CROSS-BORDER PUBLIC BODIES: INITIAL STATUS

HC Deb 04 March 1998 vol 307 cc1094-135

Ms Roseanna Cunningham (Perth)

I beg to move amendment No. 96, in page 38, line 25, after 'enactment', insert 'or by Royal Charter'.

The Second Deputy Chairman

With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 256, in page 38, line 27, leave out from second 'functions' to end of line 28 and insert 'which relate to or affect Scotland'. No. 93, in page 38, line 28, leave out from 'Scotland' to end of line.

No. 426, in page 38, line 28, leave out 'do not relate to reserved' and insert 'relate to devolved'.

No. 97, in page 38, line 29, at end add— '(7) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (5), the following bodies are cross-border public bodies for the purposes of this Act—

1. (a) the British Broadcasting Corporation,
2. (b) the Independent Television Commission,
3. (c) Channel 4,
4. (d) Channel 5,
5. (e) the Radio Authority, and
6. (f) the Radiocommunications Agency.'.

No. 100, in schedule 5, page 66, line 28, at end insert— 'The functions of the Radiocommunications Agency in relation to Scotland (but not the international negotiations for the allocation of frequencies for the provision of radiocommunications services in Scotland).'. No. 101, in page 66, line 28, at end insert— 'The disposal of that portion which is collected in Scotland of the total revenue from the imposition of fees for wireless telegraphy licences under Part I of the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949.'. No. 98, in page 75, line 32, after 'Corporation', insert 'except as regards the financing of services provided by BBC (Scotland), the appointment of a national governor representing Scotland, and the appointment and removal of the members of the Broadcasting Council for Scotland.'. No. 99, in page 75, line 32, at end insert—'Exceptions from reservation— The powers and functions of the Independent Television Commission in relation to—

1. (a) the licensing and regulation of regional television services for Scotland provided for under Part I of the Broadcasting Act 1990, as amended by Part III of the Broadcasting Act 1996,
2. (b) the licensing and regulation of digital television services exclusive to Scotland,
3. (c) the licensing and regulation of local cable services in Scotland, and,
4. (d) the promotion and funding of Gaelic television programmes services in Scotland.

The powers and functions of the Radio Authority in relation to—

1. (a) the licensing and regulation of radio programme services in Scotland,
2. (b) the promotion and funding of Gaelic radio programme services in Scotland.'.

No. 311, in page 75, line 32, at end insert—'Exception from reservation— The appointment of the National Governor for Scotland of the British Broadcasting Corporation and the appointment of a Scottish member of the Independent Television Commission.'. No. 413, in page 75, line 32, at end add—'Exception from reservation— The promotion and funding of Gaelic broadcasting in Scotland.'. No. 466, in page 75, line 32, at end add—Exception from reservation— The Parliament may require the annual report of the British Broadcasting Corporation and the Independent Television Commission to be laid before it.'.

Ms Cunningham

I propose to speak to amendments Nos. 96 to 101 and No. 256 which stand in my name and those of my colleagues. I shall deal with them in two groups—one relates to clause 83 and the other to schedule 5—although they are all, in the main, to do with broadcasting.

I shall speak first to amendments Nos. 96, 97 and 256. This set of amendments returns us to the vexed question of the powers of the Scottish Parliament vis-a-vis bodies not dealing with devolved matters or bodies and individuals based outside Scotland. We had an extensive debate on the generality of this subject when we discussed clause 23, the amendments thereto and the powers of the Parliament to require the submission of evidence, both oral and written, so I shall try hard not to reprise the whole of that debate.

Clause 83, however, differs from clause 23 because it specifically designates bodies that are to be defined as cross-border public bodies. In the guidance notes provided when the legislation was published, clauses 83 to 85 were described as fulfilling the commitments given in paragraph 2.11 of the White Paper which, in my view, they manifestly fail to do.

I have read the paper placed in the Table Office yesterday. Among other things, it states: The White Paper … indicated that the Scottish Parliament will be able to require the submission of reports and the presentation of oral evidence from bodies which have devolved interests, but have United Kingdom or Great Britain remits at present. However, in the Bill, that particular power will relate only to devolved matters.

The paper goes on to state: The commitments given in the White Paper in respect of such statutory bodies are given effect to through clauses 83 to 85 of the Bill. As I said, that is manifestly not the case.

Of necessity, I am going to have to repeat some of the sentiments expressed in the debate on amendments to clause 23. In particular, I want to cite once again paragraph 2.11 of the White Paper because it is important to remind hon. Members of what was originally promised. Paragraph 2.11 states: In certain reserved areas"— I stress the word "reserved"— the activities of other UK/GB bodies which are accountable to the UK Parliament will continue to be significant in the economic or social life of Scotland, and therefore likely to be of interest to the Scottish Parliament. The Government propose that the Scottish Parliament should be able to invite the submission of reports and the presentation of oral evidence before its committees from bodies operating in reserved areas in relation to their activities in or affecting Scotland. I emphasise the fact that the paragraph deals with reserved areas.

The definition of bodies given in paragraph 2.11 was that they would continue to be significant in the economic or social life of Scotland". The paragraph then gives some examples of such bodies. I shall not list them all—I have done that before—but, suffice to say, they include, inter alia, the BBC and the Independent Television Commission. Between the White Paper being published and the Bill being published, that has all disappeared.

The promises made in paragraph 2.11 of the White Paper are not allowed for in clause 23; nor are they in clause 83. Not a single example given in the White Paper of cross-border public bodies has found its way into any of the guidance notes, the list of what the Government regarded as cross-border public bodies when the legislation was published. As far as I can see, not a single one of those bodies appears in the list appended to yesterday's note that was placed in the Table Office.

I have asked before and ask again now, as I have not yet received a satisfactory answer, where, precisely, is the commitment given in paragraph 2.11 of the White Paper? Where is it implemented in the Bill? Why have the Government turned their back on their promise?

The Government have changed the whole definition without a single word of explanation and we are left with an emasculation of that commitment. Cross-border public bodies, as newly defined, must include among their functions those relating to devolved matters. That neatly excludes from the slightest accountability not just the entire list in the White Paper, but many other bodies as well, even the Scottish Law Commission; that must rank up there in the top 10 list of idiocies in the Bill.

Amendment No. 256—and amendment No. 93, which stands in the name of many Labour Members—would restore to the legislation the definition clearly envisaged in the White Paper, if not the whole of the original intent. The amendments would bring back into the definition the list in paragraph 2.11 of the White Paper, which includes the BBC and the ITC. In that way, we can be absolutely certain that we shall at least have reports laid before us, even if we are to be denied the ability to require the submission of evidence. We shall have to make do with "inviting" and hope that, in the case of some of the organisations, it does not mean inviting until the cows come home.

Amendments Nos. 96 and 97 are clear in their intent and move us on to the Scottish National party's concern about the position of broadcasting when the Parliament is up and running. Notwithstanding any other decision that might be made in respect of clause 83 or schedule 5, the BBC and the ITC would then have some minimum obligations to the Scottish Parliament—I stress the word "obligations".

Mr. Dalyell

The hon. Lady referred to the SNP's concern. I am not asking this in a hostile spirit, but what is the basis of that concern? I have not fully understood.

Ms Cunningham

The basis of the concern is the issue of accountability for vast areas of Scottish life that are incredibly important, but about which we shall not even have the ability to require people to come and give evidence.

This set of amendments is, in the main, to do with broadcasting, but it touches on a wider issue on which we have already had a substantive debate under clause 23. Clause 83 is about different groups of bodies. My contention is that the definition of those bodies clearly changed between the publication of the White Paper and the publication of the legislation.

Mr. Salmond

I have an advantage over my hon. Friend because I have been watching the visage of the Secretary of State during her speech. He seems to be puzzled by my hon. Friend's words. I am tempted to believe that this may be due to confusion on the part of the Scottish Office; perhaps it did not mean to miss out the list. Perhaps my hon. Friend will help the Secretary of State and point out to him, once again, how things have changed from the White Paper to the Bill.

Ms Cunningham

I simply refer the Secretary of State back to paragraph 2.11 of the White Paper which states that the bodies covered are bodies that deal with reserved areas but which will continue to be significant in the economic or social life of Scotland". The long list of bodies appended to that paragraph includes, in every case, bodies whose interests and concerns are in purely reserved areas. None of that appears anywhere in the legislation. What was clearly envisaged was that, although the bodies do not cover devolved areas, there would be an element of accountability to the Scottish Parliament for their functions within Scotland. Effectively, that has disappeared. The Secretary of State still appears to be puzzled, but, perhaps when the debate is finished, he should have a careful look at the difference between the White Paper and the Bill.

Amendments Nos. 98 to 101 all relate to exceptions from the reservations contained within schedule 5. In their entirety, they would provide a measure of devolution of broadcasting which was a surprising omission from the White Paper and the legislation. It was surprising, because it is clear from all I have read that many people, including broadcasters, simply assumed that that would be included and were mightily surprised when it was not. Supporters of the call to devolve broadcasting to Scotland include a former BBC controller, Pat Chalmers, Ruth Wishart, who I believe is a close friend of the Secretary of State, and the broadcaster Colin Bell. They are all supporters of the pressure group, Voice for Scotland. I chose them particularly because I suspect that they cover a range of political opinion, but are united on this one issue.

Mr. Wallace

There does not seem to be a Tory.

Ms Cunningham

Finding a Tory in Scotland these days can be difficult.

All those people recognise that we are debating a scheme in which responsibility for the arts, education and Gaelic are all devolved, while responsibility for broadcasting is not. That means that all aspects of cultural life are covered, except broadcasting. There will be a separate Scottish Arts Council, but no body responsible for broadcasting.

5.45 pm

An article written by Ruth Wishart, which appeared in The Herald on 2 March, makes that cogent point. She points out that there is a natural logic in broadcasting being part of the devolutionary package. Ruth Wishart uses the Scottish Arts Council as an example of what arguments can be put forward and how pointless they can be. She says that the arguments being used against broadcasting now are the same as those used against the Scottish Arts Council ceasing to be involved with the Arts Council of Great Britain. She says that it would be almost unthinkable to imagine a situation where the Scottish Arts Council was not in the position that it is now, especially given the advent of the Scottish Parliament. She says that broadcasting is in the same boat.

I am grateful to Ruth Wishart for pointing out another interesting example which she says—I agree with her—is an indication of what can be the big difference between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom. She says that consideration of any two newspapers produced in London and Scotland on the same day would show that the editorial priorities are obviously different. She says that if the same test is applied to television and radio, in many ways, Scotland is short-changed. Her view on that is fair and is held by a number of people.

Broadcasting is a key part not just of cultural life, but of the political process. Those of us who are politically active in Scotland—that is the Labour party, the SNP and the Liberal Democrats—already know that, in many respects, the political debate is quite different from the debate in the rest of the United Kingdom. The advent of the Scottish Parliament will make that difference even sharper. At least one Scottish journalist—Simon Frith writing in The Scotsman on 28 November 1997—questions whether, if we continue with the present arrangements, broadcasters will be able to play their role properly in that debate. There will only need to be another "Panorama" debacle for the issue to be at the forefront of the Scottish Parliament's concern. It will be nonsensical if the decision-making process is left to the London-based establishment after the Scottish Parliament is up and running.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Donald Dewar)

Am I to understand that the hon. Lady wants a devolved Scottish BBC? Will she explain how that would work? Would there be a separate royal charter for Scotland because the BBC is rather different from a statutory body? How would it be managed? On a boring, practical point, can she say a little about the financial arrangements? What would be the impact of the change on the financial arrangements?

Ms Cunningham

If the Secretary of State cares to look, he will see that one of our amendments deals with the issue of licence fee income and the repatriation to Scotland of that portion which is raised in Scotland, which is one way in which to deal with the matter. As for his other point, as I understand it, it is perfectly possible within the context of the current charter to devolve and it would be interesting if that debate were to take place. If there has to be a separate charter, let there be a separate charter, but that is something with which we can deal in the fulness of time.

Mr. Dewar

That is a very interesting point. The hon. Lady says a separate charter is not needed, because we can devolve broadcasting in Scotland within the BBC charter. I think that she is quite right. It follows that the matter has nothing to do with legislative devolution and a lot to do with persuading the BBC that there should be devolution within that body and likewise persuading other bodies of a similar nature. This issue is not about legislative regulation and the words in schedule 5, but about the spirit in which the BBC and other bodies approach the challenge of devolution and the consequences of that for the United Kingdom.

Ms Cunningham

The right hon. Gentleman may be correct. Perhaps those bodies will not need persuading and will do it off their own bat—if they did, that would be excellent. However, there is to be a review of the BBC's funding base in 2001 and a charter renewal in 2003 and, although the Scottish Parliament will be well into its deliberations by then, it will have no official role to play in those events—not a single word said in the Scottish Parliament will have any direct effect on either of those deliberations. No doubt, the Scottish Parliament will debate those matters and, no doubt, various persons from the BBC within and—I hope—outwith Scotland will respond positively to invitations to give evidence; but the bottom line is that the Parliament will not have any official input to any part of that debate.

I gather that there was a conference on Friday last week which was addressed by the Secretary of State, among others. It was referred to in the article by Ruth Wishart that I have already mentioned and in an article by Magnus Linklater, writing in Scotland on Sunday this Sunday past. Both writers picked up on the Secretary of State's comment that he was not saying that devolved broadcasting would mean kailyard programming. However, by making that statement, the right hon. Gentleman was the one to throw it into the pot and, having raised the possibility, however negatively, it becomes like the elephant in the courtroom—impossible to ignore. Such a view displays an astonishing degree of self-loathing, especially given some of the programming to which we are already subjected daily. I am happy to note that, according to Magnus Linklater, it was not the view of a majority of the conference that anything like that would happen if broadcasting were devolved.

Mr. Salmond

I am certain that it is not the view of the Secretary of State that devolved broadcasting would be kailyard broadcasting, but I seem to remember a speech by the Minister for Education and Industry, Scottish Office, at the Edinburgh festival last year, in which he forcefully advanced that argument. Although I do not recall his using that exact phrase, he argued that broadcasting would somehow be diminished if it were devolved.

Ms Cunningham

As I understand it, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport has in the past made similar comments, which have generated some criticism. That is the not the view held by the majority of the broadcasters of Scotland. They are confident that they would cope well if there were devolved broadcasting in Scotland. Given that confidence and the new cultural and political imperatives brought by the new Scottish Parliament, it is puzzling that in no circumstances is the devolution of broadcasting to be countenanced.

Rapid changes are taking place in broadcasting; in particular, there is the imminent arrival of digital television. Those changes have already provoked major adjustments to the ownership and control of the Scottish media—a matter in which the Scottish Parliament will have no real say in future. In the amendments, we are trying to look at the matter in the spirit of devolution, which is difficult for those of us who want more than that, but it is what we are trying to do. The truth is that, ultimately, the framework for broadcasting is set by politicians. We desire at least to create a framework for Scotland for what will happen and not only for what cannot happen.

We propose that there should be exceptions to the reservation in schedule 5 so that scheduling and finance, in so far as they relate to services in Scotland—for example, responsibility for BBC Scotland and its services within Scotland—are devolved to a broadcasting council for Scotland, whereas the BBC generally remains responsible for UK services. Equally, the Scottish Parliament would have powers over a Scottish ITC equivalent to the powers currently exercised by the Westminster Parliament over the ITC.

It would have been easier by far make a straightforward exception to the reservation of broadcasting as a whole, but I do not for a single minute pretend that every part of the Bill is necessarily straightforward. Amendments Nos. 98 to 100 make it clear that we are trying to confine the issue to those functions that relate particularly to Scotland and will not encroach on wider UK powers. Amendment No. 98, which deals with the appointment of a national governor, is another amendment which would restore the position to that stated in the White Paper. Amendment No. 101 is clear: it deals with the licence fee income raised in Scotland and, as I have already referred to it, I shall not spend any more time on it. I commend the amendments to the Committee. I ask hon. Members to consider the reality of the situation that will face us and to accept that the logic of devolution of broadcasting cannot be argued against.

Mrs. Maria Fyfe (Glasgow, Maryhill)

I rise to speak in support of amendment No. 93, which stands in my name and those of my hon. Friends. When I tabled the amendment, I was thinking not about the BBC, but about the relationship between the Equal Opportunities Commission and the Scottish Parliament. The simplest way in which to bring the EOC's activities in Scotland under the scrutiny of the Scottish Parliament would be to include the EOC on the list of cross-border public bodies; however, it has not been included on that list. Clause 83, which relates to cross-border public bodies, states that such a body is one that has functions exercisable in or as regards Scotland which do not relate to reserved matters. However, all aspects of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 are reserved, so the EOC does not fall within the definition as currently set out on the face of the Bill. If the words, which do not relate to reserved matters were deleted, the EOC could legitimately fall within that category.

If the EOC is not deemed to be a cross-border public body, the Scottish Parliament will have no power in relation to it. Clause 23 states that the Scottish Parliament may require any person … to attend its proceedings for the purpose of giving evidence relating to devolved matters. However, it continues: That power is not exercisable in relation to … a person discharging functions of any body whose functions relate only to reserved matters". In addition, clause 107, when read alongside clause 106, makes it clear that the EOC will not be required to lay its annual report before the Scottish Parliament. All that ought to be cleared up, because we must make it clear what we shall do regarding the EOC in respect of all the matters that are devolved, such as housing, education and careers, to name but a few.

In addition to concerns about the EOC, I feel a particular concern about disability discrimination. Enable has pointed out that the Government have appointed a task force to make recommendations for a UK-wide disability rights commission to enforce disabled people's rights under the legislation. The Bill as drafted would appear to prevent the Scottish Parliament from having any powers in relation to that prospective commission, yet many of the Scottish Parliament's activities—social work, education, housing, health, and so on—will be important to disabled people. Those are my reasons for tabling the amendment and I hope to hear a constructive reply from my hon. Friend the Minister.

Mr. Godman

I have a couple of questions for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State relating to what the hon. Member for Perth (Ms Cunningham) said. I do not sympathise greatly with what she said, but several concerns about broadcasting in Scotland have been voiced to me. I hope that the Parliament and the broadcasting authorities can quickly establish a modus vivendi that enables them both to deal with such concerns.

Mr. Jack Gerson, the thriller writer who has written a number radio scripts, has spoken to me about his worries about the BBC and STV following the setting up of the Edinburgh Parliament. He told me recently that the drama departments of Scottish Television and the BBC were showing less interest in Scottish writers and Scottish drama. I hope that that will not be the case when there is a Scottish Parliament.

6 pm

Have there been any discussions—albeit we are at an early stage—about a dedicated channel for the Parliament? That could easily be achieved. Such a channel would be a boon for those in the highlands and islands and others who live a long way from Edinburgh. I hope that all the broadcasting authorities will have ready access to the Parliament. A modus vivendi must be established as early as possible to deal with some of the concerns that have been voiced about the growing remoteness of the broadcasting authorities from drama and documentaries in Scotland.

Mr. Wallace

May I say how pleasant it is to see you in the Chair, Mr. Winterton, for this important debate? I should like to make some points on cross-border public bodies before moving on to some of the issues of broadcasting that have been raised. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) raised some important points about equal opportunities. Looking at the provisional selection of amendments by the Chairman of Ways and Means, we should have plenty of opportunity to go back to that issue in more detail later. I apologise to the hon. Lady if I do not deal with it in this speech.

The Government have made efforts to enable some cross-border public bodies that also deal with reserved matters to have responsibilities for non-reserved matters. However, there is no proposal to exempt the BBC and STV from the reservation. I echo what the hon. Member for Perth (Ms Cunningham) said, because there has been an expectation that senior representatives of the BBC will be brought before the Scottish Parliament. If possible, that should not be a request, because I suspect that they would be able to spot the difference between a request and a requirement if they wanted to wriggle out of it.

The Scottish Law Commission is in the list in the draft order that has been placed in the Library. Will the chairman and members of that commission be appointed jointly by the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Lord Advocate, or will it be a matter for the Scottish Parliament? I accept that there will be occasions when the Scottish Law Commission may be asked to produce a joint report with the Law Commission for England and Wales or to advise on rules that relate to reserved matters, but there was an expectation that appointments to it would fall within the competence of the Scottish Parliament.

I understand that the social security commissioners are appointed by the Lord Chancellor on the advice of the Lord Advocate. What will the position be in that case? Will the Scottish Court Service still have responsibility for making provision for the administrative arrangements of the social security commissioners, even though social security will not be a devolved matter? Some clarification would be welcome.

Mr. Dewar

Really?

Mr. Wallace

The Committee would welcome clarification. The Secretary of State laughs, but I am sure that he agrees that it is better that the issue should be clarified now than at some time after 2000. We do not want a stushie between the Scottish Court Service and Westminster on who will pick up the tab.

There was some disappointment about the fact that schedule 5 has a blanket reservation on broadcasting. I am not betraying any confidences on how the Scottish Constitutional Convention reached its agreement on broadcasting. That was one of the last matters to be agreed. Hon. Members who were members of the convention may remember that, at one of the later meetings, it was agreed that all matters that fell within the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Scotland should be devolved. That was fine, until someone reported at the next meeting that the Secretary of State had no responsibilities for broadcasting—hence the blanket reservation.

With more consideration, more flexibility could have been shown on some issues. Some clarification of the position on Gaelic broadcasting would be helpful. Our amendment No. 413 would make an exemption from reservation with regard to The promotion and funding of Gaelic broadcasting in Scotland. In a letter to my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie), the Gaelic Broadcasting Committee suggested that the Scottish Parliament would control the funding of the Gaelic Broadcasting Committee". I would welcome clarification on whether that will be the case. The reservation covers The subject-matters of the Broadcasting Act 1990 and the Broadcasting Act 1996. The Gaelic Television Committee, which subsequently became the Gaelic Broadcasting Committee, has its statutory basis in those Acts. Section 183(1) of the 1990 Act says that the Secretary of State shall, for each subsequent financial year,"— from 1992–93 onwards— pay to the Commission such amount as he may, with the approval of the Treasury, determine to be appropriate for the purposes of this section. Schedule 19 to that Act says that the Committee shall prepare a general report of their proceedings during that year and transmit it to the Commission. It further says: The Commission shall send a copy of each annual report received by them in accordance with his paragraph to the Secretary of State who shall lay copies of it before each House of Parliament. It would be odd if something that is so much a part of Scottish culture were removed from the remit of the Scottish Parliament. I hope that there will be some acknowledgement of the role of Gaelic broadcasting and the fact that it would be appropriate for the Scottish Parliament to have a role. The budget in 1991–92 was £9.5 million, whereas it is £8.5 million in 1998–99. If there were no Scottish parliamentary input into that, there might be a fear that the sum would decrease further.

More generally, we are talking of the arts, sport, heritage, tourism and film as devolved matters, while broadcasting is not. I am not in favour of a separate Scottish broadcasting corporation; I do not think that it would make sense and I do not think that Scotland's viewing population wants it. We should look to areas in which there may be scope for devolved powers, such as in local television. The advance of technology in telecommunications allows greater provision of local television. Such provision would not interfere with wavebands or national broadcasting organisations.

The Institute of Local Television has said: By applying the principle of subsidiarity to the allocation of broadcast frequency channels and cable channels a coherent view can be adopted by the Scottish Parliament for the introduction of digital broadcasting services in the best interests of Scotland, to enhance local economic and cultural diversities". There could be such provision at a Scottish level.

I would like to think that someone could continually press Channel 5 to ensure that its coverage reaches the many parts of Scotland which are without coverage at the moment, particularly as it is broadcasting Scotland's away games in the qualifying stages of the European nations championship. There is considerable resentment in many parts of Scotland, including my constituency, about not being able to receive Channel 5. It would be very welcome if the Parliament could do something to encourage Channel 5 to extend its coverage.

My hon. Friends and I propose that the appointment of the Scottish governor of the BBC and the Scottish member of the ITC should be a matter for the Scottish Parliament. The Scottish Parliament should also at least have the discretion to require the BBC and the ITC to lay their annual reports before it, as they have to before the Westminster Parliament. That small matter might seem narrow procedurally, but it would establish some chain of accountability between those important broadcasting organisations and the Scottish Parliament.

Mr. Dalyell

I do not want to be pedantic, but when the hon. and learned Gentleman says that the Scottish Parliament should appoint the governor of the BBC, does he mean the Scottish Executive or the Parliament as a whole?

Mr. Wallace

Our amendment says that the appointment of a national governor for Scotland of the BBC and of the Scottish member of the ITC should be an exception from reservation. It would be a matter of whether Parliament approved or the Scottish Executive nominated. As the Bill stands, nothing can be done. We are trying to put the matter within the realms of the responsibility of the Parliament and the Scottish Executive, which is answerable to the Parliament. The amendment's intent is to improve accountability.

From experience of meeting Scottish broadcasters, I know that there is a great deal of enthusiasm for the approaching Scottish Parliament. They see opportunities, not least in the broadcasting of the Parliament. My expectation and hope is that the effects of having a Parliament again in Scotland will go far beyond politics to stimulate arts, culture and broadcasting in Scotland. I think that the Secretary of State said that when he intervened on the hon. Member for Perth. As much of the debate is about devolution in the BBC as it is about devolution in the United Kingdom. Anything that can be done to stimulate, encourage or prod London and the BBC to go down the devolutionary road would be very welcome.

Some of us remember the sheer insensitivity of those in London when they sought to broadcast a full "Panorama" interview with the Prime Minister only a few days before Scottish local elections. The matter was not only about the fact that the BBC did that, but that it did not see anything wrong in doing so and could not understand why people in Scotland might think that such a move upset the normal rules and balance of broadcasting before an election.

Five years ago, without consultation, the BBC removed resources from Scotland and centralised them in London, which caused quite a row at the time. Only last month, the Financial Times reported that John Birt is to put before governors a proposal to place large parts of its resources directorate—which includes all studios and technicians—into a wholly owned commercial subsidiary. BBC staff unions … protested at an earlier version of the plan on the grounds that it would encourage privatisation of the BBC resources directorate". The concern is that such a resource will be even further removed from any accountability to the Scottish Parliament. If the move were to lead to privatisation, there would be no separate Scottish privatisation. We have seen how separately privatised Scottish utility companies have been able to go from strength to strength, whereas some other privatisations in which no separate Scottish company was established have meant that Scotland has often had to bear the brunt of rationalisation, when decision making, senior technicians and senior management have been moved out of Scotland.

Looking further forward, there is an argument for ensuring greater appreciation in the BBC of the need to decentralise. That could be helped along the way by making the appointments described in the amendment the responsibility of the Scottish Parliament or the Scottish Executive and by, very simply, asking the BBC and the ITC to lay their annual reports before the Parliament. I ask the Secretary of State to consider that; it does not ask very much. Doing that might ring bells in London that things have changed and that people must be sensitive to a Scottish dimension. I hope that broadcasters and particularly the BBC rise to the challenge of devolution. They have a vested interest in its success. I very much hope that this debate and proper, fair consideration of the amendments will stimulate the BBC, particularly in London, to wake up to what is happening north of the border.

6.15 pm

Mr. Michael Connarty (Falkirk, East)

It is a special delight to see you, Mr. Winterton, in the Chair. I know that you are the chairman of the United Kingdom-wide all-party media group and will therefore no doubt pay particular attention to some of this debate.

The metaphor "elephants in the courtroom" is certainly a new one on me—but then lawyers, who are so abundant in this place, probably recognise it. I thought of other little phrases that trip off the tongue, such as "bull in a china shop" and "snake in the grass"—the Scottish National party involvement in the debate made that jump to mind.

The debate is not about devolution. For those who have tabled the amendments, it never has been. SNP Members have softened their tone tonight, but they have not done so in public debates—nor have they in trying to give influence to the group named by the hon. Member for Perth (Ms Cunningham), A Voice for Scotland, which is quite clearly a voice for separate media in Scotland, separate broadcasting in Scotland and separate regulation and control of media and broadcasting in Scotland. That is the quite clear message that SNP Members put out in debates that I have had with them in public, on television and in private discussions. This debate is about separation of broadcasting and control of that separate broadcasting.

Ms Roseanna Cunningham

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Connarty

Not at this particular moment. I will let the hon. Lady in later.

Ms Cunningham

rose—

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Nicholas Winterton)

Order. The hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty) is not giving way. I am grateful to the hon. Lady for resuming her seat.

Mr. Connarty

So am I. I will allow her in later, so she can hold her wheesht at this moment.

I heard mention of what is in fact the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. It may have been the Department of National Heritage when, as the hon. Member for Perth thought, it made some unhelpful comments. Although I am a parliamentary private secretary for that Department, I am speaking not with a brief from it but as a Back Bencher and a Scot.

I am not precious about either of the Parliaments. It is quite clear that the people who are leading the debate are precious about a separate Parliament in Scotland and therefore do not necessarily hold in any value the contribution of this Parliament to the questions raised by the hon. Member for Perth. Broadcasting is very much based on regulation on a European basis and will move quickly in the satellite and digital era into a world debate. That is the context in which we should be thinking—not about shrinking the debate into a Scottish debate as if, somehow, broadcasting can be controlled by some sort of border network of electronics that would prevent anything coming from anywhere else. I see the hon. Member for Perth pulling a face, but the debate is in that context for many people. They think that they can have control over the BBC in Scotland and the other media, such as the Scottish Media Group, and somehow make them bring out programmes that they find culturally and politically acceptable. That is the undercurrent of the debate and the political drive for the debate for many of the people in the Scottish National party.

It is wrong of those people to have that as an aspiration or to think that anyone in the media shares it. A few names were mentioned. One that is normally to the fore is that of George Kerevan, who speaks for that party. I believe that he is one of its vice-chairs, with responsibility for such matters. He makes it clear that the debate is all about having more Scottish programmes and developing the Scottish culture, as if that could not be done by the broadcasting media at the moment. In fact, I think that it is being done very well.

The hon. Lady made a point about Scottish newspapers, saying that their editions in Scotland are somehow acceptable, whereas other broadcast media programmes are not acceptable. I think that that was a demonstration of "Panorama paranoia", because one particular programme heated up the debate slightly in the pre-election days and was then seen as a touchstone for what could or could not be done.

The other point that the hon. Lady made, which I thought was particularly inept, was the concept that the BBC funding review in 2001 would be better debated in a Scottish Parliament in which Scottish Members of Parliament would contribute as the people taking the lead and making the controlling decisions.

That reminded me why it is important to send United Kingdom parliamentarians elected in Scotland down here to talk, debate and contribute on that and other matters at a UK level. If the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) had been in the Chamber he might have agreed about that, although he does not want them to talk about matters to do with English local authorities, for example. The broadcasting point would be debated at the right level, in a UK-wide framework in relation to European regulation and European involvement in the control, regulation and development of the media—a context in which, as I am sure that you, Mr. Winterton, know, it will probably be debated more than ever.

A comment that I found rather weak was the idea that broadcasters "could cope well" with devolved broadcasting. What a strange phrase for someone who aspires to have an independent Scotland—that under devolved broadcasting it could "cope well".

Everyone in the media to whom I have spoken, and everyone who has responded in the discussions that I have been involved in, has been talking about a blossoming of broadcasting in Scotland at this moment under the present regulation. They have been saying, and I agree with them, that with a devolved Parliament the amount of interest in and impetus for the Scottish culture will be such an enormous fillip to their efforts that broadcasting will blossom.

The hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), the leader of the Scottish Liberals, was saying how digital and local production would, we hope, blossom. Everyone I talked to saw that as being possible. Many parts of Scotland with digital channels would be able to broadcast and develop their own cultural base.

The Dundonians will come back into their own, and the people from Ayrshire, from the north and the islands—

Mr. McAllion

What do you mean, "Come back?"

Mr. Connarty

I have every confidence—but we shall have to learn how to understand. At first it would be just about as difficult to learn how to understand the Gaelic as to understand a true Dundonian accent. I know that.

Broadcasting in Scotland could blossom in all those respects in local areas. I am very much a supporter of local radio, and in the future, it is to be hoped, local television broadcasting will be added. That can all be done in the present context of UK regulation. The present controllers are not holding that back.

At one of the debates in which the listeners and viewers consumers panel held an open forum in Stirling, I debated with Mr. Kerevan and a representative of the Liberal Democrats—a Mr. Sullivan, I believe—who seemed to be taking a line similar to that of the Scottish nationalists, talking about a separate broadcasting regulation set-up. All the people were there from the media and the present controller of BBC Scotland was supportive of our position rather than that of the people from A Voice for Scotland.

In the early days, when the subject was debated and discussed, it was admitted that that might have been possible. I hear the White Paper quoted again and again to the effect that it might have been possible or even sensible to devolve regulation or some part of regulation. But when we looked at the idea in more depth it was clear that it would have been a narrowing of the base of Scottish broadcasting and therefore inappropriate.

The people from the Scottish Media Group, who now own a cross-media group of both written and broadcast media in Scotland, were also of the opinion that the present regulation situation, the present relationship, which is in the powers the Secretary of State has at this moment, which will be devolved, and the things that will remain as reserved, are the appropriate context in which they wish to develop. They see that as no barrier to making and selling programmes both in Scotland and outside Scotland. Therefore, it is a backward step to try to take any of that over the border and somehow shrink it into a Scottish Parliament context.

On the question of finance, the contributions from the BBC were interesting. The BBC believes that with its spare income—that is, the income that it does not spend on its own Scottish network—it can buy in network programmes, but that if the programmes that it buys in through the BBC network at this moment had to be bought on the market, it could not buy them in with its present income from the licence fee in Scotland.

The BBC would therefore have to reduce the programmes that it offers the people of Scotland if it had to be self-sufficient outwith the BBC network as it stands at the moment, and had a separate charter and licence collection.

Whether people like it or not—personally, I am not a great follower of soaps—in percentage terms there is probably just as much interest in the population of Scotland as there is elsewhere in what goes on in "Coronation Street". My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson) is not in the Chamber, but I know that he ensures that all the programmes are taped. He has not missed a part of "Coronation Street" since it started when he was a boy, he tells me. He has it taped so that he can watch it at the weekend.

Mr. Godman

The interest in the soaps is to be found throughout these islands. May I remind my hon. Friend that at the recent Irish election, an independent candidate in County Kerry won election to the Dail on his campaign for greater access to BBC and ITV programmes, especially "Coronation Street".

Mr. Connarty

I understand and sympathise with that. I do not follow the programmes, but I know that most people know where Albert square is.

Mr. Godman

Who is he kidding?

Mr. Connarty

I used to follow—

The Temporary Chairman

Order. the hon. Gentleman is going a bit wide of the amendment. I hope that he will take no more time in responding to that intervention.

Mr. Connarty:

The intervention stands on its own, Mr. Winterton. People want to see the programmes on the network. They do not necessarily want to watch programmes made in Scotland about Scotland. That is not to say that they are resistant to those programmes or do not value the contribution made by the Scottish media and culture to Scotland, but Scotland exists within the UK and within Europe—and it has a big international world view. Scotland sees itself not as a nation that wants to be shrunk but as a nation that wants to be expanded.

Unfortunately, the proposal smacks of trying to reduce broadcasting and the other media in Scotland to something controllable. I think that that is the agenda. There is a spectrum. Accountability has been talked about, and I think that we have that. It lies here in the UK Parliament.

I believe that the controller of one of the broadcasting organisations said that if invitations were issued, not only would his organisation accept, but it would be pushing to be heard by the Committees and Sub-Committees of the Scottish Parliament. That is correct. The organisations want to broadcast what they have to offer.

The spectrum starts with accountability, then moves over to regulation. Regulation is not necessarily being discussed or put forward now, because it does not stand up, but it is the aim of the Scottish National party. The Liberal point of view—having control of who is appointed—still worries me because we would take that out of the context of a UK broadcasting network and take it into a Scottish Parliament.

What happens to the people who are down here who see the remit as a United Kingdom remit and then have to see it given just to the Scottish Parliament? That would begin to create the very fracture that the right hon. Member for Huntingdon warned us about. That scares me in its political context. It is about generating separation and conflict and about generating English and Scottish nationalism—even in the context of a devolved Parliament. That worries me.

It is a question of control. The amendments are motivated mainly by the wish to control the broadcasting media and to control what it puts out to people. It is an attempt to grab the minds of the people and to use the media to foment in them a sense of separation and nationalism that would benefit only those who follow the separatist view. It is the beginning of a very dangerous move—one which I hope the Secretary of State will resist. I am sure he will do so this evening.

6.30 pm

Mr. Jenkin

We have listened to an interesting debate about whether there should be further devolution in broadcasting and other matters than is provided for in the Bill. I shall return to the comments of the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty).

In moving the amendment, the hon. Member for Perth (Ms Cunningham) referred mainly to clause 83 and to cross-border bodies. Clause 83—one of three that deal with such bodies—provides for cross-border bodies as set out in the draft order the Secretary of State has most helpfully provided for the debate. It includes such august bodies as the British Library Board, a lot of obscure ones and controversial bodies such as the Meat and Livestock Commission and meat hygiene appeals tribunals. Matters arising from those bodies are subject to devolution to the Scottish Parliament, raising questions about the coherence of UK policy. That is an issue we have not yet gone into.

I should say that amendment No. 426 is merely a clarifying amendment to which I shall not refer at any length.

The draft order contains an interesting assurance on behalf of the Government. It states: The Government envisage however that the Scottish Parliament will want to continue most such arrangements in the light of the advantages of sharing knowledge and expertise on a UK or GB basis and of the greater efficiency in the use of resources. That expectation seems to be confounded by today's debate. The amendments set out to challenge not just whether the bodies should continue to be administered on a joint UK basis but whether bodies that have interests in reserved powers—notably the BBC—should continue on a UK basis.

The hon. Member for Perth expressed disappointment that paragraph 2.11 of the White Paper has not, in her view, been fulfilled. I am afraid that the hon. Lady is simply making mischief. The operative word in paragraph 2.11 is "invite". At no point does the White Paper raise any expectation that the Scottish Parliament will hold over any body any obligation that has solely to do with reserved powers. That is clear, and I want to put it on the record that we will support the Secretary of State on this matter. In our attempt to create a stable settlement between the Scottish Parliament and the Westminster Parliament, we cannot argue on the basis of fantasy or on the basis of what the hon. Lady would like to have had in the White Paper.

I wish to refer to the substance of the amendments about broadcasting. Many matters of concern to Scottish Members of Parliament will be replicated in the Scottish Parliament. As I listened to discussions on the degree of devolution within the BBC or the insensitivity of the BBC in London to Scottish issues, I reflected on the fact that here we have, in miniature, the same debate that we are having about the administration and accountability of the UK Government.

The more the Scottish BBC has had delegated to it, the less the BBC in London has been involved with Scottish issues. A consequence of that is that the BBC in London is likely to become less sensitive to Scottish needs. That will drive the demand that the Scottish BBC should be more accountable to the new Scottish Parliament. That seems to be the road down which we are going.

The amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Perth and, to some extent, the amendments tabled by the Liberal Democrats, which suggest that the BBC and broadcasting as a whole should, to some extent, be answerable to the Scottish Parliament, are, in view of the shape and intent of the Bill, entirely logical. They are an extrapolation of the Bill that many will regard as only half a Bill. The hon. Member for Perth said that the amendments were tabled in the spirit of the Bill—the spirit of devolution. Her game is obvious: she finished by talking about ownership and control. Those may well become issues of concern to the Scottish Parliament.

It is difficult to imagine how the Westminster Parliament will block its ears to demands from the Scottish Parliament for a say over some of these issues. It will be a cheese-paring operation. The Parliament will begin by wanting a say over the appointment of the governor, then it will want a say over appointments to the Independent Television Commission, but that will not satisfy the frustrations that the hon. Member for Perth and others will continue to express.

The Government have tried to reduce the question of devolution to a simple yes-no question, but the amendments graphically demonstrate that devolution is a matter of degree. The argument about the degree of devolution has started even before the Bill has become an Act. Now that Scotland is to have control over so much of its affairs, why should it not have a greater say on broadcasting?

I have some idea what the Secretary of State will say. I can hear him argue that it would not be right for the Scottish Parliament to have the power to alter legislation governing broadcasting and its regulation. I can hear him say that this is not because of a lack of faith in the Parliament or in Scottish broadcasters, but because the single UK market and the regulatory regime will be difficult to break up without creating inefficiency, which would harm the interests of Scottish viewers and listeners. It is a rational case.

The Secretary of State will warn, no doubt, of additional costs to Scottish broadcasters if, for example, a Scottish regulatory authority were to take a different view from that in England. Producers of television programmes would effectively have to work to two different codes if their programmes were, as is commonly the case, shown in England and Scotland.

Mr. Connarty

I am enjoying the hon. Gentleman's star gazing, but what do he and his party think?

Mr. Jenkin

We have tabled a probing amendment and we are witnessing the beginnings of a tussle that will not end with the passing of the clause and the Bill.

I expect that the Secretary of State will explain how everything about British broadcasting works very well for Scotland at the moment and that there is plenty of talent. No doubt he will argue that devolution will give a fillip to Scottish broadcasting. He will say that quality production in Scotland is already capable of succeeding in the UK market and that maintaining the common UK market will aid progress, whereas fragmentation would hinder it. That will be the burden of the Government's case.

Does not the Secretary of State think that fragmentation will also hinder progress in policies on fishing or agriculture, for example? The hon. Member for Falkirk, East said that broadcasting was becoming a global business, but that applies to many matters—the environment, for example—that will be devolved to the Scottish Parliament. Why do not the arguments about extra costs and inefficiency apply to all the bodies that are listed in the draft order and to many of the functions that are being devolved?

This debate has shown that the arguments that the Government have deployed to advance the case of devolution will be used by those who want further devolution. Broadcasting, like many other issues, will quickly become a bone of contention for the new Parliament. Stability will be most difficult to achieve.

Mr. McAllion

Earlier, the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) warned the Committee—such was his concern about the constitutional implications of the Bill and such was his outrage at the lack of time that had been allocated to debate it—that we were all doomed, constitutionally speaking. I note that his concern and outrage were such that he has now found something far more important to do than to stay in the Chamber to listen to the debates—he has gone away to do something that he regards as far more worthy of his precious time. We can judge his earlier speech by his absence now—it is symptomatic of what is wrong with the Tory party and why it is not represented in Scotland.

I speak in support of amendment No. 93, which I tabled with my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) and others. Like her, I received a letter from Enable, the Scottish Society for the Mentally Handicapped, supporting the amendment. It said that the Scottish Parliament must have powers and responsibilities in relation to cross-border bodies such as the Equal Opportunities Commission and the disability rights commission that is to be set up. It pointed out that it would be anomalous that the Scottish Parliament should have responsibilities for social work, housing, education and health, which directly affect people with disabilities, but no formal power over the Equal Opportunities Commission or the disability rights commission.

My hon. Friend the Member for Maryhill will be delighted to know that I also received a letter from the Dundee Trades Union Council supporting the amendments that she tabled on equal opportunities and on gender equality. I hope that she will remember that Dundee expects her to argue strongly for gender equality and that she will press the amendments to a Division if necessary. I note that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State seems to have become alarmed at the prospect of Dundee once again raising its ugly head.

There is no uniformity of views within or across parties on the role of broadcasting and its relationship to the Scottish Parliament. The hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) accused the hon. Member for Perth (Ms Cunningham) of fantasising about the White Paper. I hope that the hon. Lady's life is more exciting than that and that she does not have to fantasise about White Papers on constitutional change. It was an unfair barb.

Mr. Godman

She is a lawyer.

Mr. McAllion

Perhaps lawyers do fantasise about these things, but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is also a lawyer, and I am sure that he would refute such a suggestion.

My recollection of the White Paper is that it recognises that cross-border bodies such as the BBC and the Independent Television Commission will continue to be significant to the economic and social life of Scotland, and so will be likely to be of interest to the Scottish Parliament. I hope that hon. Members from all parties will agree that broadcasting will be a matter of direct interest to those who are elected to the Scottish Parliament—it would be nonsense to suggest otherwise.

Clause 83 will provide the Scottish Parliament with a number of limited powers in relation to cross-border bodies. For example, bodies that are required to lay reports before the UK Parliament will also be required to lay them before the Scottish Parliament. Will my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State make it clear whether that requirement will be laid on the BBC and ITC? Similarly, there will be consultation about Scottish appointments to cross-border bodies, but will the BBC and ITC be required to consult the Scottish Parliament about such appointments?

6.45 pm

The Scottish Parliament will not have the power to require people to give evidence or submit documents, which I believe is a grave weakness. The Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, of which I am a member, recently required—it did not invite—the Scottish Arts Council to give evidence to it. Such was the reception that the council received at the meeting that I am sure that some bodies would rather not appear before a Select Committee of the Scottish Parliament—if they had the choice—because of the grilling that they might be subjected to. The fact that the Scottish Parliament will not have much greater powers over broadcasting is, I believe, a serious weakness.

Some of my hon. Friends have spoken of kailyard broadcasting, which I think is an insult. I tell them that the Scottish Parliament is being treated like a kailyard institution, as it will have no rights to summon representatives from one of the most important industries in Scotland—it will not be able to question the people who are responsible for broadcasting on the expenditure of Scottish taxpayers' and licence holders' money. That will be an anomaly, and it should not be allowed to happen.

The hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), who is no longer present, recollected that the Scottish Constitutional Convention executive had agreed that the powers of a Scottish Parliament should be exactly the same as those of the Secretary of State for Scotland—the convention realised only subsequently that those powers did not include broadcasting.

My recollection is that, in appendix 1 of the convention's final document—I think it was called "Scotland's Right, Scotland's Parliament"—broadcasting is clearly listed as one of the Parliament's functions. That was agreed by the Labour party, the Scottish Liberal Democrats, the Scottish Trades Union Congress, the women's organisations and the Churches—by everyone who took part in the convention's debates. We need an explanation of why what we agreed in the convention will not be implemented by the Bill.

I was recently sent the book, "Devolution and the Scotland Parliament"—I assume that other hon. Members were also sent it—written by two respected constitutional lawyers, C. M. G. Himsworth, who is a solicitor and reader in law at Edinburgh university, and C. R. Munro, who is professor of constitutional law at Edinburgh university. Hon. Members who are not lawyers or constitutional experts should take their views seriously—I accept that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is a lawyer and a constitutional expert, but he is perhaps not as learned as these Edinburgh university academics. [Interruption.] Well, perhaps he is as learned; I do not know.

The authors argue that it is not self-evident that the laws of Scotland and England should not differ on broadcasting. They do not believe that it is essential to have a unitary broadcasting authority vested in the United Kingdom Parliament. They say that there is nothing wrong with the idea that the Scottish Parliament could enact legislation on broadcasting that is different from the legislation that applies in the rest of the United Kingdom. Their views should not be as cavalierly cast aside as some hon. Members have suggested.

People who do not want the Scottish Parliament to have power over broadcasting argue, for example, that there should not be double accountability—that the BBC and the ITC cannot be accountable to both the United Kingdom Parliament and the Scottish Parliament. They argue that such double accountability would lead to confusion and would be unfair to the BBC and ITC.

On the other side of that coin, is it right that the Scottish Parliament should have no accountability whatever for broadcasting in Scotland? That cannot be a serious argument. We all recognise that, once the powers have been devolved to the Scottish Parliament, the role of the Secretary of State and the Scottish Office in the United Kingdom Parliament will, by necessity, be diminished.

The Secretary of State's influence over broadcasting policy and in the Cabinet generally will be equally diminished at Westminster, so it is essential that the Scottish Parliament has a role, to ensure that the Scottish arm of broadcasting is subject to the same accountability as under the present unitary system. We will not have a unitary system when the Scottish Parliament is up and running: we will have two Parliaments running in tandem, and it is important that they should both be able to hold to account those who are responsible for broadcasting.

Mr. Connarty

My hon. Friend knows that I respect his views on these matters, but it seems to me that he is suggesting that he agrees with those who argue that Members of this Parliament who represent Scottish constituencies should be given less weight, and that their responsibility, powers and respect in Westminster should be diminished. I am extremely worried by that theory. If responsibility for broadcasting stays here, with United Kingdom Members of Parliament elected for Scottish constituencies, surely they should have the same weight as they have now.

Mr. McAllion

They cannot have. The Secretary of State for Scotland is responsible for the budget of the Scottish Office and for all the powers that it exercises, but, after devolution, he will lose that responsibility, which will transfer to the Scottish Parliament. By definition, he will carry less weight in the Cabinet. Indeed, it has been argued that there could be only one constitutional spokesman for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland after the devolved bodies are set up.

It is natural in those circumstances that the Scottish Parliament should be given powers over broadcasting. Otherwise, a large industry in Scotland would not be subject to proper democratic scrutiny. Those of us who worked in the Scottish Constitutional Convention intended the Scottish Parliament to be responsible for that scrutiny. We cannot say in 1996 that it is essential that broadcasting be the responsibility of the Scottish Parliament and then say in 1998 that we did not really mean it. We should honour the commitment that we gave.

My hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty) raised the prospect of the Scottish Parliament trying to control broadcasters in Scotland. That is not what anyone is calling for. We want to replicate the arm's-length relationship with broadcasters that the United Kingdom Parliament has. No one suggests that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport controls the BBC, the ITC or The Sun. In fact, some might argue that The Sun controls the Department. It is a false argument to suggest that because the Scottish Parliament wants some powers over broadcasting, it wants to control it completely. It wants to subject it to democratic scrutiny, and that is a legitimate aspiration.

I take offence when people say that there is a danger of parochialism if broadcasting is overseen by people elected in Scotland by Scottish voters. They suggest that it will be kailyard broadcasting; that the Scots cannot be trusted to look after these weighty affairs; and that a Scottish "Coronation Street" or "EastEnders" would be of poor quality and no one would want to see it.

The Scots are every bit as capable of holding broadcasting to account as anyone in this Parliament. Members of Parliament who represent Scottish constituencies will be in no way better than Members of the Scottish Parliament representing the same constituencies.

Mrs. Fyfe

I am a bit concerned about my hon. Friend's line of thought. I am not aware of anyone—among Labour Members, at least—making such a claim. In fact, it would be absurd. BBC Scotland produces excellent programmes, some of which have achieved worldwide renown.

Mr. McAllion

I agree 100 per cent. that my hon. Friend would never make such an assertion, but unfortunately there are some who would argue in those terms. It strikes me that there is a metropolitan tendency that, for some people, is unavoidable in the Westminster Parliament. They think that if it is not done in the London region it cannot be good enough and that the regions outside London are, by definition, less sophisticated. That is insulting and should be resisted by every Member of Parliament.

The idea of devolution is that government can be carried on in every corner of this island just as effectively as it can be carried on here in London. Indeed, the whole argument behind devolution in the first place is that government can be conducted more effectively in that way.

British broadcasting is already over-centralised. I recently came across the statistic that only 3 per cent. of what is carried by the BBC network is from Scotland, although Scotland has 17 per cent. of the network's audience. That is not good enough: BBC Scotland is doing well, but not well enough, and more Scottish programmes should be on the BBC network, so that they can be watched throughout the United Kingdom. It would help towards that end if the Scottish Parliament had powers over broadcasting.

My hon. Friend the Secretary of State is screwing up his face. I do not know what that means. Perhaps he wants me to shut up and sit down.

Mr. Hawkins

I have been listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman. The influence of Scotland on national broadcasting goes well beyond programmes that are commissioned and made in Scotland. When James Naughtie is on an opinion-forming political programme, the Scots have a real influence over national British politics.

Mr. McAllion

If the hon. Gentleman is saying that the only way in which Scots can influence national politics is to leave Scotland, that is a very strange argument. I am glad to hear that he is following my argument closely. He must be the only Member who is.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing (Moray)

James Naughtie is a former constituent of mine, having resided in Keith for a considerable time.

Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that reporting what happens in the Scottish Parliament is important not only within Scotland and that we must look outwards and ensure that the broadcasting facilities take the messages that come from that Parliament into the international community? Those messages should not necessarily have to be sieved through the procedures of London state broadcasting.

Mr. McAllion

The hon. Lady makes an interesting point. One of the big issues will be the way in which the broadcasting authorities deal with the Scottish Parliament. The United Kingdom Parliament is ultimately responsible for the BBC and the Independent Television Commission, and can exercise influence over those who decide how parliamentary business is broadcast.

As I understand it, it is suggested not only that the Scottish Parliament should have no influence over how it should be broadcast but that this Parliament should decide what the coverage should be. That would be a matter of great concern for me, because I believe that the Scottish Parliament should be treated equally.

I hope that the BBC and ITV in Scotland, and the other Scottish media, will treat the Scottish Parliament with the same respect and interest that are accorded to this Parliament. Again and again, we come back in these debates to the old story that Westminster wants to send the message that the Scottish Parliament is in some sense inferior and that its proceedings should not be covered to the exclusion of our proceedings here. I do not agree with that.

Mr. Connarty

I wish that my hon. Friend had carried on his logic, so that I could have followed him in the quantum leap that he made, suggesting that if the Scottish Parliament makes broadcasting more accountable to it, we in Scotland will, by some process or other—osmosis, perhaps—end up being able to sell more of our programmes and producing more than 3 per cent. of the BBC network output in Scotland. I am worried by the idea that he believes that politicians have a right to interfere in the process of creativity in broadcasting. He seems to think that giving the Scottish Parliament accountability will make the programmes more acceptable to the network. I do not know how that could happen.

Mr. McAllion

As I mentioned, the Scottish Arts Council appeared before the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs. Some artists from Scotland appeared before the Committee this morning, including Mr. David MacLennan of Wildcat Stage Productions and Mr. John McGrath of Freeway Films. They said that they were delighted that, for the first time in 30 years, elected politicians would become involved in the politics of art and culture in Scotland. They thought that that would give a much higher profile to their arguments and hold an unelected quango to account, because elected politicians could ask the quango members why they had taken certain decisions.

The BBC in Scotland should be subjected to more democratic scrutiny, and that is more likely to be done in a Scottish Parliament than here. This body does not have the mechanisms for holding BBC Scotland to account. The Select Committee is more likely to be concerned about the BBC as a whole and its leadership down here in London than with Scotland. The fact that the network has only a 3 per cent. Scottish output is not a big issue for this Parliament. It would be a major issue for the Scottish Parliament and would lead to much improved argument and debate on the issues and, hopefully, the BBC in Scotland would start to perform much better.

We have already agreed that the Scottish Parliament should have responsibility for the arts, heritage, sports, tourism and film. Why can we not agree that it should also have responsibility for broadcasting? The BBC has written to hon. Members—it wrote to me, so I assume it wrote to every other hon. Member—to point out that it invests more in the cultural life of Scotland than the Scottish Arts Council. We are happy for the Arts Council, the arts, theatre, opera and ballet to be subject to the scrutiny of the Scottish Parliament. Why on earth can we not be happy for broadcasting, which is much bigger, to be subject to its scrutiny? It does not seem sensible.

7 pm

The summary sent to us by BBC Scotland tells us how well it is doing. Across Scotland, it has 10 centres and 1,000 staff. It brings in £157 million in licence fee income, has invested a total of £83 million recently in its programmes and has 670 hours of television programmes specifically for viewers in Scotland and 920 hours for the United Kingdom radio networks. Why on earth can we not say that the Scottish Parliament has a clear role to hold to account a body that is so important and has such a big impact on life in Scotland and to ask about the way in which it exercises its responsibility?

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State asked whether we wanted a separate Scottish BBC. No one is arguing for that, although I would certainly not be averse to a devolved Scottish BBC. We are arguing for accountability. Those people who operate and spend the money in Scottish broadcasting should be held to account, and the Scottish Parliament should not be excluded from the role of holding them to account. In fact, it is much better suited to holding such bodies in Scotland to account than the Westminster Parliament. That is not my merely my view, but that of the Scottish Constitutional Convention and when it drew up the blueprint for a Scottish Parliament it certainly expected that to happen.

The tabloid argument that people in Scotland are happy to watch "Crossroads", "Coronation Street" or "EastEnders" is a complete red herring. No one suggests that anyone in Scotland should be deprived of any programme on the BBC network. I see some of my hon. Friends are laughing, but one of our hon. Friends argued that earlier.

Mr. Godman

My hon. Friend is kidding.

Mr. McAllion

I do not watch any of those programmes anyway. No one is denying anyone access to the BBC UK network. We are saying that BBC Scotland should be accountable. Clearly, that must be the case.

The hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland mentioned the insensitivity of the BBC hierarchy in relation to the party political broadcast put out in Scotland immediately before the election. I could cite other examples. My hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) will confirm that the BBC has taken away resources and manpower from stations in Dundee. Who holds it to account for that? We are merely the two local Members of Parliament. I would rather have a powerful Broadcasting Committee in the Scottish Parliament, which could summon the controller in Scotland and ask questions, such as why this office is being closed or that reporter taken away, or why certain investments were being reduced. That is what should be happening, but it will not happen in this Parliament. It should happen in a Scottish Parliament.

What about listed events? Because of Sky Television and the tendency nowadays to auction to the highest bidder coverage of sporting events, we have had to list a number of major events that cannot be put out to contract or to the highest bidder, including the Scottish cup final. The Scottish Parliament would be much more likely to defend major Scottish events than would the Westminster Parliament. Therefore, I plead with my hon. Friends not to dismiss entirely the idea that the Scottish Parliament should have a major role in monitoring and overseeing broadcasting in Scotland. Throughout the debates in the convention, we always intended that that should be the case, and the Government should not be backing out now.

Mr. Hawkins

The hon. Gentleman mentioned listed sporting events, in which I have taken a big interest, along with a number of his hon. Friends. Does he agree that one thing on which there has been agreement between the previous and the new Governments is the importance of listed events? The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport has set up a new panel, which has accepted that there should be listed events. The only issue is which events should be listed. While I agree that national sporting events, both in Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom, are of vital importance, I suggest that that Cabinet Minister's decision to accept the principle of listed events, which we set up, does not support the hon. Member's argument.

Mr. McAllion

That all depends on the balance of power inside the panel set up to defend the listed events and whether it regards the Scottish cup final, or indeed the Scottish junior cup final, as a priority. The hon. Gentleman is probably grateful for the fact that the England-West Indies Test series is not a listed event and he does not have to watch it, unless he has Sky Television.

This is a serious issue. Specifically Scottish events are far more likely to be defended by a Parliament based in Scotland than by a Parliament down here which is dominated by English Members, and rightly so because of the size of the country. That is a simple point, and I hope that the my hon. Friend the Minister will take it on board.

Broadcasting was intended to be a responsibility of the Scottish Parliament. At some stage, a decision was taken to reverse that intention. I do not know why the decision was taken, what consultation was carried out beforehand or the arguments for it. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will make those matters clear when he replies to the debate.

Mr. Donald Gorrie (Edinburgh, West)

First, I reaffirm that the Liberal Democrats fully support the amendment of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe), which would ensure that the Scottish Parliament controlled equal opportunities and which will reappear at a later stage. We also support many of the arguments of the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion), which is not unusual.

What is unusual is that I thought that the speech by the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) contained a lot of good sense. As other hon. Members and I have often criticised the Conservative contribution to these debates, it seems only fair to say that, although I did not agree with all of it, it was constructive and on the right wave length, if that is the right expression in this debate. I hope that by complimenting the hon. Gentleman on it, I will not ruin his political career.

We support the first of the amendments tabled by the Scottish National party. It is regrettable that Scottish politics is such that because that party has proposed it, some hon. Members—certainly some Labour Members—feel that they have to oppose it. The Scottish nationalists may not have got all the right answers, but we agree that there must be some sort of say for the Scottish Parliament in broadcasting. It is not realistic for the Scottish Parliament to be precluded from having any opportunity to debate and discuss broadcasting and to call people before it for consultation.

The line taken by the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty) that if the Scottish Parliament had some say in broadcasting it would diminish this Parliament, is not correct. That is the faulty argument, often put up by the Conservatives, that sovereignty is indivisible. We can cheerfully have two or three different bodies—I am sure that the European Parliament discusses such things—with some input into the control of broadcasting.

The Liberal Democrats certainly do not want political control, censorship and all that sort of thing, but we think that it is reasonable to say that democratically elected Members of the Scottish Parliament could make a contribution on the subject of broadcasting, which impinges on so many other things that that Parliament will control—for example, education, the arts, sport and Gaelic. It would be ridiculous if the Scottish Parliament was promoting some considerable change in education to which broadcasting could contribute, but was not allowed to tell the broadcasters that certain types of programme would be a great help. What if the Parliament wanted to promote the arts? As the hon. Member for Dundee, East said, Scottish broadcasting puts in much more money than the Government via the Scottish Arts Council. It would be ridiculous if, for example, the broadcasting people did not give some great festival in Scotland adequate treatment, but the Scottish Parliament could not discuss with them how they could do more.

We have concentrated on ITV and the BBC during the debate, but there have been great developments in local television and radio, and in new technologies, which I do not understand. Other hon. Members must have been asked for their views by television and radio stations that they have never heard of. I have no idea whether anyone watches or listens to their programmes, but such organisations are multiplying, so not allowing the Scottish Parliament to discuss the conduct of the local radio station in Auchtermuchty, if one exists, is ridiculous.

The hon. Member for Falkirk, East was worried about political control. We should turn the argument round: all of us worry about the control exercised by media moguls such as Mr. Murdoch, and it is possible that broadcasting in Scotland might be seriously influenced by a tycoon who was thought by most Members of the Scottish Parliament to have had an adverse effect on events in Scotland.

The Scottish Parliament must be able to defend itself against the political tyranny of a media tycoon. Our amendments address that point modestly, and the Government should accept them. We suggest that the Scottish Parliament should discuss the annual reports of the BBC and ITV. Specifically, the Scottish Parliament should have a say on Gaelic broadcasting and the appointment of BBC governors in Scotland.

Our amendments and those tabled by the Scottish National party put down a marker and send a message to the broadcasting centralisers in London. The arts world in particular is over-centralised. I meet London critics who come up to the Edinburgh festival and think that it is great to get out of London for a week or two. Unless an artist appears in London, he does not appear at all so far as they are concerned. Such over-centralisation must be challenged. If the Government refuse to accept the amendments, they will be sending the message, "London rules broadcasting, OK!", which is wrong.

In the previous debate, the people who said that we had not been given enough time to debate earth shattering issues did not push them to a vote. I am a newcomer to the House, and I found that incomprehensible. I hope that the hon. Member for Perth (Ms Cunningham) will press the amendments to a vote.

Mr. Malcolm Chisholm (Edinburgh, North and Leith)

I support amendment No. 93, which was spoken to by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) and deals with the Equal Opportunities Commission. If it is rejected on the ground that it would catch other bodies, I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will take alternative action to deal with the commission's unique circumstances.

Before the White Paper was published, there was a big debate about the EOC's position. We accept that the commission will be a reserved body, because of its employment remit in particular, but, apart from its law enforcement functions, it works proactively with several organisations in devolved areas. Devolved matters are the key to issues of equality. Therefore, it is vital that the EOC has a locus in relation to the Scottish Parliament, and that objective would be met if the EOC were designated a cross-border body.

Paragraph 2.10 of the White Paper states: The Scottish Parliament will have the power to require submission of reports and the presentation of oral evidence on the activities of such bodies". Such bodies will be accountable to the Parliament, which is particularly appropriate as we are approaching the second stage of the EOC review, and it is likely that the Scottish office of the EOC will have far greater autonomy. Making the EOC a cross-border body would also help to ensure that equality issues are taken account of by the Scottish Parliament, although other amendments will address that point.

I assume that the EOC is one of the bodies dealt with by paragraph 2.11 of the White Paper, to which the hon. Member for Perth (Ms Cunningham) referred, and that it is not necessary to include those bodies in the Bill, simply because the Scottish Parliament can only invite them to submit reports.

We will miss an opportunity if we do not recognise the unique status of the EOC. If our amendment is unsuitable, I hope that other action will be taken to achieve its aims.

7.15 pm

Mr. Dalyell

As the tail-end Charlie of the debate, I hope that the Committee will forgive me for being a little bewildered as to what all the fuss is about. Wild horses would not stop Members of the Scottish Parliament approaching the broadcasting authorities. It is not in the nature of Members of Parliament to feel so restrained, and I should be astonished if anyone at Queen Margaret drive or anywhere else refused to heed representations.

I understand from the press that the current proposal differs from the original convention agreement. I am curious to know by what alchemy that happened. I look forward with curiosity to hearing the explanation.

Ms Roseanna Cunningham

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that we are concerned not about whether Mr. John McCormick would accept an invitation to speak to the Scottish Parliament, but about the very different matter of whether Mr. John Birt would accept such an invitation?

Mr. Dalyell

Mr. John Birt is a civil man, and if he were asked in a civil way, I am sure that he would accept. These matters should remain informal, unless there is another agenda—I acquit the hon. Lady and her hon. Friends of subscribing to it—under which the Parliament would control broadcasting and the media. She shakes her head vigorously. As long as such control is not the agenda, I do not see the problem.

Ms Cunningham

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that this Parliament can summon Mr. John Birt to appear, and that the Scottish Parliament will be unable to do that? I accept that a wonderful measure of good will might see us through, but he has frequently pointed out that invitations might be refused. The Westminster Parliament can require attendance, but the Scottish Parliament will be unable to do anything about a refusal.

Mr. Dalyell

I do not want to extend the discussion, because we have entered the grey area of concordats. I should not trespass into subjects about which I know little. I should just register the fact that there will be great difficulties over predatory pricing, but that, too, is a grey area.

Clause 83(5)(b) provides that subordinate legislation will detail cross-border public bodies. When will such a statutory instrument be introduced, and what consultation is being carried out on its terms, not only in Scotland, but in England? The Law Society wants that question asked, and I hope that an answer will be forthcoming.

Mr. Dewar

I have listened to the debate with considerable interest, and have been somewhat entertained as well. I do not know about Auchtermuchty local radio, but I feel that I should spring to the defence of Auchtermuchty, which—if I remember rightly—produced The Proclaimers and Jimmy Shand. Probably, in terms of the clapometer of public opinion, it has made a large contribution to Scottish culture. [Interruption.] I recognise that The Proclaimers have many interesting connections. If the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) writes to me, we will consider these matters with all proper care.

I enjoyed the performance of the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond). I am sorry that he has left the Chamber, because he is becoming a tremendous facilitator. I note that, if he thinks that his hon. Friend the Member for Perth (Ms Cunningham) is not speaking clearly enough, he repeats her question so that it can be explained again. That is an interesting tactic on the part of the leader of the pack, and I enjoy watching it.

Let me make a fundamental point. We are trying to bring about a stable division of responsibilities between Westminster and the Scottish Parliament. My hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) has said that that will turn the Scottish Parliament into a second-class Parliament—an inferior Parliament, which will be patronised. I do not agree. Some responsibilities will remain at Westminster, for what strike us as good reasons; others will go to the Scottish Parliament.

It is perfectly fair for people to argue that the division of responsibilities should be readjusted, but, following a devolutionary settlement, there will always be some matters that are not within the remit of the Scottish Parliament and others that are. That is not a mark of disrespect, or the expression of a lack of trust. It is a question of how we achieve the breakdown in a way that has a strength and an internal logic that will serve our constitution well.

I accept that there is always room for legitimate argument. I am familiar with the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe), who has a long track record—I hope that that does not sound like a sinister threat to her future—of pursuing the issue, and who has a perfectly arguable case. I take the view that one of the essential elements of the split to which I have referred is our wish to create a level playing field in the United Kingdom. That level playing field can be defined in a number of ways.

I do not think that anyone who believes in the devolution settlement would argue that company law in Scotland should be different from company law in England. Few would argue that there should be different labour laws north and south of the border. Obviously, the important financial services sector in Scotland would be enormously disadvantaged if financial services regulation differed north and south of the border. That is common sense. On balance, we have concluded that equal opportunities legislation should be on a British basis.

That does not mean that Scotland does not have an active interest in such matters; after all, we are talking about a regulatory framework. I hope that the real role of the Scottish Parliament will be to ensure that we follow best practice in Scotland, and that, in the many areas of practical politics that the Parliament will control—education, housing, law reform, and so forth—we are mindful of the need to live up to what we are trying to achieve in terms of equal opportunities. In the next few weeks, we are likely to engage in some interesting debates about the practical aspect of that.

The fact that there will not be an immediate transfer of power in relation to the regulatory mechanism does not shut us out of the field of equal opportunities. To assume otherwise is to take too defeatist a view, although I recognise and respect the energy with which the point has been put.

Mrs. Fyfe

We shall debate equal opportunities in general at a later stage, but I should like my right hon. Friend to clarify the role of the Equal Opportunities Commission in relation to the Scottish Parliament and its devolved powers. Would it act as an advisory body if the Parliament wished to proceed with legislation relating to equal opportunities in housing or training, for instance—a subject that was definitely within its remit?

Mr. Dewar

It is slightly puzzling—although I understand why it happens—that, because something has not been devolved, it is sometimes assumed that a Chinese wall has been erected and communication must stop. That is not true. It should not be thought that the EOC will not be interested in what is happening in Scotland, and will not go to Scotland to look and learn, and, perhaps, teach and encourage. Of course that process will continue, as it should. Scottish legislation will have to take account of the framework that the EOC constructed. There will be a continuing dialogue, which I welcome.

Mr. Welsh

May I ask a straightforward question? If the devolved Scottish Parliament wished to take evidence or gain information from the broadcasting media, and the media refused, what could it do, apart from saying, "Pretty please"?

Mr. Dewar

Although the hon. Gentleman is entitled to present such a doomsday scenario, I think that extremely unlikely. If it did happen, it would create a difficulty that would make the policy completely unproductive. I believe that, thus slighted, the Select Committee in the Scottish Parliament would think that its luck was in: it would probably gain more notice and more leverage. That, however, may be a cynical view.

One point that was important to the hon. Member for Perth was tackled very fairly by the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin). I am not in a partisan mood tonight, and I listened carefully to what the hon. Lady had to say. Moreover, I listened to the reprise, which resulted from a request by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan that the hon. Lady restate her position.

I entirely understand that the hon. Lady does not like what is in the White Paper, and she is entitled to argue her case; but I am not being difficult when I say that I fail to comprehend on what basis she argues that we have retreated from what is in the White Paper, or that we have betrayed the spirit of the White Paper. We have translated exactly what is in paragraph 2.11—observing the distinction between that and paragraph 2.10—to the Bill. It may be wrong, but I do not understand how it can be suggested that we are guilty of in-and-out running—that, to put it in colloquial terms, we have ratted. In that regard, I think that I am at one with the vast majority of hon. Members.

In paragraph 2.10, we refer to public bodies that deal with United Kingdom matters but also with devolved areas of responsibility. We make it clear that the Scottish Parliament, in those circumstances, would have the power to require the submission of reports and the presentation of oral evidence. We go on to make a clear distinction. That will not be the position for the other United Kingdom and Great Britain bodies that will be operating entirely in a reserved area. The Scottish Parliament will be able to invite the submission of reports and the presentation of oral evidence from those bodies.

The hon. Lady will say—indeed, I have heard her say it many times—that this is a betrayal, a tragic mistake or a lost opportunity. She can use any phrase she likes, but it is certainly not a retreat from the White Paper. I hope that she will not go around saying, in Scotland and elsewhere—on the basis of evidence that no one else can understand—that there has been a betrayal.

Mr. Dalyell

I am the last person in the world who ought to ask this question, but it was clear that the Scottish Constitutional Convention felt that responsibility for broadcasting should lie with the Scottish Parliament. There has been a change, and I am curious to know why.

Mr. Dewar

My hon. Friend's curiosity is famous, and it can be a very dangerous and damaging experience to be exposed to it, so I do not want that to happen to me. The answer to his question is, quite simply, in the logic of the point that I have just been making—that we reached the conclusion that broadcasting was part of the regulatory framework, and that it was best that it should be left on a Westminster basis.

Mrs. Ewing

Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Dewar

I really must make some progress.

Mrs. Ewing

What did you mean by "we"?

7.30 pm

Mr. Dewar

May I make a little progress? No doubt the hon. Lady will get in later if she wants to.

It seemed to me that it was best that broadcasting was organised on a Great Britain basis. We are moving into very interesting areas of technological development. I am not sure to what extent satellites and the digital revolution observe the boundary between Scotland and England. In an age when I am told that one of the great improvements to the quality of my life will be that I shall be able to switch on 40 different television channels in my house—I feel exhausted just thinking about it—I am not sure that it makes much sense to break out of the regulatory structure of the country as a whole. The decision was taken on that basis.

It is difficult for people outside the House to follow this argument, because there is not much to devolve in broadcasting. There is an interesting and important public debate about how we can put a Scottish face on the broadcasting that is received in Scotland, and about whether we can build on the excellence of Scottish broadcasting to encourage cultural life, encourage expertise and bring back the Scottish diaspora of the broadcasting world. In all those respects, devolution gives great opportunities and great grounds for optimism.

However, in terms of statutory power—the legislative power that is at the heart of the Scottish Parliament—there is very little that could be devolved. Even the BBC would be extremely difficult to devolve, because, as I said in an intervention, it is a creature not of statute but of royal charter. Therefore, in effect, we are discussing very little.

That is not to underestimate, belittle or sweep to one side the importance of broadcasting as a cultural force, as a medium for the exchange of information, or as a way of giving people a picture of the world and giving the world a picture of Scotland. All the issues that we are discussing should be discussed; it is simply that they do not necessarily depend on the legalistic argument about the regulatory mechanism.

I do not agree—although it is arguable—that it is advantageous or important for matters concerning the maintenance of fairness and balance in programming to be handed to politicians or be directly influenced or controlled by them. I take the view that, in most of these areas, politicians—for good reasons, irrespective of party—have put in buffer organisations. We say that we do not want to be a country where, if we do not like what we see on our television set, we get on to the controller of that television channel, and say, "I am the Minister and that had bloomin' well better not happen again." It seems to me that, by doing so, one threatens democracy and essential freedoms that we all understand. The role of politicians is to set the regulatory framework—hold the ring, so to speak—and allow broadcasters to use their imagination, verve and innovative powers to produce the programming we all want.

There is an important difference of approach between those who have supported the amendments in the group before us. My hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East made it clear that he did not want a separate Scottish BBC. He wanted scrutiny by the Scottish Parliament of what the BBC was doing. Of course, the hon. Member for Perth wants something very different—she wants separate Scottish broadcasting. She wants, to use an odd phrase, to repatriate the licence fees in Scotland. Presumably the Scottish BBC would then live on its own resources and on the excellence of what it can earn in addition to those resources, by selling its programmes abroad.

Those are two totally different approaches to the problem, and it is important for us to try to understand which we are going for. My view is that, if one did devolve, one would almost certainly do what my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East proposes, but he should not underestimate this Parliament's ability to influence events, to deal with the realities and to encourage and promote broadcasting in Scotland.

The hon. Member for Perth, in an interesting and startling juxtaposition, said that all sorts of things could happen in the field of broadcasting. She said that there would be not a single word from the Scottish Parliament, but that no doubt it would debate the issues. Of course it will debate the issues if it considers that those issues are relevant to it, but I do not think that we need to follow her down the road of suggesting that we want to divide, and build a boundary between, broadcasting in different parts of the United Kingdom. If we wanted to do that, it would require a great deal of discussion, thought and preparation.

I know that many friends of mine in the BBC and in other parts of the broadcasting industry would wonder about such a separation. They would worry about what would happen if they relied on Scottish licence fee income. Transmission costs in Scotland are very much heavier than in some other parts of the United Kingdom. If they were not spread over the network, they would become a specific charge.

Scotland is first class at making top-class drama, and has produced many distinguished contributions to the national network, but it costs the same to make a programme for an audience of 5 million or of 60 million. One would need to rely on the programme being bought by the big channels south of the border, but there would be no guarantee of that. Therefore, there are many uncertainties and unknowns if one follows the hon. Member for Perth down that route.

Nevertheless, my main contention is that we must accept that it is better to leave the regulations on a British basis, but that we should do all we can to encourage and promote excellence of production and of operation for broadcasting in Scotland. Of course there will be a big debate. One gets into trouble by mentioning it, because people immediately think that one is running down Scottish broadcasting. However, anyone who takes a cursory interest in these matters knows that there will be such a debate. It does not depend on whether the matter is formally devolved in terms of schedule 5 or not. The argument will take place about what is right for the viewing public, and perhaps for those who are producing for the viewing public.

Many people think that we should opt out of 9 o'clock and 10 o'clock national news bulletins and produce our own in Scotland. Others fear that it would be a regressive step, which we should not take. I am not trying to pass judgment, but that debate will continue. The real debate is about how we organise, promote and innovate within the existing regulatory framework. I am confident—very hopeful—that we shall be able to persuade, for example, the BBC that devolution is also a matter for it: that devolution within the BBC is a matter of prime importance, which it must take very seriously.

I did attend the seminar the other day. I was glad that Sir Christopher Bland was there, and that people from other parts of the network were there to listen and, I hope, to think about the consequences of what is happening and how the BBC, in terms of its charter, its aspirations and its great traditions, can respond, reflect and service the new confidence in Scotland and the broadcasting industry in Scotland.

I should like to think that devolution will give a big boost to the possibility of bringing to fruition the scheme to put a new headquarters building on Pacific quay in Glasgow, moving the headquarters from Queen Margaret drive and expanding the production facilities in a way that will be advantageous to broadcasting in Scotland.

Production facilities may be made available to independent producers. A great deal is happening there. I know of many people of talent who are returning to Scotland because they are attracted to the buzz, the movement and the excitement of the changes that will follow the constitutional reforms that I hope the House and this Parliament will agree in the next few months.

It is much more important to ensure that we do a good job in those terms than to get hooked up on a technical argument about breaking the regulatory framework of the United Kingdom without doing much to aid the really important cause of better broadcasting—better servicing of the viewing and listening public. I look forward with immense confidence, because I have a great deal of faith in the ability of the Scottish broadcasting fraternity to respond.

I hold to the view that, in a sense, the split is not as fundamental as some people have made out. A great deal will happen in the weeks ahead which I hope will be helpful in setting the pattern and making it clear that Scotland has an increasingly important and independent role to play—in a non-political sense—within the framework of United Kingdom broadcasting. The Government have made proposals for strengthening the link between the Scottish Parliament and broadcasters. The BBC, the Independent Television Commission, the Radio Authority and the Broadcasting Standards Council should remain under reserved matters in schedule 5, which means that formal accountability will remain at Westminster.

The draft executive devolution order requires consultation with Scottish Ministers in connection with the appointment of the Scottish member of the ITC, and we propose similar provisions for appointments to the Broadcasting Standards Council and the Radio Authority. That will require some adjustment to the powers of appointment to those bodies, because there is currently no separate provision for a Scottish member. That will be a new and considerable influence, which, under present arrangements, is not within the power of the Secretary of State. It will be a matter for the Scottish Executive and, ultimately, the Parliament.

There is much happening, and I think that those broadcasting bodies will lay their reports before the Scottish Parliament. Discussions on those matters are continuing, and we may later be able to report on them.

Mr. Godman

As always, I am listening carefully to my right hon. Friend. I agree that the overwhelming majority of the people I know in Queen Margaret drive are excited about the prospects of political devolution and its implications for broadcasting. I am concerned about the BBC hierarchy in London, which for years has sought to centralise the BBC. I hope that it will take on board what my right hon. Friend has said.

Mr. Dewar

There has always been tension within the BBC over how it uses its resources. To be fair, it has been under increasing pressure, perhaps because of the reluctance of politicians to increase the licence fee or to look at other forms of financial support. We appreciate the difficulties, but I agree with my hon. Friend: we must persuade not just the BBC but many other broadcasters that they have a responsibility to respond to the challenges of devolution. There are signs of that happening.

I sometimes meet people whom I have not seen in Scotland for some years, and I say, "What are you doing here?" The reply is, "I have just got a job as the new Scottish political correspondent, a job that has just been created." People in the commissioning business tell me that they are getting increased budgets and that they will be doing more business, hopefully, with independent Scottish production units in Scottish broadcasting.

The BBC is governed by royal charter, not by statute, and the Government intend that the appointment of the national governor for Scotland will be made after full consultation with Scottish Ministers. Those are important safeguards. When we compare the powers of the Secretary of State on those matters with what will be provided for the Scottish Parliament, it is clear that the cupboard is anything but empty and that considerable and welcome changes are to be introduced.

I appreciate that long speeches are not necessarily right, so I shall quickly deal with some of the issues that were raised in the debate. The hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) asked about local television. Independent cable operators are controlled by the ITC. As I have said, we intend to strengthen the Scottish input to that body by ensuring that one of its members will represent Scotland. The ITC has a Scottish office, and takes an appreciated interest in what is happening.

My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Mr. Godman) asked about a dedicated channel for Parliament. There have been no specific discussions on that, but there is much contact at the moment with the broadcasting authorities about how the new Parliament building will be serviced, and how a media centre or some such facility that will be adequate for the undoubted interest can be created. No doubt we shall look at such matters in due course.

7.45 pm

The question about the Scottish Law Commission was an interesting one. Perhaps it would be infra dig to say that it was produced like a rabbit out of a hat, but it is important.

The Scottish Law Commission was included in the draft order because it will continue to have functions that will affect United Kingdom Ministers and the law that relates to reserved matters. The contact is multi-faceted because law reform proposals in the domestic law of Scotland are bound to have a significant knock-on effect. Under current arrangements, the appointment of the chair and members of the commission are matters for the Secretary of State. We want to look at that, and I entirely agree that it is an important matter in the context of a body that is central to Scottish law.

The topic of the Social Security and Child Support Commissioners was even more unexpected as a subject for discussion. Of course social security is a reserved matter, and it will remain outwith the remit of the Scottish Parliament. It will be the preserve—I think that that is the appropriate word—of the Lord Chancellor. There will be provision for proper consultation, which will be achieved by means of the executive devolution order. The draft order was published on 5 February. It is another interesting interface for which reasonably proper and sensible provision has been made. It is clear that the debate will continue for a long time.

Mr. Wallace

The Secretary of State seems to be coming to the end of his speech. Will he answer some of the questions about Gaelic broadcasting and funding?

Mr. Dewar

I have taken some advice about that and it seems that the amendment on it is not needed. We would not have opposed it if its intention had not already been achieved. The Government's grant to the Gaelic Broadcasting Committee comes from the Scottish block, and decisions on the allocation of the fund are matters for the committee. As the Scottish block will be under the control of the Scottish Executive and, ultimately, the Scottish Parliament, that can be varied.

Mr. Dalyell

I asked about clause 83(5). There would be subordinate legislation detailing cross-border public bodies. I think that the Minister has the answer.

Mr. Dewar

I do not want to be a smart alick, but I have to say that my advisers are not there to prompt my hon. Friend. The working draft of the Cross-Border Public Bodies (Specification) Order 1999 was published yesterday, and I am sure that it can be made available to my hon. Friend. I shall check, and if there is any doubt, I am sure that we can resolve it by conversation.

There is provision in the draft executive devolution order for Government funding for Gaelic broadcasting to be the responsibility of the Scottish Executive within a regulatory framework, but the matter falls to the Scottish Executive. It will be open to Scottish Ministers, subject to the agreement of the Parliament, to vary the annual allocation of funds to the Gaelic Broadcasting Committee.

We do not need to make further provision. If there is better advice, or if some substantial worry is drawn to the attention of the hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland, he can in turn draw it to my attention. My advice is that he would be safe to let the matter drop, in the knowledge that his purpose has been well met in the existing arrangements.

I do not doubt that there will be a long argument and debate, but I am somewhat consoled by the fact that it will not be tonight, as we have only 11 minutes left on this group of amendments. I do not take a defeatist view of the debate—in fact, the very opposite. No group in Scottish life has more to gain from the changes—apart, perhaps, from politicians—or will get greater satisfaction out of the arrangements.

The Scottish people will not be forgotten. They are the masters at the end of the day, as the Conservative party knows to its cost.

Mr. Jenkin

The right hon. Gentleman is so easily amused.

Mr. Dewar

I take it from the hon. Gentleman's tone that he is not amused, which gives me some considerable satisfaction. However, we can discuss this on another occasion.

I cannot recommend the amendments to the House. I am sure that we will have much to celebrate in Scottish broadcasting in the years that lie ahead.

Ms Roseanna Cunningham

The Secretary of State surprised me with his final remarks—I think not. I draw to his attention the arrival in the Chamber of my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), who the right hon. Gentleman appears to think has come to ensure that I say precisely what he would have me say. I have known my hon. Friend for some 20 years and he has never yet succeeded in achieving the aim that the Secretary of State fondly imagines him to have. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman is right, and my hon. Friend's appearance in the Chamber is part of his continued attempt to achieve that control. However, I say to the assembled masses here that, if he has not succeeded in the past 20 years, he is certainly not going to succeed in the next 20 years. He will certainly not succeed tonight.

The fact is that I, my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan and my other hon. Friends agree because we agree, not because we are told what we must or must not think. This may surprise members of other political parties, but members of my party are able to come to some agreement. My hon. Friend the Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Morgan) is away on a parliamentary trip—

Mr. Desmond Swayne (New Forest, West)

Where has he gone?

Ms Cunningham

My hon. Friend is in Japan with the Select Committee on Trade and Industry. I am sure that he is having a wonderful time, but not as wonderful a time as we are having.

I want briefly to refer to the aspects of the amendments that relate to clause 83. Although the overall intention behind the amendments relates to the devolution of broadcasting, some other issues have been raised. I note what has been said about amendment No. 93, which is not an SNP amendment. I support the remarks about the Equal Opportunities Commission, and I look forward to the debate that we will undoubtedly have on another occasion.

Although the comments on amendment No. 93 related to the EOC, they also expressed the same underlying concern about the clause that I expressed in relation to broadcasting. I do not know whether the Secretary of State wants to accept it, or whether he wants to continue looking puzzled, but the truth is that there is concern about what all this ultimately will mean.

I hear what the right hon. Gentleman says about paragraph 2.10 of the White Paper. However, paragraph 2.11 has not been translated into the Bill. The Secretary of State is shaking his head. He is clearly trying to tell me that it does not need to be in the Bill. In that case, its inclusion in the White Paper was misdirection, which is a pity.

Our amendments are about the definition contained in clause 83. We envisage anomalies arising from that. It is all very well to say that, with good will, matters will work out—the truth is that invitations can be politely, graciously but frequently declined. We all decline invitations on occasion.

I am astonished that the debate about the devolution of broadcasting is seen as a threat to democracy. I have already quoted a number of prominent broadcasters who support our concept. I hope, and have every expectation, that Scottish broadcasting will thrive in the coming years.

I want to quote someone who is as well known to the Secretary of State as the other people I mentioned earlier. I refer to Nigel Smith, whom the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty) may think is a wild-eyed separatist, along with all the other people he thinks are wild-eyed separatists. In fact, this particular wild-eyed separatist is on the Labour party vetting committee for Scottish Parliament candidates. He is also a former member of the BBC Scottish broadcasting council, and chairman of Scotland Forward.

In a letter, Nigel Smith gives a list of issues that a Scottish Parliament could debate, but over which it would have no related powers. I recognise that some of the issues have been raised by hon. Members, but Nigel Smith's list includes Channel 5 coverage in Scotland, the sale of BBC transmitters in Scotland, cross-media takeovers and the BBC licence in Scotland. Those are all issues that Nigel Smith thinks are important. He believes not only that the Scottish Parliament should be able to debate them, but that it should have the power to do something about them.

Nigel Smith is hardly someone whom the Government would regard as a star-gazing, wild-eyed revolutionary. If they did, he would be surprised to hear it. I have already referred to the comments of the hon. Member for Falkirk, East and his attack on "Voice for Scotland", which he claimed was following a separatist agenda. I am not sure to whom he was referring. Perhaps it was Pat Chalmers, who I understand was a Liberal Democrat councillor. I am sure that he would be surprised to discover that he was thought to be a wild-eyed separatist. Equally, Ruth Wishart would be surprised to discover that, in the eyes of the hon. Gentleman, she is a wild-eyed separatist.

Mr. Connarty

rose—

Ms Cunningham

I have only three minutes left, so I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman.

It was Ruth Wishart who provided me with the newspaper analogy that the hon. Gentleman seemed to find so threatening. Perhaps he should direct his concerns and fears to that eminent person, who is undoubtedly well known to the hon. Gentleman.

Nigel Smith's letter was written to the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. He directly referred to the existing arrangements as indirect, diffuse and bound up with Scotland's small share in British broadcasting. His view is: If … Devolution is to breathe new life into Scottish affairs some care should be taken to see that vitality is properly reflected in the most important medium of the Age"— broadcasting.

It was daft to claim that we would not get the soaps in Scotland. People who suggest that should get a grip. I am happy to go on record that my preferred soap is "EastEnders". I make absolutely sure that it is taped if I am unable to watch it, as I do not want to miss it. However, it is a trivialisation of the debate to use those terms.

Nor is the debate about control—it is about having powers equivalent to those that Westminster currently has. Frankly, if it is so bad for the Scottish Parliament to have those powers, why is it acceptable for Westminster to have them? I quote Nigel Smith on that matter. He said: This appeal should not be misrepresented as an argument for controlling broadcasting. As I said, Nigel Smith is busy helping the Labour party to vet potential candidates for the Scottish Parliament. I therefore think that his views on the matter are very instructive and useful to share. I thank him.

I am grateful also to the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) for his useful contribution in explaining the position of the constitutional convention. He is an example of the cross-party support for our amendment.

The international context is important, and we need more programming in Scotland that reflects Scottish interests in overseas matters. I specifically commend "Eorpa" on meeting that need week after week. It is one of the best factual programmes on Scottish television—in Gaelic, but subtitled for the rest of us who watch it avidly. It is another programme that I tape and ensure—

It being Eight o'clock, THE CHAIRMAN, pursuant to the Order [13 January] and the Resolution [23 February], put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 42, Noes 287.

Division No. 190]	[8 pm
AYES
Allan, Richard	Cunningham, Ms Roseanna (Perth)
Baker, Norman
Ballard, Mrs Jackie	Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Beggs, Roy	Fearn, Ronnie
Beith, Rt Hon A J	Foster, Don (Bath)
Brake, Tom	George, Andrew (St Ives)
Brand, Dr Peter	Gorrie, Donald
Burnett, John	Hancock, Mike
Burstow, Paul	Harris, Dr Evan
Cable, Dr Vincent	Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)	Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Chidgey, David	Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Cotter, Brian	Kirkwood, Archy

Livsey, Richard	Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)
Llwyd, Elfyn	Stunell, Andrew
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)	Tyler, Paul
Moore, Michael	Walker, Cecil
Oaten, Mark	Wallace, James
Öpik, Lembit	Webb, Steve
Rendel, David	Willis, Phil
Russell, Bob (Colchester)	Tellers for the Ayes:
Salmond, Alex	Mr. Andrew Welsh and
Sanders, Adrian	Mr. John Swinney.

NOES
Abbott, Ms Diane	Dalyell, Tam
Ainger, Nick	Darvill, Keith
Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)	Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Allen, Graham	Davidson, Ian
Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)	Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)	Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Ashton, Joe	Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)
Austin, John	Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)
Battle, John	Dawson, Hilton
Bayley, Hugh	Dean, Mrs Janet
Beard, Nigel	Denham, John
Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret	Dewar, Rt Hon Donald
Begg, Miss Anne	Dismore, Andrew
Benn, Rt Hon Tony	Dobbin, Jim
Bennett, Andrew F	Donohoe, Brian H
Benton, Joe	Doran, Frank
Bermingham, Gerald	Dowd, Jim
Betts, Clive	Drew, David
Blackman, Liz	Drown, Ms Julia
Blears, Ms Hazel	Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Blizzard, Bob	Edwards, Huw
Boateng, Paul	Efford, Clive
Bradley, Keith (Withington)	Ellman, Mrs Louise
Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)	Ennis, Jeff
Bradshaw, Ben	Field, Rt Hon Frank
Brinton, Mrs Helen	Fisher, Mark
Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)	Fitzpatrick, Jim
Buck, Ms Karen	Fitzsimons, Lorna
Burden, Richard	Flint, Caroline
Burgon, Colin	Flynn, Paul
Butler, Mrs Christine	Follett, Barbara
Byers, Stephen	Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)	Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)	Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)	Foulkes, George
Campbell—Savours, Dale	Fyfe, Maria
Cann, Jamie	Galbraith, Sam
Caplin, Ivor	Galloway, George
Casale, Roger	Gardiner, Barry
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)	George, Bruce (Walsall S)
Chaytor, David	Gerrard, Neil
Chisholm, Malcolm	Gibson, Dr Ian
Church, Ms Judith	Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Clark, Paul (Gillingham)	Godman, Norman A
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)	Godsiff, Roger
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)	Goggins, Paul
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)	Golding, Mrs Llin
Clelland, David	Gordon, Mrs Eileen
Coffey, Ms Ann	Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Cohen, Harry	Grogan, John
Colman, Tony	Gunnell, John
Connarty, Michael	Hain, Peter
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)	Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Cooper, Yvette	Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Corbett, Robin	Hanson, David
Corston, Ms Jean	Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Cousins, Jim	Healey, John
Cranston, Ross	Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Crausby, David	Heppell, John
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)	Hesford, Stephen
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)	Hinchliffe, David
Cunliffe, Lawrence	Hodge, Ms Margaret
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)	Hoey, Kate

Hoon, Geoffrey	Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Hope, Phil	Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Hopkins, Kelvin	O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Howarth, Alan (Newport E)	O'Hara, Eddie
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)	Olner, Bill
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)	Organ, Mrs Diana
Hurst, Alan	Palmer, Dr Nick
Hutton, John	Pendry, Tom
Iddon, Dr Brian	Perham, Ms Linda
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)	Pickthall, Colin
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)	Pike, Peter L
Jamieson, David	Plaskitt, James
Jenkins, Brian	Pollard, Kerry
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)	Pope, Greg
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)	Pound, Stephen
	Powell, Sir Raymond
Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)	Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)	Primarolo, Dawn
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)	Purchase, Ken
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)	Quin, Ms Joyce
Jowell, Ms Tessa	Quinn, Lawrie
Keeble, Ms Sally	Rammell, Bill
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)	Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)
Kelly, Ms Ruth	Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)
Kemp, Fraser
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)	Rogers, Allan
Kidney, David	Rooker, Jeff
Kilfoyle, Peter	Rooney, Terry
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)	Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Ladyman, Dr Stephen	Roy, Frank
Lawrence, Ms Jackie	Ruane, Chris
Lepper, David	Salter, Martin
Leslie, Christopher	Sawford, Phil
Levitt, Tom	Sedgemore, Brian
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)	Sheerman, Barry
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)	Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Linton, Martin	Short, Rt Hon Clare
Livingstone, Ken	Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)	Singh, Marsha
Lock, David	Skinner, Dennis
Love, Andrew	Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
McAllion, John	Smith, John (Glamorgan)
McAvoy, Thomas	Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
McCabe, Steve	Snape, Peter
McCafferty, Ms Chris	Soley, Clive
McDonagh, Siobhain	Squire, Ms Rachel
Macdonald, Calum	Starkey, Dr Phyllis
McFall, John	Stevenson, George
McGuire, Mrs Anne	Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary	Stinchcombe, Paul
Mackinlay, Andrew	Stott, Roger
McLeish, Henry	Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin
McNamara, Kevin	Straw, Rt Hon Jack
McNulty, Tony	Stringer, Graham
MacShane, Denis	Sutcliffe, Gerry
Mactaggart, Fiona	Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
McWilliam, John
Mahon, Mrs Alice	Taylor, David (NW Leics)
Mallaber, Judy	Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)
Mandelson, Peter	Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)	Tipping, Paddy
Marshall, David (Shettleston)	Touhig, Don
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)	Trickett, Jon
Martlew, Eric	Truswell, Paul
Michael, Alun	Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)	Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)
Milburn, Alan	Twigg, Derek (Halton)
Mitchell, Austin	Vis, Dr Rudi
Moonie, Dr Lewis	Walley, Ms Joan
Moran, Ms Margaret	Ward, Ms Claire
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)	Wareing, Robert N
Morley, Elliot	Watts, David
Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)	Whitehead, Dr Alan
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)	Wicks, Malcolm
Mudie, George	Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)
Mullin, Chris

Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)	Worthington, Tony
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)	Wray, James
Wilson, Brian	Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)
Winnick, David	Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)	Wyatt, Derek
Wise, Audrey	Tellers for the Noes:
Wood, Mike	Ms Bridget Prentice and
Woolas, Phil	Mr. Kevin Hughes.

Question accordingly negatived.

THE CHAIRMAN then proceeded to put forthwith the Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.

Clause 83 ordered to stand part of the Bill.