SCOTLAND BILL

HL Deb 08 June 1978 vol 392 cc1473-549

8.2 p.m.

Further considered on Report.

[Amendments Nos. 65B, 65C and 65D not moved.]

Clause 22 [Subordinate instruments]:

Lord KIRKHILL moved Amendment No. 66: Page 11, line 32, leave out from ("apply") to end of line 35 and insert ("where the power is exercised in any of the circumstances specified in paragraphs 1 to 3 of Schedule 3 to this Act or is such a power as is mentioned in paragraph 4 of that Schedule and is exercised as mentioned in that paragraph.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a technical Amendment paving the way for Amendment No. 67 to which we shall be coming next. Both Amendments are concerned with special Parliamentary procedure. Generally, the orders to which special Parliamentary procedure applies are those which make provision of a kind which might otherwise have required the passage through Parliament of a local or private Act. Clause 22(3) provides that special Parliamentary procedure be retained in those circumstances set out in Schedule 3. For other circumstances, the Assembly is empowered to devise its own special assembly procedure, if it so wishes. At present Schedule 3 is set out in two columns; the first lists enactments which make provision for special Parliamentary procedure, and the second column sets out in each case the circumstances where special Parliamentary procedure is to continue to apply after devolution.

The Government are proposing in Amendment No. 67 to alter the form of Schedule 3 so that it is expressed in more general terms applicable to any enactment providing for special Parliamentary procedure. Its effects, however, will be broadly the same. This Amendment, No. 66, alters the wording of Clause 22 to take account of the proposed new Schedule 3. It is entirely a paving Amendment. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 3 [Powers of Scottish Secretary to make or confirm orders subject to special parliamentary procedure]:

8.5 p.m.

Lord KIRKHILL moved Amendment No. 67: Page 47, leave out from beginning of line 36 to end of line 38 on page 48 and insert—

("Circumstances in which special parliamentary procedure applies or may apply

1. If objection in pursuance of the enactment conferring the power is made by excepted statutory undertakers or by a navigation authority.

2. If the power is exercised in relation to land of excepted statutory undertakers or land held by a local authority for the purpose of reserved functions.

3. If the power is exercised in relation to the rights, or apparatus, or powers and duties of excepted statutory undertakers.

4. If the power is a power to make or confirm a compulsory purchase order and is exercised in relation to land belonging to the National Trust for Scotland which is inalienable under section 22 of the Order confirmed by the National Trust for Scotland Order Confirmation Act 1935.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords your Lordships have just accepted Amendment No. 66, which of course paves the way for this Amendment, and I can advise your Lordships that this Amendment involves no change in policy. Schedule 3 is concerned with special Parliamentary procedure. The Bill devolves powers to make and confirm a number of orders which are currently subject to special Parliamentary procedure. Some of these orders, although dealing with devolved matters, may adversely affect the interests of statutory undertakers and other bodies operating in reserved areas. It is important to ensure that where this is the case special Parliamentary procedure should continue to apply in the same way as at present, so that the bodies operating in reserved areas have the protection of Parliament. As your Lordships will be aware, special Parliamentary procedure may involve an order coming before a Joint Committee of both Houses, before which interested parties may appear.

The purpose of Schedule 3 is to set out the circumstances where special Parliamentary procedure will continue to apply after devolution. The present Schedule 3 lists, by reference to particular enactments, the circumstances in which orders affecting reserved bodies will continue to be subject to special Parliamentary procedure. These bodies are, first, excepted statutory undertakers. These are defined in Clause 79(1) and are, in broad terms, statutory undertakers for whom Government Ministers will continue to be responsible; examples are the Electricity Boards and the Post Office. Then, secondly, navigation authorities, which are also defined in Clause 79(1); thirdly, local authorities acting in respect of reserved functions set out in Schedule 15. Perhaps I might make the point at this stage that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, who is not with us at the moment, will be pleased to note that in paragraph 2 of the new Schedule the Government have anticipated his Amendments to change the references to reserved functions for the purposes of Schedule 15 to "scheduled functions". I think this will meet the noble Lord's point. Another body is the National Trust for Scotland, in respect of its inalienable land.

The new Schedule 3 which we now propose has precisely the same effect as the existing one in respect of the enactments listed there. But instead of being expressed by reference to particular enactments it is expressed in plain words by reference to specified circumstances. I would suggest to your Lordships that this has two advantages. First, it is by its nature more complete; there is no danger of any enactment being omitted. Secondly, it sets out more clearly on the face of the Schedule what it is designed to achieve; there is no need to look up particular enactments to discover what its effect is. Put quite simply, when an Act contains provision for special Parliamentary procedure one must check against the circumstances set out in Schedule 3 to see whether special Parliamentary procedure will continue to apply after devolution.

My Lords, if the entries in the present Schedule 3 are examined, each is now caught by one of more of the paragraphs in the proposed new Schedule. For example, the old entry for Section 222 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972 is now caught by paragraph 3 of the proposed new provision. All the other entries stand up to similar examination. The new Schedule 3 will, therefore, continue to preserve all the rights to special Parliamentary procedure itemised in the old provision. And it will do so, I suggest, in a way which is more complete and will certainly be more helpful to the reader of the Bill. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Lord Alport)

My Lords, in view of the passing of Amendment No. 67, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 67A or 67B.

Schedule 4 [Statutory powers exercisable with concurrence or subject to consent or approval of a Minister of the Crown].

8.9 p.m.

Lord KIRKHILL moved Amendment No. 68:

Page 49, line 31, at end insert—

("The New Towns (Scotland) Act 1968, section 36.

Extension or modification of powers and duties of excepted statutory undertakers.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is the first of a series of Amendments which deal in one way or another with what the Bill terms as "excepted statutory undertakers". It is a minor technical Amendment, as are most of the other Amendments. It might be for the convenience of the House if, in proposing this Amendment, I explain in general terms the approach of the Bill to excepted statutory undertakers, particularly in relation to planning matters. I shall then be somewhat briefer on subsequent Amendments.

Unlike other bodies which might be affected by planning decisions, statutory undertakers by definition have statutory duties to fulfil; for example, to provide households with gas or electricity. Existing planning legislation, therefore, contains special provisions to ensure that the statutory duties of undertakers are taken fully into account before decisions are taken which might affect them. These provisions are to be found particularly in the New Towns (Scotland) Act 1968, the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972 and the Community Land Act 1975. Many are common form provisions which are simply repeated in each Act.

After devolution some statutory undertakers will be operating in devolved areas for example, the Scottish Transport Group. But many others such as British Rail and the Post Office will be entirely reserved and will continue to be responsible to Ministers. These undertakers are defined in Clause 79 of the Bill and are termed, perhaps not too elegantly, as "excepted statutory undertakers". Town and Country Planning will, however, be devolved as a general matter by Group 6 of Part I of Schedule 10 and it is necessary therefore for the Scotland Bill to provide a protection for the interests of excepted statutory undertakers where planning matters affect them.

For ordinary planning applications and appeals the protection is the general intervention procedure of Schedule 14. But there are a number of other matters where more specific treatment is required. Fortunately the Scotland Bill is able to borrow from the structure of existing legislation. Generally, planning legislation provides that decisions in respect of statutory undertakers should be taken either by the "appropriate Minister" (for example, the Secretary of State for Transport in the case of British Rail) or by the appropriate Minister and the planning Minister acting jointly.

In general terms, the approach of the Bill is to reserve in respect of excepted statutory undertakers any power exercisable solely by the appropriate Minister. Joint powers are more difficult because it would be constitutionally wrong for the Bill to require the appropriate Minister to act jointly with the Scottish Secretary responsible for planning. In most cases the solution to this problem adopted by the Bill is to devolve the provision outright to the Scottish Secretary, but then to make the exercise of the powers concerned subject to ministerial consent. For that reason Schedule 4 is very important in dealing with the position of excepted statutory undertakers after devolution.

The Government have been reviewing all the entries in the Bill relating to excepted statutory undertakers and the upshot is that a number of technical Amendments are required to ensure that the policy is correctly achieved. The first one, which is before us now, illustrates the Government's approach. Section 36 of the New Towns (Scotland) Act 1968 provides that where an order to wind up a new town development corporation affects the duties of a statutory undertaker, then the order should be made jointly by the Secretary of State for Scotland and the appropriate Minister. Schedule 10 to the Bill devolves the power to make an order under Section 36, but the Amendment secures that where the order affects the duties of an excepted statutory undertaker it should be made only with the consent of a Minister. That is a brief explanation of the Government's general approach and the reason for the series of technical Amendments which will follow. I beg to move.

Earl FERRERS

My Lords, I apologise for not having been in my place when the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, began to explain these Amendments, but we are grateful to him for explaining them in the way in which he has done. I should like to express, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy, his appreciation of the fact that the Amendments which he had put down have, in fact, been incorporated in the Government's Amendments. We are most grateful.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

8.13 p.m.

Lord KIRKHILL moved Amendment No. 69:

Page 49, line 31, at end insert—

(" The Transport Act 1968, sections 7, 8 and 29.	The making of a scheme or order for the transfer of any property, rights or liabilities to or from the Scottish Transport Group or any of its subsidiaries.
The Transport Act 1968, section 135(6).	If the exercise of the power relates to a case where the Scottish Transport Group is a compensating authority.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 69. This is the first of a series of technical Amendments concerning the relations between the Scottish Transport Group and other nationalised transport industries. Again, it might be for the convenience of the House if, in explaining this Amendment, I also make some reference to later Amendments which are related to it. They are Amendments Nos. 74, 141, 142 and 203. The Amendments are necessary because the Bill as it stands fails to reflect accurately the policy requirements relating to a series of complex statutory provisions.

The Transport Act 1968 is concerned primarily with the organisation and re-organisation of the nationalised transport industries. Of these industries the Scottish Transport Group, whose activities include bus, road freight and ferry services, is to be devolved. But British Rail, the National Bus Company and the National Freight Corporation are to be reserved.

The provisions of the Act dealt with in this Amendment need special treatment because they are all concerned with relations between devolved and reserved transport industries. Sections 7 and 8 are both concerned with schemes between the industries for their reorganisation or for the transfer from one to the other of property, rights or liabilities; those parts of Section 29 which are not spent are concerned with the transfer of ferry services between British Rail and the Scottish Transport Group; Section 135(6) is concerned with compensation by transport industries subsequent to reorganisation.

All of these provisions currently contain ministerial powers exercisable jointly by the Secretary of State for Scotland (who is responsible for the Scottish Transport Group) and the Secretary of State for Transport (who is responsible for the other industries). After devolution it is necessary to ensure that both the Scottish Secretary responsible for the Scottish Transport Group and the Secretary of State for Transport participate in these powers, but in a way which does not require them to exercise the powers jointly. The Government regard any joint exercise of powers by a Minister and a Scottish Secretary as constitutionally unsatisfactory, and this is always avoided in the Bill.

Our proposed solution for these provisions is in three stages. First that they should be amended in Schedule 16 so that the requirement for the joint exercise of powers is deleted (Amendment No. 203). Secondly, that they should be devolved in Schedule 10 so far as the Scottish Transport Group is involved in any transfer of property (Amendment No. 141 achieves this and Amendent No. 142 deletes previous unsatisfactory provisions). Thirdly—and here we come at last to the Amendment under discussion—that the powers may only be exercised by a Scottish Secretary if a Minister—in practice the Secretary of State for Transport—consents.

I hope that your Lordships will agree that this arrangement takes account both of the Scottish administration's interest in the Scottish Transport Group and of the Government's interest in the other industries concerned. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lord KIKKHILL moved Amendment No. 70:

Page 50, column 2, leave out lines 3 to 6 and insert—

("The making of an order against an excepted statutory undertaker.")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 70. This is another in the series of technical Amendments dealing with the position of excepted statutory undertakers to which I referred when introducing Amendment No. 68. Section 219 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972 is concerned with orders, made subsequent on a compulsory purchase order, to extinguish a right of way of a statutory undertaker or to remove his apparatus. If the undertaker objects, then the acquiring authority requires the approval of the Secretary of State and the appropriate Minister.

The Government's intention is that the ministerial powers of approval should be devolved, but made subject to consent in cases where the rights or apparatus concerned are those of an excepted statutory undertaker. The present Schedule 4 entry achieves this. But it also goes wider than intended, by providing for consent even where the excepted statutory undertaker is the acquiring authority. This is not the intention and the Amendment puts the matter right. I beg to move.

Earl FERRERS

My Lords, I could not help wondering what the "apparatus of an undertaker" was: I assume that it is not a coffin!

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lord KIRK HILL moved Amendment No. 71:

Page 50, column 2, leave out line 24 and insert—

("The making of an order against an excepted statutory undertaker.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 71. This is another Amendment in the series of technical Amendments relating to excepted statutory undertakers. This Amendment achieves precisely the same effect as the previous Amendment about which we have just spoken—Amendment No. 70—but this time in relation to the parallel provision which appears in paragraph 17 of Schedule 4 to the Community Land Act. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lord KIRKHILL moved Amendment No. 72: Page 50, line 25, leave out ("paragraph 17") and insert ("paragraphs 17 and 18(1)(b)").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 72. This is another technical Amendment in relation to excepted statutory undertakers. It concerns the exercise of the power in paragraph 18(1)(b) of Schedule 4 to the Community Land Act. This is a power exercisable jointly by the Secretary of State and the appropriate Minister. It is closely linked with the joint power in paragraph 17 of Schedule 4 to the Act, the exercise of which is devolved, but subject to ministerial consent where an excepted statutory undertaker is concerned. The Amendment provides that the power in paragraph 18(1)(b) is likewise to be subject to consent in the same circumstances. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER

My Lords, I have to advise your Lordships that, if Amendment No. 73 is agreed, I cannot call Amendment No. 73A.

8.20 p.m.

Lord KIRKHILL moved Amendment No. 73:

Page 50, column 2, leave out lines 26 to 30 and insert— ("If—

1. (a) the land in respect of which the order is made, or an interest or right in the land, is held by an excepted statutory undertaker for the purposes of its undertaking or by a local authority, or any body formed by local authorities, for the purposes of reserved functions; and
2. (b) the undertaker, authority or body have duly objected to the making of the order and have not withdrawn their objection.").

The noble Lord said: Once again, this is a technical Amendment and is primarily concerned with excepted statutory undertakers. The last entry of Schedule 4 provides that any devolved power to make or confirm a compulsory purchase order should be subject to ministerial consent if it concerns land held by an excepted statutory undertaker or by a local authority for the purposes of a function listed in Schedule 15.

The Amendment alters the entry in three respects. First, it extends it scope so that it relates not just to land but to other interests and rights. Second, it ensures that ministerial consent is required in respect of the land of excepted statutory undertakers only where the land is held for the purposes of their undertaking. This is a formula used in other legislation which ensures that recreational land et cetera is not given any special protection. Thirdly, it ensures that ministerial consent is not required if the excepted statutory undertaker or local authority affected by the order have not actually made, and failed to withdraw, an objection to the order. Thus there will be no need to involve Ministers in uncontroversial orders to which there is no objection. The purpose of the Amendment is to lend greater precision to the entry for compulsory purchase orders. I beg to move.

Earl FERRERS

My Lords, this Amendment incorporates the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy. We are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, and to his colleagues for having accepted the principle of my noble friend's Amendment.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 73A not moved.]

Schedule 5 [Enactments conferring powers exercisable concurrently]:

8.22 p.m.

Lord KIRKHILL moved Amendment No. 74: Page 50, line 40, leave out ("sections 29(5) and") and insert ("section").

The noble Lord said: This is another in the series of technical Amendments concerning the relations between the Scottish Transport Group which is to be devolved, and other nationalised transport industries which are to be reserved. It is related to a number of other Amendments including Amendment No. 69 to Schedule 4, which has already been discussed.

Section 29(5) of the Transport Act 1968 is concerned with the transfer of ferry services between British Rail and the Scottish Transport Group. The Secretary of State for Scotland, who is responsible for the Scottish Transport Group and the Secretary of State for Transport, who is responsible for British Rail, may act jointly to make orders in respect of such transfers. It is necessary to ensure that after devolution both the Scottish Secretary responsible for the Scottish Transport Group and the Secretary of State for Transport have a say in the making of orders under Section 29(5) so that the devolved and reserved interests are both represented. The Government's view is that this is best achieved by devolution subject to consent. This is achieved by Amendment No. 69, which we have already discussed, and Amendments Nos. 141, 142 and 203, which we shall come to later.

The purpose of this Amendment is to delete from the Bill an alternative approach which the Government on reflection do not consider appropriate. As the Bill stands, the power to make orders under Section 29(5) is concurrent. Unlike the other entries in Schedule 5, this is not an apt use of concurrency. It would enable a Scottish Secretary to make an order against the will of the Secretary of State for Transport in a matter which has important implications for reserved matters. In the Government's view devolution, subject to ministerial consent, as provided for in the other linked Amendments, provides a better protection for the reserved responsibility for British Rail. I beg to move that your Lordships accept this Amendment.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

8.26 p.m.

Lord KIRKHILL moved Amendment No. 74A: Page 51, leave out line 2.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a paving Amendment for a later Amendment to Schedule 16—Amendment No. 204. There is a further related Amendment to Schedule 11, Amendment No. 159A. The Amendments all relate to Section 7 of the Local Employment Act 1972, which concerns ministerial grants and loans for infrastructure services for industry in development and intermediate areas.

As my noble and learned friend Lord McCluskey explained in the debate on Schedule 5 during Committee stage, the Government's policy is that Ministers should, after devolution, continue to be able to make grants and loans under Section 7 of the 1972 Act in respect of all infrastructure services within the scope of the provisions of that section. This is appropriate because the Government will remain responsible for industrial development and regional policy. However, the Scottish Executive will, in other contexts, be responsible for certain infrastructure services, such as roads and sewers. It is, therefore, appropriate that they should have a concurrent power to make grants and loans under Section 7 of the 1972 Act in respect of those particular devolved services—but not in respect of services, such as gas and electricity, which are to be reserved. The power in Section 7 is limited to the making of grants and loans, and therefore there should be no risk of conflict between the Government and the Scottish Executive.

This policy is achieved in the Bill as it stands by the entries for the 1972 Act in Schedules 5 and 11. The Schedule 11 entry executively devolves to the Scottish Executive powers under Section 7 so far as they relate to devolved services; and the Schedule 5 entry is intended to give the Government a concurrent power in respect of those devolved services, in addition to the power they alone have in respect of reserved services. However, it is open to argument that the Schedule 5 entry is technically defective. The difficulty is in the wording of Section 7 of the 1972 Act, which confers powers on: a Minister in charge of any Government Department in respect of a basic service for which the Department is responsible".

After devolution the reference to a Minister will, by virtue of Clause 80(1), convert, as required, to a reference to a Scottish Secretary. My noble and learned friend Lord McCluskey made this point when replying to a probing Amendment to Schedule 16, proposed during the Committee stage by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, whose Amendment, of course, has directed our attention to this problem. The Government now accept that it is not clear whether the wording of Section 7 would allow a Minister to make a grant or loan in the devolved area because his Department would not, as required by Section 7, be responsible for the service concerned.

Because of this difficulty, the Government now propose to achieve what is required by a specific Amendment to the Local Employment Act 1972 in Schedule 16 to the Scotland Bill. Therefore, the Amendment that I am now moving deletes the Schedule 5 entry, and a later one—Amendment No. 159A—deletes the Schedule 11 entry. The policy remains as before, but these three Amendments taken together achieve it in a more direct and positive way. Of course, the Government reflected on the earlier points made by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn.

Lord DRUMALBYN

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for acknowledging that I have been of some service in this. It is an interesting point because it illustrates the difficulties that will be involved in combining the operations of Ministers of the Crown and Scottish Secretaries. However, it looks to me as though the Government have found formulae in order to do so in this particular respect. That is very much to be welcomed.

The Earl of PERTH

My Lords, I do not know whether other noble Lords present have had the same experience as I have. We hurried back from dinner, and in the last 20 minutes we have listened to the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, speaking at a great rate from a brief. I have no objection to that but, unless one is very expert, it seems to me that the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, earlier in the evening were exactly right; namely, that at this moment in time we are entirely dependent on what the civil servants are deciding.

It may well be that these Amendments—nearly 10, if not 10 of them, which were reeled off at an enormous rate—are useful and good. I am quite incapable of following what this is all about. I suspect that, on examination, that would be true even of the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill. I hope that, as these are Amendments, somebody in another place will have an opportunity to read what they are all about, study the matter, and see whether what we have let go by is right or wrong. I am sure that what I say applies to almost everyone in this House at present. I have not understood a word of what this is all about.

8.31 p.m.

Lord O'HAGAN

My Lords, I should like to ask one further question. I am not in any way an expert on the matter that we are discussing or on the Bill as a whole. I suppressed myself with enormous restraint last night when the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, discussed certain aspects of the relevance of the EEC to this Bill. However, I can contain myself no longer, having listened to what the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, had to say on this matter today.

As I understood what the noble Lord said, he indicated that certain matters are devolved in connection with grants and loans. This is what I should like to ask him. What is the mechanism for ensuring that the grants and loans which the Assembly may see fit to give are in conformity with the policies of the European Economic Community? If I may be specific, the competition policy lays down that matters such as temporary employment premia et cetera have to be considered within the context of the policies of the Community as a whole. The regional policy of the Community tries to ensure that national administrations do not start giving grants and loans which distort the equality of treatment between the various regions of the Community.

May I ask the noble Lord this question, which may well not be apposite to the point that he discussed. If so, I freely confess my ignorance. Could he reassure me that there is some mechanism for making clear to the Assembly that it must be careful about the provisions of the regional policy, and what the competition policy involves? Could the noble Lord explain how these policies will be taken into account when the Assembly is framing the grants and loans that he has told us it will be allowed to do under this Bill?

Lord KIRKHILL

My Lords, by leave of the House, may T say to the noble Earl, Lord Perth, that I did not intend to speak too quickly. If that made my remarks rather more incomprehensible than they are normally, I of course apologise. I agree with the noble Earl that these Amendments —which are of a complicated technical character, and which are largely, indeed almost invariably, of a drafting character—are of a type which reward close study in print, but which are difficult to pick up as one speaks. Certainly it would have been wiser had I been rather more slow in my delivery. I shall do my best to slow down from this point onwards. Amendment No. 74A is the last of a batch at this time.

Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD

My Lords—

Lord KIRKHILL

My Lords, as we are on Report I do not wish to bob up and down at this stage. I was asked by the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, whether I could direct his attention to the specific references in the Bill. This I can do by asking him to consider Clause 19(1)(b) on page 9 and Clause 62(3)(a) on page 30. Any grants or loans which may be given by the Assembly, I can additionally advise him, must conform with requirements laid down by the Community. Those requirements will be known to the devolved Administration and the appropriate arrangements will be made.

Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD

My Lords, I wished to ask a question. I was present at the beginning when the noble Lord explained what "statutory undertakers" were—which, like the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, I thought must have something to do with funerals. Apparently it does not. My impression was that many of the Amendments which the noble Lord put through with such rapidity were caused by the discussions which we had in Committee on a good many of these matters in Schedules 4 and 10. Perhaps I was wrong. However, it seemed to me that the noble Lord was talking about something that had already been discussed by us in Committee and that the Government were taking advice from other people and the House as to what we have said.

Lord KIRKHILL

My Lords, by leave of the House, the rapidity of my delivery was occasioned by my inner thought that the matters were of a highly technical character and were not of a type that would occasion discussion. It was an attempt on my part, albeit misplaced, to reduce the corporate boredom of your Lordships as you had to listen to me.

In relation to the question of the noble Baroness about statutory undertakers—these are bodies upon which public duties are devolved, such as the Gas Board, the electricity boards, and those kinds of bodies.

Lord McCLUSKEY

My Lords, I do not need the leave of the House to speak at this stage. I gathered that the noble Baroness was fishing for a compliment, not necessarily to herself but to her noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy. That compliment was given but, if it has not been properly noted, certainly our attention was drawn to certain matters, particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, and the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn. We have looked at these matters and a number of Amendments flow from them. We have changed the form of them. That was what my noble friend Lord Kirkhill explained. We are happy to acknowledge our debt. We have no reluctance at all to do so.

Lord DRUMALBYN

My Lords, with the leave of the House, may I say one more thing. The noble Earl, Lord Perth, was critical of the activities of the Civil Service in this regard. In my experience, matters such as this generally arise on Schedules. They are extremely difficult to follow at the time. They must always be looked at afterwards. They are examined very closely by the Civil Service, but they always come back. I am sure I am right in saying that they always come back to Ministers for consideration before they are presented to Parliament. I am sure that the noble Lord will have done this, too.

The Earl of PERTH

My Lords, I was not meaning to be critical in making the point and saying that I hoped that the matter would be examined most carefully when it goes to another place, in the light of the speed with which it has been considered and its complexity.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

8.39 p.m.

Lord GRAY moved Amendment No. 75: Before Clause 24, insert the following new clause:

Presiding Officer

(". The Standing Orders of the Assembly shall include provision for—

1. (a) the election of a presiding officer from among the members of the Assembly and for his tenure of office; and
2. (b) the election or appointment of a deputy presiding officer or deputy presiding officers and for his or their tenure of office.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 75 seeks to insert a new clause at the head of page 13 of the Bill, under the heading "Standing orders—particular provisions." I discussed this matter last night at a similar late hour when moving earlier Amendments which were attached to it. The Government at that time, in the person of the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, indicated that they were entirely with me in spirit about my plan for rearranging some provisions in the Bill, but they felt that the lengths to which I went in this Amendment, by inserting into the clause the requirement that the standing orders should lay down rules for the election or appointment of the deputy presiding officer or deputy presiding officers, and for their tenure of office, went beyond what Her Majesty's Government feel should be in the standing orders.

We discussed this last night. I can only invite Her Majesty's Government to indicate whether they have had any thoughts overnight. They were certainly friendlily disposed towards the matters in my Amendments Nos. 27, 28, and this Amendment. They just felt that they were unnecessary. I have moved these Amendments briefly, but the matter was fully discussed and T thought it proper to issue my invitation to Her Majesty's Government and to enable any other noble Lord who might wish to speak to this to have the opportunity of doing so. I beg to move.

Earl FERRERS

My Lords, I have no doubt that the noble and learned Lord will have considered the point made by my noble friend overnight because the Government said—I think it was said by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill—that of course it would be the intention of the Assembly to have a presiding officer, and of course he would have to have a deputy presiding officer. It seems reasonable therefore that these facts should be in the Bill. No doubt the noble and learned Lord will have considered this point with great care, and I am sure he will agree that it should be put into the Bill.

Lord McCLUSKEY

My Lords, an Act of Parliament is not an instrument for giving glimpses of the obvious. The point I would seek to make in confirmation of what was said last night is that of course we regard it as essential to make it mandatory for the Assembly to spell it out in their standing orders that there should be a presiding officer to be elected, and provision must be made for his tenure of office. That is done by Clause 7 which refers to standing orders, and, in Clause 7(2), to the standing orders which must include provision for the election of a presiding officer from among the Members of the Assembly.

To return to the point on which I opened, of course it is for the Assembly to decide that it may want a deputy presiding officer, or more than one. That is something which the Assembly ought to be able to decide on its own. If it cannot decide that, it cannot decide very much. I am not suggesting that this is the acid test of the competence of the Assembly, but it ought to be left to do something on its own, and we regard this provision, charitably though it is intended, as being unnecessary. In the light of these explanations, I do not think that the noble Lord will press it.

Lord GRAY

My Lords, I acknowledge that the question of the appointment and tenure of office of the presiding officer himself is already in the Bill. I hope that, to borrow a phrase from the noble and learned Lord, the Assembly will glimpse the obvious, and surely it will. It will not be able to do without a deputy. My concern was that if it was not laid down in standing orders that the matter should be dealt with there, we might get a situation which we here would consider undesirable. But, in view of the discussion last night and what has been said this evening, I think it would be appropriate if I were now to withdraw this Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule 6 [Provisions in Assembly Bills requiring Crown's consent]:

8.43 p.m.

Lord McCLUSKEY moved Amendment No. 76:

Page 51, line 20, at end insert— (" 4A. Any provision—

1. (a) conferring on any person any privilege or immunity of the Crown;
2. (b) depriving any person of any such privilege or immunity;
3. (c) requiring or enabling any person to exercise any functions on behalf of the Crown; or
4. (d) securing that any functions exercisable by any person on behalf of the Crown are no longer so exercisable by him.").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I should explain—and I hope I shall not go too rapidly for those who are present—the object of Clause 26 and Schedule 6. The Assembly, when legislating within its competence, is to have the capacity to bind the Crown. I think this was all explained fully at Committee stage. If this were not so there would be a serious gap. To give an example that illustrates the point, hospital land is Crown land, and if the Assembly could not legislate with regard to hospital land the devolution of health would of course be incomplete and inadequate. But this capacity is not to be unlimited. Consent is required whenever a provision in an Assembly Bill falls within the categories listed in Schedule 6. Therefore, Schedule 6 is essentially protective in character. Indeed without Schedule 6 one would have to contemplate that the Assembly could purport to bind the Crown without the Crown's consent. Of course, we do not say that the Assembly will necessarily want to make such provision when legislating on devolved matters, but it is necessary to cater for that possibility.

I turn to this particular matter. We have now identified another case which could usefully be added to Schedule 6. The question whether any particular body is, or is not, a Crown body is always a difficult one, and the way in which it is decided will have implications for the status of the staff of the body. The Amendment now proposed would simply ensure that whenever a provision of an Assembly Bill would bear on the Crown status of any body, that provision requires Crown consent along with all the other provisions listed in Schedule 6 as it stands in the Bill.

The Amendment here uses the term "person" and not "body" because the term "person" can properly be construed as including "body" by virtue of Section 19 of the Interpretation Act 1889. I have looked at the new Interpretation Bill, to which we gave a Second Reading yesterday, and I find the same words repeated in the Schedule to that Bill. The Amendment in no way affects the capacity of the Assembly to create new bodies within its competence, or to reorganise existing bodies. All it does is to ensure that provisions conferring Crown status on a new body, or taking Crown status away from any body, are subject to consent. I beg to move.

Lord DAVIES of LEEK

My Lords, may I ask my noble and learned friend an elementary question to clarify my own mind? Are we extending the power of the Crown? Let me give a concrete and elementary lay example. If a person is knocked down on Crown land, or when working for the Crown, has that person the right of bringing a case for compensation, or are we extending privileges against whom the commoner cannot bring any case for compensation? Has my noble and learned friend got the point I am trying to make?

Lord DRUMALBYN

My Lords, perhaps it would help if the noble and learned Lord could give us some examples. I quite realise the difficulty of giving an example for the creation of a privilege or immunity which is not in existence, but at any rate he possibly could give us an example of a case where Crown immunity is enjoyed and might be taken away. What was it that drew the Government's attention to this? There must have been some specific examples and circumstances that came to mind, and I dare say that he may have information about some of them.

The Earl of SELKIRK

My Lords, could we be told the mechanism by which the Crown's consent is in fact to be obtained? We may have had this information, and I apologise if we have, but we ought to know just what is the mechanism which this Bill proposes for the Crown's consent to be given.

Lord McCLUSKEY

My Lords, may I take these points in the order in which they were put to me. As regards compensation, these provisions make no difference whatsoever. The relevant clause is Clause 24. These provisions in Clause 24 and Schedule 6 are simply protective. They are not intended to extend any privilege of the Crown; they are merely intended to ensure that in so far as the Assembly seeks, within its own legislative competence, to affect privileges of the Crown then of course the Crown's consent should be obtained.

With regard to privilege, I am asked for only one example, which is fortunate because at this moment I can think of only one. The example that comes to mind is that in relation to the production of documents in a court action the Crown can assert certain privilege. If, under the competence of the Assembly, it was sought to affect that kind of privilege, I believe that is the kind of matter that would be affected. In relation to certain bodies, the staff of certain bodies may be accorded certain privileges which are Crown privileges, and if they were to be affected then plainly this new provision would be one that would enable the consent of the Crown to be obtained if that consent were appropriately to be given.

Regarding the machinery, the position is that Crown consent will be sought from Her Majesty through the Secretary of State. In other words, there will be no direct access, and that is consistent with the whole principle of the Bill; that there is no direct access to the Crown. Therefore, it will be sought from Her Majesty through the Secretary of State and of course conveyed by the same means. I do not think I can go further because the Bill does not seek to identify some specific method whereby that is vouched and verified, but presumably it will simply be done by letter, and that letter would, if required, be able to be proved before a court where the matter would ultimately come to be decided.

Lord BALERNO

My Lords, I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord can help me regarding paragraph 3, which says: …in trust for Her Majesty, or affecting property belonging to the Duchy of Cornwall or the Principality and Stewartry of Scotland". Would he consider adding after "Stewartry of Scotland" the words "Lordship of the Isles"? That is a title similar to that of the Duchy of Cornwall or the Stewartry of Scotland and more especially to the Principality, and while the reference in The Times this morning may have escaped noble Lords, it is one which is obviously being used by the person concerned.

Lord McCLUSKEY

My Lords, I acknowledge that contribution made by the noble Lord, Lord Balerno. I suspect that the matter may be covered by the earlier words in paragraph 3, but my attention has not been directed to the point. I am grateful to him for referring me to it and I will make sure, if I am wrong about the first few lines of the paragraph, that an appropriate Amendment is moved at the appropriate stage.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 25 [Preservation of order]:

8.53 p.m.

Lord McCLUSKEY moved Amendment No. 77: Page 13, line 10, after ("and") insert ("any standing order made by virtue of this section").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in Committee, the Government accepted two Amendments moved by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, and the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal, which were intended to make it mandatory for the Assembly's Standing Orders to make provision for preserving order, while leaving the Assembly free to decide whether to include provision for excluding Members on grounds of order. That effect was not fully achieved and the clause as it now stands in our print of the Bill would enable the Assembly to exclude a Member from its proceedings on any ground, not just on grounds of order. The present Amendment puts this right by specifically linking the power to exclude Members to the standing orders on preserving order in proceedings. I move the Amendment to achieve that correction.

Earl FERRERS

My Lords, we are grateful to the noble and learned Lord for having taken note of the points we raised in Committee, for having been kind enough to consider them and for incorporating them in this Amendment.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

8.55 p.m.

Earl FERRERS moved Amendment No. 78: After Clause 25, insert the following new clause:

Stages of Bill

("The standing orders of the Assembly shall include provision—

1. (a) for general debate on a Bill with an opportunity for members to vote on its general principles;
2. (b) for the consideration of, and an opportunity for members to vote on, the details of a Bill; and
3. (c) for a final stage at which a Bill can be passed or rejected.").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, in Committee much concern was expressed from all parts of the Committee that nowhere in the Bill were to be found standing orders depicting the method by which Bills should be processed by the Assembly. I tabled a similar Amendment to this one in Committee as a probing Amendment to determine the views of your Lordships and the intention of the Government. I did not press it on that occasion because I thought the Government would themselves wish to consider the views which noble Lords had expressed. Noble Lords will recall that this Amendment, which is the same as that moved in Committee, is also almost identical to that which was intimated in the Government's White Paper Our Changing Democracy and to that which was actually printed in the original Scotland and Wales Bill. It does not, however, appear in this Bill.

Considerable concern was expressed in Committee that if we devolve the authority of Parliament and the authority to create Assembly Acts which will stand in a legislative capacity pari passu with Acts of Parliament it is reasonable that we should ensure that those Acts will have been subjected to at least a similar, though not necessarily the same, pre-enactment scrutiny, to borrow a phrase we heard earlier.

The only argument of substance which the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, produced in Committee against the Amendment was that we should not seek to tie the hands of the Assembly. If I may say so without offence, I thought that argument was peculiarly unimpressive. The Amendment defines in only the very broadest terms the type of scrutiny the Bill should have. It merely offers the opportunity to debate the principle of the Bill and vote on it, the opportunity to debate the detail of the Bill and amend and vote on it, and a final stage when the Bill, as amended, can be passed or rejected. The Assembly would not be obliged, if the Amendment were accepted, to have the same committee, report and second and third readings as we have; they could construct their own procedure, but within these broad limits. Obviously the Government think this is desirable because, as I said, it was in their White Paper and in the original Scotland and Wales Bill. Indeed, in Committee Lord McCluskey said: One supposes that they will adopt this kind of structure which we regard as an essential structure".—[Official Report, 24.4.78; col. 1487.] We therefore have the agreement of Lord McCluskey and the Government that this is what is desired. However, the noble and learned Lord added, in remarkable con-tradition: It is a matter for them …"—[Official Report, 24/4/78; col. 1487.]

Lord McCLUSKEY

My Lords, I am looking rapidly for the words I used, but when I said we regarded it as an essential structure I should have said we regarded it as an essential system for us.

Several noble Lords: Oh?

Earl FERRERS

My Lords, that was a fascinating intervention; it alters totally the context of what the noble and learned Lord said. Naturally, I understood him to say at the time that he regarded it as an essential system for the Assembly, and when I read his speech in Hansard I assumed he still regarded it as an essential system for the Assembly. He is now saying that he regards it as an essential system for Westminster. That may be so, and there is no disagreement among us about that. But if I am wrong, then clearly the Government do not consider it an essential system for the Assembly, though they did consider it an essential system when they were thinking of the Scotland and Wales Bill. They cannot have it both ways; either it is an essential system which should be written into the Bill or it is of such little importance that the Assembly can choose whether or not they wish to adopt it and what method they wish to use to process their own Bills.

In Committee, the noble Lords, Lord Glenkinglas and Lord Shepherd, the noble Earl, Lord Perth, and the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, and others all expressed the opinion that the Assembly should not be left totally free in this respect. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, even asked the noble and learned Lord whether he would be good enough to look at the matter again. We have often been told that Parliament should not act as a nursemaid to the Assembly, and that we should not tie the Assembly by apron strings. The inference is that we should set up the Assembly and let it carve out its own salvation in the way it wishes. However, if we are giving full legislative authority—and that is a colossal power to give to an Assembly—it is not, I suggest, unreasonable to request similar, but not identical, systems of scrutiny.

The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, was concerned that Bills should not be allowed to pass within 24 hours. I think he said at that time that it would be a pity if a Bill were produced on a Thursday and was passed into law by the Assembly on a Friday. Frankly, I do not feel unduly concerned about that. Of course there may be emergencies. One can think of such occasions in Westminster. In particular, I can think of one relating to Northern Ireland, when a Bill was passed in a matter of 24 hours. We can do this in Parliament, provided that we waive the Standing Orders so as to enable us to do so. The important point is that the Standing Orders should be there in the first place to waive, and the Amendment seeks to ensure that the appropriate Standing Orders are there.

I think that, without such an Amendment as this, it would be perfectly possible for the Assembly—though I do not say it is probable that it would—to make arrangements for Standing Orders so that they should be constructed in such a way that Bills could, like Statutory Instruments in Parliament, be either accepted or rejected, but not amended. It may be unlikely that the Assembly would adopt that practice, but as the Bill stands at the moment it could do so. I do not believe it is right that it should do so, nor that if the authority of Parliament is to be devolved to the Assembly that option should be open to it. Therefore, I suggest to your Lordships that the correct procedure would be that the Assembly should be obliged so to construct its Standing Orders that they should, in broad limits, be within the terms suggested in the Amendment.

I was a little concerned during the Committee stage about what the noble and learned Lord said as reported at column 1498 of the Official Report. I do not think that I shall misquote him this time; indeed, I do not believe that I misquoted him last time, but I may have misquoted his intention. The noble and learned Lord said: …what is contemplated is that the Secretary of State will produce standing orders for the Assembly so that it conies to birth with the possibility at once of functioning in an orderly fashion". I think that that is perfectly clear and reasonable. But if the Secretary of State is to make the initial Standing Orders, as the noble and learned Lord suggests, and if the Government regard the substance of the Amendment as an essential structure—and until the noble and learned Lord's intervention this evening I understood that they did so consider it—I cannot think why they cannot accept the Amendment. I hope that the Government will accept the Amendment.

Much concern was expressed at the Committee stage from all corners of the Chamber. This is not a matter that ought to make a fundamental difference to the Government's intentions. It is not really holding the Assembly by the apron strings. It is merely saying that the Assembly is being given great power and great authority to produce Acts which will be in a similar standing to Acts of Parliament. It is not unreasonable to say that the processes to which they will be subjected should at least be of similar virtue and standing as those achieved in Parliament. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will consider that the Amendment would be a suitable one to accept. I beg to move.

Lord McCLUSKEY

My Lords, with regard to the first quotation that the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, gave, during a quick glance through the appropriate volume of the Official Report I have not been able to find those words, but I certainly found words of mine reported there, which I think I ought briefly to repeat because I believe that they encapsulate the approach of the Government at this stage. I said as reported at column 1487 of the Official Report, that the Government came to the view that the provision in the Scotland and Wales Bill—of which this is virtually a carbon copy— was a kind of 'apron strings' provision once again; that we were seeking to tell the Assembly how they ought to conduct their business when that was a matter properly for them. The Government do not have any doubt that the Assembly, when they consider their procedures on this kind of matter, will wish to draw upon Parliamentary experience in devising those procedures and in devising the necessary safeguards ". I went on to suggest that indeed the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, himself, had acknowledged that there was no need for the Assembly slavishly to copy what was done at Westminster.

Governments are not infallible—that is a truism that I do not have to urge very strongly upon Members of this House—and Governments are allowed second thoughts and, as I said on the previous occasion, third thoughts. In a moment or two I shall come to a change of mind that the Government have had since I spoke on that previous occasion. On that occasion I explained in some detail why the Government had dropped from this Bill the provision which had been contained, in words similar to those of the noble Earl's Amendment, in the Scotland and Wales Bill. The reason was as follows. The provisions of that Bill in this regard, and in others, were heavily criticised as dictating in far too much detail how the Assembly should organise its affairs. I can recall that not merely from detailed submissions; I can recall it from the great blast of criticism that came across through the newspapers, through the rest of the media, and by meeting people in Scotland at the time when the November White Paper was published and when the Scotland and Wales Bill itself was published.

In the light of the criticisms then made—and they were formidable—the Government concluded that to lay down in the statute the legislative procedure for the Scottish Assembly was unnecessary and, indeed, could be more than unnecessary —it could be thought to be paternalistic. Indeed, that was the criticism which was made and which the Government, in all humility, accepted. It, therefore, follows that the Government regard this suggested Amendment not as being one which is totally black, because of course they were the authors of the words, but as one which is now unnecessary and paternalistic; and I do not ask the House to accept it.

The Assembly itself will certainly need to agree upon a standard legislative procedure for their purposes, but I believe now, as I said on the previous occasion, that this is something which they should be free to decide for themselves; it is not something that we should seek to foist upon them. I am quite certain that the Assembly, in coming to determine what its procedure should be, will pay close regard to what happens at Westminster; but it may look at other models, and it may choose to adopt a slightly different system. We do not have pre-legislative committees here. If we did, we might have a different system for Committee, for Report and so on. We have here a two-Chamber system: the Scottish Assembly is not such a system. These are good reasons why we should not attempt to dictate to the Assembly how they should go about a consideration of their legislation. There was a thread in the other debate—and, indeed, it was evident again in what the noble Earl said—of a fear that the Assembly might legislate with great rapidity, but, of course, that is not a matter which is touched by this particular Amendment.

Perhaps I may go on to another point which was made then—and I think there was a slight echo of it in what the noble Earl said tonight. It was suggested that unless we laid down a system for the Assembly they would perhaps spend the early months of their existence wrangling and haggling over a system to be adopted; and certainly we accept that the Assembly will need to determine their own procedure for legislating before they pass any laws. But, equally, they will need to establish an Executive and to determine their policies before passing legislation. They will not, in our estimation, be occupied with legislating within the field of Part I of Schedule 10 from day one. In practice, we believe, there will be sufficient time for the Assembly to determine their own legislative procedure by rational debate, and this will no doubt be a matter to which the Assembly will wish to give, and indeed will have to give, priority.

I suggest that the procedure for legislating in the Assembly is more likely to gain general acceptance, not only in the Assembly but among the electorate and in the political and social system in Scotland at large, if the Assembly determines that system for itself. It is better that way than that we decree by statute that they must adopt a system modelled very closely upon that which obtains at Westminster. Indeed, it is just possible that if we were so to insist that might create resentment. If his Amendment were to be carried and we were to specify in such detail as the noble Earl would like us to do, I would remind your Lordships that we might find that the Assembly itself, after careful consideration of what its requirements are and what its procedures ought to be, might come back to Westminster with perfectly good and carefully thought-out reasons for conducting procedures differently; and then it might be necessary, almost at once, to start bringing in amending legislation to alter the Scotland Act. That, I think, would be an unfortunate beginning, because this is not a statute that we would want to be altering straightaway. It may well be that, in the light of experience, alterations will be required, but it would be a pity if we had to do that on the threshold of the existence of the Scottish Assembly. So I hope that the noble Earl will not press this Amendment.

I referred a moment ago to what was said by my noble friend Lord Shepherd. He wondered on the previous occasion—and the noble Earl has just referred to this —whether some safeguard should not be built in to prevent the Assembly from rushing through legislation in, perhaps, 24 hours. Of course, the Amendment we are discussing would not achieve this, and I do not think, either, that we should try to include such a safeguard. All legislative bodies, of course, should have the capacity to carry through legislation quickly, if it is necessary, in order to deal with an emergency situation; but I apprehend that the concern of my noble friend was more that the Assembly might choose to legislate at that speed in the normal course of events. I believe that this is hardly practical politics, and the Assembly can be relied upon, because of the political checks upon it, to ensure that this does not happen. It would not be in the Assembly's own interests and it would not be in the interests of Scotland if they were to prevent adequate discussion of legislation, especially inside the Assembly itself. So on the whole matter I believe that we should leave it to the Assembly to determine their own procedures, and I believe that we can confidently expect them to do so sensibly.

There is one other matter to which the noble Earl referred. He referred to column 1498 on the 24th April, where I said certain things about what the Secretary of State would do in relation to the production of Standing Orders, and the noble Earl certainly quoted me quite correctly. I remind your Lordships that what I said there was: … what is contemplated is that the Secretary of State will produce standing orders for the Assembly so that it comes to birth with the possibility at once of functioning in an orderly fashion". We have given further thought to that matter since I spoke in April, and Ministers have concluded that such action will not in fact be necessary. We believe now that the Assembly, in their earliest days, will not in fact be engaged upon legislation. We believe that the Secretary of State's directions, to apply during the transitional period before the Assembly assume their full responsibilities, should be confined to the minimum of matters necessary to get the Assembly down to work during this transitional period.

We believe that during that transitional period the Assembly itself should not be legislating about devolved matters but arranging for its own legislative procedures in particular. We now see that there will be time before the Assembly's full resumption of responsibilities for it to produce standing orders to regulate its whole procedures. Accordingly, after careful reflection the Government's thinking at the present time is that we shall not produce directions with a view to enabling it to legislate on its legislative competence areas from Day 1. In the light of what I said then, I thought I should make clear the Government's position.

9.15 p.m.

Lord DRUMALBYN

My Lords, I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord could be a little more specific. He has just said that the Government now see that from the time when they first assemble there will be time before the Assembly starts legislating. Perhaps he could give us some indication of what the time scale is likely to be, given a D-day when they assemble. How long will it be before they start legislating? How long does he think it will take them to prepare standing orders? What guidance does he expect that the Assembly will seek in this regard?

The noble and learned Lord also talked about the Secretary of State's direction, and said that because he did not foresee any need for the Assembly to be given directions about legislating, it would have time to prepare its own standing orders in that regard. For that reason, if I understood him correctly, the directions would not cover legislation. In other words, directions would be given in regard to appointing a presiding officer and nominating a First Secretary. From that point on presumably the matter would, to some extent, be in the hands of committees that might be set up at that state to help prepare the standing orders —something like a Speaker's Conference in a way—and also in the hands of the Scottish Secretaries themselves. We should like to know what the time scale is so that we could form a judgment about it.

There is no provision in the Bill for Parliament to have a fight on the directions which the Secretary of State is proposing to give. I do not know why this was not raised at the time —I do not remember it being raised. Would the noble and learned Lord consider some means by which Parliament could be informed of the directions that are to be given so that if Parliament wished it could debate the matter? The noble and learned Lord is quite right in saying that the procedure is likely to be different in the Assembly because of the fact that it is one-Chamber Government; but my noble friend's Amendment is in such broad terms that it is difficult to foresee circumstances in which anybody could criticise the needs that he has laid down— the need for discussion on the general principles of a Bill, the need for it to be examined in detail and the need for it to come back to the full Assembly when it has been examined in detail. These are the broadest requirements in the British tradition that one would have thought were bound to be followed.

Perhaps the question just arises whether as the noble and learned Lord has indicated it would be wiser to lay down some provision that regard should be had to the need for these things rather than saying that they shall be provided. I do not know what my noble friend's reaction to that would be. It seems to me so basic that they should follow this system. It does not matter whether one has a committee before any Bill is examined in principle, or whether there are more detailed provisions than we have in Parliament here.

Simply because this is going to be a one-Chamber Government it is bound to want more checks on legislation than either of our Houses. That is nothing to do with the broad principle laid down in this Amendment. I should not have thought that anybody in the world, let alone those as close as in Scotland, could take exception to that—but perhaps it could be put a little more tactfully so as to make certain that nobody would take offence. I think that the United Kingdom Parliament, with the responsibilities that it is going to have, necessarily, for overseeing to some extent the legislation, if only to make certain that the legislation keeps within the limits imposed by the Bill, is entitled to satisfy itself in advance that the broad lines that seem to be basic to any form of legislating in accordance with the British system should be observed.

For my part, I would not in the slightest mind if after a little experience the Assembly came back and asked for the Scotland Act (as it then will be) to be reviewed and revised and to make their proposals accordingly. In fact, I should be extremely surprised if that did not happen in some way or another. I think that on that the noble Lord has perhaps raised a fear about which we need not be too depressed. As to being paternalistic, we must, of course, accept paternity for the Bill in this Parliament, anyway; but there is a little difference between accepting paternity and being paternalistic. I hope that some middle course can be found in this matter for I believe that it would improve the Bill to insert something along the lines of my noble friend's Amendment.

9.23 p.m.

Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD

My Lords, having spent a great many years of my life in democratic government in Scotland, I should like to support this Amendment. I think that with this new Assembly having to sort itself out and with many problems, it would be so much easier and they would be so much helped if in the Bill there were these guidelines. Of course, it could be altered after a while if it was found that they did not fit the needs of the Assembly. But as they are proposed by my noble friend Lord Ferrers I do not see that anybody could take exception to them. There is nothing in them in the least undemocratic or which orders people to do things; it is simply suggested, after long experience—and no Parliamentary Government has had as long experience as we have had in this country—that these guidelines would be a good idea. I think that it would greatly improve the Bill. I am sure that those who are elected to the Assembly would be only too delighted to find that at least one thing was certin in a mass of uncertainty which we know is going to come out of this very complex Bill. I hope very much that the Government will accept the Amendment, and if they will not do so we should have it inserted in this House.

Lord BALERNO

My Lords, I should like to support what my noble friend Lady Elliot has said and to adduce a further argument in support of this Amendment, which I think has not been put before your Lordships. It is that the probable composition of the Assembly has not been considered in the light of this Amendment. The probable composition will almost certainly he such that more than 50 per cent. of the Members have considerable experience in local government. They will almost certainly be inclined to have for their administration a system and principles not dissimilar to the local government to which they have been accustomed.

Having suffered—and that is putting it mildly—some 16 years of local government in Scotland, such a prospect fills me with absolute horror. I cannot see that there will be a sufficient leaven of former Members of another place. I very much doubt if there would be more than one or two of them; and while naturally we hope that there will be a number of your Lordships who will stand for election, I still do not think that that would be a sufficient number to prevent—shall we say?—the "infection" of local government administration pervading the Assembly. That is why I support this Amendment and especially support and commend the phrase used by my noble friend Lady Elliot of Harwood in saying that it is only sensible that we should lay down guidelines for the Assembly in this matter.

9.26 p.m.

Earl FERRERS

My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friends who have expressed their support for this Amendment. The noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, has an uncanny habit of raising one's hopes to great anticipation and then dropping them down in the pit. He started off by saying that the Government had had first thoughts, then second thoughts, then third thoughts: he said, "We were going to change our mind". I thought the Government were going to accept the Amendment, then the noble and learned Lord turned round and said that they would not. This is very depressing. I wish there would be a fraction more "give".

All we are doing in this Amendment is saying what the Government said ill their White Paper: all we are doing is putting into the Bill what the Government itself put into the original Scotland and Wales Bill. At the Committee State very many noble Lords from all parts of the Committee said, "We think this is right", but the Government still say, "No, we are not going to move." That is such a pity. They could easily have accepted this Amendment. It would not have embarrassed them in the very slightest, and it would not have altered their original intentions.

All this Amendment seeks to do—as I and many others have explained—is to give basic guidelines. The noble and learned Lord said that they might like to have a pre-legislative system. Maybe the Assembly would like such a system, but all the Amendment says is to give an opportunity for the Bill to be considered in toto, to give an opportunity for Amendments to be considered and voted upon and to give an opportunity for the final Bill to be accepted or rejected. I cannot see that that can be in any way offensive.

If it is paternalistic—if I may have the noble and learned Lord's attention for half a minute—I do not see that there is anything wrong in that. We are giving the powers to this Assembly. I think that it is right that we should say, within reasonable guidelines, how they should operate. Our great fear is that if we give all these powers to the Assembly and then say: "Get on and do what you like", the Assembly can go on very different lines to those which Government and Parliament would wish. It is perfectly true that the Assembly may wish to bring in amending legislation. I do not think for one minute that when the Assembly gets going once this Bill is enacted this will be a status quo situation. Before long, amendments are bound to be required and other legislation is bound to be brought in.

I come back to what I said at the beginning: if this Bill goes forward as it is at the moment, there is nothing to stop the Assembly from introducing Standing Orders which would allow their Bills to have the same treatment as Statutory Instruments have now, where Bills could be produced and could be accepted or rejected but not amended. The noble and learned Lord may say that that is up to them and that if they want to conduct their system in that manner we should let them do so. I do not believe that that is right; and, what is more, I do not believe that my noble friends think that is right. I should like to see whether your Lordships agree that this Amendment should be put into the Bill.

Lord McCLUSKEY

My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down—I am intervening; I do not want to make a further speech—I should like to say that when the noble Earl thought he did not have my atttention I was consulting about what he was saying a moment ago with a view to seeing whether I could meet him in some way. I hope he will accept that from me.

Earl FERRERS

My Lords, if I might have the leave of the House to speak again, I hope that the noble and learned Lord will continue his conversation with the Government Chief Whip and, if he wishes to do that, I shall continue to explain my arguments to my noble friends behind me while he has the advantage of making up his mind. If the noble Earl, Lord Perth, would like to assist the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, in this way, I am sure the House will be indebted to him.

The Earl of PERTH

My Lords, if I may, I shall take advantage of the suggestion made by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. First, as all your Lordships will know, I think, I am for an Assembly and I am for that Assembly being left to work out its own procedures. But, having said that, I think we have to realise that the Assembly will be composed of "new boys". Whatever the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, may say, perhaps half of them will come from local government, but one and all will be new to the Scottish Assembly.

If that is the case, then it seems to me there must be an advantage in trying to help them in the early stages. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, who threw out the idea, which I think would be well worth considering that perhaps we need not go quite as far as the clause stands at the present time. At present the clause states specifically, shall include provision for". That perhaps is going a little further than "guidance", and I am wondering whether one could not follow what was outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, and say something like: "In considerating its Standing Orders, the Assembly shall consider the need for" —and then one could put "a", "b" and "c", which would refer to a general debate, detailed consideration and, finally, the passing or the rejecting. I do not know whether that should be done at this point in the Bill or whether conceivably it might go in Clause 7 when it states that: …the Secretary of State may give directions for regulating its procedure pending the making of standing orders ". Conceivably, in giving those directions he could lay down the kind of thing we have been talking about. That might be enough.

I feel that in one way or another the attention of the Assembly should be drawn to the procedures that we follow in Parliament. Just how that is to be achieved I do not think matters too much. If you accept the Amendments of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers: fine. If you want to go half-way to that position, again I say "fine"; but some guidance should be given to the Assembly, bearing particularly in mind that this is something entirely new and therefore something which needs some help. I am not going to talk any more. I am sure that some other noble Lord will talk while the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, and others, are carrying out the discussion to which reference was made by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers.

Lord MOTTISTONE

My Lords, I should like briefly to underline one particular facet of what other speakers have said, and in particular my noble friend Lord Ferrers. It seems to me that, although I have great sympathy with the thought that we should not dictate too far to this Assembly as to how it conducts its affairs, we are giving it in fact immense powers. I think that is a very important facet. It seems to me perhaps that the Scots, when they look at what they are not allowed to do, may feel that they have not been given enough powers. I am sure that when they get going they will certainly feel that, but I think perhaps they may be tending to forget that there are great chunks and areas where they will be given almost total freedom of legislation. I think it is very important that when they start they should be given the right sort of guidelines for tackling this difficult task.

As the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, said, there is a risk that they might be too much guided by how local government conducts its affairs. As has been said by many people, including the noble and learned Lord earlier in the proceedings on this Bill, this is not a new form of local government; this will have considerably more powers, and that would be a very bad guideline. My noble friend Lord Ferrers said that it might turn out to be something like the procedure which we have for Statutory Instruments. That, of course, would be disastrous and I hope that one day we may change that procedure for ourselves.

However, the most important point is that the Bill itself is, in a sense, paternalistic, because it has restrictions within it. If we put any restrictions on those people North of the Border, they can say that it is paternalistic. But just to put in this very sensible extra hit of guideline, as to how they conduct their affairs, seems to me to be absolutely essential for orderly government in Scotland.

9.37 p.m.

The Earl of LAUDERDALE

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, made a very valid point when he said that the likelihood is that a great proportion, at any rate, if not the majority, of the Members of the Assembly—which I still hope will call itself a Convention—will be drawn from local authority backgrounds, and their natural recourse in thinking of procedure will be to local government experience. Every Peer in this House who belongs to Scotland has had some exposure to local government in some fashion, and I think we would all share the prayer of the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, that one will be spared some of its futile, costly, extravagant and occasionally corrupt excesses.

This Amendment is in the most harmlessly broad terms; that a Bill shall be considered in principle, that it shall be considered in detail and that, finally, a decision shall be taken. Nothing could be simpler or fairer than that. I remember that Mr. Macmillan, after he had fought two Elections and lost two Elections, said, "Nothing could be fairer than that". Nothing could be fairer than saying that a Bill shall be considered in principle, in detail and, finally, a decision shall be taken. Those three requirements do not even preclude what I suspect is the darling of the heart of the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, which is the pre-legislative scrutiny, of which there has been much talk in this place. It does not preclude it, it does not inconvenience it, it does not embarrass it and it does not conflict with it in the slightest degree.

Standing Orders are a safeguard of freedom and, if we devolve Parliamentary responsibilities elsewhere, it is logical that we also devolve the safeguards with which they have been surrounded hitherto. What the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, is saying is "Do not bother about all this apron-string stuff. Trust them". You may say "Trust me". We would trust the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey—a very respected Sheriff-Principal—a very long way. But just the same, it is "Trust us. Trust them. Do not bother to give them any rules. Do not insult them with guidelines. Leave them to run their own way, like water spilling out of a tank". That is not a very serious kind of argument.

There is a danger, of which our experience of Parliamentary Government at Westminster in the last four or five years has warned us, which is that, as the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, said earlier, you can have, in effect, an elected dictatorship for a period of five years and you can get ordinary conventions flouted. That we have seen in the other place in very recent years, and it is a shame and a disgrace. I am sometimes amazed that friends of mine, who are misguided enough to belong to the wrong Party, still continue to submit to the kind of things that have once or twice, or more, been done in the name of democracy in a democratic Chamber, making use of a temporary majority. It is that very danger of which we have seen signs too many in the last few years at Westminster. We do not want to see it repeated locally in Scotland. The noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, has certain favourite arguments on which he falls back.

The apron-strings argument conies up every time when argument runs out. When that argument fails the noble and learned Lord, or he gets tired of it, he says, "Ah, well, you can trust them to have rational debate". I wonder whether the noble and learned lord has ever listened to the proceedings of the Scottish Grand Committee. I have taken part in them, and that is worse still. That Committee does not provide a model of rational debate, and anybody who pretends that it does needs to have his head examined. There was a great argument at one time that the solution to Scottish devolution was to let the Scottish Grand Committee sit in Edinburgh, and that would teach the Scots once and for all what rot it is. The argument that you can fall back on the rational debate of rational people is neither very serious nor very sound.

Then we are told, "Ah, but the Government have now had third thoughts". Like my noble friend, Lord Ferrers, my hopes rose, but then the noble and learned Lord said that the Government had listened to and been much influenced by a torrent of criticism and suggestion. Where did it come from? It came from the media. Is the media the message? Apparently it is. But the media have no more judgment of public affairs than has a cat. I shall be very happy if the BBC picks that one up! Parliament has much judgment—

Lord McCLUSKEY

My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl whether he is speaking as a journalist?

The Earl of LAUDERDALE

Yes, certainly, my Lords. Having, to my shame, spilled columns in the Scotsman and other papers throughout the years and looking back now and realising what rubbish I have written and what opinionated nonsense it was, I am absolutely horrified that the noble and learned Lord should take the media seriously. When I think of the poor old Scotsman now—well, perhaps it is worse since I gave up writing for it! But what the noble and learned Lord said was that the Government were much influenced by the media. That explains a lot; that is all I can say.

Then we were told that we must not be paternalistic. Are we not all rather impressed, reluctantly, by the paternalistic attitude struck by the Prime Minister? Is not that one of the sources of an apparent, obviously temporary, success in the public opinion polls? His great paternalistic attitude spreads a smile everywhere, in the light of which the Party opposite are basking continually. All right; do not let us be paternalistic, but let us at least be avuncular, and then we really shall be following the example of the Prime Minister. This business about paternalism is as silly an argument as the argument about apron strings.

Then the noble and learned Lord pointed out that there is a single-Chamber system. Yes; all the more reason for safeguards. The fact that the Assembly might want to amend the Bill when it becomes an Act is surely the great let-out for common sense on both sides. If, indeed, the Assembly proves to be as rational, sober, watchful and vigilant as the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, would lead us to expect—which some of us do not expect very seriously—then let the Government come forward with their amendments, which gives them something to start with. The prospect of amendment gives the opportunity for improvement in the light of experience, but the suggestion that in the meantime we should fall back upon the apron-strings argument, upon the paternalistic argument and finally upon the media leaves me more flabbergasted than ever—and that is saying something.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.

Earl FERRERS

My Lords, with the leave of the House, may I be permitted to ask the noble and learned Lord one question? We were sitting rather like parched men in the desert with our tongues hanging out, waiting for the honeyed words of the noble and learned Lord saying that he was going to accept the Amendment. We were hoping that this would be so.

Lord McCLUSKEY

My Lords, I was not proposing to rise to my feet to say that I accept this Amendment.

9.44 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 78) shall he agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 47: Not-Contents, 23.

CONTENTS
Balerno, L.	Ferrier, L.	Mottistone, L.
Belstead, L.	Fortescue, E.	Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller]
Carrington, L.	Gisborough, L.
Colville of Culross, V.	Glasgow, E.	Northchurch, B.
Cork and Orrery, E.	Gray, L.	O'Hagan, L.
Craigavon, V.	Haig, E.	Perth, E.
Craigmyle, L.	Henley, L.	Redesdale, L.
Cullen of Ashbourne, L.	Hylton, L.	Rochdale, V.
Denham, L. [Teller]	Hylton-Foster, B.	Sandford, L.
Drumalbyn, L.	Inglewood, L.	Sandys, L.
Dundee, E.	Kinross, L.	Selkirk, E.
Elles, B.	Lauderdale, E.	Strathclyde, L.
Elliot of Harwood, B.	Long, V.	Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.
Elton, L.	Lyell, L.	Thurlow, L.
Falkland, V.	Masham of Ilton, B.	Vaizey, L.
Ferrers, E.	Monson, L.	Ward of North Tyneside, B.

NOT-CONTENTS
Avebury, L.	Kaldor, L.	Simon, V.
Boston of Faversham, L.	Kirkhill, L.	Stedman, B.
Collison, L.	Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B. [Teller]	Stewart of Alvechurch, B.
David, B.		Stone, L.
Davies of Leek, L.	McCluskey, L.	Strabolgi, L. [Teller]
Gaitskell, B.	McGregor of Durris, L.	Tanlaw, L.
Harris of Greenwich, L.	Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.	Wallace of Coslany, L.
Hatch of Lusby, L.	Ritchie-Calder, L.	Winterbottom, L.

Clause 26 [Members' pecuniary interests]:

9.53 p.m.

The Earl of SELKIRK moved Amendment No. 79: Page 13, line 13, after ("pecuniary") insert ("or other").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, we are now dealing with the clause which deals with declaration of interest. I must say I think it is a very clumsy clause. It starts off by dealing with declaration of interest; it ends up with varying punishments which can be imposed; and in between are the standing orders. It is a very clumsy arrangement, and I must say I should very much have liked to have much more time to make a more sensible manner of dealing with it. May I say, first of all, that I tried at Committee stage to say what importance I think we should attach to this question of declaration of interest. There is nothing which has broken down democracy more than corruption. This is the sole occasion on which we shall have an opportunity here of making any contribution to this particular point.

I think the main approach on the subject of interest is correct. I do not believe in the use of a book; I think a book is almost entirely redundant—or not redundant but never complete. I believe the practice which has evolved in this House—that is, the invariable practice of all Members of declaring an interest when they speak—is the correct way of doing it. I am not very sure that the penalties are a necessary encouragement. It should be an order which is understood, accepted and recognised as a proper method.

May I turn to what the clause actually says and read it: The standing orders of the Assembly shall include provision for securing that members with pecuniary interests, as defined by the standing orders…". In other words, the determining factor here is what the standing order says. I am asking whether a pecuniary interest—and the standing orders are confined in this matter to a pecuniary interest—by itself is enough.

When I moved a similar Amendment earlier I inserted the words, direct and indirect pecuniary interest". Many people in the House thought that that was a bit too wide. It may be that it was too wide, but, even so, it is limited by the definition laid down in the standing orders. I am now suggesting that we should add: for securing that members with pecuniary or other interests, as defined by the standing orders". I contend that unless we put in those words nothing but a pecuniary interest can be included in standing orders. That is the point I am making. We are confining the standing orders to what can be shown to be a pecuniary interest of a material character. I contend that there are quite a number of extremely important interests outside direct pecuniary interests which it should be within the capacity of standing orders to bring in.

I should like to deal with one or two, but there may be many others. First, the question of planning. Planning is not a direct pecuniary interest, or, if it is, it is very indirect. It may be a development in an area—the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, is very familiar with such matters—in which someone may have a remote interest and may want to encourage it. On the other hand, he may want to stop it. There are two sides to the question. It is very hard to pin a land interest—a development—as a pecuniary interest. There are many occasions when that is extremely difficult to make clear.

Secondly, there is the whole range of subjects which include the Addison Rules—for example, people who are connected with various Government Departments or Government agencies. That is not a direct pecuniary interest, but in my view it is something which should be declared and made clear. There is the immense range of a new thing called a quango which I am told is a quasi-autonomous national Government organisation of which there are a very high number. Those are matters which are not necessarily pecuniary.

Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS

My Lords, I think that the noble Earl means "non-Government".

The Earl of SELKIRK

My Lords, I beg your Lordships' pardon—" non-Government". I am grateful to the noble Viscount. In any case they are matters to which attention should be drawn. There are, of course, observer interests. There are people who are asked on behalf of certain organisations to be in Parliament and to observe what is happening. In such an instance there is not merely a pecuniary interest, because the person is there to correct, if necessary, errors which may be made about the organisation. His salary—if he has one—or his retainer fee does not depend in any way on how much or little he speaks or anything of that sort. One can hardly say that he has a pecuniary interest; but he has an interest, and it is in proper regard to the Assembly that that interest should be declared.

Another matter which has been raised is blood relationship. Frankly, if one is related to a teacher and one wants to talk about teachers' salaries it is not improper to say: "I am married to a teacher". Why not? You probably know more about the teaching profession because you are married to a teacher. I do not think that we should inhibit people from talking on subjects about which they are fully familiar. However, I think that they should declare it. That is all that I am asking, and in my view it is most important.

There are other things. Corruption takes various forms which I am told are not exactly pecuniary. There are visits to St. Moritz, Cyprus and so on, which have been used for such a purpose. While those may not necessarily be matters which you declare, in my view the word "pecuniary" is too narrow. It should be wider. We have the sole opportunity now, during this period, to try to set a high standard. That is my object in raising this matter. I ask the noble Baroness to consider whether she cannot accept the Amendment as it stands. If she cannot, can she suggest how it can better be done, because I do not think that as it now stands it goes right to the heart of the matter, as it should. I beg to move.

Lord TANLAW

My Lords, I should like to follow the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, supporting his Amendment this time. We spoke in Committee on this matter and I spoke against his Amendment on the words precisely "direct and indirect". I wonder whether the noble Baroness would consider the noble Earl's Amendment, because I believe that as it stands the Bill places too much emphasis on the words "pecuniary interests" for definition by standing orders. I believe that the words "or other" will cover the situations as described by the noble Earl. Indeed, the only other simple example that I can give is if one of the Assemblymen were the president of a golf club which is to be used for a runway extension or motorway extension. That is not a pecuniary interest, but it is an interest which could strongly influence his decision, or indeed his behaviour, during the Assembly. Perhaps the noble Baroness could assist us here.

10.1 p.m.

Baroness STEDMAN

My Lords, I am afraid that I shall not be of very much help, and for that I am sorry. As the noble Earl has said, during the Committee stage he moved the Amendment to provide for the direct or indirect pecuniary interest to be declared. He argued—and none of us disagreed with him—that the Assembly should set very high standards for itself right from the outset. Everyone in this House would agree with that principle.

As he says, the spirit of that Amendment commanded quite considerable support, and indeed some of his colleagues felt that he ought to go even wider. We have considered what was then said, and the noble Earl has now tabled this new Amendment for "pecuniary or other interests". We appreciate the concerns that have been expressed by the noble Earl and by the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, and those expressed in the earlier Committee debate on this particular point. However, we still do not think that the present Amendment will overcome the problem. Indeed we think that it might even lead to greater confusion. It would provide that any interest must be declared, not just financial interests.

The noble Earl referred to the fact that if you were married to a teacher, you should declare your interests, and you would probably know a great deal more about education than those who are not married to teachers; I would not disagree with him on that. But how far are we going to take it? If a Member of the Assembly has a child of school age, does he have to declare an interest before he takes part in any education debate? Or, if there is a debate on the Health Service, do all the Members then have to declare an interest on the basis that at some time or other they may need the services of the Health Service? As it stands at the moment, the Amendment gives no guidance at all on what kind of interests ought to be declared.

The attitude of the Government throughout has been that we believe quite firmly that the financial interest should be declared, and that is what we have provided for in the Bill. But beyond this we believe that it is the Assembly which should make its own arrangements: for example, in specifying what should be the scope of the pecuniary interest to be declared—whether it should include in those an interest in planning considerations, whether it should include reference to the Addison Rules, whether it should include reference to observers and all the other things that have been detailed here tonight. But the scope of the pecuniary interest is something which the Assembly itself will have to declare and sort out.

In making these arrangements, we have no doubts at all that the Assembly will have regard to the local government provisions which are spelled out in Sections 38 to 39 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973. The Assembly will have considerable powers. Surely it is right that it will use these powers responsibly. It will be a democratically elected body. It will be fully aware of public opinion in this very sensitive field, and in the Government's view it is entirely reasonable to assume that the Assembly will make suitable provision within its standing orders to ensure that where there is any risk of a Member's pecuniary interest, however widely it is defined, affecting the discharge of his responsibilities, he must disclose those interests. However, we feel that as it stands the Bill is right and it is up to the Assembly to define how wide a scope "pecuniary interests" should cover.

Lord HYLTON

My Lords, the noble Baroness mentioned the kinds of interest that worry her. She quoted having a child who goes to school, or needing the services of the Health Service. Any citizen could have that kind of interest. The interests that have been picked out by my noble friend the mover of the Amendment and by the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, are special and different, such as the golf club or those quoted by my noble friend Lord Selkirk. An Assemblyman should be in the position of making up his mind whether he is just an ordinary citizen with an ordinary citizen's interests or whether he has special interests of a non-pecuniary nature. I think that is the point.

Lord BALERNO

My Lords, I hesitate to speak, but I think that there are occasions when one can have interests other than pecuniary ones which are far more important benefits to the person concerned and which should be known to the Assembly.

I should like to inform the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, that we had a recent case in local government in Scotland where a housing convenor managed to give a very nice council house to a son-in-law. That took a lot of discovering. If it had been made explicit that she had to inform the committee at the time that it was her son-in-law who was getting the house, and had she then been liable to prosecution for failing to do so, that would have been a very good thing. As a result of concealing information of this kind one may have benefits which are not pecuniary.

10.7 p.m.

The Earl of PERTH

My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, said something which has not been answered by the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman. I should like help on this. He said that if the clause remains as it is now, the only interests which may he declared are pecuniary. I agree with those noble Lords who have said that interests other than pecuniary ones can be of great interest to a House or an Assembly. For example, supposing that one is deeply interested in the preservation of wild life, or a society for the preservation of birds, or whatever else it may be, it is important that this interest should be declared. If one is interested in racing as a sport one may have no pecuniary interest in it. Indeed, the fact of being interested in it can mean that one may lose money all the time because one has a flutter. The noble Lord, Lord Wigg, I recall, often says the opposite, but that is his good fortune and it does not necessarily apply to the rest of us.

I feel that there is a point here on which I should like help. The noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, said that if we did not add to the words as they are in the clause at present, the whole question of interest would be restricted to pecuniary interest and nothing else. If so, I am unhappy about the provision as it stands at present.

Lord DRUMALBYN

My Lords, may I make a couple of short points? The first is that we are dealing here with pecuniary interests as defined by the Standing Orders. There is one danger. If the clause is left like that, "pecuniary interest" may be defined by the Standing Orders in a most unfair and intolerable way. "Pecuniary interest" means a pecuniary interest. Just that. It means dealing with money, and nothing else—not money's worth. I suspect that if we leave the words "pecuniary interests" we shall force the Assembly to define "pecuniary interest" to include money's worth, which is wrong in terms of pecuniary interest. I think that one is bound to include the other interests and allow the Assembly to define what those other interests are. We are being asked all the time to leave scope to the Assembly to do this, that, and the next. Surely this is the right course. This is where we should leave the Assembly to define what they mean by other interests in addition to the pecuniary interests.

The Earl of SELKIRK

My Lords, I am terribly sorry but I cannot accept the noble Baroness's answer. She asked me what kind of interest. That is exactly what the standing orders will define. That is what they are there for. The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, referred to money; pecuniary interest. Well, what is it? Ten pence? One hundred pence? £10,000? It has to be defined in some way whether this matters. I really do not think that we can leave it this way. If the noble Baroness cannot say anything better we must divide the House. I am sorry. I had not expected to have to divide the House tonight. If I may say so with great respect to the noble Baroness, it seems to me quite an intolerable answer.

She said she has sympathy with this but cannot give way. I think this is essential. There is no possible Party interest in this. This is simply a matter of trying to set a proper high standard for this Assembly, and we are asking them to decide on a slightly wider basis. If noble Lords do not mind I must regretfully say, because I do not like to do this, that we really will have to divide on this.

Earl FERRERS

My Lords, may I make one suggestion? Would the noble Baroness see fit to accept this Amendment, on the understanding that after she considers it further she can always take it out again at Third Reading? Perhaps this would assist the House because obviously it is a point about which my noble friend feels strongly. I do not think it is something with which the noble Baroness or the Government actually disagree. If the noble Baroness would be kind enough to accept this in order to help the House in this situation, and if on consideration the Government thought for various reasons that this was intolerable, then surely they could put down an Amendment at Third Reading to take this out, and I am sure that my noble friend would consider it sympathetically.

Baroness STEDMAN

My Lords, with the leave of the House, may I say that the noble Earl is quite right. We have a lot of sympathy with what is behind this Amendment. However, the Government feel that the Bill as it stands at present allows the Assembly to define what pecuniary interests or other interests they need to work into their standing orders. I cannot at this stage accept the Amendment as it stands and perhaps come back to it later. What I would be willing to do would be to do it the other way round, and say that if the noble Earl would withdraw it I will have consultations with my officials and we will write to him before the next stage of the Bill to see whether there is any possibility of meeting some more favourable terms so far as he is concerned.

The Earl of SELKIRK

My Lords, I never can resist the noble Baroness's approaches. I hope the noble Baroness means this. She has said already that this means other interests. In other words, it does not even change the Bill. Why does she not accept it then? The noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, told us how terribly sensitive he was to heavy criticism at an earlier stage in the Bill, and how he had to give way on things, but apparently he paid no attention to what everyone said in this House although other people apparently have immense pull on the Government. I hope that the noble Baroness will do this. I think it would be much better to come to agreement about it. Really, I must say that whoever is advising the noble Baroness is taking a very narrow view of his duties. In these circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

10.14 p.m.

Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS moved Amendment No. 80: Page 13, line 17, at end insert ("and for the suspension or exclusion from the Assembly of a member who fails to comply with such standing orders.").

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I am afraid that we have not entirely finished with the troubles of Clause 26. I am grateful to the noble Baroness who wrote in response to the speech made by my noble friend Lord Mansfield on the Committee stage. I am not sure who it was who did not get their message across, but I am afraid that one way or another at that point in time it was not entirely clear to the Government what it was we were trying to say. I have since sought to repair that by a further letter, and I hope that the noble Baroness understands what it is that worries me.

I would think that there is not a scintilla of difference between us in what we are trying to achieve. I anticipated the Government saying that, when Standing Orders which deal with pecuniary interests —or pecuniary and other interests or whatever it may be—are framed by the Assembly, they will wish to take cognisance of the fact, as my noble friend Lord Selkirk has been saying, that this area of difficulty is one of the most corrosive and undermining areas in the whole of the body politic if the sanctions are not right.

We have had some sensational trials about corruption of one kind or another, and it would not surprise me, even despite that, if it were still to continue in the future and I do not think we should be so silly as to suppose that it is impossible to occur in the Assembly at all. As one noble Lord said on the previous occasion, the best thing to do to prevent any of those unfortunate activities getting a grip is to make sure they are never allowed to start in the first place, and that means that the sanctions provided under the machinery, whatever they may be, must be extremely severe to deal with the ultimate case.

What I am worried about is the drafting of the Bill. If one sets about dealing, in the series of clauses we are now considering, with particular provisions of Standing Orders—but of course only some of the provisions of Standing Orders—the tendency is for people to wonder whether the specific terms of what is in the Bill mean that one is not able to add other things by way of Standing Orders because there might appear to be a conflict with what the Bill specifically lays down.

This is not just a lawyer's approach, although it is an extremely well-known principle of the law. I imagine legal advice will be taken in the drawing up of the Standing Orders; it would astonish me, when one has a statute that provides for particular provisions, that no lawyer should advise on how the proposed Standing Orders fit in with those particular provisions. I think the lawyers will say to themselves that they must study the terms of these clauses to see that the Standing Orders do not themselves fall outside what Parliament has laid down.

In this respect there are two difficulties. My Amendment suggests that in the ultimate bad case of corruption—whatever it may be, whether it is pecuniary or anything else—the Standing Orders should be able to provide for the suspension and ultimately for the expulsion of a Member found guilty, not necessarily in criminal proceedings but found guilty perhaps by the internal procedures of the Assembly. That must be the kind of thing the Assembly could do. Will they—I ask, looking at the terms of the Bill as it stands—be able to made a Standing Order that would have that effect? I hope it will never be used, and one assumes that it would be the ultimate sanction; but I believe it should be there. Can it be put in the Standing Orders?

There are two reasons in terms of construction as a matter of law which lead me to think that anybody advising the Assembly on the drafting of its Standing Orders would say, "No, you cannot go that far on this particular matter. You must see what Parliament has provided for the Standing Orders". In Clause 25 it provides that the standing orders may include provision for excluding a Member essentially for the purposes of preserving good order. Thus Parliament has spoken about excluding Members and has said that when one is talking about preserving good order, the standing orders in the ultimate can provide for him to be excluded. But what about pecuniary interests? On that it is silent. Surely, says the person drafting the Standing Orders, it must be significant that Parliament provides specifically that the Standing Orders can exclude somebody on order, and it is silent when it comes to disclosure, or non-disclosure, of interest. So the first alarm bell is sounded.

The draftsman of the draft Standing Orders says to himself that he is not sure that he is entitled, under the terms of this legislation, to draft a Standing Order which provides for exclusion under Clause 26, because Parliament has specifically remained silent about it, although it has mentioned it in Clause 25. Having got that far, he will have his doubts reinforced by the next point. In Clause 26(2)—and it was this to which Lord Mansfield's Amendment was attached last time—there is, very surprisingly, and I think very messily, a specific criminal sanction. Parliament has there laid down what is to be the maximum fine for taking part in any proceedings in contravention of the provisions of the Standing Orders about pecuniary interests. So, again, Parliament will have spoken about this, and it will have spoken in terms of providing a maximum penalty for the criminal aspect. It will actually have created a criminal offence for failing to comply with the Standing Orders—that shows how serious the matter is—and it will have laid down the maximum fine.

The maximum that has been laid down in this clause has to be looked at in relation to Clause 8(1)(d). There is a provision in Clause 8(1)(d) whereby, if a person does something sufficiently serious, he can be disqualified from membership of the Assembly. That comes very much to the same thing as an exclusion for failure to comply with Standing Orders, or any other form of suspension or whatever it may be. However, Parliament has stated in Clause 8(1)(d) what is the minimum penalty involved to incur disqualification. The penalty under Clause 26(2) for failure to comply with the Standing Orders is insufficient to disqualify because it does not include a prison sentence. Therefore, the draftsman says to himself, not only is nothing said about exclusion in Clause 26, whereas something is said about it in Clause 25, but Parliament has gone much further than this. It has actually laid down a maximum penalty in criminal proceedings which is not sufficient to disqualify under any circumstances. Therefore, Parliament must have meant that Standing Orders could not go so far as to exclude the Member who is, in the ultimate, found by the Assembly to have taken part in corrupt practices.

This cannot be right. It simply cannot be right that the Standing Orders of the Assembly should be constricted by this kind of implication arising from the drafting of the Bill. I do not know what we are to do about it. I am perfectly certain that the noble Baroness is to say that she will not accept my Amendment. I am sure that she has been told that the drafting is bad and that everything else about it is bad, and that not a single word is to be added to the clause. I shall have only one speech at the end of the debate in which to decide what to do. The noble Baroness sits there with a broad smile on her face, and I am sure that means that she is not going to accept the Amendment. Therefore, I must try to persuade her in advance to do something about this matter. I do not propose to invite your Lordships to divide on this question this evening, because I think that it can be handled in another way—but handled it must be, and I hope that perhaps other noble Lords who have listened to this argument would agree with me.

If the noble Baroness is advised that because there is some magic in the wording there is no possibility of change in what is in Clause 26, can we do it some other way? May I assume—and I hope that I am right here—that the noble Baroness would agree that the Assembly, in drawing up its Standing Orders, must be allowed, if it thinks fit, to take so grave a view of corruption that the Standing Orders may include suspension, or indeed expulsion, for that offence? I hope that the noble Baroness is with me on this; I should be amazed if she was not. If we cannot change the words of the Bill because, apparently, it is Holy Writ, how can we ensure that no lawyer advising the Assembly on the preparation of draft Standing Orders can posibly fall into the two traps that I have spoken about?

Can we say perhaps that, because the Government spokesman has said in your Lordships' House this evening, "No; despite these difficulties there will be no problem, no objection, no possible restraint upon the standing, orders drafting committee in putting this in", they will feel themselves free, if they think fit, to put in penalties of this sort? Is there any way in which we can do it—by debate, by statement, by circular, by Statutory Instrument, by any other device known to Government—if we are never allowed to amend these clauses?

I am trying to help the Government. I am trying to devise a method whereby what seems to me to be a straitjacket may be unloosed, if I therefore put it that way to the noble Baroness, could she think, if not tonight then between now and when we finally part with this Bill, of a method to get over this difficulty? It would be tragic if, because of a recalcitrance in those who advise on the technicalities of drafting in saying that we cannot touch the wording, we end up with a situation which really will create a proper legal difficulty in the drafting of standing orders. This is the proposition that I put to the noble Baroness. In some way or another she must be prepared to meet it. If she will not have my Amendment, will she tell me how else she will do it? I beg to move.

Baroness STEDMAN

My Lords, the noble Viscount was mistaken: my broad grin indicated that I hoped we might be able to say that we would accept his Amendment, because we are in sympathy with it. But I am advised that, even so, we are still not happy (he suggested this would be one of the things I would say) with its wording, because we believe that the Bill strikes the right balance. We can see that there are dangers. We can see that there have been cases of corruption, though not so many when you think of the thousands of people who are involved in local government and other things in the country. But there have been cases of corruption, which are always cause for concern; and, no doubt, regrettably, there may still be cases of corruption, and there ought to be some means for the Assembly to deal with them.

Therefore, having said that, could we perhaps take the noble Viscount up on his last suggestion and say that we are in sympathy, that we will give further consideration to it and that we will have consultations with him before the next stage? We appreciate what he is getting at. We should like to arrive at the same sort of conclusion, but we do not think we have quite the right means to do it tonight.

Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS

My Lords, that is more than generous, and of course I will respond to it. I do not think that anybody who has listened to this debate will mind how it is done, because it is a matter of the purest technicality in order to get it right so that nobody will challenge it and nobody will he in doubt. If I can co-operate with the Government upon this I shall happily do so, but I am sure that they can do it perfectly well without me. I have no doubt that either we shall have an Amendment or I shall have a communication to show how we can do it without one. I am grateful to the noble Baroness. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 27 [Committees]:

10.29 p.m.

Lord GRAY moved Amendment No. 81: Page 13, line 22, at beginning insert ("The").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, have very strong feelings about Clause 27, and it is unfortunate that consideration of it should come up at this late hour; but I am very conscious of the lateness of the hour, and I shall try to be as brief as I can in explaining my points. Perhaps it would be helpful if at the outset I pointed out to the House that the effect of my Amendments Nos. 81 to 86 inclusive would be virtually to re-write the clause that is in the Bill. I should prefer not to speak to all the Amendments together, but to speak to groups of Amendments as I go along. First, however, in order that the House may better understand my purpose, I think it would be as well if I were to read out the resulting new clause as it would appear once amended. If my Amendments were accepted, Clause 27 would read: The standing orders of the Assembly shall, without prejudice to the powers of the Assembly to appoint other committees of the Assembly, include provisions for— (a) the appointment of committees of the Assembly with legislative or other functions extending to any matter which, whether in relation to the Assembly or in relation to the Scottish Executive, is a devolved matter"; and then would follow the words of my Amendment No. 86.

May I speak first to Amendments Nos. 81 and 82. Amendment No. 81 is simply a drafting point. I am seeking to insert the word "The" at the beginning of this provision and my case for seeking to do so is that it is in all the similar clauses on the page. My Amendment No. 82 seeks to make the provision in the Bill mandatory. Then it goes on to deal with the point that was raised in Committee when we discussed Clause 27. The point was this: the Assembly can talk about anything it likes; therefore many noble Lords who were then present said that if it could talk about anything it liked it could have committees on anything it liked, whether or not they had functions. By including in the clause the words, shall, without prejudice to the powers of the Assembly to appoint other committees of the Assembly", I am seeking, while going on later to deal in more detail with what they must do about functions, to make quite clear that they can have committees on liaison with Westminster or whatever it may be which will not have any legislative or other functions in regard to the Assembly.

I should point out that I have chosen to use the words "committees of the Assembly rather than just "committees". I have done this for the reason that I was questioning whether the power to appoint committees was not a power to appoint committees which could consist not only of Assembly Members but of other people from outside. Reading the clause at present in the Bill I should have thought that if that is so, it is singularly inappropriate, and I have sought to clarify the issue.

I turn now to Amendments Nos. 83, 84 and 85. Amendment No. 83 needs no explanation. It merely puts in the necessary "(a)" as a preliminary to the paragraph which I am creating with the other two Amendments. Regarding the first one, I have already explained why am adding "of the Assembly" to the word "committees". With Amendment No. 85 I am extending the Bill's description of functions by adding "legislative" and making it read "legislative or other functions". It is clearly the case that committees of the Assembly could have legislative functions and I thought that it was proper to make this quite clear. Here in Westminster we have committees that have legislative functions. I would not want anyone at some future date to argue that if the Assembly did set up committees with legislative functions they would be wrong in doing so.

I come now to Amendment No. 86, the last of my group of Amendments. This seeks to insert a new paragraph (b) the words of which are printed in the Marshalled List. My reasons here will be obvious. I am trying to secure, as I think, properly, that the Assembly which will be legislating for Scotland should do so on the same basis as Parliament legislates for Scotland now; and we should try to secure that the legislation and the legislative acts and functions of these committees are of a character which we would approve and, therefore, that the membership should reflect as closely as possible the balance of Parties in the Assembly.

At this point I should say that I recognise that this is a considerable package. Were I to choose from it what is, to me, the most important item, it would be my paragraph (b). This is why noble Lords will have noticed that I have joined my name to that of my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn on Amendment No. 87 which would attach to the clause as it now stands words similar to those of my Amendment No. 86. I have tried to explain this briefly. It was fairly complex. I hope that I have done justice to my case. I beg to move.

Lord DRUMALBYN

My Lords, I should be quite happy to support my noble friend's Amendment although, perhaps, I attach a different amount of importance to different parts of it. If it consisted of Nos. 81, 83, 84 and 86, I should have thought this would cover the point I was proposing to make later in moving my Amendment No. 87. But I await what the noble Lord opposite has to say about this. Obviously, No. 86A would then tie in with that scheme and would, I think, make a satisfactory improvement to the Bill. In the light of what the noble Lord has to say, I can make up my mind whether or not to move No. 87.

Lord KIRKHILL

My Lords, I sense that it is for the convenience of the House if we continue to talk through this range of Amendments. Amendment No. 81, as the noble Lord, Lord Gray, has said, is a drafting Amendment. The Government willingly accept the Amendment. It draws attention to an improvement which obviously should be made. Did the noble Earl wish to intervene?

Earl FERRERS

My Lords, as the noble Lord was saying that he was speaking to all the Amendments, I wondered whether his acceptance went for all of them.

Lord KIRKHILL

My Lords, I had not quite got out of my Committee stage thinking or, perhaps, I would not have given way. I did not hear what the noble Earl said, but it gave me time to reflect. I am about to move on to Amendment No. 82 which provides that the power to appoint committees is without prejudice to the Assembly's power to appoint other committees.

The Government consider this Amendment unnecessary. Clause 27 is permissive and does not detract in any way from the Assembly's inherent power to appoint a committee on any subject which seems to it to be appropriate. If we are going through this stage by stage, I should indicate that I would not be able to accept Amendment No. 82. Of course, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Gray, that Amendment No. 83 is merely presentational, but I cannot accept it because I am not going to be accepting this middle group of Amendments.

Amendment No. 84 seeks to specify that committees are committees of the Assembly. Again, the Government consider this to be unnecessary. If they are appointed by the Assembly with functions of the nature laid down, they are committees of the Assembly and the Government's view is that it is not necessary at all to spell this out.

Moving on to Amendment No. 85, which provides that Assembly committees may have legislative functions, I recall to your Lordships that I explained in Committee stage (Official Report, 24th April, col. 1528) that the Government think it is right to leave it to the Assembly to decide what functions to delegate to its committees. The committees could, for example, have responsibilities for policy consideration; provision of advice on Bills prior to introduction and consideration of the detail of Bills after introduction; general oversight of the activities of the Scottish Executive; and scrutiny of the merits or vires of subordinate instruments. This must be for the Assembly to decide.

However, it would be unacceptable to empower the Assembly to give legislative functions to its committees. This is the force of Lord Gray's Amendment at that point. The Assembly and the Executive are given substantial legislative and executive powers in the Bill, and they must each he ultimately responsible for the exercise of these powers. It would be perfectly acceptable to give committees a role in the legislative process, just as the other place does with its standing committees; but that is far removed from a legislative function—which means the function of actually passing legislation.

The Government will resist Amendment No. 85 when this is further discussed. The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has put down Amendment No. 87, but it is in close harness with Amendment No. 86 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Gray. I sense that it would be appropriate for me to respond to the noble Lord, Lord Gray, at this point, but in clear recognition that Lord Drumalbyn's Amendment follows thereafter and is on the same point. I should immediately say to the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, that I said at Committee stage I would give consideration to the points he raised. I have done this and consulted with my colleagues. I regret that I have no hope to offer him.

My colleagues and myself remain of the view that Clause 27 leaves the setting up of committees to Standing Orders and we consider that it should be similarly left to the Assembly to deal in its Standing Orders with any requirements about political balance on the committees. I recognise that there is a complete conflict of attitude at this point. I think that the arguments were very well rehearsed at the Committee stage and I do not think that there is anything useful that I can add at this stage.

That is the outline of the Government's view of the Amendments Nos. 81 to 86, spilling over of course to Lord Drumalbyn's Amendment No. 87.

Earl FERRERS

My Lords, I wonder whether it would be for the convenience of the House if, in speaking to Lord Gray's Amendment, I could make a reference to Amendment No. 86A which stands in my name, and which, if my noble friend does not press his Amendment, will disappear by default and the substance of the Amendment with it. Therefore, to some extent I suppose we are procedurally slightly incorrect, because my Amendment goes down as an Amendment to Lord Gray's Amendment.

Could the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, explain this: my Amendment ensures that no committee of the Assembly shall be appointed with functions not relating to devolved matters. We had a considerable discussion in committee on this. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside, felt it would be quite intolerable for committees of the Assembly to discuss Polaris submarines in Holy Loch when defence was not a devolved matter. The noble Lord, Lord Wigg, said that, as far as he could see, the Assembly could discuss tin miners in Cornwall or fruit pickers in Wales; and the Government's argument is that you really cannot gag the Assembly: they must be able to talk on whatever they want to.

The Amendment which I sought to put down would ensure that although committees could be set up to discuss anything they liked, they would only have functions where matters were devolved. My Amendment sought to see that wherever a committee was set up, such as on foreign affairs or the economy, the committee could talk about those matters but would have no functions. Could the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, say whether that would be the case even if no Amendment were inserted and the clause in the Bill stood as it is at present?

10.46 p.m.

Lord KIRKHILL

My Lords, with the leave of the House, and if the noble Lord, Lord Gray, is of like mind, perhaps I could say to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, that he will no doubt realise that Clause 27 is a permissive-type clause. We reiterate that from time to time. He may not agree that it should be, but that is a fact. Within that sort of position, it is wrong, in the Government's view, to seek to create a situation, as the noble Earl's Amendment would do, in which the Assembly could not appoint committees with functions unless those functions were related to particular devolved matters. We mentioned at Committee stage that the Assembly may wish to have committees for its own domestic purposes, for example. The noble Earl's Amendment would prevent such a possibility.

As it stands, Clause 27 is silent on the matter of committees whose functions are not specifically related to a devolved matter; but the Assembly will have an inherent power to appoint a committee for any purpose. That is ground we have covered before. I must go on to explain that these inherent powers, quite properly in the Government's view, will extend, for example, to appointing a transport committee to review activity in this partly reserved field. Many transport matters are devolved, but rail services provided by British Rail and the provision of air services are to be reserved. The Assembly, through a transport committee, may wish to see how the reserved aspects of transport fit in with those which are devolved so as to facilitate the formation of a coherent and integrated transport policy for Scotland. There is, however, no possibility that such a committee could exercise any powers in relation to the reserved aspects of transport. Under its inherent powers, the Assembly could also appoint a committee to review activity in an area which was wholly reserved but which might have a close and direct effect on devolved matters. One such example would be energy. In any case, it is difficult to see how Assembly committees could be effectively prevented from discussing non-devolved matters.

I have talked about the possibility of a transport committee. The terms of reference and functions of such a committee might relate solely to transport matters; but how could it be ensured that the committee would not discuss non-devolved transport matters? To take another example, the noble Earl's Amendment would not prevent the Assembly setting up a committee with functions relating to the use of energy in devolved subject areas. Nor would it prevent that committee discussing energy matters generally. So there are problems both ways. The Government's view—and there has been further consideration of this matter since we last talked about it in Committee—is that the inherent powers in Clause 27 are powers which the Government would wish to sustain. I should say to your Lordships that we would not willingly move from that position.

Lord GRAY

My Lords, I must first thank the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, for the crumb of comfort which I received at the beginning of his speech, with the acceptance of the word "The". At this time of night, it behoves one to be very thankful for even small mercies. I am in a slight quandary here, in view of the procedural rules of the House, because if I do not press my Amendments the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Ferrers must fall. So I wonder whether it would be convenient to the House, and shorten the proceedings, if he were to receive leave of the House to indicate his feelings about his own Amendment, in view of what the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, said.

Lord KIRKHILL

My Lords, may I say from this side of the House that that is agreeable.

Earl FERRERS

My Lords, if I may have leave of the House, too, I am very grateful for the opportunity to give my views. I am, of course, disappointed at what the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, said. I quite see that committees must discuss things. My only concern was that they should not have functions. But I do see that, as drafted, my Amendment might cause some problems and I should not be prepared to press it. Therefore, I should be prepared to withdraw my Amendment if I had moved it, which of course I have not done.

Lord GRAY

My Lords, I am grateful for that assistance. I acknowledge that the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, drew my attention to a flaw in my Amendment No. 85. As regards the rest, I feel that when discussing this and similar matters, as we did in Committee, we tend to get into a bit of a tangle about the words "shall" and "may". It is not the usual "shall" versus "may" argument that I have in mind here. What I have in mind is that the clause states, Standing orders of the Assembly may include provisions…". That is fair enough, but if they include provisions because they have taken the permissive rule and written the standing orders, it does not mean that they shall then set them up. On the opposite side of that coin, if the Bill said "shall" and it became mandatory, as I suggest it should, then I agree that they have to write the standing orders. But there is nothing that makes them have the standing orders which govern the setting up, the membership and the rules of the committees that would be established. I feel that the arguments advanced in that regard are not valid.

Subject to anything that any other noble Lord may wish to say, I feel, as I indicated earlier, that the Amendment which stands in my name and in the name of my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn, meets what is to me the most important point, and certainly carries with it quite a large part of what I was seeking to write into the Bill, but it is appropriate that I should withdraw. I should be quite ready to follow the plan suggested by my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn, and have Amendments Nos. 81, 83 and 86, but, on the whole, I should be content with No. 87 and, when the time comes, I shall, if my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn is agreeable, wish to press that Amendment. Having put forward those considerations, I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

[Amendments Nos. 82 to 86 not moved.]

The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Viscount Simon)

In that case, my Lords, Amendment No. 86A falls. There is a manuscript Amendment, No. 86B, which stands in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, and the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. Does it make any sense now?

Earl FERRERS

I am sure that the Amendment would have made a lot of sense, particularly as it stands in my name; but as I have not seen the manuscript of it I am bound to say that I will adopt the noble Viscount's view and concede that it does not make any sense without the other Amendment.

10.56 p.m.

Lord DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 87:

Page 13, line 25, at end insert— ("Provided that in appointing members to such committees the Assembly shall secure that the balance of parties in the Assembly is as closely as practicable reflected in the membership of each such committee.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, substantially this is very much the same Amendment as Amendment No. 86, but perhaps I ought to put it in context. Clause 27 reads: Standing orders of the Assembly may include provisions for the appointment of committees…". I pause here to say that obviously this is optional. It says, "may". This means that I fail to understand what the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, meant when he spoke about inherent powers, because the powers which are inherent in the Assembly cannot deal with "may". If the Assembly can do it, anyway, there is not much point in saying here that it may do it. The clause continues: …with functions extending to any matter which … is a devolved matter ". That is qualified by: …whether in relation to the Assembly or in relation to the Scottish Executive". This means that we shall have committees dealing with the wide number of subjects which the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, indicated.

I did not detect in any one of the committees where it would have been appropriate not to have applied the rule proposed here: that the balance of the Parties in the Assembly should, as closely as is possible and practicable, be reflected in the membership of each such committee. There is no necessity whatsoever for anything corresponding to a general purposes committee. There is to be the Scottish Executive, so in this sense it is not in any way like a local authority. All of the other committees ought to reflect the Parties. So I am absolutely convinced that it would be a gross abuse if the composition of the Assembly by Parties was not reflected in each committee. The noble Lord has given absolutely no reason why this should not be so. I could not detect any reason that he gave. The noble Lord said that he had carefully discussed the matter. He rehearsed the kind of committees which might be involved but he gave no reason why this procedure should not be adopted. I beg to move, and I hope that the noble Lord will now be able to say what on earth is the objection to it.

Lord GRAY

I have already advanced my arguments on this Amendment, but I must express my solidarity with my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn. Like my noble friend, I believe that no argument has been advanced so far which could be put before the House as a true reason for not accepting this Amendment.

Lord KIRKHILL

I prefaced my earlier remarks by saying that I thought we had discussed the matter carefully and rather fully at the Committee stage. I indicated that we on the Government side would reconsider, and I further indicated that the reconsideration from the point of view of the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, was not at all helpful. If I may expand briefly, it may not be appropriate for there to be a Party balance on certain of the committees which the Assembly may wish to establish. It would be wrong to form a judgment until it is known for what purposes committees are set up, and in that event it is again best to leave to the Assembly the right to determine the question.

As a quick example, I would not imagine that it would be appropriate to create a Party balance in a committee which dealt with a staffing matter. But apart from the wisdom of the Assembly itself in these matters, I think it is clear from debates not only in your Lordships' House but in the other place, that the Assembly will get considerable advice, invited or otherwise, certainly as it relates to the various procedures of the Assembly. The Government remain of the view that it would be wrong to impose a requirement for Party balance in the Bill.

Lord DRUMALBYN

My Lords, for the life of me I cannot see why there should not be a Party balance in a staffing committee. I agree that it is not absolutely essential: one could manage a committee dealing with staff without a Party balance, but to give that as an indication why one should not have a Party balance where it is really necessary, seems to me to be quite preposterous. If one has to choose between not having a Party balance in those cases where it really is necessary—not being able to guarantee it and be sure of it—and to put that against the advisability of having a Party balance on a staffing committee, where does the balance lie? It must lie in making certain in those committees where it is absolutely necessary to have a correspondence between the proportions in the committee and the proportions in the Assembly as a whole. I am quite certain that there can be no doubt as to the answer. I am sorry that the noble Lord cannot see his way to accept this Amendment, and I feel that I must put it to the test of the House.

Lord DAVIES of LEEK

My Lords, I have been following this discussion very carefully and we seem to be assuming that the Scots have no intelligence. Surely, when the Assembly is set up, the various Parties will have enough commonsense to see that no one Party will dominate it. Even minority Parties will clamour for equality of representation in ratio with their membership of the Assembly. I have the feeling that this House is taking upon its noble self functions which are completely unnecessary because we know the answer already; it is not necessary to put it down on a piece of paper like the laws of

the Medes and the Persians. We are a great people. I think in this case we are just nit-picking. I have supported quite a number of the discussions which have taken place tonight, but I think we are pressing this one a little too far.

Lord MOTTISTONE

But would not the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, agree, as happened on an earlier Amendment, that the sort of people who are to form the Assembly will not necessarily have the experience that is inherent within this Parliament? The sort of argument which he is pressing will be relevant in four years' time, but not when the Assembly is first set up.

Lord BALERNO

My Lords, I hate to admit to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, that apparently we are not more intelligent than are the people in Wales. The problem with some of our local authorities is that unless you are a member of the governing Party you cannot be a member of certain of the committees. In other words, certain committees in local government in Scotland exclude all councillors who are not of the majority Party.

Lord DAVIES of LEEK

It is very sad.

Lord BALERNO

It is very sad, I know—disgusting.

11.5 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 87) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 35; Not-Contents, 19.

CONTENTS
Ampthill, L.	Ferrers, E.	Monk Bretton, L.
Balerno, L.	Fortescue, E.	Monson, L.
Belstead, L.	Gisborough, L.	Mottistone, L.
Colville of Culross, V.	Glasgow, E.	Mowbray and Stourton, L.
Cork and Orrery, E.	Gray, L. [Teller.]	O'Hagan, L.
Craigmyle, L.	Henley, L.	Redesdale, L.
Cullen of Ashbourne, L.	Hylton-Foster, B.	Sandys, L.
Denham, L.	Kinross, L.	Selkirk, E.
Drumalbyn, L. [Teller.]	Lauderdale, E.	Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.
Dundee, E.	Long, V.	Tanlaw, L.
Elles, B.	Lyell, L.	Thurlow, L.
Elton, L.	Masham of Ilton, B.

NOT-CONTENTS
Birk, B.	Kirkhill, L.	Stedman, B.
Boston of Faversham, L.	Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B. [Teller.]	Stewart of Alvechurch, B.
Davies of Leek, L.		Stone, L.
Elwyn-Jones, L. (L. Chancellor.)	McCluskey, L.	Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]
Gaitskell, B.	McGregor of Durris, L.	Wallace of Coslany, L.
Harris of Greenwich, L.	Parry, L.	Winterbottom, L.
Hatch of Lusby, L.	Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.

11.13 p.m.

Lord GRAY moved Amendment No. 88: After Clause 27, insert the following new clause—

Reporting and publishing of proceedings of the Assembly (". The standing orders of the Assembly shall include provision for the reporting of the proceedings of the Assembly and for the publication of the reports of such proceedings.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I think that the proper course would be to read out the new clause which is printed in the Marshalled List. It is perfectly self-explanatory. I believe that it would be appropriate for the provisions in the Bill which deal with what shall go into Standing Orders to include the following: The standing orders of the Assembly shall include provision for the reporting of the proceedings of the Assembly and for the publication of the reports of such proceedings". I think that that is self-explanatory.

However, I should like to make one small point in addition to the general one to explain why I think that this Standing Order provision would be appropriate. I have in mind that "reporting of proceedings" could cover meetings which are not to be reported, meetings which might involve in some way matters which affected things which should be discussed in secret, as sometimes happens in Parliament—for instance, when the security of the realm is involved. I believe that we can deal with this ourselves in that way. I beg to move.

Lord KIRKHILL

My Lords, I wonder whether it would help your Lordships' House if I were to say that I shall not accept the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Gray, at this stage, but I have been reflecting upon its content and I want to give it some thought. I am not being insincere when I say that. If he would not press it at this stage, I shall keep in communication with him between this stage and a later stage. I do not give, and cannot give, an unequivocal assurance, but I give an undertaking to reflect upon at least one aspect of this Amendment which occurs to me.

Lord GRAY

My Lords, in view of that undertaking, I think it would be appropriate that I should beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 28 [Financial initiative]:

Lord GRAY moved Amendment No. 89: Page 13, line 26, at beginning insert ("The").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move.

Lord KIRKHILL

My Lords, I beg to accept.

Earl FERRERS

My Lords, may I just make one comment. We are delighted to see the Government's change of heart and their perceptiveness in seeing what is the real substance of the Amendment.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Earl FERRERS moved Amendment No. 90: Page 13, line 31, leave out ("cannot") and insert ("shall not").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is also a very simple Amendment. It was put down during the Committee stage of the Bill and it seeks to say that the word, "cannot" shall be replaced by the words "shall not", because, in fact, a Bill can pass and the Bill as drafted says that it cannot. In fact, what I think the Government mean is that the Bill shall not pass. The noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, said at the Committee stage that he would consider this point. He has obviously considered it for a very long while, because no Amendment has been put down in his name to alter the position. So I thought that I would put it down again to ensure that it did prevail. I beg to move.

Lord McCLUSKEY

My Lords, I undertook to look at this matter. I have looked at this matter. I undertook to put it to the draftsman and he has looked at the matter as well. The Amendment is, in my view, unsound. If one wanted to be absolutely correct, the substitution should not be of the words "shall not" but rather "should not". However, in fact, the word "cannot" is the correct word.

I believe that this is a tiny drafting point. We have the advice of an expert in the form of the Senior Parliamentary Draftsman who has considered this matter at my request. He has advised us that this is correct. I believe that it is correct, and I urge the noble Earl not to press the matter.

Earl FERRERS

My Lords, it merely goes to show—does it not?—that draftsmen always seem to make things far more complicated than is necessary so that they are basically not understandable by the average person. I cannot see how a Bill cannot pass if, in fact, we vote that it should pass. However, I am bound to confess that this is not a matter on which at this hour of the night I shall divide the House. Therefore, I shall accept the noble and learned Lord's assurance that the draftsman has at least looked at it, even if one might beg leave to take a different view from the advice which the draftsman has given the noble and learned Lord. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 29 [Members of Assembly acting as additional Commissioners]:

11.19 p.m.

The Earl of SELKIRK moved Amendment No. 91: Page 14, line 6, leave out ("Chairmen") and insert ("Chairman of Committees of the House of Lords and the Chairman of Ways and Means in the House of Commons").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 91 and at the same time I shall speak to Amendment No. 92. I have two arguments to put forward. One is that these Amendments reduce the number of words in the Bill from 30 to 20 and the second is that I believe that it is much easier to understand. I have a feeling that these powerful arguments may commend themselves to the Government. I beg to move.

Lord McCLUSKEY

My Lords, far from expressing my astonishment that the Bill contains so few words, I would certainly be delighted to accept Amendments Nos. 91 and 92.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

The Earl of SELKIRK moved Amendment No. 92: Page 14, line 14, leave out subsection (4).

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

11.21 p.m.

Clause 32 [Remuneration of members, etc.]:

Earl FERRERS moved Amendment No. 93: Page 16, line 14, leave out ("Assembly") and insert ("Secretary of State").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, we are now beginning to move very swiftly, in accord with the Government's attitude. If the noble and learned Lord would be prepared, having accepted Amendments Nos. 91 and 92, to accept Amendments Nos. 93, 94, 95, 96, 97 and 98, I should be glad to move them formally, if he would so indicate. The noble and learned Lord shakes his head. It is a matter of sorrow.

These Amendments make provision for the payment of pensions to the Assemblymen to be subject to the approval of Parliament and not just the Secretary of State. Again, we considered this in Committee. The Government view was, as it has been so often, "Well, let us leave this matter to the Assembly." I do not see why the Assemblymen should be permitted to set their own terms of payment and pensions without recourse to anyone and simply forward the bill to Westminster to be met.

Under the Bill the Assembly will have no guidance and no restriction. There will be no requirement for themselves to meet the cost of what they pay their Assemblymen. They may well set themselves a figure which is the same as that of Members of Parliament. Indeed, it was suggested in Committee that that would be the kind of figure that they would set themselves. What happens if they go higher—more towards the European Parliament scale? There is nothing to stop them from doing that.

I would put this question. Is it right that a devolved Assembly, with fewer powers and therefore presumably fewer duties and responsibilities than Westminster, should pay its Members more than, or even the same as, Members of Parliament without even the other place giving its approval? In my judgment, the House of Commons should have this authority.

We seek, in this Amendment, to ensure that when the Assembly makes its payments, or decides its payments, to the Assemblymen it should have the approval of the House of Commons. The Secretary of State has the responsibility of setting the first payments under subsection (2) of this clause. If these Amendments were accepted the Secretary of State would still make the initial payments, but under subsection (1), which will require him to lay the order for approval before Parliament before bringing it into effect. What levels are determined for the initial payments of Assemblymen will largely guide the subsequent levels of payment for Assemblymen. The Secretary of State, therefore, bears a heavy responsibility for the levels of the initial payment for which he is responsible. He must obviously now have some idea of what is intended.

In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, was unable to tell us what these levels were. I said that I hoped he would be able to inform your Lordships on Report. For instance, we do not know whether the Assembly will be regarded as full-time or part-time work, what its hours of sitting will be, whether its sessions will approximate, in length of days, to those of Westminster, whether the Assemblymen will be paid expenses or attendance allowances, or salary, or whatever, or the levels of any of them. We really should know, particularly as the Secretary of State is to fix these initial figures.

Whatever method of payment is adopted I believe that it is unacceptable for Parliament to say, "Leave this to the Assembly". I do not believe that it should be left to the Assembly. I know that the Government have taken the view, "Leave everything to the Assemblymen and let them sort it out". I do not believe it is right that the Assemblymen should have the unfettered right to fix their levels of pay and pensions at whatever they like without recourse to anyone. All these Amendments suggest is that they should be subject to the approval of Parliament. I beg to move.

11.25 p.m.

Lord KIRKHILL

My Lords, I think it was indeed clear from the noble Earl's remarks that he would find it helpful if I could give some indication of the information which I might have as it relates to the Government's intention as to the initial salaries of Assembly Members and related matters. It will come as no surprise to the noble Earl to realise that I must reiterate that the overall Government view is that we should initiate the Assembly on a very light rein and that the Government believe that it is only right that responsibility for determining the salaries and allowances of Assembly Members should rest with the Assembly itself and not with Westminster. Of course, that is the divergence between this side and Members opposite, as it has been throughout much of the Bill.

It goes without saying—and this point was made at Committee—that the level of remuneration will have to be considered in the light of the Assembly Members' workload; this includes consideration of the working hours of Assembly Members and the regime required of Parties in the Assembly—matters which the Assembly itself will determine.

More generally, it would in the Government's view be insulting to give the Assembly responsibility for a wide range of important matters affecting Scotland yet to deny them responsibility for fixing their own salaries. Members' salaries will have to be met from the Scottish Consolidated Fund and there is no doubt in our minds that the Assembly will take a reasonable and practical view of the remuneration its Members should receive for the responsibilities which they discharge. It is also to be remembered that the Assembly will be an elected body and will need to respond to Scottish public opinion in reaching a decision on these matters. In my view, the Scottish electors will see to it that their attitudes on the appropriate pay for Members are not disregarded.

That said, the Government recognise that they will have to set the initial salaries and that this will have to be done in time for the first elections. Potential candidates will need to know the likely level of remuneration before they present themselves for election. The Bill provides that the Secretary of State should set the initial salaries by direction, without referring the matter to Parliament. I emphasise yet again that this is in line with the Government's philosophy—reiterated in many phases of the Bill—that decisions on Members' salaries and many other matters are properly for the Assembly itself.

It would be foolish, in the Government's view, at this stage to take a firm decision on Members' salaries before the final shape of the Bill is known and accurate estimates can be made of the workload of the Assembly. I can give the assurance that it will be known in good time for the Parties to make arrangements for the first elections. But obviously the Government have had to make some assessment of the likely costs for the purposes of estimating the costs in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum to the Bill. The assumption on which the Government have proceeded is that the pay and allowances of Assembly Members will be in line with those of Members of Parliament. I believe that this is a reasonable assumption to make for this purpose. But I do not think that I will be giving any hostages to fortune—I hope I will not—if I say that the Secretary of State's initial determination will be no higher than the salaries and allowances of MPs—and could well be lower. In coming to a decision on the initial determination, the Government will, of course, take into account the views expressed in Parliament and elsewhere. If, in the event, the workload of Assembly Members turns out to be markedly different from that anticipated the Assembly can he expected, in my view, to make a sensible adjustment

of the figures. I have said earlier that I certainly think that Scottish public opinion will see to it that they do. That is as far as I am able to go in your Lordships' House this evening. I hope that it has been of some assistance.

Earl FERRERS

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that information. I am bound to say it was about the most diplomatically phrased reply he could possibly have given. The noble Lord said it was unlikely that the salaries of Assemblymen would be higher than those of Members of Parliament, and could well be lower. What less could he have said? Had he said they would be higher there would have been one unholy row; therefore it was reasonable for him to say they might be higher, though they could well be lower. That really told us absolutely nothing.

I accept that the noble Lord's argument is that this is in line with the Government's philosophy, and that is the division between us: we think the philosophy is wrong. We think it wrong that the Assembly should be given such powers as these without any recourse to Parliament at all. We say the proposals should be submitted to Parliament for its approval. Clearly there is a distinction of view here, and I urge noble Lords to support me.

11.32 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 93) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 23; Not-Contents, 20.

CONTENTS
Colville of Culross, V.	Ferrers, E.	Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller.]
Cork and Orrery, E.	Fortescue, E.
Craigmyle, L.	Glasgow, E.	O'Hagan, L.
Cullen of Ashbourne, L.	Gray, L.	Redesdale, L.
Denham, L. [Teller.]	Long, V.	Sandys, L.
Drumalbyn, L.	Lyell, L.	Selkirk, E.
Dundee, E.	Monk Bretton, L.	Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.
Elton, L.	Mottistone, L.	Thurlow, L.

NOT-CONTENTS
Birk,B.	Kirkhill, L.	Stedman, B.
Boston of Faversham, L.	Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B. [Teller.]	Stewart of Alvechurch, B.
Davies of Leek, L.		Stone, L.
Elwyn-Jones, L. (L. Chancellor.)	McCluskey, L.	Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]
Gaitskell, B.	McGregor of Durris, L.	Tanlaw, L.
Harris of Greenwich, L.	Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.	Wallace of Coslany, L.
Hatch of Lusby, L.	Simon, V.	Winterbottom, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.

11.38 p.m.

Earl FERRERS moved Amendments Nos. 94 to 98:

Page 16, line 14, after ("may") insert ("by order").

page 16, line 16, leave out subsection (2).

Page 16, line 20, leave out ("Assembly") and insert ("Secretary of State")

Page 16, line 20, after ("may") insert ("by order").

Page 16, line 32, at end insert— ("(7) No order under this section shall be made unless a draft of it has been laid before and approved by resolution of the House of Commons.").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 94 to 98 are all consequential upon Amendment No. 93, which your Lordships have just approved, and therefore I beg to move these Amendments en bloc.

On Question, Amendments agreed to.