LORDS AMENDMENTS IN LIEU (Hansard, 27 July 1978)

§ The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND (Lord McCluskey)
My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on Amendments in lieu Nos. 1 to 3 to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 4. When the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, pressed these Amendments he said that he did so because he believed that the other place should be given the opportunity to discuss the matter, which they had not been able to do at the previous stage. The other place have now had the opportunity as a result of what this House did at the invitation of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy. They have clearly expressed their support for the Government's view. Your Lordships may know that the matter was debated for some two hours in the other place and the Government's view was supported by a majority of 33 in a substantial vote.
Briefly, on the merits we believe that the requirement for the consent of the 952 Minister for the Civil Service as to the numbers and grades of staff of the Scottish Executive would provide for unnecessary intervention by a United Kingdom Minister in the affairs of the Assembly. We have always sought to exclude unnecessary intervention and we still do. The other place have now considered this matter and they have decided that they cannot agree to these Amendments. I trust therefore that noble Lords opposite, and the House, will be content to let the matter rest there. I beg to move.

Lord CAMPBELL of CROY
My Lords, we are grateful to the noble and learned Lord for having briefly restated the Government's case. Last Thursday, this House referred to another place three of the issues remaining between the Government and these Benches. Only one has returned, and it is this group of Amendments. On the subjects of what is known as the "West Lothian question" and forestry, the Commons yesterday agreed with our Amendments.
It is gratifying that the variations of previous Amendments, which were devised and voted upon by your Lordships, have now found favour with a majority in another place. It is a vindication of the revising and redrafting skills of your Lordships. We still think, as regards this group of Amendments, that the Bill would have been improved if the manner in which an unknown number of new Departments are to be established in Edinburgh had been accepted, too; but I will say at the outset that I am not recommending to the House that we should insist on this group of Amendments. After all, two out of three is not a bad score! I suggest we should now be content, for these Amendments have achieved part of their purpose.
First, they have been discussed in another place. On the previous occasion there was no discussion of the variations of the Amendments because of the guillotine. Secondly—and I think this is more important—they have elicited at least one important assurance from the 953 Government. The Minister has said that the United Kingdom Government will determine the initial staff levels. That meets most of what is required by our Amendments. Indeed, it goes further than our Amendments would have done at the initial stage, because the United Kingdom Government are "to determine" rather than merely "consenting". We cannot see why on earth this should not have been put into the Bill; but once the new Scottish Executive has taken over there is nothing in the Bill to stop them expanding, doubling or trebling the establishment, if they think fit. In that way the initial level set by the United Kingdom Government could be nullified unless some control is retained through the Civil Service Department. My own reading between the lines of the Government's statement is that this control will in fact be retained, for if the Minister's statement about initial staff levels is to have any real meaning, subsequent staff levels are bound to be a matter of continuing dialogue between Edinburgh and London. It seems, therefore, that the Government intend to carry out by administrative means very much what we intended in these Amendments.
The number of Scottish Secretaries is still unknown. This was debated on probing Amendments during earlier stages in this House. We then agreed that there was some strength in the argument not to put a maximum number into the Bill, because that maximum might then become the target and more Scottish Secretaries might be brought into existence than was necessary. Again, it is reassuring that the United Kingdom Government will determine the initial establishments: whether there are to be 20 new Departments with 20 Scottish Secretaries, or five, and the numbers and grades of civil servants will no doubt be set out accordingly.
We agree with the Reason numbered 4 which the other place have sent to us. The appointments should be the concern of Scottish Secretaries: there has been no argument about that. What we have said is that in addition it should be of concern to the first Secretary, as head of the Scottish Executive. It should also be a matter of interest, to put it no higher than that, to the Minister for the Civil 954 Service. He is in charge of the whole Civil Service, from whose ranks the appointments are to be filled. In recent years he has been a Member of your Lordships' House, and he is now. He must be concerned, and I am sure that he and his predecessors have been concerned, with the welfare of the home Civil Service, with their careers and with standards. We believe it would have been better to acknowledge his position in the text of the Bill.
I have only two more points to make. The first arises from the debate yesterday evening in another place on this group of Amendments. The second concerns the effect of our Parliamentary debates on the public in Scotland. On the first point, a Labour Member of Parliament suggested—and I shall, of course, paraphrase and summarise what he said in order to observe the convention that exists between the two Houses—that this House should restrict itself to subjects within its expertise in dealing with this group of Amendments. For his enlightenment and for the enlightenment of those who may have been misled, I am sure unwittingly, by what he said, I should like to say that this House is singularly well equipped and supplied with expertise on the subject. As I pointed out on an earlier occasion, it includes former Ministers for the Civil Service on both sides. There are distinguished Cross-Benchers, who have spent their working lives in the home Civil Service until retirement, and who supported these Amendments here in the Division Lobbies.
I cannot compare myself with them but I am not a novice in these matters and I moved these Amendments. In all modesty I can say that I have some credentials, because I was myself a professional civil servant before entering Parliament, and although I was in what was then called "the Foreign Service" and worked in Foreign Office posts abroad, I was for a period assigned to the home Civil Service to be the private secretary of the late Lord Normanbrook when he was Secretary of the Cabinet. I worked personally for him and also for the late Lord Bridges, both of whom I regard as among the greatest of our heads of the Civil Service. I could not have failed to learn something from them about the system and the Service.
955 My second point is that I must dispel some false impressions which are being given currency in Scotland about our proceedings in Parliament upon this Bill. Many letters have appeared in the Press, and there have been comments elsewhere in Scotland, to the effect that the Lords have "mutilated" or "mangled" this Bill. It is important to get the facts straight. We do not, as I have said, intend to insist on this group of Amendments. As a result, there will have been 11 subjects on which the Government disagreed with us, causing Divisions in which they lost in this House but on which the Amendments have found their way into the Bill: they are now in the Bill. I will not enumerate many other Amendments made by the Government, or the points which they have conceded, because I know that my noble friend Lord Ferrers intends to say some words about that; but on all these 11 subjects— among them doctors' and dentists' pay and conditions, betting and gaming and the six weeks' minimum period for the referendum campaign—the Amendments were accepted or made by Divisions in another place. On every single one of the 11, the Lords' view was endorsed by the other place. So when the word "mangling" is used, it cannot be attributed to this House.

Several noble Lords
Hear, hear!

Lord CAMPBELL of CROY
My Lords, there are some on all sides of this House and, I understand, also in another place, who would have liked to apply "a ringer" to this Bill and consider that the Bill would have benefited from it. But in the interests of truth and accuracy, it must clearly be stated that that was not done by this House. We provided the other place with opportunities to discuss subjects, particularly those which had not been discussed as a result of the guillotine. We also enabled them to have second thoughts and to take some of these decisions. They took those final decisions, which have led to the Amendments which are now incorporated in the Bill.
I believe that we have carried out the traditional role of this House, as I have always understood it, as a revising Chamber, which has enabled another place to think again. I trust that the media in Scotland will now point out, when necessary, to those members of the 956 public who aspire to have letters published about these Parliamentary proceedings, or to pontificate in broadcasts, that any statement that the Lords have wrecked or mutilated this Bill would be no longer in the category of a simple mistake, but would be a thoroughly misleading and inexcusable mischief.

§ Lord McCLUSKEY
My Lords, I had not quite expected the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, to broaden the matter as much as he has done and I shall not follow him entirely. But he mentioned the "West Lothian Amendment", as it is known, as if this were a matter for pride and self-congratulation. My Lords, it is not. Every one knows that this Amendment is misconceived, offensive in principle and probably unworkable in practice. No one believes that it will ever work and few believe that the Resolution which is necessary to bring that clause into effect will ever be passed by the other place.
May I just say this, in relation to the note of self-congratulation that entered the words of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy: We know why the SNP and Plaid Cymru voted for that clause last night. They have made it plain that they see that clause as a possible step to separate Scotland and Wales, and to provide separate Parliaments for those countries. That is a proposition which, from them, we can understand. What we fail to understand is how it could be that the official Opposition, the Party to which the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, belongs, followed the nationalist Parties into the Lobbies in order to vote for that destructive clause. However, they will no doubt explain that in their own way on another occasion.
As to the role of the House of Lords, I had expected that the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, would make some observations about that. I did not expect a trailer from the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy. I do not suggest, and will not suggest, that this House has mangled or mutilated the Bill, and, indeed, when I come to reply to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, on that matter I may say that in some detail.