COMMONS AMENDMENT (Hansard, 30 October 1975)

§ Lord KIRKHILL
My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 14, and I think I could associate with this Motion Amendment No. 53, which is linked. During the Committee stage of the Bill in your Lordships' House, the Government stated the principle that their relationship with the Scottish Development Agency should be as open as possible and that therefore all directions to the Agency, both general and specific, should be reported to Parliament. However, there may be occasions on which the publication and reporting to Parliament of a direction within this time period could create serious difficulties for the SDA, especially, for example, if they were directed to acquire shares or other property. A direction to this effect is likely to be a rare event, but the result of such a direction becoming widely known could well be to force up the 681 price, to the Agency's disadvantage. The Amendment therefore provides that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State may, for suitable reasons, decide not to inform Parliament of a direction within the normal 28-day period. If he does this he must, when the direction is eventually laid before Parliament, accompany it with a statement explaining why the direction was not laid within 28 days. I beg to move.

Lord CAMPBELL of CROY
My Lords, this set of Amendments, which I understand was introduced while the Bill was in passage through another place, raises the question of the responsibilities of different Ministers. Life in Scotland is getting very complicated in this respect, not only with regard to the roles of Ministers but also the new bodies being created. Here we have the Secretary of State for Industry, who is the sponsoring Minister for the large majority of industry in Scotland; but there is also the Secretary of State for Scotland, who has responsibility for administering certain grants to industry, and this Scottish Development Agency, which will also be administering grants on behalf of Ministers. The writ of the National Enterprise Board, which we were considering in the Industry Bill earlier today, also runs in Scotland, and it has certain functions there. If that was not enough, the British National Oil Corporation, which we were considering yesterday and shall be considering again tomorrow, is going to be more active in Scotland than anywhere else in Britain. That also has powers so far as industry is concerned, and is able to take part in industry; for example, it is able to be involved in the petrochemico industry.
There really is a serious danger of collisions and overlapping, with two Ministers who are able to get grants for various services and all these bodies that I have mentioned. There is one other. In a large part of Scotland the Highland Development Board is already in existence, and that is another statutory body which is giving grants and loans to industry. There is, therefore, as I have said, a danger of confusion among those in industry as to which body or Minister 682 is responsible for what, and to whom they should go when they need assistance of various kinds. I know these Amendments are designed to try to help straighten out part of that situation, but I wanted to point out that Scotland is going to suffer from a multiplicity of agencies in a way that the rest of the United Kingdom will not, or will not so much.

§ Lord TANLAW
My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord can help me here. He implied that this Amendment is needed in case of a leak in security which might affect share prices—at least, that is the instance he gave. Could the noble Lord say whether the management of the Scottish Development Agency will be asked to sign any form of nondisclosure document concerning secrecy of this kind? These people involved in management may not be covered by the Ministerial or Civil Service documents of non-disclosure which would normally apply, or indeed banking documents of non-disclosure, which are quite normal. What I am in effect asking is: will the top management of the SDA be asked to sign such a document of non-disclosure of specialised information?

§ Lord KIRKHILL
My Lords, if I may first respond briefly to the points which the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, made, certainly it is my conviction that it is the Government's wish to be open, to be above board, and to be seen to be clear in all Government initiative relative to the purposes of the Scottish Development Agency which leads the Government to suggest that this Amendment should indeed be supported. I am aware that not only in Scotland but generally in countries other than Great Britain, there is a tendency towards proliferation so far as central boards and bodies of a public nature and character are concerned. Nevertheless, I hold very sincerely to the view that the Scottish Office is an open door to anyone who feels that a channel of communication is not available to him, and I am myself satisfied that any request made to that Office is quickly acted upon. Furthermore, as the noble Lord well knows, the Scottish Press tends to be very clear and explicit at each hint even of minor misunderstanding at Government level. Thus I believe that this Amendment seeks to 683 keep the door widely open and should be encouraged, and should, I think, be supported by those of us who are Members of your Lordships' House.
In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, I would say that the members of the Agency will be expected to conform to the normal rules of business confidence, and there are ample safeguards for this. For instance, so far as I know there has never been any trouble with those who were members of, for example, the Highlands and Islands Development Board.