is the overwhelming view of those who work as reporters to the children's panel that the arrangements we propose are to be desired.

Another reason for the change is that there are important and difficult issues for reporters to address in their daily activities. We would certainly wish to maintain important local connections with children's panel in each and every local authority area. To have a reporter who can, within a system operating throughout Scotland, rely on having colleagues to whom he or she can turn for advice will, we believe, secure greater consistency in professional practice and provide a more effective service. It is worth reflecting that in one respect that is the position in half of Scotland at present, with a reporter for Strathclyde. I have heard no one suggest that because of that arrangement the situation has been unsatisfactory.

I believe that the system will work well. If we were to be taking away the arrangements for a local input into children's panels, I consider that the noble Lord would have considerable force in his arguments. But for reasons which will become clear in the next amendment, I wish to resist the notion that there might be joint arrangements for a joint children's panel for just that reason. He considers a local connection to be desirable. We should like to see the professional reporters system in Scotland but would like to keep the children's panels established on a local basis and answerable within the area in which the children live.

Lord Ewing of Kirkford

My Lords, I listened carefully to what the Minister said. Having considered it, and in view of the opinion which the noble and learned Lord stated is held by the reporters to the children's panel, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. I give notice that I shall not move Amendment No. 105.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 105 not moved.]

Lady Saltoun of Abernethy moved Amendment No. 106: After Clause 138, insert the following new clause:

("Adjustments relating to provision of accommodation

Adjustments relating to provision of accommodation

  1. .—(1) This Section applies to any service provided by a local authority in exercise of its functions under the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 or any of the enactments mentioned in section 5(1B) of that Act where—
    1. (a) a local authority incurs expenditure which would, by virtue of section 86 of that Act, be recoverable from another local authority, or
    2. (b) an existing local authority incurs expenditure during the period from 1 April 1995 to 31 March 1996 which, were it to be incurred after 1 April 1996, would be expenditure which would be recoverable under section 86 of the said Act.
  2. (2) A local authority shall not cease to provide a service to which this section applies without the consent of the local authority against whom a charge is, or would be, recoverable.
  3. (3) This section shall cease to have effect on 1 April 1998.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I should have noted the point before. However, the italic print describing the amendment refers to,Adjustments relating to provision of accommodation".

That is not strictly accurate. If I am right that "accommodation" means places where people stay overnight, the amendment is not solely related to them. I would describe the new clause rather as transitional protection for social work services. The purpose is to protect people who use specialised social work services, or services which cross the new boundaries, for a two-year transitional period only.

The new authority boundaries mean that many social work services are likely to be radically changed. This clause seeks to protect users by ensuring that the change happens over a manageable period. The clause would apply particularly in two situations: highly specialised services for people from a wide area such as a respite care home for children with profound disabilities or a specialised assessment service for blind people; and local services such as day centres which are used by people who happen to fall outside the new boundaries.

Many organisations representing service users fear that some of these vital services might be withdrawn by the new councils or restricted to people from their own area. Under the proposed amendment, a council which inherits a service which is used by people from another area could not withdraw that service in the first two years following reorganisation without the consent of the other council. The providing council would not suffer financially because it would be entitled to recover the cost of the service from the client's own council. Nor would the amendment prevent services from changing—for example, where the needs of clients change. The council paying for the service would have no reason to continue paying for a service which was no longer suitable and could consent to any appropriate change. Since the provision would last for only two years it would not be an unreasonable restriction on local authority decision making; but it could allow councils time to plan ahead if other authorities no longer wished to supply current services. It would also allow time for the proposed new child care planning procedures to take effect.

The Government have acknowledged that there will need to be arrangements between authorities to cover specialised and cross-boundary services. However, it is argued that these arrangements will happen by themselves and there is no need to build in protection for social work clients. Even if that were to prove true in most cases it is still reasonable to have powers in the Act as a last resort. These services are relied upon by some of the most vulnerable people in society, including profoundly disabled children and adults. Even a temporary hitch in providing care and support could be disastrous for service users and their families.

There are real reasons to doubt that things will go as smoothly as the Government hope. To show why that is so, let us consider the arguments which the Government made at earlier stages of the Bill. The first is the argument that there is already significant co-operation between social work departments. That is broadly true, although there are examples of disputes between councils. However, the scale of co-operation which will be required following reorganisation is wholly different. For example, there are thousands of people living just outside the boundaries of the four main cities who use services within those cities. Currently, these people are all within the same local authority boundaries as their services. After 1996 they will be outside those boundaries. If arrangements are not made between authorities, the client may have to be sent many miles away or may not receive an appropriate service at all.

Secondly, we have heard it argued that authorities will have a financial incentive to co-operate. Councils which do not have services will find it economic to buy them from elsewhere and councils with spare places will want to fill them. Again, that is partly true, but it ignores the possibility that the providing council may save money by closing the service. A specialised service may only be viable with a guaranteed number of places and there will be no guarantee that other councils will buy the service.

Also, the new councils may have completely different philosophies of care and may be under different political control. That may make co-operation more difficult. It must be remembered that the time to make these arrangements before reorganisation is very short. Arrangements for adults should be based on community care plans, but those are already behind schedule. For children, we still do not have the detailed proposals about how the law covering child care services will be changed.

A third argument the Government have used is that the statutory duties on local authorities will remain the same. That is true but, except in a few situations, the duty is a general one which would not be legally enforceable by people who no longer receive an adequate service.

In short, the amendment provides a breathing space to allow councils to plan how services will develop in consultation with each other. More importantly, it would give a guarantee to the people who rely on social work services that they need not fear the immediate effects of reorganisation.

The noble and learned Lord may consider the amendment unnecessary and possibly unduly heavy-handed. I can only say that it is supported by a number of organisations: Barnardos, the Royal National Institute for the Blind, Disability Scotland, the Scottish Council for Spastics, ChildLine Scotland, the Scottish Society for the Mentally Handicapped, the National Deaf-Blind and Rubella Association, and CoSLA. All of them are worried and unhappy that some of their vulnerable proteges will find themselves in difficulties.I beg to move.

11. p.m.

The Earl of Mar and Kellie

My Lords, I wish to speak in favour of this amendment. It would be most helpful to all those who are involved in specialist social work activities if there were a duty to carry over the existing arrangements into the first two years of the new social work authorities.

The benefit to the new local authorities would be that they could proceed with implementing their plans for mainstream social work services without having to make immediate decisions about the provision of highly specialised services which are geographically located elsewhere. Special service providers could plan ahead beyond 1996 to 1998. Above all, those to whom the specialist services are currently a godsend would have the confidence that they would not be left high and dry and that their situation would be considered in slow time after the new social work authorities were up and running.

By way of illustration, I have an example of a voluntary sector specialist group home with residents from four different local authorities—indeed, after the implementation of this Bill it will be five. A second illustration is of a social work client who has a residential placement in a wholly appropriate setting; in fact, in an English city, although coming from Scotland, at a cost of £60,000 per year.

Specialist social work services cover a very broad spectrum and are often delivered at only one location in Scotland, if indeed they are available there. It is very important that the often highly vulnerable clients are not left to fight their own case and that the new local authorities have time to consider how they will meet their needs in the future. I believe that this amendment would ensure that aim.

Lord Fraser of Carmyllie

I am grateful to the noble Lady for moving her amendment and explaining just what lies behind it. It is useful to hear from her the range of concerns that have been expressed by voluntary organisations, in particular in Scotland, over this matter. I hope that I can reassure her, first of all, that we want to see the full range of services that are provided in Scotland continue through reorganisation with the minimum of disruption. I hope that I can further reassure her that this amendment, as she in part anticipated, is unnecessary. I might also say to her that, having heard her remarks and those of the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, I have something of a suspicion that the amendment might in any event be misdirected.

For many years now local authorities have co-operatea with one another over the purchase and supply of services for people living outwith their areas. The 1968 Act enables an authority providing a service to a person outwith its area to recover the cost of that provision from the authority in whose area the person lives. These powers are clearly particularly useful where one authority has specialised facilities or services for which there is a wide, rather than a localised, demand.

I would be anxious to avoid the introduction of any unnecessary bureaucratic arrangement, or alternatively to give to a particular local authority what would, in effect, amount to a power of veto. If, for example, one local authority had no further children with a particular disability within the accommodation it provided— though the noble Lady meant more than just accommodation, she meant services—and it had just one child left within it from another authority outwith its own area, it would be a slightly startling proposition that it could require whatever was the cost of maintaining that facility for one child and another authority could require it to be kept open. It is that kind of concern that I have.

I indicated that I thought that the amendment might be misdirected. The noble Earl gave an example of children going into the kind of facility which might be provided by such organisations as SENSE, drawing from all over Scotland children who have very serious deaf and blindness disabilities. I wonder whether this amendment would catch that at all. Undoubtedly that is a hugely desirable service provided by some of the finest of our voluntary and charitable organisations.

As I understand the matter, this amendment is directed—as it could only be—against the circumstances in which the particular service or accommodation is provided by one local authority for another. In those circumstances it would seem to me that it does not meet the concerns which seemed at least in part to lie behind the noble Lady's amendment.

I am grateful to the noble Lady for tabling the amendment. Certainly I hope to take the opportunity between now and Third Reading to invite some contact with the voluntary organisations which seem to have prompted the amendment and to have some discussions with them to see whether we can reassure them that we are absolutely serious and certain in our intention that there should be no disruption to the services provided.

Lady Saltoun of Abernethy

My Lords, certainly I did not expect to have my amendment accepted. The noble and learned Lord's reassurance is the most that I could ever have hoped for.

The hour is very late. I do not know what the state of the government troops is but the state of my own troops is that they are pretty thin on the ground thanks to the demonstration outside. The last thing that I would wish to do is to press the amendment at this time of night. With grateful thanks to the Minister, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 144 [Provision of school transport and other facilities]:

[Amendment No. 107 not moved.]

[Amendment No. 107A not moved.]

Lord Fraser of Cannyllie moved Amendment No. 108: After Clause 147, insert the following new clause:

("Road works register

  1. . In section 112 of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 (road works register)—
    1. (a) in subsection (4), for the words from "of road" to "section" there shall be substituted the words "under this section of such road works authorities as he may specify";
    2. (b) after subsection (4) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
  2. "(4A) Before making any arrangements under subsection (4) the Secretary of State shall consult—
    1. (a) any road works authority having duties under this section which he intends not to specify for the purposes of the arrangements; and
      2. 307
    2. (b) any undertaker (other than a person having permission under section 109 to execute road works) having apparatus in a road for which such road works authority is responsible."; and
    3. (c) in subsection (5), after the word—
    1. (i) "require" there shall be inserted the word "the"; and
    2. (ii) "authorities" there shall be inserted the words "so specified".").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in speaking to Amendment No. 56, I also spoke to this amendment, Amendment No. 108. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 162 [Calculation of limits on spending]:

Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 109:

Page 108, line 9, leave out ("£3.80") and insert ("£11.80").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, Section 83 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 is a general enabling section allowing authorities to incur expenditure which in their opinion is in the interests of their area or its inhabitants. As originally drafted, in the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 the ceiling on that expenditure was a product of 2p in the pound rate for their area. That was limited in 1987 to a fixed amount of the product of 2p in the pound rate for the financial year 1988–89, although the Secretary of State has a power to vary the rate.

Clause 162 proposes to replace the existing ceiling in Section 83 spending with a provision limiting the amount to that produced by multiplying £3.80, or such other sum as may be specified by the Secretary of State, by the relevant population of the authority's area, the relevant population being defined by the Secretary of State. Ministers have suggested that the decrease is counterbalanced by the new economic development statutory powers included in the Bill, which would mean that no longer would local authorities rely on Section 83 for certain purposes and the decrease in discretionary spending ability is, therefore, not significant. That proposition ignores the fact that the present Section 83 spending is available to both regional and district tiers of local government, while under the proposed new local authority structure only one amount of money would be available to an area.

Currently the total amount of discretionary expenditure available to Scottish local authorities is £57.9 million—approximately £11.80 per head of population. The proposal in the Bill to limit discretionary expenditure by single-tier authorities would produce a total amount for the new authorities of £19.4 million. That represents a reduction of 66 per cent. in the current limit. It is understood and accepted that much of Section 83 expenditure is on economic development and that the provisions of Clause 169 of the Bill will remove the need for local authorities to rely solely on Section 83 for that purpose.

It is also accepted that the recording of such an expenditure by local authorities has shown that the discretionary limit has not been reached. However, neither of those factors explains adequately why the Government are seeking a 66 per cent. reduction in the discretionary grant. Previous experience has shown that local authorities can be relied upon to exercise the discretionary powers wisely and sensibly. In addition, bearing in mind that the Government have the overall ability to cap expenditure levels at individual authority level, it is difficult to understand why Clause 162 of the Bill should seek to impose further restrictions on local authority discretion.

It does not matter that local authorities are not spending their total discretionary limit: the principle is still the same—namely, that local authorities should be allowed as much discretion as possible to deliver services and to act in the best interests of the community. To that end the amendment seeks to maintain the local authority discretionary spending level at £57.9 million, which equates to £11.80 per head of population. I beg to move.

Lord Rodger of Earlsferry

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, mentioned in his speech many of the factors which lie behind the position in the Bill. Whether or not one has regional councils and district councils at the present time, whereas one is going to have only unitary authorities in the future, according to the last available figures for 1991–92 the discretionary expenditure amounted only to £13 million. That is the fact of the matter.

The proposal in the Bill would allow a provision of about £19.5 million per annum, whereas the amendment would raise that to about £60.5 million—the detail perhaps does not matter. The proposal in the Bill is more than adequate to cover the kind of expenditure that has hitherto been incurred as discretionary expenditure by local authorities. What has been done is not only to take account of that factor, but also to use the figure of £3.80 per capita in order to bring the figure for Scotland into line with the figure for England and Wales, so that the same figure applies throughout the whole of the United Kingdom—a figure which does not require any actual reduction in expenditure by local authorities.

As the noble Lord indicated, the position is even more favourable to local authorities because, having regard to the terms of Clause 169 of the Bill, added to the powers of the local authority under the 1973 Act is a specific power to include the function of economic development. It follows that all expenditure on that matter will be taken into account in the ordinary calculations of revenue support grant. Therefore, there will be no need to take that expenditure into account in relation to discretionary expenditure. Hitherto, much of the discretionary expenditure of local authorities has been on the kind of economic development which will in future be covered under new Section 171A of the 1973 Act.

The discretionary expenditure limits will be adequate, even to judge by the old expenditure. They will be more than adequate, given that much of that expenditure will no longer fall within the discretionary expenditure limits. For that reason we are satisfied that the figure in the Bill is more than enough to cover what is required and therefore I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.

11.15 p.m.

Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove

My Lords, I thank the Minister for a full explanation. I had mentioned many of the issues but he went further, enabling me to understand the slightly arcane arguments relating to local authority finance. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 167 [Statements of support services costs]:

Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendments Nos. 110 and 111:

Page 111, line 27, leave out from ("to") to first ("a") in line 29 and insert ("publish").

Page 111, line 42, leave out subsection (4) and insert:

("(4) A statement shall—

  1. (a) be in such form;
  2. (b) be published on or by reference to such date;
  3. (c) contain such information;
  4. (d) be made available for inspection by the public in such manner; and
  5. (e) be supplied to the public on such terms as to payment, as may be prescribed, and different provision may be made in relation to the matters mentioned above in relation to different authorities.

(4A) Such of the information contained in the statement as may be prescribed shall be included within the annual abstract of accounts (or any equivalent to such an abstract) produced by an authority.").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, my speaking note begins by stating that the amendments are relatively straightforward. I believe that that is correct. The statement of support services costs is part of the Government's policy of the extension of local authority compulsory competitive tendering. The purpose of the statement of the support services costs is to ensure that the true costs of support services—for example, matters relating to finance and personnel services—can be established and allocated to the appropriate front line services such as education and refuse collection.

As currently drafted, Clause 167 would require local authorities to publish the statement of support services costs within their annual abstract of accounts. In England and Wales it is intended that that statement can and will be a freestanding document. I understand that that approach has been welcomed by local authorities.

The Government have not yet finalised the regulation for these statements and they will be finalised only after consultation. Nonetheless, we would not wish to rule out the possibility of adopting a similar approach to that south of the Border and to allowing freestanding publication of this document, which could then be open to inspection by members of the public.

The amendments would permit their publication as a freestanding document rather than simply within the annual abstract of accounts. It is a relatively minor matter and I commend the amendments to the House. I beg to move.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 169 [Functions to include promotion of economic development]:

[Amendment No. 112 not moved.]

Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendment No. 113:

Page 114, line 20, leave out from ("enactment") to end of the line.

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is a minor amendment which removes an unwanted constraint in subsection (2) of the new Section 171B. It relates to a regulation-making power, and if the text remains as it stands it will be limited to the provision of financial support. It is intended to make it more widespread and general than that and therefore those words have been deleted at the end of the clause. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Earl of Halsbury moved Amendment No. 113A:

After Clause 174, insert the following new clause:

("Scientific services

. The Secretary of State shall by order establish a joint board in accordance with the provisions of section 20 for the purpose of providing the services of the Public Analyst, Agricultural Analyst and other Scientific Services to the Scottish Local Authorities.").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, at this late hour as midnight approaches and churches yawn and graves give up their dead, it would be wrong for me to indulge in any prolixity by recapitulating a great deal of what I said at an earlier stage in Committee. I withdrew my amendment at that stage against an undertaking from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Caxmyllie, to receive representations from the Royal Society of Chemistry and the Association of Public Analysts and myself, which undertaking he honourably discharged. We all had a good party in Edinburgh.

He listened to our representations which I recapitulated and summarised in the following terms I said that we were concerned with the provision of ammunition and rations for four laboratories employing 10 public analysts and their assistants. I am told that there is an 11th public analyst on the way up the promotional table. I reminded the Minister that a laboratory is not just a collection of benches with, hopefully, some expensive test tubes lying around the room. It is a housing for very expensive scientific instruments.

Your Lordships must think of £10,000 as not being at all expensive for one of these sophisticated instruments; some might cost even up to £100,000. The public analyst must have the latest and best because his verdict is always unchallengeable in the courts for statutory reasons.

With four laboratories and 10 public analysts decisions have to be taken where the latest piece of scientific apparatus is to be installed. If it is to be put at the disposal of more than one local authority with one laboratory acting as an information source for another, then standards of fees have to be arranged as between one local authority and another. All this must entail a decision-making apparatus.

There are provisions in the Bill, notably Clauses 8, 15,19 and 20, which enable the Minister to make arrangements for the transfer of property and responsibilities, and so on, from the old set-up to the new one. Therefore, I ask the noble and learned Lord to tell me whether these are sufficient to deal with the problems which I have outlined. If he gives me an unambiguous assurance, particularly under Clause 20, that he can set up the kind of joint body—I proposed it in detail in Committee as regards the structure, and now at Report stage merely in outline—which he ought to set up and that he has sufficient power already to do what I have in mind, then I shall express myself content and take the matter no further.

I shall not divide the House on this occasion in any case because it is too late and I know that the Government would win a Division at this hour of night. I shall not raise the matter again at Third Reading of the Bill because I believe that would be inappropriate on a technical matter of this kind. However, I reserve the right to introduce a Private Member's Bill in a year's time if the Minister has got into trouble and has not used the powers that I hope he will assure me he already possesses.

There is one consideration that I should like to ventilate. The hope has been expressed that on a laissez-faire or laissez-aller basis, people will reorganise themselves if no ministerial action is taken. I think that it is a mistake to confuse the two situations: one is where there is a grass roots field—perhaps I am mixing my metaphors—but a beginning where you allow people freely to manoeuvre so that they gradually form a network. An organisation can often form under them from that. That is one situation in which, from a process of natural selection, you can end up with a viable structure. But to take to pieces a viable structure, the product of many years of evolution, without providing a viable substitute is a different matter altogether.

We should not flirt with the idea that, if we leave nothing in the way of an infrastructure to tie it all together, everything will come right. I do not think that it will and I am not alone in my opinion. The Association of Public Analysts knows it; the Association of Public Analysts of Scotland knows it; the Royal Society of Chemistry knows it; the chief executive of the local government Staff Advisory Committee knows it; the Society of Directors of Trading Standards in Scotland knows it; the environmental health officers know it, and, shouldering my pop gun, I know it too. Disregarding my pop gun for the moment, I have my heavy artillery in the form of the noble Lord, Lord Porter, a former president of the Royal Society and a distinguished chemist, who regrets that he cannot be here to speak this evening. The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, is another of my heavy artillery, as is the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, who has also supported the amendment. I beg to move.

Lord Tordoff

My Lords, I rise to support again the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury. I do not know what I can do to add to his eloquence, but, if I can do something, I will because I have an awful feeling that the Government are not listening on this subject. I said when I intervened at an earlier stage that the danger was that there would be a vacuum. From what I have heard since then, I do not believe that the Government are listening very closely. They actually believe that, somehow, if things are left alone, they will sort themselves out They will not This is not a trivial matter. It affects the health, safety and wellbeing of the people of the whole of Scotland. The question of whether regional government in Scotland should have been destroyed is another matter, but the fact is that the public analysts, who are based on that regional government, should not be destroyed. The chances of local government as it is now to be constituted reconstructing that service are, in my view, absolutely zero.

I hope that the Government will be prepared to intervene and that they will not leave it to market forces or to local government forces to try to reconstruct a sensible system of public analysts in Scotland for the future. The noble Earl is a man of great integrity and knowledge on this subject and I hope that the Government will take his plea seriously. I lend what little weight I have to the amendment.

11.30 p.m.

The Earl of Balfour

My Lords, it is perhaps a matter of regret that the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, was not here when we discussed Clause 20, because at that time my noble and learned friend Lord Fraser drew attention to Section 62B of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973, which to a very great extent meets the wording of Amendment No. 113A.

As regards the joint board side of it, I think that point has been met, but the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, has raised a much more important point: that is, the very expensive and extremely sophisticated equipment that the public analyst may need. I must say that I have not seen anything within this legislation that provides a joint board with certainty in the way of finance to be able to purchase the very equipment that the noble Earl has mentioned. What I had not realised is that it is most necessary because that very sophisticated equipment may provide evidence that is produced in the highest courts in the land. Therefore, I hope my noble and learned friend Lord Fraser can assure me that finance will be available for the public analyst to be able to purchase the sort of equipment that is needed.

11.30 p.m.

Lord Fraser of Carmyllie

My Lords, I am again grateful to the noble Earl for expressing so lucidly the concerns of the public analyst in Scotland. As he indicated, I recently met him and representatives of the analyst and they explained very clearly to me what their concerns were. I hope I can confirm to him and to your Lordships that we are well aware of the very important work undertaken by public analysts in Scotland. The existing arrangements whereby four laboratories service all 65 local authorities seem to be an excellent example of the type of joint working which we hope to see in the new structure.

While, as I shall indicate later, we are not fully washing our hands of it, as it were, I do not see any reason why this arrangement, if it covers 65 local authorities in Scotland at present, needs to change. I would certainly urge the new councils to consider carefully the benefits of retaining the existing system. We would certainly view with caution any move by new councils towards setting up their own individual laboratories.

This seems to us;—and we are at one with the public analyst—to be a service which is ideally suited to the economies of scale provided by having a few large laboratories. As regards the analyst's staff, this is largely a matter for the existing and new councils themselves. As my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate explained during a recent debate on staff transfer, the Government are not in the business of guaranteeing that all staff will transfer to the new councils. That is a matter for local government. However, should there be any difficulties, the Secretary of State can use the powers available to him in Clause 8 to intervene.

I suggest, as I suggested previously to the public analyst, that the best way forward is for them to ensure that they keep in touch with the staff commission. Thus, if any problems do arise the commission can advise the Secretary of State as may be necessary. I appreciate the particular complications that arise from the specialist nature of the laboratories and the equipment they contain. As with staff, we hope that the destination of the four laboratories can be agreed among the authorities concerned. Should there be any difficulties, however, the Secretary of State would be able to transfer the laboratories to particular authorities, using the powers available to him in Clause 15.

Again, as I previously indicated to the public analyst, it is not yet clear whether a property commission will be created. A decision will be taken on this in the coming months. In the meantime, I assure the noble Earl that I have taken careful note of his comments on the laboratories and their equipment.

In conclusion, we do not believe that there is a need to set up a public analyst joint board at this stage. Reorganisation will clearly involve some upheaval for all local authority personnel, but there is no reason at present to believe that the situation will not settle down. I hope that I can reassure the noble Earl and the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff on that point. However, in the absence of suitable arrangements being arrived at by the successor authorities, I can assure the House that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will not hesitate to utilise the powers available to him under Clause 20 were he of the opinion that that was the only way to preserve the public analyst service. I understand that it was a public statement to that effect that the public analysts in Scotland wished to secure. I hope that with that unequivocal statement on behalf of the Secretary of State the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

The Earl of Halsbury

My Lords, with that unequivocal statement, I must express myself content. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule 13 [Minor and consequential amendments]:

Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 113B:

Page 160, leave out lines 4 to 6.

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I trust that at this hour the House will take my word that the amendments from Amendment No. 113B through to Amendment No. 194, with various gaps, are all of a technical, drafting nature. I can provide details on any one of them, but I shall content myself for present purposes with offering the House the assurance that none of them involves substantive changes to the Bill. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Ewing of Kirkford moved Amendment No. 114:

Page 160, line 22, after second ("of) insert ("and the words "and provided also, that no land shall be so designated nearer than one hundred yards to any dwelling house without the consent in writing of the owner of such dwelling house,"").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, there is no need for me to detain the House long on this matter, at this late hour, important though it is. It deals with an issue contained in the Burial Grounds (Scotland) Act 1855. I am sure that your Lordships will be delighted to know that I took no part in that legislation of 1855. Contained within it is a provision that no burial ground should be created or extended in an area within 100 yards of dwellings. That was all right in 1855 before the introduction of the Town and Country Planning Acts. There is now no need for such a provision. The amendment is designed to remove the requirement, because all those issues are now taken care of by the Town and Country Planning Acts which provide that people who live in houses have to receive notification and have the right of appeal. I beg to move.

Lord Fraser of Carmyllie

My Lords, as the night wears on, the noble Lord becomes ever more persuasive. I wholeheartedly commend the amendment to the House.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendments Nos. 114Ato 130:

Page 162, leave out lines 12 to 16.

Page 162, leave out lines 28 to 32.

Page 162, line 45, leave out from beginning to ("(interpretation)") in line 5 on page 163 and insert:

(" . In section 31(1) of the Harbours, Piers and Ferries (Scotland) Act 1937").

Page 165, line 1, leave out from ("(5A)") to ("not") in line 2.

Page 172, leave out lines 36 and 37 and insert:

(" . In section 24 of the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 (power of local authorities to provide sites for caravans)—

  1. (a) in subsection (8), for the words from "an islands" to the end substitute "a council constituted under section 2 of the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Act 1994."; and
    2. 315
  2. (b) subsection (8A) shall cease to have effect.").

Page 177, line 39, at end insert:

("(9A) In section 26A(2) (power to give directions to police authority after adverse report), for the words "joint police committee" substitute "joint police board".

(9B) In section 26B (police efficiency: allocation of funds), for the words "joint police committee" substitute "joint police board".

(9C) In section 26C (duty of compliance), for the words "joint police committee" substitute "joint police board".").

Page 177, line 45, at end insert:

("(10A) In section 32A(1) (grants for expenditure on safeguarding national security), for the words "joint police committee" substitute "joint police board".").

Page 177, line 46, leave out from ("section") to end of line 48 and insert ("36(5) (common services), for the words "joint police committee" and "committee" substitute "joint police board" and "board" respectively.").

Page 178, line 12, at end insert:

("() In section 46(2) (repair and maintenance of public rights of way), after "being a" insert "public".").

Page 182, line 31, after ("3A") insert:

("or under subsection (2) of section 16A of this Act").

Page 182, line 36, at end insert: ("(13A) After section 16 insert—

"Vesting of certain private sewers.

16A.—(1) Subject to any agreement entered into under subsection (2) below, there shall vest in a person authorised, under subsection (1) of section 3A of this Act, by a sewerage authority to construct a sewer not connecting with their sewers or sewage treatment works the sewer constructed; and any sewer vested in a person by this subsection or by a determination under subsection (2) of that section shall be his property and he solely responsible for its management, maintenance and renewal.

(2) Notwithstanding subsection (1) above, the sewerage authority may, on such terms and conditions as they think fit, at any time enter into an agreement under which the sewer, or any part of it, shall vest in them.").

Page 186, line 34, leave out from ("substitute") to end of line 36 and insert (""the chief social work officer".").

Page 186, line 45, leave out ("the").

Page 186, line 45, leave out from ("substitute") to end of line 47 and insert (""chief social work officer".").

Page 187, line 2, leave out ("the").

Page 187, line 2, leave out from ("substitute") to end of line 4 and insert (""chief social work officer".").

Page 187, line 6, leave out ("the").

Page 187, line 6, leave out from ("substitute") to end of line 8 and insert (""chief social work officer".").

Page 189, line 24, leave out ("(6) (b)") and insert ("(6) (d)").

On Question, amendments agreed to.

[Amendments Nos. 131 to 133 not moved.]

Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendments Nos. 134 to 146:

Page 192, line 30, at end insert:

("( ) In section 24(5) (provision which may be included in orders under Part II)—

  1. (a) in each of paragraphs (c) and (d), for "areas", wherever it occurs, substitute "wards"; and
  2. (b) in-paragraph (f)—
    1. (i) the words "regional, islands or district" shall cease to have effect; and
    2. (ii) for "area" substitute "ward".").

Page 192, line 32, after ("(1)") insert ("—

  1. (i) in the definition of "electoral arrangements", for "areas" and, where it fourthly occurs, "area" substitute "wards" and "ward" respectively; and
  2. (ii)").

Page 193, line 7, at end insert:

("( ) In section 50K(2) (b) (interpretation), for "the enactment" substitute "either of the enactments".").

Page 193, line 33, at end insert ("—

(a)").

Page 193, line 34, leave out (", (e)").

Page 193, line 34, at end insert ("; and

(b) in paragraph (e), for "directors of social work" substitute "chief social work officers".").

Page 194, line 30, leave out ("(1)") and insert ("(1A)").

Page 194, line 31, leave out ("(1A)") and insert ("(1B)").

Page 194, line 33, after ("authority") insert ("or body").

Page 194, line 39, leave out ("(1A)") and insert ("(1B)").

Page 194, line 41, leave out ("(1A)") and insert ("(1B)").

Page 195, line 35, after ("134") insert ("(1)").

Page 196, leave out line 39.

Page 196, line 46, at end insert:

("( ) For section 150 (public transport) substitute—

"Schedule 18 to continue to have effect.

150. Schedule 18 to this Act (amendment of certain enactments relating to transport) shall continue to have effect.".").

On Question, amendments agreed to.

[Amendment No. 147 not moved.]

Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendments Nos. 148 to 171:

Page 199, line 19, at end insert:

("( ) Section 226 (transitional provision for joint boards existing before 16th May 1975) shall cease to have effect.

( ) Section 230 (transitional establishment of committees of local authorities) shall cease to have effect.").

Page 199, line 21, leave out ("definition of) and insert ("definitions of "area", "college council", "school council" and").

Page 199, line 21, leave out ("and") and insert:

("( ) for the definition of "electoral area" substitute (""electoral ward" shall be construed in accordance with section 5 of the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Act 1994;").

Page 199, line 24, at end insert ("; and

( ) in the definition of "rating authority", for the words from "has" to "Act" substitute "shall be construed in accordance with section 30 of the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Act 1994."").

Page 200, line 7, at end insert:

("( ) Schedule 13 (amendments of the Rent (Scotland) Act 1971) shall cease to have effect.

( ) Schedule 14 (amendments of enactments relating to roads) shall cease to have effect.").

Page 200, line 10, at end insert:

("( ) Schedule 22 (planning functions) shall cease to have effect.").

Page 202, line 43, leave out from ("186(1)") to end of line 4 on page 203 and insert ("(b) and (c) and 387(1) (b) and (c) (persons who may give information on oath as respects failure to comply with probation order), for "director of social work", wherever it occurs, substitute "chief social work officer".").

Page 203, line 12, at end insert:

("( ) In Schedule 5 (discharge and amendment of probation orders), in paragraph 2(4) (b)—

  1. (a) for "director of social work" substitute "chief social work officer"; and
  2. (b) for "director", where it secondly and thirdly occurs, substitute "chief social work officer".").

Page 209, line 47, leave out from beginning to ("(interpretation") in line 48 and insert:

(" .-—(1) The Community Service by Offenders (Scotland) Act 1978 snail be amended in accordance with this paragraph.

(2) In section 2(3) (b) (person to whom copy of community service order to be sent), for "director of social work" substitute "chief social work officer".

(3) In section 12(1)").

Page 223, line 37, leave out sub-paragraph (2) and insert:

("() For section 9 (re-allocation of responsibility for certain local authority functions relating to the countryside) substitute—

"Part II of Schedule 1 to continue to have effect.

9. Part II of Schedule 1 to this Act (amendment of certain enactments relating to the countryside) shall continue to have effect.".").

Page 225, line 18, at end insert:

("() Part I of Schedule 1 (which re-allocates certain functions relating to the countryside) shall cease to have effect.").

Page 233, line 36 leave out ("5(2) (a)") and insert ("5(2)").

Page 233, line 37 leave out from ("etc.)") to end of line 41 and insert ("—

  1. (a) in paragraph (a) for—
    1. (i) "regional, islands or district council", in both places where it occurs; and
    2. (ii) "an islands or district council", substitute "local authority"; and
  2. (b) after paragraph (a) insert—

(aa) a water authority or sewerage authority;"."). Page 234, line 6, after ("council") insert (";

(aa) a water authority or sewerage authority;"). Page 234, line 7 after ("(interpretation)") insert ("—

(a)").

Page 234, line 9 at end insert (";

(b) after the definition of "rent assessment committee" insert—

"sewerage authority" shall be construed in accordance with section 61 of the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Act 1994;"; and

(c) after the definition of "tenant" insert—

"water authority" shall be construed in accordance with section 61 of the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Act 1994.".").

Page 238, line 5, after ("authority") insert:

(;or

(iia) a water authority or sewerage authority").

Page 238, line 5, leave out ("and").

Page 238, line 12, at end insert ("; and

(c) in subsection (11) (1), after "a water authority" insert "or sewerage authority".").

Page 238, line 34, after ("council;";") insert (" ( ) after the definition of "a service charge" insert:

'"'sewerage authority" shall be construed in accordance with section 61 of the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Act 1994;'"').

Page 240, line 9, after second ("council") insert:

(";or

(ia) a water authority or sewerage authority;").

Page 240, line 15, after second ("council") insert:

("; or

(aa) it belongs to a water authority or sewerage authority;".

( ) In section 55(1) (interpretation of Part II of the Act)—

  1. (a) after the definition of "prescribed" insert— ""sewerage authority" shall be construed in accordance with section 61 of the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Act 1994;";
  2. (b) the word "and", where it occurs immediately after the definition of "tenancy", shall cease to have, effect; and
  3. (3) after the definition of "tenant" insert—

; and

water authority" shall be construed in accordance with the said section 61").

Page 240, line 34, at end insert:

("( ) In Schedule 4 (tenancies which cannot be assured tenancies), in paragraph 11—

  1. (a) for sub-paragraph (a) substitute—
    1. "(a) a council constituted under section 2 of the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Act 1994, or a joint board or joint committee of two or more such councils, or the common good of such a council or any trust under the control of such a council;
    2. (aa) a water authority or sewerage authority;"; and
    3. (b) for the word "and", where it occurs immediately after sub-paragraph (e), substitute "or".").

Page 242, line 11, leave out from ("(c),") to end of line 12 and insert ("for "director of social work" substitute "chief social work officer".").

Page 245, leave out lines 2 to 5 and insert:

(" .—(1) The Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1990 shall be amended in accordance with this paragraph.

(2) In section 62(6) (local authorities for purposes of supervised attendance orders), for "regional or islands council" substitute "council constituted under section 2 of the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Act 1994".

(3) In Schedule 6 (supervised attendance orders), in paragraph 2(3) (b), for "director of social work" substitute "chief social work officer".").

Page 252, leave out lines 44 to 48 and insert:

("( ) in paragraph (b), for "director of social work" substitute "chief social work officer"; and

( ) in paragraph (c), for "director" substitute "chief social work officer".").

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Schedule 14 [Repeals]:

Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 172:

Page 256, line 4, at end insert:

("1960 c. 62. The Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960. Section 24(8A).").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment when I moved Amendment No. 113B. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 173 not moved.]

Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendments Nos. 174 to 182:

Page 257, column 3, line 18, leave out ("Sections 2 and 3") and insert ("Section 2").

Page 258, column 3, line 49, at end insert:

("In section 24(5) (f), the words "regional, islands or district".").

Page 259, column 3, line 13, leave out (", (e)").

Page 260, column 3, line 4, after ("134") insert ("(1)").

Page 261, column 3, line 15, leave out ("225") and insert: ('726. Section 230.").

Page 261, column 3, line 17, after ("of) insert ('"'area", "college council", "school council",").

Page 261, column 3, line 32, leave out ("Schedule") and insert:

("Schedules 13 and").

Page 261, column 3, line 39, at end insert:

("Schedule 22.").

Page 261, column 3, leave out lines 47 and 48.

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to these amendments when I moved Amendments Nos. 64 and 113B. I beg to move.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

[Amendment No. 183 not moved.]

Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendments Nos. 184 to 188:

Page 269, column 3, line 46, at end insert:

("In Schedule 1, Part I.").

Page 271, column 3, line 48, at the beginning insert:

("In section 55(1), the word "and" where it occurs immediately after the definition of "tenancy".").

Page 272, column 3, line 22, leave out from ("1980""') to end of line 27.

Page 273, leave out lines 9 to 12. Page 276, leave out lines 9 to 11.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 189:

After Clause 179, insert the following new clause:

Further transitional provisions

  1. (".—(1) Until 1st April 1996—
    1. (a) section 70 of the 1973 Act (acquisition of land by agreement) shall have effect as if, in subsection (1), after paragraph (b) there were inserted ", or
      • (c) there being provided by some person other than themselves a system, to which the public shall have access, of drains, sewers or sewage treatment works,";
    2. (b) section 71 of the 1973 Act (acquisition of land compulsorily) shall have effect as if, in subsection (1), after "enactment" there were inserted "or of there being provided, by some person other than 320 themselves, a system, to which the public shall have access, of drains, sewers or sewage treatment works"; and
    3. (c) section 15 of the Water (Scotland) Act 1980 (power to acquire land) shall have effect as if, at the end of each of subsections (1) and (3), there were added "or for the purpose of there being provided, by some person other than themselves, a supply of water to the public".
  2. (2) If the Secretary of State provides, by order under section 181(2) of this Act, that any provision of Part II of (or of Schedule 13 to) this Act which—
    1. (a) amends section 1, 16, 21(1), 22, 23 or 48 of the Sewerage (Scotland) Act 1968 or section 32 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974; or
    2. (b) adds to the said Act of 1968 a new section 3A or 16A or to section 20 of that Act a new subsection (5),
      • shall come into force before 1st April 1996, he may provide in the order that the section amended, or as the case may be the section or subsection added, shall until that date apply as if modified in such manner as he shall specify in the order; the modifications being such as appear to him to be requisite having regard to the fact that some other provision of that Part (or that Schedule) is not for the time being in effect.").

On Question, amendment agreed to. Clause 180 [Interpretation and amendment of statutory references]:

Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendments Nos. 190 to 192:

Page 125, line 34, after ("to") insert ("—

(a)").

Page 125, line 34, leave out ("or the director of social work").

Page 125, line 36, at end insert:

("(b) the director of social work shall be construed as a reference to the chief social work officer.").

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 181 [Short title, commencement and extent]:

Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendments Nos. 193 and 194:

Page 126, line 3, leave out ("for different provisions and").

Page 126, line 4, at end insert:

("(2A) An order under subsection (2) above may contain such transitional provisions and savings as appear to the Secretary of State to be necessary or expedient in connection with the provisions brought into force.").

On Question, amendments agreed to.

House adjourned at nineteen minutes before midnight.