PRESIDING OFFICER

HC Deb 29 January 1998 vol 305 cc529-42

5.6 pm

Mr. Donald Gorrie (Edinburgh, West)

I beg to move amendment No. 36, in clause 18, page 8, line 42, after "deputies', insert or such other number of deputies as the Parliament may determine.'.

The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Lord)

With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 196, in page 8, line 42, after 'deputies', insert , provided that the election of the Presiding Officer is carried by the votes of not less than two thirds of the total number of seats for members of the Parliament and, within each region by the votes of not less than two thirds of the number of constituency members and not less than two thirds of the number of regional members of the Parliament.'.

No. 13, in page 8, line 42, at end insert— '(1A) The Parliament may change the title "Presiding Officer" to such other title as it considers appropriate.'.

Government amendment No. 218.

No. 14, in clause 19, page 9, line 15, after "Parliament', insert ', who may be known as the Clerk of the Parliament or by such other title as the Parliament considers appropriate.'.

No. 145, in clause 19, page 9, line 16, leave out "Corporate Body' and insert 'Estate'.

No. 197, in clause 20, clause 20, page 9, line 23, leave out 'Corporate Body' and insert 'Estate'.

No. 146, in clause 20, page 9, line 24, leave out first corporation' and insert 'Estate'.

No. 147, in clause 20, page 9, line 24, leave out second corporation' and insert 'Estate'.

No. 148, in clause 20, page 9, line 25, leave out "corporation' and insert 'Estate'.

No. 149, in clause 20, page 9, line 27, leave out "corporation' and insert 'Estate'.

No. 150, in clause 20, page 9, line 31, leave out "corporation' and insert 'Estate'.

No. 151, in clause 20, page 9, line 35, leave out "corporation' and insert 'Estate'.

No. 152, in clause 20, page 9, line 36, leave out "corporation's' and insert 'Estate's.

No. 153, in clause 20, page 9, line 38, leave out "corporation' and insert 'Estate'.

No. 154, in clause 20, page 9, line 40, leave out "corporation' and insert 'Estate'.

No. 155, in clause 20, page 9, line 42, leave out "corporation' and insert 'Estate'.

No. 156, in clause 20, page 10, line 1, leave out "corporation' and insert 'Estate'.

No. 157, in clause 20, page 10, line 3, leave out "corporation' and insert 'Estate'.

No. 158, in clause 20, page 10, line 6, leave out "corporation' and insert 'Estate'.

No. 45, in clause 41, clause 41, page 18, line 5, leave out 'First Minister' and insert 'Scottish Premier'.

No. 85, in clause 41, page 18, line 5, leave out 'First' and insert 'Chief".

No. 15, in clause 41, page 18, line 10, at end add— (3) The Parliament may change the terms "Scottish Executive" and "First Minister" to such other terms as it considers appropriate.'.

Mr. Gorrie

As well as amendment No. 36, I shall speak to amendments Nos. 13, 14 and 15. They all have the same purpose, which is to enable the Scottish Parliament to have the flexibility, once established, to change certain names. It is reasonable to set out the names before the Parliament starts, so that it at least has a starting point.

However, if the Parliament is to be a worthwhile organisation, it must be able to decide whether it needs more than two Deputy Presiding Officers, whether it likes the title "Presiding Officer" or wishes to use some other title, whether it wishes to change the title "Clerk of the Parliament" and feels that it should have some other title. It should also be able to decide whether it likes the titles "Scottish Executive" and "First Minister".

It is an essential minor point, to show the validity of the Parliament, that it should have the facility to change those titles. Some of us were disappointed yesterday by the statement in which the Secretary of State made it clear that the Parliament would not be as waterproof in the devolved areas as the general public in Scotland had been led to believe.

Perhaps it is a token, but it is an important token, that the Parliament should at least have the ability to decide the titles of the various people and the numbers of people holding the various posts. There is considerable unhappiness in Scotland about the dictatorial way in which the site of the Parliament has been decided, and now we find that the Parliament will not have the powers that many people were led during the referendum campaign to believe that it would have. At the very least, it should have the capacity to make some of those minor changes, and I hope that the United Kingdom Parliament will see that it is essential to allow the Scottish Parliament to have that power.

Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow)

I want to register the hope that we will not spend too much time on these amendments, because there are very important matters to deal with on clauses 28 and 29, and we may get into great difficulty on the guillotine. I concur with the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Gorrie): surely to heavens we can leave these matters to the Scottish Parliament when it is set up; it is surely its business to decide on titles and on the way in which it wants to work.

Mr. Michael Ancram (Devizes)

I agree with the hon. Gentleman, and we do not want to spend much time on these amendments, but certain of them must be spoken to.

We tabled amendment No. 196 essentially because the new Parliament will have a new political ethos, and the Presiding Officer will have considerable powers; one need only look at clause 31 to see the extent of those powers.

It would be proper for the Presiding Officer to have the broadest possible endorsement, not only of the Parliament as a whole but by region and by category of Member, especially because, with the list system, if we are not careful, party considerations could come into play.

I think that we will all agree that the new Parliament will not have the traditions of the House, which effectively trains its Members to accept that, if they take the Chair, as you have, Mr. Lord, they are above and beyond the normal party politics. That tradition may eventually grow in the new Parliament, but it is important that the Presiding Officer should have the widest possible respect and support from the beginning. The proposal is not unprecedented. The framework document for Northern Ireland contained the same provision.

I tabled other amendments that may have puzzled hon. Members. They would replace the words "Corporate Body" or "corporation" with the word "Estate". "Corporate Body" has a Victorian ring to it, and I wanted something that was more Scottish and appropriate to the new body. The word that I came up with may come from the 18th century, but it is Scottish and constitutional. It should be spelt "Estaite", but I was informed by the Table Office that that was not a spelling that was recognised by the House, so to get the amendments tabled, I had to spell it in the more modem and English form. I wanted to use a little imagination to find something more exciting than the idea of a corporate body.

Mr. James Wallace (Orkney and Shetland)

I am fascinated to hear about that ruling. Did those who advised the right hon. Gentleman cite a ruling from Madam Speaker or a previous Speaker on what determines spelling that may be used in the House? Surely, in the Parliament of the United Kingdom, Scots spelling is as legitimate as English.

Mr. Ancram

We will deal with the Scottish language on amendment No. 118. When the Table Office staff tell me that I cannot table an amendment in a certain form, and I am up against the deadline, I normally take their advice, as I did on this occasion.

5.15 pm

Mr. Dennis Canavan (Falkirk, West)

Amendment No. 45 proposes that the head of the Scottish Administration should be called the Scottish Premier, not the First Minister. "Premier" is simpler—for a start, it has half the syllables—and would cause less confusion, because "First Minister" and "Prime Minister" are almost identical. There could be confusion if, for example, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom visited the First Minister in Scotland. Scots are familiar with the word "premier", as we talk about the premier division and premier quality.

Mr. Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath)

With amendment No. 45, the hon. Gentleman is in danger of leading to more confusion. Those of us who are interested in sport and listen to the results on a Saturday afternoon expect, whenever we hear the words "Scottish premier", to hear "division" immediately after. It would not be wise to confuse the electorate, who are far more interested in sport than in politics, by changing "First Minister", which is at least new and different, to something that everyone associates with football.

Mr. Canavan

The man tipped to become the first First Minister—not a phrase that trips off the tongue as easily as "the first Premier"—is my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. I am sure that we would all agree that he is in the premier division and of premier quality, although there is nothing divisive about him.

Whoever gets the job, be it my right hon. Friend or somebody else—it might be a right hon. Lady—should have a title that is in keeping with the dignity and status of the office. "Premier" is French for first, so it might be indicative of the old alliance between Scotland and France if we referred to the leader as "Le Premier" or "La Première".

The term is also used in many Commonwealth countries, including Australia and Canada, so it is not unfamiliar to Parliament, which set up dominion status for former parts of the empire, some of which eventually became independent states. The term "Scottish Premier" sounds more distinctive and prestigious, but, if my hon. Friend the Minister cannot accept the amendment, I hope that he will at least consider allowing the Scottish Parliament to decide such matters, as opposed to our going on about them endlessly in Committee.

Mr. Alex Salmond (Banff and Buchan)

"Scottish Premier" is also the name of a well-known brand of beef products in the north-east of Scotland, so I suppose that, if the First Minister was not in his place in the Scottish Parliament, people would shout, "Where's the beef?"

The right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) informed us with a straight face that the Scottish Parliament might be vulnerable to party intrigue and division, whereas this Parliament has such marvellous long-standing traditions that such matters never enter hon. Members' heads.

It is best not to take many of the Tory contributions to this debate too seriously—that is the right attitude to strike on the evidence of yesterday's debate—but underlying what the right hon. Gentleman said is an extraordinarily arrogant assumption that somehow the Scots Parliament must be protected from itself and from the Scottish people, and that rural Scotland must be protected from urban Scotland. The fact that the Conservative party cannot get elected in rural or urban Scotland seems totally to have escaped him.

Mr. Ancram

The hon. Gentleman spends a lot of his time enjoying himself by attacking the Tory party. I wish to make a serious suggestion. In a Scottish Parliament, the broadest possible support for the first Presiding Officer might be a good thing. I am surprised to hear him suggest that it is not.

Mr. Salmond

I was talking about what underlay the amendment. The House heard the right hon. Gentleman suggest that somehow the traditions of this House meant that things would be conducted in a perfectly orderly manner, but that the Scottish Parliament was an institution without those traditions. Therefore, we would have to write into its Standing Orders at this stage some protection—the same language and logic we heard yesterday, when the Tories said that they would protect rural Scotland. Rural Scotland has fundamentally rejected the Conservative party over the past 20 years. The right hon. Gentleman said that I enjoy myself attacking the Tory party—with some success, I might add. Banff and Buchan has not a single Conservative councillor, and we have to import Tories.

Mr. Ancram

Just wait.

Mr. Salmond

I have been waiting for some time, and I suspect that we will wait some time more for a Conservative comeback. The great difficulty for the Conservatives in Scotland is the Conservatives who sit on the Opposition Front Bench in this House. Every time they make a speech—with the insulting and condescending attitudes that they represent—they put back their colleagues in Scotland. They know it, and their colleagues in Scotland know it.

It is important for this Committee to take note of what the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Gorrie) said. We all may have ideas about what title is best, be it First Minister, Premier or Prime Minister. It may be that we should think about another title for the Members of the Parliament—whether they should be MSPs or Commissioners of the Scottish Parliament. I note what the right hon. Member for Devizes said about not getting the word "estaite" into his amendments. It is a strange institution which will accept Norman French but not the Scots language in its amendments.

The fundamental point is that we are enabling the Scottish Parliament to get on with its business. The note struck by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West—reflected in a large number of speeches—is that we should leave these matters to the Scottish Parliament when it is up and running. If it wants to change the titles, change them it shall; basically, nothing we say or do in this place will make any difference.

An excellent meeting of the consultative group to discuss the Standing Orders of the Scottish Parliament was marred only by the sole Conservative contribution, which seemed to be a last-ditch defence of the right to have 20 or 30 directorships while simultaneously serving as a Member of the Scottish Parliament—another attitude that will get short shrift from the people of Scotland.

Basically, it was a good meeting—there was a good feeling at the first meeting of the consultative group. I hope that the Minister feels able to give some indication to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West that that attitude—of letting the Scottish Parliament decide these things—will be reflected in the Government's attitude today.

Mr. John McAllion (Dundee, East)

First, I recommend to my hon. Friend the Minister that he reject amendment No. 196, tabled by the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram). It is an absurd proposition that a Speaker can only be elected on the basis not just of two thirds of the Members of the Parliament, but of two thirds of all the constituency Members and two thirds of the regional list Members in each of the eight regions across Scotland. If the Tory party had applied that formula to its own elections, it might have done a lot of good; the Conservative party would not have its present leader.

It would be almost impossible to elect anyone on that basis. I can think of no figure—with the possible exception of the Secretary of State for Scotland—who could command such widespread support throughout Scotland. In reality, amendment No. 196 is a wrecking amendment, which gives the lie to the idea that the official Opposition are being in any sense constructive in their approach to the Bill.

Mr. Ancram

The hon. Gentleman is making a great fuss about this. Why did the Labour party accept such a system for the proposed Assembly in Northern Ireland in the framework document?

Mr. McAllion

I was quite unaware that my party had accepted it. If I had known, I would have said that it was an absurd proposition. It seems nonsense to me, particularly in a Parliament which will have not four parties, but six, seven or eight. That would give tremendous influence to smaller parties, which could block any agreement because of their strength in a particular part of Scotland. The Tories expect to be a very small party, embedded in only one little part of Scotland. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where?"] Certainly not in my part of Scotland, but there must be parts of Scotland where they vote Tory. There are 500,000 of them somewhere; I do not know where they are all distributed.

I want to recommend to my hon. Friend the Minister the amendment tabled in the name of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Gorrie). My hon. Friend will recall that, when I was appointed to the Scottish Select Committee, the entire Committee was invited to the brand new civil service office in Leith to be shown the ropes by all the Scottish Office civil servants. During that very useful day, one of the civil servants responsible for drafting the Bill made the point that Westminster would, of course, have to draft Standing Orders, which would be there for the Parliament to use on its first day.

However, those Standing Orders would be drafted in such a way as to allow the Parliament itself to shape the kind of Parliament which the Scottish Members wanted. They would not be proscriptive Standing Orders, and the Scottish Parliament would be left free to decide for itself what it should call the presiding Minister, how many deputies there should be, how the Speaker should be elected, and so on.

My hon. Friend the Minister may point out that I have put my name to an amendment which seeks to tell the Parliament to call him or her not the First Minister but the Scottish Premier. Obviously, the suggestion by my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) and myself is not consistent with the White Paper—which we supported in general—but the White Paper is not consistent with the convention document, "Scotland's Parliament, Scotland's Right," which states that the convention wanted the Speaker of the Parliament to be called the Speaker and the Head of Government to be called the Chief Minister. Perhaps my hon. Friend will explain why he has departed from the agreement in the convention document. He changed the proposal in the White Paper, and is continuing to do so in the Bill.

I understand that there could be confusion if the Heads of Government in Scotland and in the rest of the UK were both called Prime Minister, as people might not know to whom they were referring. I am happy for this House to retain the use of the term "Prime Minister". In the early 18th century, it was a very unofficial term—in fact, it was regarded as odious, and Sir Robert Walpole and Lord North repudiated it. If the British Parliament wishes to carry on with an odious title for its Head of Government, it is free to do so. I would like to see a better term for the Scottish Parliament, and that is why I believe that Scottish Premier is the best way forward.

Mrs. Ray Michie (Argyll and Bute)

The hon. Gentleman may recall that, when the Secretary of State launched the White Paper in the House, I asked whether the term "First Minister" was written in tablets of stone. The right hon. Gentleman said that it was a form of words used in the White Paper, giving the impression that, thereafter, we could choose the term to use.

Mr. McAllion

I am greatly encouraged by the hon. Lady's intervention, and I shall now give the reason why I think the title should be Scottish Premier. Perhaps those who get to the Scottish Parliament should take note of what I say here, in case I do not get there myself.

"Scottish Premier" is a shortened version of Premier Minister, which can be defined as Prime Minister or Head of Government. That would end the confusion, and would mean that the Scottish Premier would not be seen in way as secondary to the British Prime Minister. If there were a suggestion that the Prime Minister was "over" the Scottish Premier, it would be unfortunate.

My hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West mentioned Canada and Australia. I am concerned because, in Canada and Australia, the federal Head of Government is called the Prime Minister and the Heads of the state Governments are called Premiers. There is a clear indication that the Prime Minister is above the Premiers. I would not want that to be the case in Scotland. I want the Scottish Premier to be so called on the basis of the auld alliance, with the French interpretation of that term—that the Scottish Premier is in every sense equal to the British Prime Minister for the areas for which he is responsible.

Sir Teddy Taylor (Rochford and Southend, East)

I hope that we can resolve all the issues mentioned in the debate. I tabled amendment No. 85, which suggests that instead of First Minister, we should call the new chap the Chief Minister. That is a sensible compromise, and would be a major step forward.

I seriously suggest that the Government should not accept amendment No. 36, which would give the devolved Parliament the right to make such decisions itself. Hon. Members should be aware that it is a real possibility, as I have always suggested, that one of the strange, unusual parties—or perhaps even the Scottish National party—might get control and use names that would give the wrong impression.

I hope that hon. Members who are celebrating in advance the great delights of the Scottish Parliament appreciate that terrible problems will almost inevitably arise. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Gorrie) rightly said that people were misled in the referendum about the powers of the assembly. The wholly wrong impression was given that a new form of self-government was coming in that would give unique power to the Scottish people to make their own decisions. Those who study the Bill know that it is a load of codswallop, that the powers are astonishingly limited, and that there will be less money because the cost of the assembly will have to be deducted. I hope that hon. Members understand some of the immediate problems that will arise.

5.30 pm

On the First or Chief Minister, what will happen when a Secretary of State from a different party uses powers in clause 33 to direct the Scottish Parliament that a Bill must be cancelled or that a Bill that it does not want must be introduced? Without a clear definition of the relationship between the First Minister and the Secretary of State, how would Members of the Scottish Parliament feel if the Secretary of State told the First or Chief Minister, "I am sorry that law you passed has to be cancelled, scrubbed, finished," or, "Whether you like it or not, I am going to demand that you pass this law."?

Secondly, there is the position of the Secretary of State. I see that one hon. Member is smiling, but it is a serious situation: hon. Members know that problems could arise if the First or Chief Minister and the Secretary of State came from different parties. We must consider the status of the First Minister compared with that of the Secretary of State. The Bill envisages a direct relationship between the devolved Administration and the sovereign. That presumably means that the Secretary of State is no longer the sovereign' s representative in Scotland.

The new Chief Minister will apparently have substantial powers. He will be the head of the Scottish Executive and Keeper of the Scottish Seal. He will have a direct relationship with the sovereign in the appointment of Ministers, junior Ministers, law officers, sheriffs and judges of the Court of Session, other than the Lord President, and the Lord Justice Clerk, in whose appointment he has a role directly with the Prime Minister.

Hon. Members think that everything will be great, but, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West said, the people of Scotland have been misled about the powers of the new assembly. The impression was given that its powers would be much greater. There will be problems with money because the costs of the new Parliament will come off the money that is already there. There will be trouble and difficulties. That is why it is important to clarify the role of the person in charge.

"First Minister" is not appropriate for a democratic assembly. What is wrong with "Chief Minister"? That achieves separation from the titles of "Prime Minister" and "Secretary of State". "Chief Minister" is a step forward. I hope that the Secretary of State will think carefully about my suggestion, which I make helpfully. I hope that he will play a part in not going along with what seems to be the general feeling in this place that everything will be great—that life will be a bed of roses and better in every respect for the people of Scotland.

As a former Scottish Member who now has no right to represent the people of Scotland directly but cares greatly about Scotland and its people, I hope that hon. Members know that what they think will be exciting and innovative could well turn out to be an horrendous democratic mess. It could result in deterioration of services for Scotland and widespread conflict between the government in Edinburgh and the Administration in Westminster, especially if different parties are in charge. I hope that hon. Members will approach the Bill asking how they can try to resolve problems, not make them worse.

While I have been delighted at some of the contributions from both Government and Opposition Members, I have been horrified by Liberal Democrats' contributions, such as their comments yesterday about the need for plenty of farmers in the Scottish assembly to ensure that agriculture is well represented. I hope that the Liberal Democrats have made it clear that the Scottish Parliament will not control agriculture, and that to a large degree, this Parliament does not, either. I hope that the Government will accept my excellent, helpful and constructive suggestion in amendment No. 85, which is also supported by my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd).

Mr. Michael Connarty (Falkirk, East)

I intend to support amendment No. 85 as a solution to the problem of the name, despite the intemperate contribution of the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor), who tabled it. He sought to portray the parliamentary process as determined by conflict, which it need not be.

Using the title "chief" rather than another does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that it should be a man. Many of the old Scottish clans, which used the word, "chief", were matriarchal rather than using the male line. "Chief Minister" resolves the problem. "First Minister" suggests that it is something less than the Prime Minister, when, in the Parliament of Scotland, that Minister will be the most important and should be called "Chief Minister". In a Scottish context, we should think about that seriously.

I reject the title "premier" because, like it or not, it is a French word. It has come into common usage. Sadly, as was pointed out earlier, the correct spelling of the word "estaite" has fallen out of use in English parliamentary language. "Premier" gives rise to problems, some of which are funny. My hon. Friend the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) referred to the premier division, although it is actually the premier league. If there were a Division in the House, would we be in the Premier Division or the Opposition Division, with the premier or against the premier? The word would be the butt of many jokes. It would not be a good solution.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) said, in Australia "premier" is a state title. I went to Australia recently with the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. There, they clearly distinguish between the premier of a state and the Prime Minister of the country.

On the word "estaite", the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) could have been a little bit more Scottish in his interpretation, and used the word "commonwealth". "Common weal" is the modern word "commonwealth". The concept of corporation is not attractive. We should have had another word. Commonwealth would have been appropriate. It would be wholly appropriate if the Scottish Parliament wished to refer to the common weal of the body.

There are many things to be debated, but I do not think that this is the Chamber that should decide them. That is the fundamental point. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Gorrie) is right to say that it should be left to the Scottish Parliament to decide how it sees itself, how it reflects the will of the people, how the people see it and how it is to take on the decisions and wishes of the people of Scotland. Amendment No. 36 is about the powers of the Parliament.

The hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East made an unnecessarily divisive speech. He argued that, should another party ever control this Parliament, the Secretary of State would wish to overrule the Parliament of Scotland. That shows that he has not understood the purpose of the Scottish Parliament, which is to embody in a parliamentary institution the will of the people and to show respect to the people. In contrast to what happened in the past 18 years—and unlike the former Member for Stirling—the Secretary of State would have to show respect for the will of the people as set out in the Bills before the Scottish Parliament.

That would be true regardless of party. If was not, it would be a recipe for the final break-up of the Union. If we had not devised the Bill and taken this route, the behaviour of the Conservatives over the past 18 years would have had only one outcome: the people of Scotland would have had to leave this United Kingdom to get respect. In this Parliament, we must show that respect.

I hope that hon. Members will reject amendment No. 196 because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East so well put it, it is an unnecessary belt and braces, a veritable straitjacket for the Parliament. If it is necessary in the Parliament that people respect the other parties and accept votes decided by majority, the people will respect the democratic process. A two-thirds majority is not needed to ensure that the people adhere to the directions of the people who will look after the Parliament.

You are currently chairing this Committee, Mr. Lord. It does not matter that you may have been selected to serve by a process carried out behind closed doors; the fact is that when people are chosen to sit in the Chair, Members of Parliament show them the respect they deserve. I hope that the Government will, in some way, take on board amendment No. 36 and leave to the Scottish Parliament the powers that will enable it to take the final decision on matters of symbolic importance.

The Minister for Home Affairs and Devolution, Scottish Office (Mr. Henry McLeish)

I must comment first on the wholly remarkable contribution made by the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor). It is useful to remember that something described as an horrendous democratic mess and codswallop is based on 1.8 million Scots supporting the proposals in a referendum—that is 74 per cent. of the 60 per cent. of Scots who took the trouble to vote. It is important to put the Bill into the wider context of that endorsement.

I recognise and understand the arguments advanced in respect of amendments Nos. 13 to 15. On the face of it, there are attractions in allowing the Parliament to decide for itself what it wishes to call its Presiding Officer, the First Minister, the Scottish Executive and the Clerk. However, the Government believe that consistency and certainty are essential for the Bill and for future legislation. The titles proposed are clear and unambiguous and suit the purpose. Therefore, I am not inclined to accept those amendments.

"Presiding Officer" was the title used in the White Paper "Scotland's Parliament". The title accurately describes the role of the individual concerned, even though it may lack the poetic aspects of "Speaker", which is used in this House.

Amendment No. 14 would allow the Scottish Parliament to call the Clerk of the Parliament by any title it feels appropriate. We chose the title of Clerk for the senior official of the Parliament as that is a widely used and clearly understood title. Individuals may refer to the Clerk informally by some other title, but it is important that in formal proceedings and in other formal dealings involving the Clerk, the office should be referred to in a clear and consistent way, which does not confuse the office with any other office or position and which ensures that everyone, not least the Clerk himself, knows where they stand. Therefore, we see little benefit in amendment No. 14.

The Government believe that the titles of the Scottish Executive and the First Minister need to be prescribed by statute to maintain consistency in references throughout the Bill and in future legislation. That will also relate to other formal documents through successive Sessions of the new Parliament. The Government are well aware of the speculation about what other titles might be used to describe the First Minister and his ministerial colleagues. We believe that the titles used in the Bill suit the purpose.

We recognise that the Scottish public may well develop their own description for the First Minister and members of the Scottish Executive—[Laughter.] In anticipation of laughter, I was going to say that some of the names they come up with may not be much to our liking. That said, the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) pointed out that what happens in Scotland will be entirely up to the Scottish press, Scottish media generally and the Scottish people. I recognise the arguments that hon. Members have advanced, but I am not persuaded by them.

The Government believe that the title "First Minister" describes the role clearly and avoids confusion with any other office holder. The Scottish Parliament may, for working purposes, add to the titles of the Scottish Ministers so as to distinguish them according to their respective portfolios. Thus, the Parliament could refer to a particular Scottish Minister as "The Scottish Minister for Housing" or "The Scottish Minister for Education" and so on. Such matters will be dealt with later by the Scottish Parliament. That provides some discretion. Such titles could be used in the day-to-day operation of the Parliament, but would have no formal legal status. Collectively, the members of the Scottish Executive will be known as the Scottish Ministers.

As regards amendment No. 36, the Government believe that one Presiding Officer and two deputies are more than capable of chairing Sessions of the Parliament and ensuring that business runs smoothly. I would ask the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Gorrie) to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Connarty

I have taken a particular interest in the running of the Australian Parliament, where a much larger number of people are entitled to serve in the Chair. From talking to Members of that Parliament, I have learnt that it helps the smooth running of the Parliament to have large numbers of people rotating in that duty; it also helps to ensure that many Members gain experience of chairing the main Chamber. Have we looked further afield than this Parliament for examples?

M. McLeish

In respect of the Presiding Officer and the deputies, I think that the position that we have put forward is the best one. I assure my hon. Friend that we have looked long and hard at several other models and considered several other options. The chairing of Committees in the new Parliament is a matter that has yet to be addressed, but that need not delay our consideration of the Bill.

5.45 pm

Amendment No. 196 would make the election of the Presiding Officer unnecessarily complicated and clearly we cannot accept it. The Government believe that the Presiding Officer and his two deputies should be elected from among Members at a meeting of the Parliament, without fixing in the Bill the majority required. It will be in Members' interest to be present and vote at that election for their Presiding Officer, and a simple majority should be sufficient, although the Parliament itself could provide in its Standing Orders for a higher threshold.

The amendment would set a threshold for the Parliament, and indeed set it a very high level. It would effectively give a veto to a small number of Members in a particular region. I do not believe that there is a need to impose on the Parliament artificial thresholds in electing its own Presiding Officer. I again ask the Committee to reject the amendment. Some hon. Members have talked about the attractions of adopting the term "Speaker" to describe the Presiding Officer of the Scottish Parliament, but I invite the House to consider the genuine risk of confusion which could arise if both the Scottish Parliament and the UK Parliament used that term.

I am sure hon. Members will not be surprised when I say that the Government do not accept amendments Nos. 145 to 158 and No. 197. We have consistently made it clear that we envisage the Parliament as being modern, forward-looking, accessible and relevant to today's generation of people living in Scotland. I am not quite sure what is being driven at in the amendments, but I presume that it is a reflection of the term used in the pre-Union Parliament. It seems quite inappropriate to look back in time for old titles when we are looking forward to a new modern Parliament.

The Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body—or the SPCB as it will no doubt be referred to—will look after the housekeeping and administration of the Parliament. Its concept is similar to the arrangements for this House under the House of Commons (Administration) Act 1978 which established the House of Commons Commission as a corporate body for the purposes of appointing staff of the House of Commons. The Parliamentary Corporate Bodies Act 1992 also established corporate officers for both Houses of Parliament with powers to hold property and enter into contracts for the respective Houses.

The functions of the SPCB will be wide and varied, ranging from representing the Parliament in legal matters to the organisation of the provision of services such as cleaning services. As the corporate body of the Parliament, the use of the title "corporation" is appropriate; it is a word recognisable to the public and it will be understood by those dealing with the corporation. "Estaite" on the other hand is neither appropriate nor easily understood in this context. The word estaite is an historical term formerly used in connection with the pre-Union Parliament. It actually referred to the constituents of that Parliament—the clergy, nobility and burgesses—not to its administrative functions. Arguably, there is a close analogy to the Members of the Scottish Parliament. The amendments are therefore misconceived as well as undesirable, and I ask the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) not to press his amendments.

The purpose of amendment No. 218 is to allow a deputy to perform the functions of the Presiding Officer if that office is vacant or if the Presiding Officer is unable to act. As it stands, clause 18 requires the Standing Orders to make provision for a Member of the Parliament to exercise the Presiding Officer's functions if the post falls vacant during the period when Parliament is dissolved. However, that would not allow provision to be made covering a vacancy or incapacity that might arise when the Parliament is dissolved. My proposed amendment would allow the Presiding Officer's functions to be exercised by a deputy in such circumstances, as well as at other times when a vacancy or incapacity arises.

The amendment ensures that there is at all times someone who can exercise the Presiding Officer's functions and it also makes it clear that it should be an elected deputy rather than any other Member of the Parliament who should exercise those functions in the event of the Presiding Officer's incapacity or if the office of Presiding Officer is vacant. I commend the amendment to the House.

Mr. Gorrie

I am grateful to those hon. Members who have given support to the general thrust of our idea that the Scottish Parliament should be enabled to decide the matters that we have been discussing. There was support for the idea from hon. Members on both sides, although—as usual—none from Conservative Members. I take comfort in the fact that, whatever parents may choose to call their children and put on the baptismal certificate, when the child grows up he or she decides what he or she wishes to be called.

I was very entertained by the suggestions of the "auld alliance" about going in for French titles, but I was pleased that the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) had not strayed as far as Italy; it would not be helpful to have the premier, or whatever, of Scotland described as a prima donna.

I believe that many hon. Members share my disappointment that the Government are persisting with their prescriptive attitude and preventing the sensible amendments to allow the Scottish Parliament to change the name officially as well as unofficially, but no one has ever prevented the Scottish public from saying anything about anything. In that spirit, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: No. 218, page 9, line 6, leave out from beginning to 'if' in line 7 and insert The Presiding Officer's functions may be exercised by a deputy'.—[Mr. McLeish.]

Clause 18, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.